Agenda and minutes

To approve the record of the meeting held on 18 June 2014.

The record of the meeting held on 18 June 2014 was agreed and signed by the Chairman as correct. 

Apologies for absence were received from the Chairman, Councillor Mrs Diane Chambers and Councillor Adrian Gulvin.

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.

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

In respect of planning application MC/14/0928 (6 Bowman Close, Lordswood, Chatham), Councillor Pat Gulvin addressed the Committee as Ward Councillor and therefore took no part in the determination of this application.

In respect of planning application MC/14/1330 – Pear Tree Cottage, Noke Street, Wainscott, Rochester, Councillor Hicks addressed the Committee as Ward Councillor and therefore took no part in the determination of this application.

Rainham North

Outline application with all matters reserved for residential development comprising approx 90 dwellings. 

Discussion:

The Head of Planning outlined the planning application in detail and referred to the letter from the applicant appended to the supplementary agenda advice sheet circulated at the meeting.

He referred to the history of the site and advised the Committee that this application was an outline application with all matters reserved for residential development comprising approximately 90 dwellings.

The Head of Planning addressed the issues raised in the applicant’s letter and specifically the points raised by the applicant on each of the proposed refusal grounds as summarised below:

• Proposed refusal ground 1

The Council has undertaken work on assessing housing demand and this indicates that there is an anticipated need for the construction of 1,000 houses per annum.

It was not accepted that there had been persistent under delivery of provision of housing in Medway as whilst there has been some level of under delivery, this was largely due to the recession. Indeed Medway had experienced a higher level proportionally of housing provision over and above any other local authority in Kent. In a recent meeting with representatives of the CLG both these facts were acknowledged and it was agreed that Medway did not have a persistent under delivery of housing provision.

In respect of the applicant’s statement that Polices BNE25 and BNE34 were not up to date, and were not consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), the Head of Planning confirmed that the Polices were saved policies included in the Medway Local Plan 2003 and all the saved polices within the Plan had been assessed against the NPPF. While it had been accepted that part of those policies referred to were not consistent wit the NPPF, only those parts of the policies that were consistent had been used in assessing planning applications.

As part of his presentation, the Head of Planning used an aerial photograph to show the location of the application site and its relationship to the surrounding area. He advised the Committee that the Medway Landscape Character Assessment had shown this area to be of particular importance as a green space to separate the urban area from the clusters of properties in the rural area and separate the site from the River.

He further stated that whilst the applicant had argued that this site had been a former brickworks, since the brickworks had closed, the area had regenerated and now fitted in with the surrounding green spaces. He drew attention to the NPPF and advised that the NPPF clearly stated that if a site has regenerated then it should no longer be considered as previously developed land.

• Proposed refusal ground 2

The Head of Planning informed the Committee that ordinarily whilst it was possible for issues relating to land contamination to be dealt with via appropriate conditions, in the light of the use of this site as a former brickworks, it was not considered that a desk top survey would be sufficient to assess the appropriateness of the proposed residential development of this  ...  view the full minutes text for item 148.

River

Construction of a 4 storey building for use as a University Technical College (UTC) for 600 students together with external multi use games area, associated parking and landscaping. 

Discussion:

The Head of Planning outlined the planning application and drew attention to the supplementary agenda advice sheet which set out representations received since despatch of the agenda from Southern Gas Networks, Southern Water and the Health and Safety Executive, along with the Officers response to the points raised.

It was noted that the Health and Safety Executive had confirmed that if approved, it was no longer necessary for the application to be referred to it following the revocation of the Hazardous Substance Consent relating to Sherlodge Gases which had previously occupied the site.

The Head of Planning suggested that if the Committee was minded to approve the application, recommendation A on page 36 of the agenda be deleted and the remaining recommendations be renumbered, proposed conditions 2 and 8 be amended and new conditions 14 and 15 be approved, details of which were set out on the supplementary agenda advice sheet.

During discussion on this application, a member referred to the loss of the netted trees on a grass verge on Pier Road. The Head of Planning explained that as a result of the works required at the roundabout, it was always intended that these trees were to be removed. The trees had been netted so as to prevent birds nesting in them. He reassured the Member that once the works were completed, the trees would be replaced.

A member referred to the planning presentation undertaken by the applicants prior to submitting the planning application and questioned whether the current planning application included one or two lifts. It was confirmed that one lift was to be provided. In the light of this information, the member requested that the applicants be asked to provide adequate reassurance that the development provides suitable access for disabled persons across all floors of the development in the light of there being provision for only one lift.

 Decision:  

Approved subject to the imposition of conditions 1, 3 – 7, 9 – 13 as set out in the report for the reasons stated in the report and amended conditions 2 and 8 and new conditions 14, 15 and 16 as set out below, with delegated authority being granted to the Head of Planning to make minor amendments to the wording of the conditions if considered to be necessary prior to the issuing of the planning permission:

2.         The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans:

            MED-MA-00-ZZ-DR-A-00150 Location Plan - S2 - P01

            MED-MA-00-XX-DR-A-00101 Site Plan - S2 - P08

            MED-MA-00-GF-DR-A-00102 Ground Floor Plan - S2 - P07

            MED-MA-00-01-DR-A-00103 First Floor Plan - S2 - P08

            MED-MA-00-02-DR-A-00104 Second Floor Plan - S2 - P07

            MED-MA-00-03-DR-A-00105 Third Floor Plan - S2 - P07

            MED-MA-00-R1-DR-A-00107 Roof Plan - S2 - P02

            MED-MA-00-XX-DR-A-00108 Boundary Treatments Plan - S2 - P03

            MED-MA-00-XX-DR-A-00121 Elevations 01 - S2 - P10

            MED-MA-00-XX-DR-A-00122 Elevations 02 - S2 - P10

            MED-MA-00-XX-DR-A-00131 Sections AA - S2 - P05

            MED-MA-00-XX-DR-A-00132 Sections BB - S2 - P05

            MED-MA-00-XX-DR-A-00133 Sections CC & DD -  ...  view the full minutes text for item 149.

