Agenda, decisions and draft minutes

Venue: Civic Centre, Windmill Street, Gravesend, Kent

Contact: Email: committee.section@gravesham.gov.uk 

Items
No. Item

23.

Apologies for absence

Minutes:

An apology for absence was received from Cllr Emma Morley and Cllr Shane Mochrie-Cox attended as her substitute.

24.

To sign the Minutes of the previous meeting pdf icon PDF 90 KB

Minutes:

The minutes of the meeting of the Planning Committee held on Wednesday, 1 September 2021 were agreed and signed by the Chair.

25.

Declarations of Interest

To declare any interest members may have in the items contained on this agenda.   When declaring an interest a member must state what their interest is.  Any declared interest will fall into one of the following categories:

 

A Disclosable Pecuniary Interest which has been or should have been declared to the Monitoring Officer, and in respect of which the member must leave the chamber for the whole of the item in question;

 

An Other Significant Interest under the Code of Conduct and in respect of which the member must leave the chamber for the whole of the item in question unless exercising the right of public speaking extended to the general public;

 

A voluntary announcement of another interest not falling into the above categories, made for reasons of transparency.

 

Minutes:

Cllr Craske declared an interest in Item 5A – 20210791 6 Sheppy Place, Gravesend Kent as the person living next door to this application was a close friend. Cllr Craske agreed to leave the meeting for the duration of the item.

 

Cllr Brian Sangha made a voluntary announcement of an other interest in relation to application reference 20210791 as he was a Ward Councillor for Pelham. He advised that he had no previous involvement in the application and there had been no pre-determination on this matter.

26.

Planning applications for determination by the Committee

26a

20210791 - 6 Sheppy Place, Gravesend DA12 1BT pdf icon PDF 2 MB

Construction of a side wall between no. 6 and no. 5 Sheppy Place.

 

Minutes:

The Vice-Chair left the meeting for the duration of this item.

 

The Committee considered application reference 20210791 in relation to land at 6 Sheppy Place, Gravesend DA12 1BT.  The applicationwas for the construction of a side wall between no.6 and no.5 Sheppey Place.  

 

The Team Leader (Development Management) introduced application 5a to the Committee and highlighted key points from the report.

 

The Committee were informed that the recommendation from Planning Officers was for Members to approve the application with conditions as the proposed wall, subject to a condition relating to the use of materials, was considered to preserve the appearance and character of the Conservation Area and therefore accorded with Policies CS19 and CS20 of the Gravesham Local Plan Core Strategy 2014, saved Policy TC3 of the Gravesham Local Plan 1994 and Section 16 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2021.

 

In response to Members questions on the clarification of the application, the Team Leader (Development Management) explained that:

 

·       Planning Officers did not have the measurement of the wall from the property side of number 5 Sheppy Place; the measurement shown was from the property side of number 6 Sheppy Place. There was not a significant drop between the two properties

·       The homeowner could erect a two-metre fence without planning permission under permitted development rights which was 20cm higher than the proposed 1.8 metre wall in the application behind the front wall of the property.

·       The proposed wall would be built fully within the red line boundary of number 6 Sheppy Place which was satisfactory and the existing boundary between no.s 5 and 6 Sheppy place would be untouched. Any damage to the property at number 5 following the building of the proposed wall would be a civil matter between the two property owners

·       In regards to the objections received on page 13, item 5.2 and the fact that the entrance would be darker, especially at night, the Team Leader (Development Management) explained that there was no requirement to contact Kent Police as the distance from the highway to the front door would not require clarification.  

·       During the first submission of the application, a close boarded wooden fence was proposed but following officer assessment it was deemed inappropriate given the conservation area. Following consultation with the conservation architect, he recommended a suitable brick wall instead and advised of the preferred type of brick to be used. Once the applicant agreed to the change, the proposed wall was considered to have addressed concerns from neighbours, the service, and the conservation architect. There wasn’t a need to re-consult  on the change of material

·       Part of condition three specified that the wall had to have a plain brick edge and the conservation architect was specific on simple design

·       The proposed wall would be as close to the red line boundary as possible so there would not be a significant visual gap between the boundary lines after the hedgerow was removed and the wall built

 

In item 5.10, page 15 the report  ...  view the full minutes text for item 26a

26b

20210738 - 93 Rochester Road Gravesend Kent DA12 2HU pdf icon PDF 4 MB

Creation of a vehicle access and hard standing to front. 

Minutes:

The Committee welcomed back the Vice-Chair to the meeting.

 

This application was withdrawn.

 

The Chair apologised to Members for the late notice received regarding the withdrawal of the item and asked officers to bear in mind that Members spent time reading the reports and performing site visits for the Planning Committee meeting.

 

The Service Manager (Planning Development) apologised to the Committee and assured Members that they would be notified of any future withdrawal of items from Planning Committee agendas as soon as possible.

 

26c

20210634 - 28 Tennyson Walk, Northfleet DA11 8LR pdf icon PDF 1 MB

Erection of a single storey rear extension and erection of a new two storey house attached to the side of the existing dwelling.

Minutes:

The Chair gave permission for Cllr Jordan Meade to speak on behalf of the Ward Councillor, Cllr Emma Elliot who was unable to attend. 

 

TheCommittee consideredthe application20210634 inrelation to28 Tennyson Walk, Northfleet, DA11 8LR. The application was for the erection of a single storey rear extension and erection of a new two storey house attached to the side of the existing dwelling.  

 

TheTeam Leader(Development Management)introduced theapplication tothe Committee and highlighted key points from the report.

 

The Committee were informed that the recommendation from Planning Officers was for Members to refuse the application as it would be a cramped form of development, it was out of character with the surrounding area; insufficient amenity space remaining for the existing dwelling at 28 Tennyson Walk; and a lack of ecological mitigation.

 

The Chair thanked the officers for a detailed report.

 

The Committee heard the views of a public speaker in favour of the application.Following theaddress bythe publicspeaker, Membershad theirquestions answered:

 

  • The agent responded to the Committee and informed them that pre-planning had not taken place and no engagement with local residents regarding the plans had been undertaken.
  • It was noted that the garden would not meet the minimum requirements for a four-bedroom property as the useable garden measured approximately 92sqm and the recommendation was for 100sqm
  • The applicant disagreed with the measurements given by the Planning Team as their measurements did not include the side garden whereas the agents measurement took the side garden into account. It should also be noted that it was more like a three-bedroom house as the fourth room was very small; when considered as a three bedroom property the garden would easily meet the requirements of 60 square metres

 

The Committee heard from Cllr Jordan Meade on behalf of Cllr Emma Elliott, a Ward Councillor with the leave of the Chair. 

 

This was the 3rd attempt to develop this piece of land and if passed it would be a cramped void with insufficient amenity space.  There were strong oppositions to this development including being out of character for the local area and would cause a blind corner.  Speaking to local residents, many would be happy for a single storey dwelling to be erected but not a two-storey dwelling. 

 

Policy CS12 of the Gravesham Local Plan Core Strategy stated that there would be no net loss of biodiversity and that opportunities to enhance and maintain habitats be sought.  This development would see the loss of a well vegetated area and no landscaping had been submitted.  Cllr Meade requested that that the Committee look at including conditions regarding those points. 

 

The current application regarding Policy CS19 to safeguard privacy, the first-floor bedroom was significantly less than the 26 meters minimum privacy distance. The windows had now been designed with obscure glass but Cllr Meade raised concern as to whether or not the windows could be opened. 

 

TheTeam Leader(Development  ...  view the full minutes text for item 26c

27.

Planning applications determined under delegated powers by the Director (Planning & Development)

A copy of the schedule has been placed in the democracy web library and also in the Reception, Civic Centre: - http://bit.ly/1Uwy6bJ.

 

Minutes:

A schedule showing applications determined by the Director (Environment) under delegatedpowers hadbeen published on theCouncil’s website.