planning working group
MINUTES of the Meeting held at the site below on Tuesday 1 November 2011 from 11:00 am to 11:35 am.
Present: Councillor Barnicott (Chairman), Councillor Prescott (Vice-Chairman), Councillors Andy Booth, Derek Conway, Mike Henderson, Prescott, Pat Sandle, Roger Truelove, Ghlin Whelan, Alan Willicombe and Jean Willicombe.
Officers Present: Kellie Mackenzie and Graham Thomas.
Also In Attendance: Mrs Bowers (Lynsted-with-Kingsdown Parish Council), Mr McCourt (Architect to Applicant), Mr Cottam (Applicant), Mrs Streeter, Mr and Mrs Hillyard, Andrew Cottam, Mr Phelps, Mr Bradford, Mr and Mrs Curtis and Mrs Beavis (Local Residents).
Apologies: Councillor Bobbin.
|
357
|
declarations of interest
No interests were declared.
|
|
358
|
sw/11/0870 (3.1) - land at 32a cellar hill, teynham
The Area Planning Officer introduced the application and explained that the proposal was for the erection of a bungalow designed for the special needs of the applicant who was suffering from a degenerative muscle wasting disease. The Area Planning Officer explained that the applicant's medical advice was that the applicant, who currently lives in a house, would be better living in a single storey property to minimise falls and accidents.
The Area Planning Officer stated that the site was outside the built-up area boundary for Teynham and two previous applications for bungalows at the site had been refused and dismissed on appeal for that reason, and on highway safety grounds. A further application was also refused, but more recently planning permission has been granted for retired gypsies to occupy the site. That permission was consistent with the site being outside the built-up area boundary.
The Area Planning Officer reported that Lynsted-with-Kingsdown Parish Council raised no objection. Protect Kent (Council for the Protection of Rural England) raised objection as the site was outside the built-up area and did not meet the criteria for overriding the principle that development in the countryside should not be permitted. One letter of objection had been received which raised concern about the impact the proposal would have on access and highway grounds. Three letters of support had also been received, which were summarised.
The Area Planning Officer stated that policies in the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008 guarded against this type of application to prevent growth outside of the built-up area of Teynham. He added that the applicants could look to build on a more suitable site.
Mr McCourt, Architect to the Applicant, explained that Mr Sharpe, the Agent, had given his apologies as he was unable to attend the meeting. He stated that the principle of residential development at the site had been considered acceptable in the 1960s when six plots had been granted permission. He stated that the application site was part of the cul-de-sac and not the open countryside. He explained that the need for the bungalow was genuine and with an ageing population there was a growing need for such properties.
Mrs Bowers, representing Lynsted- with-Kingsdown Parish Council, stated that the Parish Council had in accordance with its role considered the application on its planning merits and not on the human element of the application. Mrs Bowers added that the Parish Council were mindful of the responsibility of the Parish Council to take note of the agreed planning policies and were not offering support for the application.
Some residents spoke against the proposal and raised the following concerns: danger that in future years a family could move into the property causing an increase in traffic at the site; bungalow would be better built in-town as the access road to the site was not suitable for wheelchair use and other applications for development at the site had been refused, so why should this be treated differently. A resident commented that he had sought advice from the Council as to the possibilities of residential development and on being advised that such permission in all probability would not be permitted withdrew his offer to purchase the land.
Some residents spoke in support of the proposal and raised the following points: traffic increase would be negligible; unlikely that a young family would move to the area as it was traditionally an area where elderly people chose to live; it would tidy-up the site and there was a need for this type of purpose built property in the vicinity.
In response to a query from a Member, Mr Cottam, the Applicant stated that he intended to live at the property with his partner who was also his carer.
In response to queries, the Area Planning Officer advised that the site was agricultural land and a smallholding adjoined the plot. He also confirmed that the property appeared to be suitable for the needs of people with a range of disabilities.
Members then toured the site with the Area Planning Officer.
|
All Minutes are draft until agreed at the next meeting of the Committee/Panel
View the Agenda for this meeting 
