Agenda and minutes

To approve the record of the meeting held on 21 October 2015.

The record of the meeting held on 21 October 2015 was agreed and signed by the Chairman as correct. 

The Committee noted that in accordance with Minute 450 ( Planning application MC/15/2815 -  5 – 7 Frindsbury Road, Strood) in accordance with his delegated authority, the Head of Planning had finalised the wording of the refusal ground with the Chairman, Vice Chairman and the mover of the refusal ground as follows:

            The proposal represents an over-intensive use of the site, by virtue of:

·         Poor amenity for prospective users as a result of the single rooms being of limited size with no ensuite.

·         Inadequate car parking that will result in guests parking in adjacent residential roads where there is already competition for on street parking and thereby impacting on the amenity of the occupiers of the properties in those adjacent roads

·         An increased number of vehicles reversing onto or from the parking area to the front, which will increase the likelihood of accidents on this, busy distributor road.

The proposal is therefore contrary to the provisions of policies BNE2, T1 and T2 of the Medway Local Plan 2003.

An apology for absence was received from Councillor Tranter.

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. 

The Chairman advised the Committee that she had accepted a late item for consideration at this meeting relating to an update report on planning application MC/14/3405 – Land to the West of Hoo St Werburgh.

This item was required to be considered at this meeting as the deadline for the submission of the Council’s statement was 1 December 2015 and it was considered necessary for a resolution to be made by the Committee to enable a robust case to the put forward at appeal.

She also advised the Committee that she intended to take the late item as the first item on the agenda. However, for the purposes of the minutes, this item appears as the last minute before the exclusion of the press and public.

The Chairman informed the Committee that planning application MC/15/2526 – Dragon Inn 236 – 238 St Margaret’s Banks, Rochester had been deferred from consideration at this meeting.

Disclosable pecuniary interests

There were none.

Other interests

Councillor Griffiths referred to planning application MC/15/2986 – 86 Hopewell Drive, Chatham and advised the Committee that as his niece was a coach at the Gillingham Gymnastics Club, he would leave the meeting for the consideration and determination of this planning application.

Peninsula

Outline application with some reserved matters (Appearance, Landscaping, Layout and Scale) for residential development of up to 131 dwellings, landscaping, public open space and associated works (Resubmission MC15/0864).

Discussion:

The Head of Planning outlined the planning application and advised that since despatch of the agenda an additional objection had been received from Councillor Freshwater, a copy of which was appended to the supplementary agenda advice sheet.

He advised the Committee that this planning application was an outline application with some reserved matters for later approval.

He stressed the need for the Committee to have regard to the requirement for a 5 year land supply and referred to information on pages 34 and 35 of the committee agenda which set out the current position in Medway. He referred to the proposed development at Lodge Hill and advised that as this particular planning application had been called in for determination by the Secretary of State and was due to be considered at a public inquiry in mid 2016, this major contribution to the provision of housing in Medway could not be taken into account when calculating potential housing supply.

The Head of Planning advised that whilst this particular application site was located outside the village boundary of Chattenden, as the Council did not have a 5 year housing land supply, the Local Plan policies that sought to control land supply, such as those restricting development outside of village confines, carried little or no weight in the determination of the application.

He drew attention to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and advised the Committee that the NPPF stated that there should be a presumption in favour of sustainable development. It was therefore necessary to undertake a balancing exercise between the benefits and harm of the proposed development and consider the sustainability of the proposal in social, economic and environmental terms.

The Head of Planning drew attention to the proposed Section 106 heads of agreement which were recommended for approval should the Committee be minded to approve this application.

He also advised the Committee that this particular planning application differed to similar planning applications recently considered by the Committee at other locations in Medway in that the majority of the land had limited agricultural use and was of poor quality as being graded 3B.

With the agreement of the Committee, Councillor Freshwater spoke on this planning application as Ward Councillor and outlined concerns relating to safety concerns for pedestrians crossing the A228 and concerns relating to sewage and water supply.

