Agenda and minutes

An apology for absence was received from Councillor McDonald.

To approve the record of the meeting held on 20 March 2019.

The record of the meeting held on 20 March 2019 was agreed and signed by the Chairman as correct.

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

Minute 924 – MC/18/3352 - 249 London Road, Rainham, Gillingham                             

Refused on the following ground:

1          The proposal represents an overdevelopment of the site due to the number of flats proposed and the limited onsite parking available in a location where prospective occupiers are likely to require a private vehicle. As a result the proposal is likely to lead to overspill parking on neighbouring residential roads where on street parking is already at a premium which will be to the detriment  of the amenities of the occupiers of the properties in those neighbouring streets. The proposal is contrary to Policies BNE2 and T13 of the Medway Local Plan, and paragraph 127f of the NPPF.

Minute 925 – MC/18/3461 - Coronation Bungalow, Cooling Street, Cliffe, Rochester

Refused on the following ground:

1          Cooling Street is a hamlet with no local facilities, services or public transport and in that respect the proposal for an increase of two dwellings on site would represent an unsustainable form of development completely reliant on the use of the private car. In addition the proposal by reason of its design, layout and appearance would appear as a dominant and cramped form of development out of character with the general street scene which is characterised by small scale properties with long rear gardens. As a result, the proposal represents an overdevelopment of the land, and would have a detrimental and negative impact on the surrounding area and streetscene. The proposal would therefore be contrary to Policies BNE1 and BNE25 of the Medway Local Plan 2003 and represents an unsustainable form of development contrary to the aspirations of the NPPF 2019.

Minute 926 – MC/18/3652 - 36 Kingswood Road, Gillingham

Refused on the following ground:

1          The application property is a mid-terraced dwelling that is not situated in a predominantly mixed-use or commercial area and is of a size suitable for occupation by a single-family unit. The basement rooms would provide limited outlook for the future occupants which would result in an unacceptably poor standard of amenity and living accommodation that future occupiers can reasonably expect to enjoy. The proposal would also have increased and unacceptable impact on the amenities of the occupiers of neighbouring properties by virtue of increased activities and traffic to the area, to the  detriment of the neighbouring occupiers and local amenity. The proposal is contrary to Policies H7 and BNE2 of the Medway Local Plan 2003, and paragraph 127f of the NPPF.

Minute 927 – MC/18/3599 - 486 Lower Rainham Road, Rainham            

Refused on the following ground:

1          The proposed change of use of this family dwelling house would result in the loss of much needed housing in the area, which would compromise  ...  view the full minutes text for item 1001.

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 reminded those Members who wished to speak as Ward Councillor that they would have up to 5 minutes to address the Committee.

The Chairman also informed the Committee that planning application MC/19/0086 – 104 A, B, C Poplar Road, Strood, Rochester had been withdrawn from the agenda.

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 Gulvin referred to planning application MC/19/0123 – Former Toys R Us, Horsted Retail Park, Maidstone Road, Chatham on the basis that he is the Portfolio Holder for Resources and has responsibility for property. He advised the Committee that the Council was now the owner of the Pentagon Centre and the Pentagon Shopping Centre had objected to this planning application. Therefore Councillor Gulvin left the room for the discussion and determination of this planning application.

Councillor Gulvin also referred to planning application MC/19/0137 – Hildensfield, Matts Hill Road, Rainham, Gillingham on the basis that he is Portfolio Holder for Resources and has responsibility for travellers. He left the room for the discussion and determination of this planning application.

Councillor Maple referred to planning application MC/19/0886 – Redvers Centre, Glencoe Road, Chatham and left the meeting for the consideration and determination of this planning application on the basis that he is a Governor at one of the schools named in the proposed Section 106 agreement.

Other interests

Councillor Griffiths referred to planning application MC/19/0241 – 218 Beechings Way, Twydall, Gillingham and informed the Committee that as he wished to address the Committee on this planning application as Ward Councillor he would not take part in the determination of the application.

