Meeting Minutes:

Apologies for absence were received, noted and accepted from Cllrs Baker, Compton, Gemmell Smith, Jennings, McArthur, McGregor, Read, Sumner and Todd

None

Five members of the public spoke on Agenda item 5.6 The first member of public had previously sent a letter to the Council which had contained a map of the area and photographs of parked cars in the road and at night-time on the footway as well. They also said the drains were at full capacity and that the drain cover had been lifted off during heavy rains.

A second member of public said that they supported all that the pervious person had said and was concerned about rainwater management due to increased hard standing. They stated that the Developer has talked about SUDS but provided no details, the land is clay, and the water table is high.

A third member of public had previously telephoned the planning officer and had spoken about shared water drains between house numbers 2, 2a, 3, 5, 7 and 9 which had not been adopted by Southern Water. They stated that the removal trees would cause flooding and there would be a hydraulic overload, the existing parking problems would be magnified, the design was out of keeping and the number of buildings on the plot was too high density; his would compromise the sewage system and the electricity supply.

A fourth member of public was concerned about issues in the planning application, saying that they felt the deadline should be extended, they said no orange notice had been posted, and that the original, approved outline application had been made by a different company name to that on this new application. They said that the proposed buildings could house up to 42 residents and referred to the Kent Parking guidance.

The fifth member of public had sent a letter to the Council and Cllr Layland read out extracts from that letter to the Committee Members. They were concerned with over development, parking spaces for residents and visitors, the traffic hazard caused by increase traffic on the access road, flooding that would raise the manhole covers, the paving of the front gardens would add to flooding, and that there had been inadequate publicity about the intended development.

Resolved: that the minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on 28 November 2022 be duly signed by the Chair of the meeting as a true and accurate record of the meeting; pages 9817-9820.

Recommendation: Members supported this application.

Recommendation: Members supported this application.

Recommendation: Members supported this application.

Recommendation: Members supported this application.

Recommendation: Members supported this application.

Recommendation:

Members objected to this application.

• Parking is inadequate
• Historical flooding issues on the road. Concern of pond in garden behind
• Foul-water disposal provision is not clear (“provision unknown”)
• Safety around traffic on bend
• 3 stories presented an Overlooking risk, and represented overloading of the site, and did not match the local Street Scene or local Character Assessment.

Councillors also expressed concerns that

• The repeated submission of applications represented planning by stealth.
• There were no details of which neighbouring residents had been consulted
• Residents reports that they had not seen orange site notices at the site.

Recommendation: Members supported this application.

Noted

Noted

Noted

Noted

Noted

Noted

Noted

Noted

Noted

Noted

None

None

None

None

Noted

None

Noted

Received by Members on 7 December and Noted

Noted

None