Agenda and minutes

To approve the record of the meeting held on 3 December 2014.

The record of the meeting held on 3 December 2014 was agreed and signed by the Chairman as correct.

Attention was drawn to the supplementary agenda advice sheet which set out the refusal ground for planning application MC/14/2734 (Garage Site to the rear of 4 and 6 St Johns Road, Hoo Rochester ME3 9JT) which had been agreed by the Head of Planning with the Chairman and Vice Chairman under delegated powers in accordance with minute 541 as follows:

1. The proposed development by virtue of the length and limited width of the access with no separation for pedestrians will result increased pedestrian/vehicular conflicts and as such the proposal represents an unacceptable form of backland development.  The proposal is therefore contrary to policies T1, T2 and H9 of the Medway Local Plan 2003.

2. The proposed development will result in the significant loss of off street parking which, along with additional pressures already imposed through the loss of other garage sites within the area, will result in significant pressure on already overburdened on street parking availability in the area.  This will result in increased competition for limited parking resulting in a loss of amenity for existing residents in the area and also detriment to the free flow of traffic (including buses, service and emergency vehicles).  The proposal is therefore contrary to policies T1 and BNE2 of the Medway Local Plan 2003.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Griffin and Purdy.

The Chairman will announce any late items which do not appear on the main agenda but which she has agreed should be considered by reason of special circumstances to be specified in the report. 

There were none.

The Chairman drew attention to the supplementary agenda advice sheet circulated prior to the meeting. She informed the Committee that prior to consideration of agenda item 5, she would adjourn the meeting for a short period to enable all members sufficient time to read the contents of the supplementary agenda advice sheet for Item 5. Furthermore, at the conclusion of agenda item 5 there would be another brief adjournment to enable Members to read the remainder of the supplementary agenda advice sheet insofar as it related to other planning applications on the agenda.

A member need only disclose at any meeting the existence of a disclosable pecuniary interest (DPI) in a matter to be considered at that meeting if that DPI has not been entered on the disclosable pecuniary interests register maintained by the Monitoring Officer.

A member disclosing a DPI at a meeting must thereafter notify the Monitoring Officer in writing of that interest within 28 days from the date of disclosure at the meeting.

A member may not participate in a discussion of or vote on any matter in which he or she has a DPI (both those already registered and those disclosed at the meeting) and must withdraw from the room during such discussion/vote.

Members may choose to voluntarily disclose a DPI at a meeting even if it is registered on the council’s register of disclosable pecuniary interests but there is no legal requirement to do so.

Members should also ensure they disclose any other interests which may give rise to a conflict under the council’s code of conduct.

In line with the training provided to members by the Monitoring Officer members will also need to consider bias and pre-determination in certain circumstances and whether they have a conflict of interest or should otherwise leave the room for Code reasons. 

Any member who joins the meeting after the start of the officer presentation on an item of business for determination or, leaves the meeting during the officer presentation or debate on an item of business for determination is not permitted to participate in the decision making and voting for that particular item of business.

The Chairman informed the Committee that before asking Members for declarations of disclosable pecuniary interests and other interests, she would invite the Monitoring Officer to address members on an issue that had been raised in relation to agenda item 5 – Planning application MC/14/2914 – Rochester Airport, Maidstone Road, Chatham ME5 9SD.

The Monitoring Officer drew attention to comments set out on page 27 of the report stating that a representation had been received by the Council alleging that if any Members of the Planning Committee voted to approve the Rochester Airport Masterplan at Full Council on 23 January 2014, those Members would not be able to determine the Rochester Airport planning application on an impartial basis.

The Monitoring Officer advised that Members of the Committee would not be deemed to have predetermined the planning application just because they voted at Full Council in favour of the Masterplan. The same applied to those Members who voted against the Masterplan at Full Council.

He advised that the planning regime in this country was ‘plan-led’, which meant that decisions as to whether or not to grant planning permission must be taken with regard to the local plan (which was always approved by members at Full Council), and any other material considerations. The Masterplan was a material consideration, and so Members were legally required to have regard to it and give it due weight when deciding whether to grant planning permission. He referred to a Government report on Councillor Involvement in Planning Decisions and advised that this recommended that Members of Planning Committees should get involved in planning policy such as the preparation and approval of local plans and other planning documents. In Local Government, Members had dual roles in relation to planning policy and planning applications and there was no conflict between those roles.

