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 5 March 2026 (Minute Nos. to-follow) as a correct record.

Minutes published 2 April 2026 (Minute Nos. 786 – 791)

The Minutes of the Meeting held on 5 March 2026 (Minute Nos. 786 - 791) 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.

No interests were declared.

The Chairman altered the order of business as minuted.

Tabled update added 2 April 2026.

The Team Leader (Planning Applications) introduced the application as set out in the report.  He referred to the tabled update which included further representations from Ospringe Parish Council and Faversham Town Council received since the agenda had been published.  The update also included a proposed amendment to condition (7).  The Chairman asked members of the Committee if they had read the update and they confirmed that they had.

Town Councillor Rob Crayford, representing Faversham Town Council, spoke against the application.

Owen Jones, 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 the Vice-Chairman.

The Chairman drew attention to the planning history of the site, set out on pages 26 and 27 of the report.  He also drew attention to paragraph 7.2.3 in the report ……permission should be granted unless, particularly point ii., ‘any adverse impacts of  doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits’.

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

·         Referring to paragraphs 5.21 and 7.15.10 and acknowledging condition (19) in terms of foul water/Southern Water (SW), clarification sought on whether there had been any discussions with Southern Water with regard to the practicalities of dealing with foul water;

·         concerned with the risk of sewage flooding;

·         were there any conditions in terms of water supply, noting that the site was not located within SW’s statutory area for water supply?;

·         clarification sought on evidence that there was a demand for commercial space;

·         concerned that the water system was already overloaded; and

·         referring to condition (2) in the report, why was the figure three years for residential development and five years for non-residential development?

In response, the Team Leader explained that SW had been consulted and confirmed that they were the waste water provider.  Any future developer had a right to connect to the foul water system, but there were no details yet of what this would entail.  The Team Leader advised that a condition was recommended that would secure details of the foul water drainage proposed prior to commencement.  In terms of water supply, there was no condition because there was a statutory requirement for the provider to supply water to a development.  There were details within the report on what marketing had taken place in terms of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 876.

The Senior Planning Officer introduced the application as set out in the report. 

Mr Danny Nicholson, an objector, spoke against the application.

Simon McKay, 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.

The Chairman drew Member’s attention to the planning history of the site, set out on pages 100 and 101 of the report, including the Planning Inspector’s comments. 

A Member sought clarification on the number of static units and mobile units included in the application, plus the number of units currently on the site.  The Senior Planning Officer confirmed that following the most recent appeal in 2022, there were eight plots, each with two touring caravans and one day room.  Currently there were eight plots, each with two touring caravans, two mobile homes and one day room, so overall there would be 16 additional caravans on site compared with the previous appeal.  The Planning Manager confirmed that there were no units lawfully on the site at the moment as the permission had expired in July 2025.  A temporary permission had been granted following the 2019 application which lasted for three years.  He confirmed that the current application was for 32 caravans and eight day rooms across eight plots.

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

·         Clarification sought on any restrictions on the use of the units on site, especially in terms of any commercial activities;

·         information sought on who would be living on the site, whether in a static unit or those with a more nomadic lifestyle;

·         welcomed that an application had been submitted, which could then be conditioned;

·         noted that the Council could not demonstrate a five-year supply of Gypsy and Traveller sites;

·         enforcement action had been taken on the site, but there were still units there;

·         suggested a site visit could be beneficial;

·         there were not enough Gypsy and traveller allocated sites and from photographs this looked like a well-kept site;

·         clarification sought on the current Gypsy and traveller allocated sites in the Borough;

·         considered Hartlip Parish Council and the Member who called the application in should have been in attendance at the meeting;

·         it was important that the number of units on the site was regulated and enforced;

·         there was a lot of hardstanding on the site, more landscaping was needed; and

·         suggested a temporary permission be granted.

The Senior Planning Officer responded to some of the points raised: condition (6) in the report prevented commercial  ...  view the full minutes text for item 877.

The Planning Manager introduced the report as set out in the agenda papers.  He drew attention to the five options set out on pages 21 and 22 of the report.

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

The Chairman drew attention to paragraph 4.6 in the report which set out the potential impacts of Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMO).  In response to a question, the Planning Manager explained that the impacts identified by the Full Council motion had been addressed and that there were some areas where it was not considered that an Article 4(1) direction was justified, for example in terms of refuse generation as HMOs falling within Use Class C4 were given the same standard of service as a normal dwelling, with no extra bins.  The Planning Manager advised that the Secretary of State would be notified and would have the scope to amend or revoke any Article 4(1) direction that was made.

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

·         Referring to the table at paragraph 4.2 in the report, suggested Article 4 directions be made initially in the wards that were most affected;

·         evidence in the report needed to be robust, however, did not consider it to be robust;

·         suggested the report be deferred for more robust information;

·         it was Full Council who had requested Article 4 directions be implemented, if it was not going to done at this time and there were reasons why, suggested a report was needed to Full Council to explain why;

·         referring to the table in paragraph 4.16 of the report, considered there was a connection between HMOs and anti-social behaviour or crime;

·         there was a perception that HMOs had a negative impact on the housing market;

·         measures needed to be put in place now to control development of further HMOs;

·         HMOs were holding back town centres and their viability and had an impact on the community; and

·         more evidence was needed.

The Chairman moved the following motion:  That the report be deferred for two months for more robust information, so that it was ready to notify the Secretary of State. This was seconded by the Vice-Chairman and on being put to the vote was agreed.

Resolved:

(1)      That the report be deferred for two months for more robust information, so that it was ready to notify the Secretary of State.

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 – Land North of Nelson Avenue, Minster-On-Sea, Sheerness, Kent ME12 3SF

PINS Decision: APPEAL IS NOT DETERMINED

Committee or Officer Decision: DELEGATED REFUSAL

The Chairman considered this to be a frustrating decision.

Item 5.2 – Land East to Courtenay House, London Road, Dunkirk, Kent ME13 9LF

PINS Decision: APPEAL DISMISSED / ENFORCEMENT NOTICE UPHELD

Committee or Officer Decision: ENFORCEMENT NOTICE

The Chairman said this was a good decision.

Item 5.3 – Orchard View, Eastling Road, Eastling, Kent ME13 0AN

PINS Decision: APPEAL DISMISSED

Committee or Officer Decision: DELEGATED REFUSAL

The Chairman said this was a galling decision.

Item 5.4 – Land known as Pigeon Farm Sheppey Way Bobbing Sittingbourne Kent ME9 8PD

PINS Decision: APPEAL DISMISSED / ENFORCEMENT NOTICE UPHELD

Committee or Officer Decision: ENFORCEMENT NOTICE

The Chairman reminded Members to read the commentary attached to the decisions as they contained useful information which could be helpful in future decision making at Planning Committee.