Agenda item

Lordswood and Capstone Ward

Outline Application (with all matters reserved except access) for the erection of up to 450 market and affordable dwellings, nursery and supporting retail space up to 85sqm, with provision of main access to Ham Lane; estate roads; cycle and pedestrian routes; residential and community open space and landscaping; new junction for Lidsing Road/Hempstead Road and realignment and widening of Lidsing Road. Off site related highway works to Westfield Sole Road, Shawstead Road, Hempstead Road, Chapel Lane, Hempstead Valley Drive, Hoath Way roundabout, Hoath Way and M2 Junction 4 - Re-submission of MC/19/0336.

Discussion:

The Senior Planner discussed, in detail, the outline planning application (with all matters reserved except access) for the erection of up to 450 market and affordable dwellings, nursery and supporting retail space up to 85sqm, with provision of main access to Ham Lane; estate roads; cycle and pedestrian routes; residential and community open space and landscaping; new junction for Lidsing Road/Hempstead Road and realignment and widening of Lidsing Road. Off-site related highway works to Westfield Sole Road, Shawstead Road, Hempstead Road, Chapel Lane, Hempstead Valley Drive, Hoath Way roundabout, Hoath Way and M2 Junction 4 - Re-submission of MC/19/0336.

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

• Local residents have stated they were not informed of this latest planning application.
• As the reports that were completed and reviewed were some time ago, the report did not take into account the Gleaming Wood Lane development, which was now under construction and people were beginning to reside there. 
• The new development, with the additional lighting and noise, would affect the bats and would impact their flight patterns.
• Protection of the ancient woodland was important.
• Concerns regarding flooding as Gibraltar Farm was sited within a valley.

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

• As Hempstead and Lordswood would have to absorb 2,500 additional dwellings as part of the Local Plan, it would be necessary, therefore, to minimise the changes on residents within Hempstead Village and Wigmore area.
• There would be a strain on the infrastructure, with a new nursery being included.  Hempstead, Lordswood and Parkwood schools would struggle to cope along with additional traffic during drop off and pick up times.  Medway Hospital was currently struggling to provide adequate services, would they be able to cope with these additional residents. Development could encroach on the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
• Concerns with the traffic – Ham Lane, Westfield Sole Lane, Forge Lane, Capstone Road were single carriageways, they would not be suitable for the increased amount of traffic.  Chapel Lane, Hempstead Road, Hempstead Valley Road, Shawsted Way and Hoath Way would have to cope with alterations and these roads already have significant queues at certain times of the day.  The increase of traffic coming off the M2 motorway, Junction 4 which would flow into Medway via Hoath Way. 
• With the additional investment into Hempstead Valley Shopping Centre, more visitors were being attracted into the area. 
• Without significant investment into high quality bus services, residents would have to use their own vehicles, adding to the traffic. 
• With the contributions that were part of the S106, monies should be allocated to improve the lives of residents of Hempstead and Lordswood that would be impacted.
• Concern regarding the ransom strip, further negotiations should be undertaken or alternatively consideration of a redesign which would only allow very limited access through Hempstead

The Committee discussed the planning application in detail noting the points raised by the Ward Councillors and asked a number of questions which included: 

Development – concerns were raised regarding the noise and disturbance during the construction period for local residents.  

Concerns were also raised by Members regarding the amount of development happening in that area, including the Lidsing development where 2,000 more dwellings were proposed as part of the Maidstone Local Plan.

Further concerns were raised regarding traffic and highways, the impact on the environment including the loss of green spaces, the appearance of the development, which some Members considered could be an overdevelopment and whether the NHS had the capacity to cope with the additional footfall.

Lighting – although Members understood that the lighting issues had been addressed to avoid harm to the bats, they were concerned to ensure that the lighting proposed was sufficient especially in relation to the safety of women and girls.  

Access – Members asked if this was a Lordswood development why was the access via Hempstead and not within Lordswood?

Flooding – the Chief Planning Officer informed Members that relevant conditions would mitigate the concerns of flooding.

S106 contributions – Members requested that any S106 contributions to the NHS be utilised as soon as possible.  The Chief Planning Officer explained he was meeting and working hard with the NHS to understand their requirements for the S106 monies, what the money should be spent on and he would encourage them to utilise the money immediately.

The Chief Planning Officer outlined the history of the planning application, in detail, which was set out on pages 55 to 57 of the report.  He explained that officers and the applicant would have preferred the first option where access was via North Dane Way, however, there was a strip of land that Medway Council owned, which they had previously declined to sell, which prevented the means of access so was not possible for permission to be implemented.  He stated that the Council would have to make a decision regarding this piece of land later in the year.

