Agenda item

Strood Rural Ward

Partially retrospective planning application for the retention of steps, ramp pontoon, and 10no. piles (with some reduced in height to approximately 6m to reflect the height of the control pile), removal of 8no. piles, and provision of an additional pontoon, and use of former toilet building to supply facilities for those mooring boats including provision of WC and shower, drying and storage facilities.

Councillor Vye withdrew from the meeting for this item.

Discussion:

The Service Manager - Development Management discussed the partially retrospective planning application for the retention of steps, ramp pontoon, and 10no. piles (with some reduced in height to approximately 6m to reflect the height of the control pile), removal of 8no. piles, and provision of an additional pontoon, and use of former toilet building to supply facilities for those mooring boats including provision of WC and shower, drying and storage facilities.

The Service Manager – Development Management brought Members’ attention to the supplementary agenda advice sheet, which amended condition 4 by reducing the restriction on return visits from three months to one month.

The Service Manager - Development Management gave a brief overview of the history of this site, which included comments from the Planning Inspector to the appeal, which were included within the report.

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

• The Ward Councillors and Parish Council expressed disappointment that Medway Council had not taken legal proceedings to uphold the Planning Inspector’s decision to dismiss the appellant’s appeal. 
• Although the houseboat had been removed, unauthorised piles, posts, jetties, ramps, stairs remained in place, in a direct contravention and disregard of the enforcement notice.
• The enforcement appeal was served for the material change of use of land for the mooring of a waterborne vessels used for residential purposes; the driving of piles being driven into the riverbed; and the construction of a jetty and steps to provide access onto the riverbank. 
• He considered this would be an inappropriate location, noting there were authorised recreational moorings which already existed at Cuxton and Hoo.  
• Concern was raised that there was no direct access to the site from land in the applicant’s ownership, and it was understood the applicant did not have a legal right of access.
• High numbers of public objections were received, including objections from the Rochester Oyster and Floating Fishery (ROFF) which had exclusive fishing rights within the River Medway and it was noted that no prior authorisation had been granted from the Marine Maritime Organisation (MMO).

Members noted that pilings and jetties had appeared on site, followed by the unlawful mooring of the houseboat.  The Council had issued an Enforcement Notice and successfully defended the appeal and since then the houseboat had been removed, a course of action supported by the Planning Committee.   Members further noted that, following the appeal, the requirement for the removal of the pilings and jetties had not been complied with. 

Members discussed concerns relating to the proposed conditions which included how the grey water and potential sewerage from the re-purposed former toilet block, intended for storage and wash facilities, would be disposed of or stored, and whether any discharge would enter the river.  Questions were raised regarding the responsibility for monitoring this.  Members also expressed concern about how the condition which limited waterborne vessels to temporarily moor, for no more than five consecutive nights, would be monitored.

Condition 6 which prohibited any refuelling or maintenance activities of waterborne craft on site, was also discussed.  Members noted that all vessels required some degree of maintenance and expressed concern that, if such activities occurred, they could result in ecological harm to the local area.  Questions were raised regarding how this proposed condition would be enforced.  

Following a question regarding the applicant’s lack of legal rights of access to land, the Service Manager – Development Management confirmed that a legal right of access was not a material planning consideration and, therefore, could not be given weight.  He explained that the two relevant parties would need to come to an agreement, and if they did not then the development could not continue.

Members expressed concern that the frontage of the River Medway should provide unobstructed views, given that it formed part of a public right of way.  It was noted that a fence currently obscured views towards St Mary’s Island.  The Service Manager – Development Management clarified that the fence was not within the applicant’s ownership or control and, therefore, could not be required to be removed as part of the planning application.

Members also noted that no prior authorisation had been sought from the Marine Maritime Organisation (MMO) for a marine licence, nor from Rochester Oyster and Floating Fishery (ROFF) for works on the riverbed.  The Service Manager – Development Management acknowledged this and advised that, should planning application be granted, the applicant would be required to apply for the relevant marine licence and liaise with ROFF to agree the works and that the applicant was aware of the necessary requirements.

The Service Manager – Development Management explained that the key findings from the Inspector, namely that the previously moored houseboat, due to its two-storey height, had caused significant visual harm, but had since been removed.  The Inspector had concluded that the 18 piles caused only a small degree of visual harm.  As the current planning application proposed 10 piles at a reduced height, it was considered that the level of visual harm would be even less.  The Inspector also found that the ramp and jetty caused no visual harm.  

The Service Manager – Development Management confirmed that the recommended conditions had been discussed with the applicant, who had indicated that they were satisfied they could comply with them.  Members and local residents were advised that any breaches of conditions should be reported to the Planning Department, which would be investigated and, where necessary, enforcement action would be taken.

The Service Manager – Development Management confirmed that a maximum of 15 vessels could be moored on the site and that the new pontoon would be used for leisure based, self-propelled craft only.

Members raised concerns that, at certain times due to tidal conditions, the site would be exposed as mud, and, therefore, was not a viable berthing location.   

The Committee then voted on the officer’s recommendation, which was lost.  Members then discussed potential reasons for refusal, including ecological impacts and the potential for damage to the river from waste discharge.

Decision:      

REFUSED for the following reasons:

1           The retention of the piles, creation of the pontoon and its use for mooring of leisure craft would result in cumulative visual clutter that would harm the open and informal character of the Upnor riverside and interrupt public views across the River Medway contrary to Policy BNE1 of the Medway Local Plan (2003) and paragraphs 131 and 135 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2024).

2           In the absence of evidence to demonstrate that the use, and the comings and goings associated with the use, would not result in disturbance and subsequent harm to wintering and foraging birds the proposal is contrary to Policies BNE37 and BNE39 of the Medway Local Plan (2003) and paragraphs 187 and 192 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2024).

Councillor Vye returned to the meeting.