Issue - meetings

Consideration of recommendations of the Area 3 Planning Committee in respect of an application for ground floor rear extension and change of use from use class C3 residential dwelling to C2 residential institution designed to provide accommodation and personal care for up to five individuals.

The following documents are attached:

·         Report of Director of Planning, Housing and Regulatory Services of 29 January 2026

·         Annex 1 – Report of Director of Planning, Housing and Environmental Health* of 11 December 2025

·         Annex 2 – Supplementary report of Director of Planning, Housing and Environmental Health of 11 December 2025

·         Map

The associated legal advice is attached under Part 2 of the agenda.

*The post title of the Director of Planning, Housing and Environmental Health was renamed to the Director of Planning, Housing and Regulatory Services from 22 January 2026 and the relevant references within the Constitution were subsequently updated accordingly.

Consideration was given to the report of the Director of Planning, Housing and Regulatory Services in relation to a ground floor rear extension and retrospective change of use from use class C3 residential dwelling to C2 residential institution designed to provide accommodation and personal care for up to five individuals at 49 Hallsfield Road, Chatham, ME5 9RS

The application had been deferred for determination by the Council in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 15.24 following consideration by the Area 3 Planning Committee on 29 January 2026.

In reaching its decision, the Council had regard to the reports considered by the Area 3 Planning Committee on 29 January 2026 and 11 December 2025, including the report of the Director of Central Services and Monitoring officer which contained exempt information in accordance with LGA 1972 Sch 12A Paragraph 5 – Information in respect of which a claim to legal professional privilege could be maintained in legal proceedings.  

Subsequent to previous consideration changes had occurred at the site, including the installation of a front driveway.  To address this change updated drawings had been provided and revised conditions were set out in the supplementary report of the Director of Planning, Housing and Regulatory Services.

Local Members were now satisfied that initial concerns had been addressed and expressed support for the new and amended conditions.  Cllr Keers proposed, Cllr Boughton seconded and it was

RESOLVED:   That planning permission be granted in accordance with the submitted details, conditions, reasons and informatives set out in the substantive and supplementary reports of the Director of Planning, Housing and Regulatory Services.

Ground floor rear extension and change of use from use class C3 residential dwelling to C2 residential institution designed to provide accommodation and personal care for up to five individuals.

Ground floor rear extension and change of use from use class C3 residential dwelling to C2 residential institution designed to provide accommodation and personal care for up to five individuals.

Further to Minute AP3 25/28 of the meeting held on 11 December 2025, the Committee considered the above application with the report of the Director of Central Services and Monitoring Officer set out in Part 2 of the agenda (Minute AP3 26/8 refers).  Some Members continued to express significant concerns in respect of the potential impact of the proposed development on neighbouring amenities, specifically with regard to possible increases in noise and disturbance, inadequate parking provision, and highway safety considerations.

However, as there was no objection raised by the Kent County Council Highways regarding highway safety or insufficient parking provision, it was acknowledged that as a statutory consultee, their response to the consultation would carry significant weight in the determination of this application.  It was proposed by Councillor P Hickmott and seconded by Councillor A Oakley that the application be approved subject to an amended Condition 2 as set out in the supplementary report of the Director of Planning, Housing and Regulatory Services.  Following a formal vote, the proposal was defeated with seven Members voting against and five Members voting in favour and one abstention.

On the grounds of Members’ continued concerns regarding site intensification and shortfall in parking provision, it was proposed by Councillor D Keers and seconded by Councillor A McDermott that the application be refused, contrary to Officer’s recommendation, for the following reasons:

(1)         as a result of the increased comings and goings, additional parking of vehicles, staff movements, disruption and activity would result in an unacceptable intensification of the site, out of keeping with the character of this quiet residential area and harmful to neighbourhood, neighbouring amenities, in conflict with policy CP24 of the Tonbridge and Maling Core Strategy and policy SQ1 of the Managing Development and the Environment Development Plan Document; and

(2)         as a result of insufficient off-street parking, the proposal would not function well over the lifetime of the development and the parking plan would not be enforceable or provide sufficient mitigation for the failure to provide the necessary off-street parking spaces.  This would amount to poor design and would be detrimental to the functioning of the development, in conflicts with paragraph 135 of the National Planning Policy Framework, policy CP 24 of the Tonbridge and Malling Core Strategy, policy SQ 8 of the Managing Development and the Environment Development Plan Document and the Kent Parking Standards SPD.

Following a formal vote, the proposal was carried with eight Members voting in favour and five Members voting against.  On the grounds that the above refusal reasons were not considered could be substantiated at an appeal and there was likely to be a risk of significant costs being awarded against the Council at any appeal, the vote taken was a recommendation only in accordance with Council and Committee Procedure Rule 15.24, Part 4 Rules of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5

Ground floor rear extension and change of use from use class C3 residential dwelling to C2 residential institution designed to provide accommodation and personal care for up to five individuals.

Ground floor rear extension and change of use from use class C3 residential dwelling to C2 residential institution designed to provide accommodation and personal care for up to five individuals.

Due regard was given to the determining issues, conditions, reasons and informatives as detailed in the report of the Director of Planning, Housing and Environmental Health.  Concerns were expressed regarding the potential impact of the proposed development on neighbouring amenities, specifically with regard to possible increases in noise and disturbance, inadequate parking provision, and highway safety considerations.

It was proposed by Councillor D Keers and seconded by Councillor R Dalton that the application be refused, contrary to Officer’s recommendation, for the following reasons:

(1)          as a result of the increased comings and goings, additional parking of vehicles, staff movements, disruption and activity would result in an unacceptable intensification of the site, out of keeping with the character of this quiet residential area and harmful to neighbourhood, neighbouring amenities, in conflict with policy CP24 of the Tonbridge and Maling Core Strategy and policy SQ1 of the Managing Development and the Environment Development Plan Document; and

(2)          as a result of insufficient off-street parking, the proposal would not function well over the lifetime of the development and the parking plan would not be enforceable or provide sufficient mitigation for the failure to provide the necessary off-street parking spaces.  This would amount to poor design and would be detrimental to the functioning of the development, in conflicts with paragraph 135 of the National Planning Policy Framework, policy CP 24 of the Tonbridge and Malling Core Strategy, policy SQ 8 of the Managing Development and the Environment Development Plan Document and the Kent Parking Standards SPD.

Following a formal vote, the proposal was supported by majority of the Committee and on the grounds that the above refusal reasons were not considered could be substantiated at an appeal, the vote taken was a recommendation only in accordance with Council and Committee Procedure Rule 15.24, Part 4 Rules of the Constitution.

RESOLVED:  That consideration of the planning application be DEFERRED for a report from the Director of Central Services and Monitoring Officer on the risks arising from a decision contrary to the recommendation of the Director of Planning, Housing and Environmental Health (as set out in Council and Committee Procedure Rule 15.24, Part 4 (Rules) of the Constitution).

[Speakers: Mr D Hoare, Mrs S Hoare, Mrs L Collard, Mr C Collard and Mr S Stevens (members of the public) and Ms V Costinar (Applicant) addressed the Committee in person.]