Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Carr and Chrissy Stamp.

To approve the record of the meeting held on 27 July 2022.

The record of the meeting held on 27 July 2022 was agreed and signed by the Chairman as correct. 

There were none.

In addition, the Committee wished the Principal Transport Officer all the very best and thanked him for all his hard work as this would be his last Planning Committee at Medway Council.

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 referred to planning application MC/21/3235 – Land off Lower Rainham Road, Gillingham, Medway, explaining that he had already addressed the Committee as Ward Councillor at a previous meeting and stated that the other Ward Councillor for Rainham North had sent in a statement to be read out at the meeting.  Councillor Potter would therefore withdraw from the meeting for the duration of this item.

River Ward

Outline application with some matters reserved (appearance, landscaping and layout) for a proposed mixed-use development comprising up to 175 residential apartments (1 and 2 bedrooms in 3 buildings), circa 1990 sq ft of creative arts studios, circa 2100sq ft of co-working space/offices (Class E), circa 1800 sq ft of flexible co-working space (Class E) and 152 car parking spaces with associated access, landscaping, cycle storage, dedicated storage for residential units and refuse storage. The development incorporates the demolition of the former Trafalgar Centre (High Street) and partial demolition of the multi-storey car park (Rhode Street), Chatham.

Discussion:

The Head of Planning outlined the application in detail and explained why the application was deferred at the previous meeting.  Members had also attended a presentation regarding the application where some of their questions and points of clarification had been answered.

The application was for outline planning permission for a mixed-use development comprised of up to 175 residential apartments, 1990 sq ft of creative arts studios, 2100 sq ft of co-working offices, 1800 sq ft of flexible co-working space, 152 carparking spaces, landscaping, storage and refuse facilities.  This included demolition of the former Trafalgar Centre and partial demolition of the multi-storey car park.  

The Head of Planning explained to the Committee they would determine only the scale and access of the application at the meeting.  The appearance, internal and external layout and landscaping would be dealt with later for approval under reserved matters and would come back to this Committee.

The Head of Planning informed the Committee that an additional condition was recommended to be added to include a travel plan to promote the use of a car club scheme within the site or linking to a car club being provided within a nearby development.

The scheme had been amended from the original application to reduce the impact of the development.

The Senior Urban Design Officer explained to the Committee how officers produced 3D model comparisons of the indicative plans.  The Planning Team engaged with the applicant and presented the 3D model to them, following which the developers had been willing to amend the scheme in line with the officers’ recommendations.

The Head of Planning and the Senior Urban Design Officer showed strategic, like for like, views of the impact that the first application had on the surrounding area and then the updated views following the amendments which included views of the Great Lines, Rochester Castle and Cathedral.  Historic England were satisfied with the revised plans. 

The Head of Planning stated the Section 106 contributions would go towards improvements to the local area, community infrastructure, enhancing the high street and health improvements. 

The Committee considered the application and noted that it was an outline planning application.  Members would have the opportunity to consider the exact design details for the development once submitted and brought forward in the reserved matters application.

Members recognised that the Trafalgar Centre site needed to be developed but it should be the right application for the area.

Members expressed concern with the lack of affordable housing.  The Head of Planning explained the viability issues that related to development on brownfield sites, particularly when there was demolition and contamination issues to address.  He advised that the application had been accompanied by a viability assessment that had been independently assessed by the Council’s appointed expert.  This meant that the choice was to either provide affordable housing with no community infrastructure contributions or vice versa but the development could not provide both.  Officers had balanced that the need to deliver public realm/health/community infrastructure and open space within the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 182.

Strood Rural Ward

Outline application with all matters reserved except for (access) for a residential development of up to 250 dwellings and a mixed-use community hub together with associated infrastructure including public open space and community facilities comprising a replacement sports ground and pavilion, with accesses from Church Street, Cooling Road and Buttway Lane.

Decision:      

Consideration of this application was deferred at the request of the Head of Planning in order to address concerns. 

