Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from the Chairman, Councillor Mrs Diane Chambers and Councillor Etheridge. In the absence of the Chairman, the Vice Chairman, Councillor Hicks chaired the meeting.

To approve the record of the meeting held on 30 August 2017.

The record of the meeting held on 30 August 2017 was agreed and signed by the Chairman as correct. 

The Head of Planning drew attention to Minute 259 (Planning application – MC/16/4229 – Land North of Peninsula Way, Main Road, Chattenden, Rochester and advised the Committee that after the meeting on 30 August, it had been established that the materials to be used for the half boarded properties would be made up of a composite material as opposed to wood, therefore it had not been necessary to impose condition 4 approved by the Committee.

The Chairman will announce any late items which do not appear on the main agenda but which he has agreed should be considered by reason of special circumstances to be specified in the report. 

There were none.

Disclosable pecuniary interests

There were none.

Other interests

Councillor Griffiths advised the Committee that as he lived in close proximity to planning application MC/17/2328 – Garage Block to the rear of 11 Glebe Road, Gillingham he would leave the meeting for the discussion and determination of this planning application.

Councillor Gulvin referred to Item 14 on the agenda relating to Section 106 agreements and advised that although a Governor at Oaklands School, he wished to speak on this item relating to a general issue concerning the allocation of Section 106 funding.

Strood Rural

Outline planning application with some matters reserved (appearance, landscaping, layout and scale) for up to 225 residential dwellings (including up to 25% affordable housing), introduction of structural planting and landscaping, informal public open space and children's play area, surface water flood mitigation and attenuation, vehicular access point from Town Road and associated ancillary works. 

Discussion:

The Head of Planning advised the Committee that at its meeting on 14 April 2017 it had determined to refuse this planning application on two grounds, details of which were set out in the report.

He advised that the applicants had since appealed the decision and the appeal was due to be determined following a Public Inquiry starting in November 2017. In addition, the Secretary of State had declared that he wished to determine the appeal himself, which meant that the Inspector would hold the Inquiry, hear evidence as usual and then produce a report and recommendation for consideration by the Secretary of State.

In preparation for the Public Inquiry, Counsel has been appointed, along with a Planning Consultant and a Landscape Consultant.

In considering the two grounds for refusal, the Landscape Consultant had suggested a revision to the wording of refusal ground 2, details of which were set out in the report.

The Committee considered the report.

Decision: 

Refusal ground 2 be amended to read as follows:

2.         The development, if permitted, would have an adverse impact on the character and visual amenity of the local area, contrary to Paragraphs 17 of the National Planning Policy Framework and Policy BNE25(i) of the Medway Local Plan 2003.

Rainham Central

Approval of reserved matters (access, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale) pursuant to condition 1 of MC/14/0285 (APP/A2280/W/15/3002877) for outline planning permission with all matters reserved for future consideration, ref Outline application with all matters reserved for residential development comprising 90 dwellings. 

Discussion:

The Head of Planning outlined the planning application in detail and suggested that if the Committee was minded to approve the application, suggested conditions 1 and 5 be amended to refer to revised drawings and condition 21 be deleted as set out on the supplementary agenda advice sheet.

The Head of Planning explained that during discussions between the outline application and the reserved matters application, the applicant had discussed the affordable housing proposed with a possible social landlord on this site, namely Moat Housing. Moat Housing had asked for all the units to be shared ownership rather than the normal 60/40 rented/shared ownership split and also asked to increase the number of shared ownership units from 22 to 32 houses. This equated to 35.5% affordable dwellings all being shared ownership on this site. The applicant had confirmed that if all affordable housing units on the site could be shared ownership, it was willing to make a significant contribution available by way of a Section 106 agreement towards the local GP surgery at Rainham Healthy Living Centre in addition to the contributions already agreed at the outline planning stage.

The Committee discussed the application and noted that although the application had initially been refused when considered by the Planning Committee and, subsequently upheld at appeal, the scheme now placed before the Committee appeared to be a good scheme as the applicants had worked with officers to address some of the concerns of local residents.

A Member suggested that hoarding be erected around the site so as to screen it from those residents living adjacent to the site. The Head of Planning stated that this could be added to proposed condition 15 as part of the Construction and Management and Logistics Plan.

A Member referred to heavy goods vehicles (HGV’s) using Lower Rainham Road and suggested that the signage prohibiting HGV’s from using this route could benefit by being more visible. The Head of Planning agreed to raise this issue with the Assistant Director Front Line Services.

