Agenda and minutes

To approve the record of the meeting held on 19 February 2014.

The record of the meeting held on 19 February 2014 was agreed and signed by the Chairman as correct. 

The Chairman drew attention to the supplementary agenda advice sheet on which was detailed the specific wording of the refusal grounds for planning application MC/13/2829  (2 Trevale Road, Rochester) and planning application MC/13/3172 (249 London Road, Rainham) which had been agreed under delegated authority in agreement with the Chairman and Vice Chairman as follows:

Minute 851            MC/13/2829 - 2 Trevale Road, Rochester

Refusal grounds:

1.         The proposed dwelling, by virtue of its design and appearance, would fail to respect the character and the appearance of the street scene within which it would be sited and would be contrary to Policy BNE1 of the Medway Local Plan 2003.

2.         The proposed development would reduce forward visibility around the bend in Trevale Road from around 36 metres to approximately 21 metres, which would reduce the ability of drivers to see ahead and stop for any hazard in the road. The application would therefore increase the risk of road traffic accidents, contrary to Policy T1 of the Medway Local Plan.

3.         The Gross internal floor space for the proposed dwelling and the floor area of the study (effectively a 3^rd bedroom) do not comply with the minimum floor space requirements set out Medway Council’s Housing Design Standards 2011.  The proposal will provide a poor standard of internal amenity for prospective occupiers and is therefore contrary to Policy BNE2 of the Medway Local Plan 2003 and Medway’s Housing Design Standards 2011.

Minute 854            MC/13/3172 - 249 London Road

Refusal ground:

1.         The proposed development by virtue of the extent of the new building works, the limited amount of on site car parking and the resultant lack of amenity space left to serve the residents, represents an overdevelopment of the site, out of character with the area and which would be detrimental to the amenities of the prospective occupiers of the property, the outlook for neighbouring residents and, as a result of overspill parking on neighbouring streets, detrimental to the amenities of occupiers of surrounding properties. The proposal is therefore contrary to the provisions of Policies BNE1 and BNE2 of the Medway Local Plan 2003.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Baker, Colman, Griffiths and Smith. 

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.

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.

Disclosable pecuniary interests

Councillor Watson declared a disclosable pecuniary interest in planning application MC/13/2741 (Land adjacent to Bellwood Cottages, Ratcliffe Highway, Hoo St Werburgh Rochester) on the basis that a family member lives at the application site and he left the meeting for the consideration and determination of this application. 

Other interests

For the consideration and determination of planning application MC/13/2513 (Wayne Court, Miller Way, Wainscott, Rochester) Councillor Pat Gulvin left the meeting on the basis that she serves on the MHS Homes Community Charity Ltd. (Councillor Adrian Gulvin advised the Committee that having consulted the Monitoring Officer, he did not have a conflict of interest in respect of this planning application).

Councillor Juby referring to planning application MC/13/2484 (142 – 144 Napier Road Gillingham) informed the Committee that a member of the Liberal Democrat Group had a pecuniary interest in this planning application. However, he did not have such an interest but wished to speak on this application as Ward Councillor, he therefore took no part in the determination of the application.

Strood Rural

Demolition of existing buildings and construction of a 3 storey block comprising six 2-bedroomed flats; three 1-bedroomed flats; two 1-bedroomed wheelchair flats and eight 3-bedroomed terrace houses with associated parking, landscaping, refuse area and cycle storage.  Resubmission of MC/13/0285. 

Discussion:

The Development Manager reminded the Committee that this planning application had been the subject of a site visit on 18 March 2014 at which he had set out the basis of the application, talked through the submitted plans and summarised the representations received. In addition, he had outlined the planning issues to be considered as they related to matters of design and street scene, impact on neighbouring amenities and highways and car parking issues.

At the site visit, the residents had outlined their concerns, details of which were summarised on the supplementary agenda advice sheet.

Councillor Mason had spoken as Ward Councillor at the site visit and the agent had responded to a number of questions covering issues such as height, external materials, why flats were to be located at the highest location of the development and boundary treatment.

The Development Manager also advised that since the site visit, the agents had submitted sections through the site to show the relationship between the existing buildings and the proposed building in terms of height and proximity to 68 Jarrett Avenue. In addition, the agents, having viewed the site from the rear garden of 68 Jarrett Avenue had submitted a number of comments, details of which were summarised on the supplementary agenda advice sheet.

The agents had also submitted details of a parking survey dated March details of which were also set out on the supplementary agenda advice sheet.

