Agenda item

Rainham North

Construction of 27 3 x bedroom dwellings with access works, associated parking and landscaping.

Discussion:

The Head of Planning outlined the planning application in detail and suggested that if the Committee was minded to approve the planning application, an additional condition 27 be approved as set out on the supplementary agenda advice sheet.

In addition, he drew attention to a revised section of the committee report relating to contamination also set out on the supplementary agenda advice sheet.

With the agreement of the Committee, Councillor Potter addressed the Committee as Ward Councillor and outlined concerns including:

·         The committee report did not include reference to a petition that he had submitted containing over 1000 signatures objecting to large scale development in Rainham.

·         Whilst the principle of development at Bakersfield had already been established, development of this orchard land would have a detrimental impact upon the highways network should other proposed developments in Rainham be progressed.

·         The proposed development does not include any mitigation for alleviating traffic congestion.

·         The total proposed Section 106 agreement for open space facilities should be directed to open spaces in Rainham.

·         There should be an additional condition requiring a Site Management Plan taking into account issues that have arisen with the existing development on adjoining land at Bakersfield.

The Head of Planning advised the Committee that petitions were frequently received by the Council objecting to potential developments and, whilst the concerns of those who had signed the petitions were respected, if they did not relate to specific planning applications and contain objection reasons specific to a planning application they could not be considered by the Committee when determining a planning application. He explained that should ‘non -specific’ petitions form part of the planning application process and be taken into account when refusing a planning application, this could affect any later planning appeal and could result in costs being awarded against the Council. It was for this reason that petitions which did not relate to specified planning applications were not referred to within planning application reports.

In response to highway concerns, the Head of Planning advised that when considering applications for large scale developments in Rainham, the impact on the highway was an issue that would need to be carefully considered. However, as this particular application was for 27 properties and formed phase 2 of the Bakersfield development, officers were of the opinion that this development was acceptable on highway grounds.

In response to the issue of open space contributions, the Head of Planning advised that the Committee had previously recognised the Great Lines Heritage Park as an asset to Medway as a whole and, as only 5% of the proposed Section 106 contribution was to be used for the Great Lines Heritage Park this was not considered unreasonable.

He referred to the Site Management Plan and advised that he had already met with the Site Manager at the adjoining development and if this planning application was approved, the Site Management Plan would be carried forward onto this site.

The Committee discussed the report and, in particular, the section of the report concerning flooding. It was noted that the Environment Agency’s ‘Risk of Flooding from Surface Water’ indicated that the north and western parts of the site were at risk of flooding. Members expressed concern that the proposed conditions required that development of plots 19 – 27 should not commence until a scheme to address/resolve the surface water flooding that affects these proposed dwelling houses has been submitted and approved by the Local Planning Authority.

The Committee acknowledged that as the applicant was currently working on the adjacent site, it would wish to begin works on Phase 2 of the development without unnecessary delay, but considered that the drainage concerns needed to be addressed before planning permission could be granted for the full scheme. It was considered that if the drainage issues could not be easily resolved, the applicant may wish to consider submitting a revised scheme for those properties unaffected by potential flooding.

Decision: 

Consideration of this application be deferred pending further discussions with the applicant on the surface water drainage scheme for the development with a view to the application being re-submitted to the next meeting for determination.