The Committee discussed the planning application in detail having regard to the points outlined by the Head of Planning and the views expressed by the Ward Councillor.  

A Member suggested that should the application be approved, proposed conditions 34 and 36 be amended to include the provision of variable speed limits on the A228 in the vicinity of the application site. The Head of Planning advised that the current wording of the proposed conditions allowed for that provision to be included in the details required to be submitted pursuant to the conditions.

Decision: 

Approved subject to:

A)           The applicants entering into an agreement under Section 106 under the terms of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 495.

Princes Park

Application for change of use from use class B1-light industrial use to use class  D2 sports and leisure.

Discussion:

The Head of Planning outlined the planning application and referred to the reasons why this application was being recommended for refusal.

He referred to the supplementary agenda advice sheet and advised the Committee that since despatch of the agenda an email had been received from Councillors Bhutia and Opara in support of concerns expressed in an email to them from a local resident and following a visit to the site. Such concerns involved the safety of children and the types of vehicles that would be entering and exiting the business at No. 88.

With the agreement of the Committee, Councillors Bhutia and Opara addressed the Committee on the planning application and outlined the benefits of the Gymnastics Club as a valuable community facility for local children. They advised the Committee of discussions that they had held with both the operators of the Gymnastics Club and the nearby business and suggested that one solution to resolve the issue of pedestrian/vehicular conflict would be for the original entrance to be reopened.

A copy of a letter from a local resident was appended to the supplementary agenda advice sheet.

With the agreement of the Committee, Councillor Osborne addressed the Committee in support of the planning application as the Gymnastics Club was currently located within Luton and Wayfield Ward and were wishing to relocate a short distance away in Princes Park Ward. He supported Councillors Bhutia and Opara in outlining the valuable community benefits offered by the Club to local children of all ages.

A Member suggested that in the light of the support from the local Ward Councillors, should the Committee be minded to approve this planning application, the side entrance to the property be used as an emergency exit during the day but used as an entrance to the property in the evenings when the risk of conflict between pedestrians and vehicles accessing the nearby business would not exist as the business would be closed. 

Decision: 

The application was approved and the Head of Planning granted delegated authority to draw up appropriate conditions with the agreement of the Chairman and Vice Chairman and with such conditions to include provision for the side access to be used as an emergency exit during the day and for general use in the evenings.

Rainham South

Retrospective application for the use of land for hardstanding and the stationing of one mobile home and one touring caravan, together with construction of single storey detached building for use as a dayroom.

Discussion:

The Head of Planning outlined the planning application and in doing so referred to the planning history in the immediate vicinity of the application site and recent changes in Government guidance relating to planning policy for traveller sites as set out on page 62 of the agenda.

He confirmed that the application site, which was located both within the Kent Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and within the North Downs Special Landscape Area, was not considered to be sustainable, nor was it located close to an urban area or local facilities. It was therefore considered that the proposed application, if approved, would be harmful to the area.

The Head of Planning referred in particular to the applicant’s personal circumstances and advised the Committee that the application had been accompanied by very little information about the applicant’s previous living arrangements or details of other sites considered and potentially discounted before a decision had been made to pursue occupation of the application site.

The Committee was also requested to have regard to the applicant’s human rights taking into account that the application was retrospective and therefore should the Committee be minded to refuse to grant planning permission, the Committee would be authorising enforcement action to remove an individual’s home.

The Committee discussed the application having regard to the information presented by the Head of Planning.

Decision: 

Refused on the ground set out in the report.

Rochester West

Demolition of existing flats to facilitate the construction of four five storey blocks providing a total of 89 units with associated car parking, bin and cycle storage landscape provision and a pedestrian boulevard at the front of the new buildings.

Discussion:

The Planning Manager West outlined the planning application in detail and advised the Committee that since despatch of the agenda, the applicants had supplied additional information in support of the scheme, details of which were appended to the supplementary agenda advice sheet.

She drew attention to the supplementary agenda advice sheet and advised the Committee that the proposed development would result in the loss of 18 affordable units which would not be replaced within the new development.

