Agenda and minutes
PDF 279 KBVenue: Meeting Room 2 - Level 3, Gun Wharf, Dock Road, Chatham, Kent ME4 4TR. View directions
Contact: Ellen Wright, Democratic Services Officer
| No. | Item |
|---|---|
|
To approve the record of the meeting held on 3 June 2015 and the Joint Meeting of Committees on 27 May 2015. Additional documents: Minutes: The record of the meeting held on 3 June 2015 and the Joint Meeting of Committees held on 27 May 2015 were agreed and signed by the Chairman as correct. |
|
|
Apologies for absence Minutes: An apology for absence was received from Councillor Etheridge. |
|
|
Urgent matters by reason of special circumstances 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. Minutes: There were none. |
|
|
Chairman's Announcements Minutes: The Chairman reminded Members that if they left the room for any part of the introduction or discussion on a planning application, they should not rejoin the Committee for the debate and decision-making for that particular application.
The Chairman also advised the Committee that planning application MC/15/0802 (Felicita, 60 Town Road, Cliffe Woods, Rochester ME3 8JJ) had been deferred from consideration at this meeting due to concerns regarding design and amenity. |
|
|
Declarations of disclosable pecuniary interests and other interests 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. Minutes: Disclosable pecuniary interests
There were none.
Other interests
Councillor Purdy referred to planning application MC/15/0681 – 46 Green Street, Gillingham and advised the Committee that as she was a Trustee of a tenant at this property she would leave the meeting for the consideration and determination of this planning application.
Councillor Hicks referred to planning application MC/15/0399 (Land adjacent to 13 – 15 High Street Brompton, Gillingham) and advised the Committee that owing to his involvement with both the Rochester and Strood Conservative Association and the Brompton Club, he would leave the meeting for the consideration and determination of this planning application.
Councillor Tejan referred to planning application MC/15/0399 (Land adjacent to 13 – 15 High Street Brompton, Gillingham) and advised the Committee that owing to his involvement with the Rochester and Strood Conservative Association and the Brompton Club he would leave the meeting for the consideration and determination of this planning application.
Councillor Tranter referred to planning application MC/15/0399 (Land adjacent to 13 – 15 High Street Brompton, Gillingham) and advised the Committee that as he was a member of the Rochester and Strood Conservative Association he would leave the meeting for the consideration and determination of this planning application.
The Chairman, Councillor Mrs Diane Chambers referring to planning application MC/15/0399 (Land adjacent to 13 – 15 High Street Brompton, Gillingham) advised the Committee that whilst she lived two roads away from the application site, she had not predetermined the planning application and would therefore take part in the consideration and determination of the planning application.
Councillor Royle addressed the Committee as Ward Councillor on planning application MC/15/1221 - 78a Ploughmans Way, Rainham and therefore took no part in the determination of the application.
Councillor Tranter addressed the Committee as Ward Councillor on planning application MC/150958 – Former St Matthews Playing Field, Borstal Street, Borstal, Rochester and therefore took no part in the determination of the application. |
|
|
Planning application - MC/14/3647 - Land at rear of 94 Bloors Lane, Rainham ME8 7DS Twydall
Construction of a 65 bed care home with associated parking and landscaping. Additional documents: Minutes: Discussion:
The Senior Planner outlined the planning application and in particular the planning history of the application site. Attention was drawn to a correction to the heading of the conclusions section of the report on page 47 to read ‘Conclusions and Reasons for approval’
With the permission of the Committee, Councillor Howard spoke on this planning application as Ward Councillor and requested that the Committee undertake a site visit so that Members of the Committee could have a better understanding of the impact that the proposed development would have upon the area and the amenity of local residents.
During discussion, it was highlighted that although the applicant had extant planning permission dating back to 1998 for provision of a 40 bed care home at this site. Concern was expressed as to whether the parking provision approved in 1998 to serve a 40 bed care home would be considered appropriate to serve a 65 bed care home in 2015.
Decision:
Consideration of this application was deferred pending a site visit. |
|
|
Planning application - MC/15/1186 - Jeffrey Street Car Park, Jeffrey Street, Gillingham Gillingham North
Construction of a four storey building to provide 68 student rooms 8 common rooms and associated support facilities together with cycle and bin storage. Additional documents: Minutes: Discussion:
The Senior Planner outlined the planning application and, referring to planning permission MC/13/1489, outlined the changes between that scheme and the scheme now placed before the Committee for consideration.
Referring to the supplementary agenda advice sheet, he advised the Committee that Southern Gas Networks had confirmed that they had no comments upon the application and the agent had written to confirm that all bikes would be securely stored on the ground floor, accessed through 2 doors secured with a coded keypad. The agent had also provided 3D models providing a contextual view of the proposed building.
