Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Bowler and Potter.

To approve the record of the meeting held on 27 September 2017.

The record of the meeting held on 27 September 2017 was agreed and signed by the Chairman as correct. 

There were none.

Disclosable pecuniary interests

There were none.

Other interests

Councillor Stamp referred to planning application MC/17/2333 – Rochester Riverside, Rochester and advised the Committee that as he was a member of the Rochester Riverside Project Board he would leave the meeting for the consideration and determination of this planning application.

This report is to inform the Planning Committee that a recent consultation has supported a decision by Cabinet to close the library facility at Thomas Aveling School resulting in the requirement for Deed of Variation to reflect the closure.

Discussion:

The Committee received a report advising that a recent consultation had shown support for the decision by Cabinet to close the public library facility at Thomas Aveling School and therefore a deed of variation would be required to reflect the closure of this facility.

A Member suggested that it was important to recognise that there had been demand at the time the library facility was originally provided. Therefore, if there were proposals to provide similar services at another site in the future, there was a need to ensure that the services were sustainable.

Decision:

It was noted that in line with the decision of Cabinet, the Thomas Aveling Public Library would close and a Deed of Variation would be completed to reflect this closure.

Hybrid planning application seeking outline permission for the erection of up to 1,400 no. dwellings including a primary school and nursery (D1 use), up to 1,200sqm of commercial floorspace (A1/A2/A3/A4/B1/D1 and D2 uses) together with a pedestrian footbridge, parking, open space and landscaping. Full permission for phase 1, 2 and 3 of the development consisting of the erection of 489 no. dwellings (of the 1,400 no. total), the provision of a hotel (use Class C1), 885sqm of commercial floorspace (A1/A2/A3/A4/B1/D1 and D2 uses) along with site access/spine road, parking, open space and landscaping. 

Discussion:

The Planning Consultant outlined the planning application in detail and advised the Committee that as Medway Council was part owner of the site it was not possible for the Council to enter into a Section 106 Agreement with itself. However, there was a Development Agreement (DA) in place which provided that prior to the transfer of the Site to Countryside Properties (UK) Ltd & The Hyde Group, a satisfactory planning permission needed to have been granted. The Committee was advised of two possible solutions involving the completion of a Section 111 agreement under the Local Government Act 1972 and the use of a negatively worded (Grampian) condition requiring entry into a Section 106 Agreement binding the part of the site to be developed prior to commencement of the development on that part of the site. It was proposed that should the application be approved, both methods be used to ensure that a legal Section 106 Agreement could be attached to the permission.

During the presentation and, referring to the supplementary agenda advice sheet, it was also suggested that:

·         Two new heads of agreement numbered xiii) and xiv) be approved (xiv related to an amendment to existing vi)

·         The proposed Section 106 agreement also include provision of a Car Club

·         Conditions 20 – 22 be renumbered 19 – 21

·         Proposed condition 22 (now re-numbered 21) be amended

·         New conditions 22 and 23 be approved

·         Conditions 23 – 58 be renumbered 24 – 61

·         New conditions 24 and 25 be approved

·         Proposed condition 30 (now re-numbered 33) be approved

·         Proposed condition 39 (now re-numbered 42) be approved

·         Proposed condition 58 (now re-numbered 61) be approved

In addition, the Planning Consultant drew attention to changes to the planning appraisal section of the report relating to the following, details of which were set out on the supplementary agenda advice sheet:

·         Hotel

·         Affordable Housing

·         Transport

-       Trip Generation and Trip Distribution

-       Traffic Impact and Mitigation

-       Access

-       Parking

-       Travel Plan

In addition, he suggested that if the Committee was minded to approve the application, the Head of Planning be granted delegated authority to make minor amendments to the conditions as considered appropriate.

The Committee discussed the report in detail and the following issues were raised:

·         Disappointment that the proposed development does not include any consideration of use of the river as a connection for transport or leisure.

·         A suggestion that the £655,000 for local community facilities should be used for community facilities/assets in Rochester so as to be for the benefit of residents of the proposed development.

·         Concern as to the loss of the existing coach park and the requirement for alternative provision to be secured.

·         The proposed link from the development to the Esplanade.

·         Reference to the ‘Minor Illness Centre’ required amendment to ‘Healthy Living Centre’.

·         Provision of cycle storage facilities should be for individual bicycles as opposed to communal cycle storage.

