Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Adeoye and Stamp. Apologies for lateness received from Councillor Opara. 

To approve the record of the meeting held on 6 April 2022.

The record of the meeting held on 6 April 2022 was agreed and signed by the Chairman as correct subject to an amendment that Councillor Adeoye was present at the meeting. 

The Committee was advised of the outcome of a request for a condition to be placed on an application at the meeting of 6 April 2022 as follows:

Minute 795 - Planning Application - MC/22/0299 - Chiropodist Clinic, 28 Richmond Road, Gillingham, Medway

Condition for electric charging point as discussed and requested by Members.

Condition 4:

The Convenience Store hereby approved shall not operate until details of the

provision of 1 electric vehicle charging point has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  Details shall include the location, charging type (power output and charging speed), associated infrastructure and timetable for installation.  The development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details and shall thereafter be maintained.

Reason: In the interests of sustainability in accordance with paragraph 112E of the National Planning Policy Framework.

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 Hubbard referred to application MC/21/2965 - Rear of 122 Maidstone Road, Chatham, Medway and advised that at the site visit he became aware that the developer was someone that had worked for him in the past and therefore on that basis he would leave the meeting for the consideration and determination of this application.

Councillor Tranter referred to application MC/21/2965 - Rear of 122 Maidstone Road, Chatham, Medway and advised that he was friends with the person that lived next door to the proposed site therefore he would leave the meeting for the consideration and determination of this application.

Councillor Buckwell referred to application MC/22/0500 – 48 Kingfisher Drive, Princess Park, Chatham, Medway and declared on behalf of all Members of the Conservative group on the Committee that the applicant was a member of the same political party and as they were affiliated to the same party. Therefore, they would leave the meeting for the consideration and determination of this application.

Construction of a detached dwelling with associated parking. 

Discussion:

The Senior Planner outlined the application in detail.

The Committee discussed the application in detail and a member drew attention to what had occurred at no 2, View Road which had previously been a four bedroom detached property that had been granted permission and resulted initially in being a seven bedroom property. Through various applications and extensions, the no. 2 plot now consisted of 3 properties that together provided for 13 bedrooms and there was concern that the same could occur on this plot.

It was asked if a condition could be placed to restrict permitted development of the site. The senior planner advised that development rights could be removed and there was condition 8 in the report relating to that. However, this could not prevent the submission of planning applications for the site.

Decision:

Approved with conditions 1-11 as set out in the report for the reasons stated in the report.

Outline application with all matters reserved for the demolition of garages to facilitate the construction of a block of flats consisting of 4 one-bedroom flats with associated parking.

Discussion:

The Senior Planner outlined the application in detail.

With the agreement of the Committee, the Head of Planning read out the following statement on behalf of Councillor Maple:

A number of residents have raised a variety of concerns and objections which I’m sure the committee will take into account when considering this outline application this evening.

One matter which I hope can be clarified ahead of the decision making is the status of MC/21/0564 as the item under consideration tonight was deferred from a previous agenda when that application was also deferred.  I recognise the collective concerns about the potential impact of the two applications in combination (although I also recognise that each application ultimately must be considered individually).

If the Committee is minded to approve the outline application could I strongly encourage the developers to attend an upcoming meeting of the recently formed Residents Association which covers the area within this application before submitting the detailed application – I can provide those dates if required.

The Committed discussed the application in detail. Concern was raised that this application should have been assessed alongside another proposed application on the adjacent site and that it was difficult to make a decision without assessing the impact of the other application which would be for a larger development alongside this application.

As an outline application, there were concerns raised with the proposal and  approval of the application would set a precedence for further developments to the area which could result in overdevelopment.

In response to a member’s question on the lack of reference to the Carbon Neutral and Climate Change Strategy in the application, the senior planner acknowledged that a climate change and efficiency report was not provided. This had resulted in the application of condition 12 as set out in the recommendations.

Decision:

Overturned and refused for the following reason:

By virtue of the limited size of the site and its constraints, the development of 4 one bedroom flats would be considered an overdevelopment of the site contrary to paragraphs 126, 130, 195, 186, 202 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2021 and Polices H4, BNE1, BNE2 and BNE14 of the Medway Local Plan 2003.

