Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Gilry and Pendergast.

To approve the record of the meeting held on 24 October 2018.

The record of the meeting held on 24 October 2018 was agreed and signed by the Chairman as correct.

The Committee noted that the wording of the refusal grounds for the following planning applications had been agreed with the Chairman outside of the meeting:

Minute 469 - Planning application - MC/18/2228 - Capstone House, Capstone Road, Lordswood, Chatham

Reason for refusal:

1.    The proposed dwelling would be outside of the urban area and within the Capstone Valley Area of Local Landscape Importance.  The site is also identified within the Medway Landscape Character Assessment 2011 as being within the Darland Banks character area comprising chalk grasslands with narrow ridges and dry valleys creating a prominent distinct valley.  The character of the area is of a narrow rural road with sporadic development but with a distinct rural countryside feel.  Whilst it is recognised that the Council cannot demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply and therefore the presumption in favour of sustainable development applies, the Local Planning Authority does not consider that the proposal represents sustainable development for the following reasons:

·         The economic and social benefits of 1 house are limited.

·         The environmental harm to the character of this rural area through an additional dwelling and the increased urbanisation, together with the precedent for further harmful development if allowed, would outweigh any limited social and economic benefits.

·         The site is not within close walking distance of any services and therefore would result in the need for a requirement for car use and is not therefore in a sustainable location.

·         A dwelling in this location would not therefore support any rural community uses.

·         The proposal does not promote any exceptional design merit nor would it in anyway enhance its immediate setting.

·         The proposal would result in a new vehicular access onto this narrow rural road where there are no footpaths and visibility is restricted in places.  The proposal would therefore increase potential hazards for both vehicular and pedestrian traffic.

The proposal would therefore be harmful to the character of this important area of Local Landscape importance recognised in the Medway Landscape Character Assessment for its important rural landscape quality and would introduce potential harm to pedestrian and vehicular safety.  The proposal is not considered to be sustainable development and is therefore contrary to policies BNE1, BNE25, BNE34 T2 of The Medway Local Plan; the principles set out in the Medway Landscape Character Assessment 2011 and paragraphs 11, and 77-79 of the NPPF 2018.

Minute 471 - Planning application - MC/18/1855 - 151 Bells Lane, Hoo St Werburgh, Rochester, Medway

Reasons for refusal:

1.    The development would result in a cramped and visually imposing form of development that would be out of character with the surrounding streetscene and detrimental to visual amenities of the area contrary to paragraphs 124 and 127 of the NPPF and Policies BNE1 and H4 of the Medway Local Plan 2003.

2.    Due to the design, the proposed properties would provide a poor level of occupier amenity in terms of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 529.

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. 

The Chairman informed the Committee that planning application MC/17/4357 – Greatfield Lodge, Darnley Road, Strood, Rochester had been withdrawn from consideration at this meeting.

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 Carr advised the Committee that as a result of his declared position on overdevelopment in Rainham, he would take no part in the determination of planning application MC/18/2328 – Land at Otterham Quay Lane, Rainham, Kent. However he wished to address the Committee as Ward Councillor on this planning application.

Councillor Potter advised the Committee that as a result of his declared position on overdevelopment in Rainham, he would take no part in the determination of planning application MC/18/2328 – Land at Otterham Quay Lane, Rainham, Kent. However he wished to address the Committee as Ward Councillor on this planning application.

Rochester West

Demolition of existing buildings and structures and construction of a ground plus part five, part six storey building to comprise flexible commercial floorspace (Use Classes A1/A3/B1/B2/D2) at ground floor and providing a total of 64 residential units (Use Class C3) above, along with associated car parking and cycle parking, landscaping and other associated works.

Discussion:

The Head of Planning outlined the planning application in detail and suggested that if the Committee was minded to approve the planning application, there were proposed amendments to the Section 106 agreement and conditions, details of which were set out on the supplementary agenda advice sheet.

In addition, he reported receipt of additional letters of representation received since despatch of the agenda, copies of which were appended to the supplementary agenda advice sheet.

The Head of Planning informed the Committee that the proposed development would be a car-free development but confirmed that parking spaces would be available for disabled persons. This would be the first car-free development in Medway. It was considered that this particular site was suitable for a car free development as it was in a sustainable location being close to the centre of Rochester, had public transport links in close proximity and commercial units located on the ground floor which would likely include a convenience store.

The proposed development would also include six lockable individual cycle storage units.

The Committee discussed the application and in particular, those schools which would benefit from the educational element of the Section 106 agreement.

