Agenda and minutes
PDF 276 KBVenue: Canteen area - Level 3, Gun Wharf, Dock Road, Chatham ME4 4TR
Contact: Ellen Wright, Democratic Services Officer
| No. | Item |
|---|---|
|
To approve the record of the meeting held on 26 August 2015. Minutes: The record of the meeting held on 26 August 2015 was agreed and signed by the Chairman as correct. |
|
|
Apologies for absence Minutes: An apology for absence was received from the Chairman, Councillor Mrs Diane Chambers. In the absence of the Chairman, the Vice Chairman, Councillor Hicks chaired the meeting. |
|
|
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. |
|
|
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
The Chairman, 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 Iles 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 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 Carr referred to planning application MC/15/2637 – Former Park and Ride Bus Terminus, Marconi Way, Rochester and advised the Committee that he was a member of the Kent and Medway Fire and Rescue Authority. However, he confirmed that he had not been involved in any discussions on the planning application and would therefore speak and vote upon 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.
Councillor Tranter also referred to planning application MC/15/2637 – Former Park and Ride Bus Terminus, Marconi Way, Rochester and advised the Committee that he was a member of the Kent and Medway Fire and Rescue Authority. However, he confirmed that he had not been involved in any discussions on the planning application and would therefore speak and vote upon 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 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.
The Head of Planning, Dave Harris referred to planning application MC/15/2436 (18 Northwood Avenue, High Halstow, Rochester) and informed the Committee that as a friend of the applicant, he had provided pre-application advice upon the planning application. However, he confirmed that once the planning application had been received by the Council, he had not had any involvement in the processing of the application.
|
|
|
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 Head of Planning reminded the Committee that this planning application had previously been submitted to the Committee for consideration but had been deferred at the meeting on 26 August 2015 pending a site visit.
Such site visit had taken place on 14 September 2015 at which the Senior Planner had explained the application in detail referring to the submitted plans and summarising representations received. In addition he had set out the planning issues as they related to the principle of the development, design, residential amenity, parking provision and impact on highway safety.
A summary of the concerns raised by the residents at the site visit were set out on the supplementary agenda advice sheet.
The Committee discussed the planning application and noted that whilst Members had previously had concerns as to the effect that the proposed development could have upon on-street parking in the vicinity of the application site, it was noted that Officers had undertaken an independent parking survey, full details of which were set out in the committee report. The results of the survey indicated that there were a number of kerbside car parking spaces available at various times of the day and evening in streets surrounding the application site. It was therefore considered that there was insufficient evidence available to justify refusal of this planning application on grounds relating to the affect that the development would have on on-street parking.
Members confirmed that having seen the application site, it was generally considered that the proposed development would enhance the existing street scene.
Decision:
Approved with conditions 1 – 14 as set out in the report for the reasons stated in the report. |
|
|
Planning application - MC/15/2436 - 18 Northwood Avenue, High Halstow, Rochester ME3 8SX Peninsula
Construction of 4 bedroom detached house with integral garage and creation of new access (demolition of existing garage). Additional documents: Minutes: Discussion:
The Planning Manager – West outlined the planning application in detail.
In response to questions, she advised upon the boundary treatment between the existing property and the proposed property.
Decision:
Approved subject to:
a) The applicant completing a Unilateral Undertaking to secure a contribution of £223.58 towards the appropriate mitigation measures within the Special Protection Areas to pay for the Council’s Legal and Monitoring Costs; and b) Conditions 1 – 10 as set out in the report for the reasons stated in the report. |
|
|
Rochester and Horsted
Application for removal of Condition 29 (Final external colour to the sprinkler tank) and variation of Condition 11 (Code of Construction Practice) to extend construction working hours on site to include Saturdays 09:00 – 17:00 hours and Sundays 10:00 – 15:00 hours on planning permission MC/13/1265 - (Change of use from car park to construction of new two storey fire station with triple bay tandem appliance garage with attached two storey road safety and driver training centre. Construction of fire training house and tower and car park and drill yard construction together with landscaping and fencing works). Additional documents: Minutes: Discussion:
The Planning Manager – West explained that this application related to the removal of previously agreed condition 29 (Final external colour of the sprinkler tank) and variation of condition 11 (Code of Construction Practice) to extend construction working hours on site to include Saturdays 09.00 – 17.00 hours and Sundays 10.00 – 15.00 hours on planning permission MC/13/1265.
She outlined the reasons for the applicant’s request for the conditions to be revised and informed the Committee that should it be minded to approve the current application, a new planning permission would be issued. As the development was already in the process of being constructed, all previously approved conditions attached to planning permission MC/13/1265 had therefore been reviewed and revised and where necessary re-numbered.
Decision:
Approved with conditions 1 - 28 as set out in the report for the reasons stated in the report.
|
|
|
Replacement of Medway Housing Design Standards with the Nationally Described Standard This report introduces the new government ‘Nationally Described Space Standard’ on space within homes and asks that the Committee note that the government standard should be used to help assess the adequacy of space within homes proposed by planning applications. Minutes: Discussion:
The Head of Planning informed the Committee that the Government had introduced a new national standards that laid down minimum space requirements within houses and flats. This standard was broadly equivalent to the previously approved Medway Housing Design Standards.
The Committee was informed that as the Council did not have an up to date Local Plan that referred to the National Standard, nor had it carried out specific consultation on the National Standard, it could not adopt the National Standard or continue to apply the space standards laid out in the Medway Housing Design Standards when determining planning applications. However, the Head of Planning informed the Committee that the issue of space within a home remained a legitimate planning concern when assessing amenity with regard to planning applications and therefore it was intended that the National Space Standards be used as guidance in determining planning applications until such time that the Council had an approved Local Plan.
Decision:
It be noted that the National Space Standards will be used as guidance in determining planning applications where relevant.
|
|