Agenda and minutes

There were no apologies for absence.

To approve the record of the meeting held on 4 July 2018.

The record of the meeting held on 4 July 2018 was agreed and signed by the Chairman as correct.

The Committee noted that under Minute 159 relating to land adjoining No. 35 Cooling Road, High Halstow, Rochester, the conditions applied had been checked and were similar to that for the self/custom build scheme approved by the Committee for Merryboys Road. It was also confirmed that Condition 21 relating to the length of time that the plot(s) must be marketed to self/custom builders had been amended from 12 months to 24 months in accordance with the decision of the Committee.  

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. 

The Chairman drew attention to the supplementary agenda advice sheet and advised the Committee that since despatch of the agenda, the National Planning Policy Framework had been revised. Therefore, each planning application on the agenda had been re-assessed against the new framework.

Members are invited to disclose any Disclosable Pecuniary Interests or Other Significant Interests in accordance with the Member Code of Conduct.  Guidance on this is set out in agenda item 4.

Disclosable pecuniary interests

There were none.

Other significant interests (OSIs)

Councillor Potter declared an interest in planning applications MC/18/1468 – Abbey Court School, Cliffe Road, Strood, Rochester and MC/18/1525 – Sir Joseph Williamsons Mathematical School, Maidstone Road, Rochester and left the meeting for the consideration and determination of these planning applications.

Councillor Tejan declared an interest in planning application MC/18/1520 – Land adjacent to Basin 1 Maritime Way, Chatham Maritime, Chatham on the basis that he is one of the Council’s representatives on the Chatham Maritime Trust and he left the meeting for the consideration and determination of this planning application.

Ellen Wright, Democratic Services Officer declared an interest in planning application MC/17/3455 – 89 Ingram Road, Gillingham on the basis that she lives in close proximity to the application site and she left the meeting for the consideration and determination of the planning application. In her absence the Planning Solicitor took minutes.

Other interests

There were none.

Gillingham North

Demolition of existing buildings and redevelopment of the site to provide 22 residential apartments alongside associated parking, access and infrastructure works. 

Discussion:

The Senior Planner outlined the planning application in detail. He suggested that if the Committee was minded to approve the application, proposed condition 18 be deleted and conditions 19 and 20 be re-numbered. He also drew attention to a change to the proposal section of the report and one further letter of objection received since despatch of the agenda, details of which were set out on the supplementary agenda advice sheet.

He advised that since despatch of the agenda the National  Planning Policy Framework has been revised.  The application had been re-assessed against paragraphs 11d, 56, 59, 105, 108, 124, 127, 170, 175, 176, 178, 180, 181 and 190 and there was no change to the recommendation as set out in the report.

With the agreement of the Committee, Councillor Price addressed the Committee as Ward Councillor and outlined the concerns of residents, which included:

·         The proposed development is out of keeping with the character of the area which is in the heart of historic Gillingham

·         The proposed development will provide blocks of apartments which will result in the occupiers of the apartments having a direct view into the rooms and rear gardens of properties in Grange Road and Gillingham Green.

·         Lack of security for properties in Grange Road and Gillingham Green owing to the provision of a low level fence.

·         The area is within a Conservation area and the proposed development constitutes backland development.

·         The proposed development is located on a brow of a hill and therefore the sight lines for drivers of vehicles leaving the site will be affected which could create a hazard as the application site is in close proximity to Saxon Way Primary School.

·         The proposed development does not provide a sufficient level of parking for residents particularly taking into account that occupiers of the 2 bed apartments may have 2 vehicles. This will exacerbate the existing problems of on-street parking in surrounding roads. There is also no provision for visitor parking. Parking is already at a premium on local roads especially on days when Gillingham Football Club have home matches.

·         Ingram Road is a very busy road with queuing traffic when the Railway Level Crossing is down and the additional vehicular movements arising from this development will exacerbate the problem. In addition, Ingram Road is on a bus route.

·         The site has previously been identified for housing or a GP Surgery and residents would like the Committee to undertake a site visit prior to determining the planning application.

·         Medway Council has installed plaques for landmark buildings, one of which is the St Mary Magdalene Church and the proposed development will obscure the views of this Church.

·         The site is more suited to a development of bungalows or 2 storey housing.

The Committee discussed the report having regard to the current use of the site, the proposed development and the concerns expressed by the Ward Councillor.

A number of Members expressed concern as to the effect that the proposed development would have upon the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 227.

