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, Etheridge and McDonald.

To approve the record of the meeting held on 9 December 2020.

The record of the meeting held on 9 December 2020 was agreed and signed by the Chairman as correct. 

Referring to the supplementary agenda advice sheet, the Chairman drew attention to refusal grounds and conditions approved by the Head of Planning under delegated powers in consultation with the Chairman, Vice Chairman and Planning Spokes outside of the meeting as follows:

Minute 531 – Planning application – MC/20/2009 - Land r/o 19-27 Byron Road, Gillingham                                               

Refused on the following ground:

The proposal by virtue of its height, roof design (particularly to the rear), number of units, limited amenity space and limited off street car parking provision, represents an unacceptable overdevelopment of the site that would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area (and thereby would not make a clear enhancement to the local environment), the outlook of occupiers of neighbouring properties fronting Rock Avenue, and provide an unacceptably limited amenity for the prospective occupiers. The proposal is therefore contrary to the provisions of policies BNE1, BNE2 and H4 of the Medway Local Plan 2003 and paragraphs 124 and 127 of the NPPF 2019.

Minute 533 – Planning application – MC/20/2338 - 1 Cazeneuve Street, Rochester                                      

Refused on the following ground:

The proposed hot food takeaway by reason of its location within this residential area, and lack of appropriate location for an extract flue, would result in a use that would have a significant detrimental impact on neighbouring and nearby residential occupiers in particular to those with balconies that face onto the site, by reason of odour, noise and general disturbance from the use, contrary to Policies BNE2 and R18 of the Medway Local Plan 2003.

Minute 534 – Planning application – MC20/2557 - 45 Laburnum Road, Strood

Approved subject to the following conditions:

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

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

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

Drawing numbers: 20124 (01) 001 REV C, 20124 (01) 002 REV C, 20124 (02) 001, and Proposed block plan, received 14 October 2020.

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

3          The new parking area shall not be brought into use until it has been formed from permeable surfacing materials or has provided with drainage arrangements within the site which shall thereafter be retained.

Reason: To manage surface water in accordance with Paragraph 103 of the NPPF.

Minute 535 - Planning application MC/20/2625 - 43 Laburnum Road, Strood

Approved subject to the following conditions:

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

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

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

Drawing  ...  view the full minutes text for item 600.

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

The Chairman, Councillor Mrs Diane Chambers referred to planning application MC/19/0336 – Gibraltar Farm, Ham Lane, Hempstead, Gillingham and advised that as she had previously declared her views upon potential development of this site she would not take part in the discussion or determination of this planning application. In the absence of the Chairman, the Vice Chairman chaired the meeting for this planning application.

Councillor Curry referring to planning application MC/19/0336 – Gibraltar Farm, Ham Lane, Hempstead, Gillingham commented that this planning application made reference to byways and Public Rights of Way and he informed the Committee that he was the Chairman of the Local Access Forum. However, he did not consider that this precluded him from taking part in the discussion and determination of the planning application.

Councillor Potter referred to planning application MC/19/0336 – Gibraltar Farm, Ham Lane, Hempstead, Gillingham and informed the Committee that as a Cabinet Portfolio Holder he had previously voted not to grant a right of access across Council land to the application site but he was satisfied that this did not preclude him from taking part in the consideration and determination of this new planning application.

Ellen Wright, Democratic Services Officer referred to planning application MC/20/1531 - 4, 16, 20 and 22 High Street Rainham and informed the Committee that she had a relative that lived in close proximity to the application site but she had not discussed the application with anyone and was not involved in the processing of planning applications.

Rainham Central

Demolition of 4 existing properties and redevelopment to form a block of 55 retirement living apartments comprising of 38 one bedroom and 17 two bedroom apartments and 1 guest suite and associated communal facilities, access, car parking and landscaping.

Discussion:

The Head of Planning reminded the Committee that this planning application had previously been submitted for consideration on 9 December 2020 as an application to modify a previously approved scheme at this site. However, the application had been deferred to enable the Committee to receive further information from the Council’s independent Viability Consultant on the developer’s request for a reduction in the level of Section 106 contribution previously agreed by the Committee on 13 November 2019 under planning permission MC/19/0797 due to the impact of Covid-19 and the current housing market.

The Council’s Viability Consultant explained that having undertaken an assessment of the scheme, he was of the opinion that the proposals put forward by the developer were not unreasonable, particularly taking into account the type of units to be provided at this site i.e. retirement living.

He explained that with retirement living accommodation, the developer would be required to meet additional costs not ordinarily associated with a normal development as property that is exclusively available for a restricted market could take longer to sell during which time the developer was required to continue to meet empty property costs e.g. council tax. In addition, there were sales and marketing costs to be taken into account.

In addition, as the site had previously contained 4 individual residential properties, the developer had been required to pay an additional premium over and above market value to secure the land and would not receive a financial return on the development until such time that the development was complete and the new retirement living apartments could be sold.

The Committee discussed the application and, in particular, the request from the applicant for a reduction in the Section 106 contributions. Concern was expressed that there was now no element of financial contribution available for greenspaces/open space, particularly as the occupiers of the new retirement living accommodation would likely make use of green, open space in Medway and the level of contribution of affordable housing which had been reduced to a level which would be insufficient to provide any significant level of affordable housing off site.

In response, the Head of Planning advised the Committee that the proposed allocation of the reduced Section 106 contributions set out in the report were officer suggestions and, if the Committee was minded to approve the application, the Committee could adjust the level of allocations as it wished, as long as they complied with the Developer Contributions Guide, other than the £12,769.89 allocated for mitigation measures in the Special Protection Areas as this was a set figure based on an assessed criteria and needed to comply with the Habitat regulations and was not negotiable.