Councillor Maple referred to planning application MC/18/0092 – Unit 1 – 2 New Cut Industrial Centre, New Cut, Chatham and informed the Committee that as he wished to address the Committee on this planning application as Ward Councillor he would not take part in the determination of the application.

Councillor Potter referred to planning applications MC/18/1307 – Bakersfield Phase 2, Station Road, Rainham, Gillingham and MC/18/3168 – Land at 143 Berengrave Lane, Rainham and advised the Committee that as he had previously spoken on both planning applications as Ward Councillor, he would withdraw from the Committee and not take any part in the consideration or determination of these planning applications.,

Councillor Tejan referred to planning application MC/18/3164 – 272 St Margarets Banks, Rochester and informed the Committee that as he wished to address the Committee on this planning application as Ward Councillor he would not take part in the determination of the application.

Twydall

Change of use of amenity land to residential to facilitate the installation of a vehicle crossover and hardstanding to front.

Discussion:

The Planning Manager outlined the planning application and suggested that if the Committee was minded to support refusal of this planning application, proposed refusal ground 2 required amendment, details of which were set out on the supplementary agenda advice sheet.

The Senior Tree Officer referred to a previous scheme to provide a vehicular crossover at this site in 2012 which had been refused. He outlined the reasons why the current application for a vehicle crossover and provision of a hardstanding was considered unacceptable and, in particular, advised that following an assessment, it had been concluded that there was insufficient space to install a standard construction vehicle crossing outside 218 Beechings Way without damaging the existing mature lime tree growing on the highway verge outside the property.

He advised that the proposal had not been supported by an assessment of the impact that the construction of a vehicle crossing would have on the tree and the absence of this information was contrary to the recommendations set out in British Standards 5837:2012 Trees in relation to design, demolition and constructions – Recommendations; the Medway Council guidance document “Vehicle Crossing Guidance and Self-Assessment”; Policy 11 of the Medway Council Tree Management Policy; and Policy BNE43 of the Local Plan and Paragraph 170 of the NPPF.

He acknowledged that there were a number of existing vehicle crossovers near the application site at 193, 197, 203, 207, 210, 214 and 226 Beechings Way and advised that following a search of planning records, five did not have the benefit of planning permission and would now be immune from planning enforcement due to the passage of time. Of the two that had the benefit of planning permission, one had not been constructed in accordance with the approved plan and had been constructed closer to a tree than it should have been but was also immune from planning enforcement and the other one had been constructed in accordance with the principles set out in the version of British Standard 5837 relevant at the time.

With the agreement of the Committee, Councillor Griffiths addressed the Committee as Ward Councillor and advised that since the development of Twydall, car ownership had increased considerably and to address this issue there had been an agreement that vehicle crossovers would be permissible provided that they were not problematic and did not affect the street trees. He referred to the existing vehicle crossovers and stated that none of these had resulted in any distress to the trees and, as many of these had been constructed without the benefit of obtaining planning permission, the current applicant was being punished by following the rules.

Councillor Griffiths also advised that the footpath along Beechings Way had been widened in recent years and a cycle path added without causing detriment to the trees.

The Committee discussed the application and in response to questions, the Senior Tree Officer provided information as to the likely depth of the roots of the trees in Beechings Way.

A Member commented that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 1005.

Chatham Central

Demolition of the former Redvers Centre and construction of residential development comprising 6 houses and 18 apartments.

Discussion:

The Head of Planning outlined the planning application and reminded the Committee that this application had previously been considered and refused following which the applicant had commenced work on preparing an appeal.

He advised that further discussions had taken place with the applicant and, in recognition of the time delay in progressing through the appeal process and the benefits of getting on site quickly both for the applicant and the Council in terms of delivery of housing and developing the site, the applicant had agreed to provide Section 106 contributions similar to those previously agreed for MC/15/1131, details of which were set out in the report and amended on the supplementary agenda advice sheet.

