Agenda and draft minutes

Members and officers, present, held a moment of reflection in memory of Councillor Filmer who sadly passed away on Tuesday 5 May 2026.  

Councillor Filmer was the Opposition Spokesperson on the Planning Committee, a role which reflected his long-standing interest in transport, planning and the regeneration of Medway.

An apology of absence was received from Councillor Hamilton.

To approve the record of the meeting held on 8 April 2026.

The record of the meeting held on 8 April 2026 was agreed by the Committee and signed by the Chairperson as correct.

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)

Councillor Vye referred to planning application MC/25/0965 Land to the south of Former Upnor Public Convenience including Foreshore and Bed of the River Medway, Lower Upnor, Rochester and stated that he knew the owner of Port Werburgh and they were one of Reform UK Group’s sponsors.  The marina was close to the applicant’s pontoon, therefore, Councillor Vye would withdraw from the meeting and take no part in the determination of this planning application.

Other interests

Councillor Etheridge stated that he often attended meetings of Frindsbury and Cliffe Woods Parish Councils and explained that if any planning applications were ever discussed there, which were due to be considered by the Medway Council Planning Committee meeting, he would not take part in the discussion at the Parish Council meetings.

Dave Harris, Chief Planning Officer, referred to planning application MC/25/0965 Land to the south of Former Upnor Public Convenience including Foreshore and Bed of the River Medway, Lower Upnor, Rochester and stated that he knew a number of people, socially, some of whom could have made representations on this application.  He stated that as a result of this he was not involved in any planning applications in Lower Upnor, including this item. 

Strood Rural Ward

Partially retrospective planning application for the retention of steps, ramp pontoon, and 10no. piles (with some reduced in height to approximately 6m to reflect the height of the control pile), removal of 8no. piles, and provision of an additional pontoon, and use of former toilet building to supply facilities for those mooring boats including provision of WC and shower, drying and storage facilities.

Councillor Vye withdrew from the meeting for this item.

Discussion:

The Service Manager - Development Management discussed the partially retrospective planning application for the retention of steps, ramp pontoon, and 10no. piles (with some reduced in height to approximately 6m to reflect the height of the control pile), removal of 8no. piles, and provision of an additional pontoon, and use of former toilet building to supply facilities for those mooring boats including provision of WC and shower, drying and storage facilities.

The Service Manager – Development Management brought Members’ attention to the supplementary agenda advice sheet, which amended condition 4 by reducing the restriction on return visits from three months to one month.

The Service Manager - Development Management gave a brief overview of the history of this site, which included comments from the Planning Inspector to the appeal, which were included within the report.

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

• The Ward Councillors and Parish Council expressed disappointment that Medway Council had not taken legal proceedings to uphold the Planning Inspector’s decision to dismiss the appellant’s appeal. 
• Although the houseboat had been removed, unauthorised piles, posts, jetties, ramps, stairs remained in place, in a direct contravention and disregard of the enforcement notice.
• The enforcement appeal was served for the material change of use of land for the mooring of a waterborne vessels used for residential purposes; the driving of piles being driven into the riverbed; and the construction of a jetty and steps to provide access onto the riverbank. 
• He considered this would be an inappropriate location, noting there were authorised recreational moorings which already existed at Cuxton and Hoo.  
• Concern was raised that there was no direct access to the site from land in the applicant’s ownership, and it was understood the applicant did not have a legal right of access.
• High numbers of public objections were received, including objections from the Rochester Oyster and Floating Fishery (ROFF) which had exclusive fishing rights within the River Medway and it was noted that no prior authorisation had been granted from the Marine Maritime Organisation (MMO).

Members noted that pilings and jetties had appeared on site, followed by the unlawful mooring of the houseboat.  The Council had issued an Enforcement Notice and successfully defended the appeal and since then the houseboat had been removed, a course of action supported by the Planning Committee.   Members further noted that, following the appeal, the requirement for the removal of the pilings and jetties had not been complied with. 

Members discussed concerns relating to the proposed conditions which included how the grey water and potential sewerage from the re-purposed former toilet block, intended for storage and wash facilities, would be disposed of or stored, and whether any discharge would enter the river.  Questions were raised regarding the responsibility for monitoring this.  Members also expressed concern about how the condition which limited waterborne vessels to temporarily moor, for no more than five  ...  view the full minutes text for item 910.

Gillingham North Ward

Change of Use from C3 to C4 (6 person HMO).

Discussion:

The Senior Planner outlined the application in detail for the change of use from C3 to C4 (6 person Houses of multiple occupation (HMOs)).

The Senior Planner brought Members’ attention to the supplementary agenda advice sheet, which included a rebuttal letter from the agent.

The Senior Planner confirmed that there were 27 existing HMOs within a 500-metre radius of the property and due to the inadequate level of internal amenity space for future residents, recommended refusal of this planning application.

During the discussion, Members expressed concern regarding the lack of communal space for residents and the size of bedroom six.

The Chief Planning Officer advised that Cabinet had approved the Article 4 Direction in December 2025, which removed permitted development rights for the conversion of Class C3 dwellinghouse to a Class C4 small HMOs in certain wards within Medway.   He confirmed that training on Article 4 and HMOs would be provided to Members. 

Decision:      

REFUSED for reason 1 as set out in the report.

Gillingham South Ward

Change of use from dwellinghouse (Class C3) to a 6 bedroom 6 person house in multiple occupation (Class C4) together with construction of a single storey rear extension, L-shaped dormer window to rear and installation of roof lights to front to provide additional living accommodation with roof space with associated bin/cycle store.

Discussion:

The Senior Planner outlined the application in detail for the change of use from dwellinghouse (Class C3) to a 6 bedroom 6 person house in multiple occupation (HMO) (Class C4) together with construction of a single storey rear extension, L-shaped dormer window to rear and installation of roof lights to front to provide additional living accommodation with roof space with associated bin/cycle store.

Members were advised that there were 18 existing HMOs within a 500-metre radius of this property which included one within the same street.

Decision:      

REFUSED for reasons 1 and 2 as set out in the report.

Gillingham North Ward

Change of use from Class (C3) single dwellinghouse to a 6 person Class (C4) HMO. Erection of L Shaped Dormer decision pending under MC/26/0069.

 Discussion:

The Senior Planner outlined the application in detail for the change of use from Class (C3) single dwellinghouse to a 6 person Class (C4) HMO.  Erection of L Shaped Dormer decision pending under MC/26/0069.

The Senior Planner brought Members’ attention to the supplementary agenda advice sheet, which added condition 7.

The Senior Planner confirmed that there were 32 other HMOs within a 500-metre radius of this property.  It was also confirmed that, although the sixth bedroom had a sloping roof, the dormer windows had been lowered to 1.4 metres to provide adequate outlook and sufficient sunlight for future occupants.  

Members raised concern that nearby student accommodation, located approximately five minutes’ walk away, had recently been granted permission to be converted into a 63-bedroom HMO, which they considered contributed to an over-proliferation of HMOs in the area.  In response, the Chief Planning Officer clarified that student accommodation was, in effect, already a form of HMO and that the proposal represented a change from one HMO to another.  He did not consider that the development would result in an unacceptable concentration of HMOs locally and confirmed that the Article 4 Direction would continue to control the conversion of family dwellings into HMOs.

Members expressed concern that the amenity space could be converted into an additional bedroom in the future.  The Chief Planning Officer advised that officers worked closely with the Private Housing team, who would notify the Planning Department should any unauthorised room conversions be identified.

Decision:      

Approved with conditions 1 to 6 as set out in the report for the reasons stated in the report, with condition 7 being added:

Condition 7:

Prior to the first occupation as a six-bedroom Use Class C4 HMO herein approved details, a refuse management strategy shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Use Class C4 HMO shall not be occupied until the approved refuse management strategy arrangements are in place and all approved storage arrangements shall thereafter be retained.

Reason: To ensure that the development does not prejudice the amenities of future occupants in accordance with Policy BNE2 of the Medway Local Plan 2003.

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 January to 31 March 2026.

Discussion:

The Committee received a report setting out Planning performance for the period 1 January to 31 March 2026.  This included the information on the  consultation on the revised National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 which received Royal Assent in December 2025.  The Act would introduce strategic planning known as Spatial Development Strategies (SDS) as well as a new way of producing Local Plan  within a 30-month timeframe. 

The Chief Planning Officer explained that the Act would establish a national scheme of delegation, for planning application decisions, with a two-tier system.  Schedule 1 - planning applications would always be delegated to officers to determine, while Schedule 2 applications would be delegated to officers to determine unless the Chief Planning Officer and Chairperson of the Planning Committee agreed, following a Gateway test, that they should be determined by the Planning Committee.  The Act would also propose a maximum Planning Committee size of 13 members, compared to Medway Council’s membership of 15 members.  

The Chief Planning Officer advised that the Government was considering allowing Local Authorities (LA) to set local planning fees and confirmed that, in light of the Local Government and Reorganisation (LGR), he was working with neighbouring LAs, likely to form part of the new unitary, to align fee levels.

The Chief Planning Officer drew Members’ attention to the number of compliments which had been received and were set out on page 102 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 in the report.

The Chief Planning Officer confirmed that, linked to LGR he had commenced with potential partner authorities to review planning processes to ensure robust planning arrangements for the new unitary authority.

Members asked whether Ward Councillors would have any input on planning applications being referred to Committee.  The Chief Planning Officer advised that once the Planning and Infrastructure Act was implemented, the number of representations would no longer be a trigger for the planning application to be determined by the Planning Committee.  He added that he considered Ward Councillor input would be valuable given their local knowledge.  

Members expressed concern that reducing the size of the Planning Committee could result in a loss of experience and knowledge.   

The Chief Planning Officer confirmed that Members would receive training on the Spatial Development Strategy.  

Decision:

The Committee noted the report and requested that the Chief Planning Officer

express the Committee’s appreciation for the levels of achievement to 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 in Appendix A.

Discussion:

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

Decision:

The Committee noted the report.

This report informs Members on the amount of Section 106 funding received between January to March 2026 and sets out what the contributions must be spent on according to the Section 106 agreements. This report is submitted for information to assist the Planning Committee in monitoring the contributions which developers have agreed to as part of new development schemes.

Discussion:

The Chief Planning Officer gave a summary of the S106 funding referred to in appendix 1 to 3 to the report.

Decision:

The Committee noted the report.

This report summarises the content of agenda items 16 (Derelict and Empty Properties:  1 October 2025 to 31 March 2026 Report) and 17 (Planning Enforcement Report) 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 document.

Decision:

The Committee agreed to exclude the press and public from the meeting during consideration of agenda items 14 (Derelict Buildings: 1 October 2026 to 31 March 2026) and 15 (Planning Enforcement) because consideration of these matters in public would disclose information falling within paragraph 6 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972 as specified in agenda item 13 (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.

This report informs Members of the action taken by the Derelict and Empty Properties Officer with regard to key buildings and associated land in the Medway area during the period 1 October 2025 to 31 March 2026.

Discussion:

The Chief Planning Officer gave a summary of the Derelict and Empty Properties:  1 October 2025 to 31 March 2026 and referred to appendix A and B of the report.

Decision:

The Committee noted the report.

This is a report to the Planning Committee informing Members of enforcement proceedings during the period 1 October 2025 – 31 March 2026.

Discussion:

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

Decision:

The Committee noted the report.