Referring to the allocation for affordable housing, the Head of Planning advised that this allocation did not have to be utilised to fund affordable housing delivery in totality but could be used to top up bids for affordable housing and thus deliver more homes.

It was suggested that if the application was approved, the recommended Section  ...  view the full minutes text for item 603.

Lordswood and Capstone

Outline Application (with all matters reserved except access) for the erection of up to 450 market and affordable dwellings, nursery and supporting retail space up to 85sqm, with provision of main access to Ham Lane; estate roads; cycle and pedestrian routes; residential and community open space and landscaping; new junction for Lidsing Road/Hempstead Road and realignment and widening of Lidsing Road. Off site related highway works to Westfield Sole Road, Shawstead Road, Hempstead Road, Chapel Lane, Hempstead Valley Drive, Hoath Way roundabout, Hoath Way and M2 Junction 4.

Discussion:

The Head of Planning outlined the planning application in detail and reminded the Committee of the planning history for this site. He explained that there was an extant outline planning permission covering much of the current site under reference MC/18/0556 for the development of up to 450 market and affordable dwellings with associated access, estate roads and residential open space granted by the Council on 26 September 2018. This 2018 planning permission had been a renewal of an outline planning permission granted under reference MC/14/2395 which had originally been refused planning permission by the Council but subsequently granted permission through the appeal process by the Secretary of State on 6 April 2017 following a call-in and a public inquiry.

He explained that the access arrangement for the planning permission granted in 2018 relied on primary access to and from the site from North Dane Way in the Lordswood area but to date, access to the site had not been secured as part of the access would need to cross land that was not within the applicant's ownership. The section of land in question was owned by the Council and, the Council had declined to sell the land to the applicant to achieve access to the site. Therefore, the 2018 planning permission was not able to be implemented at this time. As such the 2018 planning permission did not constitute a fall back position as there was no realistic possibility of it being implemented.

In considering the current planning application, the Head of Planning informed the Committee that the Council was under a legal duty of consistency which meant that the Council had to have regard to previous relevant decisions and whilst the Council was free to reach a decision that differed from those decisions before doing so, it was required to have regard to the importance of the duty of consistency and to give reasons for any departure from them. Therefore, in this case, in light of that duty, the previous grants of permission at Gibraltar Farm under MC/14/2395 and MC/18/0556 and in particular, the rationale for those grants of permission were a material consideration in the assessment of the current planning application.

The Committee was advised that the current application was for a similar proposal to that allowed under the extant planning permission but with an alternate access arrangement, now seeking sole motorised vehicular access to and from the site from Ham Lane/Lidsing Road in the Hempstead area.

The application also proposed access by a footway and cycleway link to and from the Lordswood area along the route of the existing Public Right of Way RC29 which was a Bridleway Open to All Traffic. Whilst this link would not be for adoption as public highway, Section 278 works were proposed to link the privately maintained footway/cycleway to the adopted highway footway/cycleway network but no vehicular connection to the site was proposed from Lordswood in the current submission.

The revised access proposals had resulted in an enlargement of the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 604.

Peninsula

Construction of a detached 3 bedroom dwelling with associated parking (Re-submission of MC/20/1126).

Discussion:

The Planning Manager outlined the planning application in detail and in response to questions, confirmed that on pages 123 and 127 of the report, the address of the site required correction to be Main Road and not Cooling Road, she confirmed that the application site was in the village envelope and that Cooling Parish Council had been consulted upon the application but had not submitted objections.

The Committee discussed the application and the importance of the site having regard to its proximity to the Grade 1 Listed St James’ Church and the existing view from the Church from photographs displayed at the meeting.

Decision:

Approved with conditions 1 – 15 as set out in the report for the reasons stated in the report.

Rochester East

Construction of external coldrooms with canopied walkway to rear together with the installation to rear of 3 x air conditioning units - demolition of existing outbuilding.

Discussion:

The Planning Manager outlined the planning application in detail and drew attention to additional information received from the applicant’s agent since despatch of the agenda set out on the supplementary agenda advice sheet circulated prior to the meeting. This explained that a temporary fence had been installed around the area where the cold-rooms were to be installed but to date the cold-rooms had not been installed. Should the application be approved, the fence would be retained to protect and screen the cold-rooms.

The Head of Planning informed the Committee that Councillor Murray had wanted to address the Committee as Ward Councillor but had been unable to attend and therefore she had submitted a statement which, with the agreement of the Committee, the Head of Planning read out summarised as follows:

·         The ventilation and cooling equipment at the rear of the store is noisy, invasive and unsightly.

·         The site is untidy and is having a negative impact on the physical local environment.

·         No attempt has been made by the store management to consult with neighbours or to take their comments and complaints seriously.

The Planning Manager informed the Committee that in support of the application, the applicant had produced three noise assessments two of which had been rejected by the Local Planning Authority as having been undertaken from the front of the building whilst the units were located to the rear. The works had been undertaken and the third noise assessment had been carried out at the rear of the property and confirmed the noise to be at an acceptable level. In addition, she confirmed that proposed condition 4 would enable the control of noise from the units in the future.

The Committee discussed the application having regard to the residential accommodation located in close proximity to the site.

Decision:

Approved with conditions 1- 4 as set out in the report for the reasons stated in the report.

This report sets out the Grade II Listed Building designation for Chatham Ragged School following a successful application by Planning and Conservation Officers.

Discussion:

The Committee received a report advising of the Grade II Listed Building designation for the Chatham Ragged School following a successful application by the Planning and Conservation officers.

Decision:

The Committee expressed its appreciation for the work undertaken by officers in achieving the Listed Building designation for this heritage site.