Update published 22 May 2025.

The Senior Planning Officer introduced the application as set out in the report.  He drew attention to the tabled update which set out amendments to conditions (8), (11) and (21) of the application.  It was also agreed to alter the trigger point of conditions (12), (13), (17) and (19) to ‘prior to any further development being carried out’, rather than prior to the commencement of development.

Parish Councillor Jean Gray, representing Dunkirk Parish Council, spoke against the application.

Sarah Moakes, an objector, spoke against the application.

Charlie Brown, the Agent, spoke in support of the application.

The Chairman moved the officer recommendation to grant planning permission as per the recommendation in the report, and this was seconded by Councillor Angela Harrison.

A Ward Member spoke against the application.

At this point and following a request by the Chairman, the Senior Planning Officer provided more details on the key points of the application for Members.

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

·         Knew the area well and the site had a ‘long-standing’ use for sale of refreshments;

·         there had previously been a Travelodge on the site with traffic in and out so this would be no different;

·         this was a brownfield site;

·         could see no lawful planning reason to refuse the application;

·         the application went against the Boughton Under Blean Neighbourhood Plan;

·         the use might lead to increased crime and litter in the area;

·         the Kent Woodland Trust, Kent Wildlife Trust and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds had not been consulted;

·         needed to protect the Site of Special Scientific Interest opposite the application site;

·         local residents did not support the application;

·         it would be difficult for any rubbish from the premises along the A2 to be collected safely;

·         would prefer to see just a restaurant rather than a drive-thru;

·         the application could not be refused simply because of who the applicant was; and

·         any litter from the premises would be caused by customers and not the applicant.

In response to questions from Members, the Senior Planning Officer confirmed that the Railton report had not been submitted or viewed by officers.  The Chairman confirmed that as the Railton report referred to by a speaker had not been viewed by officers it could not be considered by Members.  He referred to pages 83, 84 and 85 of the report which set-out all of those who had been consulted on the application.

Resolved:  That application 23/504375/FULL be granted as per the recommendation in the report and the amendments to conditions (8), (11) and (21) and the alterations to the trigger point of conditions (12), (13), (17) and (19) to ‘prior to any further development being carried out’, rather than ‘prior to the commencement of development’.