|
|
sw/12/0902 (2.3) - 1 & 2 rhode common cottages, selling
PRESENT: Councillor Barnicott (Chairman), Councillor Prescott (Vice-Chairman), Councillors Bobbin, Mike Henderson, Ghlin Whelan and Alan Willicombe.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Kellie Mackenzie and Graham Thomas.
ALSO IN ATTENDANCE: Mr Wicks (applicant), Mr Elvy and Mr Roe (supporters), Mr Tutt (Dunkirk Parish Council), Mr Pritchard, Mrs Strutt, Mr Hal, Mrs McGregor, Mr Rankin, Mr Cairys and Mr Bristow (local residents all in objection).
APOLOGIES: Councillors Andy Booth, Mick Constable, Derek Conway, Adrian Crowther, Mark Ellen, June Garrad, Bryan Mulhern, Pat Sandle, Roger Truelove, Nick Williams and Jean Willicombe.
|
|
|
sw/12/1017 (2.7) - orchard view, chequers hill, doddington
PRESENT: Councillor Barnicott (Chairman), Councillor Prescott (Vice-Chairman), Councillors Bobbin, Mike Henderson, Ghlin Whelan and Alan Willicombe.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Kellie Mackenzie, Alun Millard and Graham Thomas.
ALSO IN ATTENDANCE: Mr Knapp (applicant), Mr Day (Architect), Mr Bishop (Agent), Mr Haynes, Mr Razzell, Mr Duckworth (Doddington Parish Council), Mr Perks, Mr Courtney, Mr and Mrs Germain, Ms Hanson, Mr I Pateman, Mr Pateman, Mr J Sage, Mr H Sage, Mr and Mrs Cuthbert, Mrs Cowan, Mrs Smith, Mr Knowlton (local residents all in objection).
APOLOGIES: Councillors Andy Booth, Mick Constable, Derek Conway, Adrian Crowther, Mark Ellen, June Garrad, Bryan Mulhern, Pat Sandle, Roger Truelove, Nick Williams and Jean Willicombe.
|
|
317
|
sw/12/0902 (2.3) - 1 & 2 rhode common cottages, selling
The Area Planning Officer introduced the application and explained that the proposal sought permission to replace two existing semi-detached cottages with 2 detached eco houses on land at 1 & 2 Rhode Common Cottages, Dunkirk, Faversham. He reminded Members that in December 2009 permission had been granted for the replacement properties but that that permission had not been implemented. The Area Planning Officer explained that the approved scheme would have achieved a high Code Level within the Code for Sustainable Homes and the proposed application would again meet Code Level 4.
The Area Planning Officer reported that Kent Highway Services (KHS) now raised no objection following receipt of amended drawings. He further reported that both Dunkirk Parish Council and Selling Parish Council raised objection. 15 letters of objection had been received, five of which were from local residents raising concerns which included: would not meet local housing needs and object to the demolition of existing cottage. He advised that some letters in support had been received raising comments which included: imaginative design; the proposed changes were minor and some of the neighbours comments were unnecessary and incorrect.
Mr Wicks, the applicant, spoke in support of the proposal. He stated that if the proposal was not supported then they would implement the approved scheme.
Mr Tutt, Dunkirk Parish Council, spoke against the proposal. He raised the following concerns: site was adjacent to ancient woodland; mass and scale of the proposed dwellings was outside planning policy guidelines; site was outside village envelope; five trees would be lost and justifications for the increase in floorspace were based on the 2002 approvals which had long since lapsed (and had done when the previous permission was granted).
Local residents raised the following concerns: would set a precedent; size and scale of proposal would be out of keeping with the area; this is 2012 so the dwelling should not be Victorian in design; would have a detrimental impact on the visual amenities of the area and these were executive type homes which would be better suited to a housing estate and not in the countryside.
Members then toured the site with the Area Planning Officer.
|
|
318
|
sw/12/1017 (2.7) - orchard view, chequers hill, doddington
The Area Planning Officer introduced the application and explained that the proposal sought permission for the demolition of the existing bungalow and workshop to build two detached four bed two-storey houses at Orchard View, Chequers Hill, Doddington. He explained that the application site comprised of two parts, separated by an access drive and comprised of the existing bungalow and outbuildings separated by the access drive from a vacant redundant builder's yard.
The Area Planning Officer advised that the site was within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). He reported that KHS and the Kent County Archaeologist raised no objection. The Head of Service Delivery raised no objection subject to the imposition of a condition restricting hours of construction.
The Area Planning Officer reported that Doddington Parish Council raised several objections including: density of the development; site would become overcrowded and would lead to access and turning problems. He further reported that nine letters of objection had been received raising concerns which included: over-development of the site; loss of amenity; loss of privacy; increase in noise; light pollution; loss of employment; highway amenity and overshadowing.
The Area Planning Officer stated that in his opinion it would create a good use of the site and would not cause overlooking to neighbouring properties. He welcomed the removal of the builder's yard.
Mr Bishop, the agent, stated that the proposal was within the built confines of the village and explained that three dwellings were originally proposed to which Planning Officers had raised no objection. Mr Bishop further stated that the proposal was within Kent Design Guide parameters and was a good quality design. He explained that the proposals improved access and turning at the site and were in line with Swale Borough Local Plan policies.
Mr Haynes, representing Doddington Parish Council, spoke against the proposal. He raised the following concerns: does not meet policies E1 and E19 of the Swale Borough Local Plan; density of the development; access problems would be increased with vehicles reversing out onto the road; current property is adequate; proposed parking spaces would not be sufficient given how poor public transport was within Doddington.
Local residents raised the following objections: access in and out of the site would become dangerous especially for emergency vehicles; affordable housing was needed within the village not four bedroomed houses; density of the proposal was too large; applicants had not consulted with local residents; would cause overshadowing and loss of light to neighbouring properties; highway safety concerns caused by vehicles leaving the site onto the brow of Chequers Hill; congestion and parking problems; farm vehicles would not be able to negotiate the access through to Palace Farmhouse; possible difficulties with proposed sewerage proposals; disappointed that the workshop would be lost; no noise ever came from the workshop so used to peace and quiet; overdevelopment of the site; on-street parking would make it dangerous accessing the site; lack of parking for visitors; KHS were being irresponsible in supporting the proposal and the AONB status should be protected.
In response to queries, the KHS Officer agreed that the current access was sub-standard but explained that KHS had to compare the traffic likely to be generated by the proposed two new dwellings against the extant use of the site by one dwelling, a workshop and a builder's yard. He considered that the increase in traffic from the proposal would be negligible and stated that the six car parking spaces proposed was above the minimum requirement. It would therefore be difficult to defend refusal of the proposal on highway grounds at any subsequent appeal.
A Member queried whether there were any plans to re-develop land adjoining the site. Local residents confirmed that the top of the access for the site was owned by Mr and Mrs Cuthbert at Palace Farmhouse and the bottom by Mr Sage at Kestrels.
Members then toured the site with Officers.
|