He further advised that pending consideration of this application, the applicant had held off progressing the appeal further and had also agreed to an amendment to proposed condition 1 to require that work begin on site before the expiration of 18 months from the date of the planning permission. Therefore, should the Committee be minded to approve the application, proposed conditions 1 and 2 (revised plans) required amendment, details of which were set out on the supplementary agenda advice sheet.

Decision:

Approved subject to:

a)            Delegated Authority be given to the Head of Planning to complete the S106 and issue the decision after the public consultation period has ended, provided that no new issues are raised through the consultation that have not been considered by the Planning Committee and are material in the determination of the application.

b)            A Section 106 agreement being entered into to secure the following:

i)          Education contribution totalling £9,054.36 comprising of Nursery £3,093.87 and Primary £5,960.49 to Phoenix Junior Academy or Greenvale Infants School.

ii)         Green Spaces contribution totalling of £12,695.34 to Chalk Pit and/or Maidstone Road Sports Ground and Great Lines Heritage Park footpath phased 2.

iii)        Community Facilities contribution totalling £1,131.90 to White Road Community Centre

iv)        Health contribution totalling £2878.16 to Bryant Street Surgery, Kings Family Practice and The Halfway Surgery.

v)         Waste contribution totalling £956.04 for the provision of brown bins, refuse bags and informational leaflets to all homes, maintenance of on street waste and recycling facilities in Chatham High Street, leaflet production.

vi)        Bird’s contribution totalling £5,356.92.

vii)       In the event that the viability assessment demonstrates that the development has made or is anticipated to make a gross profit in excess of 20% to pay the Council the additional contributions to be spent in accordance with the Medway Council Developers Contribution guide, details of the division of the additional contribution will be supplied at the time that payment is made.

c)            Conditions 3 - 12 as set out in the report for the reasons stated in the report and conditions 1 and 2 amended as follows:

1          The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of eighteen months from the date of this permission.

Reason:  To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).

2          The  ...  view the full minutes text for item 1006.

Rochester South and Horsted

Refurbishment and subdivision of former Toys R Us retail unit (Class A1) including part use for retail sale of food and drink (Unit E2) and part change of use from retail (Class A1) to assembly and leisure (Class D2) (Unit E1); revised car parking and servicing arrangements; security gates and barrier entry system; trolley bays; widening of existing retail park access road; landscaping; relocation of substation; off-site highway improvements; and associated works.

Discussion:

The Head of Planning outlined the planning application in detail and drew attention to amendments to the planning appraisal and the conclusions and reasons for approval sections of the report, details of which were set out on the supplementary agenda advice sheet.

He confirmed that the applicant had carried out a sequential assessment which successfully demonstrated that there was no sequentially preferable site within or on the edge of Chatham town centre that was available, suitable or viable to accommodate the application proposals or a flexible interpretation of them.

On the basis that the sequential test had been met, the proposed development complied with Paragraphs 86 and 87 of the National Planning Policy Framework and Polices R11, R13 and L2 of the Local Plan.

The Committee discussed the planning application.

Referring to traffic management in Horsted generally, a Member sought an update from the Head of Integrated Transport as to highway improvements relating to the Horsted gyratory.

Decision:

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

Rainham North

Construction of 18 no. 3-bedroom dwellings  with access works, associated parking and landscaping.

Discussion:

The Head of Planning reminded the Committee that this application had previously been considered by the Committee on 13 February 2019 following which the Committee noted that the land along the north and north eastern parts of the site were at risk of surface water flooding. The Committee therefore considered that the drainage concerns needed to be addressed before planning permission could be granted for the full scheme. It was considered that if the drainage issues could not be easily resolved, the applicant may wish to consider submitting a revised scheme for those properties unaffected by potential flooding.

