Agenda and minutes

An apology for absence was received from Councillor Tejan. 

To approve the record of the meeting held on 21 September 2016.

The record of the meeting held on 21 September 2016 was agreed and signed by the Chairman as correct. 

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.

At the conclusion of the meeting, the Chairman informed the Committee that at the Make a Difference Awards on Friday 4 November 2016, Dave Harris, Head of Planning had won the Manager of the Year Award. The Committee congratulated Dave Harris on his award.

Disclosable pecuniary interests

There were none.

Other interests

Councillor Etheridge referred to planning application MC/16/2656 (Broom Hill Reservoir, Gorse Road, Strood) and advised the Committee that as he had campaigned against development at this site prior to being elected onto the Council, he would withdraw from the meeting for the consideration and determination of this planning application.

On planning application MC/16/3590 (47 – 49 High Street, Rochester) Councillor Tranter withdrew from the Committee and addressed the Committee as Ward Councillor. He therefore took no part in the determination of the 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 points of access) - resubmission of MC/15/0761.

Discussion:

The Planning Consultants outlined the planning application and advised the Committee that a planning application relating to this site had been considered by the Committee on 1 September 2015 (MC/15/0761) which had been refused. A public inquiry was now held in abeyance pending the determination of this current planning application.

The Committee was advised that since refusing planning application MC/15/0761, Officers had been in discussions with the applicant on the Committee’s concerns relating to the application and in particular, the affect that the proposed development would have upon the junction of Mierscourt Road with the A2.

The Planning Consultants outlined the revisions that had been made to the current scheme to include highway improvements to increase the capacity of the A2 details of which were set out in the report.

Attention was drawn to the supplementary agenda advice sheet and it was suggested that if the Committee was minded to approve the application, conditions 1, 8, 15 and 16 be amended, proposed condition 21 be deleted, condition 22 and 23  be amended and re-numbered 21 and 22.

Attention was also drawn to an additional section relating to flood risk under the planning appraisal section of the report, as set out on the supplementary agenda advice sheet.

The Committee discussed the planning application in detail noting that this was a fresh application which sought to address the concerns previously expressed relating to the effect that the proposed development would have upon the highway.

A number of Members expressed concern that the proposed development would result in the loss of Grade 1 agricultural land, would place pressure on the surrounding road network particularly at peak periods when the surrounding road network was already congested and result in reduce air quality in the area and would place pressure on local facilities. It was also pointed out that the site was within an Area of Local Landscape Importance.

Members also had regard to Saved Policy BNE25 ‘Development in the Countryside’ and the Council’s housing land supply provision.

The Head of Planning drew attention to another development at Moor Street which had only been dismissed at appeal on heritage grounds. The Inspector had considered that proposal acceptable in all other respects including highway impact, landscape and agricultural land. He advised that if the Committee was minded to refuse this planning application on highway grounds, it was likely that this decision would be overturned on appeal having regard to the proposed highway improvements that were now proposed.

Decision:

Approved subject to:

A)        The applicant entering into a S106 agreement to secure the following:

i)  25% Affordable Housing on site comprising: 75 dwellings (60% Affordable Rent and 40% Shared Ownership)

            ii) Contributions towards improved Education provision comprising:

            a.         Nursery School @ £8320 per pupil place (£274,560)

            b.         Primary School @ £8320 per pupil place (£673,920)

            c.         Secondary School @ £11,960 per pupil place (£681,720)

            d.         Sixth Form @ £11,960 per pupil place (£179,400)

                        Total: £1,809,600

iii) Highway improvements to A2/Mierscourt Road junction improvements

iv)  ...  view the full minutes text for item 446.

Peninsula

Outline planning application with some matters reserved (appearance, landscaping, layout and scale) for up to 127 dwellings.

Discussion:

The Head of Planning outlined the planning application in detail. He advised that if the Committee was minded to approve the planning application, it was suggested that an amendment be made to the provisions of the proposed Section 106 heads of agreement. In addition, it was suggested that proposed conditions 4 and 11 and the reasons for conditions 6 and 7 be amended and a new condition 22 be approved. All suggested changes were set out on the supplementary agenda advice sheet.

The Head of Planning advised that dependent upon the outcome of discussions regarding the quality and provision of on site open space, it may be possible for the level of Section 106 funding to be redistributed and therefore he requested that the Committee grant delegated authority to him to agree this outside of the meeting.

