Meeting documents

Planning Working Group
Monday, 3 October 2011

planning working group

MINUTES of the Meeting held on site on Monday 3 October 2011 from 9:30 am to 11:05 am.

 

sw/11/0864 (2.2) - 35 danes drive, leysdown

PRESENT: Councillors Barnicott (Chairman), Councillor Prescott (Vice-Chairman), Councillors Bobbin, Andy Booth, Adrian Crowther, Mark Ellen, Mike Henderson, Pat Sandle, Roger Truelove, Ghlin Whelan, Alan Willicombe and Jean Willicombe.

OFFICERS PRESENT: Richard Allen, Rob Bailey, Philippa Davies and Martin Evans.

ALSO IN ATTENDANCE: Mr and Mrs Chapman (Applicants), Mr Gittings (Agent), Councillor Brenda Hardman (Leysdown Parish Council), Mr and Mrs Gisby and Mr Milham (local residents).

APOLOGY: Councillor Lesley Ingham

 
 

sw/11/0941 (2.3) - land adjacent 32 woodland, minster

PRESENT: Councillors Barnicott (Chairman), Councillor Prescott (Vice-Chairman), Councillors Bobbin, Andy Booth, Adrian Crowther, Mark Ellen, Mike Henderson, Pat Sandle, Roger Truelove, Ghlin Whelan, Alan Willicombe and Jean Willicombe.

OFFICERS PRESENT: Rob Bailey, Philippa Davies, Martin Evans (all Swale Borough Council) and Alun Millard (Kent Highway Services).

ALSO IN ATTENDANCE: Mr and Mrs Bake (Applicants), Mr Gittings (Agent), Mr and Mrs Cheesbrough, Mr and Mrs Coddrington, Mr and Mrs Fowle, Mr Giffen, Mr Hawford, Mrs Huggett, Mrs Jones, Mrs Kittle, Miss King, Mr Read, Mr and Mrs Persichini, Mr and Mrs Sacher, Mr Taylor and Mr and Mrs Willis (local residents).

APOLOGY: Councillor Lesley Ingham

 
279  

declarations of interest

No interests were declared.

 
280  

sw/11/0864 (2.2) - 35 danes drive, leysdown

The Senior Planner introduced the application and explained that the proposal was for a front and side extension and to raise the height of the roof to form a four bedroom chalet bungalow. He outlined the works that would take place which included a 2 metre front extension, a 3.2 metre side extension to the west and a new roof, raised from 2 metres to 6.7 metres, to provide upstairs accommodation and the addition of one front and one rear pitched roof dormer bedroom window. The Senior Planner explained that the report had stated that, although the proposal would result in a dwelling larger than neighbouring properties, Officers had considered that as the street scene was already mixed and contained chalet bungalows with dormer additions, one of which existed only a few doors down. The senior planner also stated that the property was set sufficiently back from the road and thus would only be visible when viewed immediately in front of it, hence that it would not affect the character of the area. The senior planner stated that the Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) for this type of development only required a 2 metre gap at first floor level, and that in any case a side extension to the boundary could be built under permitted development rights.

Mr Gittings (the Agent) explained that, following discussions with Planning Officers, the proposals had been amended to make them more appropriate to the setting.

The Applicant explained that she had been advised that development could take place to the west and front of the current building on the plot.

Councillor Hardman (Leysdown Parish Council) explained that the Parish Council had considered the proposed dwelling was too close to the western boundary and was very dominant.

Local residents raised the following concerns: it was too close to the neighbouring property and a gave a semi-detached appearance; disturbance of neighbouring foundations; lack of access to enable maintenance on neighbouring property; the proposed dwelling was too large; loss of privacy; overlooking from dormer windows; and the proposed dwelling was too high.

In response to questions, the Senior Planner reported that the distance between the dwelling as extended and neighbouring property to the west was approximately 350 mm. The Chairman also asked for information from Officers, to be reported at the next Planning Committee on 13 October 2011, as to the advice given at pre-application stage, and why the applicants were advised against extending to the east side of the property.

Members then toured the site, and inspected the view from neighbouring properties with Officers.

 
281  

sw/11/0941 (2.3) - land adjacent 32 woodland drive, minster

The Planner introduced the application and explained that the proposal was to demolish the existing garage at no. 32 Woodland Drive Minster, and to provide car parking to the front, and also the erection of a new four bedroom chalet bungalow style dwelling on land adjacent to no. 32. He outlined the proposed dimensions and explained that there would be a dormer window to each side roof slope, an integral garage and space for one car. The Planner explained that the dwelling was designed to reflect that of no. 36. The new dwelling would be built 700 mm below ground level to mitigate any height issues, and the Planner explained that as there was a mix of dwelling types and designs in the neighbourhood, the proposed dwelling would not be out of character with the rest of the street.

The Planner outlined the elevations in relation to nos. 32 and 36 and explained that condition (10) in the report, requiring obscure windows, would address overlooking issues.

The Planner advised that Kent Highway Services (KHS) had objected to the proposal as there were not enough car parking spaces available; the guidance suggested a minimum provision of two for a four bedroom property and garages were not taken into account in this provision. The remaining parking space to the front of 32 Woodland Drive accorded with KHS standards. This would not be in accordance with the Council's SPG because all vehicle parking would be provided to the front of the property but the benefits of an additional dwelling within the built up area were considered to outweigh the visual harm caused by parking entirely to the front of 32 Woodland Drive.

Mrs Baker (the Applicant's wife) explained that the proposed dwelling would be used by her as a family home. She considered the property was in line with SBC policies and was within the built up area.

Councillor Peter Macdonald (Minster Parish Council) explained that the Parish Council did not object to the principle of a dwelling on the site, but considered the proposed building was too big, would overlook properties to the rear, and raised concern regarding the implications of the development if the road were to be brought up to adoptable standards.

Local residents raised the following concerns: overlooking onto neighbouring properties; over development; too big and overbearing; parking issues; loss of amenity; potential lack of access in emergency situations; over intensive; too close to the property to the west; too large for the plot; and loss of privacy.

In response to a question, the KHS Officer explained that the Kent Vehicle Parking Standards had been replaced by a new document called Interim Guidance Note 3, which recommended that the amount of parking spaces for this type of property was two, not including a garage space. He confirmed that the previous standards would have expected three parking spaces, but these could count the garage within this provision

The Planner advised that contrary to the views of Kent Police, the proposal did have a design and access statement and that the developer contribution requested by Kent Police was unreasonable. He further advised that the outbuilding had not required planning permission as it was permitted development and it would remain on the site.

Members then toured the site and neighbouring properties with Officers.

 
All Minutes are draft until agreed at the next meeting of the Committee/Panel

View the Agenda for this meeting

 

Related pages