Agenda and draft minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Etheridge, Gulvin and Pearce.

To approve the record of the meeting held on 29 July 2026.

The record of the meeting held on 29 July 2026 was agreed by the Committee and signed by the Chairperson as correct subject to the following amendments as set out in the supplementary agenda advice sheet.

Minute No. 161: Planning application - MC/26/0549 101 Balmoral Road, Gillingham, Medway ME7 4QG

Delete the following paragraph (2nd paragraph after Councillor McDonald).

“The Senior Planner confirmed that a survey had been undertaken within a 220-metre radius of the site and had identified 49 HMOs within 88 properties. He confirmed that only properties within Gillingham South Ward had been included, drawing on a range of information which included public records, licensing information, online sources and council tax records.”

Replace with:

“The Senior Planner confirmed that in addition to the 500m radius survey already referred to, a detailed survey of a 200m stretch of Balmoral Road had been undertaken, which had identified that of the 88 properties surveyed there were 9 flats and 7 HMOs. This showed that HMOs represented only 7.9% of the properties in this stretch which was not considered to be an over concentration and was acceptable.”

Minute no. 162: Planning application – MC/26/0767 49 Priestfield Road, Gillingham, Medway ME7 4RE

Delete the following paragraph:

“A further representation received from a Member of Parliament had also been included within the supplementary agenda. This was accompanied by a map and supporting figure which identified the surrounding land uses along an approximate 200-metre stretch of Priestfield Road.”

Replace with

“A further representation received from a Member of Parliament and a statement and a rebuttal to the Case Officer’s report received from the Applicant had also been included within the supplementary agenda. The supplementary agenda also included a map and supporting figure which identified the surrounding land uses along an approximate 200-metre stretch of Priestfield Road.”

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 Crozer declared an interest at the beginning of agenda item 7, MC/26/1032 4 Barnsole Road, Gillingham, Medway ME7 4DJ, as he had an interest in the property opposite 4 Barnsole Road. He, therefore, withdrew from the meeting and took no part in the consideration or determination of the application.

The Service Manager - Development Management advised Members that the supplementary agenda advice sheet, published prior to the meeting referred, in particular, to the new National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) which had been published by the Government on 17 August 2026, i.e. after the publication of the agenda for this committee meeting.

He explained that the supplementary agenda advice sheet set out the new policies within the 2026 NPPF and identified the corresponding policies they replaced form the 2024 NPPF. Members were advised to consider the relevant paragraphs and policies contained with the 2026 NPPF when determining the applications before them.

Strood Rural Ward

Outline application with some matters reserved (appearance, landscaping, layout and scale) for construction of up to 100 residential dwellings including affordable housing with provision of vehicular, pedestrian and cycle access from Higham Road, public open spaces, sustainable urban drainage systems, landscaping, infrastructure and earthworks.

Discussion:

The Principal Planner from Consultants, EnPlan, discussed the outline planning application with some matters reserved (appearance, landscaping, layout and scale) for the construction of up to 100 residential dwellings including affordable housing with provision of vehicular, pedestrian and cycle access from Higham Road, public open spaces, sustainable urban drainage systems, landscaping, infrastructure and earthworks.

Members noted that a supplementary agenda advice sheet had been published following publication of the updated NPPF on 17 August 2026. The reasons for refusal had been amended to reflect the updated NPPF and an additional reason for refusal (Reason 6) had been included.

Further representations had been received from the Independent Group.  These were set out in the supplementary agenda advice sheet. 

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

• Speaking on behalf of local residents and the other Ward Councillor, Councillor Williams, she objected to the application and urged Members to support the officer’s recommendation of refusal.
• The site was located outside the developed area of Cliffe, resulting in the loss of agricultural land and an orchard, which was contrary to the adopted Local Plan policies and the direction of the emerging Local Plan. She expressed concern that the loss of agricultural land would reduce opportunities for local food production at a time when increased emphasis was being placed on addressing the climate emergency.
• The proposal would lead to increased traffic on the already congested B2000 and local road network, which was subject to significant HGV movements.
• The limited availability of footpaths and infrequent public transport would make future residents heavily reliant on private vehicles.
• Existing approved housing developments in the area have yet to be constructed and would place further pressure on local highways and infrastructure.
• Concerns were raised regarding the capacity of local services, including GP surgeries, primary schools and access to secondary education.
• The adequacy of the existing drainage and sewerage infrastructure was questioned, given previous issues experienced in the area.
• The development would harm the rural character and landscape of the area and could adversely affect nearby environmentally sensitive areas and wildlife habitat.

