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 Meeting held on 15 January 2026 (Minute Nos. to-follow) as a correct record.

Minutes added 2 February 2026 (Minute Nos. 608 – 614).

The Minutes of the Meeting held on 15 January 2026 (Minute Nos. 608 – 614) were taken as read, approved and signed by the Chairman as a correct record.

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 Peter MacDonald declared a disclosable non-pecuniary interest in respect of item 2.1 25/504680/FULL 6 Marine Parade, Sheerness as he sat on Sheerness Town Council.  He explained that he was not at the Town Council meeting when the matter was discussed and would speak and vote on the application.

The Team Leader (Planning Applications) advised that there were no updates to the report.

Hayley Richardson, 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 Tony Winckless.

A visiting Ward Member spoke against the application.

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

·         The photographs along Berridge Road, Sheerness which had been circulated indicated the current vehicle parking situation in the area;

·         Members needed to note that paragraph 5.3 in the report set out that Kent County Council (KCC) Highways and Transportation had advised that the proposal did not meet the criteria to warrant their involvement;

·         parking in this area had historically been sporadic, but if the application was granted, the parking situation was likely to be exacerbated;

·         the application site sat within Flood Zone 3, with a high probability of flooding and was surprised that there was bedroom accommodation on the lower ground floor;

·         there were serious issues with vehicle parking in the area;

·         this was overdevelopment;

·         did not agree with the Environment Agency’s opinion of having no objection;

·         the site was not sustainable;

·         the application could set a precedent;

·         considered the application was harmful to the area, where there were already issues of double parking;

·         paragraphs 7.31, 7.32 and 7.33 set out the professional consultees’ opinion on any flood risk;

·         in favour of the application;

·         concerned with the emergency access from the building and clarification sought on whether fire experts had been consulted;

·         any free vehicle spaces in nearby streets were because residents were at work; and

·         did not agree that on-street parking spaces in Berridge Road were an option as this was a particularly bad road for parking, with a lot of illegal double parking.

In response the Team Leader explained that the existing building currently had a Lawful Development Certificate for six bedrooms and in terms of a nine bedroom HMO, the applicant would have needed a licence and emergency access would have been addressed through that, rather than the planning process.  In response to a further question, he confirmed there was no on-site parking provision.

Before they made their decision, the Chairman referred Members to paragraphs 7.15 and 7.16 in the report.

Resolved:  That application 25/504680/FULL be granted as per the recommendation in the report.

Tabled Paper added 5 February 2026.

The Planning Manager advised that some additional papers were tabled.  These included an officer update and a written statement from a member of the public.  Members were given a few minutes to read the papers.

Parish Councillor Gary Rosewell, representing Upchurch Parish Council spoke against the application.

Jane Scott, 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 Hayden Brawn.

Two visiting Ward Members spoke against the application.

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

·         Sought clarification as to why the application had not been determined on time;

·         noted that the application included a supporting report which had identified the land as Grade 3B, and so not best and most versatile (BMV);

·         considered the Council should have commissioned a report to check whether the land was BMV;

·         the application conflicted with Policy ST3 being outside the settlement boundary, this was an unallocated site in the countryside and could set a precedent; and

·         did not agree with the housing mix set out in paragraph 7.4.2 of the report and considered the affordable housing element was skewed away from what families needed and this conflicted with Policy CP3 which required development to deliver a balanced mix of dwellings.

In response, the Planning Manager said that in terms of the housing mix, it was correct that all the open market dwellings would be four or five bedroom houses and the affordable housing were the six smaller units: two one bedroom houses; three two bedroom houses and one three bedroom house.  He added that it was correct that this did not perfectly reflect the requirement identified in the housing market assessment (HMA).  The HMA requirement applied borough-wide.  The provision of affordable housing was given substantial weight in appeal decisions.  In terms of the provision of larger dwellings in the open market, he referred to Policy CP3 and Policy DM8. With the Council not having a five-year housing supply, the tilted balance applied and as such there were conflicts with some of the Council’s policies.  Officers were happy with the applicant’s testing of the quality of the land.  The Planning Manager outlined the reasons why the application had not yet been determined and these included various amendments to the application, discussion on affordable housing provision, and amended plans that needed to be consulted on.  The Planning Manager indicated on the site plan where the different types of housing would be positioned, together with the schedule of accommodation.  He also indicated the landscaping and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 717.

The Planning Manager advised that there were no updates to the report. 

Louise Campbell, an objector, spoke against the application.

Keith Tress, 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:

·         Did not see a problem with the application, so long as the three proposed dwellings were self-build projects as set out in the report; and

·         considered there should be more self-build opportunities within the borough.

On being put to the vote, the motion to refuse the application was lost.

There was some discussion on the conditions that would be applied to the application.

Councillor James Hunt moved the following motion:  That the application be granted and delegated authority be given to officers to issue a decision notice with the standard conditions for this type of development.  This was seconded and on being put to the vote was agreed.

Resolved:  That application 25/504706/OUT be granted and delegated to officers to issue a decision notice with the standard conditions for this type of development.

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

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

Item 5.1 – Unit 1, Jetty Road, Warden, Kent ME12 4NF

PINS Decision: APPEAL ALLOWED

Committee or Officer Decision: DELEGATED REFUSAL

A Member considered this to be an appalling decision.

Item 5.2 – Webbenditch Cottage, Cold Harbour Lane, Bobbing, Kent ME9 8NN

PINS Decision: APPEAL ALLOWED

Committee or Officer Decision : DELEGATED REFUSAL

A Member considered this to be an appalling decision.

Item 5.3 – Land at The Tractor Shed, Provender Lane, Faversham ME13 0SL

PINS Decision: NOTICE QUASHED

Committee or Officer Decision : ENFORCEMENT NOTICE ISSUED

A Member was disappointed with the decision.

A Member applauded officers for their continued work.

The Meeting was adjourned from 7.36 pm until 7.40 pm.