10 am – 22/505618/FULL, Land at School Lane, Newington ME9 7JU – site meeting agreed at the Planning Committee meeting on 9 March 2023.

11.30 am – 22/500007/FULL, Sheerness Bus Station, Bridge Road, Sheerness ME12 1RH - site meeting agreed at the reconvened Planning Committee meeting on 1 June 2023.

The Chair welcomed the Applicant, members of the public, Members and officers to the meeting.

The Council’s Planning Consultant introduced the application which was for 25 residential dwellings with enhanced renewable energy features and the provision of a 20-space staff car park and 20 space pupil pick-up/drop-off area for Newington C of E Primary School, together with associated access, landscaping, drainage and infrastructure works. The Planning Consultant added that an air quality assessment had been undertaken and there had been an update to the biodiversity net gain calculations. She advised that the conditions had been reviewed, updated and would be set out in the update report for the Planning Committee meeting scheduled for 22 June 2023.

The Applicant spoke in support of the application. He outlined the benefits of the development which included:

·      The pick-up/drop-off area would benefit the school;

·      a footpath would be created for school children to access the school;

·      Kent County Council (KCC) Education and Highways and Transport departments were in fully support of the application;

·      that the original application had provided 50% of the homes with solar panels but the applicant was now proposing that every home be provided with solar panels; and

·      landscaping, drainage and infrastructure work designs had been developed to minimise the impact of the site on the countryside.

Parish Councillor Stephen Harvey representing Newington Parish Council, objected to the application and raised the following points:

·      The previous application was refused on the grounds of the unjustified, unnecessary and urbanising impact development had on the countryside, and this application did not do enough to prove that it would impact the countryside less;

·      Newington Parish Council had independent reports from Railton and University of Kent related to traffic and air quality in respect to this development and reiterated that the reports had not been considered and addressed in the officer’s report;

·      nearby roads were not suitable for increased traffic flow;

·      the development would impact Newington’s already poor Air Quality and would affect the Air Quality Management on the A2;

·      the development would destroy the best and most versatile agricultural land;

·      the designated school pick-up/drop-off was not necessarily needed because the nearby church provided car parking for parents;

·      KCC had stated that the school cannot extend due to the impact on Church Lane, Newington;

·      the Parish Council’s view was that the current situation of the land being sub-let to the school was the best situation for the area; and

·      hoped that Members listened to the residents’ concerns on the traffic problems the development would cause.

A visiting Ward Member raised a concern that the school was overfull, there were no spaces in the local GP surgery and that the bus service was not reliable.

Local residents spoke against the application and raised points which included:

·       The increased cars the development would cause was not an issue, the problems the cars would have with the traffic flow of Church Lane, Newington were an issue;

·       Traffic was at its worse at afternoon pick-up time at the school;

·       parents often left their vehicles idling outside the school causing pollution problems;

·       residents felt trapped in their homes during the peak hours of traffic;

·       the railway bridge at Church Lane was not high enough for construction traffic to pass through;

·       there would be a large volume of accident hedging removed;

·       the site was located on grade one agricultural land and would be disappointed to see it be built on;

·       the nearby rural roads were for single car traffic only and this development would increase the number of traffic accidents in the rural lanes;

·       parents ignored the double yellow lines and other parking restrictions when collecting children from the school;

·       there would be increased traffic on the A2 creating tailbacks;

·       concerned that with the proposed pond and tarmac would increase the flooding in the rural lanes;

·       thought that Church Lane was already at breaking point; and

·       there was a real concern for the school children safety.

The Planning Consultant wanted to clarify with Members that the KCC Highways and Transport department were responsible for determining whether or not the highway mitigations proposed were suitable for the development and that they had commented to confirm they were happy with the current mitigations. She added that officers had to consider the five-year housing land supply set by the government as well as the, impact of the countryside in determining the sustainability of the development. The officers felt that the landscape led proposal provided enough mitigation to result in a sustainable development despite the location within the countryside.

Members toured the site with officers and the applicant.