st paul's dockyard church, sheerness.

The Area Planning Officer explained that the planning and listed building applications were for conversion of St Paul's Church, a Grade II* listed building, to create twenty-two one and two bedroom apartments and five new terraced houses to act as a screen between the church and dockyard. The existing tarmac area to the front of the building would be altered to form a car park for fourteen car spaces. The application also proposed modifications to the existing vehicular access onto Garrison Road for new and existing residents. He advised that the proposals also included the erection of five three-storey three bedroomed houses adjoining the dockyard wall, also a listed building. He reported that two letters of objection had recently been received, one from the Georgian Society who claimed that the development would have a detrimental impact on the Church. The other letter from a member of the public regarding the need to protect the possibility of bats roosting at the site, and Natural England, as a result advise that the developer should get a survey carried out to establish if there are any bats present at the site and if so to provide adequate protection. This could be covered by a condition such as the one tabled at the last Committee meeting. He also drew Members attention to Policy PPG15 which was included in the report. He considered the best way to assess the impact of any development on the historic environment was to understand the significance and history of the site. He reported that Sheerness dockyard was remodelled by John Rennie in 1808 and this set it apart from other Royal Naval Dockyards. The area around the Church was considered the last and best-preserved major residential complex to have been built within any British Naval dockyard, as well as being the most complete and unaltered part of Rennie's model layout. The Church had been partially destroyed by fire in 2001. The dockyard as a whole represented the largest concentration of Grade I and II listed buildings in the Borough. He advised that Kent Highway Services raised objection despite receiving further information regarding potential traffic generation and its implications from the applicant. The Area Planning Officer addressed the concerns which had been raised by local residents, as outlined in the report. In summarising, the Area Planning Officer stated that it was important for Sheerness that the building be brought back into use.

The Kent Highway Services Officer confirmed that KHS maintained their objection. They considered the intensification of use of the access would be dangerous, particularly in the event of lorries stacking-up along the dockyard road, which would reduce visibility for vehicles emerging.

The Conservation Officer outlined the historic significance of the site. He advised that the property was on the buildings at risk register and this was the first time in fifteen years that proposals for the re-use of the building had come forward.

The applicant advised that it was their prime aim to restore the building and bring it back into use for the benefit of the local community. He advised that he had met with local residents several times and considered that most objections received were anxieties. In response to overlooking concerns, he advised that the rooflights were all above head height. In relation to concerns about inadequate parking provision, he confirmed the actual amount of parking spaces being proposed, and highlighted that KHS had not raised any objection about the internal layout of the development. With regard to the KHS objection, he advised that a traffic survey had been carried out, as requested by KHS, which showed that the amount of traffic generated at a similar church was more than is expected to be generated by this development.

No traffic data had been received which showed accidents occurred at the location although they proposed as part of the application to narrow the junction. He concluded that it was their belief that the application would improve the area thus adding value to neighbouring properties. In response to a question from Medway Ports he confirmed that the public sewer and water supplies would not come from the docks.

A Ward Member advised that a number of local residents had approached him to say how pleased they were that the church was to be restored and that it was paramount to bring the derelict site back into use.

A representative from the Georgian Society, stated that whilst they considered this a golden opportunity to restore the property, they were concerned that approval of the applications would fragment the historic dockyard. They requested Members not to approve the application on its own, but look at the wider dockyard as a whole, which should be the subject of a possible Master or development plan for the whole area.

A representative from Sheppey Local History Society stated that they were also concerned at the number of flats proposed. They asked if a condition, which required that residents of the proposed dwellings did not own a vehicle, could be considered as they were concerned parking would be a problem.

A representative of the RSPCA confirmed that bats were resident at the property and considered that Swale Borough Council did not have a good reputation to ensure they were protected.

Residents of Naval Terrace and other local residents raised objections which included insufficient parking; overlooking; development detrimental to the area; too many flats; unimaginative scheme and a new build would look incongruous and out of character in the conservation area.

A former Chief Engineer of the dockyard raised concern with the financial case presented by the applicants. He considered that the roof would not need to be raised and that the construction of Blue Terrace was unnecessary.

A Representative from the Spitalfields Trust advised that they objected to the application and considered they could complete the development providing only four flats in the Church.

Members then toured the site and asked the Area Planning Officer and Applicant questions, which they answered.