In discussing the application, Members noted concern regarding the availability of school places. It was stated that 67 applications had been received for 30 available spaces at the local primary school, and that oversubscription could result in children having to travel further to school, increasing pressure on local roads and transport infrastructure.

Decision:      

Refused for the reasons 1 to 5 as set out in the report and amended in the supplementary agenda advice sheet, and for the following additional reason for refusal (Reason 6):

Amended Reasons

1               The proposed development would be contrary to the spatial strategy of the adopted Development Plan. The development of an unallocated, greenfield site outside of settlement boundaries for a use which does not require a countryside location is contrary to Policies S1, S2, BNE25 and H11 of the Medway Local Plan 2003. It would also be contrary to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 270.

Gillingham South Ward

Change of use from Class C3 to Class C4 as a small HMO for up to 6 occupants, with minor internal alterations cycle store to rear and bin stores to front.

Discussion:

The Senior Planner outlined the application in detail for the change of use from Class C3 to Class C4 as a small house of multiple occupation HMO for up to 6 occupants, with minor internal alterations cycle store to rear and bin stores to front.

The Senior Planner brought Members’ attention to the supplementary agenda advice sheet which included a land use assessment map.

Also, within the supplementary agenda, there was a correction to page 73 of the agenda which incorrectly referred to Watling Ward and should instead refer to Gillingham South Ward.

The Senior Planner further explained that the density map identified HMOs within a 500-metre radius of the application site and that the land use assessment demonstrated that there were five HMOs within a 200-metre stretch of road, which represented 6.3% of all properties in that area. This was not considered to constitute an overconcentration of HMOs.

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

• Whilst recognising the important role HMOs played in meeting housing needs, concern was expressed about the continued loss of family homes in Gillingham, particularly as the property was currently a three-bedroom house that would be difficult to return to family use once converted.
• Reference was made to the Article 4 Direction, which was introduced to provide greater planning control over HMO development and to ensure that the cumulative impacts of such conversions were properly considered.
• Concerns were raised regarding parking pressures, as the property would not provide any off-street parking and the surrounding area already experienced high levels of parking demand.
• It was argued that occupation by six unrelated adults could generate different travel and parking patterns from those of a single household, placing additional pressure on local roads and amenities.
• The assessment of HMO concentration in the area was questioned, with concern expressed that the number of registered HMOs may not fully reflect the extent of HMO accommodation locally.
• It was considered that the gradual conversion of family homes into HMOs could have a cumulative impact on the character of the area, local amenity and the balance of housing stock.
• Whilst acknowledging the need for HMO accommodation, she urged Members to consider whether the conversion of this family home into a six-person HMO was not appropriate in this location and to refuse planning permission.

The Committee considered the planning application and noted the points raised by the Ward Councillor. Members expressed concern regarding the loss of another family home, the potential for increased noise and disturbance, and the comings and goings of six unrelated adult occupants, including the possibility of activity occurring at unsocial hours.

Members noted that policy sought to retain properties under 120 square metres as family homes and observed that this property measured 115 square metres.

The Senior Planner confirmed that all proposed bedrooms would exceed the minimum sizes set out in the Nationally Described Space Standards. It was also confirmed that waste storage would be located  ...  view the full minutes text for item 271.

Watling Ward

Change of use from a dwellinghouse (Class C3) to a Class (C4) six-bedroom house in multiple occupation, and the construction of an L shaped dormer.

Having declared an interest in this item, Councillor Crozer withdrew from the meeting. 

Discussion:

The Senior Planner outlined the application in detail for the change of use from a dwellinghouse (Class C3) to a Class (C4) six-bedroom house in multiple occupation (HMO), and the construction of an L shaped dormer.

Members noted that a supplementary agenda advice sheet had been published following the publication of the updated NPPF on 17 August 2026. The reasons for refusal had been amended accordingly to reflect the updated NPPF. The supplementary agenda advice sheet also included a land use assessment map which showed the surrounding uses along approximately 200-metre stretch of Barnsole Road.

The Senior Planner explained that the density map identified HMOs within a 500-metre radius of the application site in Gillingham South Ward. Given the number and concentration of HMOs within that area, it was considered to constitute that the proposal would contribute to an overconcentration of HMOs.

