oak lane, minster

PRESENT: Councillor Barnicott (Chairman), Councillor Prescott (Vice-Chairman), Councillors Bobbin, Mark Ellen, Harrison, Pat Sandle, Ben Stokes, Roger Truelove and Alan Willicombe.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Michelle Ellis (Kent Highway Services (KHS)), Andrew Jeffers (Swale Borough Council (SBC)), Kellie Mackenzie (SBC) and Alun Millard, (KHS).
ALSO IN ATTENDANCE: Councillors Chris Boden and Mike Brown (Ward Members), Councillor Adrian Crowther (County Councillor), Messrs Murray and Blunt (Applicants), Christine Gurton (Minster Parish Council) Miss Purkis, Mesdames Aley, Cox, Dodd, Fenwick, Goymer, Houghton, Hyde, Hyde, Lewis, Walder and Warburton and Messrs Allsworth, Dodd, Fenwick, Hopson, Hyde, Lewis, Miller, Newman, Powell, Roberts and Warburton (Local Residents).
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE: Councillors Monique Bonney, Simon Clark, Sandra Garside, Brenda Hammond, Kenneth Pugh and Jean Willicombe.

land r/o of 17 highsted road, sittingbourne

PRESENT: Councillor Barnicott (Chairman), Councillor Prescott (Vice-Chairman), Councillors Mark Ellen, Harrison, Pat Sandle, Ben Stokes, Roger Truelove and Alan Willicombe.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Michelle Ellis (Kent Highway Services (KHS)), James Wilson (Swale Borough Council (SBC)), Kellie Mackenzie (SBC) and Alun Millard, (KHS).
ALSO IN ATTENDANCE: Miss D Crosland (Applicant), Mr Sawyer (Applicant), Mr Burke (Agent) Mesdames Appleyard, Beacon, Carey, Lovell, Rawding, Sait, Shaak and Vigeon and Messrs Beacon, Lovell, Savage, Shellock, Vigeon and Wood (Local Residents).
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE: Monique Bonney, Simon Clark, Sandra Garside, Brenda Hammond, Kenneth Pugh and Jean Willicombe.

land adjacent north quay house, conyer, nr sittingbourne

PRESENT: Councillor Prescott (Vice-Chairman in the Chair), Councillors Barnicott, Bobbin, Mark Ellen, Harrison, Pat Sandle, Ben Stokes, Roger Truelove and Alan Willicombe.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Kellie Mackenzie (SBC) and Graham Thomas (SBC). ALSO IN ATTENDANCE: Mrs Spears (Applicant), Mr Spears (Applicant), Mesdames Aldamek, Gregory, Knight, Law, Morrison and O'Connor and Messrs Bater, Cusse, Henderson, Hornby, Klaus, Knight, Ludlow, Marsham, Shannon, Squibb and Woods (Local Residents).
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE: Monique Bonney, Simon Clark, Sandra Garside, Brenda Hammond, Kenneth Pugh and Jean Willicombe.

the linnets, hanslett, ospringe, faversham

PRESENT: Councillor Barnicott (Chairman), Councillor Prescott (Vice-Chairman), Councillors George Bobbin, Mark Ellen, Harrison, Pat Sandle, Ben Stokes, Roger Truelove and Alan Willicombe.
OFFICERS PRESENT: David Campbell (Swale Borough Council (SBC)), Philippa Davies (SBC) and Graham Thomas (SBC).
ALSO IN ATTENDANCE: Mrs Jansen (Applicant), Messrs Burke (Agent), Mackrill (Applicant) and Parish Councillor Hudson (Ospringe Parish Council).
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE: Councillors Monique Bonney, Simon Clark, Sandra Garside, Brenda Hammond, Kenneth Pugh and Jean Willicombe.