She advised that the applicants had produced a financial statement to demonstrate that it was unviable to provide any affordable housing within the proposed new development or meet the cost of any Section 106 contributions.

The financial statement produced by the applicants had been independently examined by an expert and, whilst the committee report had stated that initially the independent assessor considered that the development could be viable with full contributions and provision of affordable housing, at the time of writing the committee report, there had been a number of uncertainties about  which the independent assessor had sought clarification. These had now been provided by the applicant and, following a full Independent Viability Assessment by the independent assessor, it had been concluded that Section 106 contributions and/or the provision of affordable housing would not be viable and could not be justified in terms of the development’s economics.

In the light of this, the Committee was advised that the proposed recommendation had been amended to the following:

Approval subject to;

A)        The applicants signing a Unilateral Undertaking under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to secure £12,379.74 towards Designated Habitats Mitigation;

B)        The conditions as listed in the committee report.

It was explained that if the application was approved on this basis, the applicant would be able to apply for grant funding for the possible provision of affordable housing within the scheme. However, such grant funding would not be available if the planning permission were dependent upon Section 106 contributions.

The Committee discussed the report in detail having regard to the revised information arising from the full Independent Viability Assessment and the information supplied on possible grant funding for the scheme.

Concern was expressed as to the loss of the affordable housing from the existing site and the proposal that the new development would not have replacement provision. In addition, concern was expressed as to the effect that 89 units would have upon local services such as schools and health facilities and that without Section 106 contributions, there was no funding provision for the developer to mitigate the effect upon these services.

A Member also expressed concern that to approve the application without the requirement for provision of affordable housing or Section 106 contributions could create a precedent for other planning applications considered in the future. However, the Head of Planning advised that the viability of development schemes was often an issue with brownfield sites as it was not unusual for there to be abnormal costs that affected the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 498.

River

Retrospective application for construction of shed to rear.

Discussion:

The Planning Manager West outlined the planning application and advised the Committee that this application had been referred to the Committee at the request of the Ward Councillor.

The Committee considered the application and requested that Members be reminded that when referring planning applications to Committee for consideration, there is an expectation that they attend the meeting for that item. 

Decision: 

Approved with condition 1 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 West reminded the Committee that this application had been considered on 21 October 2015 following which a decision had been deferred to enable Officers to undertake further discussions with the applicant on the design of the roof and the location of and access to the proposed parking spaces.

The Planning Manager West advised that since the last meeting, the scheme had been amended from semi-detached houses to a terrace block with a covered passageway and tracking diagrams had been provided for the parking area.

In respect of the design of the roof, the originally proposed roof design had been retained. The Planning Manager West outlined the reasons for the retention of this roof design, details of which were set out on the supplementary agenda advice sheet and explained via the presentation to the Committee.

It was suggested that if the Committee was minded to approve the application, proposed condition 2 be amended as set out on the supplementary agenda advice sheet.

Decision: 

Approved subject to:

A)           The applicants entering into agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act (as amended)to secure £894.32 towards wildlife mitigation strategic measures; and

B)           Conditions 1 and 3 – 19 as set out in the report for the reasons stated in the report and condition 2 amended as follows:

2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans:

Plan number 17550/1 (existing site layout) received 15 July 2015; PL-402E (vehicle tracking) received 13 Nov 2015; PL-101E (proposed site layout) received 9 Nov 2015; PL-201B (proposed first floor layout) received 9 Nov 2015; PL-200B (proposed ground floor layout) received 9 Nov 2015; PL-402D (proposed site layout and Street elevations) received 9 Nov 2015; PL-400C (proposed front and side elevations) received 9 Nov 2015; PL-401B (proposed rear and side elevations) received 9 Nov 2015; 17440-02/1;2;3;4;5;6;7;8 (vehicle tracking drawings) received on 16 November 2015; application letter of support dated 13 July 2015; Environmental Desk Study report BC0119RE001 and appendix A prepared by Brownfield Consultancy received on 15 July 2015; Flood Risk Assessment by Peter Brett Associates dated 6 July 2015 received on 15 July 2015; and Aboricultural Impact Appraisal and Method Statement 14413 AIAMW dated 10 July 2015 received on 15 July 2015.