The Head of Planning advised that, in acknowledging Members concerns, the applicant had submitted a revised planning application reducing the number of dwellings from 27 to 18 and deleting the 9 houses that were to be located within the at risk flooding area.

As a result of the reduction in the number of dwellings now proposed, this part of the development would not pass the threshold of Policy H3 to provide affordable units. However, should the applicant or his successor manage to resolve the flooding issue and submit an application for the residential development of the land along the northern part of the application site, then the aggregate number of dwellings on the whole site could reach 25 or more. The applicant had acknowledged this and agreed to provide the required affordable units in the next phase of the development if and when such application was submitted and approved by the Local Planning Authority.

A reduction in the number of dwellings to 18 units would also result in lower s106 developer’s contributions. However, as with the affordable housing proposals, the applicant had agreed to make pro rata developer contributions for the additional units on the land along the northern part of the site if and when such an application was submitted and approved by the Local Planning Authority.

To secure the above, it was recommended that a clawback mechanism clause be added to the legal agreement to ensure delivery of the affordable housing and developer contributions for the whole site should the applicant or his successor submit an application(s) for the development of the land along the north boundary of the site and permission for such an application(s) is granted.

The Head of Planning referred to the proposed new condition 28 set out on the supplementary agenda advice sheet and informed the Committee that this additional condition should be disregarded.

Decision: 

Approved subject to:

a)            A Section 106 Agreement under the terms of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 being entered into to secure the following developer’s contributions:

i)          A contribution of £16,473.60 towards nursery school provision for one or more of Riverside Primary School, St Thomas of Canterbury, Thamesview Primary, or Mierscourt Primary School.  The funding will be utilised at the appropriate school from the list at the time of receipt of the contribution.

ii)         A contribution of £40,435.20 towards primary school provision for one or more of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 1008.

Rainham Central

Construction of a block of 54 no. apartments comprising of 37 x one bedroom and 17 x two bedroom apartments with communal facilities, access, car parking and landscaping - Demolition of existing 4 residential plots.

Discussion:

The Senior Planner outlined the planning application in detail and informed the Committee that as the applicant had appealed against non-determination, the Committee was required to determine the decision that it would have made if the Local Planning Authority had been in a position to determine the application.

He referred to the supplementary agenda advice sheet and informed the Committee that a duplicate application (MC/19/0797) had been submitted and was currently under consideration. In the light of receipt of this duplicate application, it was possible that issues concerning the access and lack of a Unilateral Undertaking/Section 106 may be resolved.

The Senior Planner also advised that since despatch of the agenda, a letter had been received from the applicant’s agent and was appended to the supplementary agenda advice sheet. The Planning Agent had also written to the Head of Planning and a summary of the Agent’s comments and the officers response was set out on the supplementary agenda advice sheet. 

Decision:

Had the Local Planning Authority been in a position to determine the application, it would have been refused on the grounds set out in the report.

River

Demolition of existing buildings on site with the change of use from B2 (General Industrial) to C3 (dwellinghouses) and the construction of 7-storey building comprising 22 no.1-bed and 13 no 2-bed units with associated parking, amenity space, landscaping and refuse/cycle storage - Resubmission of MC/16/2827.

Discussion:

The Senior Planner outlined the planning application in detail and, in particular, referred to the constraints of this brownfield site. As a result of these constraints it was considered that there were sufficient exceptional circumstances for there not to be a requirement for any Section 106 contributions.

The Senior Planner also advised that the applicant had offered for the proposed properties to be either 100% private ownership or 100% social rented accommodation. Officers considered that a scheme providing 100% private ownership would be the preferred option.

With the agreement of the Committee, Councillor Maple addressed the Committee as an adjoining Ward Councillor as the site was immediately adjacent to his Ward. He stated that whilst the proposed scheme was probably the best that the developers could produce having regard to the constraints of the site, he considered that this site was not suitable for residential accommodation regardless of the type of tenure and would be more suitable for an entertainment or leisure use. He considered that the proposed residential units would be subject to noise disturbance and also expressed concern as to the lack of Section 106 contributions and affordable housing provision.

