Agenda and minutes
PDF 281 KBVenue: Meeting Room 2 - Level 3, Gun Wharf, Dock Road, Chatham, Kent ME4 4TR. View directions
Contact: Ellen Wright, Democratic Services Officer
| No. | Item |
|---|---|
|
Apologies for absence Minutes: Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Royle. |
|
|
To approve the record of the meeting held on 14 December 2016. Minutes: The record of the meeting held on 14 December 2016 was agreed and signed by the Chairman as correct. |
|
|
Urgent matters by reason of special circumstances The Chairman will announce any late items which do not appear on the main agenda but which she has agreed should be considered by reason of special circumstances to be specified in the report. Minutes: There were none. |
|
|
Chairman's announcements Minutes: The Chairman advised the Committee that planning application MC/16/2653 – Elmsleigh Lodge, 118 Maidstone Road, Chatham had been withdrawn from the agenda and would therefore not be discussed at this meeting. |
|
|
Declarations of disclosable pecuniary interests and other interests A member need only disclose at any meeting the existence of a disclosable pecuniary interest (DPI) in a matter to be considered at that meeting if that DPI has not been entered on the disclosable pecuniary interests register maintained by the Monitoring Officer.
A member disclosing a DPI at a meeting must thereafter notify the Monitoring Officer in writing of that interest within 28 days from the date of disclosure at the meeting.
A member may not participate in a discussion of or vote on any matter in which he or she has a DPI (both those already registered and those disclosed at the meeting) and must withdraw from the room during such discussion/vote.
Members may choose to voluntarily disclose a DPI at a meeting even if it is registered on the council’s register of disclosable pecuniary interests but there is no legal requirement to do so.
Members should also ensure they disclose any other interests which may give rise to a conflict under the council’s code of conduct.
In line with the training provided to members by the Monitoring Officer members will also need to consider bias and pre-determination in certain circumstances and whether they have a conflict of interest or should otherwise leave the room for Code reasons.
Any member who joins the meeting after the start of the officer presentation on an item of business for determination or, leaves the meeting during the officer presentation or debate on an item of business for determination is not permitted to participate in the decision making and voting for that particular item of business. Minutes: Disclosable pecuniary interests
There were none.
Other interests
There were none. |
|
|
Planning application - MC/15/3538 - 120 High Street, Rochester Rochester West
Construction of a patio area with glazed roof to provide smoking shelter. Additional documents: Minutes: Discussion:
The Head of Planning Services outlined the application which proposed to excavate an area of land to the side of the premises to form a part glazed smoking shelter. He advised the Committee that officers’ were concerned about the size of the proposed structure and were of the view that the application failed to promote the design concept and how it would link with the historic environment. The applicant had therefore been asked to provide additional information, as set out in the report, but this had not been received. Officers had indicated to the applicant that a lean to structure on a more modest scale and in line with the return of the City Wall Bar might be acceptable. However, this proposal had not been progressed by the applicant.
Decision:
Refused for the reasons set out in the report. |
|
|
Planning application - MC/16/2653 - Elmsleigh Lodge, 118 Maidstone Road, Chatham ME4 6DQ 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. Additional documents: Minutes: This application was withdrawn from the agenda. |
|
|
Planning application - MC/16/1924 - Chatham Waterfront, Medway Street, Chatham ME4 4HA River
Outline application with all matters reserved for the construction of up to 115 residential units with retail facilities at ground floor level. Additional documents: Minutes: Discussion:
The Planning Consultant outlined the planning application and identified the key issues as flood risk, parking, and the financial viability of the scheme. Members were advised of an omission in recommendation A (xii) in the report which should read:
(xii) a contribution of £223.58 towards bird disturbance mitigation per dwelling unit.
With regard to affordable housing, the Planning Consultant referred to the Financial Viability Appraisal (FVA) which had been reviewed by an independent viability assessor appointed by the Head of Planning. This concluded that the scheme was not in a position to support the provision of affordable housing. In view of the Council’s clear strategic aspiration to secure the redevelopment of the site to support the regeneration of Chatham, officers considered that a departure from Saved Policy H3 was appropriate on this occasion.
The Committee discussed the application and concern was expressed about the proposed lack of affordable housing provision. It was recalled that the current car park on the site had been an interim measure and noted that, if the scheme progressed, car parking provision could be accommodated elsewhere in the Town Centre, resulting in no loss of income. The conclusions of the FVA were therefore questioned. It was suggested that alternative options should be explored, incorporating a greater or lesser number of units than currently proposed, to assess whether this would improve the financial viability of the development. It was recalled that the Committee had previously been critical of developers who had argued against the provision of affordable housing when submitting their applications. As the Council was the applicant in this instance, it was considered that more should be done to attempt to achieve the Council’s 25% affordable housing target within this development. The view was also expressed that, given the very close proximity of the application site to public transport, it was questionable whether there needed to be any residential parking provision within the proposal. It was proposed that should this be removed, it might be possible to provide more retail or dwelling units. It was therefore suggested that the Council’s Parking Standards be reviewed for Town Centre locations.
