Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Etheridge, Field, Gulvin and Joy (substitute).

To approve the record of the meeting held on 11 July 2024.

The record of the meeting held on 11 July 2024 was agreed and signed by the Chairperson as correct.

The Committee were advised of the following, as set out in the supplementary agenda advice sheet.

Minute number 141 - Planning application - MC/24/0221 Land to east of Woodlands Cemetery, Cornwallis Avenue, Gillingham, Medway, ME7 2DL

The decision taken by the Planning Committee on 11 July 2024, as set out in the minutes, was:

Approved subject to:

A)       The application being referred to the Secretary of State pursuant to Town and Country Planning (Consultation) (England) Direction 2021:

and

B)       The imposition of the conditions 1 to 30 as set out in the report for the reasons stated in the report.

In accordance with the agreed recommendation A, the application was referred to the Secretary of State on 12 July 2024.  Confirmation was received from the office of the Secretary of State on 1 August 2024 that a call in was not necessary and the application should be determined by the Local Planning Authority.

Therefore, planning permission was issued as per agreed recommendation B including the conditions that were set out in the report.

The Chairperson will announce any late items which do not appear on the main agenda but which he/she has agreed should be considered by reason of special circumstances to be specified in the report. 

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 Pearce referred to planning application MC/24/1145 - 45 Broadwood Road, Chatttenden, Rochester, Medway ME1 2BW 2402 and informed the Committee that as he is a member of the Parish Council who made representations and he wished to address the Committee as Ward Councillor, he would take no part in the determination of the application.

Lordswood and Capstone Ward

Outline Application (with all matters reserved except access) for the erection of up to 450 market and affordable dwellings, nursery and supporting retail space up to 85sqm, with provision of main access to Ham Lane; estate roads; cycle and pedestrian routes; residential and community open space and landscaping; new junction for Lidsing Road/Hempstead Road and realignment and widening of Lidsing Road. Off site related highway works to Westfield Sole Road, Shawstead Road, Hempstead Road, Chapel Lane, Hempstead Valley Drive, Hoath Way roundabout, Hoath Way and M2 Junction 4 - Re-submission of MC/19/0336.

Discussion:

The Senior Planner discussed, in detail, the outline planning application (with all matters reserved except access) for the erection of up to 450 market and affordable dwellings, nursery and supporting retail space up to 85sqm, with provision of main access to Ham Lane; estate roads; cycle and pedestrian routes; residential and community open space and landscaping; new junction for Lidsing Road/Hempstead Road and realignment and widening of Lidsing Road. Off-site related highway works to Westfield Sole Road, Shawstead Road, Hempstead Road, Chapel Lane, Hempstead Valley Drive, Hoath Way roundabout, Hoath Way and M2 Junction 4 - Re-submission of MC/19/0336.

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

• Local residents have stated they were not informed of this latest planning application.
• As the reports that were completed and reviewed were some time ago, the report did not take into account the Gleaming Wood Lane development, which was now under construction and people were beginning to reside there. 
• The new development, with the additional lighting and noise, would affect the bats and would impact their flight patterns.
• Protection of the ancient woodland was important.
• Concerns regarding flooding as Gibraltar Farm was sited within a valley.

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

• As Hempstead and Lordswood would have to absorb 2,500 additional dwellings as part of the Local Plan, it would be necessary, therefore, to minimise the changes on residents within Hempstead Village and Wigmore area.
• There would be a strain on the infrastructure, with a new nursery being included.  Hempstead, Lordswood and Parkwood schools would struggle to cope along with additional traffic during drop off and pick up times.  Medway Hospital was currently struggling to provide adequate services, would they be able to cope with these additional residents. Development could encroach on the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
• Concerns with the traffic – Ham Lane, Westfield Sole Lane, Forge Lane, Capstone Road were single carriageways, they would not be suitable for the increased amount of traffic.  Chapel Lane, Hempstead Road, Hempstead Valley Road, Shawsted Way and Hoath Way would have to cope with alterations and these roads already have significant queues at certain times of the day.  The increase of traffic coming off the M2 motorway, Junction 4 which would flow into Medway via Hoath Way. 
• With the additional investment into Hempstead Valley Shopping Centre, more visitors were being attracted into the area. 
• Without significant investment into high quality bus services, residents would have to use their own vehicles, adding to the traffic. 
• With the contributions that were part of the S106, monies should be allocated to improve the lives of residents of Hempstead and Lordswood that would be impacted.
• Concern regarding the ransom strip, further negotiations should be undertaken or alternatively consideration of a redesign which would only allow very limited access through Hempstead

The Committee discussed the planning application in detail noting the points  ...  view the full minutes text for item 249.

Hoo St Werburgh and High Halstow Ward

Retrospective application for construction of a barn/workshop.

Discussion:

Councillor Pearce withdrew from the meeting to speak as Ward Councillor.

The Service Manager - Development Management outlined the application in detail for a retrospective application for the construction of a barn/workshop.

With the agreement of the Committee, Councillor Pearce addressed the Committee as Ward Councillor and outlined the following points:

• The applicant was a local resident and not a faceless developer.
• Agreed with the condition to remove the porch which would reduce the scale of the development and supported the condition that stated the development could not be used for non-business use.
• Although it seemed a large structure, it was not significantly overbearing.
• He was unhappy that this was a retrospective planning application, however, Members must consider it as though it was a fresh application and determine it on its own merits.
• He expressed concern that if this planning application was approved, others may follow suit.

