Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Buckwell, Lloyd and Tranter.

To approve the record of the meeting held on 26 June 2019.

The record of the meeting held on 26 June 2019 was agreed and signed by the Chairman as correct. 

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.

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)

There were none.

Other interests

Councillor Sylvia Griffin referred to planning application MC/19/1022 – 142 Snodhurst Avenue, Horsted, Chatham and informed the Committee that although she had met the applicant, she had not expressed a view so would remain as part of the Committee and would take part in the determination of this planning application.

Councillor Rupert Turpin referred to planning application MC/19/1022 – 142 Snodhurst Avenue, Horsted, Chatham and informed the Committee that as he wished to address the Committee as Ward Councillor, he would remove himself from the Committee and take no part in the determination of this planning application.

River

Residential - led mixed use development comprising 331 residential units, non-residential floor space comprising 1,894 sqm of Class A1, A2, A3, A5 and D2 floorspace associated car parking (258 car parking spaces and 8 on street spaces) landscaping, engineering works, highway works to the junction of Corporation Street and High Street and alterations to pedestrian crossing - Including demolition of all buildings on site apart from the buildings East of Furrells Road fronting onto the High Street which is proposed to be partially demolished.

Discussion:

The Head of Planning outlined the planning application in detail and referred to the supplementary agenda advice sheet which contained amended conditions 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12 and 14 and also additional representations received from a Ward Councillor, Councillor Tranter, and the City of Rochester Society. He also corrected the breakdown of the number of dwellings and car parking spaces stated in the report as follows:

·         Parcels 3, 4 and 5 would contain 44 on-site parking spaces and 8 relocated spaces, totalling 52 spaces.

·         Parcel 7 would contain 55 flats with a mix of 33 one bedroom flats and 22 two bedroom flats.

·         In total there would be 331 residential units and 258 car parking spaces and 8 relocated spaces.

The Head of Planning advised that the proposal had been subject to extensive redesign following consideration of consultation responses. The overall height of the development had been reduced with the removal of a 15 storey tower element and the redistribution of accommodation throughout the site. This had reduced the overbearing appearance on the adjacent buildings. It had also helped reduce the impact of the development on the street scene including the historic townscape of the Star Hill to Sun Pier Conservation Area and the Grade II Listed former County Court Building. 

Pedestrian connectivity across Corporation Street, from Rochester towards Chatham, had also been improved as this had been a key driver in discussions with the applicant.

Addressing the scheme’s viability, the Head of Planning informed the Committee that the Council’s viability advisor had considered the Viability Assessments submitted by the applicant and had concluded that the scheme was unable to provide 25% developer contribution towards affordable housing. However, it was proposed that affordable housing equating to approximately 10% be provided through provision in Parcel 1.

The Head of Planning concluded that the current proposal represented a high quality residential and commercial development that would substantially contribute to the urban regeneration of Corporation Street and provide a key link between historic Rochester and Chatham.

The Committee discussed the application and clarification was given in respect the energy efficiency of the scheme. A Member asked if the carbon footprint of the development, and how it could be offset, could be measured. Members generally welcomed the improved, revised proposals and considered that they would improve the vibrancy of the city centre and relieve the pressure to develop green field sites. There was disappointment that the full 25% developer contribution for affordable housing could not be achieved. The Head of Planning assured the Committee that the Council’s viability advisor had critically reviewed the Viability Assessments.

Decision:

Approved subject to:

a)            Further archaeological work being undertaken and submitted and the Head of Planning being granted delegated authority to secure any mitigation measures by condition or additional Section 106 obligation if necessary following the submission of the further archaeological work.

b)            The applicant entering into an Agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act to secure:

i)          Parcel  ...  view the full minutes text for item 171.

Peninsula

Extension of the zoo to include the introduction of an overflow car parking site with footpath access to main site, provision of new animal enclosures and construction of a new private access on to Fenn Street.  Erection of 5 timber frame detached structures (including a two bedroomed live/work unit). Removal of redundant buildings and containers. Variation of opening hours (including 30 days per annum to be later opening).

Discussion:

The Head of Planning outlined the planning application in detail and advised the Committee that the principle of this development to extend the existing zoo had already been established through planning permission granted in 2016. The current proposal included an overflow car park; new animal enclosures; a private access; and the erection of five timber framed structures including a two bedroomed live/work unit. The removal of redundant buildings and a variation of the opening hours were also proposed.

Referring to the supplementary agenda advice sheet the Head of Planning drew attention to an additional paragraph to be added to the ‘Principle’ section of the report. This explained that a building originally approved as an educational building was currently being unlawfully occupied as residential accommodation. The siting of the proposed keepers lodge would regularise the living situation. An additional condition was proposed requiring the removal of the existing education centre upon occupation of the keepers lodge accommodation.