The Committee discussed the planning application and, in particular, the design of the development, the constraints of the site, the locality of the site and its relationship with the road and other nearby leisure uses, the lack of affordable housing and Section 106 contributions.

It was noted that the site had been vacant for some time and whilst there was a view that it would be suitable for an entertainment or leisure use, no such proposals had been forthcoming. It was also noted that this site was in close proximity to Chatham Town Centre and could therefore contribute to the economy of the town.

The Committee noted that this was a balanced planning application and whilst these residential units would not suit everyone, if they were 100% private residential accommodation, prospective purchasers could exercise a choice as to whether the accommodation suited their needs. The Head of Planning informed the Committee that the developer had worked hard to alleviate the issue of noise disturbance and the ‘winter garden’ element of the design was used extensively in London.

Decision:

Approved subject to:

a)            A unilateral agreement being submitted to secure SAMMS contribution and monitoring officers charge.

b)            Conditions 1 – 25 as set out in the report for the reasons stated in the report.

River

Details pursuant to conditions 23 and 24 on planning permission MC/17/2333 - Hybrid planning application seeking outline permission for the erection of up to 1,400 no. dwellings including a primary school and nursery (D1 use), up to 1,200sqm of commercial floorspace (A1/A2/A3/A4/B1/D1 and D2 uses) together with a pedestrian footbridge, parking, open space and landscaping. Full permission for phase 1, 2 and 3 of the development consisting of the erection of 489 no. dwellings (of the 1,400 no. total), the provision of a hotel (use Class C1), 885sqm of commercial floorspace (A1/A2/A3/A4/B1/D1 and D2 uses) along with site access/spine road, parking, open space and landscaping.

Discussion:

The Head of Planning outlined the application which sought the discharge of conditions 23 and 24 on planning permission MC/17/2333.

The Committee discussed the application and a Member stated that whilst he had no objection to this planning application, there was a need for an integrated approach to traffic management through Rochester.

Decision:

The conditions be discharged.

Rainham North

Construction of nine residential dwellings comprising 6 no. 3 bedroom houses, 2 no. 4 bedroom houses and one 5 bedroom house, with associated access, amenity areas and associated garaging and parking for proposed and existing dwelling - Demolition of the existing garage and outbuildings.

Discussion:

The Head of Planning reminded the Committee that this application had been considered on 20 March 2019, following which the Committee had requested that the applicant reconsider the density and mix of the proposed dwellings.

He advised that the applicant had since revised the proposal and reduced the number of houses from 11 x 3 bedroomed houses to 9 houses comprising 6 x 3 bed units, 2 x 4 bed units and one x 5 bed unit with associated car parking, 3 visitors car parking spaces, access road and 2 car parking spaces for the occupiers of no. 143 Berengrave Lane.

Decision:

Approved subject to:

a)            The applicant entering into a Section 106 agreement for bird mitigation.

b)            Conditions 1 – 26 as set out in the report for the reasons stated in the report.

Gillingham North

Construction of five 3 bedroom houses with carports, associated parking and access driveway together with parking spaces retained for use of the residents.

Discussion:

The Planning Manager outlined the planning application in detail.

With the agreement of the Committee, Councillor Cooper addressed the Committee as Ward Councillor and outlined the following concerns:

·         Layfield Road is a narrow road and as residents have no off road parking, cars are parked on both sides of the road.

·         Once a vehicle has entered the road, if a driver is faced with an oncoming vehicle it is necessary to reverse out along the road.

·         Owing to the narrowness of the road, access by emergency vehicles is already limited and additional vehicles will exacerbate the problem.

·         The applicant has fenced off an area previously used by residents for parking and there was no notification that this would take place.

·         The development will be close to the garden of No.65 Layfield Road resulting in a loss of privacy for the occupants of No.65.

