sw/10/0631 (2.6) - land at wardwell, high oak hill, newington

PRESENT: Councillor Barnicott (Chairman), Councillors Bobbin, Chris Foulds, Mike Henderson, Pat Sandle, Roger Truelove, Ghlin Whelan, Alan Willicombe and Jean Willicombe.

OFFICERS PRESENT: Rob Bailey, Peter Bell, Emma Eisinger, Andrew Jeffers, Kellie Mackenzie (all Swale Borough Council) and Daniel McLeish (Kent Highway Services).

ALSO IN ATTENDANCE: Councillor Duncan Dewar-Whalley, Mr Adams, Mr and Mrs Barron, Mr and Mrs Beeby, Mr Bond, Mrs Drake, Mrs Dopson, Mrs Gransden, Mr A Johnson, Mr M Johnson, Mrs D Johnson, Mrs G Johnson, Mr Lampard, Mr and Mrs Lavers, Mrs Nash, Mr Nash, Mrs Russell, Mr N Rishi, Dr Rishi, Mrs Sidders and Mr Young (Local Residents), Mr Harris and Mr Rathbone (Newington Parish Council), Mr Stedman and Miss Hammond (Applicants) and Mr Bass (Agent).

APOLOGY: Councillor Derek Conway.

sw/10/0703 (2.3) - 8 school lane, newington

PRESENT: Councillor Barnicott (Chairman), Councillors Bobbin, Derek Conway, Chris Foulds, Ben Stokes, Roger Truelove, Ghlin Whelan, Alan Willicombe and Jean Willicombe.

OFFICERS PRESENT: Rob Bailey, Peter Bell, Emma Eisinger, Andrew Jeffers, Kellie Mackenzie (all Swale Borough Council) and Daniel McLeish (Kent Highway Services).

ALSO IN ATTENDANCE: A Foster, Mr and Mrs Johnson, Ms Russell, R Small, Mr Stevens, Mrs Thwaites (Local Residents), Mrs Dudley (Local Historian) and Mr Harris (Newington Parish Council).

APOLOGY: Councillor Derek Conway.

declarations of interest

No interests were declared.

part b minutes for information

sw/10/0631 (2.6) land at wardwell, high oak hill, newington.

The Senior Planner introduced the application which sought permission for the erection of a large poultry building, two silos and a mobile home. The vehicular access to the site would be widened by 1.5 metres and hardstanding provided to allow turning and loading.

The Senior Planner reported that Swale Borough Council's Tree Consultant had noted that the oak tree to be removed to allow widening of the access was showing signs of fungal decay and sporadic dieback and considered the oak was not worthy of long-term retention. He requested that condition (5) be amended to ensure a replacement tree was provided. Kent Highway Services (KHS) raised no objection subject to an additional condition to ensure the access was provided prior to the commencement of works. They also considered there would be a small number of vehicle movements and would not represent a significant increase in vehicles using the local highway network.

The Senior Planner reported that seven further letters of objection had been received raising points already covered within the report. The Senior Planner further reported that the applicants would be happy for the delivery times to be restricted further to exclude Sundays and to allow deliveries after 7.30am rather than 7am.

The Senior Planner explained that the proposal was an agricultural development and on balance the building would be acceptable in the location. She stated that there would be no cockerels on the site and hens generated very little noise.

The Senior Planner stressed that the mobile home would be for a temporary period of three years. The applicant would then need to demonstrate that the business was commercially viable after that period and reapply for permission.

The Senior Planner reported that the Agent had submitted further information relating to additional ventilation costs. She explained that these figures would need to be considered by the Council's agricultural consultant.