There was some concern that despite being promoted as a car free development, it was possible that some occupiers of the properties in the development may own a vehicle or choose to own a vehicle at a future date and would then seek to park their vehicle in other residential streets in Rochester where on-street parking was available. It was suggested that if this became a problem, it may be necessary to review Controlled Parking Zones in some areas of Rochester.

The Head of Planning advised that as part of the development, there would be a Car Club, which would enable cars to be available to occupiers of the properties for occasional use.

Arising from discussion, it was suggested that proposed condition 9 be strengthened to state that the disabled parking bays are to be solely used by disabled residents and not for visitors to the residential units unless they were also disabled.

A Member referred to the comments received from Kent Police and in response, the Head of Planning confirmed that if approved, the planning permission would include an informative encouraging the applicant to liaise with Kent Police.

A Member also suggested that an additional condition be imposed to cover the management of waste collection.

In response to questions as to the allocation of educational contributions, the Head of Planning informed the Committee that he would report back to Members on this Section 106 head of agreement before the Section 106 was signed.

Decision:

Approved subject to:

a)         The applicant/owner entering into an agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act to secure:

•           Contribution of £400,000 towards provision of affordable rented accommodation off site.

•           Contribution of £159,342.72 towards open space facilities within the vicinity of the development including The Vines and/or Eagle Court Open Space and/or Eastgate House Gardens as  ...  view the full minutes text for item 533.

Rainham North

Application for approval of reserved matters being appearance, landscaping, layout and scale pursuant to planning permission MC/16/2051  - A sustainable urban extension comprising up to 300 new dwellings (of a range of sizes, types and tenures, including affordable housing), including public open and amenity space, together with associated landscaping, access, highways (including footpaths and cycleways), parking, drainage (including a foul water pumping station), utilities and service infrastructure works (all matters reserved except for points of access) - resubmission of MC/15/0761. 

Discussion:

The Head of Planning outlined the planning application in detail and informed the Committee that since despatch of the agenda, the agent had requested that details, including the company name of the agent and the applicant be added to the report and this information was therefore set out on the supplementary agenda advice sheet.

He reminded the Committee that this application was for reserved matters as the principle of providing a development of up to 300 dwellings at this site had been approved at the outline application stage.

The Head of Planning outlined the types of properties to be provided within the development and the phasing of the open space and landscaped areas.

With the agreement of the Committee, Councillors Carr and Potter addressed the Committee as Ward Councillors and drew attention to the following concerns:

·         This development is unsustainable and will impact on the highway and result in a loss of open space in Rainham.

·         Works at the junction at the top of Otterham Quay Lane should be undertaken before the dwellings are occupied.

·         Concerns that the court parking will not be used and residents will park outside their own properties.

·         There should be additional conditions covering an Environmental and Waste Management Plan.

·         Concern as to the air quality in Rainham as a result of the development. 

In response to Ward Councillors’ concerns about Waste Management, a Member sought an assurance that the proposed development complied with the Council’s Waste Management Policy for new developments and he suggested that this should be a standard condition on all future planning applications for new developments.

In response to the points raised, the Head of Planning advised that the proposed conditions were that applied to the outline planning permission. However, if the Committee was minded to approve the reserved matters application and, if there was not a condition covering Waste Management, he be granted delegated authority to add this additional condition.

He also advised that the issue of air quality had been considered at the outline application stage and it was considered that the inclusion of landscaping and trees within the development would help with air quality along with proposed condition 6 which included provision of electric charging points.

In response to the Ward Councillors’ concerns that the court parking would not be used, the Head of Planning advised that the parking courts were intended for use by residents living in the flats within the development.

In response to concerns as to the requirement for works to be undertaken at the Mierscourt Road junction, the Head of Planning advised that Section 106 funding for these works had been approved from both this scheme and from another nearby development. He did not have information to hand as to the likely timescales for these works but would provide this information outside of the meeting.

A Member sought clarification as to the split of affordable housing and the Head of Planning advised that this would be 60% affordable housing and 40% shared ownership.

Decision:  ...  view the full minutes text for item 534.

Strood South

Proposed part demolition of existing communal facilities block and addition of first floor to create a two-storey building (block 3), addition of new storey to block 1 to create a three/four storey building and extension to front and external staircase to block 2 and other associated works to facilitate conversion of Greatfield Lodge Residential Hostel into 14 one bed and 10 two bed residential self contained flats including creation of an access road onto the site from Hawthorn Road and inclusion of derelict land to the rear of No. 276 Hawthorn Road to form part of the overall site. 

Decision: 

The Committee noted that this application had been withdrawn from the agenda.

Rochester West

Construction of a single storey extension to rear; part conversion of garage into habitable room; porch to front, juliet balcony to the rear and enlargement of existing first floor balcony area.

