Councillors should not act or take decisions in order to gain financial or other material benefits for themselves or their spouse, civil partner or person with whom they are living with as a spouse or civil partner.  They must declare and resolve any interests and relationships.

The Chairman will ask Members if they have any interests to declare in respect of items on this agenda, under the following headings:

(a)          Disclosable Pecuniary Interests (DPI) under the Localism Act 2011.  The nature as well as the existence of any such interest must be declared.  After declaring a DPI, the Member must leave the meeting and not take part in the discussion or vote.  This applies even if there is provision for public speaking.

(b)          Disclosable Non Pecuniary Interests (DNPI) under the Code of Conduct adopted by the Council in May 2012.  The nature as well as the existence of any such interest must be declared.  After declaring a DNPI interest, the Member may stay, speak and vote on the matter.

(c)           Where it is possible that a fair-minded and informed observer, having considered the facts would conclude that there was a real possibility that the Member might be predetermined or biased the Member should declare their predetermination or bias and then leave the meeting while that item is considered.

Advice to Members:  If any Councillor has any doubt about the existence or nature of any DPI or DNPI which he/she may have in any item on this agenda, he/she should seek advice from the Monitoring Officer, the Head of Legal or from other Solicitors in Legal Services as early as possible, and in advance of the Meeting.

No interests were declared.

10 am – Item 2.2 20/505921/OUT Land at Highfield Road, Minster-on-Sea, Sheerness, ME12 3BA

11.45 am – Item 2.5 21/502609/OUT Land to the East of Lynsted Lane, Lynsted, ME9 9QN

PRESENT:  Councillors Cameron Beart, Simon Clark, Tim Gibson (Chairman), James Hall, Carole Jackson, Elliott Jayes, David Simmons, Tim Valentine and Tony Winckless.

OFFICERS PRESENT:  Billy Attaway, James Freeman, Elizabeth Jump and Alun Millard.

APOLOGIES: Councillors Monique Bonney, Mike Dendor, Oliver Eakin, James Hunt, Peter Marchington and Paul Stephen.

The Chairman welcomed the Agent, members of the public and Members to the meeting.

The Planning Officer introduced the application which sought planning permission, all matters reserved aside from access,  for 16 residential dwellings and a scheme to include approximately 0.7 hectares of open space and community orchard. She stated that the application was outside of the settlement boundary and fell within an Important Countryside Gap, and that the site was within a sustainable location within walking distance of local amenities and transport links. She referred to the appeal decision for a similar decision at Bartletts Close, Halfway where the Planning Inspector had approved the application and considered that whilst the site was outside the settlement boundary and within an Important Countryside Gap it was acceptable.

Members of the public raised the following issues:

·                     If the development went ahead there would be hardly anywhere for the wildlife on the Isle of Sheppey;

·                     the development would cause harm to wildlife;

·                     the land used to be grazing land and hoped to see it returned to grazing land;

·                     this ‘countryside gap’ was essential in maintaining countryside on the Isle of Sheppey;

·                     feared that the land next to the proposed development would be used in the future to build even more homes on a small site;

·                     a reservoir nearby was causing leaks to neighbouring properties and this development would make it worse;

·                     concerned with service and construction vehicles getting to the site as the access road and surrounding roads were not wide enough;

·                     there were too many blind spots down Highfield Road and it was too small for large vehicles to turn around;

·                     concerned that Highfield Road would be used as a ‘rat run’ for vehicles avoiding the main road;

·                     did the traffic assessment plan take residents parked vehicles into consideration?; and

·                     Highfield Road was a residential road not a road suitable for construction traffic and extra housing.

The Applicant’s Agent made the following points:

·                     A community orchard and open space would be built to help encourage biodiversity and wildlife to the site;

·                     transport consultants had undertaken a transport assessment based on 19 dwellings and helped the applicant design access to the site in line with the transport assessment;

·                     the development would provide enough parking facilities on-site;

·                     the number of construction vehicles being used on the site was very small and would have little impact on the surrounding roads; and

·                     landscaping designs had been made to mitigate the impact of landscaping views on the surrounding areas.  

A Ward Member thanked the members of public for coming along to the meeting and hoped that Members had taken into consideration the local residents’ concerns.

A Member sought clarification from the Applicant’s agent on the location of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 643.

PRESENT:  Councillors Cameron Beart, Simon Clark, Tim Gibson (Chairman), James Hall, Carole Jackson, Elliott Jayes, David Simmons, Tim Valentine and Tony Winckless.

OFFICERS PRESENT:  Philippa Davies, James Freeman, Paul Gregory and Alun Millard.

ALSO IN ATTENDANCE:  Councillors Lloyd Bowen and Mike Whiting.

APOLOGIES: Councillors Monique Bonney, Mike Dendor, Oliver Eakin, James Hunt, Peter Marchington and Paul Stephen.

The Chairman welcomed the Applicant, a representative from Lynsted with Kingsdown Parish Council, members of the public and Members to the meeting.

The Senior Planning Officer introduced the application which sought outline planning permission for up to 10 residential dwellings with associated landscaping and parking.  Matters of appearance, landscaping, layout and scale were reserved, with access to be considered in detail as part of this current application.  He said there would be a new access point from Lynsted Lane along the western boundary with the loss of about 45-50 metres of hedgerow.  Additional planting, measuring approximately 55 metres, would be planted.  Pedestrian access to the site was available next to the joinery which connected the site to the A2.  Off-site highway works to increase the width of the footpath along Lynsted Lane from 1.2 metres to 1.5 metres were also proposed.  The Senior Planning Officer explained that the site was not allocated for housing in the Local Plan; that there were three listed buildings close to the site and there was an Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) in Teynham.   He confirmed that the site was not subject to, or adjoined, a local or national landscape designation.  Sixty letters of objection had been received and Teynham Parish Council and Lynsted with Kingsdown Parish Council had objected to the application.  The Senior Planning Officer said that technical consultees including Kent County Council (KCC) Highways and Transportation,  KCC Ecology and Swale’s Environmental Health had raised no objection, subject to relevant conditions.  He summarised by saying that the Council did not currently have a 5-year housing supply, it was a sustainable development, close to existing services and facilities and together with conditions and a Section 106 Agreement he considered the application to be acceptable.

A representative from Lynsted with Kingsdown Parish Council spoke against the application and raised the following issues:

·         The proposed pedestrian access through the adjoining joiners yard was a health and safety risk, and the gate was locked at weekends;

·         the application had been submitted three times and not approved because it was flawed, this application was flawed as well;

·         concerned with how construction traffic would access the site;

·         Lynsted Lane would result in a single-file pinch point towards the junction with the A2;

·         there were proposals for housing to the west of the site, plus the potential for more on this site;

·         the application should be refused as housing was not included on this site in the Local Plan; and

·         this was contrary to the identified countryside gap between Teynham and Lynsted.

Members of the public raised objections to the application in respect of:

·         The pedestrian right of way going  ...  view the full minutes text for item 644.