Agenda and minutes

The Chairman referred to Councillor Mick Pendergast who had sadly passed away on Sunday 2 October. Members and officers present held a minute’s silence in memory of Councillor Pendergast.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Adeoye, Mrs Diane Chambers, Lammas and Thorne.

To approve the record of the meeting held on 24 August 2022.

The record of the meeting held on 24 August 2022 was agreed and signed by the Chairman as correct. 

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

There were none.

This report relates to the financial contributions secured via a S106 agreement related to the wider Chatham Waters development and to the fact that due viability, the delivery of the affordable housing element of the Chatham Waters development cannot afford to meet the financial contributions required (for that element only).

Discussion:

Members considered a report regarding the financial contributions secured via a S106 agreement related to the wider Chatham Waters development and to the fact that due to viability, the delivery of the affordable housing element of the Chatham Waters development cannot afford to meet the financial contributions required (for that element only).

The Head of Planning advised that only one provider of affordable housing (L&G) had come forward. Since planning permission had been granted the economic climate had changed and costs had risen significantly. Peel still wanted to deliver affordable housing on site but had requested that the S.106 financial contributions, (£440,000) as they related to the 237 affordable units, be set aside.

The report presented two Options:

·       Option 1: Planning Committee agree a deed of variation to the S106 to allow the affordable housing development to proceed without paying the S106 financial contributions that would apply to residential development but only in relation to the affordable units. If this was agreed work would continue on the delivery of the affordable housing scheme on site.

·       Option 2: Planning Committee do not agree a deed of variation in which case affordable housing would not be able to be delivered on site. Discussions would then need to take place regarding the alternatives of either off site provision or financial contributions.

Members also heard from the Council’s independent viability consultant who had considered the affordable housing element of the scheme based on three assumptions: the land value for the 237 units was zero, developer profit was zero and the scheme did not include any contributions to the site wide infrastructure costs. In response to why there was not an independent build cost assessment to consider alongside Peel’s figures, the consultant advised that he considered the real figures to be higher than provided by Peel. Also, the report had been completed in April 2022 and build costs since then had risen significantly.  He considered this was a strong offer from Peel in terms of the value it offered. He advised the affordable housing scheme generated a loss of £2.5m but this could be nearer to £8m. The applicant could decide to apply to vary the S106 agreement and, if so, there was a risk of a significant reduction in the figure currently proposed.

In response to whether the Council’s consultant had considered whether off site construction would have been more viable, Members were advised that this would result in less affordable housing as off-site construction would lead to less units and delays in delivering them.

The Head of Planning, in response to whether other developers might adopt the same approach, commented that for greenfield sites there were no issues with developers agreeing S106 contributions. With brownfield sites the Council was receiving more requests which offered less or asked to re-negotiate S106 agreements, as costs were far greater when it came time to build.

In discussing the report Members made the following points:

·      The wider site was likely to generate revenue of more  ...  view the full minutes text for item 281.

Rainham South Ward

Outline Application with all matters reserved (except access) for a residential development of up to 48 dwellings, including associated access, parking, landscaping and open space.

Discussion:

The Head of Planning outlined the application in detail, which was an Outline Application with all matters reserved (except access) for a residential development of up to 48 dwellings, including associated access, parking, landscaping and open space. He advised of the following amendments to the report not included on the supplementary agenda advice: the figure in recommendation A (xi) relating to highways mitigation was £1,300 per dwelling and not £113 as stated. The same correction also applied to page 66 of the agenda pack.

Several Members expressed the following concerns:

·       the application would result in Rainham extending to the border with Swale.

·       an unacceptable impact on the landscape.

·       an increase in the volume of traffic on the A2 when the highways team already considered this network could not cope with existing levels of traffic.

·       An adverse impact on the heritage of the area.

Other Members, while accepting this was a finely balanced judgement, felt the application could be made to work and an Inspector was likely to uphold any appeal. The impact on highways would be an issue with most proposed developments and there was a need for more homes to be built in Medway.

The Head of Planning clarified that the traffic monitoring and mitigation measures proposed related to dealing with any traffic displacement.

Decision:

Refused on the grounds that development would adversely impact on highways, heritage and landscape character, including the importance of maintaining a buffer between Rainham and Swale and the Head of Planning was granted delegated authority to approve the refusal grounds with the Chairman, Vice Chairman and Opposition Spokesperson outside of the meeting.

Rainham South Ward

Full planning application for the development of 66 dwellings (including 25% affordable housing) together with open space, landscaping, drainage, access, parking and associated works.

Discussion:

The Head of Planning outlined the application in detail, which was for the construction of 66 residential dwellings (including 25% affordable housing), together with open space, landscaping, drainage, access, parking and associated works.

Members were advised that, if the application was approved, there would be a need for climate change and energy efficiency conditions.

Members expressed concerns about the impact on local highways, the risks to children attending Leigh academy due to increased traffic, given the development would share the same access road as the school, the suitability of the ingress and egress roads, the impact on the surrounding landscape and the impact on the heritage of the area.

Support for the application was also expressed on the basis that on appeal an Inspector would probably uphold the appeal and, while not ideal, there were a  number of routes in and out of the development.

Decision:

Refused on the grounds that the development would severely impact on the highways and also adversely impact on the heritage and landscape character of the area and the Head of Planning was granted delegated authority to approve the refusal grounds with the Chairman, Vice Chairman and Opposition Spokesperson outside of the meeting.

Strood Rural Ward

Construction of a detached dwelling with associated landscaping works and new vehicle access to Upchat Road.

