Agenda and minutes

To approve the record of the meeting held on 28 July 2015.

The record of the meeting held on 28 July 2015 was agreed and signed by the Chairman as correct. 

The Committee noted that in accordance with Minute 160 of the meeting held on 28 July 2015, the following refusal grounds for planning application MC/15/2072 (Aquarius, 8 Watson Avenue, Horsted, Chatham) had been agreed by the Head of Planning under delegated authority in consultation with the Chairman and Vice Chairman:

1.    Due to the scale and mass of the proposal on such a prominent corner, the extension would represent a dominant form of development and an overdevelopment of the site contrary to Policy BNE1 of the Medway Local Plan 2003.

2.    As a result of the increased number of rooms and the lack of off-street car parking, the proposed extension is likely to lead to increased parking pressure and potentially indiscriminate parking on the surrounding residential roads, detrimental to the amenities of the surrounding residents contrary to Policy BNE2 of the Medway Local Plan 2003.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Bowler, Griffiths, McDonald, Saroy and Tejan. 

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 reminded Members that if they left the meeting for any part of the officer presentation or debate on a particular item, they would not be permitted to participate in the decision making on that item.

The Chairman also announced that planning application MC/15/1595 (1 Parsonage Lane, Strood) had been withdrawn from the agenda and therefore would not be considered at this meeting.

Disclosable pecuniary interests

There were none.

Other interests

The Chairman, Councillor Mrs Diane Chambers referred to planning application MC/15/2324 (538 Bloors Farm, 538 – 540 Lower Rainham Road, Rainham) and advised the Committee that as the applicant was known to her she would withdraw from 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 as he was a former officer of the Rochester and Strood Conservative Association and, owing to his involvement with the Brompton Club, he would leave the meeting for the consideration and determination of this planning application.

Councillor Etheridge referred to planning application MC/15/0399 (Land adjacent to 13 – 15 High Street Brompton, Gillingham) and advised the Committee that due 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 Johnson referred to planning application MC/15/0761 (Land at Otterham Quay Lane, Rainham) and advised the Committee that having previously expressed a view upon this planning application, he would withdraw from the meeting for the consideration and determination of this planning application.

Councillor Potter referred to planning application MC/15/0761 – (Land at Otterham Quay Lane, Rainham) and advised the Committee that as he wished to address the Committee as Ward Councillor on this application he would withdraw from the Committee and not take part in the decision making on this particular 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.

Rainham North

A sustainable urban extension comprising up to 300 new dwellings (of a range of sizes, types and tenures, including affordable housing), including public open and amenity space, together with associated landscaping, access, highways (including footpaths and cycleways), parking, drainage (including a foul water pumping station), utilities and service infrastructure works (all matters reserved except for point of access).

Discussion:

The Planning Consultant outlined the planning application and, in doing so,  advised the Committee that as a result of further amendments to the application and the receipt of an addendum to the Environmental Statement, 39 further representations had been received some of which re-iterated previously stated objections within the committee report. However, a number of additional matters had been raised and these, along with the representations received from Natural England and Rehman Chishti MP, were set out on the supplementary agenda advice sheet.

He also confirmed that subject to the proper application of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations, the applicant had confirmed that, in principle, they were prepared to accept the Section 106 Obligations referred to within the committee report and set out on the supplementary agenda advice sheet.

However, with regard to the Section 106 contribution for open space and play space provision, the applicant had indicated that if it could be demonstrated that the amount of on-site provision would not satisfy the Council’s adopted standards, as identified in the Developer Contributions SPD, the applicant would be prepared to make a financial contribution to meet any shortfall.

The Planning Consultant also referred to the applicant’s submissions relating to the significance of the loss of Best and Most Versatile (BMV) agricultural land should the planning application be approved. He drew attention to the Counsel’s advice and guidance obtained by both the applicant and the Council, full details of which were also set out on the supplementary agenda advice sheet.