River

Redevelopment of site to provide nineteen 1-bedroom flats, eleven 2-bedroom flats and two 3-bedroom flats with parking and bicycle provisions.

Discussion:

The Planning Manager outlined the planning application in detail and advised the Committee that since despatch of the agenda, the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) has been revised.  The application has been re-assessed against paragraphs 11d, 56, 59, 64, 105, 108, 124, 127, 163, 170, 175, 176, 178, 180, 181 and 190.  Whilst there was no change to the recommendation as set out in the report, the reason for proposed condition 5 required amendment to take account of the new NPPF.

The Committee discussed the report. Whilst it was noted that the applicant had worked with officers to address the concerns of local residents, it was considered that it would be helpful if an additional condition could be approved to require the applicant to produce a management plan as to how the building would be managed and maintained.

Members also requested that additional conditions be imposed requiring an automated gate to secure the undercroft parking and provision of secure cycle units.

A Member sought information as to the tenure of the affordable housing and the Planning Manager agreed to provide this information direct to the Member outside of the meeting.

The Planning Manager also agreed to check that condition 4 concerning an air quality scheme would also include the ground floor and lower ground floor of the development.

A Member suggested that for all future planning applications, the way in which the Section 106 agreement is worded insofar as it relates to bird mitigation be reconsidered.

Decision:

Approved subject to:

a) The applicant entering into a legal agreement under the terms of Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to secure:

i.       £32,253.76 on improvements at Town Hall Gardens and/or The Paddock.

ii.      £7,996.80 towards improvements to Phase 1 at Great Lines Heritage Park

iii.    £14,974.40 towards improvements to Bryant St Surgery, Chatham.

iv.    £4,974.08 towards provision of waste processing

v.      £18,267.20 towards engineering survey of the water tank at the Old Brook Pumping Station.

vi.    £18,541.71 for education broken down to £3,244.80 for Nursery and £8,900.02 for Primary at both to New Road Primary School and £6,396.89 for Secondary at Victory Academy.

vii.   £6,707.40 towards strategic measures in respect of the coastal North Kent Special Protection Area.

viii.  Affordable housing consisting of four one bedroom (one of which to be a wheel chair unit) and four two bedroom flats.

ix.    Meeting the Council’s costs.

b) Conditions 1 – 4 and 6 – 14 as set out in the report for the reasons stated in the report, condition 5 amended as set out below and new conditions 15 – 17 as set out below:

5          No development shall take place until a scheme showing details of the disposal of surface water, based on sustainable drainage principles, including details of the design, implementation, maintenance and management of the surface water drainage scheme have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Those details shall include:

i)             a timetable for its implementation, and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 228.

Gillingham South

Construction of a residential development of 9 dwellings.

Discussion:

The Planning Manager outlined the planning application in detail. She drew attention to the supplementary agenda advice sheet and advised that since the despatch of the agenda, the National Planning Policy Framework had been revised.  The application has since been re-assessed against paragraphs 11d, 56, 59, 105, 108, 124, 127, 170, 175, 176 and 178.  There was no change to the recommendation as set out in the report.

With the agreement of the Committee, Councillor Johnson addressed the Committee as Ward Councillor and outlined the concerns of residents. Prior to doing so, he advised the Committee that this planning application was located on the edge of Gillingham South Ward and therefore also affected Watling Ward. He confirmed that Councillor Saroy also supported the residents on behalf of Watling Ward.

Furthermore, he advised the Committee that the land relating to this particular planning application was attached to the piece of land which was the subject of planning application MC/18/0155, also being considered by the Committee at this meeting although they had different owners and were for different developments. Both sites had a common boundary. He was therefore of the opinion that both applications needed to be considered in conjunction with each other and he thanked the applicant of MC/18/0176 for agreeing to delay consideration of his application so that both applications could be considered on the same evening.

He then went on to outline residents concerns as follows:

·         The application is for piecemeal backland development.

·         If planning application MC/18/0155 is approved, that development will result in blocking any access to the site of MC/18/0176 from Borough Road resulting in the only access to the site being from Napier Road.

·         The alleyway in Napier Road currently provides access for residents and there are concerns as to whether this will be protected as it is not clear whether this continues to exist with the proposed development.

·         The application constitutes overdevelopment of the site as although the site density takes account of the whole site, only a portion of it will be developed.

·         If previous planning applications for the house at No. 142 are renewed the density of the site will increase.

