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 the safety implications of crossing movements where footways were discontinued; and
• suggested that a reduction in the speed limit on Lower Road, extending further eastwards, may be necessary if further housing was approved in the area.

Officers provided the following in response:

• The previous appeal had narrowed their concerns specifically to the condition and safety of the short internal section between Selby House and Lower Road. The appeal was not dismissed on the basis of the Lower Road crossing point itself;
• the applicant had amended the scheme directly to address the inspector’s concerns by introducing resurfacing, bollard‑based segregation between pedestrians and vehicles, and road markings and signage to delineate the pedestrian route;.
• it was appropriate to place significant weight on the inspector’s previous findings, which had to be balanced against KCC Highways’ objection;.
• in respect of the internal layout, officers explained that the level of parking provision met Swale’s adopted parking standards and that the arrangement—including tandem parking—had previously been considered acceptable at appeal;
• the vehicular access was clarified: the only vehicle access point was to the east of the site directly onto Lower Road; the western route was pedestrian/cycle only;
• the pedestrian route width had been designed at 1.2 metres, which officers advised was sufficient for wheelchair access, and a legal agreement would secure the pedestrian connection in perpetuity;
• confirmed that KCC cannot be required to adopt the estate roads, as this sits within a separate statutory process. However, roads could be conditioned to be constructed to an adoptable standard if Members wished;
• on the relationship with third‑party land, officers explained that the pedestrian connection would be secured through a legal agreement ensuring continued access even if land ownership changed;
• clarified that the former inspector had explicitly not found the Lower Road crossing point unsafe, but had focused on deficiencies in the internal section now proposed for improvement;
• noted that the speed limit immediately around the vehicular access was currently unrestricted, but that the part of Lower Road where the pedestrian route emerged was already within a 30mph limit; and
• confirmed that affordable housing units were dispersed within the site and not grouped into a single terrace.

Resolved:  That application 25/501882/FULL be DEFERRED to allow officers to liaise with the applicant regarding concerns raised by the committee and to enable discussion with KCC Highways as to how their objection could be overcome.