·         The application will be harmful to the Conservation Area.

·         Air quality will be affected by the additional traffic.

·         There will be an impact on wildlife currently using the open space.

The Committee discussed the application having regard to the concerns outlined by the Ward Councillor.

In noting that Layfield Road does not have any turning point for traffic, it was suggested that should this application be approved, the applicant be required to provide a turning point to ease traffic management.

In response to a question as to who would be responsible for the maintenance of the open space, the Planning Manager confirmed that if the Committee was minded to approve the application, maintenance of the open space could be included as part of the Section 106 agreement.

In discussing the application, Members questioned the ownership of the open space and considered that this should be established before the application is determined.  

Decision:

Consideration of the application be deferred to enable officers to undertaken further investigations and negotiations with the applicant on the following:

i)     Ownership of the open space.

ii)    Whether the proposed scheme is able to include a turning point to alleviate problems with the additional vehicular traffic that will be generated by the proposed development.

iii)   The possible inclusion of an additional head of agreement under the Section 106 agreement for maintenance of the open space.

River

Replacement of existing sash windows with UPVC to front.

Discussion:

The Head of Planning outlined the planning application and advised the Committee that owing to its location in a Conservation Area, the replacement of 11 existing timber sash windows with UPVC at the front of the property would be out of character and harmful to the aesthetic attributes of the property.

He stated that whilst a number of properties in the street had UPVC windows to the rear, this was less sensitive than the windows at the frontage of the building. He also stated that there were a number of properties in St Margaret’s Banks where front windows had been replaced with UPVC windows but this had likely taken place before the Article 4 direction in 2001.

With the agreement of the Committee, Councillor Tejan addressed the Committee as Ward Councillor and outlined the following:

·         The use of timber for window frames may not be sustainable in the long term.

·         There was only one objection to the proposal and there were 5 letters in support.

·         UPVC windows are easier to maintain, are more energy efficient and noise resistant.

The Committee discussed the application having regard to the issues raised by the Ward Councillor. It was considered that a number of the issues highlighted could be overcome without the need to replace timber windows with UPVC.

Decision:

Refused on the ground set out in the report.

Rainham South

Retrospective change of use of land to mixed use as Gypsy site for stationing of caravans for residential occupation with associated hard standing, utility block/shed, kennel runs and cess tank and keeping of horses with field shelters.

Discussion:

The Senior Planner outlined the planning application in detail and referred to the exempt appendix setting out the personal circumstances of the applicant and his family. 

She advised the Committee that if approved, this would be a temporary planning permission up to 30 April 2022.

Decision:

Approved subject to:

a)            The submission of a Unilateral Undertaking or SAMM Mitigation Contribution Agreement to secure £239.61 towards Designated Habitats Mitigation.

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

Strood South

Construction of a terrace of three 3 bedroom houses, two 2 bedroom chalet bungalows and one 1 bedroom bungalow (demolition of bungalows) - resubmission of MC/17/1342.

Decision:

It was noted that this planning application had been withdrawn from consideration at this meeting.

Rochester South and Horsted

Construction of a part two storey/part single storey rear extension.

Discussion:

The Senior Planner outlined the planning application and suggested that if the Committee was minded to approve the application, the suggested reason for refusal No. 2 required amendment, detail of which was set out on the supplementary agenda advice sheet.

In addition, she advised that there were amendments to the planning appraisal section of the report details of which were also set out on the supplementary agenda advice sheet.

With the agreement of the Committee, Councillor Turpin addressed the Committee as Ward Councillor and he read out the contents of a letter from the applicant explaining the personal circumstances behind the reason for the planning application.

Councillor Turpin also advised the Committee that the bungalow sited next door had been purchased 8 months ago but remained vacant and therefore it was possible that the owner of that property was considering potential development opportunities.

The Committee discussed the application and whilst noting the reasons why officers had recommended that the application be refused also had regard to the personal circumstances for the planning application as outlined by the Ward Councillor.

