Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from the Chairman, Councillor Mrs Diane Chambers and Councillors Howcroft-Scott and Opara.

In the absence of the Chairman, the meeting was chaired by the Vice Chairman, Councillor Buckwell.

To approve the record of the meeting held on 10 November 2021.

The record of the meeting held on 10 November 2021 was agreed and signed by the Chairman as correct. 

The Committee was informed of the following, approved by the Head of Planning under delegated powers in consultation with the Chairman and Vice Chairman as set out on the supplementary agenda advice sheet:

Minute 439 – Planning application – MC/21/2015 - Canada House, Barnsole Road, Gillingham

Condition 15 as follows:

15.  Notwithstanding the details submitted within the design and access statement (by Tang & Associates Limited, dated June 2021), to address energy efficiency and climate change. No flat shall be occupied until details of how the flats will be heated, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details and shall thereafter be maintained in working order.

Reason: In the interests of sustainability and to positively address concerns regarding climate change in accordance with paragraph 154 the National Planning Policy Framework 2021.

Minute 441 – Planning application – MC/21/2279 - 63 Duncan Road, Gillingham                                                                  

Refused on the following ground:

1     The proposal, by virtue of its contrived design, overall scale, mass, height and siting in such close proximity to the northern boundary with neighbouring properties on Franklin Road, the lack of pavement, and limited outdoor space, would result in a cramped and incongruous form of development which would not relate well to the existing character, and spatial pattern of development in the surrounding area. The proposal would also have an overbearing impact on the neighbouring amenity, as such resulting in an overdevelopment of the site. The proposal is, therefore, contrary to Policies BNE1, BNE2 and H4 of the Medway Local Plan 2003 and paragraphs 126, 130 and 130f of the NPPF.

The Head of Planning also drew attention to a correction required to an individual head of agreement relating to Planning application - MC/21/0302 Land South of Berwick Way, East of Frindsbury Hill and North and West of Parsonage Lane (known As Manor Farm), Frindsbury, Rochester considered by the Committee on 2 September 2021 under minute 308.

The Head of Agreement relating to additional capacity in primary care premises required correction to be:

• £116,706.99 toward support the creation of additional capacity in primary care premises required (£644.79 per unit x 181 units).

There were none.

The Chairman informed the Committee that owing to the size and complexity of the planning applications being considered at this meeting, he was proposing that items 15 (Performance report) and 16 (Report on appeal decisions) be deferred until the next meeting in January 2022. This was supported.

A Member expressed concern as to the length of the supplementary agenda advice sheet which had not been received by some Members until after 5:00pm. The supplementary agenda advice sheet contained numerous proposed changes to conditions relating to planning applications for consideration at the meeting and it was considered unreasonable for Members not to have had an opportunity to consider these in detail in advance of the meeting. In response, the Chairman advised the Committee that he had requested officers to emphasise any points of significance relating to the revised conditions.

The Head of Planning informed the Committee that he shared concern regarding the length of the supplementary agenda advice sheet and the various attachments which had been emailed for circulation. He informed the Committee that in either January or February 2022, he would be submitting a report to the Committee seeking agreement to change the deadline for receipt of late representations to enable the supplementary agenda advice sheet to be circulated to Members earlier.

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 Buckwell, referring to planning application MC/21/2328 (Land South of Bush Road, near Cuxton) and planning application MC/19/2814 (St Andrews Lake, Formby Road Halling), informed the Committee that as a Parish Councillor on Halling Parish Council, he had not taken part in any consultation or discussions that the Parish Council had had on either planning application.

Councillor Thorne, referring to planning application MC/21/2328 (Land South of Bush Road, near Cuxton) and planning application MC/19/2814 (St Andrews Lake, Formby Road Halling), informed the Committee that as a Parish Councillor on Halling Parish Council, he had not taken part in any consultation or discussions that the Parish Council had had on either planning application.

Councillor Buckwell, referring to planning application MC/19/2437 (13 Canon Close, Rochester), informed the Committee that the planning agent was a distant relative but he confirmed that he had not had any social contact with the individual for at least two years and had not discussed the application with anyone. Therefore, he would remain and take part in the consideration and determination of the planning application.