Discussion:

The Principal Transport Planner reminded the Committee that this application had been deferred by the Committee on 24 October 2018 pending further information as to the outcome of other developments in the area.

He referred to the information contained within report which set out the refusal grounds for applications at Satis Court, Love Lane and No. 4 Love Lane. Both had been on parking and highway safety grounds.

A Member sought information as to whether it was possible to convert a garage to habitable living accommodation and it was confirmed that this was possible if the original planning permission did not specify that the garage should be retained as such.

The Principal Transport Planner informed the Committee that the only element of the planning application that required planning permission was the two balconies.

In response to concerns that this property could be converted to a House in Multiple Occupation at a future date, the Head of Planning confirmed that it was possible to include an additional condition stating that the property must be retained as a single dwelling.

Decision:

Approved with conditions 1 – 3 as set out in the report for the reasons stated in the report and the following additional condition:

4.    Condition to remove permitted development rights to ensure the dwelling remained as single family accommodation with the specific wording of this condition being agreed outside of the meeting.

Gillingham North

Installation of drop kerb and vehicle crossover to facilitate new proposed access from Cornwall Road together with ramp and metal gates.

Discussion:

The Principal Transport Planner outlined the planning application and reminded the Committee that this application had been considered by the Committee on 24 October 2018 but had been deferred pending clarification concerning the potential loss of on-street parking spaces.

He drew attention to the supplementary agenda advice sheet and confirmed that surveys of Cornwall Road in the evenings had shown that there was sufficient on-street parking provision available in Cornwall Road during the evenings.

He confirmed that parking would not be permitted across the access when the school was closed owing to the requirement for emergency access.

Decision:

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

Rainham North

Construction of single storey front and rear extensions, first floor extension with glass and stainless steel bridge staircase over existing north west wing to facilitate an annex ancillary to the enjoyment of the dwelling house together with the creation of a master bedroom and mezzanine.

Discussion:

The Planning Manager outlined the planning application in detail.

In response to questions, the Planning Manager confirmed that the proposed conditions restricted use of the extensions so that they could only be used in conjunction with the main dwelling house.

Decision:

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

Rochester East

Change of use from retail (Class A1) to hot food takeaway/restaurant (Class A5/A3) together with external extraction flue and new shopfront.

Discussion:

The Planning Manager outlined the planning application and advised the Committee that since despatch of the agenda, one additional letter of support had been received, details of which were set out on the supplementary agenda advice sheet.

Decision:

Refused on the following ground:

1.         The proposal would result in harm to the living conditions of occupiers of 132a Delce Road by virtue of the close proximity of the proposed extract ducting flue to the rear bedroom window of 132a Delce Road. The flue would appear as a dominant and unattractive feature within the outlook from that bedroom window and its operation would result in noise disturbance to occupiers of the rear bedroom. The proposal is contrary to saved policies BNE2 and R18 of the Medway Local Plan 2003 and Paragraph 127 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2018.

Peninsula

Construction of a 4-bedroomed detached dwelling with associated parking, amenity space and landscaping (demolition of existing buildings).

Discussion:

The Head of Planning outlined the planning application and reminded the Committee that when this application had previously been considered in 2014 it had been refused although there had been some sympathy with the need to tidy this site.

He referred to National Planning Policy Framework and advised the Committee that as the Council does not have a 5 year housing land supply, policies that sought to control the supply of housing should be seen as out of date and a presumption in favour of sustainable development should apply. He advised that consideration should be given to the economic, social and environmental objectives of sustainable development as well as the traditional definition of sustainability in terms of proximity to services.

He advised the Committee that although this proposed development was just outside of the main village, there was a public house and a garage close by and therefore it was considered that the provision of one house on this site was sustainable.

Decision:

Approved subject to:

a)            The completion of a SAMMs agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to secure £239.61 per new dwelling towards Designated Habitats Mitigation.

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

Peninsula

Change of use class from sui generis Beauty Salon to use class C3 dwelling house.

Discussion:

The Planning Manager outlined the planning application.

Decision:

Approved with conditions 1 and 2 as set out in the report for the reasons stated in the report.

Watling

Installation of a 2m high Barbican 100 panel fence, powder coated in RAL 6005 Green alongside the footpath/highway on Woodlands Road.

Discussion:

The Planning Manager outlined the planning application.

Decision:

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

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

Discussion:

The Committee received a report setting out the current position concerning planning performance and the Local Plan.

Decision:

The Committee noted the report.

This report informs Members of appeal decisions for the period 1 April – 30 September 2018.

Discussion:

The Committee received a report setting out appeal decisions for the period 1 April – 30 September 2018.

Decision:

The Committee noted the report.