Agenda and minutes

Decision:

In the absence of the Chairman and Vice Chairman, Councillor Carr was elected to chair this meeting of the Committee.

Apologies for absence were received from the Chairman, Councillor Mrs Diane Chambers and the Vice Chairman, Councillor Hicks. The Committee noted that although Councillor Williams had been due to substitute for Councillor Hicks, unfortunately, he too had submitted his apologies for absence.

To approve the record of the meeting held on 6 April 2016.

The record of the meeting held on 6 April 2016 was agreed and signed by the Chairman as correct. 

There were none.

Disclosable pecuniary interests

There were none.

Other interests

There were none.

Rainham Central

Change of use from use classes B1 (employment), B2 (general industrial) and B8 (storage and distribution) to B1, B2, B8 and D2 (leisure use as a trampoline park) and extension of hardstanding to provide additional car parking.

Discussion:

The Head of Planning reminded the Committee that this planning application had been considered by the Committee on 6 April 2016 following which the Committee had resolved to approve the application subject to a report being submitted setting out proposed conditions.

The Head of Planning advised the Committee that since despatch of the agenda, two emails had been received from similar indoor trampoline operators, one confirming that they had signed a lease at Jetty 5 Chatham Maritime and the other confirming an interest in opening up in part of Dickens World. In the light of the receipt of these emails, the original committee report submitted for consideration on 6 April was appended to the supplementary agenda advice sheet.

The Head of Planning advised the Committee that although the planning application had been approved in principle on 6 April 2016, as the decision notice had not yet been issued, it was open for the Committee to re-consider the planning application in the light of the new information received.

In response to questions, the Head of Planning confirmed that neither of the sites identified at Jetty 5 or Dickens World had the benefit of planning permission.

The Committee discussed the application having regard to the information supplied by the Head of Planning and noting that at the meeting on 6 April, the Committee had been advised that the applicants had investigated possible sites for a trampoline centre in Medway but had confirmed that they had been unable to identify a site that met their requirements other than the application site.

The Committee considered the options available, including whether to defer a decision on the planning application until a more detailed report could be brought forward setting out further information on possible alternative sites for a trampoline centre in Medway. During discussion, the Committee was mindful that the proposed change of use of Units 5 and 6 from use classes B1 (employment), B2 (general industrial) and B8 (storage and distribution) to B1, B2, B8 and D2 (leisure use as a trampoline park) would result in the loss of an employment/industrial site but would bring back into use units that were currently vacant and would involve investment to bring the units up to a good standard of use. In addition, the proposal would result in employment opportunities and provision of leisure facilities for young people.

Decision:

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

Chatham Central

Demolition of former Redvers Centre and construction of residential development comprising of 8 houses and 16 apartments.

This application has supporting exempt appendices.

Discussion:

The Head of Planning reminded the Committee that this application had been the subject of a site visit on 26 April 2016 at which he had explained the application, summarised the representations received and set out the key planning issues as they related to matters of principle, density, design, amenity, parking and highways.

A summary of the issues raised at the site visit by residents and the headteacher of the neighbouring school were summarised on the supplementary agenda advice sheet.

In addition, at the site visit Councillor Maple, as Ward Councillor had advised that the applicant/agent should provide a response regarding issues of overlooking, parking and Section 106 contributions.

The Committee was advised that the agent had responded to a number of questions and points raised at the site visit but had since provided a full response which had been emailed to Members of the Committee and was appended in full on the supplementary agenda advice sheet.

The Head of Planning further advised that since despatch of the agenda, the Headteacher of Phoenix Junior Academy had submitted a number of comments and these were also summarised on the supplementary agenda advice sheet.

The Head of Planning further advised that a petition containing 202 signatures (plus additional names without signatures) had been received objecting to the planning application, on the grounds that it would put children at risk as there would be no control over the residents living in the properties and the build would be directly on the school boundary looking into the school, which was not acceptable. The petitioners also expressed concern regarding the additional traffic and parking issues that the build would bring to an already over-crowded residential area and stated that the safety of children must be a priority.