Councillor Tejan, referring to planning application MC/19/2814 (St Andrews Lake, Formby Road Halling), informed the Committee that although he knew one of the owners involved in this site he had not seen them or undertaken any discussions on the application and would therefore remain for the consideration and determination of the application.

Councillor Gulvin referred to planning applications MC/21/2226 (15 York Ave Walderslade) and planning application MC/212790 (7 Princes Ave Walderslade) and informed the Committee that as he wished to address the Committee as Ward Councillor on both applications he would take no part in the consideration or determination of either application.

Cuxton and Halling

Construction of a winery building including café/restaurant and visitor centre with energy centre, car park, access road and landscaping.

Discussion:

The Head of Planning outlined the planning application in detail and explained the various elements of the application including the construction of a winery building., This included a café/restaurant and visitor centre with energy centre, car park, access road and landscaping.

Drawing attention to the supplementary agenda advice sheet he informed the Committee that if the Committee was minded to approve the application, it was proposed that one further obligation relating to a Skills and Employment Plan be added to the Section 106 agreement and a number of the proposed conditions be replaced and, where necessary, re-numbered.

In addition, he advised that since despatch of the agenda the applicant had submitted a briefing note for consideration by the Committee, a copy of which was appended to the supplementary agenda advice sheet. Cuxton Parish Council had also emailed Members of the Committee attaching two representations of objection from the Parish Council and two representations from the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) Unit in relation to the proposal. These representations reiterated concerns regarding the location of the proposal in the AONB and Greenbelt and the increase in traffic which would be generated should the application be approved.

A further change to the Committee report included a replacement paragraph under the principle section of the Appraisal on page 53 of the agenda. The replacement paragraph was set out on the supplementary agenda advice sheet.

In outlining the application, the Head of Planning informed the Committee that the use of the land as a winery qualified as an agricultural use and therefore the applicant could provide buildings on site which were ancillary to the use of the land as a vineyard under Permitted Development Rights. However, the majority of the buildings associated with this development would be built underground within the site.

The Committee was informed that the AONB Unit had suggested that if the application was to be approved, a darker shade of concrete be used for the coping below the roof so as to be more sympathetic to its surroundings and the Head of Planning advised that both the applicant and officers were satisfied with this suggestion and therefore if approved, this would be addressed within the submission of materials pursuant to the recommended condition.

Referring to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), the Head of Planning advised that in determining whether the principle of this proposal was acceptable, it was necessary to consider whether the proposal comprised sustainable development and to consider the impact of the development on the character of the area and the importance of the site in landscape terms.

The NPPF referred to sustainable development having an economic, a social and an environmental role. This meant that weight had to be given to:

a)    the social benefits in creating training opportunities for local people and supporting rural tourism;

b)    the economic benefits in terms of providing jobs and boosting the local economy during the construction and operation phase and providing the increased workforce that enabled continued  ...  view the full minutes text for item 519.

Cuxton And Halling

Change of use of site to sui generis use as a wildlife reserve/watersports and outdoor activity centre together with the construction of 20 waterside holiday accommodation units, 10 on-the-lake holiday pods, one on-the-lake residential a managers unit and one on-the-lake office/security unit (non-residential), a Water Sports Centre with associated 'hub' to provide for sailing, diving, fishing, rowing, paddle-boarding venue and incorporating a café and restaurant as well as multi-function space for use by members and visitors for training/education and related activities. In addition the provision of an outdoor activity centre, fishing lodge, two zip wires and tower,  Sand Martin hide, an artificial wreck, floating pontoon and infrastructure, provision of a Forest School, retrospective placement of temporary facilities comprising of temporary office/admin/education/sales facility; temporary toilets; temporary car parking, temporary café,  temporary storage/changing rooms and infrastructure with associated parking, access, engineering, landscaping, mooring infrastructure and ecological enhancement works throughout St. Andrews Lake.

Discussion:

The Head of Planning outlined the planning application and informed the Committee that should it be minded to approve the application, a further obligation would be added to the proposed Section 106 agreement, all references to Highways England be changed to National Highways in the proposed conditions, and a change be made to proposed condition 33. In addition, he advised of a further representation received from Natural England since despatch of the agenda and a change to wording of the Planning appraisal and principle sections of the report. Details of all these were set out on the supplementary agenda advice sheet.