Construction of an additional two storeys to the existing building for use as offices.

Discussion:

The Senior Planner outlined the application in detail.

The Committee discussed the application and some Members felt that this development would be in a row of office buildings that held similar characteristics to the existing building. The proposed development was out of keeping with the others due to its height and would adversely affect the landscape and skyline.

Some Members did not agree with the officer recommendation for refusal as this development did not impact on amenity. It was felt that concerns about the proposed height of the building should be considered in the context that this development was on an industrial estate. 

Decision:

Refused as set out in the report for the reasons stated in the report.

Construction of a 4-bedroom detached dwelling with associated parking

Discussion:

The Head of Planning outlined the application in detail and drew Members’ attention to page one of the supplementary planning advice sheet which detailed relevant planning history of Kind Edward Road.

Some Members’ raised concern that at the visit to the site by members, many residents had appeared and expressed their opposition to the development. The street scene had changed dramatically with the loss of space and the impact of building work in the area had greatly affected the lives of the residents.

Some Members were cautious against refusal of the application based on previous history. This was the final plot that was being requested to be developed and the chance of legal defence should the application be refused was minimal. A previous application was refused by the Committee and challenged by the developer, with the decision overturned on appeal. This had resulted in substantial legal costs using funds of the taxpayer and it was felt that such a recurrent situation was to be avoided.

Decision:

Approved subject to:

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

           i) A contribution of £35,000 towards replacement tree planting.

B.   Conditions 1-11 as set out in the report for the reasons stated in the

Report.

Construction of a 2 bedroom detached chalet bungalow with attached garage accessed off Coombe Road.

Discussion:

The Planning Manager outlined the application in detail.

The Committee discussed the application and some Members of the Committee raised concerns on the scale of development which was felt to be misleading. The proposed development was not in keeping with other properties on the road and the scaling gave it a visual prominence that was too large for the corner site. The proposed building was too large for the plot and could not be justified as a chalet as its scale was more in line with that of a house.

Decision:

Overturned and refused for the following reason:

The proposed development by reason of its design, scale, mass and height would result in an unacceptable form of development that fails to respect the immediate character of the area while negatively competing with the adjoining dwelling on 42 Main Road. The development as such fails to provide a positive improvement to the character and appearance of the streetscene, contrary to Policies H4 and BNE1 of the Medway Local Plan 2003 and paragraphs 126 and 130 of the NPPF.

Construction of a single storey extension to rear - demolition of existing conservatory.

Discussion: 

Appointment of Chair – Nomination received from Councillor Curry and seconded by Councillor Prenter for Councillor Hubbard to Chair this item. Councillor Hubbard was appointed as Chairman for this item.

The Planning Manager outlined the planning application in detail.

Decision:

Approved with conditions 1-3 as set out in the report for the reasons stated in the report.

Construction of four 2-bedroom flats with associated parking and landscaping

Discussion:  

The Planning Manager outlined the planning application in detail and informed Members that the proposal would occupy 25% of the space and 75% would be retained as informal open space

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

·         It was vital that open spaces such as this be protected for use by the residents of Medway.

·         Development of this open space would be a detriment to the area.

·         The impact of street parking which was already limited had not been taken into consideration.

·         The pictures used in the application were misleading as it made the proposal look like there would be a reasonable amount of open space available once the development was erected.

Clarification was sought on the original plan for the land and the officer said that the land was owned by Taylor Wimpey and in the original plan, the land was designated as open space for the estate.

The Committee discussed the application and agreed that they were not in agreement with the recommendation for approval due to concerns regarding overdevelopment of this open space which was a premium and had been vital for use by the residents of Medway during the Pandemic.

It was felt that if the application was approved, it would set a precedence for future applications for development of the rest of the open space.

Decision:

Overturned and refused for the following reason:

The proposed development would result in the erosion of a green amenity space and loss of trees which provide a valuable community benefit and contributes positively to the character and amenity of Weybridge Close, detrimental to the provision of open space and visual amenity of the locality contrary to Polices BNE1 and BNE43 of the Medway Local Plan 2003 and paragraphs 99, 130 and 174 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2021.