Visitors and members of the public who are unfamiliar with the building and procedures are advised that:

(a)      The fire alarm is a continuous loud ringing. In the event that a fire drill is planned during the meeting, the Chair will advise of this.

(b)      Exit routes from the chamber are located on each side of the room, one directly to a fire escape, the other to the stairs opposite the lifts.

(c)      In the event of the alarm sounding, leave the building via the nearest safe exit and gather at the assembly point on the far side of the car park. Do not leave the assembly point or re-enter the building until advised to do so. Do not use the lifts.

(d)      Anyone unable to use the stairs should make themselves known during this agenda item.

The Chairman outlined the emergency evacuation procedure.

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.

Councillor Lloyd Chapman said that whilst he was a Ward Member for Bobbing, Iwade and Lower Halstow, he was considering the application as a member of the Planning Committee.

Councillor Mike Baldock said that he was mildly pre-disposed, but not pre-determined on the application.  The Chairman challenged him and considered that Councillor Baldock’s activities on social media had indicated that he was actively against the application.  Councillor Baldock explained that he had been against the allocation in the Local Plan, and would address the application with a fair and open mind.  The Legal Officer said that public perception could be that Councillor Baldock was pre-determined.  Councillor Baldock was reminded that the application decision was potentially at risk and that this was a large application with the eyes of Swale looking at it.

During consideration of the item, Councillor Baldock declared a non-pecuniary interest as he was a member of Bobbing Parish Council.

Tabled update published 24 June 2026.

The Planning Consultant drew Members’ attention to the tabled update which included two further representations in objection to the application.  Members were given five minutes to read the update.

At this point the Chairman said that he had deliberated and was not happy with Councillor Baldock being a member of the Planning Committee during consideration of this application and he asked him to leave the Council Chamber.  After some discussion, the Legal Officer said that Councillor Baldock had set out his case, and although there might be public perception that he was pre-determined, it needed to be taken into account that he had confirmed that he was considering the application with a clear mind.  Councillor Baldock remained in the Council Chamber.

Parish Councillor Gareth Randall, representing Bobbing Parish Council,  spoke against the application.

Chris Hawkins (Agent) spoke in support of the application.

The Chairman was disappointed that there was no representation from Kent County Council (KCC) Highways & Transportation at the meeting.

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

Two visiting Members spoke against the application.

The Chairman invited the Planning Consultant to respond to some points relating to highways and water supply raised by the Ward Members.  He explained that KCC Highways and National Highways had both engaged with the applicant’s transport consultants and agreed the modelling that informed the application.  He added that the National Planning Policy Framework set a high bar in terms of what was an unacceptable highway impact, and planning applications should only be refused when there was a severe impact.  Both highway authorities had said that the proposal would not have unacceptable impacts on the operation and safety of the highways network, and there was no objection on highway grounds.  In terms of the Environmental Statement (ES), the Planning Consultant referred Members to paragraph 9.11 in the report which set out that the updated highways modelling would not alter the conclusions of the ES and so an updated ES was not required.   In terms of water and sewerage infrastructure, there was a condition requiring details of a strategy for foul water drainage and if there were concerns around capacity then that condition provided appropriate measures to ensure that the infrastructure was adequate.  This gave the Council assurance that sewerage infrastructure was in place.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 126.

The Meeting was adjourned from 7.10 pm until 7.15 pm.