The Committee was informed of those activities already taking place on the lake and the Head of Planning advised that a number of buildings were currently on site supporting these activities, for which retrospective planning permission was being sought. It was confirmed that if the application was approved, the temporary buildings/structures would be removed as soon as their permanent replacements were in place.

The Head of Planning advised that the lake, being a former quarry, was very deep and shelved quickly and was therefore considered dangerous. In the past, people had gained unlawful access to the site and should the planning application be approved, this would bring a use onto the site which would provide an improved level of security.

The Committee was informed of the history and sensitivity of the site and that following a two year process of consultation with both specialists from Kent County Council and Natural England, the resulting application took full account of the ecology of the site for the proposed location of the water sports activities and other various elements of the application.

The Head of Planning advised that should the Committee support the application, it would require referral to the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Homes and Communitiesas involving development within a Green Belt.

The Committee discussed the application and the various proposed conditions. It was confirmed that the proposed conditions sought to address a number of concerns raised during discussion including:

• Lighting;
• Drainage;
• Limitations on the number of events in the first year of operation;
• Use of the zip line;
• Availability of car parking on site and the requirement to pre-book use of the facilities;
• Use of the on-lake holiday pods;
• Heating of the pods and any other relevant climate change conditions;

Overall, there was general support for the proposed development as it was considered that this would provide a good tourist attraction in Medway and would take away the need for Medway residents to travel outside of Medway to other similar facilities.

A Member referred to a tarmac vehicular access that ran along the back of gardens that met Vicarage Road. The Head of Planning agreed to investigate this further.

Concern was expressed as to the potential noise disturbance from use of the zip line up until 20.00 hours and the Head of Planning suggested that use of this facility could be restricted to 18.00 hours with  ...  view the full minutes text for item 520.

River

Partial demolition of existing buildings and construction of a part 4 storey part 5 storey residential student accommodation building (Class C2) comprising 103 bedrooms (including 3 for staff), with parking, amenity space and associated infrastructure.

Discussion:

The Planning Manager outlined the planning application and suggested that if the Committee was minded to approve the application, the proposed conditions be amended as set out on the supplementary agenda advice sheet.

She also informed the Committee of an amendment to the proposal description on the first page of the committee report and the proposal section of the report, an update to the representation section of the report and an amendment to the planning appraisal section as it related to archaeology, details of which were all set out on the supplementary agenda advice sheet.

The Committee discussed the application and it was suggested that due to the location of the premises, it was disappointing that there had been no Section 106 funding requested for the Heritage Action Zone (HAZ). The Head of Planning advised that during consultation on the planning application, no request had been received for funding for the HAZ but if the Committee wished this to be pursued, he could investigate this further outside of the meeting and if it was decided that this could be added, this could be dealt with under delegated authority.

It was suggested that Ward Councillors be involved in the allocation of the proposed funding for public realm improvements.

The Committee expressed concern that if developments at this site came through piecemeal, any opportunity for securing Section 106 funding for improvements at the Star Hill junction would be missed. In response, the Head of Planning advised that the land was currently divided into two parcels and the current application related to the smallest parcel. He advised that pre-application discussions were proceeding for the remaining section of land and if that came forward as one development, then the issue of funding improvements at the Star Hill junction could be considered at that stage.  

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:

• £27,707 towards health improvements in capacity in primary care premises.

• £10,000 towards public realm improvements to Rochester High Street.

• £19,798.74 towards strategic measures in respect of the coastal North Kent Special Protection Areas (SPAs)/Ramsar sites.