In addition, he referred to Section 25 of the Localism Act 2011 and the case law on predetermination which made it quite clear that there was nothing wrong with Members who had been involved in making planning policy determining planning applications based on that planning policy.  Members would not be assumed to have predetermined an issue just because they had had some involvement in a related matter, even if they had a predisposition to vote a particular way in relation to it.  In the leading case of R (Lewis) v Redcar and Cleveland BC, the Court of Appeal held that the test for pre-determination was whether the Committee Members had made their decision with closed minds or the circumstances gave rise to a real risk of their having closed minds. Therefore, the fact that Committee Members had previously voted in favour of, or against, the Masterplan at Full Council was certainly not going to meet the legal test for predetermination of a planning application.

The Monitoring Officer further advised that Members must approach the decision with open minds and listen to all material considerations discussed at this meeting before deciding how to vote. In doing so, Members would  ...  view the full minutes text for item 630.

Rochester South and Horsted

Formation of a lit paved runway with parallel grass runway, formation of grassed bund, re-siting of helipad's, erection of two hangars, a hub building with control tower and associated building, erection of fencing and gates, formation of associated car parking areas, fuel tank enclosure, family viewing area and a memorial garden (detailed submission) plus demolition of a range of structures and removal of portable structures. 

Discussion:

At the commencement of considering this planning application there was a 5 minute adjournment to enable Members of the Committee to read the supplementary agenda advice sheet.

The Planning Consultant outlined the planning application in detail and explained that an airport had been sited at this location since the 1930’s. He outlined the existing facilities at Rochester Airport, and the reasons for the planning application. In particular, he drew attention to the existing grassed runways and explained the limitations on use of these grassed runways during inclement weather.

He confirmed that as a section of the site was located in Tonbridge and Malling, a separate planning application had been submitted to Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council for determination.

He explained that the applicant was seeking to replace the existing 830 metre long grass track runway 02R/20L (referred to as 02/20) with a hard runway which would be lit by surface level lighting. As a consequence of the provision of a new hard runway, the airport’s second grass runway 16/34 would be decommissioned, leaving an area of approximately 10.77 ha within the airport’s grounds that would no longer be required for airport operations.

The Committee was advised that runway 02/20 had been selected as the grassed runway to be paved owing to its orientation as runway 16/34 was a cross wind runway.

Using plans displayed at the meeting, the Planning Consultant outlined other elements of the proposed scheme including the resiting of the existing helipads, the siting of the proposed hangars which would replace existing structures on the application site and provision of a hub building with control tower.

It was explained that there was currently no limitations placed upon the number of aircraft movements at Rochester Airport but, in reality, the airport could not be used for a full 12 months owing to inclement weather and the grass surfaced runways. Should the planning application be approved, the applicant was intending to limit the number of aircraft movements to 40,000 per annum but had stressed that with use of the runway being extended to a 12 month period, such movements would be spread over a wider time period. In addition, the applicant was proposing to limit the hours of use of the airport, details of which were set out on page 35 of the agenda.

It was stressed that the applicant had no intention of changing the character of the airport or the type of planes using the airport and that the length of the runway would prohibit use of the airfield by larger turbo fan aircraft.

The Planning Consultant confirmed that the application had been assessed by an independent acoustic company and that in addition, given the specialist nature of assessing aircraft noise, the Council had appointed external consultants to undertake an independent assessment of the acoustic report. In addition, Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council had appointed an external consultant to undertake an assessment of the noise implications of the application. It was confirmed that when the original and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 631.

Princes Park 

Application for approval of reserved matters being external appearance, landscaping and layout pursuant to condition 1 (reserved matters approval), condition 6 (materials), condition 10 (risk assessment), condition 16 (refuse storage), of outline application MC/08/1043 for the construction of 15 dwellings with integral garages and associated parking.

