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, Sylvia Griffin and McDonald (although it was noted that Councillor Adeoye would be attending in her capacity as Ward Councillor to address the Committee on planning application MC/20/2839 Land off City Way (former playing field) Chatham).

To approve the record of the meeting held on 3 February 2021.

The record of the meeting held on 3 February 2021 was agreed and signed by the Chairman as correct subject to Councillor Sylvia Griffin being included in the list of those in attendance. 

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)

Councillor Potter referred to planning application MC/20/2839 – Land off City Way, (former playing field), Chatham and informed the Committee that as he had supported the bid for funding of a new school in his role as Portfolio Holder for Education and Schools, he would leave the meeting and take no part in the consideration and determination of this planning application.

Other interests

Councillor Hubbard referred to planning application MC/20/2806 – Manor Farm Quarry, Parsonage Lane, Frindsbury insofar as his wife’s cousins own Manor Farm.

Lordswood and Capstone

Outline planning application with some matters reserved (appearance, layout, scale and landscaping) for construction of up to 800 dwellings, primary school, supporting retail space of up to 150sqm and GP surgery with associated road link between North Dane Way and Pear Tree Lane and other road infrastructure, open space and landscaping.

Discussion:

The Head of Planning outlined the planning application in detail and in particular, referred to the presentation to the Committee on 3 February 2021 concerning the Housing Delivery Test and the need for a presumption in favour of sustainable development. He reminded the Committee that this did not mean that all planning applications had to be granted but that the Committee must be mindful of this when determining planning applications.

In addition, he referred to a recent Public Inquiry and referred to the various factors that had arisen at the Inquiry concerning the 5 year Housing supply and the Local Plan.

He informed the Committee that whilst the 2017 Development Strategy for the emerging Local Plan had included two scenarios (out of 4) which included possible development of the site that was the subject of this planning application, further work had been undertaken in producing the Medway Strategic Land Availability Assessment 2019 (SLAA) and subsequently the application site had been removed as it was not considered suitable for development.

The Committee was presented with plans showing the application site and its relationship with the Capstone Valley and Gibraltar Farm. This latter site had been the subject of a recent planning application for development which had been considered and refused on 13 January 2021.

The Head of Planning explained the application and the reasons why the application was not considered acceptable. It was noted that since despatch of the agenda, 38 additional representations had been received reiterating previous objections.

The Head of Planning stated that whilst a development of 800 units would normally be considered low density, the topography of the site and location of ancient woodland meant that the developable area was less and therefore the density of the development would be greater and would have a greater impact and dominance on the surrounding area, particularly taking into account the proposed 3 and 4 storey elements of the scheme.

The Head of Planning referred to various relevant policies that needed to be taken into account when determining the application and drew attention to the relevant sections of the committee report. In doing so, he outlined both the benefits and the harm which would result should this application be approved and he informed Members of the requirement for the Committee to balance and weigh up these factors before reaching a decision.

With the agreement of the Committee, Councillor Jarrett addressed the Committee as Ward Councillor and expressed the following concerns:

• The proposed development which includes both 3 and 4 storey buildings would have a detrimental visual impact from Darland Banks and be visually intrusive and this land is not identified for Housing in the Local Plan.
• The proposed development would have a detrimental impact on the availability of valuable open space which is an important benefit for people’s health and well-being.
• The applicant’s argument concerning provision of GP facilities is invalid as it’s not GP surgeries that are needed but the availability of GPs to work in them.
• The development  ...  view the full minutes text for item 770.

Chatham Central

Construction of a 3-storey, 6FE secondary school with 900 pupils and a 285 pupil sixth form with associated accesses (including for construction traffic), parking and hard and soft landscaping and sports pitches including all-weather pitch.

Discussion:

The Head of Planning referred to the supplementary agenda advice sheet and informed the Committee that should it be minded to approve the planning application, there were a number of proposed changes to the recommendation in that the application would require referral to the Secretary of State, it was now recommended that the applicant enter into a Section 106 agreement to secure a contribution towards improvements to the right of way along the southern boundary (Boundary Road to City Way) and there was a proposed change to the wording of condition 12.

In addition, he would be seeking delegated authority to finalise the wording of proposed conditions 7 and 8 as they related to the protection of trees and the proposed retaining wall.

The Head of Planning also informed the Committee that since despatch of the agenda, 9 additional representations had been received reiterating previous objections and raising additional concerns, details of which were set out on the supplementary agenda advice sheet. In addition, a letter had been received from the Interim Assistant Director, Education and SEN, Medway Council which had been appended to the supplementary agenda advice sheet.

