Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Gulvin and Tejan. 

To approve the record of the meeting held on 16 January 2019.

The record of the meeting held on 16 January 2019 was agreed and signed by the Chairman as correct.

The Committee noted that the wording of the refusal grounds for the following planning applications had been agreed with the Chairman and Opposition spokespersons outside of the meeting:

Minute 704 - Planning application – MC/18/3007 – 20 Pattens Lane, Rochester ME1 2QT

1.    The proposed use of this semi detached property as a children's home (class C2) would result in unacceptable general disturbance and loss of amenity to neighbouring residents, particularly those in the attached property at 18 Pattens Lane.  In addition due to the limited capacity within the property, particularly for needs such as quiet rooms etc, the property if not considered suitable for a childrens home.  The proposal is therefore contrary to the provisions of Policies BNE2, H2 and H8 of the Medway Local Plan 2003 and paragraphs 8(b), and 127 of the NPPF 2018.

Minute 707 - Planning application – MC/18/3165 – 61 Lingley Drive, Wainscott, Rochester

1.    The proposed development would result in a large, boxy dormer to the rear that would dominate the rear roof space of the original dwellinghouse and the hipped roof of the existing two storey rear extension, as well as resulting in a number of different extensions to the property of varying architectural styles, which overall, would appear contrived and therefore harmful to the appearance of the existing dwellinghouse and the visual amenities of the occupiers of neighbouring properties when viewed from their rear gardens, contrary to Policy BNE1 of the Medway Local Plan 2003.

The Chairman referred to the recent sad passing of Councillor David Carr who had been a valuable Member of the Planning Committee.

The Committee held a minute’s silence in memory of Councillor David Carr.

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 declared an interest in planning application MC/18/3114 – Avenue Tennis Club, Glebe Road, Gillingham on the basis that the applicant was known to her. However, she advised that she had only visited the Avenue Tennis Club when she had been invited to the official opening as Chairman of the Planning Committee and that she had not attended any other meetings at the venue. She left the meeting for the consideration and determination of this planning application. In the absence of the Chairman, the Vice Chairman took the chair for consideration of this planning application.

Councillor Griffiths declared an interest in planning application MC/18/3114 – Avenue Tennis Club, Glebe Road, Gillingham on the basis that he lives in close proximity to the application site and left the meeting for the consideration and determination of this planning application.

Councillor Potter declared an interest in planning application MC/18/3114 – Avenue Tennis Club, Glebe Road, Gillingham and left the meeting for the consideration and determination of this planning application.

Councillor Royle declared an interest in planning application MC/18/3114 – Avenue Tennis Club, Glebe Road, Gillingham and left the meeting for the consideration and determination of this planning application.

Councillor Tranter declared an interest in planning application MC/18/3662 – Land off Curtis Way, Rochester on the basis that he had provided assistance to the applicant and therefore he left the meeting for the consideration and determination of this planning application.

Councillor Wicks declared an interest in planning application MC/18/3114 – Avenue Tennis Club, Glebe Road, Gillingham and left the meeting for the consideration and determination of this planning application.

Other interests

Councillor Etheridge referred to planning application MC/18/3114 – Avenue Tennis Club, Glebe Road, Gillingham and advised the Committee that whilst he had received a number of emails about the planning application, no Ward Councillor had spoken to him about the application and he did not know the applicant and therefore he would take part in the consideration and determination of the planning application.  

Councillor Potter referred to planning application MC/18/1307 – Bakersfield Phase 2, Station Road, Rainham and advised the Committee that as he had declared that he was opposed to large scale developments in the Rainham area, he wished to address the Committee as Ward Councillor on this planning application and would therefore not take part in the determination of this planning application.

Councillor Saroy referred to planning application MC/18/3114 – Avenue Tennis Club, Glebe Road, Gillingham and advised the Committee that she wished to address the Committee as Ward Councillor and would therefore not take part in the determination of this planning application.

Councillor Turpin referred to planning application MC/18/3662 – Land off Curtis Way, Rochester and advised the Committee that he wished to address the Committee as Ward Councillor and would therefore not take part in the determination of this planning application.

Chatham Central

Construction of residential development comprising six 3 x bedroom houses and six 1 x bedroom and twelve 2 x bedroom apartments - resubmission of MC/17/4420.

Discussion:

The Head of Planning outlined the planning application and reminded the Committee that this planning application had been considered by the Committee on 16 January 2019, following which the Committee had determined that whilst the planning application was acceptable in design terms, Members still had concerns regarding viability. The Committee therefore removed the design reason for refusal and deferred the application to enable officers to undertake further negotiation on viability issues.

