Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Adeoye, McDonald and Chrissy Stamp.

To approve the record of the meeting held on 9 February 2022.

The record of the meeting held on 9 February 2022 was agreed and signed by the Chairman as correct. 

The Committee was advised that under delegated authority the following refusal ground had been approved by the Head of Planning in consultation with the Chairman, Vice Chairman and Opposition Spokesperson:

Minute 680 – Planning application – MC/21/3436 – 16 Stour Close, Strood, Rochester

Refused on the following ground:

1          The proposal, by virtue of the site layout with two parking spaces serving two properties and refuse storage in the frontage, would result in a cramped overdevelopment of the site. The proposed parking would impede on the vehicular access and parking situation in the Close, while the under provision of parking would result in increased parking pressure on the surroundings roads thereby having an adverse impact on occupiers and neighbour’s amenity.  The proposal is therefore contrary to Policies BNE1 and BNE2 of the Medway Local Plan 2003.

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.

Members are invited to disclose any Disclosable Pecuniary Interests or Other Significant Interests in accordance with the Member Code of Conduct.  Guidance on this is set out in agenda item 4.

Disclosable pecuniary interests

There were none.

Other significant interests (OSIs)

Councillor Tranter referred to planning application MC/21/2965 – 122 Maidstone Road, Chatham and advised that although he had not discussed this application, a friend lived next door and therefore he would leave the meeting for the consideration and determination of this application.

Other interests

Councillor Curry referred to planning application MC/21/2588 – Land between Roman Way and Knight Road East on Medway Valley Railway Line (Temple Waterfront), Strood, Rochester and advised that although he had worked with Medway Council as a Consultant on this site, he had not received any consultancy work since becoming a Medway Councillor and therefore he did not consider that he had any interest to declare but just wished this to be noted.

Cuxton and Halling Ward

Construction of a winery building including café/restaurant and visitor centre with energy centre, car park, access road and landscaping.

Discussion: 

The Head of Planning reminded the Committee that this application had originally been considered by the Committee at its meeting on 8 December 2021, following which the application had been deferred to enable the Committee to visit the application site and participate in a question and answer (Q&A) session with the applicant to clarify a number of issues raised at the meeting in December.

The Head of Planning reminded the Committee that the site visit had taken place on 15 January 2022 and Members and officers had walked the application site and visited the junction of Bush Rd and the A228.

The Q & A session had taken place on 22 February 2022 allowing the Committee to ask questions of the applicant for clarification on the issues raised at the meeting on 8 December 2021.

The Head of Planning then outlined the planning application in detail and informed the Committee that since despatch of the agenda, the applicant had submitted a Briefing Note for the Committee summarising the benefits of the proposal and a Highways Technical Note. Both documents were appended to the supplementary agenda advice sheet.

He further advised that Cuxton Parish Council on behalf of residents who objected to the proposal had emailed the Committee two documents titled ‘A Community Insight for Medway Planning Committee’ dated 7 February 2022 and ‘Supplementary Community Information for Medway Planning Committee’ dated March 2022. Both were also appended to the supplementary agenda advice sheet.

The Committee was also informed that an additional 341 objections had been received since the Planning Committee meeting on 8 December 2021 and of these, 175 had been received via an on-line auto-generated proforma created by objectors.  Given the nature of these representations, they were being treated by the Local Planning Authority as a petition.

An additional 231 letters of support had been received since the meeting of the Planning Committee on 8 December 2021. Of these 225 had been received via an on-line auto-generated proforma created by the applicant. Again, given the nature of these representations, they were being treated by the Local Planning Authority as a petition. However, it had been brought to the attention of the Local Planning Authority that by using the online auto generated proforma, the applicant had opened themselves to its misuse and potential fraudulent submissions from unknown sources and to prevent this, the applicants had switched off this representation tool on 17 February 2022. It was confirmed that the numbers reported did not include those representations of support that had been identified as fraudulent.

The Head of Planning explained the various elements of the application including the construction of a winery building. This included a café/restaurant and visitor centre with energy centre, car park, access road and landscaping.

He reminded the Committee that in determining the planning application, the Committee was required to consider the application on its planning merits having regard to all the information available and to determine the application based on an assessment of this information.

In  ...  view the full minutes text for item 724.

River Ward

Partial demolition of existing buildings and construction of a 4 storey residential student accommodation building (Class C2) comprising 85 bedrooms (including 2 for staff), with parking, amenity space and associated infrastructure.

Discussion:  

The Planning Manager outlined the planning application and informed the Committee that the report required amendment to add Southern Water to the list of consultees set out on page 95 of the agenda papers.

Decision: 

Approved subject to:

a)             The applicant entering into a legal agreement under the terms of Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to secure:

i)               £22,865 towards health improvements in capacity in primary care premises.

ii)              £8,500 towards public realm improvements to Rochester High Street.

iii)            £15,229 towards strategic measures in respect of the coastal North Kent Special Protection Areas (SPAs)/Ramsar sites.

iv)            Meeting the Council’s costs. 

b)             Conditions 1 – 27 as set out in the report for the reasons stated in the report.

Strood South Ward

Application for approval of reserved matters being access, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale, details to provide 132 new dwellings of Phase 2 of Outline Permission MC/09/0417 all matters reserved providing up to 620 units (Use Class C3); up to 10,300 sqm of employment floorspace (Use Classes B1a/b/c, B2 and B8); up to 1,800 sqm of retail floorspace (Use Classes A1 to A5); up to 200 sqm community facilities (Use Classes D1/D2); strategic landscaping, improvements to open space, parking and related infrastructure including works in relation to site preparation, flood defence and land raising together with application to discharge conditions:  6 (updated master plan), 8 (RM Appearance); 9 (landscape and open space masterplan); 10 (RM Landscaping) 13 (landscape management plan) 14; (community facility and local centre delivery); 15, 16,17 (design  codes/materials/appearance); 33 (surface water drainage); 35 (foul water sewerage) 40 (blue badge); 41 (safety and security) 44 (energy assessment) 45 (energy strategy); 48 (RM Scale); 55 (bus stops); 56 (cycle parking); 57 (highway details) 58 (green travel plans); 62 (noise impact); 66 (archaeology).

Discussion:  

The Head of Planning outlined the planning application in detail and informed the Committee that since despatch of the agenda, the applicant had provided an update note summarising the development and its benefits and a copy of this had been appended to the supplementary agenda advice sheet.

The Head of Planning informed the Committee of the planning history relating to this site and the phased development. He confirmed that the outline planning permission had expired at midnight on 6 December 2021 but the current application for reserved matters (access, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale) to provide 132 new dwellings within the second phase of the development had been received prior to the expiration of the outline planning permission and was therefore a valid reserved matters application which required determination.

He further advised that the applicant also sought to discharge a number of conditions relevant to Phase 2, details of which were set out in the report.

The Committee discussed the application noting that both Highways and Environmental Health had not raised objections to the application.  Comment was also made about , the location of housing and its proximity to Council land which was partly a former waste land fill site.

The Committee also discussed the access to the site and the use of materials for the development which had been addressed within Phase 1.

It was also noted that the affordable housing provision would be distributed across the whole site when taking Phase 1 and 2 as a whole.

Decision: 

Approved subject to:

a)             The applicants entering into Deed of Variation agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act to: 

i)               Amend the trigger for payment of contributions under the MC/17/4034 Deed of Variation (towards Travel Plan, Knight Road/Temple Manor public realm works, Roman Way/Cuxton Road Junction public realm works, bus service provision, waste management, safter routes, open space delivery, maintenance and management) to reflect the reduced numbers within this phase under those anticipated per phase in the current Deed of Variation drafting.

ii)              Amend the original S106 for MC/09/0417 in respect to the car club.

iii)            Update the illustrative Masterplan for the whole site.

iv)            Update the Landscape and Open Space Management Plan.

b)             Conditions 1 – 17 as set out in the report for the reasons stated in the report.

Walderslade Ward

Construction of 18 flats comprising 9 x 1-bed units and 9 x 2-bed units over five storeys with associated car parking and bin stores.

The Planning Manager outlined the planning application and suggested that if the Committee was minded to approve the application, the recommendation be changed to resolve to grant approval subject to there being no objections from the Environment Agency. This update would then amend the sequencing of the proposed recommendations set out in the report.

The Planning Manager further advised of proposals to update the Section 106 heads of agreement, details of which were set out on the supplementary agenda advice sheet.

She informed the Committee that since despatch of the agenda, two further letters of objection had been received from occupants of addresses that had previously objected and reiterating concerns already set out within the report.

Furthermore, the Planning Manager drew attention to changes to the Planning Appraisal section of the report relating to Contamination, Waste and the Report Conclusion, full details of which were set out on the supplementary agenda advice sheet.

The Committee was requested to note that in the event of the Environment Agency responding during the completion of the Section 106, the Committee was requested to approve that the Head of Planning be granted delegated powers to add any condition(s) suggested in the EA’s response or to determine refusal if conditions could not address any objection.

The Committee discussed the report and in particular, the distance between the proposed balconies and those properties in Rush Close.

Clarification was also sought as the wording of that element of the proposed Section 106 agreement relating to health improvements. The Planning Manager confirmed that the Section 106 funding request referred to ‘in the vicinity of the development’ and therefore the words ‘in Gillingham South and Medway’ required removal.

Reference was also made to concerns regarding the potential use of the roof as a garden but it was confirmed that a roof garden was not shown on the application plans and may have related to an earlier planning application. As the property would have a seeded roof, the Head of Planning advised that the restriction on use of the roof area would be addressed in the conditions if approved.

Decision:

Approved subject to:

a)             There being no objection from the Environment Agency and, in the event of the Environment Agency responding during the completion of the Section 106, the Head of Planning be granted delegated powers to add any condition(s) suggested in the EA’s response or to determine refusal if conditions could not address any objection.

b)             Subject to the applicant entering into a legal agreement under the terms of Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to secure:

i)               £46,829.34 green space contribution. Split £44,487.87 towards improvements to the local area and £2,341.47 towards the Great Lines Heritage Park.

ii)              £11,606.22 towards health improvements

iii)            £1,437.48 towards youth provision in Chatham for young people between 819.

iv)            £3,031.20 towards library improvements at Walderslade Village Library.

v)             £3,363.12 towards community facilities within the vicinity of the site.

vi)            Meeting the Council’s costs.

vii)           £3,176.10 towards waste containment  ...  view the full minutes text for item 727.

Watling Ward

Conversion of an existing natural turf sports pitch to an artificial grass pitch together with engineering works to create 2 dug outs; construction of 4m high acoustic fencing with 2m high additional netting behind goals (6m high total); 1.1m high key clamp hand rail fencing; 1.2m high open steel mesh perimeter barrier; entrance gates; turnstiles and cycle storage.

Discussion:  

The Planning Manager outlined the planning application in detail.

Decision: 

Approved with conditions 1 – 14 as set out in the report for the reasons stated in the report.

Chatham Central Ward

Construction of a 4-bedroom detached dwelling with associated parking.

Discussion:  

The Senior Planner outlined the planning application in detail.

With the agreement of the Committee, Councillor Mahil addressed the Committee as Ward Councillor and outlined the following concerns:

• The proposed development would result in the loss of part of the rear garden of the property in Maidstone Road and would be out of character for housing in this road and the design was not in keeping with the area.
• The development would result in the loss of amenity, greenery and trees in King Edward Road.
• Concerns regarding potential root damage and flooding
• The application site falls within the Maidstone Road Chatham Conservation Area.
• If not refused, the Committee was requested to undertake a site visit to view the area.

The Committee discussed the application and noted the history relating to other planning applications in the vicinity of the application site which had been granted planning permission at appeal. Nevertheless, it was suggested that consideration be deferred to allow Members to undertake a site visit to view the site and its locality.

Decision:

Consideration of the application be deferred pending a site visit.

Twydall Ward

Construction of a two storey extension to rear and detached outbuilding.

Discussion:  

The Senior Planner outlined the planning application in detail.

Concern was expressed as to the proposed size of the two-storey extension and in particular, the potential future use of the detached outbuilding. Whilst it was recognised that there had been an increase in the desire for outbuildings to provide office accommodation for those individuals who were now working from home, there was concern that these could be converted to separate living accommodation and rented out. In response, the Senior Planner drew attention to proposed condition 5 which addressed these concerns and could result in enforcement proceedings should there be a breach of the planning permission.

Decision: 

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

Rochester West

Construction of a single storey side extension linked to existing detached garage.

Discussion:  

The Senior Planner outlined the planning application in detail and drew attention to an additional supporting statement provided by the applicant and one additional letter of support, details of which were set out on the supplementary agenda advice sheet.

The Committee expressed concern as to the potential impact that this proposed side extension may have on the street scene and character of the area but noted that there were similar developments already in the street. The Committee also noted the applicant’s reason for the wanting the provision of an extension at their property. 

Decision: 

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

This report is presented quarterly to planning committee informing members on current planning performance and the Local Plan.

Decision:

Consideration of this item was deferred until 6 April 2022.

This report informs Members of appeal decisions.

Decision:

Consideration of this item was deferred until 6 April 2022.