·         Further consideration should be given to the location of the proposed school as the current location is considered to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 427.

 Outline application with some matters reserved (appearance, landscaping, layout and scale) for the construction of 50 retirement homes comprising a mix of 2/3 storey apartments and single storey bungalows with ancillary meeting room, gymnasium, office, parking and garaging with new vehicular access to View Road.

Discussion:

The Planning Manager outlined the planning application in detail and suggested that if the Committee was minded to approve the application, the proposed Section 106 agreement be amended to include the following:

5)         To pay the cost of providing parking restrictions within the sightlines either side of the access onto View Road.

In addition, proposed condition 5 required amendment and a new condition 21 was proposed as follows:

5.         The details submitted pursuant to condition 1 shall include details and samples of all materials to be used externally. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details.

21.       The details submitted pursuant to condition 1 shall incorporate the flood risk mitigation measures as set out in section 6 of the Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) and Surface Water Drainage Strategy (SWDS) dated June 2017 reference 3246 version Drat v1.0. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure the development mitigates against potential flooding in accordance with Policy CF13 of the Medway Local Plan 2003.

The Planning Manager referred in particular to the proposed ‘no pets policy’ as part of the proposed Section 106 agreement. She advised that this had been requested by Natural England in the light of the proximity of the application site to Special Protection Areas.

With the agreement of the Committee, Councillor Williams spoke on this planning application as Ward Councillor and outlined objections to the application for the following reasons:

·         Loss of Grade 2 agricultural land and the precedent that this development could have on other local farmland.

·         The application site is outside the village boundary.

·         The development will have a detrimental impact on the sewage system

·         There is insufficient parking for residents and visitors.

·         The proposed entrance is on a dangerous bend with limited visibility.

·         The addition of extra vehicle movements on the B2000 will add to traffic congestion, noise and pollution.

·         The development will place additional pressure on existing GP facilities where patients already have a 3 week wait for appointments and the local GP practice is experiencing difficulties recruiting staff.

·         There are no local shops and therefore residents will be required to travel to undertake their shopping. However, the existing bus service to this area is very limited.

·         Cliffe and Cliffe Woods Parish Council and many local residents have objected to the planning application.

The Committee discussed the application in detail and concern was expressed that as the application site was located outside the village boundary, should this application be approved, this could lead to a domino effect with nearby land being submitted for residential development. It was suggested that if this section of land was to be approved for residential use such consideration would more appropriately take place through the Local Plan process also having regard to the emerging Cliffe and Cliffe Woods Neighbourhood Plan.

A Member suggested that if retirement accommodation was to be provided at this rural location, it was necessary to take into account the need for good connectivity for public  ...  view the full minutes text for item 428.

Conversion of existing Public House into two 3-bedroomed terraced houses with micro pub and a 2-bedroomed flat above and construction of two 3-bedroomed semi-detached houses with associated parking.

Discussion:

The Planning Manager outlined the planning application in detail and reminded the Committee that this application had originally been considered by the Committee on 27 September 2017 following which the application had been deferred to enable officers to negotiate with the applicant the possibility of reducing the scheme on the basis that, as presented, the application constituted an overdevelopment of the site. She advised the Committee that the applicant had since confirmed that they wished the scheme to be assessed in its current form with no amendments.

The Planning Manger therefore suggested that if the Committee was minded to approve the application, the proposed section 106 agreement be amended to:

i)             Contribution towards bird mitigation £894.32

In addition, she suggested that proposed condition 2 be amended to:

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

Drawing Numbers PL/434/01; PL/434/02; received 8 June 2017 and Proposed elevations revised PL/434/03 REV A; elevations revised PL/434/04 REV A received 4 October 2017.

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

The Planning Manager also drew attention to an amended description for the planning application and additional objections received since despatch of the agenda from Cliffe and Cliffe Woods Parish Council and additional information received from the applicant’s agent, details of which were summarised on the supplementary agenda advice sheet.

It was also reported that nine letters of support had been received for this planning application since despatch of the agenda.

The Committee discussed the planning application and expressed the view that as submitted, the application constituted an overdevelopment of the site with a lack of adequate parking provision.

A Member also commented that as the site was located on a single lane road, he had concerns regarding deliveries to the micropub especially as the micropub would not have any parking provision. Members were also concerned that the layout of the parking area for the residential accommodation would not be sufficiently large to enable vehicles to enter and exit the site in forward gear.