Chatham Central

Demolition of garage block and construction of two 3-bedroomed town houses with associated parking - resubmission of MC/13/1314. 

Discussion:

The Planning Manager West outlined the planning application and referred to two nearby sites which had been the subject of planning applications in 2007 and 2012, one of which had been refused and the other dismissed at appeal.

He outlined the application site in detail and, using the presentation slides showed the Committee those trees on site that would be removed and retained should the application be approved. He suggested that if the Committee was minded to approve the application, proposed condition 5 be amended as set out on the supplementary agenda advice sheet.

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

In response to the issues raised by the Ward Councillor, the Planning Manager West confirmed that:

• The proposed development provided two car parking spaces per house;
• The Design and Conservation Team had not raised objections to the application as the site was adjacent to Gabriel Mews to the North which was a similar development; and
• No representation had been received from Southern Water in respect of drainage.

The Committee discussed the application. It was noted that a Ward Councillor had suggested that the Committee may wish to undertake a site visit but the Committee did not consider this necessary.

Decision: 

Approved with conditions 1 – 4 and conditions 6 – 12 as set out in the report for the reasons stated in the report and condition 5 amended as set out below:

5.         If unexpected contamination is found after development has begun, development must be halted on that part of the site affected by the unexpected contamination and it must be reported in writing immediately to the Local Planning Authority.  An investigation and risk assessment must be undertaken, and where remediation is necessary a remediation scheme must be prepared which is subject to the approval in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Following completion of the measures identified in the approved remediation scheme a verification report providing details of the data that will be collected in order to demonstrate that the works set out are complete and identifying any requirements for longer-term monitoring of pollutant linkages, maintenance and arrangements for contingency action must be prepared, which is subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure that the development is undertaken in a manner which acknowledges interests of amenity and safety in accordance with Policy BNE23 of the Medway Local Plan 2003.

Princes Park

Retrospective application for change of use from garden shed/utility area to dog grooming parlour. 

Discussion:

The Planning Manager West outlined the planning application.

He confirmed that there had been no objections to this planning application from the Environmental Health Team but advised that since despatch of the agenda, three further objections had been received, two of which were from persons who had already submitted objections but raising additional concerns. Details of the additional objections along with the points raised by the new objector were set out on the supplementary agenda advice sheet.

With the agreement of the Committee, Councillor Pat Gulvin spoke on this planning application as Ward Councillor. She suggested that if the Committee was minded to approve this application, such approval be time limited for one year so as to assess the impact upon the amenity of neighbours.

The Committee discussed the concerns raised by the objectors and the issues raised by the Ward Councillor and sought clarification as to whether the applicant was operating solely a dog grooming business or running this business alongside a dog boarding establishment. The Committee considered this relevant as the planning application for a dog grooming business indicated that only one dog would be on the premises at one time. However, should dog boarding also take place at the premises, it was possible that there could be noise implications for neighbouring properties, particularly as dogs were brought to the premises for grooming sessions and then left.

The Committee discussed the application and requested that Officers undertake further discussions with the applicant to establish the full extent of dog related activities that are or will be taking place at the premises.

Decision:

Consideration of this application be deferred to enable Officers to undertake further discussions with the applicant to establish the full extent of dog related activities that are or will be taking place at the premises. 

Rochester West

Construction of a detached 2 bedroomed house. 

Discussion:

The Planning Manager West reminded the Committee that this site had previously been the subject of a site visit.

Decision:

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

Luton and Wayfield

Construction of a terrace of six 3-bedroomed houses with associated parking. 

Discussion:

 The Head of Planning outlined the planning application and advised the Committee that should it be minded to approve this application, an informative would be included advising the applicant to contact Southern Water.

Decision:  

Approved with conditions 1- 13 as set out in the report for the reasons stated in the report.

Strood Rural

Construction of a single storey front extension including integral garage and porch. 

Discussion:

The Planning Manager West outlined the planning application and the reasons why the application was recommended for refusal.

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

The Committee discussed the application noting the Ward Councillor’s reasons for asking the Committee to approve this application.

During discussions, the Committee had full regard to the planning history for the site noting that when the bungalow had been extended in 2011 as a result of an appeal decision, the Planning Inspector had taken into account that the size and bulk of the extension would be partially off-set by the demolition of the garage. Subsequent planning applications and appeals for provision of a porch and double garage had been refused and dismissed having regard to the original Planning Inspector’s view.

Decision:  

Refused on the ground set out in the report.

Rainham South

Variation of condition 4 of MC/10/4574 to extend operating hours to 10:00 - 23:00 Monday to Saturday and 11:00 - 22:00 on Sunday and National Bank Holidays. 

Discussion:

The Planning Manager – West outlined the planning application and advised the Committee that since despatch of the agenda, Councillor Doe had submitted an objection, one further letter of objection had been received from an individual who had already submitted representations and two new letters of objection had been received, details of which were set out on the supplementary agenda advice sheet.

The Committee discussed the application noting that the premises was located in a quiet area and in close proximity to flats inhabited by elderly residents.

Decision:

Refused on the ground set out in the report.