Agenda and draft minutes

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

To approve the record of the meeting held on 11 March 2026.

The record of the meeting held on 11 March 2026 was agreed by the Committee 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 771 – Page 18 – Planning Application MC/25/1506 Shaftesbury House, Upnor, Rochester, ME2 4XB

The agreed reason for refusal is set out below:

The use of the building for a 13 person House of Multiple Occupation in a location without access to day to day facilities by foot or regular public transport and without the provision of adequate parking for all residents or rooms the development would provide low cost accommodation in an area that would be unsuitable to meet the needs of the occupants and, therefore, not achieve sustainable development, in particular the social objective of delivering a range of homes provided to meet the needs of present and future generations with accessible services, contrary to paragraph 8 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2024).

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 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.

Councillor Williams referred to planning applications MC/23/1934 - Land at Ratcliffe Highway, Hoo St Werburgh, Rochester Kent and MC/24/2022 - Land west of Hoo St Werburgh and stated that although he was a member of The Independent Group, he had not been involved in the representations submitted by the Group for the two planning applications, which had been signed by Councillor Crozer, Councillor Pearce and Councillor Sands only.

Hoo St Werburgh and High Halstow Ward

Outline planning application (all matters reserved except for access) for the erection of up to 240 residential dwellings, including 25% affordable housing, together with a new vehicular access point from Ratcliffe Highway, open space, landscaping and associated works.

Discussion:

The Principal Planner discussed, in detail, the outline planning application (all matters reserved except for access) for the erection of up to 240 residential dwellings, including 25% affordable housing, together with a new vehicular access point from Ratcliffe Highway, open space, landscaping and associated works.

The Principal Planner advised the Committee that as the applicants had lodged an appeal against non-determination the report and recommendation were to ascertain the views of the Committee should they have been in a position to make a decision.  Those views would then be used as the formal Council response to the appeal.

The Principal Planner brought Members’ attention to the supplementary agenda advice sheet which included a representation and a rebuttal to the case officer’s report from the Independent Group. 

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

• It was noted that Medway’s Infrastructure Strategy had fundamentally changed following the loss of £170m Housing Infrastructure Fund (HIF) funding from Homes England, with concerns that proposed mitigation relied on infrastructure funding that no longer existed.
• Concerns were raised that approving a further 240 dwellings without the guaranteed strategic road and rail improvements would be unsustainable and would worsen congestion.

• The Hoo Peninsula was described as having a single access route via Four Elms Hill, which was already operating at capacity.  Congestion was said to present safety risks, including delays to emergency services and trapping thousands of residents when the route was blocked.
• Proposed financial S106 contributions towards improvements at Four Elms Hill and Sans Pareil roundabouts were considered insufficient to address existing transport impacts, with transport on the Peninsula being described as poor.  This application was described as offering no immediate benefit, amounting to a “road to nowhere”.
• It was noted that without public transport in place from day one, each of the 240 new dwellings would increase reliance on private car use and add pressure to the highway network.
• Members were urged to refuse the application, citing outdated infrastructure assumptions, conflict with the National Planning Policy Framework’s sustainability requirements and the Local Plan’s emphasis on directing growth to areas with sustainable infrastructure.
• That the Local Plan supported housing delivery in areas where existing infrastructure could be enhanced, rather than continued development on the Hoo Peninsula.

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

• He urged Members to refuse this planning application and uphold the adopted Development Plan and Neighbourhood Plan. 
• It was argued that the proposal conflicted with the adopted plan and lacked sustainability.
• Concern was raised about the reliance on the emerging Local Plan that was not adopted and was subject to examination issues.
• Strong objections were made to transport and access arrangements which included unresolved bus provision and unsafe pedestrian and cycle links.  
• The proposal was said to rely on uncertain infrastructure and access from the adjacent Taylor Wimpey site.
• The planning application was described as premature, overly reliant  ...  view the full minutes text for item 838.

Strood Rural Ward

Outline planning application (with all matters reserved except access) for the construction of up to 450 dwellings, commercial floorspace (up to 500sqm), community use building (up to 500sqm), associated public open space, landscaping, outdoor sports facilities, drainage and earthworks.