Martin Aust, Viability Consultant advised upon the outcome of discussions with the applicant’s consultants and advised that an amended viability assessment had been undertaken dated 31 January 2019. This concluded that the proposed development did not generate a development surplus which could be allocated to Section 106 contributions. The amended viability assessment had since been assessed independently by Pathfinder and they had come to the conclusion that for the scheme to be marginally viable, house prices would need to rise by 10%. They considered that sales values would need to rise to 14% before policy compliant levels of Section 106 payments could be achieved. Therefore, it was considered that the scheme was not viable and no Section 106 contributions could be paid.

However, as the applicant was keen to begin development of the site as soon as possible, the applicant had agreed to enter into an agreement for a clawback clause which would enable profits from the development to be re-assessed when completed. The applicant considered that this provided the Council with a measure of security. In the light of this, it was suggested that if the Committee was minded to approve the application, such permission should include a condition that the development begin before the expiration of 18 months from the date of the permission rather than 3 years.

The Head of Planning informed the Committee that if it was minded to approve the application, proposed conditions 1 – 11 were set out on the supplementary agenda advice sheet and proposed condition 1 would require amendment to reflect the suggested change from 3 years to 18 months. He also drew attention to a proposed Section 106 contribution towards bird mitigation.

The Committee discussed the application and Members expressed concern that to approve this planning application without any Section 106 contributions, with the exception of bird mitigation, would have a detrimental impact on local facilities and services in the locality and could set a precedent for future planning applications and should therefore be refused.

Decision:

Refused on the ground set out in the report.

Watling

Construction of eight 4 x bedroomed dwellings with associated parking and access road (demolition of existing extension to 26 Second Avenue).

Discussion:

In the absence of the Chairman, the Vice Chairman, Councillor Hicks took the chair for the consideration and determination of this planning application.

The Planning Manager outlined the planning application in detail and drew attention to the supplementary agenda advice sheet on which there was a correction to the wording of the proposed Section 106 agreement.

In addition, she drew attention to two letters from Rehman Chishti MP that he had received relating to this planning application, details of which were appended to the supplementary agenda advice sheet.

The Planning Manager advised that eleven additional representations, including two from one household had been received reiterating concerns already addressed within the committee report. New matters raised concerned a covenant, loss of view and loss of house value but these were not material planning considerations.

The Planning Manager also advised that Councillor Purdy, as Ward Councillor had submitted a petition containing 111 signatures objecting to the development of houses on the site.

With the agreement of the Committee, Councillors Purdy and Saroy addressed the Committee as Ward Councillors and outlined the concerns of residents including the following:

·         The proposed development will have an impact on those residents living in Glebe Road and this has not been taken into account.

·         Vehicular exit from Glebe Road into Second Avenue is already very difficult owing the restricted sight lines and this development will exacerbate this problem resulting in road safety issues.

·         Many residents have objected to this proposed development.

·         The application site is in a Conservation Area.

·         The application constitutes backland development

·         The development will place a strain on the existing sewage and drainage system and could result in flooding.

·         The proposed houses will have very small gardens.

·         The provision of three storey houses is out of keeping with the character of the area and will be overbearing.

·         The committee report and presentation do not give the full picture of the area and if the Committee is minded to approve the planning application, then prior to doing so a site visit should be undertaken.

·         The proposed development is an overdevelopment of the site and will result in overlooking and block light and result in a loss of privacy.

·         On street parking in the vicinity of the application site is at a premium and should this proposed development be approved, it will result in an increase in the demand for on-street parking.

The Committee discussed the application and expressed concern that the proposed development was cramped and overbearing. In addition, plots 7 and 8, being three storeys high were considered to be excessive in height and out of character with houses in the surrounding area.

Members also expressed concern that although there was parking provision on site, the proposed parking provision and, in particular, visitor parking was inadequate and would likely result in increased competition for on street parking in surrounding roads.

Other concerns expressed by members of the Committee included an unacceptable loss of trees, lack of reassurance that the ecological and reptile surveys  ...  view the full minutes text for item 797.

Rochester South and Horsted

Creation of a coach park with a new access from Curtis Way, together with entrance control equipment at the proposed access and associated landscaping, including a bund around the coach park.

Discussion:

The Head of Planning outlined the planning application in detail and suggested that if the Committee was minded to approve the application, proposed conditions 2, 6 and 7 be amended as set out on the supplementary agenda advice sheet.

In addition he drew attention to an amendment to the proposal and planning appraisal sections of the report, details of which were also set out on the  supplementary agenda advice sheet.

He reported the receipt of one further letter of representation expressing concern that some trees had been removed from the site.

In addition, the Confederation of Passenger Transport UK (CPT) had written and expressed a number of concerns relating to the proposed location of the coach park, details of which were summarised on the supplementary agenda advice sheet.

The Head of Planning reminded the Committee that when the Council had approved the redevelopment of Rochester Riverside, such development was conditional upon the provision of a new coach park. He advised that extensive investigations had been undertaken into identifying possible alternative sites, most of which had been considered unacceptable and the outcome had resulted in the current planning application. Although the proposal would result in the loss of some public open space, the development would lead to some enhancement of the remaining open space.

