Agenda item

To approve the record of the meeting held on 24 June 2020.

The record of the meeting held on 24 June 2020 was agreed and signed by the Chairman as correct. 

The Committee was informed of the following update to planning applications considered by the Committee on 29 April 2020 and 24 June 2020:

29 April 2020

Minute 821 - Planning application MC/18/1796 - Land South of Lower Rainham Road, Rainham, Gillingham

As agreed by Planning Committee, following discussion with the Ward Councillors the following amendments were made to the heads of S106 agreement

iv)   Green Space MUGA (Multi Use Games Area) to be provided on site and contribution of £194,179.62 towards refurbishment/repair of Splashes Leisure centre

xiii)    £192,337.66 towards off site ecological improvements at Berengrave Nature Reserve Park and/or Riverside Country Park

24 June 2020

Minute 63 - Planning application – MC/20/0028 - Land South of Multi Storey Car Park, Hempstead Valley Shopping Centre, Hempstead Valley Drive, Hempstead

With delegated authority, the Head of Planning agreed the final wording of the refusal grounds following consultation with the Chairman, Vice Chairman and Opposition Spokesperson to read as follows:

1       The proposed development is simplistic and generic in architectural design and by the nature of the use is likely to be subject to an array of advertisements at a later date. The siting of the building would also be within close proximity to Hempstead Valley Drive at an access point into and out of Hempstead Valley Shopping Centre. As a result of this, the proposed development would be unacceptably prominent within the street scene where development associated with the shopping centre is generally set back from the road with a significant level of soft landscaping along the road which contributes to maintaining a feeling of openness and greenery whilst you travel along Hempstead Valley Drive. This helps keep a balance between the suburban residential character and ensure that the shopping centre and its associated buildings are not the dominant feature along this road frontage. In addition, at times queues of customers for the drive through will impact negatively on access to the centre's multi storey car park and indeed may result in queueing up to Hempstead valley drive and thereby impact on traffic congestion in the area to the detriment of the free flow of traffic and the amenities of the area. The proposal is contrary to Policies BNE1, BNE2 and T1 of the Medway Local Plan 2003 and paragraphs 124 and 127 of the NPPF 2019.

2     Notwithstanding the litter picking strategy discussed with the applicant and generally in force within the confines of the centre itself, the LPA is concerned that a number of visitors to the drive through will take their purchases to nearby attractive areas and after eating will fly tip the resulting waste to the detriment of the amenities of the area, particularly if there are no litter bins at those particular places. The proposal is therefore contrary to general ambition of Policy BNE2 of the Local Plan to protect the amenities of an area.

Minute 64 - Planning application – MC/20/1064 - 51 Shepherds Gate, Hempstead, Gillingham

With delegated authority, the Head of Planning agreed the final wording of the refusal ground following consultation with the Chairman, Vice Chairman and Opposition Spokesperson to read as follows:

1     The proposed development by virtue of its design, depth, height and proximity to the boundary with 52 Shepherds Gate, would be disproportionate and out of character with existing pattern of development in the area, and would be an overbearing form of development when viewed from the rear garden of 52 Shepherds Gate, detrimental to the amenity and living conditions of the occupiers of that property, contrary to Policies BNE1 and BNE2 of the Medway Local Plan 2003 and paragraphs 124 and 127f of the NPPF.

Minute 65 - Planning application – MC/18/1871 - Land at Port Victoria Road, Isle of Grain, Rochester

With delegated authority, the Head of Planning agreed the final wording of the refusal ground following consultation with the Chairman, Vice Chairman and Opposition Spokesperson to read as follows:

1     The proposed development by reason of its siting within the setting of Grain Fort and obstruction of the line of fire of the Grain batteries would adverse impact on the setting of the nearby Scheduled Monument. It is considered that the cumulative community benefits resulting from the development would not outweigh the identified resulting long term harm to the schedule Monument and as such the proposed development would be contrary to Policy BNE20 of the Local Plan and would not be in compliance with paragraph 196 of the NPPF.

Minute 66 - Planning application – MC/20/0533 – 2 - 4 Canterbury Street, Gillingham

With delegated authority, the Head of Planning agreed the final wording of the refusal grounds following consultation with the Chairman, Vice Chairman and Opposition Spokesperson to read as follows:

1       The proposed development due to the lack of provision of an active shopping frontage would result in the loss of a commercial use in the district centre that would impact negatively on the retail viability and vitality of this section of the Canterbury Street frontage of the Gillingham district centre. The proposal would therefore be contrary to Policy R12 of the Medway Local Plan 2003 and paragraph 85 of the NPPF.

2       The proposal represents an overdevelopment of the site due to the amount of bedsits proposed, inadequate usable external amenity space in terms of both provision and layout to serve the prospective residents, and poor outlook to bedsits 1 to 3 within the ground floor extension where their windows face onto rear walls of properties on Gillingham High Street. The proposal is therefore contrary to the provisions of Policy BNE2 of the Medway Local Plan 2003 and paragraph 127 of the NPPF.