Rainham North Ward

Details pursuant to condition 4 (Landscaping), condition 6 (Landscape Management Plan), condition 7 (Nature Reserve Connection) and condition 8 (LEAP Details) on planning application MC/20/1800 for Full planning consent for 79 dwellings, including affordable housing together with access, open space, landscaping and associated infrastructure works.

Councillor Potter left the meeting for this item

Discussion:

The Head of Planning explained the background to this application, where in approving the application for the development of the site subject to conditions at a previous meeting, the Planning Committee had asked for details of the southern boundary to be the subject of public consultation specifically to obtain opinion on the inclusion of a pedestrian access or not.

The results of the public consultation were set out on page 110 of the agenda. Of those responding, the overwhelming support was for no pedestrian access through the site.

The Head of Planning explained that the scheme showed a swale separating the two developments and a retaining wall of 800mm. Officers considered this would be a sufficient deterrent to pedestrians.

The Head of Planning read out a statement from Councillor Carr as Ward Councillor which included the following concerns.

• The proposed solution was not a solid separation as specifically stated in the consultation for local residents.  A solid separation was overwhelmingly supported.
• The proposed boundary treatment may create a feature which could attract groups to gather and may lead to anti-social behaviour.
• To address concerns about visual amenity an additional condition was suggested, to consult residents living in the cul-de-sacs (Macklands Way and Lambourne Place), on whether they want the bank as an alternative to a solid separation.

Councillor Carr referenced the western part of the site, where, due to a significant amount of vegetation barrier being removed, the allotments were now exposed. She also stated there did not seem to be any fencing proposed along the nature reserve boundary and questioned whether the Riverside Country Park Rangers had been consulted.  The Head of Planning confirmed that the western area of the site was not part of the consideration at this Committee. 

The Committee discussed the planning application noting the concerns outlined by the Head of Planning and the points raised by the Ward Councillor and discussed whether a solid separation would feel like a barrier around the estate and whether there were any gains from including a pedestrian link for existing residents accessing the nature reserve and surrounding public footpaths as well as creating more permeability between the two developments.

Decision:      

Approved the option for a footpath link between the two sites. 

Councillor Potter returned to the meeting

Peninsula Ward

Application for approval of reserved matters being appearance, scale and revised layout and discharge of conditions 9 (finished levels), 10 (archaeology), 17 (CEMP) and 23 (bat sensitive light) pursuant to planning permission MC/20/1973 - Outline application with some matters reserved (appearance and scale) for construction of five dwellings houses with associated estate road, provision of 12 on site car parking spaces, new pavement along the site road frontage and on site reptile habitat and removal of porta cabin to the North.

Discussion:

The Planning Manager outlined the application in detail for reserved matters for the appearance, scale, revised layout and discharge of conditions 9 (finished levels), 10 (archaeology), 17 (CEMP) and 23 (bat sensitive light).

The current proposal showed the siting of houses 1 – 3 being stepped back further in the site from what had been originally approved, which had reduced the depth of the gardens but still met the minimum standards.  The design of the houses was in keeping with the area and exceeded the room size guidelines.

Under the discharge of conditions officers were satisfied regarding finished floor levels, the CEMP and lighting but sought delegated authority to clear condition 10 regarding archaeology once KCC archaeology were satisfied with the submission details.

Decision:      

Approved with conditions 1 – 2 as set out in the report for the reasons stated in the report.   Condition 10 would be discharged under delegated authority.

Chatham Central Ward

Outline application with all matters reserved for the demolition of garages to facilitate the construction of a block of 3 flats consisting of 1x two bedroom and 2x one bedroom flats with associated parking - Resubmission of MC/21/0355.

Discussion:

The Planning Manager outlined the application in detail and explained that a previous application for a block of flats consisting of 4 one-bedroom flats had been refused.  This application was for 3 flats which consisted of 1 x two bedroom and 2 x one-bedroom flats. The site sat within the New Road Chatham conservation area. 

The plans submitted demonstrated how they met national standards and how the building could be achieved. 

There would be one carparking space per unit and a s106 request for a crash barrier to be installed for when entering the site. 

The Committee considered the application noting their concerns regarding the overdevelopment of such a small size and did not consider that the reduction in the number of units had satisfactorily addressed the reasons for the previous refusal.

Decision:

Refused for the following reason:

By virtue of the limited size of the site and its constraints the development of 3 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.

Peninsula Ward

Construction of two replacement industrial units B2/B8/E with associated landscaping and using existing access.

Discussion:

The Head of Planning outlined the application in detail and apologised for deferring this application from a previous meeting to address issues around noise and adjacent properties. 

This application site was within the Hoo Marina Industrial Estate and adjacent to mobile park homes which were used as permanent accommodation. 

The previous building was destroyed by fire in September 2020 and the application sought to replace this with two smaller units.  The site was within an existing employment area and under Policy ED1 of the Local Plan, which only permitted business (Class B1) development.

The scheme submitted had been revised to include planting along the boundary with the residential mobile home site.  The buildings had been sited with their main entrance facing the industrial estate so the buildings themselves would act as a noise baffler.  In addition, the applicant had agreed to conditions to include measures to limit and record noise levels on the boundary and to restrict hours of operation to protect neighbouring residential amenity.  Parking for 3 vehicles plus 1 disabled space per unit was proposed.

Members considered that the deferral had enabled the scheme to be revised to make it acceptable and also referenced (in light of a comment from a Parish Councillor) that the landscaping along the boundary should include indigenous species.

Decision:      

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

Princes Park Ward

Construction of a first floor extension to the side; single storey extension to the rear together with a dormer to the rear.

Discussion:

The Planning Manager outlined the application in detail and explained that the site was in a residential area in Chatham and the application would be for the construction of a first-floor extension to the side; single storey extension together with a dormer to the rear.

Two previous applications had been submitted, one for a Lawful Development Certificate for a dormer to the rear and one for a single storey extension to side/part rear and first floor extension to side. This application would combine the two and extend the dormer over the whole roof. 

Decision:      

Approved with conditions 1 to 5 as set out in the report for the reasons stated in the report.

This report is presented quarterly to the Planning Committee informing Members on current planning performance and the Local Plan.

Discussion:

The Committee received a report setting out performance for the period 1 April 2022 to 30 June 2022 which the Head of Planning explained.

A number of compliments had been received and were listed on page 177-178 of the report. 

Members expressed their thanks to the Head of Planning and his team for all their hard work and to acknowledge the impressive performance statistics set out in 3.2 of the report and how the team had achieved this, knowing the time each application could take. 

Members noted the challenges with recruitment.  The Head of Planning confirmed that recruitment had been an issue nationally, not just a Medway challenge.

Members expressed concern with the number of tree applications and the numbers dealt with each month.

Decision:

The Committee noted the report and requested that the Head of Planning

express the Committee’s appreciation for the levels of achievement to staff

within the Planning Service.

This report informs Members of appeal decisions for the period 1 April 2022 to 30 June 2022.

Discussion:

The Head of Planning gave a summary of the appeal decisions referred to in Appendix A to the report.

Members thanked the Head of Planning and his team for all the hard work involved in appeals.

Decision:

The Committee noted the report.

This report summarises the content of agenda item 15, which, in the opinion of the proper officer, contains exempt information within one of the categories in Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972. It is a matter for the Committee to determine whether the press and public should be excluded from the meeting during consideration of documents.

Decision

The Committee agreed to exclude the press and public from the meeting during consideration of agenda item 15 (Enforcement Proceedings: 1 January 2022 – 30 June 2022) because consideration of these matters in public would disclose information falling within paragraphs 6a and 6b of Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972 as specified in agenda item 14 (Exclusion of Press and Public) and, in all the circumstances of the case, the Committee considered that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighed the public interest in disclosing the information.