Agenda and minutes

During this period, due to the Coronavirus pandemic, it was informally agreed between the two political groups to run Medway Council meetings with a reduced number of participants. This was to reduce risk, comply with Government guidance and enable more efficient meetings. Therefore, the apologies given reflects that informal agreement of reduced participants.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Adeoye, Bhutia, Curry and Griffin. 

To approve the record of the meeting held on 19 August 2020.

The record of the meeting held on 19 August 2020 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 he 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 Potter disclosed that, as he considered he had predetermined the application at agenda item 8 (Land West Of Station Road Rainham), he would not take part in the discussion or determination of the matter but would make representations in his role as ward councillor only.

Strood Rural

Outline planning permission with some matters reserved (appearance landscaping layout and scale) for up to 225 residential dwellings including up to 25% affordable housing, introduction of structural planting and landscaping, informal public open space and children's play area, surface water flood mitigation and attenuation, vehicular access point from Town Road and associated ancillary works.

Discussion:

The Head of Planning outlined the application in detail. The application was for outline planning permission with some matters reserved (appearance landscaping layout and scale) for up to 225 residential dwellings including up to 25% affordable housing, introduction of structural planting and landscaping, informal public open space and children's play area, surface water flood mitigation and attenuation, vehicular access point from Town Road and associated ancillary works.

As set out in the supplementary advice sheet, further representations had been made as follows:

• Letters from SAVE Cliffe Woods Community, Higham Parish Council and also Cliffe and Cliffe Woods Parish Council (attached in full to the supplementary agenda)
• A supplementary note from Gladmans (attached in full to the supplementary agenda).
• Gravesend MP Adam Holloway had written in support of objections from Gravesend local residents that objected to the proposed development.

• 8 further letters of representations had been received expressing concern about the impact of the proposed development on the existing infrastructure, school, doctor surgery, community facilities and capacity of the highway network to cope with additional demand resulting from the future occupiers of the proposed development.

In May 2017 the Committee had refused Gladman’s application for the development of the application site for the erection of up to 225 residential dwellings.

Following a public inquiry, the planning inspector recommended that the appeal be allowed. However, in September 2017 the appeal was recovered by the Secretary of State (SoS) for determination. The SoS concluded that the proposed scheme was not in accordance with policies BNE25, S1 and S2 of the local plan. The SoS considered these local Plan Policies were not fully consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and that Policies S1 and S2 ran counter to the objectives of the Framework to significantly boost the supply of homes, and that the weight that should be attached to Policies BNE25, S1and S2 should be reduced to moderate weight and that the conflict with them in terms of protection of the countryside also carried moderate weight.

The SoS dismissed the appeal on 2 grounds. Firstly, that although Medway could not demonstrate a 5 years housing land supply, the presumption in favour of sustainable development did not apply because of the effect of paragraph 177 of the NPPF and the need for an assessment to consider the impacts on nearby Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and European protection areas.

Secondly, the SoS considered that the local bus service operated within hours that started too late and ended too early to make the bus service usable for potential commuters for work to the main town and London whether part-time or full time and therefore did not offer a sustainable alternative to the private car. He did not feel that the Arriva click proposal put forward by the appellants at appeal had been fully thought through to deliver a workable solution.

The SoS concluded that planning permission should be refused.

Since then the revised NPPF had been amended to say that the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 255.

Gillingham North

Construction of a Foodstore (Use Class A1 - Retail) together with associated car and cycle parking, servicing, landscaping, and associated works.

Discussion:

The Planning Manager outlined the planning application in detail. The application sought permission for a food store (Class A1) with a retail floor area of approx. 1,669 sq. m. measuring approximately.

Decision:

Approved with conditions 1-25 as set out in the report and for the reasons stated in the report, and with the following additional condition:

26       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) and the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (as amended) the development herein approved shall remain in use as a retail until falling within Class A1 – Retail only as defined by the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (as amended) prior to 1 September 2020 and no change of use 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 and the impact on the highway, in accordance with Policies T1 and BNE2 of the Medway Local Plan 2003.

Strood Rural

Application for approval of reserved matters being appearance, landscaping, layout and scale pursuant to planning permission MC/16/3742 (Allowed under appeal reference APP/A2280/W/18/3202264) - for construction of 50 retirement homes comprising a 2/3 storey block of apartments and single storey bungalows with ancillary meeting room, gymnasium, office, parking and garaging.

Discussion:

The Planning Manager outlined the application in detail. The application sought permission for construction of 50 retirement homes comprising a 2/3 storey block of apartments and single storey bungalows with ancillary meeting room, gymnasium, office, parking and garaging.

As set out in the supplementary agenda, a further 3 letters of objection had been received re-iterating concerns relating to the design being out of character, inadequate parking, loss of agricultural land, impact on local facilities, and dangerous access.

In addition, the applicant’s agent had made several comments in support of the application, which were set out in the supplementary agenda.

With the permission of the Committee, Councillor Mrs Turpin as ward councillor addressed the Committee indicating her views were supported by Councillor Williams, not present for this item. Councillor Mrs Turpin objected to the design of the application which she considered was out of character with the surrounding area. The application did not provide for sufficient car park spaces and this would result in an overspill into nearby roads. One of the blocks would overlook existing housing and the entrance to the site was on the bend of a busy road.

Decision:

Refused for the reasons set out in the report.

Rainham North

Outline planning application with all matters (appearance, landscaping, layout and scale) are reserved except for access for the construction of up to 76 dwellings( C3 use class), open space, landscaping (including Sustainable Urban Drainage) with associated infrastructure.

