Agenda item

Chatham Central

Demolition of former Redvers Centre and construction of residential development comprising of 8 houses and 16 apartments.

This application has supporting exempt appendices.

Discussion:

The Head of Planning reminded the Committee that this application had been the subject of a site visit on 26 April 2016 at which he had explained the application, summarised the representations received and set out the key planning issues as they related to matters of principle, density, design, amenity, parking and highways.

A summary of the issues raised at the site visit by residents and the headteacher of the neighbouring school were summarised on the supplementary agenda advice sheet.

In addition, at the site visit Councillor Maple, as Ward Councillor had advised that the applicant/agent should provide a response regarding issues of overlooking, parking and Section 106 contributions.

The Committee was advised that the agent had responded to a number of questions and points raised at the site visit but had since provided a full response which had been emailed to Members of the Committee and was appended in full on the supplementary agenda advice sheet.

The Head of Planning further advised that since despatch of the agenda, the Headteacher of Phoenix Junior Academy had submitted a number of comments and these were also summarised on the supplementary agenda advice sheet.

The Head of Planning further advised that a petition containing 202 signatures (plus additional names without signatures) had been received objecting to the planning application, on the grounds that it would put children at risk as there would be no control over the residents living in the properties and the build would be directly on the school boundary looking into the school, which was not acceptable. The petitioners also expressed concern regarding the additional traffic and parking issues that the build would bring to an already over-crowded residential area and stated that the safety of children must be a priority.

The Committee was advised that since despatch of the agenda one further letter of objection had been received reiterating reasons set out in the report and those set out above and making the following additional comments:

·         If the developer cannot afford the S106 contributions, what will happen if the costs of the scheme exceed that anticipated?

·         Pressure on existing school, open spaces and services

·         There will be additional costs to deal with the necessary sewer improvements required.

The Head of Planning explained that when considering this application at its meeting on 6 April 2016, the Committee had expressed concern as to the lack of financial contribution which would be received as part of the development to mitigate the affect that the development would have on the existing local facilities and services in the area.

He advised that when circulating the committee agenda, copies of the relevant viability assessments had been circulated for consideration by the Committee. He explained that although these had been produced as exempt documents on the basis that they contained information relating to the financial and business affairs of a particular company, the issue of viability assessments had recently been considered by the Kent Planning Officers Group and it had been decided that as viability assessments formed a material consideration in the determination of planning applications, such documents should be considered in open committee.

He referred to the supplementary agenda advice sheet and suggested that if the Committee was minded to approve the application, the proposed Section 106 agreement be expanded to include a contribution of £38,317.08 towards local services but including monitoring officer fees and requested that if the application was approved, the Committee grant him delegated authority to determine the allocation of this funding in consultation with local Ward Councillors.

In addition, he suggested an amendment to proposed condition 7 and suggested that a new condition 15 be approved, details of which were set out on the supplementary agenda advice sheet.

The Committee welcomed Martin Aust, Independent Financial Consultant, who outlined relevant factors relating to the financial viability assessments to assist the Committee in determining the application. In particular, he advised that the proposed undercroft parking which formed part of the development would result in a substantial cost that affected the overall viability of the scheme.

With the agreement of the Committee, Councillor Maple spoke on this application as Ward Councillor and he thanked the Committee for attending the site visit and listening to the concerns of local residents.

Councillor Maple stated that Ward Councillors recognised that this was a balanced application and therefore he accepted the reasons why the application was being recommended by officers for approval. However, he advised the Committee that the proposed development would result in extensive pressures on local facilities such as health services, school places, the road network and local greenspaces.

He referred to the list of requested financial contributions set out on page 34 of the report and advised the Committee that even with the revised Section 106 contribution suggested by the Head of Planning, less that half of the total requested contribution would be provided should the application be approved.

He outlined the additional concerns of local residents as summarised below:

·         Overlooking, especially the effect that the development will have on the nearly education facilities.