Discussion:

At the conclusion of the determination of the previous planning application, the Committee had a brief adjournment to enable Members to read the remainder of the supplementary agenda advice sheet.

The Head of Planning outlined the planning application and advised the Committee that since despatch of the agenda, revised plans had been received in relation to landscaping, particularly for the areas around Plots 1 and 2.. Whilst the areas for landscaping were considered acceptable in principle, there were concerns as to the details of species and maintenance and therefore it was considered that whilst landscaping could be approved as a reserved matter in principle, it was recommended that if the Committee was minded to approve the application, an additional condition be approved, details of which was set out on the supplementary agenda advice sheet.

In addition, the Committee was advised of a suggested amendment to proposed condition 3.

Members discussed the planning application and expressed appreciation to the developers in that having undertaken a pre-application presentation prior to submitting the planning application, the developers had taken on board the views that had been expressed as to the proposed development of this site.

Members referred to the boundary treatment and the possible need for fencing on a section of the site and the Head of Planning drew attention to a condition on the outline planning approval that required the applicant to submit details of boundary treatment to the Local Planning Authority. He advised that this had not yet been signed off and therefore gave an assurance that Officers would deal with these matters as part of that condition.

Decision:

a)            Approved with conditions 1 – 2 as set out in the report for the reasons stated in the report and condition 3 as amended and new condition 4 as set out below:

3.         The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: B386TCP Rev R1 received 13 June 2014, 2151/14/A/2A received on 5 January 2015, T1440/SL/08 received 16 June 2014, T1440/SL/11 Rev C, T1440/SL/12 Rev B, T1440/SL/ 13 Rev A, T1440/SL/15 Rev A, T1440/PL/23 Rev B, T1440/PL/25, T1440/PL/26 Rev B, T1440/PL/28, T1440/PL/29 Rev A, T1440-30, T1440-31, T1440-32, T1440/PL/33, T1440/PL/34 Rev A, T1440/PL/35, T1440/PL/36 rev A, T1440/PL/37, T1440/PL/38 Rev A, received 1 October 2014 and T1440/PL/09 Rev E, T1440/SL/10 Rev E, T1440/PL/23 Rev F, T1440/SL/24 Rev F received 4 November 2014

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.  

4.        Notwithstanding the landscaping details submitted on 5 January on drawing 2151/14/A/2A, prior to the first occupation of any unit on site, full details of planting details, including updated cross sections, implementation plan and maintenance details shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  The approved details shall be implemented in accordance with the implementation plan and thereafter maintained in accordance with the maintenance details.

Reason: In the interests of the visual amenities of the area.

b)         In the light of the innovative design of the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 632.

Rochester East

Demolition of garages and construction of 6 one bedroom and 2 two bedroom flats with communal amenity together with associated parking, cycle storage and access. 

Discussion:

The Head of Planning reminded the Committee that consideration of this planning application had been deferred at the meeting on 3 December 2014 for further discussions with the applicant on the proposed development. He confirmed that such discussions had now taken place and the applicant had submitted a statement in support of their application and this was appended to the supplementary agenda advice sheet.

He advised that the applicant was requesting that the application as submitted be determined but that they were in agreement with an additional condition 17 being imposed to cover the issue of traffic calming in Hoopers Road. It was therefore suggested that if the Committee was minded to approve the planning application, the following additional condition be approved:

17. No part of the development shall be occupied until measures for traffic calming in Hoopers Road have been undertaken and paid for by the developer.

      Reason: In the interests of Highway Safety and to accord with Policy T1 of the Medway Local Plan 2003.

The Committee discussed the planning application and expressed concern that the applicant was continuing to pursue an application for a flatted development on this site when it was considered that there was an abundance of flats available in the locality of the application site. Members considered that a development of bungalows would have been preferable for this site. Members also expressed concern as to the design of the proposed development and the number of proposed flats and stated that these would create an overdevelopment of the site, loss of amenity in respect of overlooking for neighbouring properties and a loss of amenity for the potential occupiers of the proposed flats in respect of the nature of their construction.