Discussion:

The Head of Planning outlined the application in detail. The application was an outline planning application with all matters (appearance, landscaping, layout and scale) reserved except for access for the construction of up to 76 dwellings( C3 use class), open space, landscaping (including Sustainable Urban Drainage) with associated infrastructure.

Councillor Potter addressed the Committee as ward councillor but took no part in the discussion of the application or its determination. Councillor Potter commented that the applicants had also developed the adjacent Bakersfield development and that site had led to many problems and the need for enforcement action over the last few years. This led him to question the extent to which the conditions relating to the proposed application would be met or enforced. The development would lead to more highways congestion and poorer air quality. Whether Station Road would be widened at the access point to the site was queried and the two junctions in close proximity to each other, together with a lack of crossings, was a concern. He questioned whether the proposed S106 contributions would include mitigation for highways safety and speed. Members were advised that there would be two crossings to the north and south of the access. There was a plan to extend the 20mph speed limit to the south of the development. The £31,000 S106 contribution was for sustainable transport measures, including for pedestrians.

Following a suggestion that the application be deferred until after a presentation from the applicant in October, the Head of Planning advised that this was to discuss the details of the scheme. The application had been received in November 2019 and was before Members as an outline application. As such there were no sound reasons to defer the application.

Decision:

Approved subject to:

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

i     25% Affordable Housing on-site: equating to 19 dwellings to comprise  11 units (60%) rented and (8 Units) 40% shared ownership.

ii     Contribution of £82,327.36 towards Nursery school provision to one or more of: Thames View Primary, Mierscourt Primary, Riverside Primary.

iii    Contribution of £202,474.22 towards Primary School provision to one or more of: Thames View Primary, Mierscourt Primary, Riverside Primary.

iv  Contribution of £129,169.37 towards Secondary School provision to one or more of, The Howard, Rainham Girls, Rainham Mark Grammar.

v  Contribution of £5,952.32 towards youth services

vi  Contribution of £72,364.67 towards Splashes redevelopment programme

vii Green space contribution of £193,914 to enhance open space facilities within the vicinity of the development, including 5% towards Great Lines Heritage Park

viii Contribution of £3,800 towards maintenance of the riverside section of the Saxon Shore Way.

ix  Contribution of £12,833.74 towards Waste and recycling.

x  Contribution of £ 31,092.43 towards improving sustainable transport infrastructure.

xi  Contribution of £49,324.08 towards the foundation and development of the Rainham locality Primary Care Network including the supporting infrastructure, IT, training and equipment

xii Birds disturbance mitigation £18,662.56

b)    Conditions 1–30 and 32 as set out in the report  ...  view the full minutes text for item 258.

Gillingham North

Removal of raised planters to front, installation of railings on top of existing front boundary wall and access gates, excavation of area to the rear and the construction of a retaining wall.

Discussion:

The Planning Manager outlined the application in detail. The application was for permission to remove raised planters to front, installation of railings on top of existing front boundary wall and access gates, excavation of area to the rear and the construction of a retaining wall.

Comments were made by Members about the removal of the hedges in front of the house, the importance of complying with any conditions imposed, in light of previous enforcement action taken in respect of the property, and whether checks would be made to ensure the property was not turned into student accommodation. The Planning Manager replied that the hedges could be removed at any time and permission was being sought for the removal of the planters. The owners had worked closely with the Council since the enforcement notice had been served. The Council did not have the resources to check on the number of residents in properties but would respond to any reports of breaches in planning conditions.

Decision:

Approved subject to Conditions 1-3 as set out in the report and for the reasons set out in the report.

Gillingham North

Listed building consent with some retrospective works for various internal alterations, the removal of raised planters to front, installation of railings on top of existing front boundary wall and access gate, other minor external alterations to the front garden and excavation of area to the rear and construction of a retaining wall.

Discussion:

The Planning Manager outlined the application in detail. The application was for listed building consent with some retrospective works for various internal alterations, the removal of raised planters to front, installation of railings on top of existing front boundary wall and access gate, other minor external alterations to the front garden and excavation of area to the rear and construction of a retaining wall

Decision:

Approved subject to:

a)    Conditions 1-2 and 4-11 as set out in the report and for the reasons set out in the report

b)    An amended Condition 3 as follows;

3    Within one month from the date of this decision, a method statement for the careful removal of the existing finishes (multi-finish plaster, concrete and stud partitioning) and reinstatement of the lime haired plaster finish to the front LHS living room, the front RHS living room, dining room, hallway, utility room, landing, front LHS bedroom, front RHS bedroom, middle LHS bedroom, middle RHS bedroom and rear RHS bedroom, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To restore the buildings historic fabric and to comply with Policy BNE17 of the Medway Local Plan 2003.

c)    An additional Condition 12 as follows:

12Within three months, from the date of this permission, the front LHS living room and front RHS living room walls as identified and highlighted on drawing number DHA/13726/103 rev A received on 24 August 2020, shall have the multi finish plaster carefully removed and reinstated with lime haired plaster, in line with details approved under condition 3 of this decision notice. Once reinstated with lime plaster shall be maintained thereafter.

Reason: To restore the buildings historic fabric and to comply with Policy BNE17 of the Medway Local Plan 2003.

Rochester West

Construction of a terrace of three 3-bedroom town houses with integral garage.

Discussion:

The Head of Planning outlined the application in detail. The application was for the construction of a terrace of three 3-bedroom town houses with integral garage.

In discussing the application, Members commented on the importance of the appropriate materials being used given the proximity of historic properties. Members were advised that Condition 3 dealt with materials and would address those concerns.

Decision:

Approved subject to Conditions 1-16 as set out in the report and for the reasons set out in the report.