The Committee was advised that since despatch of the agenda one further letter of objection had been received reiterating reasons set out in the report and those set out above and making the following additional comments:

·         If the developer cannot afford the S106 contributions, what will happen if the costs of the scheme exceed that anticipated?

·         Pressure on existing school, open spaces and services

·         There will be additional costs to deal with the necessary sewer improvements required.

The Head of Planning explained that when considering this application at its meeting on 6 April 2016, the Committee had expressed concern as to the lack of financial contribution which would be received as part of the development to mitigate the affect that the development would have on the existing local facilities and services in the area.

He advised that when circulating the committee agenda, copies of the relevant viability assessments had been circulated for consideration by the Committee. He explained that although these had been produced as exempt documents on the basis that they contained information relating to the financial and business affairs of a particular company, the issue of viability assessments had recently been considered by the Kent Planning Officers Group and it had been decided that as  ...  view the full minutes text for item 985.

Peninsula

Outline application with all matters reserved for redevelopment of former farm site to provide a residential development of up to 50 dwellings (Use Class C3), open space, infrastructure, landscaping and associated works.

This application has supporting exempt appendices.

Discussion:

The Head of Planning outlined the planning application and reminded the Committee that consideration of this application had been deferred on 6 April 2016 for a further report on the Section 106 agreement and the viability assessments.

He advised that when circulating the committee agenda, copies of the relevant viability assessments had been circulated for consideration by the Committee. He explained that although these had been produced as exempt documents on the basis that they contained information relating to the financial and business affairs of a particular company, the issue of viability assessments had recently been considered by the Kent Planning Officers Group and it had been decided that as viability assessments formed a material consideration in the determination of planning applications, such documents should be considered in open committee.

The Head of Planning advised the Committee that the solicitor acting on behalf of the applicant had submitted a letter attaching Counsel’s advice that they had received expressing concern over continued delay in determination of the planning application.

In addition, he advised that an updated viability report from the Council’s Independent Viability Assessor was attached to the supplementary agenda advice sheet.

Martin Aust, Independent Financial Consultant, advised the Committee of his findings on the financial viability assessments for this proposed development.

The Committee discussed the report and expressed concern as to the limited level of Section 106 agreements which would be achieved from the development of this site and it was suggested that the Head of Planning give further consideration, in consultation with Planning Spokespersons, to the possibility of lobbying MPs and the Government on the current position regarding developments and the situation regarding viability assessments particularly where such land was in long term ownership.

Decision:

Approved subject to:

A)   The applicants entering into agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act to secure:

i)          The provision of five affordable rent and two shared ownership homes;

ii)         A financial contribution of £375,234.14 in total to be provisionally split in the following ways;

·          £23,122.14 towards off site provision of Outdoor Open Space at Four Wents Road Play area and Open space and Pottery Road Recreation Ground;

·          £45,760 towards Nursery Provision - £8,320 per pupil .

·          £112,320 towards Primary Education - £8,320 per pupil place (assuming accommodation within existing schools) or £11,700 (where accommodation will be provided in a new school);

·          £143,520 towards Secondary Education (including sixth form) - £11,960 per pupil place (assuming accommodation within existing schools);

·          £23.397.50 towards Healthcare – Improvements to local GP Surgeries based on £191 per person;

·          £6, 835.50 towards Community Facilities – £55.80 per person;

·          £9,100 towards Transport for accessibility improvements in the vicinity, including safer routes to school initiatives, public right of way improvements and footway improvements along Stoke Road;

·          £11,179 towards Habitats Regulations (Mitigation against Wintering Birds) £223.58 per unit.

iii)           Insertion of an overage clause so any profit over 20% is shared 50:50 with Local Planning Authority to be spent on local services impacted by the development  ...  view the full minutes text for item 986.

Walderslade

Construction of detached 3/4 bedroom chalet bungalow with integral garage and associated external works - resubmission of MC/15/3843.

Discussion:

The Head of Planning outlined the planning application in detail and the reason why the application was being recommended for refusal.