Decision:      

Refused for the reasons 1 to 4 as set out in the report and the supplementary agenda advice sheet with reason 2, 3 and 4 being amended:

Amended Reasons:

2        The proposed dimensions for bedrooms 2, 3 and 4 within the application property do not meet the minimum size requirements of the Nationally Described Space Standard for either bedroom size or width and the living area has a poor degree of outlook and light provision that would not provide suitable living accommodation for the future occupants of the property contrary to the provisions for future occupier amenity and for reducing health inequalities and supporting health and wellbeing in Policies BNE2 and H7 of the Medway Local Plan 2003, Policies T1 and T8 of the Draft Local Plan 2025 and Policies DP3 and P3 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2026).

3        The proposed dormer does not provide a suitable inset from the eaves of the original roof and is not set in from either of the side boundaries which fails to appear as an extension within the existing roof resulting in the appearance of an additional storey. This causes harm to the appearance of the host property and street scene contrary to Policy BNE1 of the Local Plan and Policies DP3 and P3 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2026).

4        The application fails to address the impact of the proposal on the Special Protection Areas of the Thames Estuary and Marshes and the Medway Estuary and Marshes through either the submission of details to allow the undertaking of an Appropriate Assessment or via a contribution towards strategic mitigation measures. In the absence of such information or contribution, the proposal fails to comply with the requirement of the Conservation of Habitat and Species Regulations 2010 and is contrary to policies S6 and BNE35 of the Medway Local Plan 2003 and National Planning Policy Framework (2026) policies N2.2 and N6.

Councillor Crozer returned to the meeting.

Gillingham South Ward

Change of use from dwellinghouse (Class C3) to 5-bedroom HMO (Class C4) with alterations to boundary wall and front elevation roof light.

Discussion:

The Senior Planner outlined the application in detail for the change of use from dwellinghouse (Class C3) to 5-bedroom HMO (Class C4) with alterations to boundary wall and front elevation roof light.

Members noted that the supplementary agenda advice sheet included a correction to the approved plans condition to ensure it referred to the recently submitted plans. The supplementary agenda advice sheet also included a map and supporting figures which identified the surrounding land uses along approximately 200-metre stretch of Shakespeare Road.  

The Senior Planner explained that the density map identified HMOs within a 500-metre radius of the application site. Although there were high number of HMOs in the wider area, very few were located in the immediate vicinity of the application site. The land use assessment demonstrated that no HMO’s had been identified along a 200-metre stretch of road. While one HMO was identified, it had not been registered on the desktop study. Consequently, the Senior Planner concluded that there were no HMOs clustering in the area.

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

• He recommended refusal of the application, stressing that he was not opposed to HMOs in principle, however, considered this proposal unacceptable.
• Concern was expressed that Gillingham South already had the highest concentration of HMOs in Medway and that the proposal would contribute to an over proliferation of such uses.
• He questioned the HMO evidence presented, noting discrepancies between the original assessment, the supplementary agenda advice sheet and the Article 4 checks.
• Objection was raised to the loss of a family home, highlighting that the property measured 121sqm and, therefore, exceeded the Council's 120sqm threshold for retention of family housing. This was just one square metre above the Council’s threshold.
• Reference was made to the number of families and children in temporary accommodation across Medway and that the loss of another family home was inappropriate.
• Concerns were raised regarding parking, as the property had no off-street parking, and it was considered that a Parking Management Plan and car-free tenancy agreements would not prevent residents, visitors or delivery drivers from generating parking demand.
• He also expressed concern that the proposed amenity space fell below the Council's standards, with the garden depth significantly less than normally required.
• In summary, the Member highlighted that there were 22 HMOs within 500 metres, four on Shakespeare Road, no off-street parking provision, insufficient amenity space and the loss of a viable family home and considered that the cumulative impact of these factors justified refusal of the application.

The Committee discussed the planning application noting the concerns raised by the Ward Councillor, particularly regarding the loss of another family home. 

The Senior Planner confirmed that the loft bedroom met the minimum size requirements for a single bedroom as set out in the Nationally Described Space Standards. A Member acknowledged that the applicant had amended the proposal in order to improve the living conditions for future residents.

Members discussed the pressures  ...  view the full minutes text for item 273.

Gillingham South Ward

Change of use from residential dwelling (Class C3) to a 5-bedroom 5-person house in multiple occupation (Class C4) with alteration to roof lights.