Decision:

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

8          The existing education centre, currently being occupied as living accommodation shall be removed upon occupation of the keepers lodge accommodation.

Reason: To ensure the site remains for the purpose of the zoo and public house uses and in the interests of protecting the countryside character of the area in accordance with Policy BNE25 of the Local Plan 2003.

Rainham Central

Construction of a block of 54 retirement living apartments comprising of 37 one bedroom and 17 two bedroom apartments with associated communal facilities, access, car parking and landscaping (Demolition of existing 4 residential plots).

Discussion:

The Head of Planning outlined the planning application for a block of 54 retirement living apartments in detail. It was suggested that, should the Committee be minded to approve the application, conditions 2 and 16 be amended as set out in the supplementary agenda advice sheet. An additional condition was proposed to specify the age restrictions that would apply to occupiers of the development.

The Committee discussed the application and were advised that the access was sufficiently wide to accommodate two passing cars. Some concern was expressed about the siting of the access point close to a complex road junction.

A Member asked that the Committee be informed of where the developer contribution of £225,000 towards the provision of off-site affordable housing would be used.

Decision:

Approved subject to:

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

1)         A contribution of £225,000 towards the provision of off-site affordable housing.

2)         A contribution of £33,320.70 to support the reconfiguration of the Rainham Healthy Living Centre.

3)         A contribution of £23,660 to enhance facilities within the vicinity of the development - Holding Street, Cozenton Park, Rainham Recreation Ground, Berengrave Nature Reserve, Old Bloor’s Lane Allotment and Great Lines Heritage Park – footpath improvements phase 2.

4)         A contribution of £13,230 towards public realm improvements in Rainham.

5)         A contribution of £11,980 towards mitigation measures in the Special Protection Areas.

b)        Conditions 1, 3-15, and 17- 25 as set out in the report for the reasons stated in the report and amended conditions 2 and 16 and additional condition 26 as follows:

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

Drawing numbers: 20073RH P01, 20073RH P03/A, 20073RH P04/A, 20073RH P05, 20073RH P07, 20073RH P08, 20073RH P09, 20073RH P10, 20073RH P11 and 20073RH P20 received on 25 March 2019; and drawing number 20072RH P02D received on 30 May 2019.

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

16          The windows on the east elevation serving units 10 and 27 shall be fitted with obscure glass and apart from any top-hung light, that has a cill height of not less than 1.7 metres above the internal finished floor level of the room it serves, shall be non-opening. This work shall be completed prior to the first occupation of any part of the development herein approved.

              Reason:  To ensure the development does not prejudice conditions of amenity by reason of unneighbourly overlooking of adjoining property, in accordance with Policy BNE2 of the Medway Local Plan 2003.

26          The development hereby permitted shall only be occupied by persons over 60 years of ages, or those of 60 years or over with a spouse or partner of at least 55 years.

Reason: To accord with the terms of the submitted application and in accordance with Policy H10 of the Medway Local Plan 2003 and Paragraph 59 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2019.

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 Head of Planning outlined the planning application.

With the agreement of the Committee, Councillor Andy Stamp addressed the Committee as Ward Councillor and made the following points:

·         The majority of the site was greenfield and within a Conservation Area.

·         The proposal represented infill development and would be overdevelopment of the site detrimental to the residential amenity of neighbouring properties.

·         Parking in Layfield Road was inadequate with cars parked partly on the pavement.

·         Transport links in the area were limited and the distance to local facilities was not walkable.

·         Access to and egress from Layfield Road was poor.

·         The proposed access to the development was at the narrowest point.

·         Emergency and refuse vehicles would have difficulty accessing the site.

·         The mitigation measures outlined in the report were inadequate.

The Committee discussed the application and were generally in agreement with Councillor Stamp. It was considered that the proposal represented overdevelopment of the site which would adversely impact parking in the area and lead to overlooking. The loss of greenspace and proposed access point were also areas of concern.

Decision:

a)            Refused on the grounds of overdevelopment, impact on parking, poor access, loss of green space and overlooking.

b)         The Head of Planning be granted delegated authority to agree the specific wording of the refusal grounds with the Chairman and Opposition Spokesperson outside of the meeting.

Twydall

Demolition of 26 lock up garages and construction of five 3-bedroom town houses with associated parking and refuse storage (resubmission of MC/18/0683) with on-site parking for 13 cars.

Discussion:

The Planning Manager outlined the planning application in detail and advised that, following a deferral at the last meeting of the Committee, the proposal had been revised and no longer included flats. The current proposal was for five three bedroomed houses of 2 ½ storeys with a bedroom in the loft space.

