|
|
sw/13/1115 (2.6) - 94 west street, faversham
PRESENT: Councillor Barnicott (Chairman), Councillor Prescott (Vice-Chairman), Councillors Sylvia Bennett, Andy Booth, Derek Conway, Mike Henderson, Ben Stokes and Tony Winckless.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Peter Bell, Philippa Davies, Tracy Day, Paul Gregory, and Gianni Simone.
ALSO IN ATTENDANCE: Mr Nick Hobbs (Agent), Mr Christopher Marshall (Applicant), Mrs Jane Baker, Ms Vanessa Campion, Mr Peter Hutchinson, Dr Adrian Savage, Mr Brian Turner (local residents) and Mrs Janet Turner (Faversham Society and local resident).
|
|
|
sw/13/0897 (2.7) - 42-44 the street, bapchild
PRESENT: Councillor Barnicott (Chairman), Councillor Prescott (Vice-Chairman), Councillors Sylvia Bennett, Andy Booth, Derek Conway, Mike Henderson, Pat Sandle, Ben Stokes, Ghlin Whelan and Tony Winckless.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Philippa Davies and Tracy Day.
ALSO IN ATTENDANCE: Mr Donald Gray (Agent), Mrs Leonora Suli (Applicant), Mr Andy Hudson (Bapchild Parish Council), Ms Pamela Dunn, Mr Hugh Tolhurst and Ms Jenny Zaluska (local residents).
|
|
458
|
declarations of interest
No interests were declared.
|
|
459
|
sw/13/1115 (2.6) - 94 west street, faversham
The Planner explained that the application was for a single storey rear day room extension and new ground floor WC/cloakroom; removal of non-original modern studwork wall between bedrooms one and two; new double casement dormer window in rear attic bedroom roof slope; replacement of non-original modern double glazed windows in rear elevation; installation of two conservation rooflights into catslide roof; and removal of central pier in 1970's rear kitchen extension and insertion of beam.
The Planner advised that the glass link would be 2.0 metres in height and 2.1 metres in length. The extension would be 3.1 metres in length, 2.9 metres in width and 2.8 metres (corrected to 4 metres) in height. The extension would extend 1.5 metres beyond no. 95 West Street. The new dormer would sit above the rafters, 90 degrees from the next door dormer which addressed any privacy issues. The Planner considered the proposal presented no harm to the historical nature of the building and no harm to the amenity.
He advised that the property was a grade II listed building located in Faversham conservation area.
The Planner advised that Faversham Town Council had no objections to the proposal.
The Agent explained that as the proposal was for a single storey extension and it faced north, there would be no shadowing to no. 95.
The Applicant advised that the design would create a gable end, rather than a catslide roof and would be in keeping with the area. As the existing property was dark inside, the link would enable the extension to be built without losing light to the kitchen.
A representative from the Faversham Society, who was also a neighbour, did not raise objection to the application and explained that it would not affect them.
Local residents raised the following points: there was a lack of dimensions and bar scale on the submitted drawings; the dimensions appeared to be incorrect, the height seemed to be 4.5 metres high, 8 metres long, 5 metres for the actual extension excluding the link-way; consider it not to be a modest extension; extension depth should be limited to 3 metres, and not beyond the neighbours' dwelling; the glass gable was arrow-head and was not successful, and would be overbearing; the glass needed to be triple-glazed for maximum heat/light benefits; this should be smaller and rectangular; it should not go beyond the dwelling at no. 95; and it would affect the view from no. 95.
In response to questions, the Planner advised that the glass link did not go across the entire width as there was a courtyard as well. The extension was 0.7 metres from no. 95 and abutted with no. 93 and it was 2.8 metres in height, 4 metres to the ridge.
Officers agreed to respond to dimension discrepancies of the extension at the Planning Committee meeting on 19 December 2013.
Members then toured the application site with Officers.
|
|
460
|
sw/13/0897 (2.7) - 42-44 the street, bapchild
The Planning Officer outlined the application which was for the use of the site for car washing and valeting services alongside retention of existing car sales, motor garage and associated uses.
Kent County Council Highways had raised no objection, subject to the revisions to the internal layout and Southern Water had also raised no objection. The Planning Officer advised that operational hours would be restricted by conditions to 9am to 6pm Mondays to Saturdays and 10am to 1pm Sundays and Bank Holidays.
Permission had been given for the waste to go into the main sewer. The Planning Officer advised that there would be two to five employees at the site. She advised that with regard to Condition (3) in the report, full details were to be submitted. She considered that as the site was on a busy road, and with the conditions in the report to address any issues, there was unlikely to be an impact on the residents' amenity.
The Agent advised that operating hours on Sundays and Bank Holidays of 10am to 4pm would make it more viable to the applicant. He was happy with the other operating hours throughout the week, but suggested 7pm would be preferred by the applicant in the summer months. The Agent advised that the high pressure water equipment was located in a building at the back of the premises, whilst the vacuum cleaner was at the front. He considered that as the premises was situated on the A2, there would be noise coming from traffic already, so the vacuum cleaner noise would not be the only noise that could be heard.
The Ward Member raised concern with the effect of the proposal on residential amenity. The length of the operational hours meant there was no let-up for the local residents, especially on Sundays. The Ward Member brought Members' attention to the bus stop near the entrance of the forecourt, and together with the traffic on the A2, this would be effected by the vehicles coming on and off the forecourt. The proposal could also have an impact on the safety of pedestrians queuing for buses.
A representative from Bapchild Parish Council raised concern with the proposal with the following points: there was a discrepancy between trading hours and the hours actually worked on the site; passengers were sprayed when they are waiting at the bus stop; the entrance overlapped the bus stop; concerned with water run-off onto the road; jet wash debris; issue of deliveries onto the site with disturbance to residents and tail backs on the A2.
Local residents raised the following comments: loss of amenity; spray from jet wash; traffic queues; constant drone of vacuum cleaner noise, especially in summer when windows were open, too many signs displayed; bus stop too close; cars breaking suddenly when entrance overshot; brick wall wet with chemicals; noise of vacuum cleaner and high pressure jet had impact on nearby horses; overlooking; there were six or seven people working on the site; back-up of customers; not enough room; site was not big enough for this type of operation.
In response to a question, the applicant advised that only one car was washed at a time and there could be around eight cars on the forecourt at any one time.
Members then toured the site with Officers and were given a demonstration of the car washing facilities.
|
