Agenda item

Planning application - MC/24/0291 Land adjacent to Fenn Street and Ratcliffe Highway, St Mary Hoo, Rochester, Medway, ME3 8RF

All Saints Ward

Full planning application for 44 new homes (use class C3) with the provision of  associated parking, open spaces, SUDs and earthworks. Provision of overflow parking for Fenn Bell Conservation project and enhancement to existing access from Fenn Street on land adjacent to the Fenn Street and Ratcliffe Highway.

Minutes:

Discussion:

 

The Senior Planner outlined in detail for a full planning application for 44 new homes (use class C3) with the provision of associated parking, open spaces, Sustainable Drainage Systems (SUDs) and earthworks.  The provision of overflow parking for Fenn Bell Conservation project and enhancement to the existing access from Fenn Street on land adjacent to the Fenn Street and Ratcliffe Highway.

 

The Senior Planner informed Members that in the supplementary agenda advice sheet, an amendment of condition 23 and an additional representation were referenced.

 

With the agreement of the Committee, Councillor Spalding addressed the Committee as Ward Councillor and raised the following points:

 

  • Concerns were given that this site would be car dominant which would increase the volume of traffic.  There would be air quality issues, inadequate bus services, no safe access to local amenities, it would not be in-keeping with the surrounding neighbourhood, it would be unsustainable and would have an adverse impact on the quality of residents’ lives.
  • There were missing documents – no reptile report, no pre-application, no traffic survey, hence, Members did not have the full information.
  • Although the Esquire traffic survey was set up where the traffic would typically go slow, there were still over 5,000 instances of speeding within one week. 
  • Previous planning applications in the area had been refused by the Planning Committee and were then dismissed at appeal.  Why would this be different?
  • The Local Plan was out of date, and he quoted the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) paragraph 11d which quoted “the presumption in favour of development, unless, adverse impacts outweigh benefits as a whole”.  He went on to say that this development was not included in option 1 of the Local Plan Regulation 18 consultation.

 

The Committee then asked a number of questions and comments, which included:

 

  • S106 Contributions – some Members discussed where the S106 contributions should be awarded and suggested that the contributions be directed more locally such as the library contribution to go to Hoo Library instead of Grain, Strood or any mobile libraries.  The sports improvement contribution to go to Deangate Sports Centre, instead of Hoo Sports Centre.  The primary provision or SEND education to go to a potential new SEND school in Stoke.  Concerns were raised that the contribution for health (£37,196.28) would not make a significant difference and it was requested that once the monies were awarded, it be used straight away.  The public rights of way contribution should be ringfenced and be used within close proximity of the site. 

 

  • Bus services – some Members had concerns regarding the inadequate bus services and that the £50,000 contribution, towards bus service provision improvements would be insufficient.  The Chief Planning Officer said that the contribution would go some way to improve the service, however, more work was required with the public transport providers.

 

Concerns were expressed regarding the congestion at the Four Elms roundabout and it was asked what could be done to mitigate against this.

 

  • Safety – concerns were raised that although there would be a footpath around the site, how would pedestrians cross the A228?  With no safe walking or cycling paths, the residents, without their own transport, would be confined within the development.

 

Concerns were raised regarding the access onto Fenn Street which was a narrow but busy country lane and questions were asked regarding the adequacy of the traffic calming measures.  The access onto the Ratcliffe Highway was shared with the zoo overflow carpark and also led to the Allhallows Holiday Park.

 

  • Design – a Member considered that the design was out of character for the area.

 

  • Car dominated development – with poor public transport, families living there would be reliant on their own vehicles which would increase traffic.  

 

The Highways Consultant stated that condition 23 stated that no more than 50% of the development herein approved should be occupied until the street calming and highways works on the Ratcliffe Highway have been completed.   He also confirmed that the traffic assessment showed that the maximum hourly increase in vehicles would be 20 additional vehicles within a one hour period, equivalent to 1 car every 3 minutes. 

 

The Chief Planning Officer summed up the planning application and discussed the following points:

 

  • There was a need to find sites to build homes, referring to the current housing crisis, which included a great demand to provide affordable homes.  He went on to say that currently there were 818 children in Medway living in temporary accommodation. 

 

  • The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) required a 5-year housing land supply and Medway Council needed to provide sites for 1,658 dwellings per year, which would equate to 22,500 dwellings by 2041, so although 44 homes would not solve this, it was an important contribution.  

 

  • The NPPF indicated there were three elements to sustainable development, which were, social, economic and environmental.  The Chief Planning Officer suggested Members give significant weight to the social aspect of providing homes to meet the housing need in Medway and the applicant had agreed to start construction quicker, within 18 months rather than the normal 3 years.  A registered provider had been selected to deliver 11 homes for affordable rent for 1 and 2 bedroom units.

 

  • Members were requested to give moderate weight to the economic side, as the application provided employment opportunities during construction and supported local building trades serving small to medium enterprises (SME).  There would then be additional spend available for the local economy after occupation.

 

  • He stated that negligible weight should be given to the impact of the zoo, although the applicant said they would use the money to retain the zoo, the homes that would be provided would be permanent, the zoo may not be so.

 

  • Highway mitigation should be given moderate weight as the Highways Consultant had confirmed that this planning application, on highways terms, was acceptable.

 

  • The Chief Planning Officer confirmed that Four Elms Roundabout was highly congested at peak times, however, the Highways Consultant clarified that 44 homes would not justify an impact on the roads and there were proposals to improve the roundabout as part of a separate proposal.

 

  • He clarified that although Fenn Street was not within option 1 of the Local Plan Regulation 18, as stated by the Ward Councillor, the site was included within option 2 and the preferred option, 3.

 

  • The Chief Planning Officer acknowledged Members’ request to amend some of the S106 contributions and he would be happy to consider them and would discuss the changes with the relevant ward councillors.  

 

  • Although the site was within the countryside it was not within a site designated of landscape importance, it was not in an area of outstanding natural beauty or within a greenbelt area.  The landscaping proposed would help soften the development and make it more acceptable. 

 

  • He confirmed it would be a car dominated scheme, nothing could change that.

 

It was requested, by Members, that a deferral of this planning application be moved and voted on to allow Members of the Planning Committee to attend a site visit of the site.

 

Decision:      

 

Deferred for a site visit. 

Supporting documents: