Agenda and minutes

Councillor Wendy Brice-Thompson declared a personal interest in application number P0938.16. Councillor Brice-Thompson advised that she was the Cabinet Member for Adult Social Services and Health.

The proposal before Members was for the construction of a terrace of three 4-bedroom dwellings, with associated car parking to the side and amenity space to the rear.

In accordance with the public speaking arrangements the Committee was addressed by an objector with a response from the applicant’s agent.

The objector commented that the proposal was an overdevelopment of the site and that there was insufficient parking provision.

The applicant’s agent commented that had been extensive consultation with officers who were recommending the granting of planning permission. The agent also commented that that all parking would be off-street. The agent concluded by commenting that an acoustic fence would be installed around the site and that no overlooking at the rear of the properties would be possible.

With its agreement Councillor Ron Ower addressed the Committee.

Councillor Ower commented that there was a lack of parking provision in Brierley Close and that the proposal would exacerbate parking problems which in turn would create access problems for emergency vehicles. Councillor Ower concluded by commenting that he had concerns regarding overlooking from the proposal site.

During the debate Members discussed the parking provision and access /egress arrangements for the site.

A motion was put forward for deferring consideration of the report which was lost by 4 votes to 6.

The Committee noted that the proposal qualified for a Mayoral CIL contribution of £6,940 and RESOLVED that the proposal was unacceptable as it stood but would be acceptable subject to the applicant entering into a Section 106 Legal Agreement under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended), to secure the following:

•           A financial contribution of £18,000 to be used for educational purposes 

•           All contribution sums should include interest to the due date of expenditure and all contribution sums to be subject to indexation from the date of completion of the Section 106 agreement to the date of receipt by the Council.

•           The Developer/Owner pay the Council’s reasonable legal costs in association with the preparation of a legal agreement, prior to completion of the agreement, irrespective of whether the legal agreement was completed.

•           The Developer/Owner to pay the appropriate planning obligation/s monitoring fee prior to completion of the agreement.

That the Head of Regulatory Services be authorised to enter into a legal agreement to secure the above and upon completion of that agreement, grant planning permission subject to the conditions as set out in the report.

The vote for the resolution to grant planning permission was carried by 8 votes to 2.

Councillors Donald, Best, Brice-Thompson, Kelly, Wallace, Nunn, Johnson and Burton voted for the resolution to grant planning permission.

Councillors Hawthorn and Whitney voted against the resolution to grant planning permission.

The proposal before members was for the erection of two 3-bedroom and one 4-bedroom detached dwellings with associated vehicular access, landscaping and parking.

In accordance with the public speaking arrangements the Committee was addressed by an objector with a response from the applicant’s agent.

The objector commented that previous planning applications for the site had been refused due to dangerous access/egress arrangements for the site. The objector also commented that the proposal would lead to a loss of privacy for neighbouring properties due to overlooking and that the proposal would look out of place in the streetscene.

The applicant’s agent commented that Policy CP1 outlined that priority was given to non-specifically designated land to housing. The agent also commented that the proposed parking provision met the requirements and that officers had agreed that the proposed density was sufficient. The agent concluded by commenting that discussions were ongoing between the applicant and Highways over road safety improvements.

During the debate Members discussed the access and egress arrangements for the proposal and possible road safety improvements.

The report recommended that planning permission be granted however following a motion to refuse the granting of planning permission it was RESOLVED that planning permission be refused on the grounds that:

·         Harm to highway safety caused by access position in relation to bridge/ visibility for drivers in relation to oncoming traffic.

·         Failure to secure education contribution via legal agreement.

The vote for the resolution to refuse the granting of planning permission was carried by 9 votes to 0 with 1 abstention.

Councillor Best abstained from voting.

The proposal before Members was for the demolition of the existing public house and the erection of a part2/part3 storey building to provide sixteen apartments and the construction of eight 2-storey houses together with associated landscaping and thirty six car parking spaces.

In accordance with the public speaking arrangements the Committee was addressed by an objector with a response by the applicant’s agent.

The objector commented that the proposal would spoil the current views of the Country Park and advised that the proposed flats should switch positions with the proposed houses. The objector also commented that the proposed flats would not fit within the existing streetscene and that the building works would be a disturbance to the amenity of existing neighbouring residents.

In response the applicant’s agent commented that the nearest property to the proposal site was over twenty six metres away. The agents also commented that the proposed properties would be built to a traditional style with pitched roofs and the Green Belt land would be left open. The agent concluded by commenting that the applicant had taken on board the comments raised from previous refusals.

During a brief debate Members sought and received clarification on a possible covenant on the area and its possible impact on planning matters.

Members noted that the proposed development qualified for a Mayoral CIL contribution of £36,220 and RESOLVED that the proposal was unacceptable as it stood but would be acceptable subject to the applicant entering into a Section 106 Legal Agreement under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended), to secure the following:

•      A financial contribution of £46,881 towards affordable housing.

•      A financial contribution of £144,000 to be used for educational purposes.

•      All contribution sums should include interest to the due date of expenditure and all contribution sums to be subject to indexation from the date of completion of the Section 106 agreement to the date of receipt by the Council.