The Development Manager outlined the application in detail referring to the issues raised at the site visit and suggested that if the Committee was minded to approve this application, a new condition 24 be approved to take on board suggested alterations by the agent to address concerns relating to the property at 68 Jarrett Avenue.

With the agreement of the Committee, Councillor Mason spoke on this application as Ward Councillor.

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 a contribution of £2,374.05 towards routine inspections of new footbridges in Great Lines Heritage Park as a result of opening up new public access into Fort Amherst.

B)            Conditions 1 – 23 as set out in the report for the reasons stated in the report and a new condition 24 as follows:

24.       Prior to first occupation the 1^st and 2^nd floor kitchen/dining room windows marked red on drawing number J10.002/D105 received by email on 10 March 2014 shall be fitted with obscure glazed windows and fixed shut and the 1^st and 2^nd floor bedroom windows marked blue on the same plan be sited in the position marked in green on that plan.  The windows shall thereafter be retained as such.

Reason: In the interests of residential amenity and to comply with Policy BNE2 of the Medway Local Plan 2003.

Rainham South

Construction of a two storey block comprising of eight 2-bedroomed flats with associated parking. 

Discussion:

The Committee was reminded that this application had been deferred from the meeting on 19 February to enable further survey work to be undertaken on the availability of parking spaces.

The Principal Transport Planner informed the Committee that four different officers had undertaken various evening and weekend surveys and that the applicants had undertaken early morning surveys, the results of which were set out on a table appended to the supplementary agenda advice sheet.

He confirmed that the parking survey results were fairly consistent which was to be expected as the site was a cul-de-sac carrying no through traffic. At the time of the spot-checks by Council Officers there was an average of 13 on-street spaces available across Russells Avenue and Chichester Close and the lay-by in front of Queens Court had been empty on all but one occasion. Therefore, overall it was considered that the 37 proposed on-site parking spaces would accommodate the demand generated by the development

The Committee was advised that since despatch of the agenda, further concerns had been raised by objectors as the layby in front of Queens Court had been marked out using white lining to show provision of 9 car parking spaces. However, it had since been established that the Council’s consent as Highway Authority had not been given for this work and that the work had been carried out in error. This matter was now in the process of being rectified.

In addition, a further representation had been received on behalf of 16 people setting out a number of concerns, details of which were set out on the supplementary agenda advice sheet.

In response to one of the points raised, the Principal Transport Planner confirmed that he had re-visited the site layout plan and measured the parking bays and was satisfied that they complied with the Council’s Parking Standards. In addition, the Committee was advised that whilst the photographs submitted by local residents showed a high level of on-street parking this had not been evident on the previous Saturday or on any day that Officers had surveyed.

Decision:

Approved with conditions 1 – 10 as set out in the report for the reasons stated in the report.  

River 

Change of use of ground floor to restaurant and first, second and third floors to a 31 bedroom hotel (13 double bedrooms, 2 disabled persons' bedrooms, 4 family bedrooms and 13 single bedrooms) with hotel reception and ancillary area on first floor; additional fire escapes and creation of decking area in rear courtyard (resubmission of MC/13/0164)

Discussion:

The Development Manager outlined the planning application and suggested that if the Committee was minded to approve the application proposed conditions 3 and 4 be amended as set out on the supplementary agenda advice sheet.

The Committee discussed the planning application noting the work that had been undertaken by Officers in liaison with the applicants on the proposed development.

The Development Manager in response to questions confirmed that all bedrooms within the hotel would be en-suite and that the bedroom sizes exceeded those of other local hotels. In addition, he explained the access arrangements for the hotel, including those for disabled visitors and confirmed that external stairs would be provided as a fire escape.

Concern was expressed regarding the disposal of refuse from the hotel and the Development Manager explained that should the Committee be minded to approve this planning application, the issue of refuse was covered by proposed condition 8.

In response to concerns regarding bedrooms for use by staff, it was also suggested that proposed condition 9 be amended to include staff accommodation.

Decision: 

Approved with conditions 1 – 2, 5 – 8 and 10 and 11 as set out in the report for the reasons stated in the report and conditions 3, 4 and 9 amended as follows:

3.                  Prior to the commencement of the development a schedule of work to the external fabric of the building shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  This schedule shall include the repair and repainting of all windows and frames, the repair and replacement of all render and pointing and details of the construction and surfacing of the parking and external amenity areas, as well as details of all external alterations to the building.  The approved schedule of works shall be undertaken prior to the first occupation of the Hotel hereby approved and shall thereafter be maintained.

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 BNE 14of the Medway Local Plan 2003.