Decision: 

a)            Refused on the following grounds:

1.    The proposed development comprising conversion of an existing public house and construction of two additional dwellings to create four 3 bedroomed terraced houses and a micropub with a 2 bedroomed flat above and associated parking constitutes an over development of the site.

2.    The proposed parking facilities are insufficient for the proposed development and by virtue of the layout of the car parking, will not provide a usable parking area to enable vehicles to enter and exit the site in forward gear.

b)            The Head of Planning be granted delegated authority to finalise the specific wording of the refusal grounds in consultation with the Chairman, Vice Chairman and Opposition Spokesperson.

Retrospective application for the change of use of land to residential for an extended gypsy family and the sub division of the plot into four pitches, with the stationing of one mobile/static home and one touring caravan on each pitch, and to include the erection of a stable, ancillary storage buildings and the laying of hardstanding.

Discussion:

The Planning Manager outlined the planning application in detail.

Decision:

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

Change of use from barn to residential facilitating a 4 bedroom dwelling with garage and associated landscaping.

Discussion:

The Planning Manager outlined the planning application in detail.

A Member expressed the view that whilst he had no objection to the conversion of the barn, he was concerned that owing to the size of this particular plot, there may be further applications at a future date for further residential properties to be provided.

The Planning Manager responded by advising the Committee that there was a condition attached within the report removing permitted development rights.

In response to Members’ concerns regarding the proposed use of cedar wood cladding on the building, the Planning Manager drew attention to proposed condition 3 which required details and samples of all materials to be used externally to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Decision: 

Approved subject to:

a)            The submission of a Unilateral Undertaking under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to secure £223.58 per new dwelling towards Designated Habitats Mitigation

b)            Conditions 1 – 9 as set out in the report for the reasons stated in the report, subject to the plan referred to at condition 2 not specifying the external materials to be used on the building in the light of the Committee’s concerns regarding use of cedar wood cladding.

Demolition of existing dwelling and construction three storey apartment building to provide five 1-bedroomed and three 2-bedroomed units including resident's amenity area, cycle and bin storage area and car parking.

Discussion:

The Planning Manager outlined the planning application in detail and advised the Committee that since despatch of the agenda additional information had been supplied by the agent, details of which had been summarised on the supplementary agenda advice sheet.

In response to a Member’s concerns that there was insufficient space for vehicles to enter and exit the site in forward gear, the Planning Manager confirmed that there was an adequate turning point within the application site.

In addition, she reassured the Committee that although the site was located close to the railway line, proposed condition 8 required there to be an acoustic assessment to be undertaken prior to the commencement of the development. 

Decision: 

Approved subject to:

a)            The submission of a Unilateral Undertaking under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to secure £1,565.06 towards Designated Habitats Mitigation.

b)            Conditions 1 – 14 as set out in the report for the reasons stated in the report.

Construction of dormer windows to rear and installation of roof lights to front to provide an additional 1-bedroom self-contained flat within roof space of existing building and construction of a detached two storey building to provide a 1-bedroom and 2-bedroom self-contained flat with associated parking.

Discussion:

The Derelict Buildings Officer outlined the planning application in detail and suggested that if the Committee was minded to approve the application, the following amendment be approved:

i)             Contribution towards bird mitigation £670.74.

Decision: 

Approved subject to:

a)            The submission of a Unilateral Undertaking under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to secure £670.74 towards Designated Habitats Mitigation.

b)            Conditions 1 – 7 as set out in the report for the reasons stated in the report.

Construction of  3 one-bedroom flats and 6 two-bedroom flats, amenity areas, parking for 9 vehicles and a new vehicular access to Trafalgar Street - Demolition of existing.

Discussion:

The Planning Manager outlined the planning application in detail and suggested that if the Committee was minded to approve the application, the following amendment be approved:

i)             Contribution towards bird mitigation £2,012.22

The Committee discussed the application and expressed concern that the proposed application did not meet the Council’s current Parking Standards. Although it was acknowledged that the site was located close to public transport services, it was considered that the application failed to provide sufficient parking for prospective residents of the development and their visitors and would therefore result in increased competition for already limited on-street parking in adjacent roads to the detriment of nearby residents.

