Agenda and minutes

To approve the record of the meeting held on 5 November 2014

The record of the meeting held on 5 November 2014 was agreed and signed by the Chairman as correct. 

Attention was drawn to the supplementary agenda advice sheet which set out the refusal ground for planning application MC/14/2590 (Land adjacent to 29 Sheldon Drive, Rainham, Gillingham ME8 8JH) which had been agreed by the Head of Planning with the Chairman and Vice Chairman under delegated powers in accordance with Minute 503 as follows:

1.         The proposal represents a contrived and cramped development that will result in a development with an unacceptable level of amenity for prospective occupiers by virtue of the poor outlook from habitable room windows and the overlooking of the majority of the garden area.  The proposal is therefore contrary to the provisions of policy BNE2 of the Medway Local Plan 2003.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Baker and Gilry.

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

There were none.

Peninsula

Demolition of garages and construction of 5 two-bedroomed houses including amenity space and car parking. 

Discussion:

The Planner reminded Members that this application site had been the subject of a site visit on 29 November 2014 at which the Senior Planner had outlined the application, summarised the representations received and advised on the planning issues as they related to principle, design, amenity, parking and highway matters.

At the site visit, the Medway Housing Society (Mhs) representative had clarified that whilst there were 37 garages on site, occupation of the garages by local people was very limited. Residents, supported by Councillor Filmer had outlined their concerns as to the loss of the garages, including the effect that this would have upon on street parking, the impact on the highway and the detrimental affect on the amenity of local residents in the locality of the application site, details of which were summarised on the supplementary agenda advice sheet

The Committee was advised that Councillor Griffiths had requested that an overshadow plan be supplied for consideration and this was included within the Officer’s presentation at the meeting on 3 December 2014.

With the agreement of the Committee, Councillors Filmer and Irvine spoke on the application as Ward Councillors setting out objections to the proposed demolition of the garages and development of the land.

The Committee discussed the application having regard to the various issues raised by residents and Ward Councillors.

In particular, the Committee expressed concern that the proposed access road into and out of the site was insufficiently wide enough for vehicles and pedestrians to be separated and, having regard to this constraint, the proposed development was an inappropriate form of backland development. In addition, concern was expressed that although replacement parking provision would be available as part of the proposed development, this would be at a reduced level than currently provided by the 37 garages, therefore this could result in increased pressure for on street parking. It was noted that this could also have a detrimental impact on the highway network, particularly as St Johns Road was a bus route. 

The Head of Planning advised the Committee that if it was minded to refuse the planning application on the ground that the application would impact upon parking in the locality of the development, then it would be necessary for Ward Councillors and residents to provide evidence to substantiate their views that on street parking would be affected.

 Decision:

a)            Refused on the following grounds:

1.                 Having regard to the access constraints into and out of this site, the proposed development is an inappropriate form of backland development.

2.                 The loss of parking provision on this site will have a negative impact upon the highway network.

b)         The Head of Planning be granted delegated power to finalise the specific wording of the refusal grounds with the Chairman and Vice Chairman.

Rochester East

Demolition of existing garages and construction of 6 one bedroom flats, 5 two bedroom houses together with parking, bin storage and access 

Discussion:

The Planner reminded the Committee that this application had been the subject of a site visit on 29 November 2014 at which the Senior Planner had outlined the application, summarised the representations received and advised on the planning issues as they related to principle, design, amenity, parking and highway matters.

At the site visit, a representative from Medway Housing Society (Mhs) had explained how the current plans had changed from those previously shown to residents, and residents had outlined their concerns regarding the proposed development, details of which were set out on the supplementary agenda advice sheet.

At the site visit, Councillor Murray had set out objections to the planning application reiterating the concerns expressed by residents, whilst acknowledging the need for housing generally.

The Planner reported receipt of one further letter of objection reiterating previous concerns and stressing that the garages provided much needed secure parking opportunities.

The Committee discussed the application and referring to the proposed Section 106 heads of agreement expressed concern that should the application be approved, it was proposed that a contribution of £1,503.81 be put towards enhancements to Woodside Community Centre in Strood. The Planner informed the Committee that the Heritage and Social Regeneration Manager had advised that the contribution request for Woodside Community Centre had been on the basis that any resident in Medway could go to classes/activities in any community centre in Medway, but that Woodside was the closest to the development site. In response, Members expressed the view that should the application be approved, this funding should be put towards community projects in Rochester East or in the Rochester area generally.

