|
|
sw/08/1294 (2.11), sw/08/1295 (2.12) and sw/08/1187 (2.13) - land and buildings at sheerness dockyard, blue town, sheerness
PRESENT: Councillor Barnicott (Chairman), Councillors Bobbin, Andy Booth, Mick Constable, Derek Conway, Chris Foulds, Harrison, Mike Henderson, Pat Sandle, Ben Stokes, Roger Truelove, Ghlin Whelan, Alan Willicombe and Jean Willicombe.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Peter Bell, Rebecca Dart, James Freeman, Joanne Hammond and Andrew Jeffers (all Swale Borough Council) and Alun Millard (Kent Highway Services, Kent County Council).
ALSO IN ATTENDANCE: Philip Villiers and Caroline Wilberforce (Indigo Planning), Marcus Beale (Stow and Beale Conservation Architects), Mr Demetriou (applicant), Mr Palin (representing Save Britain's Heritage), Mr Kelsaw (representing the Ancient Monument Society), Mr Georgeson (representing the Sheerness Society), Jennie Durkett (representing Blue Town Heritage Centre), Mr Davis (Chairman of the Naval Dockyard Society), Mr Gundry (representing the World Monuments Fund Britain), Julia McDougal (representing the Dockyard Festival), Ms Harmain, Mr Skelton, Mr and Mrs West, Mr Hughes, Mr MacDonald, Mr Dennant, Ms Lipskon, Mrs Oldmeadow, Mr Mark Ellen, Dr. Ann Coates, Mrs Driver, Mrs Dicey, Mr Webb, Ms Harris, Mr Thomas, Kent County Councillor Ken Pugh and Mr Single (Archaeological Officer, Kent County Council).
APOLOGIES: Councillors Lesley Ingham, Bryan Mulhern and Prescott.
|
|
|
sw/10/0552 (2.1) - land at eden village, sittingbourne
PRESENT: Councillor Barnicott (Chairman), Councillors Bobbin, Derek Conway, Chris Foulds, Ben Stokes, Roger Truelove, Ghlin Whelan, Alan Willicombe and Jean Willicombe.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Richard Allen, Peter Bell, Joanne Hammond and Andrew Jeffers (all Swale Borough Council) and Alun Millard (Kent Highway Services, Kent County Council).
ALSO IN ATTENDANCE: Mr Woodhead (DHA Planning) and Mrs Joyce Fuller (Chairman of the Sittingbourne Society).
APOLOGIES: Councillors Andy Booth, Lesley Ingham, Bryan Mulhern and Prescott.
|
|
206
|
sw/08/1294 (2.11), sw/08/1295 (2.12) and sw/08/1187 (2.13) - land and buildings at sheerness dockyard, blue town, sheerness
The Development Control Manager introduced the application which sought permission for the restoration and conversion of existing buildings into 23 residential units and one existing office unit (no. 2 Main Gate), together with provision of two commercial units within Dockyard House, new build development of 40 residential units, along with associated landscaping, car parking, closing of existing vehicular and pedestrian access from Garrison Road and creation of a new vehicular and pedestrian access onto High Street, Bluetown through listed dockyard wall, removal of later extensions of Regency Close, removal of dilapidated outbuildings and redundant oil tank.
The Development Control Manager reported that three additional letters of objection had been received, including from the Pugin Society, which he summarised for Members and he also advised that English Heritage were unable to attend the site meeting. He then provided a detailed description of the proposals including the planning history of the site, the views of Kent Highway Services, the potential implications for regeneration of the area, the potential impact to the Sheerness Dockyard Conservation Area, the historical significance of the site, and the amendments to the scheme from the previous applications, which were refused in January 2009. He advised that if the proposal was approved by the Planning Committee the application would then be sent to the Secretary of State to comment.
The Conservation Officer advised that the Sheerness Dockyard was of national importance. The Planning Committee needed to consider the balance between the inevitable degree of harm to the buildings, gardens and wall, against the possibility of restoring listed buildings and the surrounding landscape.
Mr Villiers, (Indigo Planning), representing the applicant, advised that the scheme had been significantly reduced from the previous proposals and the density of dwellings was at the lowest end of the previous Government guidance. He considered that the proposal would provide a suitable regeneration of the site which preserved and enhanced the setting.
Mr Beale (Stow and Beale Conservation Architects) acknowledged the importance of the site and the architectural and historical significance of the buildings. He considered that the new buildings had been appropriately scaled in relation to the existing buildings and the proposal would lead to a viable, thriving residential community. He considered that the breach in the wall was necessary to ensure a connection with Blue Town.
