Agenda and minutes

To approve the record of the meeting held on 23 September 2015.

The record of the meeting held on 23 September 2015 was agreed and signed by the Chairman as correct it being noted that the heading titled ‘Minute 354 (Additional Information – Presentation)’ required removal from the minutes as this had been included in error.

There were none.

There were none.

Disclosable pecuniary interests

There were none.

Other interests

Councillor Saroy referred to planning application MC/15/2078 (27 Watling Street, Gillingham) and advised the Committee that as she was a member of the Darland Resident’s Association and, as the Association had commented upon the application, she would withdraw from the meeting for the consideration and determination of this application.

Councillor Tranter addressed the Committee as Ward Councillor on planning application MC/15/2643 (35 Watts Avenue, Rochester) and therefore took no part in the determination of the planning application.

Rochester West

Construction of a single storey rear extension - demolition of existing conservatory to rear.

Discussion:

The Planner outlined the planning application in detail and advised the Committee that since despatch of the agenda, eleven further letters of representation had been received and she advised that a summary of the objections was set out on the supplementary agenda advice sheet. She drew attention to the fact that one letter of representation had requested that members undertake a site visit prior to determining the planning application.

The Head of Planning advised the Committee that the Chairman had received a petition earlier in the day relating to this particular planning application but that as this had been received after the closing date for representations, it was not possible for this to be taken into consideration at this meeting.

With the agreement of the Committee, Councillor Tranter addressed the Committee as Ward Councillor and, in doing so, he took no part in the determination of the planning application. He referred to the concerns of the objectors in respect of the proposed development and referred in particular to the affect of the proposed extension on the immediate surrounding area, materials to be used for the extension and concerns relating to parking pressure in the area.

The Committee discussed the application having regard to the basis of the objections raised and the detailed plans for the extension and photographs displayed as part of the Officer’s presentation. The Committee noted that proposed condition 3 required all materials used externally to match those of the existing building.

The Committee did not consider that on this occasion a site visit would be necessary.

Decision:

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

Strood South

Construction of a conservatory to the rear.

Discussion:

The Planner outlined the planning application and confirmed that whilst no objections had been received relating to this planning application, it had been referred to Committee for determination on the basis that the applicant was the wife of a Councillor.

Decision: 

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

Rainham South

Outline application with some reserved matters (Appearance, Landscaping, Layout and Scale) for residential development of up to 190 dwellings (Including a minimum of 25% affordable housing), planting and landscaping, informal open space, surface water attenuation, a vehicular access point from Otterham Quay Lane and associated works (Resubmission of MC/14/3784).

Discussion:

The Head of Planning advised the Committee that in December 2014, planning application MC/14/3784 relating to 200 units and 2.7 hectares of open space had been received relating to this particular application site. The application had originally been due for determination on 23 March 2015, but it had not been possible to reach agreement with the applicant on the various elements of proposed Section 106 contributions by this date. The applicant had been unwilling to enter into a Planning Extension Agreement and had decided instead to appeal against the non-determination of the planning application. On this basis, the planning application had been reported to the Committee on 29 April 2015, following which the Committee had determined that had it been in a position to determine the planning application, it would have been refused. The grounds for the refusal were set out on pages 25 and 26 of the current Committee report.

The Head of Planning advised the Committee that since 29 April 2015, negotiations had continued on the range and scale of contributions that would need to be included within any Section 106 agreement relating to development of this site and he confirmed that the applicant had now agreed to all of the requested financial contributions, full details of which were set out on the supplementary agenda advice sheet. On this basis, it was now considered that there was no conflict with the objectives of Policy S6 of the Medway Local Plan 2003.

The Head of Planning advised the Committee that the current planning application (MC/15/2731) was for residential development of up to 190 dwellings, which was a reduction over that originally proposed in planning application MC/14/3784. He confirmed that all other elements of the planning application remained the same.

As there were a number of new Members of the Committee since the original planning application had been considered on 29 April 2015, the Head of Planning undertook a detailed presentation on the current planning application.

He referred in particular to the current position with regard to housing land supply in Medway but stressed that this particular site was of significant landscape importance and that the proposed development of the site would not only have a serious impact on the conservation area but would be detrimental to the unique character of the area.

He further advised that since the applicants had lodged an appeal relating to planning application MC/14/3784, the Council had appointed a Highways Consultant and the Consultant had agreed that there was a justifiable case for refusing the planning application for development at this site on the basis of the detrimental impact on the capacity of the A2/Otterham Quay Lane junction. Taking this into account a specific refusal ground had been included to take into account this concern for planning application MC/15/2731.

The Head of Planning also advised that should the Committee be minded to refuse this planning application, it was proposed that a further refusal ground be approved as set out below:

6.         The  ...  view the full minutes text for item 445.

Strood Rural

Outline application with some matters reserved (Appearance, Landscaping, Layout and Scale) for the construction of 9 detached houses with detached garages and outbuilding.

