Tabled paper added 21 May 2026.

Second tabled paper added 21 May 2026.

Members were given five minutes to read the two tabled updates which had previously been emailed to Members and added to the website.

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

Marcus Evans, on behalf of 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 Hayden Brawn.

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

·         Noted the fire safety concerns and reassured that the applicants were working with Kent Fire and Rescue Service (KFRS);

·         noted that there was a lot of green space and clarification sought on its use in the future;

·         referring to paragraph 7.8.3 in the report, clarification sought on the site being outside of the Zone of Influence in terms of the Swale Ramsar site; the Special Protection Area and the Site of Special Scientific Interest, plus the requirement for a 6 km buffer;

·         more information sought on the footpath issue as set out in the tabled paper, concerned there could be a conflict and the footpath needed to be protected;

·         considered the application should be deferred until after the consultation (which ended on 3 July 2026);

·         concerned with the fire risk, especially as Eastchurch was a rural community on an island;

·         paragraph 5.5 of the report set out Kent County Council’s (KCC) view on the application being considered ahead of the consultation;

·         often the view of these types of development was that they were ‘always blowing up’, it was important to move on as technology was changing and installation was improving;

·         concerned with the issue of light pollution;

·         happy with the landscape plan and that the buildings were not dominating the landscape;

·         considered the application needed to be decided now and the Public Right of Way (PROW) issue could be sorted out later; and

·         also needed to remember that water was not used to extinguish an electrical fire.

The Team Leader clarified that the area of green spaces shown on the plans comprised bunding and planting to help screen the development, with areas also left undeveloped to help support the delivery of Biodiversity Net Gain on the site. He further went on to clarify that with regards to the Zone of Influence referred to in the report, the most important consideration was whether or not the proposals, given their location, would give rise to any adverse impact on nearby habitat designations, with the 6 km Zone of Influence commonly referred to in the borough specifically relevant for new residential development, rather than proposals of the type being considered under this application. KCC Ecology had reviewed the application and had not objected to the proposals. In respect of the PROW, the Team Leader set out that at this moment in time, the claimed PROW route across the site had been made by KCC but was not yet confirmed, with KCC in the process of consulting on the Order, as set out in the tabled update. In terms of any conflict, the risk was primarily on the developer, whilst if the Order were confirmed, then the applicant would be able to apply to amend the proposals or seek a diversion at a later date.  In respect of lighting, the Team Leader confirmed that there was no need for the site to be lit on a permanent basis, with condition (16) securing further details of lighting at the site. 

Resolved:  That application 25/503466/FULL be granted as per the recommendation in the report.