Discussion:

The Senior Planner outlined the application in detail for the change of use from residential dwelling (Class C3) to a 5-bedroom 5-person house in multiple occupation (HMO) (Class C4) with alteration to roof lights.

A supplementary agenda advice sheet was published prior to the meeting which included a map and figures which identified the surrounding land uses along the length of Copenhagen Road.  

The Senior Planner explained that the density map identified 86 HMOs within a 500-metre radius of the application site. However, only three HMOs were identified within Copenhagen Road itself, indicating that that HMO concentration were dispersed across the wider area rather than clustered within the street. The land use map had been provided to assist Members in understanding the character of the area and the distribution of HMOs and other residential uses in the vicinity of the application site.

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

• She spoke against the application, stating that whilst HMOs were needed, they should be located within appropriate properties and in suitable locations.
• Concern was expressed that the proposal would add to the high concentration of HMOs in Gillingham South Ward, with 86 HMOs identified within a 500-metre radius of the site, contrary to the aims of the Article 4 Direction.
• She referred to the mix of family homes, converted properties and flats within Copenhagen Road and highlighted concerns regarding a number of existing and recently established HMOs in close proximity to the application site which could alter the established residential character of the road.
• She highlighted issues relating to waste management and fly-tipping, suggesting that any condition relating to refuse storage and collection should be strengthened.
• Objection was also raised on parking grounds, noting the limited availability of on-street parking, and the restricted opportunities for overspill parking in nearby streets. She considered strengthening the need to remove the ability to obtain parking permits and only having the same number of permits issued as any other household.
• Concern was expressed regarding the loss of a family home, with reference made to the demand for family-sized accommodation in Medway and the objectives of the emerging Local Plan.
• She considered that occupation by multiple unrelated individuals would generate greater levels of activity, comings and goings than a family dwelling.
• In conclusion, she considered that the proposal would result in the loss of a family home, contribute to an overconcentration of HMOs and harm the character of the area, and, therefore, should be refused.

The Committee discussed the planning application particularly regarding the size of some of the proposed bedrooms, which some Members considered unsuitable for occupation.

The Senior Planner confirmed that access to the bathroom would be gained through a bedroom and not via the kitchen.

The Service Manager - Development Management explained that the Article 4 Direction had been introduced regarding concerns about the number of HMOs in Medway and the quality of accommodation being delivered through permitted development  ...  view the full minutes text for item 274.

Gillingham South Ward

Retrospective change of use from residential dwelling (Class C3) to a 5-bedroom 5-person house in multiple occupation (Class C4).

Discussion:

The Service Manager – Development Management advised that, although the applicant named on the report was the planning agent, any planning permission granted would run with the land and had no bearing on the planning considerations. 

The Senior Planner outlined the application in detail for retrospective change of use from residential dwelling (Class C3) to a 5-bedroom 5-person house in multiple occupation (HMO) (Class C4).

The Senior Planner brought Members’ attention to the supplementary agenda advice sheet which contained a land use assessment map.

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

• She spoke against the application and recommended refusal, citing concerns about the cumulative impact of HMOs within the area despite neighbouring approvals and further applications being submitted nearby.
• She argued that the cumulative impact of HMOs should be given significant weight, as a remaining family home would be surrounded by multiple unrelated households, to the detriment of residential amenity.
• Concerns were raised regarding waste management and fly-tipping and any condition relating to refuse storage and collection be strengthened and place clear responsibility on the property owner.
• Objection was also raised on parking grounds, suggesting that the proposed management measures would not adequately address parking demand generated by residents and visitors.
• Reference was made to the emerging Local Plan and the need to protect family housing stock, with concern expressed over the continued loss of family homes to HMO use.
• In conclusion, she considered that the proposal would result in an overconcentration of HMOs, harm residential amenity and reduce the supply of family housing and, therefore, should be refused.

The Committee discussed the planning application noting the concerns raised by the Ward Councillor, particularly regarding the continuing loss of family dwellings to HMOs and the potential impact on parking provisions in the area.

The Senior Planner and Service Manager – Development Management advised that a Lawful Development Certificate for a six-bedroom, six-person HMO had been granted in September 2025, prior to the introduction of the Article 4 Direction. Members were informed that works had commenced to implement the Lawful Development Certificate, however, as the development had not been completed before the Article 4 Direction came into force, retrospective planning permission was required. The Senior Planner confirmed that the proposals had been amended from a six-bedroom, six-person HMO to a five-bedroom, five-person HMO, with an enlarged communal living area as part of the revised scheme.

