The Planning Manager (Planning Applications) introduced the application as set out in the report.  He said a letter had been received from the Faversham Community Land Trust who had suggested an alternative housing mix, with a preference for more affordable homes.  He said whilst the dwelling size mix had changed, the total remained the same, but now there were more 3-bedroom properties and less 4-bedroom properties.

Town Councillor Trevor Martin, representing Faversham Town Council, spoke against the application.

Jo Hanslip, the Agent, spoke in support of the application.

The Chair moved the officer recommendation to grant planning permission as per the recommendation in the report, and this was seconded by Councillor Hayden Brawn.

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

·         The affordable housing mix should be more in line with the Faversham Neighbourhood Plan which was more up-to-date than the Local Plan;

·         disappointed that only 11 registered providers had been contacted;

·         considered a mix with 1/2 bedroom properties would be better;

·         the developer appeared to be going back on what they had agreed;

·         the developers were still offering quite a lot on this development; and

·         suggested the application be deferred;

Councillor Tony Winckless moved the following motion:  That the application be deferred to enable the developer to seek more registered providers.  This was seconded by Councillor Ben J Martin.

Members spoke on the motion to defer the application, and the following comments were made:

·         Suggested all registered suppliers in Faversham and the east of the Borough be contacted; and

·         clarification sought on the timeline if the application was deferred and any implications of this.

In response, the Planning Manager said that following any talks with the developer and registered providers, the application could return to the Planning Committee quickly, but that there was a risk of non-determination.  The Planning Manager explained that the mix of housing was a reflection of talks between the developer and officers, and he considered the resulting mix to be a very good compromise which officers supported.

The Senior Lawyer (Planning) gave advice to the Planning Committee.  He said that an application could be deferred for further information, but not to get the applicant to do something else, and so other reasons were needed for the deferment.

Further comments included:

·         Concerned that the Council was not securing more affordable homes;

·         this application was not compliant with the Faversham Neighbourhood Plan;

·         clarification sought on the demand for 4-bedroom shared ownership properties;

·         the Council should not accept a compromise; and

·         considered this application should be decided at this meeting, rather than risk non-determination.

The Planning Manager said the mix of accommodation was suitable for families and this aligned with FAV 3 of the Faversham Neighbourhood Plan.

Councillor Ben J Martin made an amendment to the deferral motion:  That the application be deferred for additional information to be sought on which associations were contacted by the developer and which were not and the reasons why some associations were not contacted.  This was agreed and seconded by the original proposer, Councillor Tony Winckless.  On being put to the vote, the motion was agreed.

Resolved:  That application 24/501929/REM be deferred for additional information to be sought on which associations were contacted by the developer and which were not and the reasons why some associations were not contacted.