Agenda and minutes

To approve the record of the Special Meeting held on 4 September 2014 and the ordinary meeting held on 10 September 2014.

The record of the Special Meeting held on 4 September 2014 and the ordinary meeting held on 10 September 2014 was agreed and signed by the Chairman as correct.

Referring to the meeting held on 10 September 2014, the Committee’s attention was drawn to the following condition and refusal grounds agreed by the Head of Planning under delegated powers in consultation with the Chairman and Vice Chairman:

Minute 306 (Planning application MC/14/1401 – 33 Goddington Road, Strood, Rochester ME2 3DE)

Condition 9 as follows:

9.         Prior to first occupation of the annexe herby approved details of any internal garden separation between the main house and the annexe shall be submitted to and approved in writing with the Local Planning Authority. The details submitted shall include for the removal of part or all of the existing fencing separating the two and shall ensure that the open aspect between the dwelling and annexe is maintained so that the annexe remains and appears ancillary to and part of the main dwellinghouse. The approved separation shall thereafter be retained and no fencing or other enclosure, whether or not permitted by the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (as amended) or not (or any Order amending, revoking and re-enacting that Order) shall be erected within the site.

Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area, the amenities of the occupiers of both the annexe and dwellinghouse and to ensure that the annexe remains visibly ancillary to the dwellinghouse. All in accordance with Policies BNE1 and BNE2 of the Medway Local Plan 2003.

Minute 310 (Planning application – Mc/14/1695 – Land at 35 Powlett Road, Strood, Rochester, Kent ME2 4RD

Refused on the following ground:

The proposed development by virtue of its siting, prominence in the street scene, contrived nature, relationship with adjacent properties and access would be out of character with and harmful to the general character of the street scene and area in general and represents poor design. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policies BNE1, BNE2 and H4 of the Medway Local Plan 2003 and to the NPPF 2012.

Minute 311 (Planning application MC/14/1697 – 371 – 375 Maidstone Road, Rainham, Gillingham ME8 0HX

Refused on the following ground:

The development, by virtue of the contrived nature of the car parking proposed to the rear that is unlikely to be readily and easily used, would result in competition for the off street parking spaces to the front of the shops which would have the knock on impact of either being detrimental to the viability and vitality of the shops within this Local Centre or causing potential customers to the shops or prospective residents or visitors to the proposed flats to park in an inappropriate location to the detriment of highway safety in this location close to a busy roundabout junction. The proposal is therefore contrary to the provisions of Policies H4, R10, T1 and T13 of the Medway Local Plan 2003 and the NPPF 2012.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Baker, Griffin 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.

The Chairman on behalf of the Committee welcomed Madeline Mead, Planner to her first meeting of the Committee. 

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 Avey referring to planning applications MC/13/3021, MC/13/3022 and MC/13/3031 all relating to 76 (Mcdonalds Restaurant Ltd) Commercial Road, Strood, Rochester ME2 2AD) advised the Committee that he was not a member of the Strood Town Centre Forum but attended meetings of the Forum. However, he confirmed that he had not been involved in any discussions relating to these three planning applications.

Councillor Adrian Gulvin referring to planning application MC/14/2148 – Garages to the rear of 1 – 3 Lavender Close and adjacent to 2f Mayweed Avenue, Chatham advised the Committee that he wished to speak on this planning application as a Ward Councillor and therefore would remove himself from the Committee and take no part in the determination of this planning application.

Councillor Hubbard referring to planning applications MC/13/3021, MC/13/3022 and MC/13/3031 all relating to 76 (Mcdonalds Restaurant Ltd) Commercial Road, Strood, Rochester ME2 2AD) advised the Committee that although he was a Council representative on the Strood Town Centre Forum, the Forum had a Sub Committee that considered planning applications and he did not take part in this Sub Committee therefore, he had not been involved in any discussions relating to these three planning applications.

Councillor Iles referring to planning applications MC/13/3021, MC/13/3022 and MC/13/3031 all relating to 76 (Mcdonalds Restaurant Ltd) Commercial Road, Strood, Rochester ME2 2AD) advised the Committee that although she was a member of the Strood Town Centre Forum she had not attended any meetings at which these three planning applications had been discussed.

Councillor Turpin referring to planning application MC/14/1925 – 201A City Way, Rochester ME1 2TL advised the Committee that he wished to speak on this planning application as a Ward Councillor and therefore would remove himself from the Committee and take no part in the determination of this planning application.

Rochester West

Variation of condition 3 on planning permission MC/13/2864 to extend opening hours to 06:30 - 21:00 Monday to Saturday and 07:00 - 19:00 Sundays and Public Holidays. 

Discussion:

The Head of Planning outlined the planning application and drew attention to amendments to the proposal and planning appraisal sections of the report details of which were set out on the supplementary agenda advice sheet. In addition the heading ‘Recommendation’ at the top of page 36 of the agenda required deletion.

Decision:

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

Rochester West

Variation of condition 04 on planning permission MC/13/2864 (change of use from Florist (Class A1)) to a coffee shop (Class A3) with ancillary retail (class A1) to allow deliveries Monday - Sunday including bank holidays. 

Discussion:

The Head of Planning outlined the planning application and drew attention to changes to the proposal section of the report and advised that the heading ‘Recommendation’ on page 42 of the agenda required deletion.

Decision:  

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

Rochester West

Partial removal and remodelling of features within curtilage of a listed building and the construction of a two storey, two bedroomed mews house with courtyard garden and associated parking. 

Discussion:

The Head of Planning outlined the application and suggested that if the Committee was minded to approve the application, proposed condition 3 be amended.