Decision:
Consideration of the application be deferred for further consideration by officers of the financial viability of providing affordable housing within the proposed development. |
|
|
Strood North
Outline application with some matters reserved (appearance, landscaping, layout, scale) for residential development comprising of up to 135 residential dwellings with associated landscaping, public open space and associated works. Additional documents: Minutes: Discussion:
The Head of Planning outlined the planning application and advised the Committee that all references to Policy BNE 48 within the report should be disregarded as this was not a saved Policy of the Local Plan. The third reason for refusal in the report therefore needed to be amended in line with the supplementary agenda advice sheet. In addition, the references to BNE 48 within the Planning Appraisal section of the report, as identified in the supplementary agenda advice sheet, should be disregarded.
The Head of Planning stated that the application site was within the Green Belt and was currently being used as high quality agricultural land. He suggested that Green Belt land should not be released for development through individual planning applications but rather through the Local Plan Development process.
With reference to the supplementary agenda advice sheet, he advised the Committee that, if that application was approved, some open space provision would be required on site and could be conditioned but there would also need to be a contribution towards off site provision (including formal sports provision) of £317,016 and this would need to be included in any S106 agreement.
With the agreement of the Committee, Councillor Chitty spoke on this planning application and supported the objections raised by residents and the officer recommendation for refusal within the report. She stressed the importance of retaining Green Belt land to prevent urban sprawl.
The Committee discussed the application and highlighted the purpose of the Green Belt.
Decision:
Refused for the reasons set out in the report for the reasons stated in the report, with reason 3 amended in line with the supplementary agenda advice sheet as follows.
3. The development would result in permanent loss of high quality agricultural land (Best and Most Versatile). It has not been demonstrated that there is no alternative previously-developed sites or that the existence of alternative potentially developable greenfield sites of poorer agricultural quality. The proposal is contrary to paragraph 112 of the NPPF. |
|
|
Planning application - MC/16/3583 - The Yard, 1a Milton Road, Gillingham ME7 5LP Gillingham South
Construction of 2 storey block of 5 no self contained one bedroom flats with associated parking cycle store amenity space refuse storage facilities together with boundary walls and fences. Additional documents: Minutes: Discussion:
The Head of Planning outlined the planning application and drew attention to the proposed level of parking provision which did not meet the Council’s current parking standards. However, in view of the higher parking demand for the previous use of the site and the proximity of the site to the Town Centre and public transport, officers had raised no objection in terms of parking standard.
Decision:
Approved subject to:
A) The applicant completing a Unilateral Undertaking to secure a contribution of £1,117.90 (£223.58 per dwelling) towards Designated Habitats Mitigation. B) Conditions 1 – 12 as set out in the report for the reasons stated in the report. |
|
|
Planning application - MC/16/3762 - 55-55a Ordnance Street, Chatham ME4 6SJ Chatham Central
Part retrospective application for retention of existing shopfront, altered roller shutter to shopfront, cladding to other ground floor front windows and air conditioning units to rear (repositioned). Additional documents: Minutes: Discussion:
The Head of Planning outlined the planning application and suggested that, if the Committee was minded to approve the application, an additional condition 4 be approved relating to the relocation of the air conditioning units.
With the agreement of the Committee, Councillor Maple spoke on this planning application and asked if a restriction could be placed on the times that the shop could take deliveries to minimise disruption to neighbouring properties. He stated that the repositioning of the air conditioning units would still impact on some local residents’ quality of life.
The Committee discussed the application and was advised by the Head of Planning that any condition needed to directly relate to the development proposal. However, he offered to raise the issue of noise control with colleagues in Environmental Heath.
Decision:
A) Approved subject to conditions 1 – 3 as set out in the report for the reasons stated in the report and new condition 4 as follows:
4. The air conditioning units shall be relocated from their current unauthorised position to the position hereby approved within two months of the grant of this planning permission.
Reason: In the interests of the character and appearance of the area and the amenities of nearby residents in accordance with Policies BNE1 and BNE2 of the Medway Local Plan 2003.
B) The Committee requested that the Head of Planning refer the need to review delivery times due to disturbance to neighbouring residential amenity to Environmental Health. |
|
|
Planning application - MC/16/2955 - 65 Broadview Avenue, Rainham, Gillingham, ME8 9DE Rainham Central
Construction of two detached 3 bedroom bungalows with access road and parking - demolition of detached garage to side; greenhouse and shed to rear. Additional documents: Minutes: Discussion:
The Head of Planning outlined the planning application.