• Meeting the Council’s costs.

b)            Conditions 1, 3 – 5, 7 – 15, 17 – 20 as set out in the report for the reasons stated in the report with conditions 2, 6, 16 and 21 amended and replaced as follows:

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

Received 30 July 2021:

29826B_013                Proposed Site Plan

29826B_008                Demolition Ground Floor Plan

29826B_009                Demolition First Floor Plan

29826B_010                Demolition Second Floor Plan

29826B_011                Demolition North and West Elevations

29826B_012                Demolition South and East Elevations

29826B_105 Rev B     Proposed Roof Plan

29826B_201 Rev A     Proposed Sections

29826B_203                Proposed North Elevation Facade

29826B_206                Proposed East Elevation Facade

Received 6 August 2021:

29826B_101 Rev D     Proposed First Floor Plan

29826B_103 Rev D     Proposed Third Floor  ...  view the full minutes text for item 521.

Rainham North

Change of use of existing building and the formation of a hip to gable to facilitate construction of dormer to rear, and first floor infill extension to rear to provide two 1-bedroom dwellings, one 2-bedroom dwelling and two 1-bedroom flats, and the installation of solar panels to the south facing roof slope - Re-submission of MC/20/2886.

Discussion:

The Senior Planner outlined the planning application and drew attention to an amendment to the planning appraisal section of the report, details of which were set out on the supplementary agenda advice sheet.

The Committee discussed the application and questioned whether the representations submitted by the clinic located next door had been taken into consideration when processing the application. The Senior Planner confirmed that they had and were incorporated in the representations section of the main committee report. He advised that all representations had been considered and the site had been visited and officers were satisfied that no further conditions were necessary.

During discussion, it was suggested that an additional condition be imposed to require obscure glazing of the roof lights.

Decision:

Approved with conditions 1 – 9 as set out in the report for the reasons stated in the report and the following additional condition with the Head of Planning being granted delegated wording in agreement with the Planning Spokes:

10. Condition requiring that the roof lights be obscure glazed.

Rochester West

Demolition of the existing surgery building and the construction of 5 terraced properties with associated refuse and cycle storage.

Discussion:

The Planning Manager outlined the planning application and drew attention to a correction to proposed condition 15 in that the date should read 2015 instead of 2018.

In addition, she advised that if the Committee was minded to approve the application an additional condition numbered 23 was proposed as set out on the supplementary agenda advice sheet.

One new representation had also been received since despatch of the agenda which was summarised on the supplementary agenda advice sheet.

Decision:

Approved with conditions 1 – 14, and 16 – 22 as set out in the report for the reasons stated in the report, condition 15 amended and new condition 23 as follows:

15.       No part of the development shall be occupied until details of cycle storage facilities have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in the form of individual lockers. The cycle storage facilities shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details prior to herein use approved being occupied and hereafter no permanent development, whether or not permitted by the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any order amending, revoking and re-enacting that Order) shall be carried out on the land so shown for cycle and refuse storage facilities.

Reason: All new residential development requires provision of adequate accommodation for cycle and refuse storage to accord with Policies BNE1 and T4 of the Medway Local Plan

23.      The ground and first floor windows located on the rear elevation of units 4 and 5 as shown on drawing numbers 20/288/05 received 23 July 2021, 20/288/04 received 7 September 2021 and 20/288/03 Received 8 September 2021 shall be fitted with obscure glass and apart from any top-hung light, that has a cill height of not less than 1.7 metres above the internal finished floor level of the room it serves, shall be non-opening. This work shall be completed before the room it serves is occupied and shall be retained thereafter.

Reason:  To ensure the development does not prejudice conditions of amenity by reason of unneighbourly overlooking of adjoining property, in accordance with Policy BNE2 of the Medway Local Plan 2003.

Walderslade

Change of use of part of dwelling to a children's nursery to extend the current nursery and increase child spaces from 30 to 40.

Discussion:

The Planning Manager outlined the planning application in detail and, referring to the planning history, informed the Committee that a similar application (MC/2000/1727) requesting an increase in the number of children at the nursery from 30 to 35 had been refused and dismissed at appeal due to concerns regarding noise and general disturbance from vehicle movement and children which it was considered would cause harm to the amenities of residents within the vicinity of the nursery.

The current application sought an increase from 30 to 40 children but had been supported by a noise assessment which proposed a number of mitigation measures to further reduce noise intrusion. Should the application be approved, a condition to secure these noise mitigation measures was being recommended. In addition, it was confirmed that no objections had been received on highways grounds.

