Agenda and minutes

To approve the record of the meeting held on 4 February 2015

The record of the meeting held on 4 February 2015 was agreed and signed by the Chairman as correct. 

The Chairman drew attention to the supplementary agenda advice sheet which set out the final wording of the refusal grounds for planning application MC/14/2239 – 57 – 59 Luton High Street, Luton, Chatham ME5 7LP which had been agreed by the Head of Planning in consultation with the Chairman and Vice Chairman as follows:

1.    The proposed development makes inadequate provision for access, egress and on-site manoeuvring by delivery vehicles, which would have a detrimental impact on highway safety and the free-flow of traffic on Luton High Street, contrary to Policies T1 and T2 of the Medway Local Plan 2003

2.    The application site is outside of the Local Centre as defined in Policy R10 of the Medway Local Plan 2003 and the proposal would result in a form of development that would undermine the successful operation of a number of retails units within the Local Centre, possibly resulting in their closure and would therefore detrimentally impact on the vitality and viability of the Local Centre as a whole contrary to the objectives of Policy R10 of the Medway Local Plan 2003.

An apology for absence was received from the Chairman, Councillor Mrs Diane Chambers.

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

There were none.

On behalf of the Committee, the Chairman introduced Steve Platt, Democratic Services Officer to his first meeting of the Planning Committee.

Disclosable pecuniary interests

There were none.

Other interests

Councillor Adrian Gulvin, referring to planning application MC/14/2830 – Sherlodge Garage, 600 Lordswood Lane, Lordswood Chatham ME5 8NJ advised the Committee that as he wished to address the Committee as Ward Councillor, he would remove himself from the Committee and not take part in the consideration or determination of this planning application.

Councillor Carr referring to planning application MC/14/3788 – Sail and Colour Loft, Church Lane, Historic Dockyard, Chatham ME4 4TE, advised the Committee that as he was a member of the Chatham Historic Dockyard Trust and served on the Trust’s Property Board he would vacate the Chair and leave the meeting for the consideration and determination of this planning application.

Councillor Hicks  referred to planning application MC/14/3788 – Sail and Colour Loft, Church Lane, Historic Dockyard, Chatham ME4 4TE advised the Committee that although he serves on the University of Kent Liaison Committee he did not consider that he had any interest to declare in this planning application.

Councillor Mackness referring to planning application MC/14/3788 – Sail and Colour Loft, Church Lane, Historic Dockyard, Chatham ME4 4TE informed the Committee that whilst he was satisfied that he did not have a disclosable pecuniary interest in respect of this planning application, he would leave the meeting for the consideration and determination of the planning application so as to avoid any possible future challenge to any decision made by the Committee. He advised the Committee that he would in due course be discussing with the Head of Legal and the Chief Executive the need for clarity  and clear advice to Councillors on the issue of declaring disclosable pecuniary interests.

Strood North

Construction of 1 no. 4 bedroomed and 1 no. 3 bedroomed detached dwellings constructed within the existing underground reservoir with associated parking and external works.

Discussion:

The Head of Planning reminded the Committee that this planning application had been the subject of a site visit on 21 February 2015 at which the Senior Planner had set out the details of the planning application, a summary of the representations received and the planning issues as they related to matters of principle, planning policy, design, amenity, ecology and highways.

A summary of the points raised by local residents at the site visit both in support of and objecting to the planning application was summarised on the supplementary agenda advice sheet.

Councillors Chitty and Etheridge as Ward Councillors were in attendance at the site visit and had expressed concern as to the planning application but had stated that they would express their views when the application was resubmitted to the Planning Committee for determination.

Councillor Hubbard had advised that as a member of the Planning Committee he could not express a view at the site visit but would speak on the application when resubmitted to the Planning Committee.

Mark Reckless MP had outlined his concerns at the site visit and supported the views put forward by the objectors.

The Head of Planning advised the Committee that since the site visit, eight further letters of objection had been received reiterating many of the objections already received and setting out additional concerns, details of which were summarised on the supplementary agenda advice sheet.

