Agenda and minutes

To approve the record of the meeting held on 1 July 2015.

The record of the meeting held on 1 July 2015 was agreed and signed by the Chairman as correct. 

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Carr and Etheridge.

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. 

Disclosable pecuniary interests

There were none.

Other interests

Councillor Hicks 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 former officer of the Rochester and Strood Conservative Association and due to his involvement with the Brompton Club, he would leave the meeting for the consideration and determination of this planning application.

Councillor Hicks also referred to planning application MC/15/1453 (Bloors Place, 542 Lower Rainham Road, Rainham, Gillingham) and advised the Committee that owing to the applicant being a Conservative Councillor, he and Councillors Mrs Chambers, Gulvin, Potter, Purdy, Royle, Saroy, Tejan, Tranter and Wildey  would leave the meeting for the consideration and determination of this planning application.

Councillor Gulvin referred to planning application MC/14/3647 (Land at rear of 94 Bloors Lane, Rainham ) and advised the Committee that, as a person who would be adversely affected by the application was known to him, he would leave the meeting for the consideration and determination of this planning application.

Councillor Purdy referred to planning application MC/15/1742 (Adult Education Centre, including number 46 Green Street, Gillingham) and advised the Committee that as she was a Trustee of a tenant at 46 Green Street, she would leave the meeting for the consideration and determination of this planning application.

Councillor Gilry referred to planning application MC/15/1147 (214 City Way, Rochester) and advised the Panel that whilst a relative lived six doors away from this address, they had not discussed the application and she would therefore take part in the consideration and determination of the 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 as he was an officer of the Rochester and Strood Conservative Association and due to his involvement with 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.

Twydall

Construction of a 65 bed care home with associated parking and landscaping.

Discussion:

The Planning Manager East reminded the Committee that this application had been considered by the Committee on 1 July 2015 and deferred pending a site meeting which had taken place on 27 July 2015. She confirmed that at the site meeting, she had outlined the planning application and had summarised the main issues received in objection of the proposal. Residents had then raised a number of concerns which were summarised in the supplementary agenda advice sheet.

The Committee was advised that three further letters of representation had been received since the application was considered at the previous meeting of the Committee. These were summarised in the supplementary agenda advice sheet.

The Planning Manager East advised that, should the Committee be minded to approve planning permission, condition 22 set out on page 27 of the agenda should be amended to replace the stated year ‘1995’ with ‘2015’.

During discussion, concern was expressed about the scale and mass of the proposed building, given the proximity of the site to residential properties. It was considered that the building would be intrusive and would result in damage to the residential amenity of local residents. In addition, Members were concerned that an insufficient level of on site parking provision was proposed and may result in indiscriminate parking in Bloors Lane to the detriment of local residents.  Members of the Committee praised those residents who had attended the site meeting for the reasoned manner in which they had presented their case.

Decision:

Refused on the following grounds:

1.     Due to the scale, mass and close proximity of the proposed building in relation to the surrounding residential properties, particularly those to the north, the proposal would result in a dominant form of development, detrimental to the amenities of those residents contrary to Policy BNE2 of the Medway Local Plan 2003.

2.     Due to the scale and mass of the proposed building, the development would represent an overdevelopment of the site contrary to Policy BNE1 of the Medway Local Plan 2003.

3.     The applicant has failed to adequately demonstrate sufficient car parking on site to support the development and the community use which may lead to indiscriminate parking on Bloors Lane, detrimental to the amenities of surrounding residents contrary to 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.

Discussion:

The Planning Manager East outlined the application in detail, consideration of which had been deferred by the Committee on 1 July 2015 to enable Officers to undertake a more detailed investigation of on street parking in Brompton.  Committee Members were referred to the results of the parking survey which were included in the supplementary agenda advice sheet. 

A Member of the Committee read out a detailed statement on behalf of residents of Brompton opposed to the application. The statement highlighted residents’ concerns regarding parking provision and noted that the results of the parking survey were not available on the Council’s website prior to the meeting which meant that residents had been unable to comment on it.  The statement also referred to residents’ view that the proposals would represent overdevelopment of the site.

With reference to the parking survey, Members of the Committee expressed the view that more time was needed for the results to be considered in greater detail.  It was proposed that consideration of the application be deferred and that the parking survey assessment and results be incorporated into the report presented to the Committee at its next meeting.

Decision:

Consideration of this application was deferred for Members to consider the parking survey in more detail; the parking survey assessment and results to be incorporated into the Committee report for the next meeting on 26 August 2015.

Gillingham South

Alteration to Block D approved on planning permission MC/13/0674 to facilitate the conversion ground floor from car parking/cycle store to 8 student accommodation units with associated kitchen, living and dining areas.

Discussion:

The Planning Manager East outlined the planning application in detail and advised the Committee that since the despatch of the agenda, 8 further letters of representation with a total of 18 signatories had been received. Details were summarised on the supplementary agenda advice sheet.

The Committee discussed the application and the loss of car parking spaces to facilitate the addition of accommodation units was raised.  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 the remainder of the on site parking shall be for disabled users.

Decision:

Approved with conditions 1-13 as set out in the report for the reasons stated in the report and additional condition 14 as follows:

14.    The remainder of the parking on the site as shown on drawing number 12.73 201 shall only be available for, and used by disabled users.

Reason: To ensure adequate provision for disabled users in accordance with Policy T22 of the Medway Local Plan 2003.

Twydall

Construction of an indoor tennis centre with associated reception, changing facilities, function area, kitchen/cafe, grass/hard tennis courts, storage shed, entrance gates and parking area.

Discussion:

The Planner outlined the planning application in detail and suggested that, if the Committee was minded to approve the application, it may wish to amend condition 6 regarding the hours of operation for the centre and function room, as set out in the supplementary agenda advice sheet.

