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 the commercial element of the application.  Although smaller, the quantum of employment space proposed would support the walk to work market.  The Team Leader said that in terms of the figure of five years for non-residential, the previous application had required reserved matters to be approved within three years for both residential and employment, and as noted employment had not come forward within that time frame, so five years had been suggested in condition (2) in order to enable the non-residential development to come forward over a longer time frame.

Further comments included:

·         Could not see that there was a demand for commercial use in that location;

·         acknowledged that SW had a duty to supply, but concerned that they would connect to an already overloaded system;

·         concerned that the access via Tettenhall Way was not fit for purpose in terms of it being block paving and not being able to cope with construction traffic;

·         concerned with any costs that might be imposed if the application was refused; and

·         it was important that Section 106 agreement monies were realised.

In response, the Team Leader confirmed that Tettenhall Way was a tarmacked road and had originally been designed to take traffic from the employment site that had previously been approved.

Councillor Julien Speed proposed the following amendment:  That condition (2) be amended to read:  Three years for any phase comprising non-residential development (so that it was the same as residential development).  This was seconded by Councillor James Hunt and on being put to the vote was agreed.

In response to a question, the Team Leader advised that there was not currently a condition requiring that internal roads on the development be of an adoptable standard.  He added that the Council could not require them to be adopted, as that was a separate process.

Councillor Monique Bonney proposed the following amendment: That internal roads on the development be of an adoptable standard.  This was seconded by the Chairman and on being put to the vote was agreed.

Councillor Bonney proposed the following amendment:  That the Section 106 Agreement be completed and signed within six months, and if it was not, to return the application to the Planning Committee.  This was seconded by the Chairman and on being put to the vote was agreed.

The Planning Manager (Planning Applications) was invited to speak.  He said that Section 106 Agreements were complex and that applicants were generally keen to get them completed as quickly as possible with delays often being due to reasons that were out of their hands.  He advised that issues could arise if the Section 106 Agreement for this development was prioritised over other developments’ Section 106 Agreements.

On being put to the vote the amendment was agreed.

A Member asked about pedestrian access to the site running north through the Abbey School and across the A2 and asked whether there were plans for the footpath to be upgraded and made hardstanding, and also for a crossing point which the Town Council had requested.  In response, the Team Leader said there were monies which Kent County Council had requested for improving the southern end of footpath ZF18, money previously secured for the improvement of part of the route that was currently unmade and £50,000 to be secured as part of the Section 106 Agreement towards Sustainable Transport Improvements including a crossing over the A2.

Members then voted on the substantive motion.

Councillor James Hunt proposed the following:  That adoptable standards be carried forward for all major sites.  This was seconded by the Chairman and agreed by Members.

Resolved:  That application 25/501495/OUT be granted as per the recommendation in the report, plus an amendment to condition (7) as set out in the tabled update and with the following further amendments:

That condition (2) be amended to read:  years for any phase comprising non-residential development (so that it was the same as residential development). 

That a condition be imposed to require that internal roads on the development be of an adoptable standard. 

That the Section 106 Agreement be completed and signed within six months, and if it was not, to return the planning application to the Planning Committee.