·         The area of land behind No. 142 could also be the subject of future development and residents are concerned that the garden land will be replaced by an estate.

·         Concerns as to the capacity of the drainage system.

·         Concerns as to security of back gardens.

·         Inadequate facilities for the collection of refuse and re-cycling which will be left at the side of houses in Napier Road.

·         The impact of additional traffic on Napier Road with limited visibility and the close proximity of Napier Road Primary School.

·         The provision of 30 car parking spaces for 9 houses implies that further development is intended at a future date.

·         The alleyway leading to the site from Napier Road is little more than a dirt track and has no lighting or footway and it is not wide enough for vehicles to pass.

·         Delivery vehicles  ...  view the full minutes text for item 229.

Gillingham South

Development of 8 residential properties comprising 2 x 3 bed & 6 x 2 bed houses, accessed by new shared surface with associated parking, covered parking and landscaping. 

Discussion

The Planning Manager outlined the report in detail and advised that since despatch of the agenda, the National Planning Policy Framework had been revised.  The application had since been re-assessed against paragraphs 11d, 56, 59, 105, 108, 124, 127, 170, 175, 176 and 178.  There was no change to the recommendation as set out in the report.

The Planning Manager also drew attention to a correction to the amenity section of the report as detailed on the supplementary agenda advice sheet.

With the agreement of the Committee, Councillor Johnson addressed the Committee as Ward Councillor and outlined residents concerns as follows:

·         A resident living on the Napier Road side of the development site has experienced problems with the site as parts of the partly demolished building remains attached to his property. Therefore, should the application be approved, it would be necessary to safeguard this property.

·         The proposed development constitutes an overdevelopment of the site and massing and will create overlooking.

·         The site could be the subject of future planning applications to increase the number of properties on site.

·         Concerns as to drainage

·         Concerns as to the impact on the additional traffic that this development will generate and visibility when exiting the site owing to parked vehicles.

·         Concern as to refuse collection.

·         A request for a site visit to be undertaken before determining the planning application.

The Committee considered the application and noted that this site had been designated for housing in the Local Plan with a nominal capacity of 25 dwellings therefore, the number of proposed dwellings was less than this number.

A Member requested that in future, all plans shown as part of the presentation on planning applications be displayed with the North point at the top of the screen.

Decision:

Approved subject to:

a)            The completion of a Unilateral Undertaking to secure a contribution of £223.58 (per dwelling) towards bird mitigation in North Kent;

b)            Conditions 1 – 14 as set out in the report for the reasons stated in the report. 

c)            An informative which states:

The applicant is advised to liaise with the owner of No.17 Napier Road regarding the making good of the flank wall of the property once the remains of the existing building have been demolished.

Gillingham South

Change of use of builders yard with construction of  6 one bedroom flats - demolition of existing workshops and outbuildings - resubmission of MC/16/4497.

Discussion:

The Senior Planner outlined the planning application and advised that since despatch of the agenda, the National Planning Policy Framework had been revised.  The application has been re-assessed against the following paragraphs 11d, 56, 59, 105, 108, 124, 127, 170, 175, 176 and 178.  There was no change to the recommendation as set out in the report but the reason for condition 13 required amendment, details of which were set out on the supplementary agenda advice sheet.

The Committee considered the application and expressed the view that this application was overdevelopment and cramped in appearance and provided a cluttered street scene. In addition, there was inadequate parking design for residents and poor amenity space.

Decision:

a)            Refused on the following grounds:

1.    Overdevelopment and cramped appearance

2.    Cluttered Street Scene

3.    Inadequate design to cope with parking for residents

4.    Poor amenity space for residents

b)            The Head of Planning be granted delegated authority to agree the wording of the refusal grounds with the Chairman and opposition spokespersons.

Strood Rural Ward

Proposed development of existing school field into a rural activities centre consisting of a new vehicular access road, fenced paddocks, hub with stables, barn, feed-barn, a horticultural area consisting of a polytunnel and planter beds, and a classroom building with classroom and ancillary accommodation for pupils at Abbey Court School.

Discussion:

The Planning Manager outline the planning application in detail and advised the Committee that since despatch of the agenda, the National Planning Policy Framework has been revised.  The application haD therefore been re-assessed against the following paragraphs 97, 124, 127, 163, 170, 175 and 176.  There was no change to the recommendation as set out in the report. However the reasons for proposed conditions 7 and 8 had changed, details of which were set out on the supplementary agenda advice sheet.