Members also expressed concern regarding the way in which Mhs had undertaken consultation with local residents on the proposed development at this site and in particular, the lack of consultation with the resident who would lose her garage to enable the widening of the access road. The Head of Planning was requested address these concerns with Mhs.

The Committee discussed the application in detail, noting that the proposed development would result in provision of 6 flats and 5 houses. Members expressed the view that whilst not opposed to development of the site, the provision of bungalows or family houses would be preferred to the provision of flats.

The Committee noted that the application site was adjacent to an infant and junior school in Fleet Road and concern was expressed as to the impact that the development would have upon traffic movements in the locality in the mornings and afternoons when parents drop off and collect their children.

A member also questioned the provision of the bin storage and whether there were proposals for boundary fencing to be provided

In the light of the concerns raised at the meeting, the Committee decided to defer consideration of the application to enable further discussions to be held with Mhs.

Decision: 

a)                 Consideration of this application be deferred to enable Officers to undertake further discussions with Mhs on the proposed development and the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 542.

Rochester East

Demolition of garages at construction of 6 one bedroom and 2 two bedroom flats with communal amenity together with associated parking, cycle storage and access. 

Discussion:

The Planner reminded the Committee that this application had been the subject of a site visit on 29 November 2014 at which the Senior Planner had outlined the application, summarised the representations received and advised on the planning issues as they related to principle, design, amenity, parking and highway matters.

Residents had outlined concerns regarding the proposed development, details of which were set out on the supplementary agenda advice sheet.

At the site visit, Councillor Murray, had set out objections to the planning application stating that whilst there was a need for housing, this development should be family housing and not flats.

A Medway Housing Society (Mhs) representative had referred to other garage sites and available parking and stated that Mhs could provide funding for traffic calming on Hoopers Road.

The Committee discussed the planning application and a member drew attention to the number of flats available within the vicinity of this particular application site and advised that local residents with disabilities wished to retain their garages. It was considered that the proposed development, currently formed overdevelopment of the site and that the provision of smaller family housing or bungalows would be preferred on the larger section of land with the retention of the garages on the smaller section of land in Hoopers Road.

Concern was also expressed with regard to the scale, mass and height of the proposed development and its boundary relationship with properties in Maidstone Road and that the proposed flats only just met the Council’s minimum Housing Design Standards.

Decision:

Consideration of this application be deferred to enable officers to undertaken further discussions with Mhs on the issues raised by the Committee. 

Luton and Wayfield 

Change of use from car showroom/sales garage (Sui Generis) to food retail convenience store (Use Class A1) with associated car parking and alterations to the building including installation of ATM, plant, external chiller, shopfronts and canopy.

Discussion:

The Head of Planning outlined the planning application in detail.

With the agreement of the Committee, Councillor Osborne spoke on this application and outlined the concerns of local residents as to the affect that this proposed development could have upon the local highway network, the close proximity of the application site to a major junction at Street End Road roundabout, the affect that the development would have upon the character and viability of the surrounding area and the impact on residential properties nearby.

Decision:

Consideration of this application be deferred pending a site visit. 

Twydall

Application for outline planning permission with some matters reserved (Appearance Landscaping and Scale) for construction of twenty 2 and 3-bedroomed houses with associated parking and bin storage (demolition of existing building). 

Discussion:

The Head of Planning outlined the application in detail.

The Committee discussed the application and whilst it was recognised that there was a preference for this site to be developed, concern was expressed as to the type of proposed properties particularly taking into account the proximity of the site to bungalows for elderly persons in Petham Green. It was therefore considered that should the development be approved, there would be a need to protect the amenities of existing residents and in particular the area of open space.

Members also discussed the proposed Section 106 contribution towards health development and improvements and the number of proposed local practices listed to receive a contribution. However, the Head of Planning explained that this was purely a list of local practices that could receive assistance from the Section 106 funding.

Members also identified the need for traffic claming in Petham Green, and discussed the possible use of the Section 106 funds, currently proposed to Great Lines Heritage Park and enhanced play provision at Woodchurch Crescent. It was considered that the two contributions should be joined and then split between improvements to Petham Green to protect amenities of the elderly residents and to enhance the play facilities at Woodchurch Crescent. It was agreed that the Head of Planning and the Housing Manager meet with Ward Councillors to discuss the measures necessary at Petham Green which would then determine the exact contribution split between the two elements.