The Head of Planning then outlined the planning application in detail.

With the agreement of the Committee, Councillors Etheridge and Chitty spoke on the application as Ward Councillors and outlined their objections to the planning application.

The Committee then discussed the application having regard to the concerns expressed by local residents and the Ward Councillors.

Members expressed the view that whilst there was a desire for an increased provision of high energy efficient homes in Medway, the location of the proposed dwellings would result in a lack of amenity for the prospective occupiers of the dwellings on the basis that the outlook comprised a telecommunications mast and its compound.

Members referred to Policy L3 (Protected Open Space) of the Medway Local Plan which sought to protect the loss of existing formal open space, informal open space, allotments or amenity land unless certain criteria were met and expressed the view that the proposed development by virtue of its appearance and design failed to demonstrate that it met the ‘exception’ criteria of Policy L3.

Furthermore, Members considered that the proposed development would have a detrimental impact on the character, appearance and functioning of the protected open space.at Broomhill Park.

Decision:

Refused on the following ground:

The application is by virtue of its location and design contrary to the provisions set out within the Medway Local Plan (2003) Policies BNE1 and L3 and the National Planning Policy Framework (2012), having a detrimental impact on the character, appearance and functioning of the Protected Open Space of Broomhill Park. The appearance and design of the scheme does not represent ‘exceptional design’ enough  ...  view the full minutes text for item 801.

Lordswood and Capstone

Retention of the Primary Use of Equestrian Activities (Riding School) and Change of Use to provide Additional Indoor Educational Facilities incorporating the existing Outdoor Pets Corner and Educational Class Room, supported by additional information provided with supplementary information.

Discussion:

The Head of Planning requested that consideration of this application be deferred pending consideration of the Planning Inspector’s decision on planning application MC/13/2264 which was anticipated shortly.

The Head of Planning gave an assurance that if the report is re-submitted at a future date, attention will be given to ensuring sufficient explanation of various planning terminology within the report.

Decision:

Consideration of this planning application be deferred until the outcome of the Planning Inspector’s report on planning application MC/13/2264 is known.

Discussion:

The Head of Planning outlined the planning application in detail.

He advised the Committee that since despatch of the agenda, one further letter of objection had been received stating that the development will unacceptably cause overlooking and loss of light and will impact on the narrow highway both during construction and when complete.

With the agreement of the Committee, Councillor Tolhurst spoke on the planning application as Ward Councillor and outlined resident’s concerns regarding the proposed development. She requested that the Committee undertake a site visit to view the application site.

Referring to the proposed Section 106 funding should this planning application be approved, Councillor Tolhurst suggested that it would be more appropriate for the funding currently requested for electrical works at Great Lines Heritage Park to be redirected to open space provision in Borstal. In addition, she considered that the level of funding requested for nursery and primary school provision in Borstal was insufficient.

Decision:

Consideration of this application be deferred pending a site visit.

Walderslade

Construction of a canopy to facilitate part change of use to provide a hand car wash and valeting business (sui-generis).

Discussion:

The Head of Planning outlined the planning application and reminded the Committee that this application had been the subject of a site visit on 21 February 2015 at which the Head of Planning had set out the details of the application, a summary of the representation received and the planning issues as they related to matters of principle, design, amenity and highways.

At the site visit, the agent had outlined the benefits from the enclosure in terms of sound and disturbance and confirmed that a pressure washer would not be used. In addition he had clarified the fire access from the main building.

Residents had outlined a number of concerns relating to the application, in particular highlighting issues currently experienced taking into account that the car wash and valeting business was already in operation, details of which were summarised on the supplementary agenda advice sheet along with concerns highlighted by Councillors Brake and Adrian Gulvin as Ward Councillors.

It was suggested that if the Committee was minded to approve the planning application, an additional condition 7 be approved, details of which was set out on the supplementary agenda advice sheet.