Decision:

Approved with conditions 1 – 2 and 4 – 9 as set out in the report for the reasons stated in the report and condition 3 amended as set out below:

3.         No development shall take place until the developer has secured the implementation of a watching brief to be undertaken by an archaeologist approved by the Local Planning Authority so that the excavation is observed and items of interest and finds are recorded.  The watching brief shall be in accordance with a written programme and specification, which has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To safeguard the archaeological interest in the site in accordance with Policy BNE21 of the Medway Local Plan 2003.

Rochester West

Listed Building consent for partial removal and remodelling of features within curtilage of a listed building and the construction of a two storey, two bedroomed mews house with courtyard garden and associated parking. 

Discussion:

The Head of Planning outlined the planning application and advised the Committee that the bullet point listed in the report under the heading ‘Representations’ on page 61 required deletion.

Decision:

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

Cuxton and Halling

Change of use of land to paddock and erection of new stables.

Discussion:

The Head of Planning outlined the planning application and drew attention to the planning history for this site. The Committee noted that a similar application had been considered in October 2013, and had been refused. However, this decision had subsequently been overturned by a Planning Inspector at appeal in June 2014.

Decision: 

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

Construction of a two storey extension to rear; conservatory to rear; installation of a double pitched roof dormer to rear with hip to gable end to facilitate use of the loft for living accommodation and detached garage. 

Discussion:

The Planner outlined the application and drew attention to an amendment to the proposal section of the report as set out on the supplementary agenda advice sheet.

She suggested that if the Committee was minded to approve the application, a new condition 5 be approved to ensure that the proposed garage is only used incidental to the enjoyment of the main dwelling and not for any trade or business.

With the agreement of the Committee, Councillor Turpin spoke on this planning application as Ward Councillor expressing concerns regarding the proposal and the affect that it may have on the adjoining property.

Decision:  

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

5.         The proposed garage shall only be used for purposes incidental to the enjoyment of the main dwelling at 201A City Way and shall not be used for any trade or business.

Reason: To protect the amenities of occupiers of neighbouring properties in accordance with Policy BNE2 of the Medway Local Plan 2003.

Watling

Demolition of garages and construction of a terrace of 5 two bedroomed houses together with1 two bedroomed bungalow attached to end of terrace with associated parking and landscaping.

Discussion:

The Planning Manager East outlined the planning application and advised the Committee that since despatch of the agenda one further letter of representation had been received expressing concern regarding the loss of parking.

With the agreement of the Committee Councillor Adrian Gulvin spoke on this planning application as Ward Councillor and expressed concern as to the effect that the loss of the garages would have upon parking in the area.

The Committee discussed the application having regard to the Parking Study submitted as part of the application process. This study indicated that of the 35 garages on site, 10 were void and 25 were rented of which 13 were rented to people local to the site. A survey of the current use of the 25 rented garages resulted in 15 replies confirming that 9 were used for car parking, 1 for a scrapped car, 2 for motorcycles and 3 for storage.

The Committee discussed the application and sought clarification as to whether the applicant was required to seek planning permission for the demolition of the garages.

In addition, Members expressed the view that should it be minded to approve the removal of the garages to enable the site to be developed, it was considered that the current proposal appeared cramped. It was therefore suggested that Officers liaise with the applicants on the possible reduction in the number of properties proposed to be placed on this site.

Decision:

Consideration of this application was deferred to enable Officers to undertake further discussions with the application on the possible reduction of the number of proposed properties to be placed on this site and for clarification as to whether the applicant would be required to seek planning permission to demolish the garages.  

Watling

Construction of a part two storey part single storey rear extension with 2no. Juliet balconies; conservatory to rear and attached double garage to side (demolition of existing rear projection and detached garage). 

Discussion:

The Planner outlined the planning application and suggested that if the Committee was minded to approve this application, a new condition 4 be approved relating to the type of windows to be provided on the first floor northwestern elevation.

Decision:

Approved with conditions 1 – 3 as set out in the report for the reasons stated in the report and new condition 4 as set out below:

4.         The bedroom and en-suite windows on the first floor northwestern elevation shall be fitted with obscure glass and apart from any top-hung light, that has a cill height of not less than 1.7 metres above the internal finished floor level of the room it serves, shall be non-opening. This work shall be carried out and completed before the rooms are occupied and shall be retained at all times thereafter.

Reason:  To ensure the development does not prejudice conditions of amenity by reason of unneighbourly overlooking of adjoining property, in accordance with Policy BNE2 of the Medway Local Plan 2003.

Strood South

Refurbishment of restaurant and patio area including changes to kerb lines and associated works to the site.  Alterations to the roof and booths to include additional cladding.  The addition of extensions (totalling 58.4 sq m) and minor alterations to the car park and drive thru land to provide a side-by-side order point which incorporates a new island for signage.  Existing bin store to be removed with a new corral; being built incorporating a covered store area.  The installation of two customer order displays, height restrictor (Resubmission of MC/13/2150). 

Discussion:

The Planning Manager East outlined the planning application.

Decision:

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

Strood South

Reconfiguration of existing signage suite including the retention and relocation of signs plus additional signage 1x internally illuminated welcome sign; 2x rotating single 3 sided units ; 2x rotating double 3 sided units and 1 x side by side any lane/any time directional (Resubmission of MC/13/2204). 

Discussion:

The Planning Manager East outlined the planning application.

Decision:

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

Strood South

Advertisement consent for the installation of 3 white 'McDonalds' fascia signs and 4 yellow 'Golden Arch' Fascia signs all internally illuminated (Resubmission of MC/13/2151). 

Discussion:

The Planning Manager East outlined the planning application.

Decision:

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