Discussion:

The Head of Planning outlined the application in detail, which was for the construction of a detached dwelling with associated landscaping works and new vehicle access to Upchat Road. The applicants had submitted this proposal for consideration under Paragraph 80 of the NPPF.  The latter set out to avoid isolated homes in the countryside unless one or more specific circumstances applied, including the design was of exceptional quality. The Head of Planning considered that the design met that test.

Members agreed this was an exceptional design which fitted in with the landscape extremely well and hoped that its design principles would apply to other buildings.

Decision:

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:

24 December 2021

21.026.200.00 Rev P0 - Proposed Lower Ground Floor Plan

21.026.200.01 Rev P0 - Proposed Ground Floor Plan

21.026.200.02 Rev P0 - Proposed Roof Plan

21.026.300.00 Rev P0 - Proposed Elevation A

21.026.300.01 Rev P0 - Proposed Elevation B

21.026.300.03 Rev P0 - Sectional Elevation D-D

21.026.300.04 Rev P0 - Sectional Elevation E-E

21.026.300.05 Rev P0 - Sectional Elevation F-F

2135/SK1 - Proposed Access

UD-PI10/TCP/1730-02 - Tree Constraints Plan

18 January 2022

21.026.100.03 P1 - Proposed Site Plan

21.026.300.02 P1 - Proposed Elevation C

21.026.300.06 P0 - Proposed Elevation G

26 May 2022

21.026.300.07 Rev P0 - Visibility Splays

7 September 2022

21.026.300.08 Rev P0 - Highways Section

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of certainty.

3)      The dwelling hereby approved shall not be occupied until, full details of a hard and soft landscape scheme have been submitted to and approved in writing for all areas. The submitted details shall include:

i.               All paving and external hard surfacing, lighting and services (including drainage), tree planting, minor artefacts and structures (seating, refuse receptacles and raised planters, pool). Soft landscape works, including details of all proposed additional planting, planting plans, tree positions, written specifications (including cultivation and other operations associated with grass, tree and planting establishment); schedules of plants, noting species, plant sizes, root treatments and proposed numbers/densities where appropriate.

ii.              Details for the design and specification of tree planting to enable healthy establishment at maturity. Information should provide details for the planting environment (including within soft and hard landscape as well as, raised planters).

iii.             An arboricultural method statement that addresses all hard and soft landscape works proposed within the root protection area of retained trees.

iv.            A timetable for implementation.

The development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details and timetable and any trees or plants which are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of a similar size and species and me maintained  ...  view the full minutes text for item 284.

Peninsula Ward

Construction of a two storey extension with associated external works incorporating the expansion in the capacity of the staff car park and reconfigured early years play area and playground.

Discussion:

Councillor Potter disclosed an interest in this arising from his position as the Portfolio Holder for Education and Schools, withdrew from the meeting and did not participate in this item.

The Planning Manager outlined the application in detail, which was for the construction of a two-storey extension with associated external works incorporating the expansion in the capacity of the staff car park and reconfigured early years play area and playground.

The Planning Manager clarified that the travel plan would be monitored by the school and shared with the highways team.

Decision:

Approved with conditions 1 – 22 as set out in the report for the reasons stated in the report.

Strood North Ward

Construction of a single storey teaching block and external link canopy, together with creation of MUGA and playground area, and alterations to existing car parking and landscaping.

Discussion:

Councillor Potter disclosed an interest in this arising from his position as the Portfolio Holder for Education and Schools, withdrew from the meeting and did not participate in this item.

The Planning Manager outlined this application in detail, which was for the construction of a single storey teaching block and external link canopy, together with creation of MUGA and playground area, and alterations to existing car parking and landscaping.

Decision:

Deferred until the next meeting so that a Member site visit can take place (on 15 October) to look at the layout of the site and the potential impact on neighbouring houses.

Strood Rural Ward

Construction of a combined amenity and day room building.

Discussion:

The Planning Manager outlined this application in detail, which was for the construction of a combined amenity and day room building.

Decision:

Approved with conditions 1 – 7 as set out in the report for the reasons stated in the report.

Peninsula Ward

Retrospective application for the change of use of agricultural land to residential garden together with boundary fencing and gates.

Discussion:

The Planning Manager outlined this retrospective application in detail, which was for the change of use of agricultural land to residential garden together with boundary fencing and gates.

Decision:

Approved with condition 1 as set out in the report for the reasons stated in the report.

Peninsula Ward

Construction of a single storey extension to rear, two-storey extension to side and roof extension with dormer window to front and dormer effect window to rear with alterations to the existing property and new driveway to facilitate parking.

Decision:

Withdrawn by applicant.

Strood Rural Ward

Construction of a part ground floor extension to side and a first floor dormer extension to side to facilitate additional living space.

Discussion:

The Planning Manager outlined this application in detail, which was for the construction of a part ground floor extension to side and a first floor dormer extension to side to facilitate additional living space.

Decision:

Approved with conditions 1 – 6 as set out in the report for the reasons stated in the report.

Strood Rural Ward

Construction of part ground floor and first floor dormer extension to side - resubmission of MC/21/1972.

Discussion:

The Planning Manager outlined this retrospective application in detail, which was for the construction of part ground floor and first floor dormer extension to side - resubmission of MC/21/1972.

Decision:

Approved with conditions 1 - 6 as set out in the report for the reasons stated in the report.

Chatham Central Ward

Retrospective application for the construction of a single storey extension to rear and store to basement.

Discussion:

The Planning Manager outlined this retrospective application in detail, which was for  the construction of a single storey extension to rear and store to basement.

Members were advised that, if the application was approved, the applicant had stated that the rendering of the extension could be carried out within 2 months if approved.

Decision:

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