Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Bowler, Etheridge and Tejan.

To approve the record of the meeting held on 21 November 2018.

The record of the meeting held on 21 November 2018 was agreed and signed by the Chairman as correct. 

The Committee noted that the wording of additional conditions for the following planning applications had been agreed outside of the meeting:

Planning application – MC/18/2309 – Land adjacent Rochester Train Station, Corporation Street, Rochester

25. Prior to the first occupation of the building herein approved details of the refuse storage arrangements for the building, including provision for the storage of recyclable materials, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  No dwelling shall be occupied until the approved refuse storage arrangements for the building are in place and all approved storage arrangements shall thereafter be retained.

Reason:  In the interests of visual amenity and to ensure a satisfactory provision for refuse and recycling in accordance with Policy BNE2 of the Medway Local Plan 2003.

Planning application MC/18/2088 – 32 Love Lane, Rochester ME1 1JD

4.    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), the extension herein approved shall remain in use with the rest of the house as a single family dwellinghouse falling within Class C3 of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (as amended) (or any order amending, revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification) and no change of use to C4 shall be carried out 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 amenity, in accordance with Policy BNE2 of the Medway Local Plan 2003

The Chairman requested that when Ward Councillors address the Committee on a planning application, they restrict their speech to up to 5 minutes.

The Chairman advised that planning application MC/18/1405 – Keepers Barn, Upper Bush Farm, Upper Bush Road, Cuxton had been deferred and would not be considered at this meeting.

The Chairman suggested that the agenda items relating to Enforcement Proceedings, Derelict Buildings and Section 215 Enforcement be deferred until the meeting on 16 January 2019. This was agreed.

Decision:

The Committee agreed that the reports on Enforcement Proceedings, Derelict Buildings and Section 215 Enforcement be deferred until 16 January 2019.

There were none. 

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)

The Chairman, Councillor Mrs Diane Chambers referred to planning application MC/18/2171 – Beechcroft, Capstone Road, Lordswood Chatham and advised the Committee that she would leave the meeting for the consideration and determination of this planning application on the basis that one of the objectors was known to her. In her absence, the Vice Chairman would chair the meeting for that planning application.

Other interests

There were none.

Rochester South and Horsted

Demolition of existing buildings (including control tower, old clubhouse two portacabins housing the airport office and Skytrek office) and construction of a new control tower and hub building, ancillary car park, family viewing area and associated engineering operations.

Discussion:

The Head of Planning outlined the planning application in detail and confirmed that the proposals currently under consideration solely related to the demolition of existing buildings (including the control tower, old clubhouse, two portacabins housing the airport office and Skytrek office) and construction of a new control tower and hub building, ancillary car park, family viewing area and associated engineering operations.

These works would modernise the buildings and serve the needs of existing occupants and users of the airport without changing the key operational elements of the airport, including craft type, numbers, flight lines and operational hours.

He advised that, as a result of this application and planning application MC/18/2509 elsewhere on the agenda, continued use of the cross runway 34/16 would not be possible. Once this runway ceased to operate, not all aircraft would be suited to using the main runway in adverse weather conditions and would therefore be required to land at an alternative airport.

The Head of Planning outlined the main issues for consideration and stressed that there was not a requirement for the Committee to consider the potential impacts of the number of aircraft movements at the airport as these would not increase as a direct result of these proposals.

Tabitha Knowles, Lichfields Planning Consultant advised the Committee that although the application only related to the erection of a new control tower and hub building, Lichfields had produced an independent Aeronautical Review considering the proposals against aeronautical regulations and guidance, and to identify and assess any aeronautical and safeguarding impacts.

She referred to the conclusions of the review and confirmed that there was no potential for significant environmental effects associated with public safety and risk giving rise to a need for an Environmental Impact Assessment.

The Head of Planning advised the Committee that Highways England had raised the issue of whether the proposal could have potential to impact on the safe and efficient operation of the strategic road network, in this case particularly the M2 in the vicinity of junction 3. Highways England had requested that the applicant carry out a Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) compliant risk assessment and, as appropriate, put forward proposals to avoid or mitigate any risks to the safe operation of the Strategic Road Network. The applicant had commissioned an assessment and this was currently with Highways England and a response awaited. Taking this into account, if the Committee was minded to approve the application, it was suggested that the Head of Planning be granted delegated authority to approve the application with conditions subject to Highways England removing its holding objection.

