To approve the Minutes of the Meeting held on 20 February 2017 (Minute Nos. to follow).

16/501552/FULL – Winterbourne Wood Quarry, Jezzards Lane, Dunkirk, ME13 9PH

16/508023/FULL – 10 Western Avenue, Halfway, Sheerness, Kent, ME12 3BS

The Minutes of the Meeting held on 20 February 2017 (Minute Nos. 1203 – 1205) were taken as read, approved and signed by the Chairman as a correct record.

16/501552/FULL – Winterbourne Wood Quarry, Jezzards Lane, Dunkirk

The Area Planning Officer reported that further to concerns raised at the site meeting in respect of the dumping of concrete waste on the site, the applicant’s agent reported that some “clean waste” material had been deposited on the site some years ago to aid vehicle movement on the site.  He had noted that there was still water in the ‘Winterbourne’ providing some surface water runoff mitigation.  The applicant was willing to remove any debris from the site and agreed to a condition being imposed in relation to drainage for the proposed properties. 

The Area Planning Officer further reported following concerns from residents about the possibility of further applications at the site, the applicant had confirmed that areas of landscaping to the north and south of the application site would be included in the Unilateral Undertaking (UU), and would be kept as meadow and woodland copse in perpetuity.  The applicant had provided a plan to demonstrate this, which the Area Planning Officer displayed for Members.  The Area Planning Officer stated that officers were happy that this would effectively sterilise those sections of the site from further development.

The Area Planning Officer reported, that with regards to a query from a Member at the site meeting relating to the ownership or leasing of the land by the Kent Wildlife Trust, the applicant had confirmed that it was the applicant’s intention to maintain the freehold of the woodland areas.  This was dealt with at paragraph 4.2.9 of the draft UU, which highlighted that the ‘blue land’ would be kept in perpetuity as woodland and the management of the area would be handed-over to an appropriate management body. 

A Ward Member stated that he was not happy to support the application unless the necessary legal agreements were in place to ensure that no further building took place on the site.

The Chairman moved the officer recommendation to approve the application and this was seconded.

Members considered the application and raised points which included: disappointment that the freehold of the land would not be transferred; protection of the land from further development was not guaranteed; needed to consider what was best for the area to ensure the rest of the site was protected; happy to support the application with the proviso that the ‘blue land’ would be protected, a condition to prevent flood risk, and the ‘green land’ on the plan would be protected from further development; a lease was as good as freehold; and would not be supporting as felt like the applicant was ‘holding a gun to our head’.

A Ward Member asked whether it would be possible for a one-way system to be implemented coming up Jezzards Lane and down Scoggers Hill.  The Area Planning Officer advised that it would not be possible to impose a condition requiring this, but the applicant could be requested to pay for a traffic order for this to happen.

Resolved:  That application 16/501552/FULL be delegated to officers to approve subject to conditions (1) to (20) in the report, and details of the Unilateral Undertaking are checked over and adequate legal agreement was secured for the protection of the remainder of the site.

16/508023/FULL – 10 Western Avenue, Halfway, Sheerness, ME12 3BS

The Senior Planner reported that Southern Water raised no objection.

With regard to a query at the site meeting about the number of objections received, the Senior Planner confirmed that 10 letters of objection had been received as stated in the Committee report for the 2 February 2016 meeting, and as minuted at that meeting a further 9 letters of objection had been received, nineteen in total. 

The Chairman moved the officer recommendation to approve the application and this was seconded.

A Ward Member referred to photographs he had tabled for Members, taken just after the site meeting which showed a dust cart experiencing difficulties accessing Western Avenue and in places having to mount the pavement.

Ward Members spoke against the proposal and raised the following points: parking was a major issue in Western Avenue; whilst there was a need for one bedroom properties in the area the negatives of this proposal far outweighed the positives; concern about the loss of the garden area; concern about the impact the proposal would have on the amenities of Nos. 10 and 12 Western Avenue; and was an over-intensification of the area.

Members considered the application and raised points which included: was clear at the site meeting that there were parking problems at the site, but not sure we could refuse on highway grounds; the amenity space to be provided would not comply with regulations and would not be appropriate for further and existing occupants; would block light to the lounge of No. 12 Western Avenue; the visual amenity of No. 12 would be severely compromised; the drawings showed four cars side by side not sure that this would be possible in reality; the building line of No. 12 would not be breached; this proposal was not responsible for current parking problems; and do not see how a bungalow can overshadow a two-storey property.

In response to queries about overshadowing to the lounge of No. 12, the Senior Planner reported that their lounge had two windows.

On being put to the vote the motion to approve the application was lost.

Councillor Cameron Beart moved the following motion:  That the application be refused as the proposal to introduce an additional dwelling onto this plot would cause unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the streetscene; would constitute over-intensive development for the site and give rise to significantly harmful levels of overlooking onto the new dwelling from the existing dwellings;  would constitute overbearing and overshadowing impact on the side elevation windows of No. 12 and No. 10 resulting in loss of light and significant harm to residential amenity and the lifestyle of the occupiers of the adjacent dwellings; would, by reducing the rear private amenity space of No. 10, result in a poor standard of amenity for future occupants of both dwellings, with the proposed gardens beings of an inadequate size to properly serve those dwellings; and the existing road layout at the front of the proposed dwelling did not provide sufficient road width or visibility to allow proper vehicle movement from the proposed dwelling, particularly when the road was in use by large or service vehicles. Combined with the loss of on street parking, a provision which was already inadequate, this would give rise to highway safety and amenity concerns.  This was seconded by Councillor Mike Dendor.

The Lawyer – Team Leader (Planning) advised that as Kent County Council (KCC) Highways and Transportation had raised no concerns, officers would not therefore be able to support the proposed highway reason for refusal at any subsequent appeal.  Discussion ensued and the proposer and seconder of the original motion agreed to remove the highway concern from the motion. 

On being put to the vote the motion to refuse the application was agreed.

Resolved:  That application 16/508023/FULL be refused as the proposal to introduce an additional dwelling onto this plot would cause unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the streetscene; would constitute over-intensive development for the site and give rise to significantly harmful levels of overlooking onto the new dwelling from the existing dwellings;  would constitute overbearing and overshadowing impact on the side elevation windows of No. 12 and No. 10 resulting in loss of light and significant harm to residential amenity and the lifestyle of the occupiers of the adjacent dwellings; and would, by reducing the rear private amenity space of No 10, result in a poor standard of amenity for future occupants of both dwellings, with the proposed gardens beings of an inadequate size to properly serve those dwellings.