Agenda and minutes

In the absence of the Chairman and Vice Chairman, the Committee was requested to appoint a Chairman for this meeting.

Decision:

It was agreed that in the absence of the Chairman, Councillor Carr be appointed to Chair this meeting.

To approve the record of the meeting held on 29 April 2015.

The record of the meeting held on 29 April 2015 was agreed and signed by the Chairman as correct. 

Prior to receiving apologies for absence, the Democratic Services Officer advised the Committee that since despatch of the agenda, there had been a change to the membership of the Committee in that Councillor Stamp had been replaced by Councillor McDonald. However, Councillor McDonald was not in attendance at this meeting.

Apologies for absence were received from the Chairman, Councillor Mrs Diane Chambers and the Vice Chairman, Councillor Hicks and Councillors Gilry and McDonald.

As this was the first meeting of the Planning Committee attended by a number of newly elected Members, the Chairman reminded Members that if they left the room for any part of the introduction or discussion on a planning application, they should not rejoin the Committee for the debate and decision-making for that particular application. 

The Chairman also drew attention to an additional item that had been circulated concerning an urgent enforcement report relating to a site in Strood. He advised the Committee that he had accepted this report as an urgent item for consideration at this meeting for the reasons stated in the report. This item would be considered at the end of the meeting following the exclusion of the press and public.

Disclosable pecuniary interests

There were none.

Other interests

Immediately prior to the consideration of the urgent item, Councillor Etheridge advised the Committee that he had knowledge of the individual named within the committee report. Therefore, Councillor Etheridge left the meeting for the consideration and determination of this item.

Councillor Maple referred to planning application MC/14/3882 Site J5/J6 , Chatham Maritime and advised the Committee that he would withdraw from the meeting for the consideration and determination of this planning application on the basis that a close relation lived at the application site.

Councillor Wildey referred to planning application MC/15/0873 – 208 Windmill Road, Gillingham and advised that although he had a relation that lived near the application site, he had not discussed the planning application with anyone and therefore would stay and participate in the determination of the planning application.

Rochester West

Construction of 9 two bedroom and 9 three bedroom houses with associated access and parking and formation of community open space (Resubmission of MC/14/2862)

Discussion:

The Head of Planning outlined the planning application and advised the Committee that this planning application had previously been submitted to the Committee for consideration on 4 March 2015 following which the Committee had decided to defer consideration pending a site visit. However, following the meeting and prior to the site visit being arranged, the applicant had withdrawn the planning application.

He advised that the planning application had now been resubmitted. The Head of Planning reported that Councillor Tolhurst as Ward Councillor and Local MP had emailed referring to the previous decision to hold a site visit and had asked that the Committee once again defer for a site visit.

Decision: 

Consideration of the application be deferred pending a site visit.

Rochester South and Horsted 

Redevelopment of the site to provide 265 dwellings comprising of 99 houses, 103 apartments and 63 extra care units in buildings extending between 2 and 3.5 storeys in height together with hard and soft landscaping, open space, parking and associated infrastructure works.

Discussion:

The Planning Manager -Major Projects outlined the planning application in detail and drew attention to the following corrections in the committee report:

Page 59 – should read 22 x 2 bed units and 43 x 3 bed units

Page 59 – should read 400 parking spaces (it was confirmed that this was still within Medway’s Parking Standards)

The Planning Manager - Major Projects advised the committee that this particular planning application related to Phase 2 of the scheme and would involved the provision of 265 dwellings and 63 extra care units. Although the proposed development involved encroachment into an area of local landscape importance, this was considered to be minimal and any open space that would be lost as part of the development would be compensated by the provision of open space within the development.

He drew attention to the supplementary agenda advice sheet and suggested that if the Committee was minded to approve the application, a number of changes be approved relating to the proposed Section 106 agreement and conditions as set out on the supplementary agenda advice sheet.