The Service Manager – Development Management and the Legal Advisor reminded Members that each planning application must be determined on its own planning merits and that neither recently approved neighbouring scheme nor undetermined application could be treated as established HMOs when assessing the proposal.

In response to questions regarding care facilities, the Service Manager – Development Management advised that Class C2 care homes would require planning permission and registration with Ofsted, where applicable, although some forms of supported accommodation would not necessarily be registered with Ofsted of fall within the C2 care  ...  view the full minutes text for item 275.

Fort Pitt Ward

Change of use from a dwelling house (use class C3) to a 6-bed 6-person HMO (use class C4).

Discussion:

The Principal Planner outlined the application in detail for the change of use from a dwelling house (use class C3) to a 6-bed 6-person HMO (use class C4).

The Principal Planner brought Members’ attention to the supplementary agenda advice sheet which included updates to the report following publication of the revised National Planning Police Framework (NPPF) on 17 August 2026. The recommended condition 7 had been amended in the supplementary agenda advice sheet to ensure consistency with the updated NPPF policies and paragraphs. 

The Principal Planner explained that officers had undertaken a planning history review, site survey and checks of council tax records to assess the concentration of HMOs in the area. The assessment identified no HMOs along the full length of Bleinheim Avenue or within approximately 150-metre stretch of Grosvenor Avenue surrounding the application site, given the sites corner plot. Officers advised that the evidence demonstrated there was no overconcentration of HMOs in the vicinity of the application site. 

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

• She spoke against the application, expressing concern that previous alterations to the property appeared to have been undertaken to prepare it for use as an HMO before planning permission had been granted.
• Concern was raised regarding the concentration of HMOs in the wider area, she stated that the interconnected nature of surrounding streets should be considered when assessing over proliferation.
• She considered that approving the proposal would set an undesirable precedent and increase the risk of further HMO development within the neighbourhood.
• Reference was made to ongoing issues of fly-tipping and poor waste management in the locality, with concerns that additional HMO accommodation could exacerbate these problems.
• Objection was raised on the grounds that a six-bedroom HMO would be out of character with Blenheim Avenue, which was described as a predominantly family-orientated street.
• She considered that the proposal would result in increased noise, disturbance, comings and goings, and other activity levels that could adversely affect neighbouring residents.
• Concerns were also expressed regarding parking and highway impacts, with the potential for additional residents, visitors and deliveries to place further pressure on local parking provision.
• In conclusion, the Member urged the Committee to consider the wider cumulative impact of the proposal on the character of the area, residential amenity and the concentration of HMOs, and recommended refusal of the application.

The Committee discussed the planning application noting concerns regarding the number of HMOs already present in the area and the suitability of the proposed bedroom sizes. The Principal Planner confirmed that all proposed bedrooms, including the sixth bedroom within the roof space, complied with the minimum sizes set out in the Nationally Described Space Standards.

A Member requested that, where possible, future committee photographs be date and time stamped to assist Members in assessing parking demand and parking pressure at application sites.

The Service Manager – Development Management advised that the proposal included two off-street parking spaces at the front of the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 276.

Gillingham South Ward

Construction of 16 dwellings, new parking, landscaping, amenity space, sustainable urban drainage system (SuDS), and associated works.

Discussion:

The Principal Planner outlined the application in detail for the construction of 16 dwellings, new parking, landscaping, amenity space, sustainable urban drainage system (SuDS), and associated works.

The Principal Planner brought Members’ attention to the supplementary agenda advice sheet which included updates to the report following publication of the revised National Planning Police Framework (NPPF) on 17 August 2026. The recommended conditions 4, 10, 11, 14, 17, 19, 23 had been amended to align with the updated NPPF, and that an additional condition (Condition 26) had been proposed.

Members were informed of corrections within the supplementary agenda advice sheet, including an amendment to the Climate Change and Energy Efficiency section of the report to reference paragraph 164 rather than paragraph 154, and the replacement of the word “refusal” with “approval” within the Recommendation section.   

During the debate, Members raised concerns regarding the level of parking provision proposed within the development. In response, the Service Manager – Development Management advised that service bays had been incorporated into the scheme to accommodate deliveries and servicing requirements. 