The Principal Transport Planner informed the Committee that as a means of mitigating the impact of additional traffic generated by the development, the applicant proposed to re-position the stop line of the existing traffic controls in Otterham Quay Lane so that it was located closer to the junction with the A2 and also proposed changes to the timings of the light controls to reduce the impact of vehicles queuing for access onto the A2. In addition, other proposed measures included the provision of traffic islands and a new controlled crossing to link the development to the other side of the road.

With the agreement of the Committee, Councillor Potter spoke on this application as Ward Councillor. He outlined concerns that the proposed development, owing to the number of proposed dwellings, would seriously impact upon existing educational facilities in Rainham. In addition, the number of additional vehicular movements would detrimentally impact the free movement of traffic not only in the immediate vicinity of the development but also on other routes through Medway, some of which were residential streets. In addition, he expressed concern that the proposed development, if approved would be an erosion of the open character of Rainham.

The Committee discussed the report and Members expressed concern that they were not convinced that the applicant’s proposed highways works would mitigate the impact of the number of additional vehicular movements generated should the development be approved. Reference was made to the existing junction of Otterham Quay Lane and the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 261.

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 Head of Planning reminded the Committee that this application had originally been submitted for consideration on 1 July 2015 following which the application had been deferred to enable officers to undertake an assessment of on street parking in the area. This information had been submitted to the Committee for consideration on 28 July 2015 within the supplementary agenda advice sheet and it had subsequently been decided to defer the application again so that Members had sufficient time to consider the information in more detail.

A Member suggested that the Committee undertake a site visit to enable Members to have a better understanding of the area and the concerns expressed by local residents.    

Decision: 

Consideration of the planning application be deferred pending a site visit.

Rochester South and Horsted

Creation of a children's play area to the north west corner of the existing car park and installation of a modular building to accommodate two full size snooker tables.

Discussion:

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.

Strood North

Conversion from office and storage accommodation into a one-bedroom residential dwelling with detached garage.

Discussion:

The Head of Planning outlined the planning application and suggested that if the Committee was minded to approve the planning application, proposed conditions 2 and 3 be replaced and condition 5 be amended, details of which were set out on the supplementary agenda advice sheet.

The Committee discussed the application and the Head of Planning gave an assurance that the condition relating to the removal of the internal wall within the property was enforceable.

Decision:

Approved with conditions 1 and 4 as set out in the report for the reasons stated in the report and conditions 2, 3 and 5 as set out below:

2.         Prior to first residential occupation of the dwelling hereby approved, the internal changes, namely the removal of an internal wall to provide an enlarged living area, and replacement roof lights shown on drawing JC/0902/102 REV B received on 1 July 2015, shall be undertaken in full. Thereafter there shall be no internal walls constructed to subdivide rooms to create additional bedrooms or external alterations to amend the roof lights.

Reason: In the interests of both the amenity of prospective occupiers and occupiers of neighbouring properties in accordance with the provisions of Policy BNE2 of the Medway Local Plan 2003.

3.         Prior to first occupation of the dwelling hereby approved details of amendments to the access gates and the means of enclosure for the private amenity area and any resurfacing of that area, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  The approved details shall be implemented prior to first occupation and thereafter retained.

Reason: In the interests of the character of the area and the amenities of prospective occupiers and to accord with Policy BNE2 of the Medway Local Plan 2003.

5.         The vehicle parking and garaging space detailed on drawing number JC/0902/102 REV B received on 1 July 2015, as may be amended by details submitted pursuant to condition 3 above, shall be kept available for such use and no permanent development, whether or not permitted by the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (or any order amending, revoking or re-enacting that Order) shall be carried out on the land so shown or in such a position as to preclude vehicular access to this reserved parking space and garaging.

Reason:  Development without provision of adequate accommodation for the parking or garaging of vehicles is likely to lead to hazardous on-street parking and in accordance with Policy H9.