It was noted that one further representation had been received stating that the height of the town houses would invade privacy and bungalows would be preferable.   

With the agreement of the Committee, Councillor Prenter addressed the Committee as Ward Councillor and made the following points:

·         The revised proposals still represented overdevelopment of the site.

·         The proposed dwellings would be very close to neighbouring properties and their height would be out of keeping with neighbouring properties.

·         This would result in a loss of privacy and damage to visual amenity.

·         Parking in the area was already an issue.

The Committee discussed the application and concern was expressed about the narrow access to the site and the proposed density. It was noted that many garage areas were no longer suitable and were being developed. However, this particular application was considered to be unacceptable.

Decision:

a)            Refused on the grounds of overdevelopment and poor access to the site.

b)         The Head of Planning be granted delegated authority to agree the specific wording of the refusal grounds with the Chairman and Opposition Spokesperson outside of the meeting.

Hempstead and Wigmore

Demolition of existing bungalow/storage building and shed to facilitate the construction of 2 semi-detached houses - Resubmission of MC/18/3061.

Discussion:

The Senior Planner outlined the planning application.

It was noted that, in order to address the previously expressed concerns of the Committee, the proposed conditions included the removal of permitted development rights and the installation of obscure glazed windows.

Decision:

Approved subject to:

a)            The applicant entering into an Agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act to secure a contribution of £239.61 towards bird disturbance mitigation measures.

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

Peninsula

Construction of three 3-bedroom detached bungalows with associated parking/car ports (demolition of existing buildings) together with the erection of 2.2m high fencing (solid plus trellis) and an additional vehicular crossover.

Discussion:

The Planning Manager outlined the planning application in detail. It was confirmed that a proposed condition would remove permitted development rights. The Principal Transport Planner confirmed that the access points already existed.

A Member noted that one of the access points did not appear to have been used for some time.

It was requested that it be established whether the second access point, where a vehicle crossover was proposed, was a classified road and that this be reported back to the next meeting of the Committee.

Decision:

Approved with conditions 1 – 20 as set out in the report for the reasons stated in the report. 

Peninsula

Demolition of the existing buildings and construction of 2 no. semi-detached 3-bed dwellings with vehicle crossover and associated parking, amenity space and landscaping.

Discussion:

The Senior Planner outlined the planning application and advised the Committee that the principle of a single dwelling on the site had already been approved. The current proposal for two semi-detached dwellings was considered to be acceptable.

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 £491.12 towards Wildlife Mitigation.

b)            Conditions 1 – 16 as set out in the report for the reasons stated in the report.

Strood Rural

Construction of a detached chalet bungalow with parking and access via Milton Avenue.

Discussion:

The Planning Manger outlined the planning application and advised that it was a resubmission of a similar approved application and was considered to be acceptable.  

Decision:

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

Rochester South and Horsted

Engineering works to facilitate the construction of a 3 bedroom dwelling with integral garage; associated parking and amenity space - demolition of detached out building to the rear.

Discussion:

The Senior Planner outlined the planning application.

With the agreement of the Committee, Councillor Rupert Turpin addressed the Committee as Ward Councillor and made the following points in support of the application:

·         The proposal was for an eco-conceptual building with eco features including a green roof, solar panels and a rain collection system.

·         There were other examples of back land development on this estate.

·         The neighbour for whom overlooking might be more of an issue had not objected to the application.

The Committee discussed the application and expressed serious concerns about the proposal. Properties in the area benefitted from generous gardens and back land development of this nature should be avoided. It was requested that the Senior Tree Officer should investigate the value of the trees and if they are worthy of a protection order, and report back to the Committee.

Decision:

Refused on the grounds set out in the report.

Twydall

Conversion of existing car workshop (Class C3) to a 5-bedroom dwelling house with associated external alterations including construction of dormer windows incorporating Juliet balconies to East elevation together with Juliet balcony to South elevation and parking area.

Discussion:

The Senior Planner outlined the planning application and drew the Committee’s attention to the supplementary agenda advice sheet which amended the Planning Appraisal, Background section of the report to clarify that planning permission had recently been refused for a combined house of multiple occupation and flats on character and amenity grounds. It also clarified that a Section 106 agreement for a contribution of £245.56 towards wildlife mitigation was proposed. 

Decision:

Approved subject to:

a)            The applicant entering into a Section 106 agreement to secure £245.56 towards wildlife mitigation.

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

River

Retrospective application for the construction of a retaining wall to rear.

Discussion:

The Planning Manager outlined the planning application.

Decision:

Approved with conditions 1 and 2 as set out in the report for the reasons stated in the report.