Decision:

Approved subject to conditions and the Head of Planning be granted delegated approval to approve the conditions with the Chairman, Vice Chairman and Opposition Spokesperson outside of the meeting.

Rainham South

Construction of eight dwellings consisting of five 3 bedroomed and two 4 bedroomed and one 5 bedroomed dwellings with associated car parking and garaging together with new highway access and other associated works.

Discussion:

The Planning Manager outlined the planning application in detail and drew attention to the supplementary agenda advice sheet which set out a number of changes to the proposed conditions and the planning appraisal section of the report.

The Committee discussed the application and it was suggested that the reference to ‘minimum period of 5 years’ be removed from proposed condition 16 (renumbered 13 as per the supplementary agenda advice sheet).

Some Members expressed a view that they would have preferred to see a lower density development with larger sized properties on this site.

Decision:

Approved subject to:

a)            The submission of a Unilateral Undertaking or SAMM Mitigation Contribution Agreement to secure £1916.88 towards Designated Habitats Mitigation.

b)            Conditions 1 and 2 as set out in the report, new conditions 3 and 4 as set out below, conditions 8 – 10 as set out in the report but re-numbered 5 – 7, amended condition 11 as set out below and renumbered as condition 8, conditions 12 – 14 as set out in the report but renumbered 9 – 11, conditions 15 and 16 as amended below but re-numbered as conditions 12 and 13 and conditions 17 – 21 as set out in the report but re-numbered 14 – 18, all for the reasons stated in the report:

3          No development shall take place (other than development required to enable the remediation process to be implemented) until the approved remediation scheme contained in Letter from LEAP dated 29 March 2019 ref PL01572/planning has been carried out.  The Local Planning Authority must be given not less than two weeks written notification prior to the commencement of the remediation scheme works.

Following completion of the measures identified in the approved remediation scheme, a verification report that demonstrates the effectiveness of the remediation carried out must be produced, and submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the bringing into use of the development.

Reason: Required before commencement of development to avoid any irreversible detrimental impact on human health as a result of the potential mobilising of contamination and in accordance with Policy BNE23 of the Medway Local Plan 2003.

4          In the event that unexpected contamination is found at any time when carrying out the approved development that was not previously identified, development must be halted on that part of the site affected by the unexpected contamination to the extent specified in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  The unexpected contamination must be reported in writing immediately to the Local Planning Authority.  An investigation and risk assessment must be undertaken and where remediation is necessary a remediation scheme must be prepared in accordance with the requirements of condition 2, which is subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority.

Following completion of the measures identified in the approved remediation scheme a verification report providing details of the data that will be collected in order to demonstrate that the works set out in condition 3 are  ...  view the full minutes text for item 1018.

Luton and Wayfield

Demolition of 17 garages and construction of two 1-bed and three 2-bed flats with associated works at Alfred Close and the demolition of two garages and formation of 8 car parking spaces at Maida Road.

Discussion:

The Planning Manager outlined the planning application in detail and drew attention to a correction to proposed condition 11 as set out on the supplementary agenda advice sheet.

Decision:

Approved with conditions 1 – 10 and 12 - 16 as set out in the report for the reasons stated in the report and condition 11 amended as set out below:

11        The dwellings herein approved shall not be occupied until the areas shown on the submitted layout as vehicle parking, within Alfred Close and Maida Road, have been provided, surfaced and drained.  Thereafter it shall be kept available for such use and no permanent development, whether or not permitted by the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (or any order amending, revoking or re-enacting that Order) shall be carried out on the land so shown or in such a position as to preclude vehicular access to these parking spaces.

Reason:  Development without provision of adequate accommodation for the parking or garaging of vehicles is likely to lead to hazardous on-street parking and in accordance with Policies T1 and T13 of the Medway Local Plan 2003.