Discussion:

The Head of Planning advised the Committee that since despatch of the agenda an additional representation had been received from the Kent County Council Ecologist, details of which were set out on the supplementary agenda advice sheet. He suggested that if the Committee was minded to approve the planning application, proposed condition 8 be amended as set out on the supplementary agenda advice sheet having regard to the comments from the Ecologist.

In addition, he confirmed that the applicants had completed the required unilateral undertaking agreeing to pay the required contribution and meet the Council’s related costs.

He outlined the planning application and explained that this particular site, whilst located outside the current village boundary of Cliffe Woods, was bordered by development on all three sides. Therefore, the landscape value of the land was limited and it was considered in principle that development at this site would not be harmful to the character of the area.

It was also reported that the aim of the planning application was to allow for 9 plots to be available for self build homes.

The Committee considered the planning application and whilst supportive of the planning application, Members had specific regard to the vehicular access into and out of the site and felt that this required further consideration.

Decision:

a)            Approved with conditions 1 – 7 and 9 – 15 as set out in the report for the reasons started in the report and revised condition 8 as set out below:

8.         Notwithstanding the mitigation and enhancement methods detailed within Part 4 of the Ecological Scoping Report (September 2015), prior to any site clearance, details of ecological mitigation and enhancement methods for the application site in total shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The mitigation and enhancement methods shall include:

·         Bat roosts and other measures to be incorporated into the new buildings in consultation with a licensed bat ecologist using latest guidelines;

·         The Willow tree referred to within the Scoping Report shall be inspected for bat roosts if it is to be removed. New tree planting shall be introduced on site, and as part of the landscaping scheme to be submitted for the written approval of the local planning authority, to encourage further bat roostings;

·         Timetable for removal of piles of vegetation and remaining live vegetation from site (to be cleared as close to the boundary as possible);

·         Details of measures to maintain the site, including keeping the grass short at all times;

·         Any reptiles found on site during ground clearance shall be translocated to a previously agreed receptor site close by. Thereafter a strip of 5m shall be kept unvegetated around the boundary to discourage reptiles; and

·         The landscaping and garden layouts, to be considered as part of the Reserved Matters applications shall include for the provision of undisturbed and neglected areas to encourage wildlife habitat.

The development, including site clearance shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: Required prior to site  ...  view the full minutes text for item 446.

Rainham North

Change of use from retail (Class A1) to micropub (Class A4).

Discussion:

The Planning Manager East outlined the planning application and advised the Committee that since despatch of the agenda, one further letter of representation stating that it was from the residents in Appletree Court but containing only one signature had been received setting out a number of objections, details of which were summarised on the supplementary agenda advice sheet.

Members discussed the application noting the differences between the use of a premises for a micropub as opposed to use for a public house.

Decision:

Approved with conditions 1 – 8 as set out in the report for the reasons stated in the report.

Rainham North

Proposed subdivision of site and the construction of 4 no dwellings.

Discussion:

The Planning Manager East outlined the planning application and suggested that if the Committee was minded to approve the application, a new condition 19 be approved to require details of the pedestrian footway to the front of the site as set out below:

19.       No part of the development shall occupied until details of a pedestrianfootway along the site frontage, to connect with the existing provision to the east and west, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The footway shall thereafterbe implemented in accordance with the approved details prior to first occupation of the development.

Reason: in order to provide a safe and convenient means of pedestrian access to the site,in accordance with Policy T3 of the Medway Local Plan 2003.

In addition she suggested that the following informative be approved and attached to the decision notice:

“The applicants are advised that the bus stop arrangements including the provision of a raised kerb and bus stop should be maintained both during and after construction. A temporary bus stop would be required to ensure buses stop at the location and in order to ensure two services a day are maintained for Monday to Friday, you are advised to contact the Transport Operations Officer (local bus, publicity and initiatives) prior to commencing work on site.”

She confirmed that since despatch of the agenda, one additional letter of representation had been received objecting to the application, details of which was summarised on the supplementary agenda advice sheet.

The Committee discussed the application and whilst supporting the principle of the application, Members expressed concern as the proposed design of the roof and the location of and the access to the parking spaces. 

Decision:

Consideration of this application be deferred pending further discussions with the applicant on the design of the roof and the location of and access to the proposed parking spaces.

Watling

Change of use to add taxi office (sui genius) to existing money shop (A2) to create a mixed use.

Discussion:

The Planning Manager East outlined the planning application in detail.

With the agreement of the Committee, Councillor Purdy spoke on this application as Ward Councillor and she advised the Committee that whilst the application related to the addition of a taxi office to an existing money shop, the money shop had been closed for business for some months. She advised that parking was at a premium in the locality of the application site and expressed concern that should the application be approved, the parking of taxi’s on the street and, in the vicinity of the application site, would create a problem for local residents.