·         Disruption to education whilst the residential development is being constructed, particularly during times when educational tests are taking place.

·         The effect that the development would have on local parking facilities and the fact that the development does not take account of visitor parking.

·         Concerns from the school as to the effect that the development could have upon the escape route from the school by pupils in the event of an emergency.

The Committee discussed the application in detail having regard to the concerns expressed by local residents and schools and those outlined by the Ward Councillor.

In response to the Committee’s concerns, the Head of Planning advised that proposed condition 14 could be strengthened to ensure that the developers included liaison with the adjacent school regarding work at the site so as to ensure that disruption to education was kept to a minimum and that demolition works be undertaken outside of school term time and that adequate screening of the site be provided.

In response to the query concerning the need for the school to provide an alternative means of escape in an emergency, the Head of Planning advised the Committee that this was a lease issue and therefore fell outside of the planning process.

The Independent Financial Consultant suggested that if the Committee was minded to approve the application, as part of the approval it could include an overage clause that should the developers profit margin exceed 20%, any excess profit be shared on a 50:50 basis.

The Committee noted that should it be minded to refuse the planning application, it was likely that the developer would appeal against this decision and, if subsequently approved by a Planning Inspector, there was no guarantee that a Planning Inspector would include the Section 106 contributions of £43,583 already negotiated.

Decision:

Delegated powers be granted to the Director of Regeneration, Culture, Environment and Transformation to grant planning permission subject to:

A)           The prior completion of a Section 106 agreement to secure:

i)             £5,365.92 towards the interim measures required by Natural England to secure the Category A measures identified in the Thames, Medway & Swale Estuaries Strategic Access Management and Monitoring Strategy (SAMM), produced by Footprint Ecology in July 2014, including any associated costs in anticipation of:

·         An administrative body being identified to manage the strategic tariff collected by the local authorities;

·         A memorandum of understanding or legal agreement between the local authorities and administrative body to underpin the strategic approach;

·         Ensure that a delivery mechanism for the agreed SAMM measures is secured and the SAMM strategy is being implemented from the first occupation of the dwellings, proportionate to the level of the housing development.

ii)            A contribution of £38,317.08 towards local services but including monitoring officers fees with the Head of Planning being granted delegated authority to determine the expenditure of this funding in consultation with Ward Councillors.

iii)           Insertion of an overage clause so any profit over 20% is shared 50:50 with the Local Planning Authority to be spent on local services impacted by the development

B)           Conditions 1 – 6 and 8 – 13 as set out in the report for the reasons stated in the report and condition 7 amended as set out below, condition 14 as set out in the report but amended to include timing of demolition to minimise disruption to the adjoining school, community and school engagement regarding the construction process and provision of adequate screening with the specific wording of this condition to be agreed by the Head of Planning in consultation with the Chairman and Vice Chairman and new condition 15 also as set out below:

7.         No development shall take place above slab level until full details of the proposed means of surface water drainage / disposal, as outlined in the Herrington Consulting Ltd document "Surface Water Drainage Strategy" Revision 1 (Issue 2) dated 28/07/2015 and received by the Council on the 29/07/2015, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The surface water drainage / disposal shall be based on sustainable drainage principles, including details of the design, implementation, maintenance and management of the surface water drainage scheme and shall include: i) A timetable for its implementation, and ii) A management and maintenance plan for the lifetime of the development which shall include the arrangements for adoption by any public body or statutory undertaker, or any other arrangements to secure the operation of the sustainable drainage scheme throughout its lifetime. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details thereafter maintained.

Reason: To ensure that an appropriate means of foul and surface water sewerage disposal is supplied to serve the development and to manage the risks of flooding during and post construction and for the lifetime of the development.

15.       None of the flats hereby approved shall be occupied until measures to control access and egress to the underground parking area have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and installed in accordance with the approved details.  The approved measures shall thereafter be maintained and retained on site.

Reason: In the interests of highway and pedestrian safety.