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.

River

Advertisement Consent for installation of 2 externally illuminated fascia signs, 1 externally illuminated projecting sign and 2 externally illuminated wall signs.

Decision:

Consideration of this application was deferred at the request of the Head of Planning.

Discussion:

The Committee received a schedule setting out a summary of appeal decisions for the period July – September 2015 and a summary of appeal costs.

The Head of Planning referred to the appeal decision relating to 23 Sundridge Hill, Cuxton and advised that the description of the application required correction to read “Demolish existing dwelling and construction of 2 dwellings”.

The Head of Planning referred to Site J5/J6, Chatham Maritime and advised the Committee that the Council was challenging this decision through the judicial review process.

Decision: 

The Committee noted the report and requested that the historic costs be removed from future summaries reported to the Committee.

This report relates to a planning application which was determined by Planning Committee on 1 April 2015. The applicant has now lodged an appeal against the refusal of planning permission, and clarification is required regarding an error in the decision notice in order for the Council to defend the appeal robustly.

This is being reported as an urgent item, with the agreement of the Chairman as the deadline for the Council to submit its statement of case is 1 December 2015, and it is necessary for a resolution to be made on this issue in order for a robust case to be put forward

Discussion:

This item had been accepted by the Chairman as a late item for the reason stated at Minute 492 above.

The Committee considered a report relating to planning application MC/14/3405 – Land to the West of Hoo St Werburgh which had been considered by the Committee at its meeting on 1 April 2015.

The Head of Planning explained that the applicant had lodged an appeal against the refusal of planning permission and it had since been discovered that there had been a typographical error in the decision notice issued. This now required correction in order that the Council could defend the appeal robustly.

The Head of Planning reassured the Committee that whilst the committee report had contained the correct information to enable the Committee to consider the application and determine refusal, it was at the point that the second refusal ground had been amended in the supplementary agenda advice sheet that reference to Policy BNE34 had been referenced instead of Policy S4.

A copy of the relevant extract from the original report was appended to the report for information.

Decision:

A)           The Committee noted the content of the report and the appended extract of the original committee report and confirmed its understanding that based on the analysis contained within the original committee report and the discussions at the meeting on 1 April 2015, the second reason for refusal on MC/14/3405 was intended to read as follows:

2. The application would cause significant harm to the local landscape, and cause coalescence between the settlements of Hoo St Werburgh and Chattenden. It would therefore be contrary to the provisions of Policies S4 and BNE1 of the Medway Local Plan 2003, the Medway Landscape Character Assessment 2011, and to the policies and principles set out at paragraphs 17 and 109 of the NPPF.

B)                Officers be authorised to continue to defend the appeal on the basis of the above.

This report summarises the content of agenda items 14 and 15, 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.

This report sets out information taken by the Derelict Buildings Officer with regard to key buildings and associated land in Medway during the period 1 July – 30 September 2015.

Discussion:

The Committee received a report setting out action taken by the Derelict Buildings Officer with regard to key buildings and associated land during the period July – September 2015

The Head of Planning referred in particular to three properties where Officers had been unable to seek the agreement of the owners to undertake improvements and he sought the Committee’s agreement for the Council to undertake works in default and place a charge on the properties.

The Committee considered the three properties having regard to the photographs displayed as part of the presentation at the meeting.

Decision:

The report be noted and the Head of Planning be authorised to undertake works in default at two properties referred to in Harptree Drive Chatham and High Street Rochester.

This report sets out enforcement proceedings for the period January – September 2015.

Discussion:

The Committee received a report setting out enforcement proceedings undertaken during the period January – September 2015.

The Head of Planning also provided the Committee with an update on a property where the Committee had approved that direct action be undertaken.

The Committee welcomed the return of the Enforcement Officer after her period of sick leave.

Decision:

The Committee noted the report