the old granary, standard quay, faversham

PRESENT: Councillor Barnicott (Chairman), Councillor Prescott (Vice-Chairman), Councillors George Bobbin, Mark Ellen, Harrison, Pat Sandle, Ben Stokes, Roger Truelove and Alan Willicombe.
OFFICERS PRESENT: David Barton (Kent Highway Services (KHS)), Peter Bell (Swale Borough Council (SBC)), David Campbell (SBC), Philippa Davies (SBC), Michael Ellis (Kent County Council) and Graham Thomas (SBC).
ALSO IN ATTENDANCE: Councillor Mike Cosgrove (Faversham Creek Consortium), A Thorpe (Agent), N Thorpe (Agent), White (Applicant), Mesdames Ellis, Hennessey, Hickman, Mussett, Poulteney and Messrs Brooks, Drake, Ford, Hill, Hinchcliffe, Murr, Mussett, Osborne, Pain, Pollock and Slythe (Local Residents).
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE: Monique Bonney, Simon Clark, Sandra Garside, Brenda Hammond, Kenneth Pugh and Jean Willicombe.

48 london road, faversham

PRESENT: Councillor Prescott (Vice-Chairman in the Chair), Councillors Richard Barnicott, George Bobbin, Harrison, Pat Sandle, Ben Stokes, Roger Truelove and Alan Willicombe.
OFFICERS PRESENT: David Barton (Kent Highway Services (KHS)), Philippa Davies (Swale Borough Council (SBC)) and Graham Thomas (SBC).
ALSO IN ATTENDANCE: Councillor Cindy Davis (Ward Member), Messrs Strickland (Applicant) and Thorpe (Agent), Mesdames Ayling, Brooks, Burton, Daniell, Diamond, Escribano, Goss, Hall, Hill, Holland, Hughes, Innes, Iron, Judges, Keel, Key, Martin-Royle, Rogers, Spiers, Stretch, Tollemache, Tulett, Walsh, Walsh, Walsh, Websdale, Websdale and West, Reverend Geldano and Messrs Ayling, Brooks, Daniell, Hall, Hinchcliffe, Judges, Key, Lamoon, Rogers, Smith, Stretch, Tulett, Walsh, Websdale, West and Zaccarini (Local Residents).
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE: Monique Bonney, Simon Clark, Sandra Garside, Brenda Hammond, Kenneth Pugh and Jean Willicombe.

declarations of interest

In accordance with Standing Order No. 25(b), Councillor Barnicott declared a Personal Interest in Minute No. 410 (North Quay House, Conyer) as he was a friend of the applicant. Councillor Barnicott did not speak on this item.

part b minutes for information

oak lane, minster

The Area Planning Officer explained that the application was for the repositioning of an existing un-adopted road in Oak Lane, Minster. The application sought to link the existing driveway at the house known as 'The Vines' with a short length of road through to Oak Lane at East End Bungalow. This would make an alternative road to the existing which would run diagonally through Hollybush Farm Caravan Park and by-pass the section of road where coastal erosion had occurred. It would give access to the caravan park and residential property without negotiating a sharp bend at the cliff edge. The proposed road would be about 150m long, and 3m wide for much of its length, constructed of black tarmacadam, with a 4.2m wide passing place about half way along. The road would be a private road, but with access for everyone.

Kent Highway Services raised no objections, subject to conditions being attached to any permission granted.

The Principal Engineer had stated that “while there have been no significant land slips in recent years, there was always the probability that one may happen. Any slippage could put Oak Lane at risk from subsidence which would affect, or even sever, access to the properties on this road”.

The Area Planning Officer reported that he believed, on balance, the proposal would have benefits to those occupying property in the area and the adverse impacts were not sufficient to warrant refusal.

The applicant explained the reason for the application was to safeguard access by local residents to their properties in the event of cliff erosion. If they did not act now some residents could be cut-off from their properties.

In response to a question from the Ward Member, the applicant advised that there were currently 37 static caravans on the site, but that permission had been given for 49 in total.

A Ward Member advised that he had received representations from local residents both in favour and against the application. He considered it unacceptable that some residents of Oak Lane may be cut-off from their properties. He had concerns however in respect of the close proximity between the proposed road and 'The Vines'. He also raised concern in respect of increased traffic particularly during the summer holiday period.