Discussion:

The Principal Planner discussed, in detail, the outline planning application (with all matters reserved except access) for the construction of up to 450 dwellings, commercial floorspace (up to 500sqm), community use building (up to 500sqm), associated public open space, landscaping, outdoor sports facilities, drainage and earthworks.

The Principal Planner advised the Committee that as the applicants had lodged an appeal against non-determination the report and recommendation were to ascertain the views of the Committee should they have been in a position to make a decision.  Those views would then be used as the formal Council response to the appeal.

The Principal Planner brought Members’ attention to the supplementary agenda advice sheet which included representation and a rebuttal to the case officer’s report from the Independent Group. 

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

• Members were urged to support the officer’s recommendation of refusal.
• Concern was raised that the proposal would lead to the coalescence between Hoo and Chattenden and would conflict with the Hoo Neighbourhood Plan and the emerging Local Plan.
• He highlighted a fundamental failure of transport infrastructure to support the proposal given the loss of the £170m HIF investment in the A228 and rail networks.
• Approval of 450 dwellings would have severe impacts on an already over-capacity network with a single access route on and off the Peninsula.
• It was noted that Active Travel England could not support the scheme, due to insufficient evidence.
• Significant concerns were raised regarding school capacity, road safety, bus services and being a car-dependent scheme causing more congestion.
• Serious concern was expressed regarding the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) consultation zone constraints, including high-pressure gas pipelines, which were viewed as dangerous and unsuitable for this scale and density of development.  

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

• He stated a more robust and defensible reason for refusal was required.
• Concern was expressed that the site lay outside the built-up confines of Hoo, in open countryside, representing a major housing development beyond the settlement boundary and, therefore, a conflict in principle.
• He suggested that too much weight was given to the emerging Local Plan, while the adopted Hoo Neighbourhood Plan carried full statutory weight.  It was also noted that the Neighbourhood Plan sought to protect settlement separation, landscape character and deliverable transport solutions.
• The proposal was described as unsustainable and vehicle-led, with the Design Review report at Appendix 2, confirming the  car-dominated travel patterns.
• It was noted that Active Travel England could not support the development and that walking and cycling issues remained unresolved.
• Further concerns were raised regarding drainage, flooding, ecology and the urbanisation of the Hoo Road – Chattenden Valley.

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

• The Hoo Neighbourhood Plan was emphasised as playing a vital role in the planning process and should not be  ...  view the full minutes text for item 839.

Watling Ward

Change of use of existing dwellinghouse (Class C3) to care home together with construction of a two storey side extension and dormer window to rear to provide additional living accommodation within roof space with associated external alterations.

Discussion:

The Service Manager - Development Management outlined the application in detail for the change of use of existing dwellinghouse (Class C3) to care home together with construction of a two storey side extension and dormer window to rear to provide additional living accommodation within roof space with associated external alterations.

The Service Manager – Development Manager brought Members’ attention to the supplementary agenda advice sheet which set out further representations.

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

• It was noted that previous applications had sought permission for a wide range of uses for this site.
• Residents raised concerns that the property may have been sold and that the correct notices may not have been served, potentially resulting in a procedural flaw. 
• The site was located on a busy road close to a school, with congestion at peak time and an access point close to a pedestrian crossing, raising highway safety concerns. 
• The proposal was considered not to meet safety standards with ongoing concerns about inadequate parking provision.
• It was noted that the proposed assisted living could involve up to 12 staff, adding further parking pressures.
• Reference was made to a previous refusal on similar grounds and Members were urged to refuse this planning application.

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

The Service Manager – Development Management confirmed that parking provision for staff was available.  He acknowledged that, while the site was located very close to the crossroad and a busy junction, it had been in use for a number of years and was, therefore, likely to have accommodated children and young people as part of a family dwelling during that time.  He confirmed that while the property may have been sold, there were no procedural flaws in the processing of the planning application.

The Service Manager – Development clarified that room sizes met with the standard guidelines and that the dormer window was agreed under permitted development.

It was commented that where the Committee approved planning permission for children’s care homes, this approval related only to planning terms and that the permission for the Children’s Care Home to operate was granted by Ofsted.

Decision:      

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