The Committee discussed the planning application having regard to the photographs displayed as part of the Officer’s presentation and expressed concern that the photographs appeared to show the Taxi Company logo on the window of the shop and, taxi vehicles parked close by. Members therefore questioned whether the taxi office was already in use and whether this was a retrospective application.

Members also referred to the proposed dual use of the premises and noted that whilst the Ward Councillor had stated that the money shop was currently not operational, should this dual use be approved, the layout of the floorplan failed to indicate how the public would access the money shop.

The Planning Manager East confirmed that after visiting the site, she had sought clarification from the applicant as to the current use of the premises and it had been confirmed that neither the taxi office nor the money shop were currently in use. The applicant had also confirmed that the only vehicles to be parked at the premises were those of persons working at the premises.

Following discussion, the Committee considered that prior to considering this planning application, further information be sought on the current use of the premises and the layout of the premises in respect of how the public could access the money shop. In addition, Members suggested that if the application was to be resubmitted for approval, the proposed conditions be tightened to control the businesses operated at the site.

Decision: 

Consideration of this application be deferred to enable Officers to obtain further clarification on the use of the premises and the prosed layout of the interior of the premises having regard to the proposed dual use.

Strood North

Change of use from Children's Care Home (Class C2) to Guest House (Class C1).

Discussion:

The Head of Planning outlined the planning application and suggested that if the Committee was minded to approve the application, proposed condition 10 be amended as follows:

10.       A visitor book shall be kept on the premises and used to record guest details (including length of stay) at all times.  This shall be made available for inspection by the Local Planning Authority during office hours at any time given 24 hours notice.  No persons (other than persons solely or mainly employed at the guest house) shall be accommodated at the guest house for more than 30 nights in any calendar year.

Reason: To enable the monitoring of the nature of the use in the interests of the amenities of nearby residents and with regard to Policy BNE2 of the Medway Local Plan 2003.

The Committee discussed the application and expressed concern that the proposed guest house would provide a poor amenity for visitors, not only in respect of the poor standard of internal accommodation (provision of shared bathroom facilities) but also in respect of the proposed parking provision. The Committee considered that the limited availability of parking spaces on site would be detrimental to the surrounding residential area as it could result in loss of existing on street parking provision and furthermore, the proposed car parking spaces, being located at the front of the property would be detrimental to highway safety owing to the possibility of drivers who are unfamiliar with the area reversing onto a busy highway.

Decision: 

a)            Refused on the following ground:

The proposal constitutes an over-intensive use of the site with a poor standard of internal accommodation for visitors to the guesthouse. Furthermore, the limited provision of car parking facilities for visitors on site will have a detrimental affect upon the existing on-street parking facilities in the residential area and the location of the parking spaces, being at the front of the building would be detrimental to highway safety with drivers who are unfamiliar with the area reversing out onto a busy highway.

b)            The Head of Planning be granted delegated authority to approve the final wording of the refusal ground with the Chairman, Vice Chairman and the mover of the refusal ground.

Rainham South

Construction of a first floor side extension and a single storey front extension with pitched roof.

Discussion:

The Planning Manager East outlined the planning application and advised the Committee that no letters of representation had been received in respect of this planning application but that it had been referred to Committee for determination as the application was from the husband of a member of staff within the Planning Service. 

Decision: 

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

This report is presented quarterly to committee informing Members on current Planning performance and the Local Plan.  

Discussion:

The Committee received a report setting out planning performance for the period 1 July – 30 September 2015.

In particular, the Head of Planning drew attention to a reduction in income from fees over the past few months. However, he confirmed that a number of major applications were being processed and therefore income should increase in the next few months. In addition, he drew attention to a reduction in the number of appeals which had been allowed and commended the Planning Managers for the work that they had done in ensuring that applications were being refused on justifiable grounds.

Decision:

The Committee noted the report and requested that the Head of Planning pass on to staff within the Planning Service, the Committee’s appreciation for their excellent performance.

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

Discussion:

The Committee received a report setting out information as to the amount of Section 106 funding received between July – September 2015 and what the contributions were to be spent on.

Decision:

The Committee noted the report. 

This report introduces a Medway Council ‘Guide to shopfront advertising for historic buildings’.

Discussion:

The Committee received a report introducing a Medway Guide to shopfront advertising for historic buildings.

Decision:

It be noted that a presentation will be made to Members on this document in the near future.

This report introduces a Medway Council ‘Guide to Shopfront Security’. The Planning Committee are asked to note the Guide.

Discussion:

The Committee received a report introducing a Medway Guide to shopfront security.

Decision:

It be noted that a presentation will be made to Members on this document in the near future.