Agenda and minutes

To approve the record of the meeting held on 2 April 2014.

The record of the meeting held on 2 April 2014 was agreed and signed by the Chairman as correct. 

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Colman, Gilry and Mackness. 

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

There were none.

Other interests

Councillor Bowler advised the Committee that he wished to address the Committee as Ward Councillor on planning application MC/14/0243 – 5 Rochester Avenue, Rochester. He therefore removed himself from the Committee and took no part in the determination of the application.

Councillor Harriott advised the Committee that he wished to address the Committee as Ward Councillor on planning application MC/14/0110 – Rainham Mark Social Club , 56 London Road, Rainham. He therefore removed himself from the Committee and took no part in the determination of the application.

The Chairman, Councillor Mrs Diane Chambers advised the Committee that she wished to address the Committee as Ward Councillor on planning application MC/14/0441 – 197 Hempstead Road, Hempstead, Gillingham. She therefore removed herself from the Committee and took no part in the determination of the application. In her absence, the Vice Chairman, Councillor Carr took the Chair for this particular planning application.

Councillor Watson declared a personal interest in planning application MC/13/0503 – Former Butt Haw Meadow, Vicarage Lane, Hoo St Werburgh, Rochester on the basis that a family member is a Parish Councillor on Hoo St Werburgh Parish Council. He left the meeting for the consideration and determination of this planning application.

Peninsula

The change of use and creation of an area of hardstanding to provide for the stationing and storage of 6 caravans for agricultural workers, the change of use and the creation of an area of hardstanding for storage of apple bins and the parking of vehicles including HGVs and the erection of two smoking shelters. 

Decision: 

The Committee noted that this planning application had been withdrawn.

Peninsula

Application to remove condition 14 (hours of operation) of planning permission MC/08/1121. 

Decision:  

The Committee noted that this planning application had been withdrawn.

Rochester South and Horsted

Construction of an extra care block comprising 30 one bedroomed and 13 two bedroomed units together with associated facilities. 

Discussion:

The Head of Planning outlined the planning application and referred to the changes in the current planning application as opposed to that approved at the outline planning application stage.

Decision: 

Approved subject to:

A)        The applicant entering into a deed of variation to ensure it meets the requirements of the Section 106 of the wider Horsted Park scheme and;

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

Rochester East

Retrospective application for conversion of existing private dwelling to 2no. self contained flats. 

Discussion:

The Head of Planning outlined the application and explained that as this was a retrospective application, should the Committee be minded to refuse the application, the Committee would be authorising the Development Manager to take enforcement proceedings.

The Head of Planning informed the Committee that in considering this planning application, Officers had had regard to Policies H6 and BNE2 and the size of the accommodation within the flats in comparison with the Medway Housing Design Standards.

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

Decision:  

Refused for the reason stated in the report.

Strood North

Construction of first floor pitched roof extensions to rear of main dwelling and extension/conversion of detached workshop into an annexe.

Discussion:

The Head of Planning outlined the planning application explaining the two elements of the application.

In recognition of possible concerns regarding the future use of the proposed annexe, he drew attention to proposed condition 4 stating that the annexe shall not be occupied or let any time other than for purposes ancillary to the residential use of the dwelling at 2 Kitchener Road.

Decision:  

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

Twydall

Construction of a terrace of five 3-bedroomed dwellings with associated parking. 

Discussion:

The Senior Planner reported upon the application and advised the Committee that the application site was located at the rear of Rainham Mark Social Club. He confirmed that a section of land 1.9m wide was to be retained by the Club which would continue to provide an access path for pedestrians.

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

The Committee discussed the planning application and expressed concerns regarding the following issues:

• The loss of the current pedestrian walkway across the site and the uncertainty as to whether the remaining 1.9m walkway would have works undertaken to ensure that it is of suitable materials and of sufficient width to be used by pedestrians and could accommodate pushchairs.
• Whether, given the proposal to retain a pedestrian walkway, the site was sufficiently large enough to accommodate 5 x 3 bedroomed dwellings.
• The effect that the proposed development would have upon vehicles using Patrixbourne Avenue in that the proposed development could result in the loss of an existing turning circle forcing drivers to reverse their vehicles out of Patrixbourne Avenue.
• The loss of a vehicular exit from the Rainham Mark Social Club onto Patrixbourne Avenue which could result in vehicles taking both right and left turns out of the Club site onto the A2.

Decision: 

Consideration of this application be deferred to enable Officers to undertake further consideration and discussions with the applicant on the issues identified. 

Strood North

Application for change of use from office to a 2-bedroomed house with associated detached garage. 

Discussion:

The Head of Planning outlined the planning application and the planning history for this site.

He advised the Committee that whilst the applicant had been granted planning permission to demolish an existing garage block and construct a garage, store and office, having inspected the building, Officers were satisfied that internally the building had been laid out as an independent dwelling.

Officers had therefore considered the dwelling and whether it was an acceptable development in accordance with the Policies laid out in the Medway Local Plan 2003 and the Medway Housing Design Standards.

The Committee discussed the planning application.

Decision: 

Refused on the grounds set out in the report. 

Strood North 

Retrospective application for construction of a detached garage.

Discussion:

The Head of Planning outlined the planning application and the planning history for this site.