The Committee discussed the planning application noting the points raised by the Ward Councillor.

The Service Manager - Development Management explained following a question from a member regarding the comment from the Dickens Country Protection Society that the size of the building was excessive, and they did not believe the location of the outbuilding was suitable for commercial use, that the purpose of condition 2 to remove the excessive porch and condition 3 to prevent commercial uses which would address those concerns.

Members stated they did not like retrospective planning applications and that permission should be sought before the work began.

Decision:      

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

Councillor Pearce returned to the meeting as a Committee Member.

Rochester East and Warren Wood Ward

Construction of a two storey extension to rear.

Discussion:

The Planner outlined the application for the construction of a two-storey extension to the rear and explained that a full presentation was given at the previous planning committee meeting and a site visit had been arranged and details of that visit were covered within the report.

Members felt the site visit was beneficial and assisted their consideration of the planning issues.

Decision:      

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

Watling Ward

Construction of a detached block comprising of seven studio flats.

Discussion:

The Service Manager - Development Management outlined the application in detail for the construction of a detached block comprising of seven studio flats.

The Service Manager – Development Management explained that the applicant had raised the cill level of the rooflights to 1.8 metres above floor level and the typical cill level would normally be 1.7 metres, so it was above what was normally required in order to secure privacy.

This development would provide no actual parking spaces however residents could utilise on-street parking.  It was approximately a 20 minute walk from the train station and the size of the units were relatively small studio flats which would be less likely to be occupied by more than one person and would indeed lower the likelihood of car ownership. 

The Committee considered the application noting there was a lack of outside provision, which they were concerned with.  The Service Manager – Development Management confirmed that a secure cycle storage area and a large bin storage would be provided.  He explained that the site was very constrained and, therefore, there were no outdoor amenity space provided as part of the development. 

Members were concerned with the overbearing nature of the development for residents on Woodlands Road, the Service Manager – Development Management outlined that the proposed building was set off the boundary with the property facing Woodlands Road to ensure the separation distance did not result in an overbearing nature or loss of outlook.  Concern was again raised regarding privacy and the Service Manager – Development Management outlined the height of the second floor windows, the cill levels could not be looked out of, as they were 1.8 metres high.  With regards to the windows facing Woodlands Road, the two closest windows were the communal stairway, the next two were bathrooms and then finally the bedrooms. 

Following a question from a Member, the Service Manager – Development Management clarified that lifting the height of the windows did not affect the fire regulations, as these would be secondary windows and the front windows would be the main way of escape and were larger.

An informative would be added for the applicant to liaise with Southern Water regarding the existing foul sewage, however, the applicant had confirmed that the pipework was not in the position that Southern Water understood it to be.

The officers’ recommendation was overturned and the application was subsequently refused on the grounds of the lack of parking and no outdoor space.

Decision:      

Refused due to the loss of the existing parking area and lack of parking for the proposed flats and the lack of private outdoor space.

Final wording to be agreed with the Services Manager – Development Management, Chairperson, Vice Chairperson and Opposition Spokespersons.

This report is presented to the Planning Committee informing Members on current planning performance and the Local Plan.  The report covers the period from 1 April to 30 June 2024.

Discussion:

The Committee received a report setting out performance for the period 1 April to 30 June 2024.

The Chief Planning Officer drew Members’ attention to Appendices A to I in the report.   During 1 April to 30 June 2024, 263 planning applications were received with 87.5% of major applications being determined within 13 weeks or within the agreed timeframe and 98% of minor applications were determined within 8 weeks.  Medway had exceeded the national target and national average for the determination of planning applications.

Although there were still vacancies for a Planner, Conservation Officer and a Senior Conservation Officer, a  Landscape Officer and a second Tree Officer had been appointed.  A Principal Project and Programme Planning Policy Officer, Derelict and Empty Properties Officer and Flood Officer were being advertised and the service were still employing specialist consultants covering consideration of Tree Preservation Orders (TPO), conservation matters and other planning applications. 

The Chief Planning Officer drew Members’ attention to the Open Digital Planning project which was a new online process helping residents determine whether they required planning permission and so far 110,000 people had used the system with a 96% success rate.  In addition, the service launched its online report a breach tool on 1 July 2024 and within one month the number of reports classed as invalid reduced by 23% allowing officers more time to deal with valid planning applications.  Medway Council was one of four Councils using this new tool.

Members, at a later date, would be given a presentation on the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) which was revised by the previous Government in December 2023 and was now being revised by the new Government. The NPPF would set out the Government’s planning policies and how they would be expected to be applied.

A number of compliments had been received and were set out on page 122 and 123 of the report. 

Members extended their thanks to the Chief Planning Officer and his team for all their hard work and acknowledged the amount of work that went into producing the results shown.

The Chief Planning Officer confirmed that with the recent changes made to the Scheme of Delegation, at least 90% of planning application were now being determined through delegated authority.

Decision:

The Committee noted the report and requested that the Chief Planning Officer express the Committee’s appreciation for the levels of achievement to his staff within the Planning Service.

This report informs Members of appeal decisions.  The summary of appeal decisions for those allowed or where decisions were made by the Committee contrary to Officer recommendation is listed by ward in Appendix A.

Discussion:

The Chief Planning Officer gave a summary of the appeal decisions referred to in appendix A to the report.

Members thanked the Chief Planning Officer and his officers for all their hard work on appeal decisions and enforcement notices. 

Decision:

The Committee noted the report.