4.                  Details of any secondary glazing to be fitted to the windows shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, and the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details prior to first occupation of the hotel and shall be thereafter retained.

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.

9.                  No more than 31 bedrooms shall be permitted in the proposed hotel including staff accommodation.

Reasons: In the interests of the amenity of the prospective occupiers and of the area in compliance with Policy BNE2 of the Medway Local Plan 2003.

Gillingham South

Outline application with all matters reserved for demolition of existing warehouse and construction of a new development of 9 dwellings. 

Discussion:

The Development Manager outlined the planning application and drew attention to the planning history section of the report which required amendment to state that planning application GL97/0638/62/0083 was the subject of a dismissed appeal on 27 July 1998.

He advised the Committee that since despatch of the agenda, a further letter had been received from one of the existing objectors commenting upon the committee report and a summary of the comments made were set out on the supplementary agenda advice sheet.

With the agreement of the Committee, Councillor Juby spoke on this application as a Ward Councillor.

Decision:  

Consideration of this application be deferred pending a site visit and, when the application is resubmitted for consideration, a more detailed breakdown as to how the each of the proposed rooms compare in size to the Medway Housing Design Standards be provided.

Peninsula

Variation of condition 1 to allow for a minor material amendment to planning permission MC/11/2579 to alter the elevations of the buildings with the insertion of additional openings and the extension of the hardstanding area to the southwestern end of the buildings. 

Discussion:

The Development Manager outlined the application and explained that this application related to a variation of condition 1 of planning permission MC/11/2579.

It was noted that two further applications for variations to conditions on planning permission for this site were being progressed and would likely be reported to a future meeting.

Decision:

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

Strood South

Retrospective application for construction of an outbuilding to rear.

Discussion:

The Planner outlined this retrospective planning application and advised the Committee that whilst the outbuilding was not considered to be unacceptable in principle, owing to its size and the facilities provided within, it was proposed that a specific condition be approved preventing occupation of the outbuilding other than for purposes ancillary to the residential use of 7 and/or 9 Maple Road and that it not be let or sold as a separate building or used in conjunction with a business.

Decision:

Approved with condition 1 and 2 as set out in the report for the reasons stated in the report.  

Rainham North

Construction of rear extension together with raising of roof height to form first floor level and insertion of dormer to rear and rooflights to front and side to facilitate conversion of bungalow to a house and with living accommodation within the roof (removal of chimney). 

Discussion:

The Development Manager outlined the planning application and advised the Committee that since despatch of the agenda, following consideration of amended plans, two letters had been received from existing objectors stating that they wished to maintain their objections, details of which were summarised on the supplementary agenda advice sheet

The Development Manager suggested that if the Committee was minded to approve the application, a further condition be approved restricting the use of the building to a single dwelling in Class 3 so that it is not used as a House in Multiple Occupation or for student accommodation at a future date.

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 follows:

5.         The property, as proposed to be extended, shall only be used as a single dwelling house falling under class C3 of the Town and Country Planning Use Classes Order 1987 (as amended) and shall not be used as a House in Multiple Occupation falling under class C4.

Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area and in compliance with Policy BNE2 of the Medway Local Plan 2003.

Strood North

Construction of a two storey side extension. 

Discussion:

The Planner reported upon the planning application.

Decision: 

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

This report summarises the content of agenda items 14, 15 and 16 which, in the opinion of the proper officer, contain 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 documents.

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 6 of part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972. 

This report sets out action taken by the Environmental Enforcement Team (EET) with regard to section 215 issues in the third quarter 2013/14. 

Discussion:

The Environmental Services Manager reported upon action taken by the Environmental Enforcement Team with regard to Section 215 Notices for the period October – December 2013. 

Decision: 

The Committee expressed its appreciation to the Environmental Enforcement Team for the work that they undertake on Section 215 enforcement and it was noted that noted that the Environmental Services Manager will report back to individual members on three specific sites identified at the meeting. 

This report informs the Committee of the action taken by the Derelict Building Officer with regard to key buildings and associated land in the Medway area during the period 1 October – 31 December 2013. 

Discussion:

The Derelict Buildings Officer reported on action taken during the period October – December 2013 and highlighted specific properties where improvements had been made.

Decision:  

The Committee expressed their appreciation to the Derelict Buildings Officer for the work undertaken on targeting key buildings within Medway and stressed the value of having this post within the Authority.

This report informs the Committee of enforcement proceedings during the period 1 October – 31 December 2013.

Decision:  

It was noted that all issues raised by individual members of the Committee had been dealt with prior to the meeting and therefore this report was noted along with the supplementary sheet which provided updates on a number of sites.