Mr Bass, the Agent, drew attention to updated copies of the Business Plan which had been reworked to include ventilation costs. He also reported that they had received a letter from Fridays Ltd stating that, subject to planning permission being granted, they would issue the applicant with a contract and that the offer remained open to the end of September 2010. In response to concerns raised at the Planning Committee on 22nd July 2010, Mr Bass explained that manure removal would be an annual event and there would not be a massive stock pile at any one time. He confirmed that egg collection would be managed by one person. Mr Bass explained that with regard to concerns about access to the site, the hedge would be lowered and the tree removed to allow the access to be widened. They were also in dialogue with a neighbour about the possibility of a convex safety mirror being erected at the access.

Mr Harris (Newington Parish Council) spoke against the proposal. He stated that the Planning Committee needed to consider the visual impact the proposal would have on the visual amenity of the surrounding area against the economic benefits to the community. He considered the business would not be of economic value to the community as there would only be one employee.

Local residents raised the following concerns: designated traffic route through Stickfast Lane could not be enforced; independent tree survey had shown tree was category C with a minimum of 20 years life; applicants need to provide a full BS5837 tree survey; independent highway safety survey had demonstrated need for 60 metre sight line at access and be 1.5 metres behind the road curtilage; lorries stopping at the access would have a detrimental impact on the amenities of The Bungalow; previous applications at the site had been refused; even if business fails mobile home would remain on the land; detrimental impact on the environment; detrimental impact on Newington village; possible pollution of nearby stream; one mobile home on site would be a 'foot in the door' for a permanent brick built development; the site would be more visible in the winter when leaves had fallen; business plan was very weak; remote electronic systems could be used at the site, removing the need for the applicants to live on-site; ancient woodlands needs to be protected; road already dangerous; unusual for a chicken shed to be sited at the edge of the site, how would the chickens be rotated while free roaming; development would attract rats; measures to protect against vermin could have an adverse impact on local wildlife; access to the site was dangerous; increase in lorries would put local children at risk; existing road infrastructure was narrow and dangerous and could not accommodate the proposal and the proposed hardstanding would increase flooding problems to adjacent properties, need to ensure adequate drainage provided.

In response to concerns regarding routing of deliveries via Stickfast Lane, the Chairman stated that they had no power to enforce this.

A local resident handed a petition with 300 signatories against the proposal. She advised that there was also an on-line petition with 94 signatories, although due to a technical fault they believed the figure to be higher.

In response to a query, the Area Planning Officer stated that there was no requirement for a Highway Safety Audit to be submitted with planning permissions.

The Senior Planner advised that the applicants would be required to submit details to show the replacement tree in a similar location.

In response to a query from a Member relating to suggestions that remote electronic systems could be used at the site, local residents advised that broadband reception in the area was good.

Members then toured the site with Officers.

sw/10/0703 (2.3) 8 school lane, newington.

The Senior Planner introduced the report which sought permission for the erection of a two storey front extension. She further reported that the extension would project a total of 6.7 metres at ground floor and 5.7 metres at first floor. There would be a distance of 11 metres between the proposed front elevation and the front boundary of the property.

The Senior Planner explained that previous applications for extension at the site had been refused. The Senior Planner reported that Newington Parish Council objected to the proposal. The Ward Member had raised objection as the property had already been extended and the proposal would have a detrimental impact on the neighbouring properties. Two further letters of objection had been received which she outlined for Members.

Mr Harris (Newington Parish Council), stated that they objected to the proposal as it was not in line with the existing building and Parsonage House would therefore be overlooked.

Local residents raised the following concerns: third major extension in ten years; applicant carried out works at the weekend causing unacceptable noise disruption; would cause overlooking and be detrimental to the amenities of No. 6 School Lane; Parsonage House would be overlooked and the views of Parsonage House should be protected.

The Conservation Officer stated that the Planning Committee needed to have special regard to preserving the setting of Parsonage House a Grade II listed building. He noted the setting had been compromised by previous developments making it more challenging to define its setting.

In response to queries from Members, the Senior Planner outlined the differences between the current application and those that had been previously refused. She also confirmed that the leylandii trees were within the curtilage of 8 School Lane.

Members then accessed the neighbouring land with Officers and viewed the site from the road.