With the agreement of the Committee, both Councillors Brake and Adrian Gulvin spoke on this planning application as Ward Councillors and highlighted that as this was a retrospective planning application, residents were already experiencing problems with the car wash facility and they both reinforced the concerns of residents as outlined in the report and at the site visit. Concern was also expressed as to enforcement of the proposed conditions should the planning application be approved.

The Committee discussed the planning application having regard to a similar car wash facility previously operated by the applicant at The Victoria Cross Public House 614, Lordswood Lane. It was noted that this particular retrospective application had been refused on three grounds relating to noise and disturbance, visual clutter and pollution. A subsequent appeal against this refusal had been dismissed with the Planning Inspector finding that the noise was harmful to the living conditions of neighbours. However, the Planning Inspector did not agree that the operation was out of keeping with the character and appearance of the area and he also stated that the risk of pollution could be dealt with by a planning condition. In the light of this decision, the Committee was mindful that the current planning application was for the siting of a car wash and valeting business on an existing garage site.

The Committee had regard to the proposed conditions and it was suggested that if the Committee was minded to approve the planning application, proposed condition 5 be amended to restrict the hand car wash and valeting business to the hours of 09.00 to 18.00 Mondays to Fridays inclusive and 10.00 to 16.00 on Saturdays and Sundays and Public Holidays.

In addition, it was suggested that before planning permission was granted, an acoustic fence be provided on the boundary of Huckleberry Close to the satisfaction of the Local Planning  ...  view the full minutes text for item 804.

Peninsula

Construction of a new grading, packing and storage facility with ancillary access, hardstanding, landscaping and relocation of refuelling point.

Discussion:

The Planning Consultant outlined the planning application and advised the Committee that since despatch of the agenda further representations had been received from Hoo St Werburgh Parish Council and three individuals objecting to the planning application, details of which were summarised on the supplementary agenda advice sheet. He drew attention to the objectors request for the Planning Committee to undertake a site visit before determining the application.

The Planning Consultant as part of his presentation also covered planning applications MC/15/0063, MC/14/0936 and MC/14/1418.

With the agreement of the Committee, Councillor Irvine, as Ward Councillor spoke on this planning application and those submitted under MC/15/0063, MC/14/0936 and MC/14/1418 outlining residents concerns. In particular, he supported the objectors request for the Committee to undertake a site visit before determining the planning applications having particular regard to the residential properties in Christmas Lane.

Decision:

Consideration of this application be deferred pending a site visit.

Peninsula

Variation of condition 1, 2 and 3 to allow a minor material amendment to planning permission MC/14/1414 to include acoustic fence stain detail on amended plan and provision of the mixed hedgerows and alder shelterbelt within the first possible planting season.

Discussion:

The Planning Consultant outlined the planning application and advised the Committee that this particular planning application related to the variation of conditions 1, 2 and 3 of planning permission MC/14/1414 for minor amendments.

Decision:

Approved with conditions 1- 7  as set out in the report for the reasons stated in the report.

Peninsula

Details pursuant to condition 10 of planning permission MC/08/1121 - Outline application for construction of a fruit processing and storage facility with associated parking.

Discussion:

The Planning Consultant outlined the planning application in detail and as part of his presentation he also covered planning applications MC/15/3063, MC/15/0063 and MC/14/1418.

With the agreement of the Committee, Councillor Irvine, as Ward Councillor spoke on this planning application and those submitted under MC/15/3063, MC/15/0063 and MC/14/1418 outlining residents concerns. In particular, he supported the objectors request for the Committee to undertake a site visit before determining the planning applications having particular regard to the residential properties in Christmas Lane.

Decision:

Consideration of this application be deferred pending a site visit.

Peninsula

Change of use of land and creation of a area of hardstanding to provide for the stationing and storage of 6 caravans for agricultural workers.

Discussion:

The Planning Consultant outlined the planning application and advised the Committee that since despatch of the agenda one further representation had been received details of which were summarised on the supplementary agenda advice sheet.

The Planning Consultant as part of his presentation also covered planning applications MC/15/3063, MC/15/0063 and MC/14/0936.