Minster Parish Council considered access from Bell Farm Lane would be a better option.

Local residents opposed to the scheme raised the following concerns: road safety issues, especially for young children as there was no pathway along the road, increase in heavy goods vehicles using the road, vibrations and damage to soil affecting adjacent listed properties, traffic congestion, the new road would allow further development of the area, the proposed road would not be within Fire Brigade regulations for access and a potential increase in accidents.

Local residents in favour of the application made the following points: access for fire and ambulance crews would be improved by the new road and the application safeguarded access to their properties from inevitable cliff erosion.

The KCC member for the area suggested a meeting be arranged between SBC, KCC and local residents to produce an alternative route.

A Member requested that a report from the fire brigade be made available for the Planning meeting.

Members then toured the site and asked the Area Planning Officer and the Highway Officers questions which they answered.

land r/o of 17 highsted road, sittingbourne

The Area Planning Officer explained that the application was an outline application for the erection of a two storey three bedroom detached house and garage on land to the rear of 17 Highsted Road, Sittingbourne and would face and access onto Grayshott Close. He advised that approval was sought for layout and access only and scale, appearance and landscaping would be reserved for future consideration. He considered the proposed two storey dwelling would sit comfortably in its surroundings without overriding harm to the amenities of adjacent residents, or the character or appearance of the area.

Kent Highway Services raised no objection, provided that conditions were imposed regarding sight lines and retention of car parking areas.

Local residents raised the following objections: overlooking and loss of privacy, exacerbation of parking problems in Grayshott Close, access problems for emergency vehicles entering Grayshott Close, the proposed development would spoil the pleasant character of Grayshott Close, loss of garden, devaluing of adjoining properties, the garage would protrude beyond the building line, the proposed development would look out of place with other properties, lack of turning, loss of amenity, local students use Grayshott Close already for parking vehicles, a precedent would be set and increased parking in Grayshott Close would mean vehicles entering would have to reverse into Highsted Road to allow oncoming vehicles to pass.

The applicant's agent advised that the scheme met SBC policy and was in accordance with policies G1, H1, H4, H5 and E48 of the Swale Borough Local Plan. It was also in accordance with Government advice in PPS3 in relation to the re-use of previously-developed land and PPG13 (2001). Policies QL1 and HP4 of the Kent & Medway Structure Plan were also met along with the Kent Vehicle Parking Standards. He advised that whilst he sympathised with residents' concerns, refusal was not justified as the proposal met SBC policies, including those which directed development to built-up areas rather than the countryside.

Members then toured the site and asked the Area Planning Officer and the Highway Officers questions which they answered.

land adjacent north quay house, conyer, nr sittingbourne

The Area Planning Officer explained that the application was for the stationing of a mobile home as residential accommodation for the applicants, who due to mobility problems were finding it impossible to live in their two storey house on the quayside.

KHS raised no objection subject to the use being for the applicant only.

The Head of Environmental Services raised no objection.

The Environment Agency raised objection on flood risk grounds, however the agent confirmed the proposed site was not in a flood risk area.

The Faversham Society raised no objection, provided that the permission was only temporary and personal to the applicant.

Teynham Parish Council knew the applicants and had decided not to comment, other than to request that any planning permission was temporary and personal.

Tonge Parish Council requested a condition ensuring the use of the caravan only be permitted for use for Mr and Mrs Spears lifetime.

The Area Planning Officer advised that 14 letters of objection had been received from local residents concerned that: the application was a ploy to obtain full planning permission, the site was outside the built-up boundary of Conyer, a mobile home would detract from the amenities of the area and if permission were granted the floodgates would be opened for similar applications. He advised that a further letter had been handed to him from the local vicar in support of the application.

The Area Planning Officer reported that the applicants' agent described the site as well screened by existing trees and shrubs, however, the site was within the designated countryside where policies of rural restraint applied. The site was in an elevated position and the mobile home would be highly visible within the site and to the surrounding countryside and Special Landscape Area. The North Quay development, an award winning scheme, had a distinctive character which would be adversely affected by the proposal.