With the agreement of the Committee, Councillor Gulvin as Ward Councillor addressed the Committee and made the following points:

·         He supported the approval of this planning application as the nursery was considered to be a good facility providing childcare at a reasonable cost.

·         He expressed concern regarding proposed condition 6 (noise mitigation measures) as he did not wish this to result in an onerous cost for the applicant.

In response, the Planning Manager informed the Ward Councillor that proposed condition 6 related to the noise mitigation measures which the applicant had agreed to provide when submitting the application and therefore, the applicant would be aware of the costs involved

Decision:

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

Strood Rural

Construction of additional third floor level with loft space accommodation for office use - resubmission of MC/20/1702.

Discussion:

The Planning Manager outlined the planning application.

Decision:

Approved subject to:

a)     The submission of a Unilateral Undertaking under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to secure £4,017.46 towards highway improvements for the Medway City Estate roundabout.

b)     Conditions 1 – 6 as set out in the report for the reasons stated in the report.

Rochester West

Part retrospective application for raised timber decking, boundary screening and associated ramp to provide disabled access to outside space and garden.

Discussion:

The Head of Planning outlined the planning application and explained the reasons why this application had been referred to the Committee for determination. He drew attention to further representations received since despatch of the agenda from the occupiers of the neighbouring property at 14 Cannon Close which had been appended in full to the supplementary agenda advice sheet.

With the use of the photographs as part of the presentation, the Head of Planning explained the reason for the application and the concerns expressed by the neighbour and advised that both the applicant and the neighbour understood each other’s concerns. Although the applicant would prefer the application to be approved as submitted, the Head of Planning suggested that there may be a solution that would meet the agreement of both parties.

The Committee discussed the application and it was suggested that the application be deferred to enable officers to undertake further discussions with the applicant and the neighbour at no. 14 Canon Close to see if it was possible to identify a way forward which would be agreeable to all parties in the first instance.

Decision:

Consideration of the application be deferred to enable officers to undertake further discussions with the applicant and the neighbour at no. 14 Canon Close to see if it was possible to identify a way forward which would be agreeable to all parties in the first instance.

Hempstead and Wigmore

Removal of existing 10m Jupiter 850 Streetworks Monopole to be replaced with proposed 20m high Hutchison Engineering Orion V2 Streetworks Pole on a new root foundation and associated ancillary development.

Discussion:

The Senior Planner outlined the planning application which involved the removal of an existing telecommunications mast and its replacement with a 20m high mast.

Concern was expressed as to the height of the new proposed mast and its location in a residential street as it was considered that the mast would be visually intrusive and unacceptable.

The Committee was informed that the Government was pushing for the installation of 5G mobile telecommunication infrastructure and it was very likely that in the near future, the provision of telecommunications masts would be permissible under permitted development rights so as to speed up the process. Unfortunately, 5G telecommunication masts were required to be taller than existing 4G masts. The Committee accepted that it was not in a position to prevent the installation of 5G telecommunication masts but suggested that on this occasion, there were other possible suitable locations which may be more suitable.

The Senior Planner confirmed that file records indicated that the application was for the replacement mast to be provided on the existing site of the 4G mast and there was no evidence that the applicant had considered possible alternative locations. Therefore, if the Committee wished, it was possible for the application to be deferred for further discussions with the applicant.

Decision:

Consideration of the application be deferred to enable officers to discuss with the applicant the possibility of identifying an alternative and more suitable site for the location of the telecommunications mast.

Walderslade

Application for prior approval for the enlargement of a dwellinghouse by the construction of additional storeys.  The maximum height proposed is 9.25 m.

Discussion:

The Senior Planner outlined the application.

With the agreement of the Committee, Councillor Gulvin addressed the Committee as Ward Councillor and requested that the application be refused on the basis that the proposed development was exacerbated by the steepness of the slope in Princes Avenue and the construction of the additional storeys on this property would be out of proportion in such an elevated position.

Decision:

Refused on the ground set out in the report.

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

Decision:

Consideration of this report was deferred until 12 January 2022.

This report informs Members of appeal decisions for the period 1 July to 30 September 2021.

Decision:

Consideration of this report was deferred until 12 January 2022.