The Committee discussed the planning application and it was suggested that if approved, the Section 106 funding for the Great Lines Heritage Park should be split 50/50 between the Park and footpath provision in Main Road, Hoo to improve access to local schools. Members also suggested that if the open space contribution was reduced then the surplus be put towards the footpath provision in Main Road.

A number of Members expressed concern as the effect that this development would have upon the highway network on the Peninsula and local facilities.

Decision:

Approved subject to:

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

i)             Secure a minimum of 25% affordable housing (no less than 32 units)

ii)         A financial contribution of £1,299,221.64 in total to be provisionally split in the following ways

•           £75,000 toward highways improvements at the A228 Peninsular Way (junction with Main Road, Hoo)

•           £116,230.40 towards Nursery provision

•           £285,292.80 toward Primary Education

•           £364,540.80 toward Secondary Education

•           £19,740.88 toward waste and recycling (£155.44 per dwelling)

•           £59,429.65 toward improvements to local GP Surgeries (£191 per dwelling)

•           £334,723.80 toward off site provision of outdoor open space (£777 per person)

•           £15,868.65 to be split 50/50 between the Great Lines Heritage Park and improvements to footpaths in Main Road Hoo to improve access to schools (£51 per person – 2.45 persons per home on average)

•           £28,394.66 toward Habitats Regulations (mitigation against Wintering Birds – at £223.58 per dwelling)

B)        Dependent upon the outcome of discussions regarding the quality and provision of on site open space, the Head of Planning be granted delegated authority to determine the contribution for open space and any surplus to be used for the footpath provision in Main Road, Hoo.

C)        Conditions 1 – 3, 5, 8 – 10 and 12 – 21 as set out in the report for the reasons stated in the report and conditions 4, 5, 6 and 11 amended as set out below and new condition 22:

4          The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved documents/plans:

Application forms (received  ...  view the full minutes text for item 447.

Hempstead and Wigmore

Outline application with some matters reserved (appearance, landscaping, layout and scale) for a residential development of up to 44 dwellings with associated garaging, access, landscaping and open space.

Discussion:

The Senior Planner outlined the planning application in detail and referring to the supplementary agenda advice sheet suggested that if the Committee was minded to approve the application, section 9 of the proposed Section 106 heads of agreement be amended, conditions 10 and 11 be amended and new conditions 17 – 20 be approved as set out below:

Section 106 head of agreement:

9.         A contribution of £28,000 towards the initial capital costs and £21,600 towards ongoing management cost necessary to mitigate the impact of the development on the Darland Banks Site of Nature Conservation Interest and Local Nature Reserve;

Conditions:

10.       The details submitted in pursuance of Condition 1 shall show land reserved for parking or garaging in accordance with the adopted County Parking Standards.  None of the buildings shall be occupied until this area has been provided, surfaced and drained in accordance with the approved details.  Thereafter no permanent development, whether or not permitted by the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (or any order amending, revoking and re-enacting that Order) shall be carried out on the land so shown or in such a position as to preclude vehicular access to the reserved vehicle parking area.

11.       In accordance with the recommendations contained in British Standard 5837:2012 Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction - Recommendations or any revision thereof the plans and particulars submitted pursuant to Condition 1 above shall include:

a)         A tree constraints plan showing root protection areas and any other relevant constraints plotted around each of the category A, B and C trees overlaid onto the proposed site layout plan.

b)         Existing and proposed finished site levels and cross-sectional details on a scaled plan with retained trees and root protection areas overlaid.

c)         An arboricultural impact assessment that evaluates the direct and indirect effects of the proposed design, including during construction in terms of access, adequate working space and provision for storage of materials; and where necessary recommends mitigation.

d)         Arboricultural method statements for the implementation of any aspect of development that is within the root protection area, or has the potential to result in loss of or damage to a tree to be retained. Particular attention should be given to:

i.          Removal of existing structures and hard surfacing;

ii.         installation of temporary ground protection;

iii.        excavations and the requirement for specialized trenchless techniques;

iv.        specialist foundations or other engineering within root protection areas of retained trees, including details of installation techniques and effect on finished floor levels and overall height;

v.         retaining structures to facilitate changes in ground levels; and

vi.        preparatory works for new landscaping.

e)         A schedule of work to trees which is directly necessary to provide access for operations on site, including pruning to facilitate access.

The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details before any equipment, machinery or materials are brought on to the site and any mitigation measures shall be maintained until all equipment, machinery and surplus materials  ...  view the full minutes text for item 448.

Strood North

Construction of one 4 bedroomed and one 3 bedroomed detached dwellings constructed within the existing underground reservoir with associated parking and external works - resubmission MC14/3309.