The Committee discussed the application and in particular the mechanism by which aircraft might need to divert to an alternative airport in adverse weather conditions following the closure of cross runway 34/16. In response to questions, Tabitha Knowles advised that both the airport and pilots using the airport were governed by strict regulations imposed by the Civil Aviation Authority, including regulations covering safety.

A Member requested that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 651.

Rochester South and Horsted

Relocation of two helipads within the airport to include the provision of landing pads together with the decommissioning of an existing helipad.

Discussion:

The Head of Planning outlined the planning application in detail and informed the Committee that this application related to the relocation of two helipads within the airport to include the provision of landing pads together with the decommissioning of an existing helipad.

The reason for the development was to consolidate the helipad movements further East and more centrally within the site and reduce the extent of taxiing and the length of the helicopter running time. With the proposed new hub building and control tower which were the subject of planning application MC/18/2505, considered under the previous planning application, the extent of personnel movement within the site to get to the relocated helipads would be reduced and health and safety improved. The applicant had stated that the development would not change the number of flights or the type of helicopter using the site.

Tabitha Knowles, Lichfields Planning Consultant advised the Committee that although the application only related to the relocation of the helipads, Lichfields had produced an independent Aeronautical Review considering the proposals against aeronautical regulations and guidance, and to identify and assess any aeronautical and safeguarding impacts.

She referred to the conclusions of the review and confirmed that there was no potential for significant environmental effects associated with public safety and risk giving rise to a need for an Environmental Impact Assessment.

Decision:

Approved with conditions 1 – 8 as set out in the report for the reasons stated in the report.

Strood South

Proposed part demolition of existing communal facilities block and addition of first floor to create a two-storey building (block 3), addition of new storey to block 1 to create a three/four storey building and extension to front and external staircase to block 2 and other associated works to facilitate conversion of Greatfield Lodge Residential Hostel into 14 one bed and 10 two bed residential self contained flats including creation of an access road onto the site from Hawthorn Road and inclusion of derelict land to the rear of No. 276 Hawthorn Road to form part of the overall site.

Discussion:

The Head of Planning outlined the planning application and informed the Committee that this application had originally been on the agenda for consideration on 21 November 2018 but had been deferred owing to the requirement to clarify that access could be achieved for a bin lorry from Darnley Road. The applicant had now submitted revised drawings showing how this would be achieved.

He outlined the application and highlighted the changes to the scheme from that previously approved under planning application MC/13/1469 in January 2014.

In response to questions, the Head of Planning confirmed that the footpath would be retained for public use and enhanced for safety and access to the site from Hawthorn Road would be restricted to residents only.

It was suggested that if the Committee was minded to approve the application proposed condition 2 be amended as set out on the supplementary agenda advice sheet to reflect new plans received.

Decision:

Approved subject to:

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

•           A contribution of £2,496 towards nursery school provision at Bligh Infant School;

•           A contribution of £7,488 towards primary school provision at Bligh Infant and Junior Schools;

•           A contribution of £11,230.80 towards improvements to Court View Surgery in Darnley Road to accommodate potential new patients arising from the proposed development;

•           A contribution of £28,000.00 towards off site provision and/or maintenance of outdoor open space to be spent on improvements to Northcote Recreation Ground, Sycamore Road play area and/or Broomhill Park. 

•           A contribution of £13,700.40 towards the provision of Street furniture in the grounds of Temple Manor.

•           A contribution of £4,200.00 towards waste and recycling to be used to provide adequate facilities to cover the impact of the development.

•           A contribution of £5,750.64 towards Strategic Mitigation measures in the Special Protection Areas; 

•           An agreement that when any future stage of the development is undertaken (of all or any of the land outlined in blue on the submitted site plan) that it will include the provision of a minimum of 25% of affordable homes calculated on the basis of the number of dwelling across the site as a whole, the trigger being when 25 or more dwellings are proposed across the joint sites. 

•           Payment for traffic calming measures in the proximity of the proposed access onto Hawthorn Road.

