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 2.3 application 23/502365/FULL 77 – 83 and 87 London Road, Sittingbourne, Kent, ME10 1NL.

The Chair welcomed the applicant, the applicant’s agent, members of the public and Members to the meeting.

The Planning Consultant introduced the application which sought the demolition of four dwellings and the erection of 20 dwellings with associated external amenity areas, site access improvements, internal access road, parking, landscaping and habitat creation, as set out in the report submitted to the Planning Committee on 8 February 2024.  He outlined the reasons why the Committee had agreed a site meeting and said that although invited, an officer from Kent County Council (KCC) Highways and Transportation was not in attendance at the site meeting.

The Planning Consultant gave a brief history of the site.

Members of the public spoke on the application and raised points which included:

·         Considered there was insufficient parking on-site for residents;

·         concerned with the position of the electricity substation and whether it would be visible from Borden Lane;

·         clarification sought on the status of the existing wall which ran alongside Borden Lane; and

·         access and egress from the site was dangerous.

In response, the Planning Consultant said there were 27 flats and 26 parking spaces.  He said that officers had reviewed car ownership in the surrounding area.  There was a bus stop nearby and the site was close enough to walk to the town centre and railway station.  The Planning Consultant confirmed that KCC Highways and Transportation were satisfied with the amount of parking proposed on the site.

The Planning Consultant referred to the substation concerns and said that it would not be visible from Borden Lane and although there would be a low humming noise, this would be monitored and tested to ensure it was at an acceptable level.  He said the existing wall on the Borden Lane site would remain and explained that it was locally listed with WWII defensive gun loops.

A Member referred to Block B on the site and said that it had been empty for a number of years.  He sought reassurance that the scheme would go ahead if permission was granted and the site not lay empty for a further number of years with no development taking place.

In response, the Applicant confirmed that their intention was to go ahead with the build as soon as possible after permission was granted, within a year to 18 months.  The Planning Consultant further explained that the houses at the entrance to the development site would not be demolished, unless there was absolute certainty that the scheme would go ahead.

A Member sought clarification on the height of the new buildings in relation to the existing block and the dwellings along Borden Lane.  The Planning Consultant said the elevations would be in-line with no. 2 Borden Lane, and he indicated where the new blocks would be sited, set lower than neighbouring dwellings due to the ground levelling off.  He explained that refuse collection lorries would be able to access the site and also carry out a three-point turn on-site.

A Member sought clarification on  ...  view the full minutes text for item 683.