Members also felt that the proposed development in its current format by virtue of its scale and height would have an impact on the street scene and  be detrimental to the amenities of the occupiers of neighbouring properties at 1 Trafalgar Street and 5 Copenhagen Road.

Decision: 

a)    Refused on the following grounds:

1.    The proposed development by reason of its scale and height in close proximity to the neighbouring properties at 1 Trafalgar Street and 5 Copenhagen Road, would have a detrimental impact on the appearance and street scene and the residential amenity of the occupiers of these properties harmful to their living conditions. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policies BNE1 and BNE2 of the Medway Local Plan 2003.

2.    The proposal constitutes overdevelopment of the site and does not make provision for adequate parking for the proposed residents contrary to Policy T13 of the Medway Local Plan 2003 and would therefore result in increased competition for already limited on-street parking in adjacent roads to the detriment of nearby residents.

b)     The Head of Planning be granted delegated authority to finalise the specific wording of the refusal grounds in consultation with the Chairman, Vice Chairman and Opposition Spokesperson.

Use of existing buildings and yard for stabling of horses; sand school and manure pit outside the confines of the Fort; upper grassland to be used as grazing and disused drainage holding tank to be converted to lunging ring.

Discussion:

The Planning Manager outlined the planning application in detail.

Decision: 

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

Construction of a terrace of six 2-bedroomed dwellings (demolition of existing bungalows).

Discussion:

The Planning Manager outlined the planning application in detail and advised the Committee that since despatch of the agenda, representations had been received from Southern Water, details of which were summarised on the supplementary agenda advice sheet.

She informed the Committee that Southern Water had advised that the site was within a Source Protection Zone, therefore Southern Water would rely on the Local Authority’s consultations with the Environment Agency to ensure protection of the public water supply.

The Planning Manager therefore suggested that if the Committee was minded to approve this planning application, such approval be subject to the Environment Agency not raising any objections. If, however, there were objections from the Environment Agency that could not be addressed by the applicant, the application would be re-submitted to Committee at a future date.

The Planning Manager reminded the Committee that this application had originally been considered by the Committee on 30 August 2017, following which consideration had been deferred so that a parking survey could be undertaken, as the Committee had concerns that parking pressures in the area were already high and this development could exacerbate the problem.

The outcome of the parking survey undertaken by the applicant’s agent was outlined.

Members expressed concern that the parking survey had not been undertaken by an independent party and that from photographs shown, it was clear that some of the recording times had been at 9.30am when the roads would be expected to be clear of parked vehicles as people had left home for work. A more relevant recording would have been during the evenings at about 8.30pm.

A number of Members expressed concern that the proposed development of this site to provide six 2 bedroomed properties constituted an overdevelopment of the site for which insufficient parking provision was to be provided.

Members also expressed concern that the proposed development would result in a dog leg in the alleyway from Popular Road to Laburnham Road, which was not ideal as it could encourage anti social behaviour if there was not a clear view from one end of the alleyway to another. It was therefore suggested that if the application was to be approved, a street light be provided in the alleyway with the cost being met by the applicant.

Decision: 

a)            Refused on the following grounds:

1.    The proposed development of this site to provide six 2 bedroomed properties constitutes an overdevelopment of the site for which insufficient parking provision is to be provided which is likely to have a detrimental impact upon on-street parking in the area.

2.    The design of the proposed development will create a dogleg in the alleyway which could lead to the alleyway being the subject of anti-social behaviour and causing community safety issues.

b)            The Head of Planning be granted delegated authority to finalise the specific wording of the refusal grounds in consultation with the Chairman, Vice Chairman and Oppositions Spokespersons.

This report summarises the content of agenda items 17 and 18, which, in the opinion of the proper officer, contain 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.

The Committee agreed to ask the press and public to leave the meeting because the following items contained sensitive information relating to current legal proceedings. The information was considered to be exempt under paragraph 6 of part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972. 

This report informs the Committee of the action taken by the Derelict Building Officer with regard to key buildings and associated land in the Medway area during the period January to June 2017.

Discussion:

The Committee received a report setting out action taken by the Derelict Buildings Officer concerning key buildings and associated land in the Medway area between the period 1 January – 30 June 2017.

Decision:

The Committee noted the report.

This report sets out information on enforcement proceedings during the period January to June 2017.

Discussion:

The Committee received a quarterly report advising upon enforcement proceedings for the period 1 January – 30 June 2017.

Decision:

The Committee noted the report.