Decision:  

a)            Refused on the following grounds:

1.      The proposed development will result in an overdevelopment of the site in respect of the number of proposed flats.

2.      The proposed development will result in a loss of amenity for occupiers of neighbouring properties by virtue of overlooking.

3.      The proposed design of the development will create a lack of amenity for the prospective occupiers of the proposed flats by virtue of the nature of the construction and the outlook.

b)         The Head of Planning approve the final wording of the above refusal grounds in consultation with the Chairman and Vice Chairman under delegated powers.

Rochester East

Demolition of existing garages and construction of 6 one bedroom flats, 5 two bedroom houses together with parking, bin storage and access. 

Discussion:

The Head of Planning reminded the Committee that consideration of this planning application had been deferred at the meeting on 3 December 2014 for further discussions with the applicant on the proposed development. He confirmed that such discussions had now taken place and the applicant had submitted a statement in support of their application and this was appended to the supplementary agenda advice sheet.

The Head of Planning confirmed that arising from discussions, the applicant had advised that the resident living at No. 17 would be offered a property within the new development.

During discussion on this application, a Member advised that Ward Councillors for Rochester East had suggested that if the Committee was minded to approve the application, the proposed Section 106 funding of £1,503.81 be directed towards a safer walking route in Rochester East Ward instead of enhancements to the Woodside Community Centre in Strood. This would ensure that this funding was available for the benefit of residents within the Ward in which the application site was located.

During discussion on this planning application, a Member suggested that the proposed rumble strips to be used for traffic calming be replaced by the provision of raised table traffic calming measures and the Head of Planning confirmed that this would be addressed under proposed condition 15.

Decision:  

Approved subject to:

A)        The applicant/owner entering into an agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act to secure:

i)                   A contribution of £15,679.86 towards open space and playground improvements at Copperfields Open Space to help meet the needs of the development.

ii)                 A contribution of £1,503.81 towards provision of a safe walking route in Rochester East Ward.

iii)               A contribution of £5,147 towards enhancing healthcare needs within NHS services

iv)                A contribution of £292 towards youth activities to meet Every Child Matters objectives

B)            Conditions 1 – 20 as set out in the report for the reasons stated in the report.

Strood South

Demolition of existing garages and construction of 10 one and two bedroom flats; undercroft and surface parking; landscaping and associated refuse and bin stores. 

Discussion:

The Head of Planning reminded the Committee that consideration of this planning application had been deferred at the meeting on 3 December 2014 for further discussions with the applicant on the proposed development. He confirmed that such discussions had now taken place and the applicant had submitted a statement in support of their application and this was appended to the supplementary agenda advice sheet.

The Committee discussed the planning application and Members expressed concern that the proposed development was an overdevelopment of the application site, out of character with the surrounding area, would result in overlooking of adjoining properties and create additional pressure for on street parking resulting in highway safety issues.

Decision: 

a)            Refused on the following grounds:

1.      The proposed development is out of character with the area and would have an adverse impact on the street scene.

2.      There is a lack of parking provision for the development and this will result in increased pressure for on street parking and will impact on highway safety.

3.      The proposed development will result in a degree of overlooking of adjoining properties and will therefore result in a loss of amenity for the occupiers of adjoining properties. 

b)         The Head of Planning approve the final wording of the above refusal grounds in consultation with the Chairman and Vice Chairman under delegated powers.

Watling

Retrospective application for increase in roof height of existing main building, alterations to external doors and windows and engineering works to front and side to facilitate hardstanding and a block of garages with new vehicle crossover access. 

Discussion:

The Head of Planning outlined the planning application and advised that since despatch of the agenda, the applicant had emailed to confirm that the premises were previously used as a printing business and his intention was to use the premises as private security storage for his personal vehicles although there may be some minor work undertaken to the vehicles.

Decision:  

Approved with conditions 1 – 4 as set out in the report for the reasons stated in the report.

Cuxton and Halling

Change of use and extension of stable buildings to form residential dwelling. 

Discussion:

The Head of Planning outlined the planning application and the reasons why this application was being recommended for refusal.

Decision: 

Refused on the grounds set out in the report.