•           Payment for the diversion of and improvement to the public footpath linking Darnley Road and Hawthorn Road.

b)            Conditions 1 and 3 – 16 as set out in the report for the reasons stated in the report and condition 2 revised as set out below:

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

Drawing numbers GW/227/03/D, GW/227/04/D, GW/227/05/C, GW/227/06/C, GW/227/07/A, GW/227/08/C, GW/227/09/B, GW/227/10/B,GW/227/11/D, GW/227/12/B, GW/227/13/B, GW/227/14/C, GW/227/15/A, 38492/2001/006/A, 38492/2001/SK01/B and 38492/1501/001/P01 received on 18 December 2017; Site Plan received on 8 January 2018; drawing numbers 38492/2001/007/F, 38492/2001/009/B, 38492/2001/010/B, 38492/2001/011/B, 38492/2001/012/B, 38492/2001/012, 9537-KC-XX-YTREE-TCP01Rev0 Sheet 1 of 2 and KC-XXYTREE-TPP02RevA Sheet  ...  view the full minutes text for item 653.

Hempstead and Wigmore

Construction of a 4 bedroom detached bungalow with associated parking, access, engineering and landscaping works.

Discussion:

In the absence of the Chairman, the Vice Chairman chaired the Committee for consideration and determination of this planning application.

The Planning Manager outlined the planning application in detail and advised the Committee that the application site was outside the urban boundary as defined on the proposals map of the Local Plan and was therefore in the open countryside (Policy BNE25) and the site was also in an area of landscape importance (Policy BNE34). She advised that under normal circumstances the proposal would in principle be unacceptable under Policies S1 and S2 which directed development to brownfield sites and Policy BNE25 which restricted development in the countryside. However, as the Council could not demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply, the principle of sustainable development within the National Planning Policy Framework applied.  The development provided for some economic and social benefit and, as the proposal was to demolish an existing outbuilding and redevelop a previously developed site, the environment impact was acceptable.  As a result, the proposal constituted sustainable development and the principle of development was acceptable. The proposal included retention of the existing hedgerow and trees and was bordered on all sides by development, much of which was relatively recent. Therefore, it was considered that the development on one dwelling on this site would be in keeping with its surroundings.

The Planning Manager also confirmed that the design of the proposed dwelling was in keeping with a similar property to the south and plans had been amended so as to ensure that the height of the building sat below Capstone Road.

With the agreement of the Committee Councillor Rodney Chambers OBE addressed the Committee as Ward Councillor and referred to the letters of objection that had been submitted for this planning application. He outlined the basis of residents’ concerns as follows:

·         The proposed building will be on a 40% larger footprint than the stables that were originally on the application site.

·         Residents have concerns as to the narrow access into the site where they have stated there is no passing point.

·         The development of a residential property on land in the Capstone Valley is contrary to the Council’s desire to protect this area from development and a 4 bedroomed property in close proximity to this application site had been refused planning permission in October 2018. The grounds on which that application had been refused also applied to this current planning application.

For the above reason, Councillor Rodney Chambers OBE urged the Committee to refuse the planning application.

The Committee discussed the planning application and recognised that this particular application differed from that previously considered by the Committee in October in that the other site was located in a more prominent position and had a greater landscape impact whereas this current application related to a low level bungalow which would be located on a previously developed agricultural site between two other properties and would not be so visible from the road. For this reason it was questionable that the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 654.

Cuxton and Halling

Change of use of redundant agricultural barn to a residential dwelling.

Decision:

The Committee noted that this application had been deferred from consideration at this meeting.

Twydall

Construction of a single storey side extension (fronting Thornham Road).

Discussion:

The Planning Manager outlined the planning application and advised the Committee that revised drawings had been received since despatch of the agenda. Therefore if the Committee was minded to approve the application, proposed condition 2 required amendment as set out on the supplementary agenda advice sheet.

She also drew attention to changes to those sections of the report relating to description and the design and amenity section of the appraisal as set out on the supplementary agenda advice sheet.

Decision:

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

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

Drawing number 18.05.04/2 revision A received 7 December 2018.

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

This report summarises the content of agenda items 12 – 14, which, in the opinion of the proper officer, contain 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 these documents.

Decision:

This item was not considered owing to the Committee’s decision to defer consideration of reports on Enforcement Proceedings, Derelict Buildings and Section 215 Enforcement until 16 January 2019.

This report informs the Committee of those enforcement proceedings during the period 1 January – 30 June 2018.

Decision:

Consideration of this item was deferred until 16 January 2019.

This report informs Members of the action taken by the Derelict Building Officer with regard to key buildings and associated land in the Medway area during the period 1 July – 31 October 2018.

Decision:

Consideration of this item was deferred until 16 January 2019.

This report details the action taken by the Environmental Enforcement Team (EET) with regard to section 215 issues in the first two quarters 2018/19.

Decision:

Consideration of this item was deferred until 16 January 2019.