He stated that although the site was close to residential properties, it was located as far away as possible and it was considered that any impact upon residents would be negated by the provision of landscaping and restricted hours of use.

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

·         Although the site was now no longer to be operational for 24 hours, the hours of use had not been reduced sufficiently and were not in line with the hours of use of the coach park located at the Visitor Information Centre in Rochester.

·         There is no footpath provision into and out of the site.

·         The play area could benefit from refurbishment and this development has not included provision for this work.

·         There is a lack of provision on site for coach drivers.

The Committee discussed the application and in response to questions concerning the hours of operation, the Head of Planning explained the reason for the hours requested but stated that he considered it would be acceptable for the hours of access to and from the coach park to be amended to start at 07.00 as opposed to 06.00.

Members questioned whether it was possible to change the hours at the end of the day so as to be earlier than 22.30 and the Head of Planning advised that this matter would require discussion with the applicant.

In response to concerns relating to the lack of a footpath, the Principal Transport Planner advised that it was intended that a footpath would be provided but that this had not formed part of the planning application.

In response to the concerns as to the lack of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 798.

Rainham North

Construction of 27 3 x bedroom dwellings with access works, associated parking and landscaping.

Discussion:

The Head of Planning outlined the planning application in detail and suggested that if the Committee was minded to approve the planning application, an additional condition 27 be approved as set out on the supplementary agenda advice sheet.

In addition, he drew attention to a revised section of the committee report relating to contamination also set out on the supplementary agenda advice sheet.

With the agreement of the Committee, Councillor Potter addressed the Committee as Ward Councillor and outlined concerns including:

·         The committee report did not include reference to a petition that he had submitted containing over 1000 signatures objecting to large scale development in Rainham.

·         Whilst the principle of development at Bakersfield had already been established, development of this orchard land would have a detrimental impact upon the highways network should other proposed developments in Rainham be progressed.

·         The proposed development does not include any mitigation for alleviating traffic congestion.

·         The total proposed Section 106 agreement for open space facilities should be directed to open spaces in Rainham.

·         There should be an additional condition requiring a Site Management Plan taking into account issues that have arisen with the existing development on adjoining land at Bakersfield.

The Head of Planning advised the Committee that petitions were frequently received by the Council objecting to potential developments and, whilst the concerns of those who had signed the petitions were respected, if they did not relate to specific planning applications and contain objection reasons specific to a planning application they could not be considered by the Committee when determining a planning application. He explained that should ‘non -specific’ petitions form part of the planning application process and be taken into account when refusing a planning application, this could affect any later planning appeal and could result in costs being awarded against the Council. It was for this reason that petitions which did not relate to specified planning applications were not referred to within planning application reports.

In response to highway concerns, the Head of Planning advised that when considering applications for large scale developments in Rainham, the impact on the highway was an issue that would need to be carefully considered. However, as this particular application was for 27 properties and formed phase 2 of the Bakersfield development, officers were of the opinion that this development was acceptable on highway grounds.

In response to the issue of open space contributions, the Head of Planning advised that the Committee had previously recognised the Great Lines Heritage Park as an asset to Medway as a whole and, as only 5% of the proposed Section 106 contribution was to be used for the Great Lines Heritage Park this was not considered unreasonable.

He referred to the Site Management Plan and advised that he had already met with the Site Manager at the adjoining development and if this planning application was approved, the Site Management Plan would be carried forward onto this site.

The Committee discussed the report and, in particular, the section  ...  view the full minutes text for item 799.

Strood Rural

Variation of conditions 19 and 20 of planning permission MC/10/2068.

Discussion:

The Planning Manager outlined the planning application in detail.

The Committee discussed the report and Members expressed concern that whilst infilling of the quarry was taking longer than originally anticipated, the application for an extension of hours and days of operation would have a detrimental effect upon traffic congestion especially at peak times when traffic is leaving the Medway City Estate.

A Member expressed concern that following a visit to the site, he had been advised that the wheel washing facility was currently broken and, as a result an excessive amount of mud and silt was being deposited on the highway and subsequently being washed into the drains.

The Head of Planning advised that the issue of wheel washing could be enforced both on planning and highway grounds.

Following discussion, it was considered that this planning application should be deferred to enable officers to undertake further discussion with the applicant on concerns relating to the lack of wheel washing facilities on site and to enable officers to undertake a review of the potential impact of the extension of hours and days of operation on the highways network in particular, the anticipated number of vehicle movements between 16.30 and 17.30 Mondays to Fridays.

Decision: 

Consideration of this application be deferred to enable officers to undertake further discussions with the applicant on concerns relating to the lack of wheel washing facilities on site and to enable officers to undertake a review of the potential impact of the extension of hours and days of operation on the highways network in particular, the anticipated number of vehicle movements between 16.30 and 17.30 Mondays to Fridays.