The Committee noted that Councillor Brake was in attendance as Ward Councillor as he wished to ask that the Committee undertake a site visit prior to determining the application.

Decision:

Consideration of the application be deferred pending a site visit.

Strood South

Construction of 3 x one bedroom 2 x two bedroom and 1 x two /three bedroom self contained flats with provision for 9 car parking spaces.

Discussion:

The Planning Manager West outlined the planning application and advised the Committee that the proposal description set out in the report required amendment  to read:

‘Construction of 3 x one bedroom 3 x two bedroom self contained flats with provision for 9 car parking spaces’

The Committee discussed the application noting the change to the proposal as a result of changes to the internal layout of the proposed flats.

Decision: 

Approved subject to:

A)           The applicant signing a Unilateral Undertaking under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to secure £1,341.48 (£223.58 per dwelling) towards Designated Habitats Designation;

B)           Conditions 1 – 13 as set out in the report for the reasons stated in the report.

Cuxton and Halling

Construction of hardstanding for parking and vehicular crossover to front.

Discussion:

The Planning Manager West outlined the planning application and advised that this was a retrospective application as the hardstanding and vehicular crossover had already been constructed.

With the agreement of the Committee, Councillor Fearn spoke on this application as Ward Councillor and explained that the applicant had employed a building contractor to undertake the works and had been advised by the building contractor that they did not require planning permission. The applicant considered that they had no reason to doubt this advice as similar hardstandings and vehicular crossovers had been provided by neighbours which had the benefit of lawful development certificates.

Councillor Fearn outlined the difficulties that residents had in parking close to their homes in Charles Drive, and advised that the local bus company had also experienced problems in getting buses along the road due to parked cars. Double yellow lines had been provided in an attempt to alleviate the problem but this had exacerbated the problem for local residents in parking their vehicles.

The Committee discussed the application and having viewed the photographic presentation expressed concern as to the harshness of the constructed  hardstanding. Members questioned whether it would be possible for the construction to be softened by a landscaping condition but the Planning Manager West advised that there were limited opportunities for the provision of landscaping owing to the way in which the hardstanding had been constructed.

The Committee noted that no objections had been received from neighbours in respect of this development.

The Head of Planning advised the Committee that should it be minded to refuse the application, the Committee would be authorising Officers to take enforcement action for the hardstanding to be removed. 

Decision: 

The planning application was approved.

Strood Rural

Construction of single storey side/rear and single storey rear extension together with insertion of rear dormer with roof lights to front and rear to provide additional accommodation within roof space.

Discussion:

The Planning Manager West outlined the planning application and advised the Committee that since despatch of the agenda, the agent had submitted amended plans details of which were set out on the supplementary agenda advice sheet.

She suggested that if the Committee was minded to approve this planning application, new conditions 2, 4 and 5 as set out on the supplementary agenda advice sheet be approved but with proposed conditions 4 and 5 being renumbered 5 and 6 to take account of the incorrect numbering of the conditions in the committee report.

Decision:

Approved with conditions 1, 3 and 4 as set out in the report for the reasons stated in the report and new conditions 2, 5 and 6 as set out below:

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

130-1000-478 P01-B P9 and 130-1000-477 P01-A P6 received 22nd April 2016.

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

5.         The boundary hedge that runs along the side boundary of the site, fronting Milton Road, shall be retained as shown on plan no. 130-1000-477 P01-A P6 received 22 April 2016 and shall be maintained thereafter. Any part of the hedge which, within 5 years of planting is removed or becomes seriously damaged or diseased, shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of a similar size and species.

Reason:  To protect and enhance the appearance and character of the site and locality, in accordance with Policies BNE1 and BNE6 of the Medway Local Plan 2003.

6.         Prior to first occupation of the extensions hereby approved, the existing parking area shown on the approved plans shall be provided for vehicle parking and thereafter it 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.

Reason:  Development without provision of adequate accommodation for the parking of vehicles is likely to lead to hazardous on-street parking.

Peninsula

Change of use of land from agricultural to burial ground.

Discussion:

The Planning Manager West 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.