Decision:  

Approved subject to:

A.     Subject to the applicant entering into a legal agreement under the terms of Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to secure the following contributions:

i.                   £58,213.60 towards green space contribution towards improvements to the local area.

ii.                 £101,664.68 towards education broken down to:

a)      £31,462.04 for Nursery,

b)      £4,412.81 towards the provision of primary education within a radius of 2 miles from the development site and/or SEND Education within Medway,

c)      £61,187.89 towards the provision of mainstream or SEND secondary within Medway and

d)      £4,601.94 for sixth form provision within Medway.

iii.            £4,180.64 towards community facilities within the vicinity.

iv.            £3,768 towards libraries within the vicinity.

v.             £3,920 towards public realm to Chatham Centre.

vi.            £3,948.16 towards waste improvements.

vii.           £5,555.04 towards sports provision in the vicinity.

viii.         £5,602.56 towards strategic measures in respect of the coastal North Kent Special Protection Areas (SPAs)/Ramsar sites.

ix.            Meeting the Council’s costs.

B.             Conditions 1 to 25 as set out in the report for the reasons stated in the report with conditions 4, 10, 11, 14, 17,19 and 23 being amended in the supplementary agenda advice sheet and an additional condition (26) being added.

Amended Conditions

4        No development shall take place until an Air Quality Emissions Mitigation Statement has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Statement shall include full details of the following standard air quality mitigation measures:

·       All gas fired boilers to meet a minimum standard of <40mgNOx/kWh;

·       The provision of one electric vehicle charging point per dwelling.

The development shall be implemented, and thereafter maintained, entirely in accordance with the measures set out in the approved Mitigation Statement.

Reason: To ensure appropriate air quality mitigation in accordance with Policy BNE24 of the Medway Local Plan 2003 and Policy P3 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2026.

10       No development shall take place until a scheme based on sustainable  ...  view the full minutes text for item 277.

Strood Rural Ward

Demolition of existing buildings and construction of two new buildings to provide 31 no. apartments (Use Class C3) including landscaping, parking, access and associated infrastructure.

Discussion:

The Principal Planner outlined the application in detail for demolition of existing buildings and construction of two new buildings to provide 31 apartments (Use Class C3) including landscaping, parking, access and associated infrastructure.

The Principal Planner brought Members’ attention to the supplementary agenda advice sheet which included updates to the report following publication of the revised National Planning Police Framework (NPPF) on 17 August 2026. The recommended conditions 8, 10, 15, 18, 21 and 24 had been amended to ensure consistency with the updated NPPF paragraphs and policies.

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

• He was speaking on behalf of local residents and his fellow Ward Councillor, Councillor Mrs Turpin, and although he supported the principle of developing the brownfield site he objected to the proposed scheme in its current form.
• Concern was expressed that the development represented an overdevelopment and was out of keeping with the character of Upnor due to its scale, density, height and impact on local infrastructure.
• He considered that the design failed to reflect the established architectural character of the village and was not sympathetic to its surroundings.
• Concerns were raised regarding the use of Section 106 contributions, with a request that funding be directed towards projects within Upnor for the benefit of local residents. Specific projects suggested by Frindsbury Extra Parish Council included improvements to the Upnor car park with the installation of additional lighting and measures to address anti-social behaviour.
• Reference was made to highway safety concerns, including speeding and traffic management issues, with a request that contributions be used to support traffic-calming measures in the area.
• While supporting brownfield regeneration in principle, he urged the Committee to refuse the application in its current form and encourage the submission of a revised scheme that would better respect the character of Upnor.

Members considered the viability assessment, which identified a scheme for the provision of on-site affordable housing would not be viable but one with no on-site affordable housing and £265,000 would be viable.

The Service Manager – Development Management advised that the independent viability assessor had not recommended a clawback clause, indicating that due to the number of units there was unlikely to be sufficient uplift in future development values to alter the viability position. It was also noted due to the homes being contained in two block a late stage clawback could affect the applicant’s ability to secure funding for the development. 

In response to a question regarding the SAMMS contribution, the Service Manager – Development Management confirmed that Natural England had raised no objection to the proposal, subject to the completion of an appropriate assessment and the securing of the required bird mitigation contribution.

Following questions regarding the height of the development, the Service Manager – Development Management advised that the Council’s Conservation Officer reviewed the proposal and was satisfied that the building design and approach were appropriate in the context of the site and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 278.