Rainham North

Construction of an agricultural storage building.

Discussion:

In the absence of the Chairman, the Vice Chairman took the chair for this item.

The Planning Manager – East outlined the report and drew attention to a correction in that any reference in the report to 340sqm should be changed to 360sqm and the percentage increase in size should state 20% in place of 13%.

She advised the Committee that since publication of the agenda, comments had been received from the Agricultural Advisor regarding the proposed development and these were summarised on the supplementary agenda advice sheet along with comments submitted by the agent and Kent Wildlife Trust in support of the application.

The Committee discussed the application having regard to the comments received from the Agricultural Advisor and concern was expressed that this building, which was already in the process of being built, was excessively large for the purposes of agricultural storage.

In addition, it was considered that the building, by virtue of its size had a detrimental impact on the landscape. A Member reminded the Committee that the development of the adjoining oast house for residential purposes had been conditional upon the removal of the agricultural structure that had previously been located on site.

Decision:

Refused on the following ground:

The submitted application fails to adequately demonstrate the agricultural need for the size of building proposed and is therefore considered to be excessive for the size of the agricultural holding to which it relates contrary to Policy BNE25(i) of the Medway Local Plan 2003.

Strood North

Construction of a single storey modular building to be used as assisted living care facility.

Decision: 

This application was withdrawn from consideration at this meeting.

Walderslade

Construction of a 2 bedroom end of terrace house.

Discussion:

The Planning Manager – East outlined the planning application in detail.

A Member expressed concern regarding the loss of garden land in an urban area.

Decision:

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

This report sets out performance for the period 1 April – 30 June 2015.

The Committee received and noted a report on performance activity for the period 1 April – 30 June 2015.

The Committee requested that the Head of Planning pass on the Committee’s appreciation to staff for the work undertaken to meet planning targets and that the Committee’s best wishes be extended to the Enforcement Officer who was currently on sick leave.

This report sets out appeal decisions for the period April – June 2015.

The Committee received and noted a report on appeal decisions received during the period April – June 2015.

This report informs the Committee of the amount of Section 106 funding received between April to June 2015 and sets out what the contributions must be spent on according to the Section 106 agreements.

The Committee received and noted a report on Section 106 funding received and those Section 106 agreements signed during the period April – June 2015.

The Head of Planning drew attention to a correction to the report author as stated on the first page of the report and advised the Committee that as a result of a challenge through the courts, the Government had now removed the Vacant Building Credit.

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.

Decision:

That the press and public be excluded from the meeting during consideration of the exempt material relating to agenda items 16, 17 and 18because consideration of these matters in public would disclose information falling within Paragraph 6of Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972 as specified in agenda item 15, and, in all the circumstances of the case, the Committee considered that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighed the public interest in disclosing the information.

The Democratic Services Officer drew attention to the wording printed as a heading on the top of each page of the exempt reports and confirmed that this required correction to refer to paragraph 6 as set out in the exclusion of press and public report.

This report details the action taken by the Environmental Enforcement Team (EET)with regard to section 215 issues in the Quarter 4 2014/15.

The Committee received and noted a report on Section 215 enforcement for the period January – March 2015.

This is the quarterly report to Planning Committee informing members of the action taken by the Derelict Building Officer with regard to key buildings and associated land in the Medway area during the period 01 January – 30 June 2015.

The Committee received and noted a report on action taken by the Derelict Buildings Officer for the period January – June 2015.

This report seeks to consider an alleged breach of planning control at a site in Rochester.  It first assesses whether there has been a breach of planning control and on the basis that there has, it sets out whether it is appropriate to take Enforcement action and the options open to the Authority.

Discussion:

The Head of Planning advised the Committee of a breach of planning control at a site in Rochester.

He reported upon the latest information received from Historic England and the options available to the Committee.

Decision:

Prior to considering possible action, a site visit be arranged for the Committee.