The Planning Consultant introduced the application as set out in the report.  He advised that there was an error in the report where it stated that Kent County Council (KCC) had said that special educational needs and waste were strategically located specialist services which would have to be delivered on the mainland.  He explained that reference to the mainland was incorrect, and that these services would be delivered at a Borough level, but this did not preclude delivery on the Isle of Sheppey.  The Planning Consultant clarified that the further five neighbour objections to the scheme were in addition to the 18 objections reported verbally at the 10 October 2024 meeting.  He referred to the independent traffic survey carried out by Stantec which was summarised in the report and updated Members on comments from KCC Highways and Transportation on the report. The Stantec report had noted that the proposed Barton Hill Drive, Minster roundabout mitigation did not improve the exit to the A2500 westbound and improving this exit from Barton Hill Drive would reduce the queuing identified in the survey data, and Stantec had suggested KCC added a monitor and manage condition.  KCC Highways and Transportation had responded to say that the suggested condition was not necessary as any mitigation could be secured via the Section 278 process.  The Planning Consultant added that Lower Road, Minster was due to be widened through works delivered by the Barton Hill Drive development.

A visiting Member spoke against the application.

The Chair moved the officer recommendation to determine whether the application would have been approved, if it was still to be determined by the Committee, as per the recommendation in the report, and this was seconded by Councillor Andy Booth.

A Ward Member spoke against the application.  He raised concern that the independent highway report had not been put on the Planning Portal.  He said there had been no mention of the road width issues, or the narrow footpaths which the Planning Committee had raised, and with an increase in vehicles as a result of this application, these issues would be made worse.  The Ward Member said that if the application was approved that the dwellings should be built in the right direction for optimum solar gain, and the highway conditions on highway works should be lowered. 

The Chair invited Members to make comments, and these included:

·      Welcomed the affordable housing that would be provided with this application;

·      concerned with highway issues, but KCC Highways and Transportation had raised no objection;

·      this was not an ideal location for development;

·      it was important that officers ensured that the developers built in accordance with the planning conditions;

·      the development would cause the erosion of the Countryside Gap;

·      infrastructure such as transport; GP services; etc. would be adversely impacted by the development;

·      this was an unsustainable development in an unsustainable location;

·      acknowledged some of the planning obligations to mitigate the impact of the development, including £350 travel vouchers, but it was difficult to support development in this location knowing that access to the development was not going to be improved;

·      the independent traffic report had now been carried out and we cannot defer any further;

·      the Isle of Sheppey was in need of affordable housing, this was a balance between harm and good;

·      hoped that when reserved matters came forward that the design of the development was good;

·      the development was being built on good arable land, it was important that crops were grown in this country, rather than relying on imports;

·      residents were desperate for homes they could afford; and

·      clarity sought on the provision of the affordable homes.

The Planning Consultant responded to the points raised.  He referred Members to paragraphs 6.31 and 6.32 in terms of affordable housing delivery and the grant funding available to achieve this.  It was explained that due to the terms of the Homes England Capital Funding Guide, 25% of the affordable housing would be firmly secured via a Section 106 Agreement, whilst the remaining 16.5% would be secured through an alternative option which the developer intended to deliver, but was not obliged to.  He explained that the applicant could apply to vary the terms of a Section 106 Agreement.  The Planning Manager added that the actual mix of house (number of bedrooms etc.) would be agreed at the reserved matters stage.

The Chair sought Members’ views as to whether they agreed that if they were minded to grant permission, if it had been their decision, that specific reasons be included and in this case the reason being the inclusion of affordable housing within the development.  Members agreed with this approach.

Further comments included:

·      Housing associations were unlikely to use recycled grant funding, if they had not used normal grant funding;

·      disappointed that the applicant went straight to appeal without speaking to Ward Members;

·      noted that there were only five days between the October 2024 meeting and the date that the application should have been decided, not leaving much time for the applicant to meet with Ward Members and report back to the Committee;

·      did not agree with KCC Highways and Transportation’s views of the application;

·      the application would hugely increase the number of vehicle movements onto the Lower Road; and

·      not persuaded by the level of the application’s affordable homes provision.

In response to a question, the Planning Consultant explained that condition (3) set out the timescale, in that the first phase of development must be begun no later than 12 months from the final approval of the relevant reserved matters.

In accordance with Procedure Rule 3.1.19(2) a recorded vote was taken, and voting was as follows:

For:  Councillors Hayden Brawn, Simon Clark, Ann Cavanagh, James Hunt, Peter Marchington, Ben J Martin, Charles Gibson, Shelley Cheesman, Karen Watson and Tony Winckless.  Total equals 10.

Against:  Councillors Mike Baldock, Andy Booth, Elliott Jayes, Richard Palmer, Paul Stephen and Terry Thompson.  Total equals 6.

The motion to approve the application was agreed.

Resolved: That if it had been determined by the Committee, application 22/502086/OUT would be granted as per the recommendation in the report and that the specific reason for granting the position be the inclusion of affordable housing within the development.