Agenda and minutes

Venue: at the sites listed below

Contact: Democratic Services, 01795 417330 

Items
No. Item

303.

Declarations of Interest

Councillors should not act or take decisions in order to gain financial or other material benefits for themselves or their spouse, civil partner or person with whom they are living with as a spouse or civil partner.  They must declare and resolve any interests and relationships.

 

The Chairman will ask Members if they have any interests to declare in respect of items on this agenda, under the following headings:

 

(a)          Disclosable Pecuniary Interests (DPI) under the Localism Act 2011.  The nature as well as the existence of any such interest must be declared.  After declaring a DPI, the Member must leave the meeting and not take part in the discussion or vote.  This applies even if there is provision for public speaking.

 

(b)          Disclosable Non Pecuniary (DNPI) under the Code of Conduct adopted by the Council in May 2012.  The nature as well as the existence of any such interest must be declared.  After declaring a DNPI interest, the Member may stay, speak and vote on the matter.

 

(c)          Where it is possible that a fair-minded and informed observer, having considered the facts would conclude that there was a real possibility that the Member might be predetermined or biased the Member should declare their predetermination or bias and then leave the room while that item is considered.

 

Advice to Members:  If any Councillor has any doubt about the existence or nature of any DPI or DNPI which he/she may have in any item on this agenda, he/she should seek advice from the Monitoring Officer, the Head of Legal or from other Solicitors in Legal Services as early as possible, and in advance of the Meeting.

 

Minutes:

No interests were declared.

304.

17/502405/FULL - 5 Park Avenue, Sittingbourne, ME10 1QX

10am – 17/502405/FULL – 5 Park Avenue, Sittingbourne, ME10 1QX

 

10.45am – 17/502909/OUT – 47 Brier Road, Borden, ME10 1YJ

Minutes:

PRESENT:  Councillors Mike Baldock, Cameron Beart, Bobbin, Richard Darby, Mike Dendor (substitute for Councillor Roger Clark), Nicholas Hampshire, Mike Henderson, James Hunt, Ken Ingleton, Bryan Mulhern (Chairman) and Prescott.

 

OFFICERS:  Philippa Davies and Paul Gregory.

 

APOLOGIES:  Councillors Andy Booth, Roger Clark, James Hall and Nigel Kay.

 

The Chairman welcomed the agent and three members of the public to the meeting.

 

The Planning Officer introduced the application which sought planning permission for a two-storey detached dwelling to the rear of 5 Park Avenue, Sittingbourne.  The proposed dwelling would be L-shaped and located in the approximate centre of the garden.  It would measure 8.25 metres in depth, and range between 4.5 metres and 5.7 metres in width.  The eaves height would be 5 metres and the ridge height would be 7.4 metres.  The Planning Officer explained that although a small part of the private amenity space would be located to the rear of the dwelling, most of the garden would be adjacent to the property.  The main part of the garden would measure 12.4 metres in depth, with a varying width of between 11.2 metres and 12.4 metres, due to the staggered side elevation of the proposed property.  The Planning Officer reported that the existing garage would be demolished and two tandem parking spaces for the proposed dwelling would replace it.  Tandem parking spaces would also be provided for the existing dwelling and this would be adjacent to the proposed property, with a new vehicular access onto Woodcourt Close.  There would also be a bin and bike store for both the existing and proposed dwellings.

 

The agent stated that the application complied with all the necessary legislation.

 

The Ward Member asked that it be indicated where the tandem parking spaces would be and also that Members viewed the application site from the neighbouring garden (No. 2 Woodcourt Close).

 

Local residents raised concerns which included:  the development would not leave enough amenity space; there would be a detrimental visual impact due to the loss of nearby trees; pollution; it would encroach on adjacent properties; this was not the right fit for this site; Woodcourt Close was a very narrow road which already caused problems and this would make it worse; loss of privacy; parking was located too close, right behind boundary fence to the adjacent property in Woodcourt Close; the garden would not be large when the development was completed; windows would overlook neighbouring properties; and it was overbearing on neighbouring gardens.

 

In response to a question, the Planning Officer advised that the two Silver Birch trees, just outside of the application site would be retained and that there were two conditions recommended in relation to these trees.  He confirmed that the proposed property would have three bedrooms.  The agent explained that the store located near the existing dwelling was not part of the application.

 

Members toured the application site and viewed it from No. 2 Woodcourt Close.

305.

17/502909/OUT - 47 Brier Road, Borden

Minutes:

PRESENT:  Councillors Mike Baldock, Cameron Beart, Bobbin, Richard Darby, Mike Dendor (substitute for Councillor Roger Clark), Nicholas Hampshire, Mike Henderson, James Hunt, Ken Ingleton, Bryan Mulhern (Chairman) and Prescott.

 

OFFICERS:  Philippa Davies and Paul Gregory.

 

APOLOGIES:  Councillors Andy Booth, Roger Clark, James Hall, James Hunt and Nigel Kay.

 

The Chairman welcomed the applicant, the applicant’s surveyor and nine members of the public to the meeting.

 

The Planning Officer introduced the application which sought outline planning permission for a two bedroom detached dwelling in the rear garden of No. 47 Brier Road, with access to the property being via Grove Park Avenue.  He explained that the garden of No. 47 would be split, and the plot levels would be lowered to accommodate the new dwelling, so access would be at the same level as Grove Park Avenue.  The garden of No. 47 would be reduced to a length of 11 metres, and the new dwelling would have an eight metre long garden, with a side garden measuring six metres wide at its widest point.  The Planning Officer reported that part of the existing hedge along the footpath would be removed and replaced with a brick wall.  He explained that this was an outline application with all detailed matters reserved for future consideration, although indicative plans had been received which showed how such a dwelling might be accommodated on the site, with one car parking space to the front of the property.

 

The applicant advised that the new property would appear similar in height to the neighbouring dwelling in Grove Park Avenue.  

 

A Ward Member had concerns with the topography and also that the new dwelling would have an overbearing impact on surrounding houses.  In response to questions, the applicant explained that the new property would be positioned 1.2metres from the shed at No. 47, and the height would be the same as the next door house in Grove Park Avenue.  The Planning Officer explained that this type of detail would be confirmed at the reserved matters stage.  The applicant also advised that there would be a dropped kerb, and that the lamppost would be removed.

 

Local residents raised concerns which included:  there were already flooding issues, and this would increase from run-off from the new driveway, with the additional issue of mud running off the site during construction; this would set a precedent; parking problems; Grove Park Avenue was part of a private housing estate; this was garden grabbing; and according to the Local Plan housing south of the A2 should protect and enhance the environment, but this did not conserve or enhance the area.

 

In response to a question, the applicant advised that when the site was dug-out, there would be a retaining wall and the house would be positioned slightly higher than the road.  The Planning Officer explained that Kent County Council (KCC) Highways and Transportation had been consulted on the application but in accordance with their protocol had not commented as the application was  too  ...  view the full minutes text for item 305.