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.

No interests were declared.

The Team Leader (Planning Applications) introduced the application as set out in the report. 

Carly Chapman, a Supporter, spoke in support of the application.

Teresa Ryszskowska, an Objector, spoke against the application.

Guy Osborne, the Applicant, 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 Brawn.

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

• Disappointment that Kent County Council (KCC) Highways were neither present in person nor online, noting that the committee was being asked to consider a recommendation contrary to KCC Highways’ objection;
•  noted that KCC Highways’ formal objections were unusual and carried weight, and therefore required careful consideration;
• suggested that the current proposal differed from the previous appeal scheme, and that the improved design could alter pedestrian behaviour and increase pedestrian use of the access route, potentially heightening risk where pedestrians must share space with vehicles;
• concerned about highway safety on Lower Road, Teynham which was described locally as an accident black spot. Members questioned whether introducing additional development pressure would exacerbate risks;
• highlighted that the access arrangements onto Lower Road appeared unchanged from earlier schemes, and questioned how the proposal mitigated the perceived danger around the bend at the point where the pedestrian route met the highway;
• the rural character of the Lower Road corridor was referenced, with questions about whether the increased vehicle movements would erode that character, and whether the road could accommodate additional traffic safely;
• parking provision within the site was queried, and noted that the layout relied heavily on tandem parking and offered limited non‑tandem spaces, raising concerns that overspill parking may occur on the estate road or onto Lower Road. It was noted that Swale, not KCC, were responsible for internal road layout;
• queried whether the proposed internal roads should be built to adoptable standards and whether a condition could require adoption by KCC to allow enforcement of parking restrictions;
• Questions were raised about the practicalities of moving buggies, wheelchairs and mobility users through the pedestrian link. Members asked whether the route met accessibility standards and whether segregation between cyclists and pedestrians should be required;
• questioned the cumulative impacts of approved nearby developments, including Selby Court and other forthcoming applications, and whether similar concerns should have been raised by KCC Highways in the past;
• sought clarification regarding the mix and location of affordable housing units;
•  emphasised the need for a safe, direct and accessible pedestrian route that would genuinely support walking to local services, rather than forcing residents into conflict with vehicles or onto the road network;
• expressed concern about the absence of pavements on sections of Lower Road and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 788.

The Planning Consultant introduced the application as set out in the report. 

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

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

• Disappointment that Faversham Town Council had not attended to explain its objection and commented that the scheme broadly complied with the outline permission and presented no obvious reason for refusal;
• highlighted the positive inclusion of 35% affordable housing across the wider site and noted that this exceeded levels often secured elsewhere;
• concerned that the dwelling mix did not align with the Council’s identified housing needs, particularly the demand for smaller one and two‑bedroom units. The development should reflect local evidence of need rather than favour larger properties;
• queried the number of fully accessible units and noted that only three dwellings were proposed to M4(3) wheelchair‑user standard;
• There was a general lack of bungalows delivered by major developers, despite high demand and strong market value. Noted that bungalows sell quickly and would meet an important housing need within Swale; and
• repeated their view from an earlier agenda item that estate roads should be required, via condition, to be built to adoptable standards. This was considered important to ensure proper long‑term management, prevent unresolved parking issues, and avoid estates remaining in private management where enforcement was more difficult.

Resolved:  That application 25/504418/REM be granted as per the recommendation in the report.

Tabled paper added 5 March 2026.

The Planning Manager (Planning Applications) introduced the application as set out in the report. 

Borden Parish Councillor Lee Small spoke against the application.

Sarah Booker, an Objector, spoke against the application.

Ryan Nicholls, the Applicant, spoke in support of the application.

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

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

• Noted the appeal timetable and the need to confirm the Council’s position quickly;
• acknowledged that the application had already been refused and would now be decided by an Inspector, with the committee’s task being to confirm which refusal reasons should be defended;
• emphasised that recent appeal decisions on nearby sites were important material evidence and should inform whether the existing ecology reason remained defensible;
• argued that the ecological refusal reason should be withdrawn to avoid a potential application for an award of costs, given the strength of the appellant’s evidence and lack of objection from KCC Ecology.

·         the site functions was a traditional orchard and priority habitat;

·         the ecological value and connectivity to the adjacent wildlife site remained significant;

·         the countryside gap reason was still robust and was upheld in a recent appeal;

·         criticised reliance on desktop ecology assessments and highlighted local knowledge of the site’s wildlife activity;

·         concerned about habitat fragmentation, countryside gap erosion, and the loss of agricultural potential;

·         voiced doubt that the ecological refusal reason could be successfully defended given national guidance, the treatment of wildlife impacts in recent appeals, and the ability to manage impacts through conditions;

·         sought clarification on what methodology the Inspector would use at appeal and whether they would rely solely on desktop evidence; and

·         questioned whether the applicant’s ecological surveys were adequate, given the site’s proximity to a designated wildlife site.

In response, the officer advised:

·         While costs risks could be highlighted, Members must base decisions on planning merits;

·         the committee must decide whether each refusal reason remained “sound” in the light of new evidence submitted as part of the appeal;

·         Inspectors normally held a site visit, but their assessment would most likely be guided primarily by the technical ecological evidence before them;

·         similar appeals (e.g., Riddles Road, Sittingbourne), inspectors acknowledged local observations but placed greater weight on professionally prepared ecology reports and the fact that KCC Ecology had raised no objection.

·         the applicant had submitted ecology surveys;

·         further ecological information accompanied the appeal;

·         KCC Ecology had raised no objection;

·         the new appeal evidence had not identified ecological constraints; and

·         an Inspector would consider countryside gap policy as a separate planning matter, distinct from ecology.

Resolved:  That application 24/502717/OUT be refused as per reasons 5.2a and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 790.

Decisions by County Council and Secretary of State, reported for information.

Item 5.1 – Gate Service Station, London Road, Dunkirk, Kent ME13 9LN

PINS Decision: APPEAL DISMISSED

Committee or Officer Decision: DELEGATED REFUSAL

Item 5.2 – Land off Riddles Road, Borden, Sittingbourne, Kent ME9 8HP

PINS Decision: APPEAL DISMISSED (PARTIAL AWARD OF COSTS)

Committee or Officer Decision: COMMITTEE DECISION

Item 5.3 – Former Kingsfield Care Home, Jubilee Way, Faversham ME13 8GD

PINS Decision: APPEAL ALLOWED

Committee or Officer Decision: NON-DETERMINATION