He advised that whilst this was a retrospective planning application, Officers were of the opinion that the detached garage was acceptable.

Decision:  

Approved with the condition set out in the report.

Peninsula

Change of use from agricultural land to burial ground. 

Discussion:

The Head of Planning outlined the planning application.

Decision:

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

Peninsula

Change of use for the siting of containers for storage of household furniture and associated landscape works - resubmission of MC/13/1536. 

Discussion:

The Head of Planning outlined the planning application and referred to the planning history for this site.

The Committee discussed the application and requested that the proposed condition 7 be amended to ensure that the three storage containers are not sub-divided and let and that additional conditions be imposed to ensure that the containers are painted in a colour sympathetic to their location and restricting the hours during which furniture is delivered to or collected from the site. 

Decision:  

Approved with conditions 1 – 6 and 8 – 12 as set out in the report for the reasons stated in the report and condition 7 amended and new conditions 13 and 14 as follows:

7.         No more than 3 containers shall be placed on the site and then only in the location shown on drawing number 2027-001revB and those containers shall not be subdivided.

Reason: In the interests of the visual amenities of the area and to accord with Policy BNE1 of the Medway Local Plan 2003.

13.       Prior to being placed on site the containers shall be painted a dark green colour or another colour as agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority and shall thereafter be maintained as such.

Reason: In the interests of the visual amenities of the area and to comply with Policy BNE1 of the Medway Local Plan 2003

14.       There shall be no deliveries or collections of furniture or other storage items to the site outside of the hours of 07.00 – 18.00 on any day of the week.

Reason: In the interests of the residential amenities of occupiers of the neighbouring property and top accord with Policy BNE2 of the Medway Local Plan 2003.

Gillingham South

Provision of parking facilities to front of building including vehicular access and crossovers; revised boundary wall and raised planters. 

Discussion:

The Senior Planner outlined the planning application and drew attention to the amendment to the highways paragraph of the planning appraisal section of the report as set out on the supplementary agenda advice sheet.

The Committee discussed the application noting its location within a residential area and referring in particular to the proposed location of the raised planters at the front of the building. It was considered that to remove the proposed raised planter to the North of the site would increase the width of the footpath access to the Club. Members also discussed the existing smoking shelter at the front of the building noting that a replacement shelter had recently received planning permission under delegated powers.

Decision:  

a)            Approved with conditions 1 – 4  as set out in the report for the reasons stated in the report and proposed condition 5 amended to require the applicant to provide amended plans removing the raised planter to the North so as to widen the footpath access to the Club.

b)         The Development Manager be granted delegated authority to agree the specific wording of condition 5 in consultation with the Chairman and Vice Chairman.

Rainham South

Variation of condition 6 of planning permission MC/05/1768 (construction of single storey extension to provide kids club facility and extension of baby unit roof to provide buggy shelter (kids club to be relocated from Adult Education Centre building) with a maximum total of 76 on site at one time and nursery to have use of part of infant school car park) to increase the number of children from a maximum of 76 to 100. 

Discussion:

The Senior Planner outlined the planning application.

With the agreement of the Committee, the Chairman, Councillor Mrs Diane Chambers spoke on this application as Ward Councillor and in her absence, the Vice Chairman took the Chair.

Attention was drawn to a correction in the report in that this application site was located in Hempstead and Wigmore Ward and not Rainham South Ward.

The Committee discussed the planning application noting that in requesting an increase in the number of children to be admitted to the nursery from 76 to 100, the applicant had confirmed that as some children are currently dropped off earlier than they should be or picked up later, this causes an overlap which is not catered for within the current 76 child restriction. Therefore, within the past 3 years the nursery had been operating with an average of 83 child places per week. The applicant had also confirmed that Ofsted had registered the nursery as having a capacity of 100 children based on the size of the building.

In considering this planning application, members had regard to the location of the nursery and the affect that the nursery currently has upon the residential area in respect of traffic congestion on the highway and the noise disturbance to residents during those times of year when the children would be out in the garden area. It was recognised that as opposed to a school, a nursery operated 52 weeks of the year and did not have set hours at which times children would be at play outside in the garden, therefore noise disturbance was an important factor to be taken into account.

The Committee was also concerned that that applicant had openly admitted that the nursery was already operating in breach of its existing planning consent.

Decision:  

Refused on the following ground:

The proposed increase in the number of children that could be accommodated at the nursery at any one time, would result in a loss of amenity to the occupiers of surrounding properties in Hempstead Road and Birch Grove as a result of increased noise from children throughout the day, increased highway traffic and the resultant increased pressure on parking, particularly at peak times.  The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy BNE2 of the Medway Local Plan 2003.

This report informs members on the amount of Section 106 funding received between January to March 2014 and sets out what the contributions must be spent on according to the Section 106 agreements. In addition, the report sets out Section 106 agreements signed during this period. 

Discussion:

The Committee received a report setting out the level of Section 106 funding received between January to March 2014 and outlining what the contributions must be spent on in accordance with the Section 106 agreements. The report also set out the Section 106 agreements signed during this period.

Decision: 

The Committee noted the report. 

This report sets out performance for the period January – March 2014 

Discussion:

The Committee received a report setting out performance statistics for the period January – March 2014.

Decision:

The Committee noted the report.