The following people spoke in objection to the proposals: Mr Palin (representing Save Britain's Heritage), Mr Kelsaw (representing the Ancient Monument Society), Mr Georgeson (representing the Sheerness Society), Jennie Durkett (representing Blue Town Heritage Centre), Mr Davis (Chairman of the Naval Dockyard Society), Mr Gundry (representing the World Monuments Fund Britain), Julia McDougal (representing the Dockyard Festival), Ms Harmain, Mr Skelton, Mr Hughes, Mr MacDonald, Mr Dennant, Ms Lipskon, Mrs Oldmeadow, Mr Mark Ellen, Dr. Ann Coates, Mrs Driver, Mrs Dicey, Mr Webb, Ms Harris, Mr Thomas and Kent County Councillor Ken Pugh. They made the following comments:
The proposals would be profoundly damaging to a site of international importance;
The proposals were unnecessary and irreversible;
The Dockyard has been added to the World Monuments Fund watchlist;
Naval Terrace had been immaculately restored by residents and was an example of how Regency Close could be restored by individual owners;
Under Planning Policy Statement 5 any development had to be shown to be necessary and the proposal did not comply with that requirement;
The report presented all the issues but did not balance the issues appropriately and should not therefore be recommending approval;
The proposals would destroy the landscape;
The breach of the wall was unnecessary and would destroy a substantial and significant historical fortification;
As the last and best preserved major residential complex to be built within a British Naval dockyard the site was unique and could be developed into a heritage site for visitors;
The existing buildings should be restored without the additional development;
The gardens had been reclassified as greenfield sites as of 9 June 2010;
The sewage system at the dockyard flowed untreated into the Thames and would not be appropriate, or able to cope, with additional development;
The water system was also not connected to the mains as it was supplied by a well in the dockyard;
The dockyard was part of the social history of the Isle of Sheppey;
The Lord of the Admiralty protected the buildings in 1957;
The proposal goes against the Local Area Plan;
English Heritage stated that they were neutral about the application;
The site suffered from flooding in 1895 and 1953;
The Port Authority had indicated that they would be prepared to consider moving their security barriers which would remove the need to breach the wall for residential access to the site;
The Isle of Sheppey had already lost much of its heritage;
A renovation of the buildings into a visitor attraction could boost the local economy, generate jobs and would be in keeping with the Council's regeneration priorities;
Restoring the original houses would protect the quality of place and historic features within the buildings;
Loss of surviving archaeology and the internal features of the properties through subdivision into flats;
Authentic restorations of properties had been successfully achieved at other dockyards such as Chatham and Portsmouth;
The proposed access onto Brielle Way would be dangerous;
The garden wall sections to the rear of Regency Close, extant Georgian gardens and grounds and archaeology within the site were all curtilage listed in their own right, which classified them as heritage assets, and under PPS 5 HE9.1 there was a presumption in favour of their preservation;
There was no enabling provision within the application to secure the restoration of the estate in line with the provisions of PPS 5;
As there was no public benefit in the development it did not accord with PPS 5 HE9.2(i);
The funding being offered by the applicant to provide benefits to the local community was insufficient and not commensurate with the loss of the historical assets or with the benefit that would accrue from their proper and sympathetic restoration;
The Dockyard Festival demonstrated the level of public interest and support in the heritage of the site and the tourism potential;
The proposals would degrade the listed buildings and blight the landscape;
The proposal was materially the same as the previous application which had been refused;
The Dockyard wall formed an integral part of the side elevation of No. 1 Naval Terrace and any work on the wall could damage the property;
There were other areas on the Isle of Sheppey more suitable for new housing.
Councillor Ken Pugh spoke as the Kent County Councillor for Sheerness. He considered that land grabbing was against Government Policy and the area should be restored to its former glory and turned into a world heritage site for visitors.
Ms McDougal, representing the Dockyard Festival, presented the Development Control Manager with a petition which contained 475 signatures in opposition to the proposals.
Mr Single (Archaeological Officer, Kent County Council) referred to the archaeological potential of the site. He advised that if the application was approved it would require robust archaeological conditions, including for those buildings affected by demolition and subdivision.
Members then toured the site with Officers.
|
|
207
|
sw/10/0552 (2.1) - land at eden village, sittingbourne
The Senior Planner introduced the application which sought permission for the erection of an A1 commercial unit, four two-bedroomed flats, hard and soft landscaping and associated parking. He confirmed that Kent Highway Services, the Head of Service Delivery and KCC's Public Rights of Way Officer had raised no objection to the application. 12 letters of objection had been received from local residents, which he summarised.
Mr Woodgrove (DHA Planning) explained that Ward Homes were required to apply for a commercial unit on the Eden Village site to comply with condition seven imposed by the Planning Committee in 2000. The previous application submitted by Ward Homes was refused in December 2009, on matters of scale and mass and incongruous design. He advised that the revised application sought to address these concerns and considered that the new design reflected the character of the area and surrounding properties.
Mrs Fuller, representing the Sittingbourne Society, spoke in objection to the proposal and made the following points: a commercial unit was not necessary; it would lead to increased traffic and parking problems in the surrounding area; the roads were unsuitable for delivery vehicles to access the site; and residents of Eden Village were already well served with local shops.
Councillor Conway, Ward Councillor, spoke on behalf of residents who were unable to attend the meeting. He raised the following points: the proposal did not include sufficient parking, particularly as parking at certain times of the day was already difficult for local residents; the garages could be used by residents for storage rather than parking; increased litter problems; delivery vehicles could block the road; a commercial unit could lead to people congregating in the area and could lead to anti-social behaviour; a commercial unit was unnecessary as there were local shops already within walking distance; and the development was close to the Town Centre.
The Kent Highway Services Officer confirmed that the parking provision was in accordance with the statutory guidance.
A Member considered that the three storey design was still too obtrusive for local residents.
Members then toured the site with Officers.
|