The Committee discussed the application. A Member expressed concern about the loss of garden space and considered that the proposals were out of character with neighbouring properties in Broadview Avenue which had long gardens. Two other Members expressed concern that the applicant might subsequently submit an application for an increased number of properties or larger properties within the roofspace.
Decision:
Approved subject to:
A) The applicant signing a Unilateral Undertaking under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1990 (as amended) to secure £447.16 (£223.58 per dwelling) towards Designated Habitats Mitigation. B) Conditions 1 – 14 as set out in the report for the reasons stated in the report. |
|
|
Planning application - MC/16/4162 - 77 St Margarets Street, Rochester, ME1 3BJ Rochester West
Extension and alterations to the former garage and mews to provide one three bedroom house with partial demolition to the garage (Revised application MC/16/0312). Additional documents: Minutes: Discussion:
The Head of Planning outlined the planning application and suggested that, if the Committee was minded to approve the application, condition 5 be amended in line with the supplementary agenda advice sheet to ensure that the extension and alterations were completed prior to occupation.
Decision:
Approved subject to:
A) A unilateral obligation being submitted with respect of habitat mitigation. B) Conditions 1 – 4 and 6 – 8 as set out in the report for the reasons stated in the report and revised condition 5 as set out below:
5. Notwithstanding the approved plans, full details of the revised access, including a 1:20 scale elevational drawing and sections of the proposed replacement front boundary wall, gate wall, raised planter and electronic sliding gate, shall be submitted in writing and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of the development. The front walls shall be constructed using existing wall flints to be carefully removed flint by flint, cleaned and re-used in the new design. The approved scheme shall be implemented in its entirety prior to the first occupation of the dwelling and shall thereafter be retained. |
|
|
Planning application - MC/16/4425 - Land Adjacent 37 Dagmar Road, Luton, Chatham Luton and Wayfield
Construction of a 2-bedroomed dwelling with associated parking.
Additional documents: Minutes: Discussion:
The Head of Planning outlined the planning application and referred to the planning history of the site and in particular planning application in 2010 which had been refused. In dismissing a subsequent appeal, the planning inspector had raised concerns with regard to the amenities of the occupiers of the adjoining property, 39a Dagmar Road. The Head of Planning drew attention to the fact that the current application sought to position the dwelling further back into the site which would result in less harm to the amenities of the occupiers of the adjoining properties.
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 – 10 as set out in the report for the reasons stated in the report. |
|
|
Strood Rural
Change of use of agricultural buildings to form five separate units comprising of Class B1/B8 use (office/industrial) with associated internal and external alterations. Additional documents: Minutes: Discussion:
The Head of Planning outlined the planning application and advised the Committee that, since the despatch of the agenda, Cliffe and Cliffe Woods Parish Council had submitted a further letter endorsing previous concerns regarding highway access to the site from the narrow B2000 at that location. In addition, the applicants had written to confirm their intention to improve visibility at the entrance to the farm by clearing back vegetation to the south side of the access to provide a vision splay to meet the 40mph speed limit. Their letter, which was summarised on the supplementary agenda advice sheet, also confirmed that they had no objection to ecological enhancements being provided on the site. The Head if Planning drew Members’ attention to proposed condition 6 which was intended to alleviate highway safety concerns.
The Head of Planning concluded that the proposal would enhance the buildings, which were no longer used for agricultural purposes, and would promote businesses within the rural area thereby providing employment for local people. He suggested that, if the Committee was minded to approve the application, an additional condition 8, as set out in the agenda advice sheet, be approved requiring the submission of amended elevations to building C which tie up with the floor plans.
The Committee discussed the application and a Member observed that very large lorries used Town Road and additional traffic might increase highway safety concerns at the access to the site. The Head of Planning reiterated that the clearance of vegetation would improve visibility and that additional signage would be installed.
Decision:
Approved subject to conditions 1 -7 as set out in the report for the reasons stated in the report and new condition 8 as set out below:
8. Notwithstanding the approved plans referred to in condition 2, prior to work on building c amended elevations which tie up with the floor plans shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved plans.
Reason: The submitted floor plans and elevations do not correspond with respect to entrance doors. |
|
|
Report on Section 106 Agreements for the period July - December 2016 This report informs Members on the amount of Section 106 funding received between July to December 2016 and sets out what the contributions must be spent on according to the Section 106 agreements. Minutes: Discussion:
The Committee received a report setting out the amount of Section 106 funding received between July to December 2016 and setting out what the contributions must be spent on.
The Committee discussed the report and asked for more information on the level of payments towards habitat mitigation. In addition, a Member asked how much the Dockside payments were per year and what they went towards. The Head of Planning Services said that his information would be emailed to the Member.
Decision:
The Committee noted the report and requested that an information report be provided for a future meeting setting out the governance arrangements and providing information on how it would be spent. The report should include the current total of monies received.
|