The Committee discussed the planning application and concern was expressed about provision of outdoor court lighting.  The Lawn Tennis Association had stated that the data implied that the scheme did not meet Lawn Tennis Association minimum standards. As the developer might therefore need to submit a new lighting plan, the Committee could not be certain that there would be no adverse impact on residential amenity although the retention of trees would reduce light spill. It was therefore considered that any new lighting plan should be submitted to the Committee for determination.

Decision:

a)        Approved with conditions 1-5 and 7-11 as set out in the agenda report for reasons stated in the report and condition 6 amended as follows:

6.         The hours of operation for the Centre and Function Room herein approved shall be between 07:00 – 23:00 Monday to Thursday, 07:00 - 00.30 Friday and Saturday and 08:00 – 22:30 Sundays and Public Holidays.

Reason:  In the interests of protecting neighbouring amenities in accordance with Policy BNE2 of the Medway Local Plan 2003.

b)                     any new lighting plan submitted by the developer to be referred to the Planning Committee for determination. 

Rochester South and Horsted

Part two storey/part first floor extensions to facilitate additional 12 bedrooms at first floor level with roof garden and relocation of fire escape.

Discussion:

The Planner outlined the report in detail and advised the Committee that the consultation period did not expire until 30 July 2015 due to the date of the site notice being posted.  Therefore, should the Committee be minded to approve the application,  this should be subject to no further representations being made during the consultation period.

The Committee was advised that the report had been generated without including an objection email received from Ward Councillors, which had been circulated to all Committee Members and was set out in full in the supplementary agenda advice sheet.

The Committee discussed the planning application in detail and concern was expressed that the proposed extended building would dominate this residential area and that the proposal therefore represented over development of the site. It was considered that the care home would have too many rooms on a site of limited size and that this may result in potential parking issues for staff and visitors.

Decision:

a)        Refused on the following grounds:

1.    The proposed development constitutes an over development of the site.

2.    The proposed development may result in potential parking issues for staff and visitors.

b)        The Head of Planning be granted delegated authority to agree the specific wording of the refusal grounds in consultation with the Chairman and Vice Chairman

Rochester West

Change of Use from Dental Surgery (D1) to Restaurant and Takeaway (A3 and A5).

Discussion:

The Planning Manager West outlined the planning application in detail.  As stated in the supplementary agenda advice sheet, she advised the Committee that the application would normally fall to be determined under officers’ delegated powers but was being reported for Members’ consideration due to the number of representations made contrary to the officer recommendation.

The Committee discussed the application and was advised that, under the proposed use no extraction system was required. The Committee was informed of the circumstances in which the use of a full extraction system would be required.  A Member of the Committee referred to the representations that had been received from residents and the City of Rochester Society and Historic Rochester.

Decision:

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

Peninsula

Variation of condition 2 to allow a minor material amendment to planning permission MC/15/0004 (Construction of a three bedroomed detached house with associated parking) for the formation of a gable end and construction of a dormer window to rear.

Discussion:

The Planning Manager West outlined the planning application in detail.

The Committee discussed the application, which sought a minor material amendment to a previous planning permission.  The Committee was advised that the proposed dormer extension would be to the rear of the property which in the view of officers would limit the harm to the street scene.

Decision:

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

Peninsula

Retention of play equipment in public house garden.

Discussion:

The Planning Manager West outlined this retrospective planning application.

With the agreement of the Committee, Councillor Filmer spoke on the application as a Ward Councillor and stated that the applicant was new to the premises and had overlooked that planning consent was required for the play equipment. The equipment had been expensive and would provide a good facility for the public. A number of public houses had closed down due to lack of business and those that remained needed to find ways to attract new customers.

The Committee discussed the application and expressed support for the retention of the play equipment at the premises in recognition of the benefits to the public that it would bring.

 Decision:

Approved subject to a condition that the proposal hereby approved shall be retained in accordance with site location plan WP/1205/101, photographs received 18 June 2015 and plan received 10 July 2015.

Rochester East

Construction of a single storey rear extension, formation of a hip to barn hip roof to provide additional living accommodation within the roof space including insertion of three roof lights to front, one roof light to rear, construction of a dormer window with Juliet balcony to rear, internal alterations and porch to front.

Discussion:

The Planning Manager West outlined the planning application in detail.

Decision:

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

Watling

Installation of black metal railings to top of existing brick boundary wall and replacement of existing close boarded boundary fence with brick wall and metal railings to match, and construction of summer house to rear.

Discussion:

The Planning Manager East outlined the planning application in detail and advised the Committee that the application would normally fall to be determined under officers’ delegated powers but was being reported for Members’ consideration for consistency given that the previous applications, which also related to boundary treatment, were considered by Planning Committee. 

In addition the Planning Manager East suggested that, should the Committee be minded to approve the application, the approval should be subject to no further representations being made during the consultation period that raised additional material planning matters not already considered. The consultation period expired on 10 August 2015 due to the date of the press notice being issued.

Decision:

Approval with conditions 1-5 as set out in the report for the reasons stated in the report, subject to no further representations being made during the consultation period that raise additional material planning matters not already considered.

Rainham North

Listed Building consent for internal and external alterations to include the re-ordering of the kitchen, construction of a conservatory extension and the conversion of an outbuilding to a utility room; insertion of a staircase, removal of an external link passage enclosure and the re-ordering of rooms at first floor and second floor levels together with alterations to windows including the installation of a dormer to  North East elevation and stonework repairs.

Discussion:

In the absence of the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Committee, Councillor Bowler was elected as Chairman of the Committee for the remainder of the meeting.

The Planning Manager East outlined the planning application in detail.

Decision:

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