He also advised of a change to the planning appraisal section of the report to add a section relating to the addition of the Section 106 contribution request.

The Head of Planning outlined the application in detail and, in particular, the reasons why the school were proposing to relocate from its existing two sites to the new location.

He informed the Committee that the proposed school would be located within an Area of Protected Open Space and whilst Policy L3 of the Local Plan sought to resist the loss of existing open space, there were a number of exceptions, details of which were set out in the report on page 92 of the agenda. He advised that in this instance, the development was required for educational purposes and would retain sufficient outdoor space for sport and recreation including a three court multi use games area, an all weather pitch, a 100m grass running track and a 9 a-side grass football pitch to meet the requirements of the school.

Sport England had objected to the proposed development as it constituted a loss of land being used as a playing field but officers had reviewed and assessed relevant data and consulted with the school and were satisfied that the site had not been in use as playing fields within the last 6 years. However, the Committee was informed that should it be minded to approve the application, it would require referral to the Secretary of State as the scheme would be contrary to Sport England’s assessment.

The Head of Planning also drew attention to the importance of the application site in terms of heritage as the site was located to the south of New Road Conservation Area and also south of Fort Pitt, a nationally important scheduled monument, full details of which were set out within the report on page 94 of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 771.

Strood Rural

Variation of condition 1 (Time 6 years) on MC/20/0482 - To amend the requirement for the discontinuation of the in filling operation does not fall until 31st December 2024

Discussion:

The Planning Manager outlined the planning application and the reasons for the request to vary the condition on planning application MC/20/0482 for the in-filling operation to cease at this site on 31 December 2024.

The Committee discussed the application and concern was expressed as to the time that the applicant was taking to complete the infill at this site. Members requested that prior to approving a further extension, it would appreciate further information from the applicant setting out a definitive plan for the completion of these works.

Decision:

Consideration of the application be deferred to enable the applicant to supply further detailed information as to how they intend to complete the in-fill works by 31 December 2024, if possible by way of a brief presentation to the Committee.

Rochester West

Outline planning application with some matters reserved (landscaping) for construction of a terrace of 12 two-bedroom dwellings and associated parking. 

Discussion:

The Planning Manager outlined the planning application and suggested that should the Committee be minded to approve the application, a number of conditions be changed, details of which were set out on the supplementary agenda advice sheet.

In addition, she requested that the Head of Planning be granted delegated authority to reword proposed condition 8 concerning trees upon receipt of an updated tree report so as to ensure that the trees on site were adequately protected and to include additional conditions to cover biodiversity and enhancement measures.

It was noted that since despatch of the agenda, the Environment Agency had withdrawn its objection.

With the agreement of the Committee, Councillor Paterson addressed the Committee as Ward Councillor and outlined concerns that the proposed development would result in increased vehicular traffic and in particular, an intensification of the junction at Warwick Crescent. He advised that the site is located close to The Pilgrim School which will result in vehicles using narrow roads which are also used by pupils and other pedestrians. He suggested that if this application was to be approved, further consideration should be given to seeking a remedy for highway improvements.

The Committee discussed the application and in response to questions, the Principal Transport Planner advised that no objections had been raised on highways grounds based on the previous approval for a scheme at this site in 2013 at MC/12/0334.

It was suggested that Ward Councillors hold discussions with officers to assess possible means of mitigating highway congestion at the Warwick Road junction prior to the determination of the application and also give consideration to the individual allocations of the proposed Section 106 contributions and, in particular, where the education contribution would be directed.

Decision:

Consideration of this application be deferred to enableWard Councillors to have discussions with officers to assess possible means of mitigating highway congestion at the Warwick Road junction and the individual allocations of the proposed Section 106 contributions, in particular, to where the education contribution would be directed.

Rainham Central

Construction of a 4-bedroom detached dwelling with associated parking.

Discussion:

The Planning Manager outlined the application in detail and informed the Committee that whilst the proposed dwelling was substantial in size, on balance, the application was recommended for approval.

The Committee discussed the application noting that as part of the officer presentation, details had been displayed of a similar development nearby. However, the Committee noted that this other development had been for a 3 bed chalet bungalow whilst the application being considered was for a 4 bed two storey house with a much larger footprint.

The Committee considered that the application constituted an overdevelopment of the site in that the site had reached its capacity and there was very little amenity space for prospective occupiers of the proposed new dwelling.

Decision:

Refused on the following grounds:

1. The proposed development will constitute an overdevelopment of the site which will result in lack of amenity space for prospective occupiers.
2. The proposed development is out of character and will have a detrimental appearance for the area.