It was suggested that if the Committee was minded to approve this planning application, the Committee may wish to approve an additional condition stating that occupants of the student accommodation shall not be entitled to apply for or acquire parking permits for on street car parking in the local area.
The Committee discussed the planning application and concern was expressed that whilst the Committee supported the provision of student accommodation and the regeneration of this area of Gillingham, the proposed development, by virtue of its scale and massing was too large and would be overbearing on the 2 storey properties on the opposite side of Jeffrey Street.
In response to a question from a Member, it was clarified that should planning permission be granted for student accommodation, if at any time in the future there was a desire to change use of the accommodation it would be necessary for the applicant to seek planning permission for such change.
Decision:
a) Refused on the following ground:
The proposed development represents an over-development of the site, which together with its height, bulk, mass and scale would dominate this part of Jeffrey Street and be overbearing for the properties on the opposite side of Jeffrey Street.
b) The Head of Planning be granted delegated authority to approved the specific wording of the refusal grounds outside of the meeting in consultation with the Chairman and Vice Chairman. |
|
|
Planning application - MC/15/0681 - 46 Green Street, Gillingham ME7 5TJ Gillingham South
Demolition of existing office building and construction of a detached three-storey building consisting of 12 student bedroom units Additional documents: Minutes: Discussion:
The Senior Planner outlined the planning application and advised the Committee that since despatch of the agenda, one further letter of objection purportedly on behalf of 16 local residents had been received adding to an objection received and summarised within the committee report. Details of the letter were summarised on the supplementary agenda advice sheet.
In addition, he drew attention to an additional Officer Appraisal Section on the supplementary agenda advice sheet which sought to address the issues raised by objectors in respect of Human Rights issues.
With the agreement of the Committee, Councillor Johnson spoke on this application as Ward Councillor and outlined the concerns of the local residents. He requested that the Committee defer consideration of this planning application and undertake a site visit so that the Committee can familiarise itself with the site and have an appreciation of the planning application in a wider context.
Decision:
Consideration of this application be deferred pending a site visit. |
|
|
Planning application - MC/15/0962 - 67, 69 and 71 High Street, Gillingham ME7 1BJ Gillingham South
Change of use of 1st and 2nd floor office and non-residential uses to create a total of 7 flats and associated works. Additional documents: Minutes: Discussion:
The Senior Planner outlined the planning application in detail and confirmed that the proposed development did not include any parking provision. He suggested that if the Committee was minded to approve the application, as this development was located within a town centre, the Committee may wish to consider the inclusion of a further condition stating that occupants of the proposed accommodation shall not be entitled to apply for or acquire parking permits for on street car parking in the local area.
Decision:
Approved with conditions 1 – 6 as set out in the report for the reasons stated in the report and an additional condition 7 as follows:
7. Residents of the residential accommodation hereby permitted shall not be entitled to apply for or acquire residents parking permits for on street parking in the area
Reason: To ensure that the development permitted does not prejudice conditions of highway safety or prejudice the amenities of residents living in the area and to accord with Policy BNE2 of the Medway Local Plan 2003. |
|
|
River
Construction of a three storey building comprising of eight 1-bedroomed apartments with associated cycle/bin store together with demolition of the single storey bar area to the rear of Brompton Club and reinstatement of the original door position leading from High Street, Brompton. Additional documents: Minutes: Discussion:
The Senior Planner outlined the planning application in detail.
The Committee discussed the planning application and concern was expressed as to the affect that the proposed development could have upon on street parking in Brompton, particularly as roads in Brompton were already heavily utilised for the parking of vehicles during the day by individuals who worked or studied at various sites in close proximity to Brompton.
Concern was also expressed that the proposed development could result in loss of car parking facilities for the adjacent club which would also affect availability of on street parking.
The Principal Transport Planner informed the Committee that in support of the application, the applicant had undertaken a night-time survey of surrounding streets and had identified a reasonable amount of spare capacity with a minimum of 31 spaces available. Therefore, it was not considered that a demand for 6 car parking spaces generated by the development would have a significant material impact on kerbside parking in the vicinity of the site.
The Committee deliberated the application and considered that prior to determining this planning application it would be appropriate for Officers to undertake a more detailed investigation of on street parking at different times of the day and evening in Brompton. In addition, Officers were requested to have regard to the potential displacement of parking by patrons of the adjacent club.
Decision:
Consideration of this application be deferred and Officers be requested to undertake a more detailed investigation of on street parking at different times of the day and evening in Brompton and a report be re-submitted to the next meeting of the Committee with such report also have regard to the potential displacement of parking by patrons of the adjacent club. |
|
|
Planning application - MC/15/0358 - Forresters Hall, Sturdee Avenue, Gillingham ME7 2JN Gillingham South
Demolition of existing hall to facilitate the construction of one 3 bedroomed and one 4 bedroomed semi-detached houses with associated parking. Additional documents: Minutes: Discussion:
The Senior Planner outlined the planning application in detail.
Decision:
Approved with conditions 1 – 8 as set out in the report for the reasons stated in the report. |
|
|
Planning application - MC/15/0843 - 78 Livingstone Road, Gillingham ME7 2EJ Gillingham South
Demolition of existing working mens club and construction of nine 4-bedroomed terrace houses. Additional documents: Minutes: Discussion:
The Head of Planning outlined the planning application in detail.
The Committee was informed that since despatch of the agenda a further 5 letters had been received following re-consultation on the amended plans objecting to the application on grounds already set out in the report and, in addition the following:
The Committee considered the planning application
Decision:
Approved with conditions 1 – 12 as set out in the report for the reasons stated in the report. |
|
|
Planning application - MC/15/1221 - 78a Ploughmans Way, Rainham, Gillingham ME8 8LJ Rainham South
Retrospective application for the installation of 1.86m fencing and gate. Additional documents: Minutes: Discussion:
The Head of Planning outlined the planning application in detail. He explained that whilst this was a retrospective planning application and the fencing had already been erected, in recognition of the concerns of the adjoining neighbour, the applicant had expressed a willingness to change the top section of two of the close boarded fence panels and replace with trellis so as to provide a more open aspect.
With the agreement of the Committee, Councillor Royle spoke on this planning application as Ward Councillor and informed the Committee of the reasons why the applicant had erected the fencing and gate. He explained that whilst he had sympathy for the applicant, he also had sympathy for the adjoining neighbour and stated that this was a balanced application.
The Committee discussed the application and, whilst noting the applicant’s offer of replacing the top section of two fence panels with trellis, Members expressed the view that if the top section of all the fence panels were to be replaced with a section of trellis this would reduce the solid appearance of the fence thus improving the visual impact.
Decision:
Approved with condition 1 as set out in the report for the reason stated in the report and condition 2 amended as follows:
2. Notwithstanding the approved plans, within 1 calendar month of the date of the decision, the crossed top section of fencing (as shown on photograph 2 received on 10 April 2015) shall be removed and replaced by trellis and this shall be replicated on all of the panels around the garden. The resultant boundary treatment shall thereafter be maintained.
Reason: To ensure that the appearance of the development is satisfactory and without prejudice to conditions of visual and neighbouring amenity in the locality, in accordance with Policies BNE1 and BNE2 of the Medway Local Plan 2003. |
|
|
Rainham South
Change of use of land for the creation of a hardstanding to site 12 mobile homes for 52 weeks of the year for occupation by seasonal agricultural workers along with associated engineering works. Additional documents: Minutes: Discussion:
The Head of Planning outlined the planning application and 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.
In addition, he suggested that a further condition 6 be added to state that no caravans shall be occupied for more than 10 consecutive calendar months in one year and, referring to proposed condition 1 it was suggested that the word ‘locality’ be amended to ‘within 5 miles of the site’.
With the agreement of the Committee, Councillor Wicks spoke on this planning application as Ward Councillor and he outlined concerns that the introduction of 12 mobile homes at the site would provide a population on site almost as large as the small hamlet of houses in Meresborough. He expressed concern as the affect that the proposal could have upon the residents of the hamlet and the local school and the affect of traffic movements on the narrow country lane in and out of the hamlet.
In addition, Councillor Wicks drew attention to the statement by Southern Water that there is no public foul or surface water sewer within the vicinity of the site.
The Committee discussed the planning application and expressed concern as to the ease of enforcement so as to ensure that agricultural workers were not living on site 12 months of the year. In response, the Head of Planning gave an assurance that this site would be closely monitored and he referred to the proposed conditions which were already in place at similar agricultural sites across the County.
A Member suggested that rather than restrict use of the caravans to 10 consecutive months in any one calendar year, it would be preferable to specifically state the 10 months during which the caravans would be permitted to be occupied e.g. not in December or January or January and February dependent upon the type of agricultural work to be undertaken.
Another Member suggested that an additional condition be imposed requiring provision of drainage facilities on site.
Decision:
a) Approved with conditions 2 – 4 as set out in the report for the reasons stated in the report, condition 1 amended as set out below and new conditions 5, 6 and 7 as set out below:
1. The occupation of the caravans hereby permitted shall be limited to persons solely or mainly employed within 5 miles of the site in agriculture as defined in Section 336 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
Reason: To reflect the special occupational need for the permitted development and its situation in an area where residential development would not normally be permitted in accordance with Policy BNE25 of the Medway Local Plan 2003.
