Apologies for absence were received from Cllr Brian Francis and Cllr Samir Jassal; Cllr Lyn Milner and Cllr Les Hoskins were their respective substitutes.

The minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on Wednesday 04 January 2023 were signed by the Chair.

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.

Cllr Tony Rice declared an Other Significant Interest with regards to item 5a as he was an appointed director on the board of Rosherville. 

Cllr Tony Rice agreed to leave for the duration of item 5a and return for item 5b.

The Committee considered application 20211540; the application was for the change of use from the existing car park to the erection of four to seven storey buildings with a ten-storey tower (Ground + nine storeys) to provide 156 flats, 2612.40 sqm of commercial space, including office, retail and workshops, with ancillary car parking, open space and

access to Eden Place.

The Team Leader (Development Management) advised that one objection to the development based on the height of the building and parking provision was received on the day, but that the matters raised were dealt with in the report.

The Team Leader (Development Management) delivered a presentation to Members outlining the proposals for the site.

The Team Leader (Development Management) summarised the reasons for recommendation and advised that the proposed development was deemed to be a sustainable form of development that accorded with national and local planning policy and the agent/applicant had confirmed that they would provide all of the S.106 financial contributions which would meet the relevant tests set out within the NPPF (2021).

The Team Leader (Development Management) concluded that permission was recommended subject to the Section 106 (S.106) being signed and appropriate planning conditions.

The Committee were invited to ask questions for clarification.

Members questions were answered by the Service Manager (Planning) and Team Leader (Development Management):

• The S.106 monies would be held by Gravesham Borough Council (GBC) and would only be transferred to Kent County Council (KCC) once they had given GBC significant evidence of what the money would be used for, to ensure expenditure would be compliant with the S.106 agreement. That process meant that only projects that Members had previously agreed to were funded and no S.106 monies were spent elsewhere
• All businesses that currently have access to Eden Place from behind their buildings would retain full access following the completion of the development.
• Following a Members concern about the height of the building, the Committee was informed that the Gravesham Conservation Architect was consulted as part of the application and he felt that the building should not exceed eight stories, however it was for  the case officer to balance all comments including those around housing need, design and the extant permission of nine stories already in place. Taking a balanced view, the Team Leader (Development Management) had come to the conclusion that ten stories was ant appropriate height for the tower element of the development. Further reasoning for the decision could be found in the report
• Parking in the development would be a mix of residential parking and street parking; all parking spaces within the development would be for residents and a number of the on street parking spaces would be for the commercial premises. Parking allocation for the commercial premises and residents would be conditioned on the application
• The Team Leader (Development Management) had discussed Historic England’s concerns with them, and he was confident that the scheme was policy compliant
• There was a total of 336 cycle spaces proposed with a mixture of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 49a

The Committee considered application 20221179; the application was for demolition of 26 units, comprising Nos. 1-12 St Patricks Gardens, Nos. 36-41 St Patricks Gardens and Nos. 28-42 (even nos. only) St Columbas Close, and the caretakers facility, with the erection of 2 no. 2 storey buildings, 1 no. 3 storey building and 1no. part 3 / part 4 storey building to provide 46 residential dwellings (Class C3), with associated vehicle and pedestrian access, amenity space with hard and soft landscaping, car and cycle parking, refuse and recycling storage provision, and other associated works.

The Team Leader (Development Management) delivered a presentation to Members outlining the proposals for the site.

The Team Leader (Development Management) summarised the reasons for recommendation and advised the proposed development was deemed to be a sustainable form of development that accorded with the development plan and material considerations. The applicant had confirmed they would provide all of the financial contributions which met the relevant tests set out as statutory tests in regulation 122 of The Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 (as amended by the 2011 and 2019 Regulations) and as policy tests in the NPPF (2021).

The Team Leader (Development Management) concluded that subject to the conditions set out at the end of the report, it should be delegated to the Service Manager (Planning) for permission subject to planning conditions and the completion of a unilateral agreement.

The Committee were invited to ask questions for clarification.

Members questions were answered by the Team Leader (Development Management)

• The area and public right of way in particular would have more natural surveillance once the development was built as the additional buildings would create doors and windows overlooking the area making the public feel more secure. The current development had no surveillance and it was unpleasant and felt unsafe walking up the side alleys at night
• There would be an overall slight net lossof amenity green space, but the amenity green space would be of a vastly superior quality than what was there currently; the new green space would include areas for resident to grow their own garden as well as soft and hard landscaping. The current green space was unkempt and needed major refurbishment
• Planning condition three for the application ensured protections for the current occupiers of the site
• The S.106 monies were held by Gravesham Borough Council (GBC) and would only be transferred to Kent County Council (KCC) once they had given GBC significant evidence of what the money would be used for and ensured it would be compliant with the S.106 agreement. That process meant that only projects that Members had previously agreed to were funded and no S.106 monies were spent elsewhere. If KCC were vague about where the money be sent, then GBC officers challenged KCC and requested further clear information before any S.106 monies were transferred
• The new development including the soft and hard landscaping would be accessible to disabled residents and be inclusive
• The proposed development would reduce levels of anti-social behaviour  ...  view the full minutes text for item 49b

A copy of the schedule has been placed in the democracy web library and also in the Reception, Civic Centre: -

Document library - Gravesham Borough Council

A schedule showing applications determined by the Director (Environment) under delegated powers had been published on the Council’s website.