An apology for absence was received from Councillor Alan Metcalf.  Councillor Dakota Dibben attended as his substitute.

The minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on Tuesday 30 April 2024 were signed by the Chair, subject to officers who were present at the meeting being included.

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.

No declarations of interest were received.

RESOLVED that Planning PERMISSION is granted subject to conditions as set out within the report.

The Committee considered application 20231097 - 25A Hunt Road Northfleet Gravesend Kent. The application was for the change the use of the existing first floor residential flat (C3 use) to be used as a Dentist (E (e) use), in conjunction with the existing ground floor dentist. This would result in an additional 3 dentist surgery rooms on the first floor. No changes were proposed to the external appearance of the building.

Members were informed that the premises were located in the urban area of Gravesham within the Painters Ash Ward in Northfleet, where the Local Plan Core Strategy supported development, subject to the wider provisions of the Development Plan and material (planning) considerations.  Hunt Road ran alongside Coldharbour Road and had a narrow provision for motor vehicles.  This area did not have reserved parking but was for all highway users.

The Head of Planning highlighted key points from the report:

·         The proposed changes to the ground floor were limited.  The existing staircase would be moved to make space for storage areas for the existing surgery rooms.  This would be possible by reducing the kitchen area.  Upstairs would be reconfigured to include 3 additional dental surgery rooms, bringing the total number of surgery rooms in the practice to 5. 

·         Due to the nature of the plot, no onsite parking could be included within the site.  The local Highways Authority (Kent County Council (KCC)) had identified that the local highway network could cope with the additional capacity, following the applicant submitting evidence of this in the form of a parking survey.

·         KCC had requested that a travel plan be included via a condition, to promote sustainable modes of travel in line with the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework. 

·         There were currently 9 members of staff, but the proposed changes meant this would increase to 12.  Currently the surgery could accommodate 30 patients per day but if approved, this would increase to 75.  Currently the parking need per hour was for 10 parking spaces, however the changes would mean the additional need would increase. This was deemed acceptable by the local Highways Authority (KCC).

·         The proposal would bring an additional 35 dental appointments per day to the area.

The Chair invited Members to ask questions for clarification:

·         Members queried the location of the bus stops near to the surgery and whether the route connected with the town centre.  The Head of Planning confirmed that the surgery was accessible by a local bus to and from the town centre, but the frequency could vary at times.  He advised that the surgery was also accessible by foot.  Members were informed that a travel plan would advertise alternative modes of transport to patients.

·         Members referred to page 29 of the report and noted that if private vehicle usage exceeded 67% for staff and 84% for patients the owner would need to provide additional elements to mitigate the impact. Further clarity was sought on how this would be enforced and what the additional elements would  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

RESOLVED that the application be REFUSED due to the revised reason for refusal as set out at Planning Committee.

The Committee were presented with application 20231186 - The Amazon And Tiger, Harvel Street, Meopham, Gravesend DA13 0DE.  The application was for the intended change of use of a Public House known as Amazon and Tiger to a single residential dwelling.

The Team Leader highlighted key points from the report:

·         Members were informed that the public house was located within an existing residential area in the Harvel Conservation area.  The property currently had residential accommodation to the first floor. 

·         The property was listed as an Asset of Community Value.  This was explained in greater detail in paragraphs 6.1 and 6.4 of the report.

·         For clarity Members were advised that the attached B&B would remain and did not form part of the application.

·         The Committee were informed of the proposed changes to repurpose the building into a single residential dwelling.  This was explained further in paragraph 3.2 of the report.

·         Members were advised that a key consideration of the application was whether the loss of a public house was acceptable.  The report outlined that pubs performed several important functions, including providing leisure, entertainment and community facilities, as well as employment opportunities. The importance of pubs was also reflected in policies within the Local Plan.

·         It was noted that under CS10 of the Gravesham Local Plan Core Strategy, the applicant believed the pub should not be considered existing infrastructure, as it had been closed for several years, with the public house no longer being a viable business.

However, prior to closure, The Amazon and Tiger played a key role in meeting the social infrastructure requirements of the local community.  The closure of the public house and retirement of the landlord had coincided with the Covid-19 pandemic. The evidence provided by the applicant was considered insufficient, in justifying that a viable public house could not be operated from the location.  If approved the closure would mean the permanent loss of the communities’ asset, which was contrary to the Development Plan and material (planning) considerations.

·         Members were advised of the revised officer recommendation, which was that in the absence of evidence to clearly demonstrate that the existing public house is not viable, the proposal would result in the loss of a public house a community asset and existing social infrastructure. This would be contrary to Policies CS05, CS07 and CS10 of Gravesham's Local Plan Core Strategy (LPCS) (2014) and paragraph 97 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2023)..  Recommendation was therefore for refusal.

The Chair asked for clarification as to how a property becomes a Asset of Community Value and who determined this.  The Head of Planning gave a brief explanation, advising that an Asset of Community value was based on legislation introduced by Government in 2011 following a loss of public houses and other assets at the time.  Local communities were given the opportunity to apply to have certain assets listed as a Community Asset.  This meant that if the asset were to be marketed for sale, the local community would  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

A copy of the schedule has been placed in the democracy web library. A hard copy is also available upon request: -

Document library - Gravesham Borough Council