With the agreement of the Committee, Councillor Irvine, as Ward Councillor spoke on this planning application and those submitted under MC/15/3063, MC/15/0063 and MC/14/0936 outlining residents concerns. In particular, he supported the objectors request for the Committee to undertake a site visit before determining the planning applications having particular regard to the residential properties in Christmas Lane.

Decision:

Consideration of this application be deferred pending a site visit.

River

Construction of a block comprising six 2 no. bedrooms self-contained flats with associated parking (demolition of buildings).

Discussion:

The Head of Planning outlined the planning application and drew attention to a previous application for this site (MC/08/1664) for an identical development. This had been refused by the Committee on 25 November 2008 but had subsequently been allowed at appeal on 24 November 2009. He advised the Committee that is particular planning application was for the renewal of the previous planning permission.

The Committee discussed the application having regard to the Council’s Housing Design Standards. The Head of Planning confirmed that the applicants had submitted floor plans for the proposed development and Officers were satisfied that whilst some rooms that fell short of the Council’s Housing Design Standards, the proposed development was considered acceptable.

Decision:

Approved with conditions 1 – 11 as set out in the report for the reasons stated in the report.

Gillingham North

Construction of 5 three bedroomed houses to the rear of The Black Lion Public House and conversion of The Black Lion Public House to 1 five bedroomed and 1 three bedroomed residential dwellings.

Discussion:

The Head of Planning outlined the planning application and referred to previous applications which had been submitted for this particular application site.

The Committee discussed the planning application noting that previous concerns regarding access onto Mill Road had now been addressed by the applicant.

Decision:

Approved with conditions 1 – 12 as set out in the report for the reasons stated in the report.

Rainham North

Construction of a two storey front extension to existing workshop and re-location of existing fuel tank.

Discussion:

The Head of Planning outlined the planning application and advised the Committee that since despatch of the agenda, the applicant had submitted a number of comments, details of which were summarised on the supplementary agenda advice sheet.

He suggested that if the Committee was minded to approve the application, an additional condition 5 be approved as set out on the supplementary agenda advice sheet.

Decision:

Approved with conditions 1 – 4 as set out in the report for the reasons stated in the report and an additional condition 5 as set out below:

5.         No car repairs including MOT’s or spraying shall take place within the entire site outside of the hours of 08.00 – 18.00 Mondays to Saturdays inclusive or at anytime on Sundays or National Holidays.

Reason: To protect the residential amenities of the area and to accord with Policy BNE2 of the Medway Local Plan 2003.

Peninsula

Demolition of existing buildings and change of use of land to provide an extension to existing mobile home park.

Discussion:

The Head of Planning outlined the planning application and, in response to a question from a Member, confirmed that the applicant had agreed to retain and resurface public footpath RS93.

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 £5925.96 towards Community Centres and Neighbourhood Facilities

(ii)        A contribution of £20,284.20 to the NHS towards improving doctors surgery and health care facilities in the area

(ii)          A contribution of £82,517.40 towards improvements to open space provision in the area.

B)                Conditions 1 – 12 as set out in the report for the reasons stated in the report.

Chatham Central

Conversion of existing office building into three self-contained residential units  consisting of 2 one bedroom flats and 1 two-bedroom maisonette together with two storey rear extension and external alterations (demolition of existing rear extension) and resubmission of MC/14/2389

Discussion:

The Planner outlined the planning application in detail and suggested that if the Committee was minded to approve the planning application, a new condition 9 be approved, details of which were set out in the supplementary agenda advice sheet.

The Planner’s presentation covered this planning application and planning application MC/14/3567.

With the agreement of the Committee, Councillor Maple spoke on this planning application and MC/14/3567 as Ward Councillor and requested that the Committee refuse the planning application based on the limited floorspace proposed for the flats. In addition, he suggested that if the Committee was minded to approve the planning application, an additional condition be approved stating that the residents of the proposed flats not be permitted to have resident’s parking permits.

The Committee discussed the planning application having regard to the fact that this planning application related to the conversion of an existing building and the need for a developer to work within existing constraints.

The Head of Planning advised the Committer that whilst he understood Member’s concerns relating to the Housing Design Standards and parking provision, internal works within the building could be undertaken under permitted development rights. The Planner confirmed that the planning application had been submitted as a result of proposed external alterations.  

Decision:

Approved with conditions 1 – 8 as set out in the report for the reasons stated in the report and new conditions 9 and 10 as set out below:

9.         No development shall take place until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority details and a plan indicating the positions, design, materials, type of boundary and landscaping treatment including the parapet wall to be established to the rear of the property.  The boundary and landscaping treatment shall be completed before the use hereby permitted is commenced and shall thereafter be retained.  Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure that the appearance of the development is satisfactory and without prejudice to conditions of visual amenity in the locality, in accordance with Policy BNE1 and BNE14 of the Medway Local Plan 2003.

10.       Residents of the flats hereby approved shall not be entitled to apply for or acquire parking permits for on street parking in the local area.

Reason: To ensure that the development permitted does not prejudice conditions of highway safety or efficiency and to accord with Policy T1 of the Medway Local Plan 2003.

Chatham Central

Listed building application for conversion of existing office building into three self-contained residential units consisting of 2 one bedroom flats and 1 two-bedroom maisonette together with two storey rear extension and external alterations (demolition of existing rear extension and resubmission of MC/14/2662).

Discussion:

The Planner outlined the planning application in detail and suggested that if the Committee was minded to approve the planning application, a new condition 7 be approved, details of which were set out in the supplementary agenda advice sheet.

The Planner’s presentation covered this planning application and MC/14/3516.

With the agreement of the Committee, Councillor Maple spoke on this planning application and planning application  MC/14/3516 as Ward Councillor.  

Decision:

Approved with conditions 1 – 6 as set out in the report for the reasons stated in the report and a new condition 7 as set out below:

7.         No development shall take place until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority details and a plan indicating the positions, design, materials, type of boundary and landscaping treatment including the parapet wall to be established to the rear of the property.  The boundary and landscaping treatment shall be completed before the use hereby permitted is commenced and shall thereafter be retained.  Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure that the appearance of the development is satisfactory and without prejudice to conditions of visual amenity in the locality, in accordance with Policy BNE1 and BNE14 of the Medway Local Plan 2003.

Strood Rural

Outline application with all matters reserved for construction of a 4-bedroomed detached dwelling with associated parking.

Discussion:

The Planning Consultant outlined the planning application in detail.

Member’s discussed the application and expressed concern that whilst this application was for outline planning permission, it related to the construction of a 4 bedroomed dwelling. Concern was expressed that the Committee was being asked to grant approval for a 4 bedroomed house without having the necessary information as to the footprint of the proposed dwelling.

Decision:

Consideration of this application was deferred at the request of the Head of Planning.

Strood North

Construction of a single storey rear extension with rooflight together with engineering works to front garden to create block paved off road parking area to front.

Discussion:

The Planning Consultant outlined the planning application in detail.

Decision:

Approved with conditions 1 – 3 as set out in the report for the reasons stated in the report.

Watling

Change of use from A3 (restaurant) to A3/A5 (restaurant and takeaway).

Discussion:

The Planner outlined the planning application in detail.

Members discussed the application having regard to the location of the property and the request for change of use from a restaurant to a restaurant and takeaway.

The Planner drew attention to proposed condition 3 which stipulated that the hot food delivery service shall not operate separately from the restaurant use and proposed condition 4 restricting the hours of operation of the A5 (takeaway) use.

The Committee was advised that in recommending approval of the change of use, Officers had had regard to the adoption of the ‘Hot Food Takeaways in Medway: A Guidance Note’ adopted by the Council on 15 July 2014 and the breakdown of type units in this area of Watling Street as at January 2015. It was stressed that the restaurant A3 use would continue to be the main function of the property and the A5 use was proposed to be ancillary to the A3 use.

Decision:

Approved with conditions 1 – 7 as set out in the report for the reasons stated in the report.

Discussion:

In the absence of the Chairman and  Vice Chairman, Councillor Royle was elected to Chair the meeting for the consideration and determination of this planning application.

The Planner outlined the planning application in detail.

The Committee discussed the report and Members expressed the need to ensure that the proposed change of use did not result in detriment to local residents in respect of parking provision.

Decision:

Approved with conditions 1 – 4 as set out in the report for the reasons stated in the report and a new condition 5 as set out below:

5.         No development shall take place until a parking plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  The plan shall include details of how the parking plan will be enforced.  The use shall operate in accordance with the approved details.

Reason To provide satisfactory and appropriate parking for the use and to protect the character of the area and amenities of the other occupiers of the dockyard.

Strood South

Construction of a replacement building to provide three retail units (Class A1), cafe (Class A3) and a gym (Class D2), removal of existing slip road, alterations to car park and other associated works (demolition existing unit.

Discussion:

The Head of Planning reminded the Committee that consideration of this application had been deferred at the meeting on 4 February 2015 so as to enable further discussion in respect of the access onto Knight Road.

The Head of Planning advised the Committee that since despatch of the agenda, three further representations had been received objecting to the application and details of these objections along with comments received from Kent County Council’s Archaeological Team and Southern Water were summarised on the supplementary agenda advice sheet.

Also set out on the supplementary agenda advice sheet was an officer appraisal on the impact that the proposed development would have upon trees and a summary of action since the last meeting. This included comments from the agent on various traffic management options and officer’s comments.

He informed the Committee that in line with the Council’s Tree Officer’s advice, should the Committee be minded to approve the application, proposed condition 7 be amended to that set out on the supplementary agenda advice sheet. In addition, it was also proposed that a new condition 23 be approved also as set out on the supplementary agenda advice sheet.

The Committee discussed the application having regard to traffic management generally and, in particular the access from the application site onto Knight Road.

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)          £2,214 towards traffic management improvements on Commercial Road;

ii)         £15,048 towards enhanced pedestrian crossing facilities on the Strood Retail Park access road.

B)        Conditions 1 – 6 and 8 – 22 as set out in the report for the reasons stated in the report and revised condition 7 and new condition 23 as follows:

7.       Notwithstanding the details submitted in support of the planning application, no development shall commence until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority:

a)     A topographical survey using a scaleable drawing that shows the position of and allocating a reference number to:

i)      Each existing tree within the site with a stem diameter of 75mm or more, measured at 1.5m above the highest adjacent ground level, or in the case of woodlands or substantial tree groups, only individual trees with stem diameters greater than 150mm;

ii)      Each tree with an estimated stem diameter of 75mm or more that overhang the site or are located beyond the site boundaries, within a distance of up to 12 times their estimated stem diameter.

For individual trees the crown spread shall be shown at the four cardinal points, for woodlands or substantial groups of trees the overall extent of the canopy shall be shown. Spot levels, other relevant landscape features and artefacts shall also be recorded, taking account of the recommendations contained in paragraph 4.2.4 of British Standard 5837.

b)     A tree survey, which includes all trees included on the topographical survey (see (a) above) and which takes account of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 819.

This report sets out appeal decisions for the period October – December 2014.

Discussion:

The Committee received a report setting out appeal decisions for the period October – December 2014.

Decision:

The Committee noted the report.

Discussion:

The Committee received a report setting out Section 215 enforcement action for the period October – December 2015.

Decision:

The Committee noted the report.

This report sets out for information action taken by the Derelict Buildings Officer during the period October – December 2014.

Discussion:

The Committee received a report setting out action undertaken by the Derelict Buildings Officer for the period October – December 2015.

Councillor Hicks raised a query on a particular site and agreed to liaise direct with the Derelict Buildings Officer.

Decision:

The Committee noted the report.

This report sets out for information enforcement activity for the period October – December 2014.

Discussion:

The Committee received a report setting out enforcement action for the period October – December 2015.

Decision:

The Committee noted the report.