The applicant advised that his elderly parents had lived on the site for forty years but were unable to live in their two storey house. The family had considered the best and least obtrusive way forward would be for their parents to live in a mobile home at the site so they could be cared for by their family.

Local residents raised the following objections: the property could be adapted to meet the needs of Mr and Mrs Spears eg. stair lift; would the elderly couple not be more secure in a house rather than a static caravan; and insufficient drainage.

The applicant advised that the drainage problems currently experienced by residents were due to a building error when the site was first developed. The sewerage from the proposed caravan would run from a separate pump.

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

the linnets, hanslett lane, ospringe

The Area Planning Officer explained that the application was for the erection of a timber clad bungalow to be built between the existing timber shed and mobile home. He explained that an Enforcement Notice had been served on the mobile home, which was due to be removed by 26th September 2007. The site had been part of a larger piece of land, which had had a house on it; the land and house were now in separate occupancy from the land in the application. The site had been a wood yard for several years and the applicants considered that living on site would provide security for the site. The Enforcement Notice had been appealed against and was turned down. The Planning Inspector had considered that the residential use would harm the character of the Kent Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, he did not see a need for on-site security; alternative means of security could be looked into and he suggested alternative sites could be chosen to run the business. The Area Planning Officer suggested that security of the site would always be an issue; however, residency of the site would be pertinent to the applicant.

The Area Planning Officer reported that Ospringe Parish Council and Kent Highway Services had raised no objection to the application. SBC's Rural Planning Consultant had stated that the applicant's need to live on site could not be justified. The applicant had not looked at alternate sites and considered other security measures were too expensive.

The Agent explained that the site provided a rural sustainable employment opportunity. He confirmed that the site had been there for 40 years and suggested that further travelling and moving of the wood to other sites was not practicable or sustainable. He explained that the applicant was not seeking a permanent residence on the site; he wanted to live on the site whilst he was working and that after that time the house could be reverted back to a shed. He advised that this type of work was not regular, nine to five employment and as such on site living was necessary for both security and the irregularity of the work.

A representative from Ospringe Parish Council spoke in support of the application, but suggested that the residence remained pertinent to the present applicant and was not past forward to future generations.

In response to a question, the Agent explained that there had been major break-ins in similar establishments locally, including one on this site.

Members then toured the site and asked the Area Planning Officer questions which he answered.

the old granary, standard quay, faversham

The Area Planning Officer explained that the application was for alterations and a new extension to a Grade II* listed building. The extension was for a kitchen and toilets and the existing building's proposed use was for a wine bar, offices and shop. He explained that the warehouse was constructed in the seventeenth century and was within Faversham's conservation area. Faversham Town Council considered there was insufficient information on the application and there could be problems with regard to traffic and loss of residential amenity. English Heritage supported the proposal, subject to restoration conditions. The Faversham Society raised objection and considered that it would conflict with existing craft industries in the area, that it encroached the public footpath and that it should be considered as a wider aspect of the plans for the creek. Abbey Street Residents Group had not objected to the proposal but also considered that it should not be decided upon until the area plans as a whole were considered. Faversham Creek Consortium suggested the application be deferred for more information and looked at as part of a wider plan.

The Area Planning Officer reported that seven letters of objection had been received which outlined concerns with regard to health and safety, harm to an attractive area, piecemeal development, building should be retained as an amenity for visitors, increase in noise levels, it may restrict activities on the creek.

The Conservation Officer explained that the medieval building was a special one and did not consider the proposed changes to be too extensive. He considered that the building had deteriorated and there was a backlog of repair.

The Agent explained that the historic buildings had been empty since 2004 and he had held extensive discussions over the past 18 months. He confirmed that sub-division would be kept to a minimum and he considered that the application would contribute to economic regeneration and enhance the area. He explained that parking spaces had been decreased. In response to consultees' consideration that the proposal was mistimed with regard to the 'master plan' for the area, the Agent considered that this plan was a long way off.

