Agenda item
Planning application - MC/18/3114 - Avenue Tennis Club, Glebe Road, Gillingham
- Meeting of Planning Committee, Wednesday, 13 February 2019 6.30pm (Item 797.)
- View the declarations of interest for item 797.
Watling
Construction of eight 4 x bedroomed dwellings with associated parking and access road (demolition of existing extension to 26 Second Avenue).
Minutes:
Discussion:
In the absence of the Chairman, the Vice Chairman, Councillor Hicks took the chair for the consideration and determination of this planning application.
The Planning Manager outlined the planning application in detail and drew attention to the supplementary agenda advice sheet on which there was a correction to the wording of the proposed Section 106 agreement.
In addition, she drew attention to two letters from Rehman Chishti MP that he had received relating to this planning application, details of which were appended to the supplementary agenda advice sheet.
The Planning Manager advised that eleven additional representations, including two from one household had been received reiterating concerns already addressed within the committee report. New matters raised concerned a covenant, loss of view and loss of house value but these were not material planning considerations.
The Planning Manager also advised that Councillor Purdy, as Ward Councillor had submitted a petition containing 111 signatures objecting to the development of houses on the site.
With the agreement of the Committee, Councillors Purdy and Saroy addressed the Committee as Ward Councillors and outlined the concerns of residents including the following:
· The proposed development will have an impact on those residents living in Glebe Road and this has not been taken into account.
· Vehicular exit from Glebe Road into Second Avenue is already very difficult owing the restricted sight lines and this development will exacerbate this problem resulting in road safety issues.
· Many residents have objected to this proposed development.
· The application site is in a Conservation Area.
· The application constitutes backland development
· The development will place a strain on the existing sewage and drainage system and could result in flooding.
· The proposed houses will have very small gardens.
· The provision of three storey houses is out of keeping with the character of the area and will be overbearing.
· The committee report and presentation do not give the full picture of the area and if the Committee is minded to approve the planning application, then prior to doing so a site visit should be undertaken.
· The proposed development is an overdevelopment of the site and will result in overlooking and block light and result in a loss of privacy.
· On street parking in the vicinity of the application site is at a premium and should this proposed development be approved, it will result in an increase in the demand for on-street parking.
The Committee discussed the application and expressed concern that the proposed development was cramped and overbearing. In addition, plots 7 and 8, being three storeys high were considered to be excessive in height and out of character with houses in the surrounding area.
Members also expressed concern that although there was parking provision on site, the proposed parking provision and, in particular, visitor parking was inadequate and would likely result in increased competition for on street parking in surrounding roads.
Other concerns expressed by members of the Committee included an unacceptable loss of trees, lack of reassurance that the ecological and reptile surveys were up to date and the lack of a footpath into and out of the site. A Member also sought information as to the collection point for household refuse and re-cycling.
In response to concerns about the lack of a footpath, the Principal Transport Planner confirmed that the width of the proposed access road was 4.8m and that when reviewing the scheme, the Council’s Highways Team had not requested that a footpath be provided. It was also confirmed that the access road would be sufficiently wide enough for a refuse vehicle to access the properties and therefore refuse and recycling could be collected from the front of properties.
Some Members referred to emails received from residents objecting to the planning application and whilst appreciating residents’ concerns about the proposed development, concern was expressed about the tone of some of the emails and the inference that some Members the Planning Committee would not be unbiased in their consideration of the planning application. Members from across the Committee wished it to be known that the Committee undertakes its role seriously and responsibly, listens to points raised by all parties and considers each planning application upon its individual merits having regard to material planning considerations.
The Head of Planning advised the Committee that at the request of Ward Councillors, he had held a public meeting with residents and the case officer at which discussion had ensued as to the proposal and those factors which could and could not be taken into account as a material planning consideration. In addition, it had been explained as to how residents could make their views known, including sending their objections direct to Members of the Planning Committee if they so wished. On the whole, those residents at the meeting understood the role of the Planning Committee and it was therefore unfortunate that one or two individuals had chosen to send emails along the lines referred to.
A Member drew attention the planning history for the site as listed in the committee report and commented that planning applications MC/15/1751, MC/16/3217 and MC/15/3205 required deletion as they related to a development by the Avenue Tennis Club which was not at the same site as the current planning application. In response, the Head of Planning agreed that reference to these three planning applications were not relevant.
Following consideration, the Committee considered that whilst it did not object to the principle of development of the site, this particular planning application was unacceptable.
Decision:
a) Refused on the following grounds:
1. Although not within a Conservation Area, the site is located not far from a Conservation Area and the proposed development constitutes overdevelopment of the site which will be harmful to the area by virtue of the height of plots 7 and 8 and overlooking.
2. The development is out of character of the area.
3. The proposed gardens are too small and therefore provide a lack of amenity for prospective occupiers.
4. Lack of visitor parking which could have a detrimental impact on competition for on street parking in the vicinity of the application site.
5. The increase in traffic movements in and out of the site could lead to road safety issues owing to the sight lines at the junction with Second Avenue.
6. The lack of provision of a pedestrian footpath into and out of the site.
b) The Head of Planning be granted delegated authority to approve the wording of the refusal grounds with the Vice Chairman and opposition spokesperson outside of the meeting.
Supporting documents: