Councillors should not act or take decisions in order to gain financial or other material benefits for themselves, their families or friends.

The Chair will ask Members if they have any disclosable pecuniary interests (DPIs) or disclosable non-pecuniary interests (DNPIs) to declare in respect of items on the agenda. Members with a DPI in an item must leave the room for that item and may not participate in the debate or vote. 

Aside from disclosable interests, where a fair-minded and informed observer would think there was a real possibility that a Member might be biased or predetermined on an item, the Member should declare this and leave the room while that item is considered.

Members who are in any doubt about interests, bias or predetermination should contact the monitoring officer for advice prior to the meeting.

No interests were declared.

10 am – Item 2.1 22/503418/OUT Land at Tonge Road, Sittingbourne, Kent, ME9 9BD.

The Chair welcomed the Applicant’s Agent, the Applicant’s Traffic Consultant, a member of the public and Members to the meeting.

The Faversham Area Team Leader introduced the outline application with all matters reserved for future determination apart from means of access for 16 dwellings at land at Tonge Road, Sittingbourne.  He said the two main issues raised were highway concerns and the impact on the railway line although Kent County Council (KCC) Highways and Transportation had raised no objection, and he said that Mid Kent Environmental Health team suggested two conditions to address potential contamination.

A local resident spoke against the application and raised points which included:

·         Concerned about the amount of dwellings already in the locality;

·         the development would exacerbate current parking issues;

·         refuse vehicles would not be able to access the site safely;

·         the local road network was already at saturation point and there was already gridlock on the local roads during peak traffic periods;

·         the infrastructure including doctors, dentists etc. could not accommodate further development in the area;

·         Tonge Road was used as a rat-run and not suitable for further development; and

·         there was a risk that vehicles would park on the proposed walkway.

The Applicant’s Agent said that the site was within the built-up area boundary and complied with the relevant planning policies.  He advised that with regard to highway safety concerns, their Transport Consultant had provided an Assessment of Traffic in the location.

The Applicant’s Traffic Consultant said that KCC Highways and Transportation considered the speed survey figures they had provided were a true record.  He said that vehicles were generally travelling 38-39 mph along Tonge Road and the proposed access was designed to cope with vehicles travelling at that speed.

KCC’s Principal Transport & Development Plannerexplained that the speed surveys submitted by the Applicant had informed the design of the access visibility splays.  He reported that the front access of the development would be widened to allow two vehicles to pass safely.  The Principal Transport & Development Planner said that they were satisfied that the application was acceptable.

Members asked the following questions:

·         Could a 20 mph speed limit be imposed if the application was approved?;

·         would the road be widened?;

·         would there be sufficient space for refuse vehicles to access the site? and

·         how many parking spaces would be provided?

In response the Principal Transport & Development Planner said that it was a small-scale development and officers had to ensure that any proposed mitigation measures were reasonable.  He confirmed that the road would be widened to 5.5 metres, and the proposed access points would be in accordance with the relevant design standards.  He explained that 5.5 metres was wide enough for two large vehicles to pass one another and that refuse lorries kerbside collection could therefore be catered for.

The Faversham Area Team Leader said that two parking spaces for each property and five visitor parking spaces were proposed which complied with the Council’s Parking Standards.  

In response to a question from a member of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 673.