Decision:

Approved subject to

A)        The applicant entering into a unilateral agreement under the terms of Section 106 Town and Country Planning Act 1990 for:

·        Traffic calming measures to Petham Green.

·        Contribution of £49,429.80 to be split and used towards enhancing play provision at Woodchurch Crescent in order to enable this to meet the needs of the population of the new development and towards enhancements to Petham Green so as to make this area suitable for use by elderly residents and in particular provision of planting schemes so as to discourage ball games. 

·        £108,680 towards education and the provision of nursery, primary, and secondary school places

·        £2,734.20 towards enhanced community centre provision in Medway

·        £9,359 towards health development and improvements at a number of local practices: 

·            The Medical Centre, 4a Waltham Road

·            Pump Lane Surgery

·            Maidstone Road Surgery

·            Thames Avenue Surgery

·            Rainham Medical Centre

·            Rainham Health Living Centre – All GP Practices within the Property

·            Malvern Road Surgery

·            Wigmore Medical Centre

·            Cleve Road Surgery

·            Gillingham Medical Centre

B)                Conditions 1 – 14 as set out in the report for the reasons stated in the report and a further condition that the applicant provide traffic calming measures in Petham Green, the specific wording of which to be approved by the Head of Planning under delegated powers in consultation with the Chairman and Vice Chairman.

Peninsula

Demolition of existing buildings and change of use of land to provide an extension to existing mobile home park. 

Discussion:

The Head of Planning outlined the planning application in detail.

The Committee discussed the planning application and sought clarification as to the lack of Section 106 funding sought for education and health provision taking into account that the proposed extension to the mobile home park was for the provision of approximately 60 permanent homes.

Decision: 

Consideration of this application be deferred to enable Officers to undertake further discussions on the possible requirement for Section 106 funding for this proposed development.

Rainham Central

Retrospective application for the change of use from amenity land to garden area to facilitate vehicular crossover and access to existing parking area at front of property. 

Discussion:

The Head of Planning outlined the planning application and provided a full explanation as to the reason why this was a retrospective application. The Committee expressed concern regarding the current position and instructed Officers to undertake changes to the current procedures so as to ensure that this did not happen again.

The Committee then discussed the planning application and, having regard to the photographs displayed as part of the Officer’s presentation expressed the view that the materials used for the vehicle crossover were unacceptable. It was suggested that the vehicular crossover be re-laid with appropriate materials e.g. brick paving or grasscrete, with the cost of such works being met from within the Highways budget.

Decision: 

Consideration of the application be deferred to enable Officers to investigate a possible resolution and a report be submitted to a future meeting.

Peninsula

Installation of a mechanical plant to rear with key-klamp protection rail and colour variations to existing shop front. 

Discussion:

The Planner outlined the planning application in detail.

Decision: 

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

Hempstead and Wigmore

Construction of a part two storey side/rear part single storey side extension with first floor window to side, increase in roof height, formation of hip to gable, insertion of dormers to front to facilitate additional living accommodation in the roof space together with canopy, alteration to existing chimney stack and creation of block paved driveway to front (demolition of one existing chimney stack). 

Discussion:

The Head of Planning outlined the planning application in detail.

The Committee discussed the application having regard to the mixed street scene.

Decision:

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

This report sets out appeal decision for the period July – September 2014. 

Decision: 

The Committee received and noted the appeal decision received during the period July – September 2014.

This report summarises the content of agenda items 16, 17 and 18, 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 Section 215 enforcement for the period July – September 2014. 

Decision:

The Committee received and noted a report setting out action taken by the Environmental Enforcement Team with regard to Section 215 enforcement during the months of July – September 2014. 

This report sets out action taken by the Derelict Building Officer with regard to key buildings and associated land in the Medway area during the period July – September 2014. 

Discussion:

The Head of Planning informed the Committee that Madeleine Mead had been appointed to the vacant post of Derelict Buildings Officer.

Decision:

The Committee received and noted a report on action taken by the Derelict Buildings officer during the period July – September 2014.

This report sets out enforcement for the period July – September 2014. 

Decision:

The Committee received and noted a report on enforcement proceedings for the period July – September 2014.