Rainham South

Application for approval of reserved matters being access, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale pursuant to appeal decision APP/A2280/W/16/3148738 - Outline application with all matters reserved for the construction of a first floor extension with dormer windows to form three 1-bedroomed flats including rear land balcony, stairway and parking.

Discussion:

The Senior Planner outlined the planning application in detail and suggested that if the Committee was minded to approve this application, proposed condition 10 be amended as set out on the supplementary agenda advice sheet.

He also drew attention to changes to the relevant planning history and the planning appraisal sections of the report, details of which were also set out on the supplementary agenda advice sheet.

Decision:

Approved with conditions 8 – 9 as set out in the report for the reasons stated in the report and condition 10 amended as follows:

10        No development shall take place until an acoustic assessment has been undertaken to determine the impact of noise from transport related sources in accordance with BS8233 2014:  Guidance on Sound Insulation and Noise Reduction for Buildings.  The results of the assessment and details of a scheme of acoustic protection shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  The scheme shall include details of acoustic protection sufficient to ensure internal noise levels (LAeq,T) no greater than 30dB in bedrooms and 35dB in living rooms with windows closed and a maximum noise level (LAmax) of no more than 45dB(A) with windows closed.  Where the internal noise levels will be exceeded with windows open, the scheme shall incorporate appropriate acoustically screened mechanical ventilation.  The scheme shall include details of acoustic protection sufficient to ensure amenity/garden noise levels of not more than 55dB (LAeq,T). All works, which form part of the approved scheme, shall be completed before any part of the development is occupied and shall thereafter be maintained in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To safeguard conditions amenity in accordance with Policy BNE2 of the Medway Local Plan 2003.

Rainham North

Demolition of existing bungalow and construction of a pair of three bedroom semi-detached dwellings with associated parking (resubmission of MC/18/1887).

Discussion:

The Planning Manager outlined the planning application.

Decision:

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

Rochester South and Horsted

Demolition of existing dwelling and outbuildings and construction of 5 two-bedroom dwellings, comprising of a pair of semi-detached dwellings and a terrace of three dwellings together with associated parking and landscaping.

Discussion:

The Senior Planner outlined the planning application and in drawing attention to the supplementary agenda advice sheet suggested that if the Committee was minded to approve this application, proposed condition 5 be amended and a new condition 13 be approved.

He also drew attention to a change to the representations section of the report which confirmed that 12 letters of objection had been received and outlining the basis of the objections and an update to the ecology section of the report, details of which were also set out on the supplementary agenda advice sheet.

The Committee discussed the application and it was generally considered that the construction of 5 dwellings on this site constituted an overdevelopment of the site and that either 3 properties or two pairs of semi-detached properties would be preferable.

It was therefore suggested that consideration of this application be deferred to enable officers to undertake further discussions with the applicant on the possibility of reducing the proposed development.

Decision:

Consideration of this application be deferred to enable officers to undertake further discussions with the applicant on the possibility of reducing the proposed development.

Rochester South and Horsted

Construction of a 1-bedroom detached dwelling with associated undercroft parking.

Discussion:

The Planning Manager outlined the planning application and confirmed that the bird mitigation contribution had been secured as part of a previous application.

Decision:

Approved with conditions 1 – 6 as set out in the report for the reasons stated in the report.

The attached exempt appendix concerning planning application MC/19/0137 – Hildensfield, Matts Hill Road, Rainham, Gillingham, in the opinion of the proper officer, contains exempt information within two 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 this document.

At the conclusion of the meeting, and in acknowledging that this would be the last Planning Committee prior to the Local Election, the Chairman on behalf of the Committee expressed appreciation to those officers who regularly supported the Committee in its work. In addition she expressed appreciation to those Members of the Committee who had decided to retire from the Council in 2019.

The Chairman also expressed appreciation for the work undertaken on the Committee by former Councillor David Carr who had recently passed away.

In response, the Head of Planning thanked Members of the Committee and the Chairman for their work on the Committee over the past 4 years.