The Chief Planning Officer went on to explain to Members that Medway Council had spent more money on legal costs relating to appeals than any other council in the country.  If Members were minded to refuse this planning application, they would need to provide specific evidence and reasons for refusal as he considered that in light of the previous appeal decisions, the lack of a 5 year housing land supply and the lack of an up to date Local Plan, there were no planning grounds to refuse the planning application.  If it then went to appeal and the appeal was allowed it was very likely that the Council would not only have to meet its own costs but would be liable to pay costs to the applicant.

He advised that it would take some time to finalise the S106 contributions and  Maidstone Borough Council also needed to consider the application to them  and that it was possible in that time for Medway Council to consider whether it was appropriate to make a fresh decision regarding the strip of land they owned.

Following concerns from Members about S106 contributions regarding the local roads, the Chief Planning Officer stated that the development should not be first occupied until the improvements to the highways had been completed and this was covered within the conditions.

Members were also concerned, that at a previous Planning Committee meeting, they were asked to consider whether a developer did not have to pay their S106 contributions and with the large amount of S106 contributions allocated from this planning application, they were concerned that this would happen again.  The Chief Planning Officer explained that although this had happened occasionally in the past due to the developer incurring costs that were not expected, especially in brownfield sites, it had never been requested for greenfield sites.

The Chief Planning Officer stated that the S106 monies were monitored very carefully by the S106 Officer who ensured that the developers pay on time and that the allocated money was used within the timeframe given.  

Following a comment from one of the Ward Councillors regarding local residents not being informed of this planning application, the Chief Planning Officer categorically stated that consultation on the application had been carried out in accordance with the Council’s adopted practices, and the fact that 790 objections were made on the application showed that local residents were aware.  

Decision:      

Approved subject to:

A        S106 agreement being entered into to secure the following:

(a)      The provision of 25% affordable housing

(b)      Financial contributions as follows:

                                    i.               Provision of an on-site nursery to the value of £829,561.50 or if a potential nursery operator cannot be reasonably found before the start of its construction, a contribution of this amount towards mainstream nursery education within a radius of 2 miles from the development site

                                       ii.            Contribution of £1,047,188.83 towards mainstream nursery/ primary education within a radius of 2 miles from the development site, and/or SEND education within Medway

                                     iii.            Contribution of £1,613,349 mainstream or SEND secondary/sixth form education within Medway

                                     iv.            Contribution of £380,416.50 to support the creation of additional health service capacity

                                      v.            Contribution of £47,115 towards Youth Services for programme delivery for young people (ages 8-19 and up to 25 for with additional needs) in the Gillingham area, which may include facilities, providing access, supplies, equipment, and/or instructors 

                                     vi.            Contribution of £500,843.11 to enhance off-site open space in the vicinity of the development

                                    vii.            Contribution of £107,000 towards improvement of paths in the vicinity

                                  viii.            Contribution of £146,470.50 towards indoor sports facilities in Medway

                                     ix.            Contribution of £260,000 towards the provision of a new bus service to serve the development and/or the extension of an existing service to serve the development

                                      x.            Contribution of £460,000 to the Council towards the provision of link footway and cycle way between the junction with Lidsing Road and the residential area in Hempstead

                                     xi.            Contribution of £370,000 to the Local Highway Authority towards the provision of a pedestrian crossing and scheme of traffic calming measures along Hempstead Road

                                    xii.            Contribution of £104,103 toward waste and recycling requirements for the provision, improvement and promotion of waste and recycling services

                                  xiii.            Contribution of £147,721.50 towards the provision of migrating bird disturbance mitigation measures within the Strategic Access Management and Monitoring Strategy (SAMMS)

                                  xiv.            Contribution of £110,232 towards community facilities

                                   xv.            Contribution of £171,265.50 towards heritage sites and museums

                                  xvi.            Contribution of £99,351.00 towards libraries to improve equipment and facilities at Lordswood Library and/or Hempstead Library

                                 xvii.            Contribution of £110,250 towards public realm, to assist with the development of public realm improvements to Gillingham and/or Rainham town centre

                               xviii.            Contribution of £10,000 for mitigating against vehicular traffic on the PROW link between North Dane Way and the main part of the site, should it be required

                                  xix.            Contribution of £10,000 towards the Councils costs of advertising and administering any traffic regulation order required for removing horses and motorising vehicles from parts of the public right of way network, should it be required.

 B       The imposition of the following conditions 1 to 58 as set out in the report.