Discussion:

The Senior Planner outlined the planning application in detail and advised the Committee that the current application was a resubmission of planning application MC/14/3309 with the development having been modified to take account of comments from the Planning Inspector when dismissing an appeal on 25 February 2016.

With the agreement of the Committee, Councillor Chitty spoke on the planning application as Ward Councillor and set out the concerns of local residents. She explained that residents had worked hard to protect the green space at Broomhill Park as this site was a valuable open space in Strood. A Friends of Broomhill Park Group had been formed and the space had been awarded a Green Flag.

She referred to the topography of the site and the land levels and expressed concern that should the application be approved, the development would be visible from long distances. In addition, traffic to and from the site would need to cross footpaths that were frequently used by families.

She advised the Committee that the application conflicted with the overall vision for the area and impacted on the green space and heritage trail and she expressed concern that the site had already been cleared of vegetation before an environmental assessment could be undertaken.

The Committee discussed the application in detail and it was noted that the modification to the proposed development had resulted in the removal of the pavilion which the Planning Inspector considered would harm the visual amenity of the park when seen from wider views including Rochester Bridge.

The remainder of the development would not be visible.

The Committee noted that the land was in private ownership.

The Senior Planner drew attention to an additional representation received after despatch of the agenda which had been set out on the supplementary agenda advice sheet.

Decision:

Approved subject to:

A)           The submission of a Unilateral Undertaking under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to secure £223.58 per new dwelling towards Designated Habitats Mitigation.

B)           Conditions 1 – 12 as set out in the report for the reasons stated in the report.

Chatham Central

Construction of two pairs of semi detached three bedroomed dwellings with integral garages and associated parking and new tree planting - demolition of existing wall.

Discussion:

The Head of Planning outlined the planning application and reminded the Committee that this application had been the subject of a site visit on 12 November 2016 at which he had outlined the details of the application, representations received and the planning issues as they related to the street scene and design, amenity, highways and parking, trees and impact on the Conservation Area.

He advised that at the site visit, the agent had added detail in relation to the need to remove the trees and wall and clarified the proposed land levels and the stepped nature of the proposal.

A summary of the concerns raised by residents was set out on the supplementary agenda advice sheet and a copy of a letter supplied by a resident at the site visit which could not be circulated at the site visit owing to adverse weather conditions was appended to the supplementary agenda advice sheet.

The Head of Planning explained that issues had been raised as to the planning history of adjacent land and therefore information on this was set out in full on the supplementary agenda advice sheet.

With the agreement of the Committee, Councillor Maple addressed the Committee as Ward Councillor and outlined residents concerns that the removal of the wall and mature trees opposite their properties would affect their current outlook and have an adverse effect upon visual amenity of the street scene. Whilst it was noted that replacement tree planting was proposed, this would involve provision of young saplings.

He reminded the Committee that the application site was located in a Conservation Area.

In addition, he requested that if the Committee was minded to approve the application, appropriate conditions be added to ensure that the applicant’s contractors were mindful of the need to be ‘good neighbours’ with the residents living close to the site. The Head of Planning referred to proposed condition 9 and confirmed that if the Committee was minded to approve the application, this condition could be strengthened to cover concerns regarding the behaviour of the contractors.

The Committee discussed the application and a number of Members expressed concern that the application in its current form constituted an overdevelopment of the site. The Committee noted the comments from residents who had lived opposite the application site for many years that the condition of the wall was no different now than it had been 10 years ago and therefore there was no justification for its removal.

The Head of Planning advised the Committee that the trees had a significant impact in the Conservation Area and if the wall was found to be structurally unstable it may require removal which would then make the trees vulnerable. However, if the Committee wished to defer consideration of the application to obtain an independent structural assessment then this could be arranged.

Decision:

Consideration of this application be deferred:

a)            to enable Officers to obtain an independent structural assessment of the condition of the wall; and

b)            if the wall is not  ...  view the full minutes text for item 450.

Walderslade

Demolition of 3 x existing properties and construction of 20 no. dwellings consisting of 1x two bedroom, 10 x three bedroom, and 9 x four bedroom dwellings with associated parking and new access road. 

Discussion:

The Senior Planner outlined the planning application in detail and drew attention to further advice received from the Council’s Ecological Consultants since despatch of the agenda details of which were set out on the supplementary agenda advice sheet. In the light of this information, there was no longer a need to impose a condition related to ecology.

The Committee discussed the application.

Decision:

Approved subject to:

A)        The prior completion of a legal agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) securing:

i) £90,117, consisting of: £15,558 towards Nursery provision; £32,733 towards Primary provision; £33,112 towards Secondary; and £8,714 towards Sixth Form education;

ii) £46,527 towards specific improvements to Hook Meadow and Princes Ave public open spaces;

iii) £4,471.60 (£223.58 additional dwelling) towards Natural England's Designated Habitats Mitigation;

iv) £4,499 towards the Great Lines Heritage Park in regard to footpath maintenance required due to increased provision of housing and therefore increase population resulting in increased usage of the GLHP and creating deterioration on the parks footpaths.

B)        Condition 1 – 14 as set out in the report for the reasons stated in the report.

Rochester East

Listed Building Consent for demolition of existing building (in part) and construction of a 5 bedroomed terraced house.

Discussion:

The Senior Planner advised the Committee that since despatch of the agenda the applicant had submitted further information to justify the proposed development submissions against tests set out at paragraph 133 of the National Planning Policy Framework, details of which were set out on the supplementary agenda advice sheet.

Following the submission of this additional information/evidence, the Council had re-consulted both Historic England and the Ancient Monuments Society and Historic England had since confirmed that it had withdrawn its objection to the planning application. No response had been received from the Ancient Monuments Society and therefore it was assumed that the Society wished its objections to remain.

The Senior Planner referred to a revised planning appraisal in the light of the new information received, details of which was set out on the supplementary agenda advice sheet. He confirmed that the application was now being recommended by Officers for approval.   

The Committee discussed the application noting the location of the existing building and referring to the requirement for the materials to match those of the section of the building which will be retained.

Decision:

Listed Building Consent be granted, subject to:

i)          Referral to the National Planning Casework Unit (NPCU), due to the objection from the Ancient Monuments Society, advising them of the Council’s intention to grant Listed Building Consent subject to the imposition of conditions, and the NPCU not calling the application in within the relevant period; and

ii)         The granting of delegated authority to the Head of Planning to impose such conditions as he deems reasonable and which he considers meets the tests as set out in the National Planning Practice Guidance related to the use of Planning Condition.

Rochester East

Demolition of existing building (in part) and construction of a 5 bedroomed terraced house.

Discussion:

The Senior Planner referred to planning application MC/16/3533 and confirmed that the same information applied to this particular application as reported above.

Decision:

Planning permission be granted, subject to delegated authority being granted to the Head of Planning to impose such conditions as he deems reasonable and which he considers meets the tests as set out in the National Planning Practice Guidance related to the use of Planning Condition and a Section 106 agreement for Bird Mitigation.

Rochester West

Change of use from retail (Class A1) to restaurant (Class A3), construction of an extension to side/rear and alterations to existing shopfront (demolition of existing extensions).

Discussion:

The Senior Planner outlined the planning application in detail and advised that since despatch of the agenda, the Planning Agent had advised that the current tenant had agreed terms to relocate and continue his business from an alternative shop in the High Street. The Senior Planner confirmed that whilst no evidence had been produced to this effect this was not a material planning consideration.

In addition, he advised that a further representation had been received from an existing objector who’s concerns had been set out in the committee report. The further representation related to the highways section of the committee report. Details of the representation and the response from Officers was set out in the supplementary agenda advice sheet.

With the agreement of the Committee, Councillor Tranter addressed the Committee on this planning application as Ward Councillor. He expressed concern that the loss of this mini market from the High Street could have a detrimental effect upon other small independent grocery shops in the High Street as residents living in the locality will turn to the larger supermarkets to fulfil their everyday grocery needs. He referred to the possible relocation of the existing business and advised the committee that the potential new location was considerably smaller that the existing property and he understood that the tenants did not wish to relocate. Furthermore, there were currently sufficient restaurants within the High Street.

The Committee discussed the application noting the views of the Ward Councillor.

Decision:

Approved with conditions 1 – 10 as set out in the report for the reasons stated in the report.

Peninsula

Change of use of ground floor from A2 (Bank use) to A3/A5 (hot food take away and restaurant use) and installation of cooking extraction flue to rear elevation security shutters to the front elevation.

Discussion:

The Senior Planner outlined the planning application and suggested that if the Committee was minded to approve the application, proposed condition 4 be amended as set out on the supplementary agenda advice sheet.

In addition, he referred to an additional section for the planning appraisal section of the report relating to health and well being, details of which were also set out on the supplementary agenda advice sheet.

The Committee discussed the planning application having regard to the requested hours of use and those proposed in amended condition 4.

