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.

To approve the Minutes of the Extraordinary Meeting held on 25 November 2025 (Minute Nos. to-follow) and the Meeting held on 4 December 2025 (Minute Nos. to-follow) as correct records.

The Minutes of the Extraordinary Meeting held on 25 November 2025 (Minute Nos. 488 - 497) and the Meeting held on 4 December 2025 (Minute Nos. 536 - 544) were taken as read, approved and signed by the Chairman as correct records.

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 Elliott Jayes declared a disclosable non-pecuniary interest in respect of item 2.2 25/502450/FULL The Leas, Minster-on-Sea as he was the Chair of Minster Parish Council.  Councillor Jayes left the meeting during consideration of this item.

Visiting Ward Member Councillor Tom Nundy declared a disclosable non-pecuniary interest in respect of item 2.2 25/502450/FULL The Leas, Minster-on-Sea as he sat on Minster Parish Council.  The Chairman asked Councillor Nundy if he was present at the Parish Council meeting where the decision on the application was made.  Councillor Nundy said that he was and at that point decided not to speak on this item.

Councillor Peter MacDonald declared that he also sat on Minster Parish Council, but had not been at the meeting when the decision on the application was made.

The Planning Consultant introduced the application as set out in the report.  He gave an update to advise that one further objection had been received since the report had been published raising concerns regarding the environmental impact of 3G pitches, and he explained that this had been addressed in the previous report.  He reminded the Committee that the item had been deferred at the meeting held on 4 December 2025 to get more details on the proposed acoustic fence.

The Chairman clarified with Members that they had all received and read emails sent to them from one of the speakers.

Town Councillor Josh Rowlands, representing Faversham Town Council, spoke in support of the application.

Nicola Broad-Barlett, an objector, spoke against the application.

Kyle Taylor, 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 Tony Winckless.

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

·         Following the deferment, considered there was evidence in the updated report that showed this application should be approved;

·         the amendments had addressed previous concerns;

·         acknowledged the videos that had been sent to the Committee, but Members needed to be advised by what was set out in the officer’s report;

·         in terms of noise, it was important to also consider any background noise, for example from London Road;

·         this was a great improvement to what was originally proposed;

·         the quality of the proposed acoustic fencing was three times above the requirement needed and it should reduce the noise considerably;

·         clarification sought on how any monitoring would take place and whether there was a maximum level;

·         saw no reason to object to the application;

·         it was important that venues like these were there for all to enjoy, and an important part of the Olympic legacy; and

·         happy with the update and the amendments.

In response, the Planning Consultant said the required figures were included within the Noise Impact Assessment and these were in line with national guidance and the World Health Organisation guidelines.  He confirmed that the Environmental Health advisor had reviewed the details, and noise levels at the location were below impact thresholds, and therefore within an acceptable level.  The Planning Consultant referred to the new condition 25 which stated: ‘….a final acoustic assessment and verification report completed by a suitably qualified and competent person shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority.’

Resolved:  That application 25/500115/FULL be granted as per the recommendation in the report.

The Senior Planning Officer advised that there were no updates to 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 Hayden Brawn.

A Member spoke against the retrospective aspect of the application.  Councillor Simon Clark proposed the following motion:  That a condition be added to ensure the portacabin was used in perpetuity for its stated use and not for residential use.  This was seconded by the Chairman, and on being put to the vote was agreed.

Resolved:  That application 24/503414/FULL be granted as per the recommendation in the report, subject to a new condition as below:

4) The development hereby approved shall only be used for purposes that are ancillary or incidental to the overall use of the site and shall not be used as any form of residential unit.

Reason: To ensure that the building is used for the stated purpose and not a use that might not be acceptable given the constraints of the site.

The Planning Manager advised that there were no updates to 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 Clark.

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

·         Against the retrospective aspect of the application;

·         suggested conditions be added to include that Minster Parish Council was responsible for both routine maintenance and insurance of the structure; and

·         understood Parish/Town Councils normally managed the maintenance and insurance of this type of structure.

In response, the Planning Manager said that maintenance and insurance matters were not within the remit of the Planning Committee.

The Chairman moved the following motion:  That an informative be added to the application in terms of management and insurance.  This was seconded by Councillor Hayden Brawn, and on being put to the vote was agreed.

Resolved:  That application 25/502450/FULL be granted as per the recommendation in the report, with the inclusion of an informative on the decision notice as below:

“It is advised that the structure is likely to require maintenance and be insured.  It is requested that the structure is suitably insured and kept in an appropriately maintained condition at all times.”

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

PART 5

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

Item 5.1 – Cripps Farm, Plough Road, Eastchurch, ME12 4JH

PINS Decision: APPEAL DISMISSED

Committee or Officer Decision : ENFORCEMENT NOTICE

A Member highlighted the long length of time between enforcement action and the appeal.

Item 5.2 – 10 Hustlings Drive, Eastchurch, Kent ME12 4JX

PINS Decision: APPEAL DISMISSED

Committee or Officer Decision : DELEGATED REFUSAL

A Member considered this to be a great decision.

Item 5.3 – Broadoak Farm, Broadoak Road, Milstead, Sittingbourne, ME9 0RS

PINS Decision: APPEAL DISMISSED

Committee or Officer Decision : ENFORCEMENT NOTICE

A Member considered this to be a great decision.

Item 5.4 – Stonebridge Lodge, West Street, Faversham, Kent ME13 7RU

PINS Decision: APPEAL A & B DISMISSED

Committee or Officer Decision : DELEGATED REFUSAL

A Member considered this to be a great decision.

Item 5.5 – Land Adjacent Matts Hill Farm Industrial Estate, Matts Hill Lane, Hartlip, ME9 7UY

PINS Decision: APPEAL DISMISSED

Committee or Officer Decision : DELEGATED REFUSAL

A Member considered this to be a great decision.

Item 5.6 – Land rear of 67 High Street, Milton Regis, Sittingbourne ME10 2AR

PINS Decision: APPEAL DISMISSED

Committee or Officer Decision : DELEGATED REFUSAL

A Member was pleased with the outcome.

Item 5.7 – Land at Sandbanks Lane and Seasalter Road, Graveney, Kent ME13 9DU

PINS Decision: APPEAL ALLOWED

Committee or Officer Decision : DELEGATED REFUSAL

A Member said this was a disappointing outcome.

Item 5.8 – Callum Park, Besser Hill, Lower Halstow ME9 7TY

PINS Decision: APPEAL DISMISSED

Committee or Officer Decision : DELEGATED REFUSAL

A Member welcomed the outcome.

Item 5.9 – Land west of Head Hill Road, Graveney, Kent ME13 9DE

PINS Decision: APPEAL DISMISSED

Committee or Officer Decision : DELEGATED REFUSAL

A Member welcomed the outcome.

Members applauded officers for their work.