The Committee discussed the application and referred in particular to the proposed level of affordable housing. It was accepted that each development would be considered on a case by case basis and the provision of the extra care units and a community facility was welcomed.

The Principal Transport Planner gave an assurance that the in-depth transport analysis undertaken at the first phase of the development had taken account of the latter phase and therefore the proposed development now placed before the Committee for determination would not result in an increase in traffic movements originally planned for.

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)          Provision of 63 Extra Care Units

ii)         £120,000 towards the creation of small and medium sized business space within Medway including at the Innovation Centre.

iii)        £31,010.40 towards waste and recycling

iv)        £64,925 towards public realm improvements in Chatham Town Centre

v)         £93,122.05 towards healthcare provision at Maidstone Road surgery, King George Road surgery, City Way surgery, DMC Walderslade and/or Wayfield Road surgery

vi)        £159,588 towards the provision of primary school places at New Horizons School

vii)       £300 per trigger event for monitoring officers costs

viii)      Submission of a waste and recycling management strategy

B)   Conditions 1, 3, 5 – 10, 14 – 15, 18 – 23, 25 and 26 as set out in the report for the reasons stated in the report and conditions 2, 4, 11, 12, 13 and 24 amended as set out below, the deletion of conditions 16 and 17 and the imposition of a new condition 27 as set out below and with those conditions numbered 18 - 27 in the report being renumbered 16 – 25 and with delegated authority being granted to the Head of Planning to make minor amendments to the wording of the conditions if considered desirable before the issuing  ...  view the full minutes text for item 21.

Gillingham South

Application for approval of reserved matters (appearance and landscaping) pursuant to conditions 1 of Outline permission MC/11/1109 - for demolition of bungalow & construction of 10 flats.

Discussion:

The Planning Consultant outlined the planning application in detail and reminded the Committee that as this was an application for reserved matters (appearance and landscaping) pursuant to condition 1 of outline permission MC/11/1109, it was not appropriate for the Committee to consider representations received relating to matters that did not relate to external appearance and landscaping.

He informed the Committee that as the applicant had not supplied any of the details that would normally be expected to be part of a reserved matters planning application, subject to approval, the proposed conditions would require such information to be submitted to the Local Planning Authority.

Decision:

Approved with conditions 1 – 5 as set out in the report for the reasons stated in the report.

Gillingham South

Conversion of existing residential house into a pair of semi-detached houses together with the construction of a single storey front extension to form 2 separate entrances (demolition of existing single storey front projection of 142 and detached warehouse 142a Napier Road).

Discussion:

The Head of Planning outlined the planning application in detail.

Decision: 

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

Rochester West

Construction of a detached three bedroom dwelling with associated parking.

Discussion:

The Head of Planning outlined the planning application in detail.

A Member expressed concern that while he was happy that this application was acceptable other development of garden land in Medway may result in cramming and loss of open aspect in the urban area and he asked that this issue be considered by Officers when preparing the Medway Local Plan. The Head of Planning confirmed that he had noted these concerns.

Decision:

Approved with conditions 1 – 6 as set out in the report for the reasons stated in the report.

Luton and Wayfield

Construction of a two storey block comprising of four 2-bedroomed self-contained flats with associated parking, cycle store and amenity space (demolition of existing toilet block).

Discussion:

The Head of Planning outlined the planning application in detail and drew attention to an amendment to the site plan circulated with the agenda in respect of the location of the proposed development site.

He advised that since despatch of the agenda, KCC Ecology had written advising that the proposed development had limited potential for ecological impacts and therefore there was no requirement for an ecological scoping survey. However, it had been suggested that as there were likely to be bats present in the area, features for roosting bats should be included within the proposed building.

The Head of Planning outlined the benefits of the proposed development in respect of the enhancement of the area, improvement to the street scene and security at the Golf Centre. He suggested that if the Committee was minded to approve the planning application, a new condition 8 be approved as set out on the supplementary agenda advice sheet to take account of the views of KCC Ecology.

A Member requested clarification on weight to be attached to some of the planning considerations, particularly the reference to the scheme potentially securing the long term future of the driving range. The Head of Planning provided guidance on the balancing of the planning issues and the weight to be attached to each one.

Decision:

Approved with conditions 1 – 7 as set out in the report for the reasons stated in the report and condition 8 as set out below:

8.         The details submitted pursuant to condition 3 shall make provision for the inclusion of bat bricks and/or tiles and the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: In the interests of Ecological enhancement.

Rochester East

Application for a minor material amendment to planning permission MC/14/3339 to change the description to retrospective change of use from mixed  use to HMO and temporary hostel.

Discussion:

The Head of Planning reminded the Committee that this application had been considered by the Committee at its meeting on 29 April 2015, following which consideration had been deferred pending a full explanation of the use classes.

This information had now been included with the report.

Decision:

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

This report summarises the content of agenda item 13 which, in the opinion of the proper officer, contains exempt information within one of the categories in Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972. It is a matter for the Committee to determine whether the press and public should be excluded from the meeting during consideration of document.

The Committee agreed to ask the press and public to leave the meeting because the following items contained sensitive information relating to current legal proceedings. The information was considered to be exempt under paragraph 3 (for item 13 on the agenda) and paragraphs 5 and 6 (for the urgent item) of part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972. 

River

Application under Section 106BA of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) and the Growth and Infrastructure Act 2013 to modify the affordable housing requirement of planning permission MC2007/0533

Site J5/J6, Chatham Maritime, Chatham, Kent.

Discussion:

The Planning Consultant advised the Committee of receipt of an application under Section 106BA of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) and the Growth and Infrastructure Act 2013 to modify the affordable housing requirement of planning permission MC2007/0533.

The Committee was advised that as this application was the subject of a non-determination appeal, it was necessary for the Council to determine the decision that it would have made upon the application had it been in a position to determine the application.

The Planning Consultant informed the Committee of the background to the development and advised the Committee of Officer’s recommendations having regard to the legislation and national policy relating to the consideration of applications under Section 106BA of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

The Committee discussed the application in detail.

Decision: 

Had the Council been in a position to determine the application, it would have refused permission for the following reason:

In the light of the fact that the development has been completed the existence of the affordable housing obligation has not delayed the delivery of the permitted housing.  Accordingly there is no justification under Section 106BA of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) for modifying the Section 106 agreement accompanying planning permission MC/2007/0533 by permitting the removal of the obligation to make an affordable housing contribution.

This report recommends to the Planning Committee that enforcement action be taken to resolve a breach of Planning Control at a site in Strood, Rochester.

This item will be considered as an urgent item with the agreement of the Chairman and is a matter of urgency because of the continuing breaches that are taking place and because any delay could mean further detrimental works could take place. Delays could also increase the costs associated with any enforcement action and may impact on the Council’s ability to recover such costs.

This is an exempt item.

Discussion:

The Head of Planning advised the Committee that this report had been circulated with the agreement of the Chairman as an urgent item because of continuing breaches of planning permission that were taking place and because any delay could mean further detrimental works being undertaken. It was also considered that delays could increase the costs associated with any enforcement action and may impact on the Council’s ability to recover such costs.

The Committee discussed the report noting the contents of the report and the information supplied by the Head of Planning. 

The Committee noted that in the absence of further action by the Council it was unlikely that there would be compliance with the requirements of the outstanding enforcement notice.  The Committee gave consideration to the owner’s rights to peaceful enjoyment of his property but also noted that those rights were not absolute and the wider impact of the breaches of planning permission also had to be taken into account.  The Committee noted the implications of further enforcement action should this be the preferred option of the Committee.

Decision: 

In the light of the factors outlined in the report, further enforcement action be authorised to secure compliance with the enforcement notice of 17 August 2012.