5. Within 2 months of the date of this notice the remaining part of the glasshouse shown on drawing 3253/DR_001Rev B shall be demolished and all the resulting material removed from the site.
Reason: In the interests of the visual amenities of the area ... view the full minutes text for item 100. |
|
|
Peninsula
Demolition of Rayes Lodge and redevelopment of the site to provide 3 new dwellings consisting of a detached 4 bedroom dwelling and 2 link detached 3 bedroom dwellings, together with associated off-street car parking and amenity provision. Additional documents: Minutes: Discussion:
The Head of Planning outlined the planning application in detail and suggested that if the Committee was minded to approve the application, proposed condition 3 be amended to replace reference to MC/14/1600 with MC/15/1210.
In addition, he drew attention to the supplementary agenda advice sheet which set out amended information as to the Section 106 matters referred to on page 151 of the report.
Decision:
Approved with conditions 1 – 2 and 4 – 13 as set out in the case papers and condition 3 amended as set out below:
3. The materials used in the construction of the three dwellings hereby approved shall accord with the approved details listed within the Materials Schedule RevD, dated 17/6/14, approved under MC/15/1210, which includes materials used for house types A, E and G.
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 of the Medway Local Plan 2003. |
|
|
Strood Rural
Construction of 2 storey side and rear extension, single storey rear extension, insertion of 2 dormers in front roof slope and a box dormer in rear roof slope Additional documents: Minutes: Decision:
It was noted that this planning application had been deferred from consideration at this meeting due to concerns regarding design and amenity. |
|
|
Planning application - MC/15/1358 - 39 Love Lane, Rochester ME1 1JD Rochester West
Retrospective application for the construction of a conservatory to rear. Additional documents: Minutes: Discussion:
The Head of Planning outlined the planning application in detail.
Decision:
Approved with condition 1 as set out in the report for the reasons stated in the report. |
|
|
Planning application - MC/15/1173 - 20 Benenden Road, Wainscott, Rochester ME2 4NX Strood Rural
Retrospective application for construction of a decked area and boundary fence to rear. Additional documents: Minutes: Discussion:
The Head of Planning outlined the planning application in detail.
Decision:
Approved with conditions 1 and 2 as set out in the report for the reasons stated in the report. |
|
|
Rochester West
Construction of 9 two bedroom and 9 three bedroom houses with associated access and parking and formation of community open space (Resubmission of MC/14/2862). Additional documents: Minutes: Discussion:
The Head of Planning reminded the Committee that this application had been considered by the Committee on 3 June 2015 and deferred pending a site visit which had taken place on 29 June 2015.
He confirmed that at the site visit, he had outlined the planning application, summarised the representations received and clarified the planning issues as they related to matters of principle, design and layout, amenity and highways, including parking.
The agent had clarified that there were no school buildings within the site.
A summary of the concerns raised by local residents was set out on the supplementary agenda advice sheet.
The Head of Planning confirmed that since despatch of the agenda, one further letter had been received from a resident expressing concern that their side windows open out onto one of the gardens for the proposed properties and that there would be a loss of light to these windows
In addition, the Committee was informed that the agent had provided a response to concerns regarding cesspools, a copy of which had bee appended to the supplementary agenda advice sheet.
With the agreement of the Committee, Councillors Tranter and Tolhurst spoke on this application as Ward Councillors and summarised the concerns of local residents. In addition, they outlined the problems currently being experienced with vandalism to the former school buildings close to the application site and their concern that should the development proceed, it would land lock the former school buildings so that they would continue to fall into disrepair. Other concerns included the affect that the proposed development would have upon local infrastructure including the local road network and local schools .
In addition, the Ward Councillors referred to the element of the proposed Section 106 agreement and questioned why funding was being directed to the Great Lines Heritage Park, as this was not located in the vicinity of the application site.
The Committee discussed the application in detail noting the concerns raised by local residents at the site meeting and the views expressed by the Ward Councillors.
The Committee had regard to the number of properties proposed to be provided as part of the development and the affect that this would have upon the local road network. In addition, concern was expressed as to the proposed size, number and layout of the proposed units.
In response to questions, the Head of Planning advised the Committee that whilst he recognised that the proposed development, if approved, would make the future development of the former school buildings difficult, he was not of the opinion that the development currently under consideration would result in land locking of the school buildings.
In addition, he confirmed that the proposed Section 106 contribution to the Great Lines Heritage Park had been included as this was a provision set out within the Developer’s Contribution Guide.
Decision:
a) Refused on the following grounds:
1. The proposed development constitutes and over development of the site. 2. The proposed development by virtue of its layout is ... view the full minutes text for item 105. |