•      The Developer/Owner pay the Council’s reasonable legal costs in association with the preparation of a legal agreement, prior to completion of the agreement, irrespective of whether the legal agreement was completed.

•      The Developer/Owner to pay the appropriate planning obligation/s monitoring fee prior to completion of the agreement.

That the Head of Regulatory Services be authorised to enter into a legal agreement to secure the above and upon completion of that agreement, grant planning permission subject to the conditions as set out in the report.

The vote for the resolution to grant planning permission was carried by 8 votes to 0 with 2 abstentions.

Councillors Best and Johnson abstained from voting.

The report before Members considered an application for the erection of 394 dwellings comprising 175 houses and 219 flats on land adjacent to Dovers Corner, Rainham.

The application was deferred at the 25 August meeting of the Committee to enable staff to clarify the position regarding affordable housing. It also gave the opportunity for members to highlight any issues they felt were not addressed within the published report. In addition the advice from the Health and Safety Executive had also been re-evaluated in the light of clarification on the safeguarding zones and the re-location of the northern pipeline. These matters were addressed in an update section in the report and in changes to the main report as necessary.

In accordance with the public speaking arrangements the Committee was addressed by an objector with a response by the applicant’s agent.

The objector commented that he was speaking on behalf of the MP for the area who had been contacted by concerned constituents regarding healthcare and education provision in the area. However following re-assurances from the applicant, regarding possible healthcare and education provision, the MP was now supporting the application.

In response the applicant’s agent commented that the application formed part of the Rainham and Beam Park Masterplan and that the proposal had been amended significantly to meet with Member’s original concerns.

With its agreement Councillors Phil Martin and David Durant addressed the Committee.

Councillor Martin commented that the proposal failed to provide enough parking provision and that the higher storied blocks were out of keeping with the openness of the surrounding area. Councillor Martin also commented that there still existed foul smells in the area from the nearby sewage works. Councillor Martin concluded by commenting that the Council had recently agreed that going forward new housing developments should provide as much parking provision as they could.

Councillor Durant commented that he shared the view that the application failed to deliver regarding parking provision. Councillor Durant also commented that the application being considered was the first within the proposed housing zone and that if the application was agreed with inadequate parking provision then it would set a dangerous precedent for the rest of the zone.

During the debate Members discussed the parking provision on the site and the public transport links in the area.

Members also discussed the access and egress arrangements proposed for the site and the possible medical and educational provision within the area.

Members agreed that the proposal before them was an improvement on what had previously been submitted but felt there was still some enhancements that could be made to the application.

The report recommended that planning permission be approved however following a motion to defer consideration of the report it was RESOLVED that consideration of the report be deferred to give the applicant the opportunity to address the following:

·       Clarification of possible health related infrastructure.

·       Poor, bulky, cluttered visual impact arising from the extent of unarticulated, uniform approach towards design.

·       Highway safety and pedestrian crossing implication related  ...  view the full minutes text for item 96.

The proposal before members sought consent for the construction of four, three bedroom semi-detached bungalows with off street parking, electronic gates, a brick wall and a double garage.

During a brief debate Members sought and received clarification as to the difference between the proposal before them and previous refused applications.

It was RESOLVED that the proposal was unacceptable as it stood but would be acceptable subject to the applicant entering into a Section 106 Legal Agreement under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended), to secure the following:

• A financial contribution of £18,000 to be paid prior to the commencement of the development, to be used for educational purposes in accordance with the Policy DC72 of the LDF Core Strategy and Development Control Policies Development Plan Document.

• All contribution sums should include interest to the due date of expenditure and all contribution sums to be subject to indexation from the date of completion of the Section 106 agreement to the date of receipt by the Council.

• The Developer/Owner to pay the Council’s reasonable legal costs associated with the planning obligation prior to its completion irrespective of whether the obligation was completed.

• The payment of the appropriate planning obligations monitoring fee prior to the completion of the obligation.

That the Head of Regulatory Services be authorised to enter into a legal agreement to secure the above and upon completion of that agreement, grant outline planning permission subject to the conditions as set out in the report.

The vote for the resolution to grant planning permission was carried by 6 votes to 4.

Councillors Best, Brice-Thompson, Wallace, Donald, Hawthorn and Burton voted for the resolution to grant planning permission.

Councillors Kelly, Nunn, Whitney and Johnson voted against the resolution to grant planning permission.

The Committee considered the report and without debate RESOLVED that planning permission be approved subject to the conditions as set out in the report.

As mentioned previously in these minutes Councillor Wendy Brice-Thompson declared a personal interest in this application. Councillor Brice-Thompson advised that she was the Cabinet Member for Adult Social Services and Health.

The Committee considered the report and without debate RESOLVED that planning permission be approved subject to the conditions as set out in the report.

The Committee considered the report and without debate RESOLVED that planning permission be approved subject to the conditions as set out in the report.

The Committee considered the report and without debate RESOLVED that planning permission be approved subject to the conditions as set out in the report.

The Committee considered the report and without debate RESOLVED that planning permission be approved subject to the conditions as set out in the report.

The Committee considered the report and without debate RESOLVED that planning permission be approved subject to the conditions as set out in the report.

During the discussion of the reports the Committee RESOLVED to suspend Committee Procedure Rule 8 in order to complete the consideration of the remaining business of the agenda.