The Planning Manager advised that as a result of the objection from Sport England, should the Committee be minded to approve the application, it  would need referral to the Secretary of State for determination. In addition, she requested that the Committee grant the Head of Planning delegated authority to agree solutions for surface water drainage.

The Committee discussed the application and expressed disappointment that Sport England had objected to the application. The Committee was mindful that pupils at Abbey Court School have severe learning difficulties or profound and multiple learning difficulties and the proposed development would provide an educational resource enabling pupils to experience animals and learn about their care. They would also experience learning outside of the classroom and to transfer their skills into a practical setting and facilitate the development of life skills such as taking on responsibility and budgeting.

Decision:

Approved subject to:

a)            the Head of Planning being granted delegated authority to approve details demonstrating a solution to surface water drainage.

b)            referral to the Secretary of State having regard to the objection received from Sport England.

c)            conditions 1- 6 and 9 – 14 as set out in the report for the reasons stated in the report and conditions 7 and 8 amended as follows:

7          Prior to the first use of any part of the rural activities centre hereby approved:

(a)       details of how the development will enhance biodiversity shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority (these shall include the installation of bat and bird nesting boxes along with details of native planting where possible, and a timetable for implementation); and

(b)       the approved details shall be fully implemented and shall be retained as such thereafter.

Reason: To enhance biodiversity in accordance with paragraphs 175 and 176 of the National Planning Policy Framework..

 8         Prior to the first use of the development hereby approved a signed verification report carried out by a qualified drainage engineer (or equivalent) must be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority to confirm that the Sustainable Drainage System has been constructed as per the agreed scheme and plans.

Reason: In accordance with paragraph 160 of the National Planning Policy Framework to ensure that suitable surface water drainage scheme is designed and fully implemented so as to not increase flood risk on-site or elsewhere.

Rochester West

Construction of a two storey mathematics building (demolition of existing modular building), extensions to hard play area, addition of shade sails by main hall and provision of 10 additional parking spaces

Discussion:

The Planning Manager outlined the planning application in detail and informed the Committee that since despatch of the agenda the National Planning Policy Framework had been revised.  The application had therefore been re-assessed against paragraphs 94, 97, 111, 124, 127 and 170b.  There was no change in the recommendation as set out in the report.

She referred to proposed condition 6 which required the submission of a Travel Plan and advised the Committee that under this condition it was possible to require improved signage to distinguish those sections of parking which were designated for the school and the nursery.

The Committee discussed the application noting that both the school and nursery shared a common entrance to the site. It was therefore considered essential that the areas of parking be defined under proposed condition 9.

Decision:

Approved with conditions 1 – 10 as set out in the report for the reasons stated in the report and an informative requiring the applicant to ensure that there is clear indication as to which sections of the car park are designated for the school and the nursery.

River

Construction of a single storey building for use as Estate Office.

Discussion:

Then Senior Planner outlined the planning application and informed the Committee that since despatch of the agenda, the National Planning Policy Framework has been revised.  The application had therefore been re-assessed against paragraphs 11d, 105, 108, 124, 127, 163, 170, 175 and 178.  There was no change to the recommendation as set out in the report.

He informed the Committee that an additional letter of objection had been received which was appended to the supplementary agenda advice sheet.

The Committee was informed that the application for this planning application was the Chatham Maritime Trust and it was intended that the Trust would occupy the office as its Estate Office.

During discussion, it was suggested that an additional condition be imposed removing permitted development rights so that if the applicant wished to install a gate at a future date, the application would require submission to this Committee for determination.

Decision:

Approved with conditions 1 – 5 as set out in the report for the reasons stated in the report and new condition 6 as follows:

            6          Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (or any order amending, revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification) no development shall be carried out within Schedule 2, Part 2, Class A of that Order unless planning permission has been granted on an application relating thereto.

Reason:  To enable the Local Planning Authority to control such development in the interests of visual and neighbouring amenity in accordance with Policies BNE1 and BNE2 of the Medway Local Plan 2003.

Watling

Raising of roof height to facilitate conversion of first floor to two 1-bedroomed self-contained flats with associated internal alterations.

Discussion:

The Senior Planner outlined the planning application in detail and informed the Committee that since despatch of the agenda, the National Planning Policy Framework has been revised.  The application had therefore been re-assessed against paragraphs 11d, 56, 59, 105, 108, 124, 127, 170, 175, 176, 180 and 181.  There was no change to the recommendation as set out in the report.

Decision:

Approved subject to:

a)            The completion of a Unilateral Undertaking under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to secure £239.61 per new dwelling towards Designated Habitats Mitigation.

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

Strood Rural

Demolition of the existing outbuildings and construction of two semi-detached, 3 bedroom dwellings with associated repositioned vehicular access, parking and amenity space.

Discussion:

The Planning Manager outlined the planning application in detail and advised the Committee that since despatch of the agenda, the National Planning Policy Framework has been revised.  The application had therefore been re-assessed against paragraphs 11d, 56, 59, 77, 78, 105, 108, 124, 127, 175, 176 and 180.  There was no change to the recommendation as set out in the report.

Decision:

Approved subject to:

a)            The completion of a Unilateral Undertaking under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to secure £239.61 per new dwelling towards Designated Habitats Mitigation; and

b)            Conditions 1 – 7 as set out in the report for the reasons stated in the report.

Hempstead and Wigmore

Construction of a 2 bedroom bungalow with associated parking and landscaping.

Discussion:

The Planning Manager outlined the planning application in detail and advised the Committee that since despatch of the agenda, the National Planning Policy Framework has been revised.  The application had therefore been re-assessed against paragraphs 11d, 56, 59, 105, 108, 124, 127, 170, 175, 176, 178 and 179.  There was no change to the recommendation as set out in the report.

The Committee discussed the application.

Decision:

Approved subject to:

a)            The completion of a Unilateral Undertaking under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to secure £239.61 towards the impact on birds within the North Kent Special Protection Areas

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

Cuxton and Halling

Outline application with some matters reserved (appearance and landscaping) for construction of a 4-bedroomed detached house with integral double garage (demolition of existing garage).

Discussion:

The Planning Manager outlined the planning application in detail and advised the Committee that since despatch of the agenda, the National Planning Policy Framework has been revised.  The application has been re-assessed against paragraphs 11d, 56, 59, 77, 78, 105, 108, 124 and 127.  There was no change to the recommendation as set out in the report with the exception that the reason for Condition 8 required amendment as set out on the supplementary agenda advice sheet.

The Committee discussed the planning application and noted that although there was planning history for both No.s 54 and 60 Rochester Road, this had been omitted from the report.

Decision:

Approved with conditions 1 – 7 and 9 as set out in the report for the reasons stated in the report and condition 8 revised as follows:

8.         The front parking area shall be formed from permeable surfacing materials or provided with drainage system within the site prior to the occupation of the dwelling and following installation shall be  thereafter retained. 

Reason: To manage surface water in accordance with Paragraph 163 of the NPPF (2018).

Cuxton and Halling

Construction of an attached dwelling with access via Essex Road - demolition of existing detached outbuilding.

Discussion:

The Planner outlined the planning application and advised the Committee that since despatch of the agenda, the National Planning Policy Framework had been revised.  The application had therefore been considered against paragraphs 11d, 56, 59, 105, 108, 124, 127, 175 and 176.  There was no change to the recommendation as set out in the report.

She further advised that on 28 July, the applicant had submitted the results of a bat survey, details of which were set out on the supplementary agenda advice sheet.

In addition a further letter of objection had been received referring to parking issues, details of which were also set out on the supplementary agenda advice sheet along with photographs.

Decision:

Approved with conditions 1 – 9 as set out in the report for the reasons stated in the report.

Cuxton and Halling

Construction of single storey extension to side and rear with formation of hardstanding to front and vehicular crossover with associated engineering operations.

Discussion:

The Planner outlined the planning application in detail and advised the Committee that since despatch of the agenda, the National Planning Policy Framework had been revised.  The application had therefore been re-assessed against paragraphs 124, 127, 105 and 108.  There was no change to the recommendation as set out in the report.

She further advised the Committee of receipt of a letter of representation supporting the proposed development, details of which were 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.

This report summarises the content of agenda item 20, which, in the opinion of the proper officer, contains 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 document.

The Committee agreed to ask the press and public to leave the meeting because the following items contained sensitive information relating to current legal proceedings. The information was considered to be exempt under paragraph 6 of part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972. 

This report informs the committee of action taken by the Derelict Building Officer with regard to key buildings and associated land in the Medway area during the period 1 January – 30 June 2018.

Discussion:

The Committee received a report setting out action taken by the Derelict Buildings Officer for the period January – June 2018

Decision:

The Committee noted the report and thanked the Derelict Building Officer for the work undertaken.