Cuxton and Halling

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

Discussion:

The Planning Manager outlined the report in detail.

Decision: 

Approved with conditions 1 – 13 as set out in the report for the reasons stated in the report.

Hempstead and Wigmore

Demolition of existing bungalow and construction of 2 semi-detached houses.

Discussion:

The Head of Planning outlined the planning application in detail.

With the agreement of the Committee, Councillor Rodney Chambers OBE addressed the Committee as Ward Councillor and set out the concerns of residents including the following:

·         The proposed development, being a 3 storey structure is out of character with the street scene.

·         The proposed development will have a detrimental impact upon loss of light in habitable rooms of no. 124 Hempstead Road.

·         The application constitutes an overdevelopment of the site.

·         On the third floor of the proposed properties, there will be a third bedroom and a study, but the study could be converted to a fifth bedroom at a later date.

The Committee discussed the planning application and supported the concerns of the Ward Councillor.

Decision: 

a)        Refused on the following grounds:

1.    The proposal constitutes an overdevelopment of the site and, being a 3 storey development is out of keeping with the character of the area and the street scene.

2.    The proposed development will have a detrimental impact upon the habitable rooms at no. 124 Hempstead Road, Gillingham by virtue of loss of light.

b)        The Head of Planning be granted delegated authority to approve the wording of the refusal grounds with the Chairman, Vice Chairman and opposition spokesperson.

Strood Rural

Conversion of existing house into two residential flats (resubmission of MC/17/3784).

Discussion:

The Planning Manager outlined the planning application in detail.

Decision: 

Approved subject to:

a)            Securing a contribution of £239.61 towards Bird Mitigation.

b)            Conditions 1 – 4 as set out in the report for the reasons stated on the report.

Rochester West

Variation of condition 7 of planning permission MC/16/3590 in order to vary the hours of opening to increase them from 11pm to 1am on Friday and Saturday (only).

Discussion:

The Planning Manager outlined the planning application in detail.

The Committee discussed the application and it was suggested that as there  are a number of residential properties in and around the vicinity of the application site, the variation of hours from 11pm to 1am could not be supported and that the closing time of this premises should be restricted to 12 midnight on Fridays and Saturdays.

Decision: 

Approved with conditions 1 – 6 and 8 - 11 as set out in the report for the reasons stated in the report and condition 7 amended as follows:

7          The use hereby permitted shall only operate between the hours of 08:00 to 23:00 Monday to Thursday, 08:00 to 24:00 Friday and Saturday and 10:00 to 22:00 on Sunday and Public Holidays.

Reason: To regulate and control the permitted development in the interests of amenity including in view of the cumulative effect of a number of late night uses in the High Street and the presence of residential properties in close proximity to the site and with regard to with Policy BNE2 of the Medway Local Plan 2003.

This report asks the Committee to consider a change to the provisions in the employee scheme of delegation relating to the triggers for escalation of planning applications from officer to Committee level.

The report also asks the Committee to formalise the existing process whereby Ward Councillors address the Committee at meetings of the Planning Committee on planning applications/enforcement matters.

Discussion:

The Head of Planning introduced a report setting out proposed changes the provision of the employee scheme of delegation relating to triggers for the escalation of planning applications from officer to Committee level.

The report also asked the Committee to formalise the existing process whereby Ward Councillors address the Committee on planning applications and enforcement matters.

Decision: 

The Committee agreed:

a)            to approve a change to the scheme of employee delegations relating to the determination of planning applications, as set out in paragraph 2a and shown as tracked changes in Appendix A to the report and agreed that the consequential changes to the Constitution be approved by the Monitoring Officer as minor changes under his delegations.

b)            approved the formalisation of the procedure for Ward Councillors speaking on planning applications/enforcement issues as set out in paragraph 2b and shown as tracked changes in Appendix B to the report and agreed that the consequential changes to the Constitution be approved by the Monitoring Officer as minor changes under his delegations.

This report is presented quarterly to committee informing members on current Planning performance and the Local Plan.

Discussion:

The Committee received a report setting out performance for the period 1 October – 31 December 2018 and advising upon the latest position on the Local Plan.

The Head of Planning advised the Committee that he only had one Enforcement Officer at the moment but was hoping to progress recruitment shortly.

Decision: 

The Committee noted the report.

This report informs Members on the amount of Section 106 funding received between October to December 2018 and sets out what the contributions must be spent on according to the Section 106 agreements.

This report is submitted for information to assist the Committee in monitoring the contributions which developers have agreed to as part of new development schemes.

Discussion:

The Committee received a report setting out information concerning Section 106 Agreements for the period October – December 2018.

Decision: 

The Committee noted the report.