sw/08/0456 (2.5) - rear of springfield, 16 priory road, faversham

PRESENT: Councillor Barnicott (Chairman), Councillors Bobbin, Adrian Crowther, Duncan Dewar-Whalley, David Garside, Mike Henderson, Pat Sandle and Ben Stokes.

OFFICERS PRESENT: Peter Bell, Claire Dethier, Joanne Hammond and Alun Millard (Kent Highway Services).

ALSO IN ATTENDANCE: Mr Jarman (Agent), Mr Bennett, Mr Jordan, Mr and Mrs Lillywhite, Mr and Mrs Powley and Mr Sayewell (local residents), Councillor Cindy Davis and Mr Winlow (Faversham Town Council).

APOLOGIES: Councillors Monique Bonney, Sue Gent and Prescott.

sw/08/0559 (2.6 and 2.7) - yew tree house, the street, doddington, nr faversham

PRESENT: Councillor Barnicott (Chairman), Councillors Bobbin, Duncan Dewar-Whalley, David Garside, Mike Henderson, Pat Sandle and Ben Stokes.

OFFICERS PRESENT: Peter Bell, Claire Dethier, Joanne Hammond and Alun Millard (Kent Highway Services).

ALSO IN ATTENDANCE: Mr McLeish (Applicant), Mr and Mrs Gaze, Mr and Mrs Parry (local residents), Mr Cuthbert and Mrs Jones (Doddington Parish Council).

APOLOGIES: Councillors Monique Bonney, Adrian Crowther, Sue Gent and Prescott.

declarations of interest

No interests were declared.

part b minutes for information

sw/08/0456 (2.5) - rear of springfield, 16 priory road, faversham

The Planning Officer explained that the application was for a single three bed detached dwelling at land to the rear of Springfield, 16 Priory Road, Faversham. The dwelling would measure 10.8 metres in length by 6.5 metres in width and approximately 7.3 metres in height. The Planning Officer outlined the materials proposed for the dwelling and the location of the windows. Two parking spaces were proposed, which would be sited at the side of the dwelling and access to the property would be via a private driveway area off Priory Road. The proposal included a garden measuring 10 metres by 16 metres. The site was located in a Conservation Area and the built up area of Faversham.

The Planning Officer provided a history of the site and previous planning applications received. She considered that the current proposal addressed the concerns raised on previous applications regarding poor design, loss of amenity and overlooking. Kent Highway Services raised no objection. Faversham Town Council raised objection to the application on the grounds that the proposal would lead to overdevelopment of the area and would create a precedent for the loss of gardens which should not be treated as brown field sites. Eight further letters of objection had been received from local residents and she summarised the comments made.

Mr Jarman, the Agent, considered that the application addressed the concerns raised on previous applications. He considered they had achieved an acceptable layout and that the arrangements of the rooms could be altered to lower the eaves.

The Ward Member asked for clarification on the positioning of the proposed dwelling and the proximity to neighbouring properties. He asked if the boundary fence would have to remain as part of earlier planning conditions on the site. He also questioned how the proposal would affect the existing planting.

Local residents made the following comments: the house was being 'squeezed' into the space available, with constant adjustments to the design of the house; the ground floor windows at the front of the property would look out onto the boundary fence; insufficient parking provision; overdevelopment of the area; the dwelling would run alongside the boundary of the neighbouring property; loss of shrubs and trees; impact on the private road with extra service deliveries; lack of visitor parking; school children use the private road to access the school and the dwelling would mean more vehicles; the dwelling was too close to neighbouring properties and would lead to overlooking; it would spoil the area and would be disruptive for residents.

Members then toured the site and asked the Planning Officer, the Kent Highway Services Officer and the Conservation Officer questions which they answered.

sw/08/0559 (2.6 and 2.7) - yew tree house, the street, doddington, nr faversham

The Planning Officer explained that the application was for the demolition of the existing outbuilding and construction of an annexe over a new garage outbuilding. The existing outbuilding was of historic interest but was in disrepair and poorly situated for use as a garage. The proposed outbuilding would use reclaimed materials from the demolition of the existing outbuilding and access to the garage and annexe would be via the existing shared driveway. The outbuilding would measure 9.5 metres by 5.2 metres and 6.4 metres in height. There would be a single parking space at ground floor with a bathroom and staircase. The first floor would be an open space with kitchenette area. The site was within the built up area and Conservation Area of Doddington.

The Planning Officer advised that Doddington Parish Council raised objection to the application as they considered that it was contrary to Policy E14 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008 (listed buildings). Kent Highway Services raised no objection to the application. One letter of objection had been received from a neighbouring property, which she summarised for Members.

In response to a question, the Planning Officer confirmed that, if granted, the planning permission would include a condition which prevented the use of the ancillary accommodation as a permanent residence. If there was any future request to turn the annexe into a permanent residence, it would require a separate planning application.

Mr McLeish, the Applicant, explained that the proposal was for ancillary accommodation for occasional use by guests. The existing outbuilding did not function well as a garage due to its position and poor state of repair. He considered that the design was sympathetic to the main property, which was a Grade II listed building.

Mrs Jones, speaking on behalf of Doddington Parish Council, raised the following concerns: that the proposal would set a precedent for turning garage spaces into ancillary accommodation; it was an unacceptable proposal for a Conservation Area; and the height of the building would adversely affect the setting of the listed building.

Mr Gaze commented on the proposed multi-flue chimney which would be close to a barn used to store hay.

Mr Parry, a neighbour, considered that the dimensions of the proposed outbuilding did not fit the definition of an annexe, as it would be the size of a small house. He considered that the outbuilding would be too high and too close to his back garden and would be detrimental to his enjoyment of his garden.

Members then toured the site and asked the Planning Officer and the Conservation Officer questions which they answered.