Decision: 

Approved subject to:

a)            The applicant entering into a deed of variation to the Section 106 agreement signed as part of the outline approval to secure the following:

i)             £42,115.00 towards improvements to the closest surgery at Rainham Healthy Living Centre for the practices contained therein to manage the additional cohort of patients depending on patient needs of the local GP practice.

ii)            A minimum of 35% (equal to 32) affordable dwelling houses. All the affordable units to be of shared ownership tenure type.

b)            Conditions 2 - 4, 6 – 15 and 17 - 20 as set out in the report for the reasons stated in the report and revised conditions 1, 5 and 16 as set out below:

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

666 NO-SL-01, 666-200 Rev A, 666-201 Rev B, 666-202 Rev B, 666-203 Rev B, 666-204 Rev B, 666-205 Rev A, 666-206 Rev A, 666-207 Rev A, 666-207  ...  view the full minutes text for item 319.

Peninsula

Demolition of existing buildings and structures and redevelopment of the land south of Ratcliffe Highway, to provide 232 residential units in buildings of up to 3 storeys, retention of existing bowling green together with associated access, landscaping and open space.

Discussion:

The Head of Planning outlined the planning application and suggested that if the Committee was minded to approve the application a number of changes to the proposed conditions be approved as set out on the supplementary agenda advice sheet.

He also drew attention to the proposed Section 106 heads of agreement and in particular, the suggestion that £28,988.00 be made available for the Great Lines Heritage Park. He reminded the Committee that previously, it had requested that Section 106 funding be allocated to the local area in which the proposed development was to take place and he therefore suggested that the Committee may wish to stipulate whether this funding would be more appropriately allocated to either greenspace improvements at Deangate or added to the funding being requested for a new community facility for Hoo Parish.

With the agreement of the Committee Councillor Freshwater addressed the Committee as Ward Councillor and summarised residents concerns as follows:

·         The proposed development will harm the existing community in Hoo and the proposed Section 106 payments will not bring infrastructure benefits to the community that will address the community’s concerns.

·         The proposed development will have an adverse impact on the character and visual amenity of the local area.

·         Residents consider the proposed new entrance in Bells Lane to be dangerous and will result in drivers using Bells Lane for parking which could close the road at this junction.

·         The development will result in major traffic problems to the detriment of those trying to cross Bells Lane and will also result in an increase in pollution from cars and lorries contrary to the action plan for the Four Elms Hill Air Quality Management Area.

·         Local GP surgeries in Hoo have already closed their lists to new patients and existing patients have a 3 week wait for GP appointments.

·         There are no school places available in Hoo

·         The proposed development of 3 storey flats is out of character for the area.

·         Future occupiers of the proposed new development will suffer from high levels of traffic noise from cars and lorries using the A228.

·         Leisure facilities at Deangate can only be accessed by car as there are no footpaths to these facilities.

·         At a public meeting on 30 August attended by the Leader of the Council and Kelly Tolhurst MP, the local Hoo community indicated that whilst they were not opposed to the provision of new housing, it is not possible to increase the size of the local Hoo community as the roads, schools and local essential services can no longer cope.

·         The Committee has already refused a planning application for development in a neighbouring green field which was also dismissed by a Planning Inspector at appeal. This should therefore act as a precedent for the Committee to refuse this current planning application.

Councillor Freshwater requested that if the Committee was minded to approve the planning application, it undertake a site visit.

The Committee discussed the application having regard to the views of the Ward Councillor.

Members  ...  view the full minutes text for item 320.

River

Approval of reserved matters (appearance, landscaping, layout and scale) pursuant to condition 3 on planning permission MC/11/2756 for construction of a part sixteen part eleven storey block comprising of 199 1, 2 and 3 bedroomed apartments; 710sqm of commercial floorspace; ancillary residents gym; office; parking; landscaping and associated works.

Discussion:

The Head of Planning outlined the planning application in detail.

He advised the Committee that whilst this application would ordinarily have resulted in a Section 106 payment towards bird mitigation, as this had not been requested at the outline application stage, this could not now be added to the Section 106 agreement already approved.

The Committee discussed the application and, in particular, the provision of parking having regard to the variety of uses which would be provided at this site and would likely result in significant demand for parking throughout the day. It was noted that a multi-storey car park was proposed to be provided in the later phases of the development with temporary car parking put in place during the earlier phases.

Members expressed concern that the provision of the affordable housing element of the development would not be provided until a later phase and were cautious as to whether the developer could argue at a later stage that 25% affordable housing could not be provided owing to the viability of the scheme.

In response, the Legal Adviser reassured the Committee that whilst the Committee’s experience with a previous developer had understandably made the Committee nervous about affordable housing being provided in latter stages of phased developments, the loophole that had permitted developers to claim unviability reasons for not providing affordable housing had now been closed.

The Committee also discussed the potential for increasing travel opportunities to and from the application site.

Decision:

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

Strood Rural

Conversion of existing Public House into two 3-bedroomed terraced houses with micro pub and a 2-bedroomed flat above and construction of two 3-bedroomed semi-detached houses with associated parking.

Discussion:

The Planning Manager outlined the planning application in detail.

The Committee discussed the application and concern was expressed as to:

·         The lack of provision for parking for customers of the proposed micro pub which could result in parking in Church Street which is a narrow country road.

·         The application site is in close proximity to St Helen’s C of E Primary School which could result in conflict for car users when parents are dropping off and collecting their children from school.

·         The proposed design of the development resulted in a narrow gap between the buildings which, by virtue of its narrowness could result in maintenance difficulties of the flank walls. It was suggested that it would be better to join the properties or make the gap between the properties wider.

·         There is a lack of amenity space for the future occupiers of the proposed properties.

·         The proposed development constitutes overdevelopment of the site.

·         Should all car parking spaces be filled, any driver entering the site and being unable to park would be unable to turn their vehicle round to exit the site in forward gear.

In the light of the above concerns, the Committee felt that consideration of the application should be deferred to enable Officers to undertake further negotiations with the applicant. 

Decision: 

Consideration of this application be deferred to enable Officers to undertake further negotiations with the applicant having regard to the Committee’s concerns .

Watling

Construction of a single terrace of four town houses with associated parking and refuse storage - resubmission of MC/17/1708.

Discussion:

The Planning Manager outlined the planning application in detail.

Attention was drawn to the additional information on the supplementary agenda advice sheet setting out additional comments from the applicant addressing objections concerning the width of the access road and the ability of a fire engine to access properties on the site.

The Planning Manager drew attention to a previous planning application for this site which had been refused by the Committee but subsequently allowed at appeal under reference MC/12/0650. She advised that this planning permission had since expired and the same scheme had been resubmitted under reference MC/17/1708. Following objections that the site was not sufficiently large enough to accommodate the proposed houses, an amended scheme had been submitted which was now the subject of the current application before Committee. The scheme had been amended from two pairs of semi detached housed to a terrace of 4 houses.

Member’s discussed the application and expressed concern that the access to the site would be extremely tight to accommodate a fire engine or refuse vehicle and that there was insufficient space within the development for such a large vehicle to turn around to exit the site. In response, the Planning Manager confirmed that the width of the access road to and from the site had been taken into account by the Planning Inspector when allowing the original application under MC/12/0650 and the width of the access road had been considered acceptable by the Planning Inspector.

Decision: 

Approved subject to:

a)            The applicant entering into a Section 106 agreement to secure £1444.32 for bird mitigation measures to Natural England.

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

Rochester South and Horsted

Demolition of existing detached garage and construction of a detached annexe building.

Discussion:

The Planning Manager 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.

Luton and Wayfield

Construction of a 3 bed dwelling to side.

Discussion:

The Planning Manger outlined the planning application in detail.

During discussion, a Member requested that the Head of Planning arrange for the Derelict Buildings Officer to investigate the condition of the adjoining building.

Decision: 

Approved subject to:

a)            The applicant entering into a Section 106 agreement for a payment of £773.58 for bird mitigation measures for Natural England.

b)            Conditions 1 – 9 as set out in the report for the reasons stated in the report.

This report informs Members of appeal decisions for the period 1 April to 30 June 2017.

Discussion:

The Committee received a report setting out a summary of appeal decisions for the period 1 April – 30 June 2017.

Referring to the appeal decision relating to MC/16/1574 – Turkey Hall Farm, Malmaynes Hall Road, Stoke, it was suggested that the Head of Planning inform the Planning Inspectorate of the Council’s disappointment as to the reasons why this appeal had been allowed.

Decision: 

The report was noted.

This report informs Members on the amount of Section 106 funding received between April to June 2017 and sets out what the contributions must be spent on according to the Section 106 agreements.

Discussion:

The Committee received a report setting out the amount of Section 106 funding received between April – June 2017 and detailing what the contributions must be spent on according to the Section 106 agreements.

A Member drew attention to Appendix 2 and expressed concern that Section 106 funding for nursery/primary education resulting from a development in Walderslade Road had been used to provide educational facilities at St Mary’s Island. He expressed the view that where possible such contributions should be used in the locality of the application site.   

Decision: 

The report was noted.