The Committee noted that the property has been vacant for some time and therefore to bring it back into use would be beneficial for the community and that parking was available on-site.

Concern was expressed as to the proposed shutters to be installed on the  front of the property as it was considered that these would have a detrimental impact on the visual appearance of the property when it was closed.

Decision:

Consideration of the application be deferred and the Head of Planning be granted delegated authority to determine the planning application following consultations with the applicant as to amending the planning application to remove the proposed installation of shutters, it being noted that the Committee support the hours of use as requested by the applicant.

River

Demolition of existing one and two storey commercial premises and proposed new development consisting of 21 apartments (8 x 2 Bed units and 13 x 1 Bed units), in two blocks with amenity space and associated parking to be provided for 21 cars.

Discussion:

The Senior Planner outlined the planning application and advised the Committee that since despatch of the agenda, the applicants had provided amended and additional plans. Details of amendments were set out on the supplementary agenda advice sheet.

He also drew attention to updated information relating to the relevant planning history for the site, representations from Kent County Council (Archaeology) and Network Rail and further information on the planning appraisal all of which were set out on the supplementary agenda advice sheet.

In the event that the Committee was minded to approve the application, it was suggested that proposed conditions 2 and 3 be amended, proposed condition 23 be deleted and the remaining conditions re-renumbered and a new condition 27 be approved, details of which were set out on the supplementary agenda advice sheet.

The Committee discussed the planning application and referred to the proposed Section 106 Heads of Agreement for a contribution towards repair of light fittings at the Chatham Naval Memorial. It was suggested that this funding would be more appropriately used for repairs to the clock at the Corn Exchange.

The Committee referred to the issue of Section 106 funds generally and whilst recognising the importance of the Great Lines Heritage Park, requested that in future, contributions should be split 50/50 between the Great Lines Heritage Park and a site in the Ward in which the application site is located.

The Committee also requested that Officers be mindful of the need for appropriate materials to be used at the application site in the light of its location in a Conservation Area.

Decision:

Approved subject to:

A)           The applicant entering into a Section 106 agreement to secure the following:      

            i)  A contribution of £4695.18 (£223 per unit) towards appropriate     wildlife mitigation measures within Special Protection Areas;

ii) A contribution of £2643.95 split 50/50 between the repair of light fittings at the             Chatham Naval Memorial and repairs to the clock at the Corn Exchange;

iii) A contribution of £8595.37 towards the fabric upkeep, maintenance and costs towards Eastgate House improvements; and

iv) A contribution of £20,024.64 towards Open space improvements to be spent on improvements towards Eastgate House Gardens.

B)           Conditions 1 and  4 – 22 as set out in the report for the reasons stated in the report, conditions 2 and 3 amended as set out below, conditions 24 – 27 as set out in the report but renumbered 23 – 26 and new condition 27 as set out below:

2.         Drawing 3275 PD 11 Rev B (block and location plan); 3275 PD 12   Rev B (Proposed Plans block 1); 3275 PD 14 Rev A (block 1 Proposed Elevations); 3275 PD 15 Rev B (Proposed Sections A-A and B-B; 3275 PD 18 (Block 2 Floor Plan –retaining wall details); Design and Access Statement (2 November 2016); letter dated 1 November 2016 all received by email dated 3 November 2016.

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

3.         The bathroom windows on  ...  view the full minutes text for item 456.

Rainham South

Demolition of bungalow and construction of 4x four bedroomed houses with associated parking.

Discussion:

The Senior Planner outlined the planning application in detail and advised that since despatch of the agenda four additional letters of representation had been received details of which were set out on the supplementary agenda advice sheet.

Decision:

Approved subject to:

A)           The applicant signing a Unilateral Undertaking under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to secure £670.74 towards Wildlife Habitat Mitigation.

B)           Conditions 1 – 10 as set out in the report for the reasons stated in the report.

Luton and Wayfield

Change of use from nail and beauty salon to hot food takeaway (Class A5).

Discussion:

The Head of Planning outlined the planning application in detail and suggested that if the Committee was minded to approve the application, proposed condition 4 be amended as follows:

4.        Prior to the first opening of the take away hereby approved the car parking area within the application site (and defined on the submitted block plan) shall be formally marked out to show at least 4 car parking bays with the bays of a size commensurate with that set out in Medway Council’s interim parking standards.  Thereafter the parking area shall be retained and kept available for customer parking at all times that the hot food take away is open for business.

The Committee discussed the application and concern was expressed that the application site was located on a very busy section of highway in Luton High Street. It was considered that although the application site had on site parking, the property was on a tight bend and therefore egress from the car park would be difficult with vehicles entering a very busy road.

Decision:

Refused on the following ground with the wording of such refusal ground to be approved in consultation with the Chairman:

1.    That owing to the configuration of the road layout and the location of the property being sited on a tight bend and, the requirement for vehicles egressing the application site into a very busy traffic stream, the application is unacceptable.

Chatham Central

Extend existing play area into staff car park, staff car park to be relocated into existing dual drop off/ parking and play area, existing dual use space to become a permanent car park for staff/ visitors with allocated spaces for the SEN block and student drop off.

Discussion:

The Head of Planning outlined the planning application in detail.

On behalf of the Ward Councillor, a Member suggested that an informative be approved that required the school to meet with residents to discuss the impact that changes at the school are having for the residents.

The Head of Planning advised that if this suggestion was supported by the Committee, this could be included as an informative.

Decision:

Approved with conditions 1 – 3 as set out in the report for the reasons stated in the report and the following informative:

·         The school be requested to meet with local residents to discuss issues and measures to mitigate impact on local roads.

Rainham North

Construction of a detached two bedroom bungalow incorporating an existing garage.

Discussion:

The Head of Planning outlined the planning application in detail and drew attention to a correction to the site density in that it should be corrected to read 14 dwellings per acre and not 4.

Decision:

Approved subject to:

A)           The applicant entering into a Section 106 Agreement to secure a contribution of £223.58 for Designated Habitats Mitigation

B)           Conditions 1 – 6 as set out in the report for the reasons stated in the report.

Peninsula

Construction of retaining wall together with the relocation of steps, hardstanding and vehicular crossover to facilitate off road parking.

Discussion:

The Head of Planning reminded the Committee that this application had been the subject  of a site visit on 12 November 2016 at which he had explained the application, summarised the representations received and outlined the issues as they related to street scene, drainage, impact on car parking in the street and residential amenity.

He drew attention the supplementary agenda advice sheet which summarised comments made at the site meeting by the applicants team and the objectors.

He suggested that if the Committee was minded to approve the application, an additional condition 3 be approved relating to the provision of fencing and that condition 1 be amended to add in the plan referred to in condition 3.

Decision:

Approved with condition 2 as set out in the report for the reasons stated in the report, condition 1 amended and new condition 3 as follows:

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

Section A-A, Section B-B, Section C and Section C-C as received on 1 August 2016 and amended boundary treatment plan received on 14 December 2016.

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

3.         Within 2 months of the date of this permission, the new fencing as detailed on the boundary treatment plan received on 15 November 2016 shall be undertaken and shall thereafter retained on site.

Reason: In the interests of privacy and to accord with Policy BNE2 of the Medway Local Plan.

Cuxton and Halling

Construction of loft conversion incorporating a hip to gable design including flat roof dormer to rear.

Discussion:

The Head of Planning reminded the Committee that this application had been the subject of a site visit on 12 November 2016 at which he had outlined the planning application and the planning issues as they related to matters of design, street scene and amenity. At the site visit he had provided an update in respect of the representations received. A summary of the representations and the applicant’s response was set out on the supplementary agenda advice sheet.

Decision:

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

Gillingham North

Conversion of existing public house to one 2-bedroomed and one 3-bedroomed dwellings.

Discussion:

The Head of Planning outlined the planning application and reminded the Committee that this application had originally been considered by the Committee on 21 September 2016 following which the Committee had accepted the principle of change of use from a public house to residential use but had expressed the view that three dwellings would result in the creation of a poor internal layout. The application had therefore been deferred to enable Officers  to discuss with the applicant the possible reduction in the number of proposed properties to be provided on site.

He confirmed that the revised application was now for conversion of a public house to one two bedroomed and one three bedroomed house.

Decision:

Approved subject to:

A)           The applicant signing a Unilateral Undertaking under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to secure £223.58 per new dwelling created towards Designated Habitats Mitigation.

B)           Conditions 1 – 6 as set out in the report for the reasons stated in the report.

Gillingham North

Change of use of a pet food sales unit (Class A1) with two bedroom flat (Class C3) above into 2 two bedroom self contained flats together with alterations to fenestration detailing.

Discussion:

The Head of Planning outlined the planning application.

Decision:

Approved subject to:

A)           The applicant signing a Unilateral Undertaking under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to secure £223.58 towards Wildlife Habitat Mitigation.

B)           Conditions 1 – 8 as set out in the report for the reasons stated in the report.