The Ward Member advised that he was happy that the Planning Working Group had met on the site and explained that he would speak on this item at Planning Committee on 13th September 2007.

A member of the Friends of Faversham Creek raised objections which included the following: they suggested that there was a much better use for the building; a museum, that the area should be viewed as a group, not an individual, the car parking bays obstructed views, the proposal was a threat to the economic activity of Standard Quay, the character of the creek could be threatened, it was an archaeological area and the plans were premature.

A member of the Faversham Creek Consortium suggested that the plans were out of context with other plans and could prejudice wider plans for the creek. He considered the plans for the granary should be considered as part of the development plan document process and that by not including it could mean an adverse decision could be made with regard to an individual application.

A member of The Faversham Society explained that if the application was approved it could result in local industries receiving complaints with regard to dust, odours and health and safety issues. He raised issues with additional car parking in the area and suggested that additional funding could be sought if the use was maritime related. He considered that a wine bar was not needed in the area and that if the business was unsuccessful, further businesses could potentially damage the building.

A member of Faversham Municipal Charities and Bensted's Charity raised concern over the proposal being piecemeal and suggested that waiting two or three years for a 'master plan' was not excessive.

Local residents raised the following concerns: right of way issues, safety issues near creek, Abbey Street increased traffic problems, piecemeal development, should be part of wider plan, leisure too close to industrial use, speculative use, strategic importance of area, inappropriate to determine now, decrease in car-parking, viability of scheme, lack of consultation.

The Kent County Council, Public Rights of Way Officer confirmed that the public right of way near the site was three metres wide and that parking on the site did not effect it.

The Area Planning Officer confirmed that he would seek more information with regard to Southern Water's comments on the application and report to the Planning Committee on 13th September 2007.

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

48 london road, faversham

The Area Planning Officer explained that the application was for outline permission for two, three storey blocks of 18 two-bed room apartments. Exact appearance and landscaping was not included in the application. An ecological report had been carried out which showed there was no evidence of bats roosting on the site. The existing building would be demolished; evidence of rot and subsidence had been detected.

The Area Planning Officer explained that the application had been amended twice; car-parking spaces had been reduced from 27 to 22 and the outline of the buildings had been reduced to reduce overshadowing of neighbouring properties. He reported that Faversham Town Council and local residents had raised concern with regard to the loss of a single family home, the proposal was out of character with the area, over development and increase in traffic movements. Kent Highway Services had raised concerns, but these had now been addressed with regard to surfacing and visibility splays. The consultation process had been repeated and 49 letters of objection had been received and two petitions. Three letters of objection had been received since the last Planning Committee which include the following concerns: parking and traffic issues, buildings too tall, overlooking, not in keeping with the area, loss of trees, setting of precedent, sunlight blocked, density too high, repair house instead and lack of demand for flats. Kent County Council had requested financial contribution for libraries and further education. This would be done via a Section 106 agreement. The Area Planning Officer explained that the site was in a built up area, brown field and sustainable. 108 dwellings per hectare was the acceptable density for this type of area.

The Agent explained that it was not viable to repair the existing house and responded to statements made against the proposal. He considered London Road to be a mix of houses and that the development's densities were in line with Central Government guidelines.

The Ward Member expressed concern with regard to the loss of a family home, no demand for flats in Faversham and queried the point that it was uneconomic to repair the existing house.

A member of the Faversham Society raised concern with regard to over intensification of the site and lack of amenity area.

Local residents raised the following concerns: it will set a precedent, no demand for this type of development, concern with regard to investment rather than sustainable housing, lack of parking, concern with regard to the type of resident who would live there, overlooking, height and scale, bat population, dangerous exit and entrance on main road, increased traffic movements and area close to conservation area.

In response to questions, the Kent Highways Officer explained that the number of car parking spaces was less than the current maximum standard from Government and that the area's sustainability was taken into account. He confirmed that there were no crash records along London Road, there were sufficient visibility splays and the width of the 4.8m driveway was equivalent to the width of a normal road.

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