sw/07/1478 – 92 london road, faversham

PRESENT: Councillor Barnicott (Chairman), Councillors Bobbin, Sandra Garside, Brenda Hammond, Harrison, Elvina Lowe, Bryan Mulhern, Kenneth Pugh, Pat Sandle, Ben Stokes and Roger Truelove.

OFFICERS PRESENT: Kellie Mackenzie, Alun Millard (Kent Highway Services) and Graham Thomas.

ALSO IN ATTENDANCE: Councillor Cindy Davis (Ward Member), Mr and Mrs George, Mrs Mannouch, (Local Residents) and Mr and Mrs James (Applicants).

APOLOGIES: Councillors Monique Bonney, Prescott, Alan Willicombe and Jean Willicombe.

sw/08/0008 – 1 south leas farm cottages, minster

PRESENT: Councillor Barnicott (Chairman), Councillors Bobbin, Sandra Garside, Brenda Hammond, Harrison, Elvina Lowe, Kenneth Pugh, Pat Sandle, Ben Stokes, Roger Truelove, Alan Willicombe and Jean Willicombe.

OFFICERS PRESENT: Andrew Jeffers, Kellie Mackenzie and Ross McCardle.

ALSO IN ATTENDANCE: Mrs Gosney (Applicant).

APOLOGIES: Councillors Monique Bonney, Prescott and Bryan Mulhern.

sw/08/0057 – 35 broadway, sheerness

PRESENT: Councillor Barnicott (Chairman), Councillors Bobbin, Sandra Garside, Brenda Hammond, Harrison, Elvina Lowe, Kenneth Pugh, Pat Sandle, Ben Stokes, Roger Truelove, Alan Willicombe and Jean Willicombe.

OFFICERS PRESENT: Andrew Jeffers, Kellie Mackenzie and Alan Millard (Kent Highway Services).

ALSO IN ATTENDANCE: Mr and Mrs Rogers and Alan Tuck (Local Residents), Mike Gittings (Agent).

APOLOGIES: Councillors Monique Bonney, Prescott and Bryan Mulhern.

declarations of interest

No interests were declared

part b minutes for information

sw/07/1478 – 92 london road, faversham

The Area Planning Officer explained that the proposal was for the erection of a two storey side and rear extension. At first floor level the extension would project to the rear and side of the property and be set off both side boundaries by 1.8 metres. The property was located in both the conservation area and built up area of Faversham. Faversham Town Council recommended refusal on the grounds that they considered the extension would be larger than Swale guidelines allowed and cause a terracing effect. KCC Archaeology had indicated that no archaeological measures were necessary. Kent Highway Services raised no objection subject to the imposition of an appropriate parking condition. Three letters of objection had been received from neighbouring residents, which he summarised.

The Area Planning Officer explained that a similar application had been submitted in 2007 for a two storey extension with a granny annex which was refused. The Area Planning Officer referred Members to plans to demonstrate the reduction in the new application. The main differences between the two schemes were that the garage had recently been converted to a study. The conversion did not require the benefit of planning permission as there was no relevant planning history for the garage requiring its retention. The proposal no longer resulted in loss of any garage accommodation. There was now a significant reduction in the width of the first floor side extension. This had now been moved in from the side boundary, leaving a gap of 1.8 metres to the side boundary. It had also been set further back from the front of the property by an additional 2.5 metres and the rear extension had been reduced by approximately one metre.

The applicant outlined the need for the application, to create an annex for his elderly mother. He acknowledged that mistakes had been made with the previous application but after consultation with Planning Officers and having now taken neighbours concerns into consideration he felt confident that this application should be acceptable. He explained that the grass area at the front of the property had been removed to allow cars to be parked and this would eventually be tarmaced. The extension would also be rendered in line with the existing property.

The Ward Member raised highway and access concerns.

Local residents raised the following concerns: visitors to neighbouring properties would have to back out onto the A2, building materials used during the construction of the extension would have a detrimental effect on neighbouring properties, there were inaccuracies in the report, inadequate turning, lack of consultation with neighbouring residents and the development may set a precedence.

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

sw/08/0008 – 1 south leas farm cottages, minster

The Planning Officer explained that the proposal was for the erection of a two-storey side extension and a single storey rear extension. The side extension would project 4.3 metres at ground and first floor level for the full depth of the house and the rear single storey extension would project 2.8 metres. The development would provide two additional bedrooms, bathroom, an enlarged kitchen and a separate dining room, which would provide additional living accommodation for the applicants and to accommodate an elderly relative. The property had already been extended up to 60 per cent above its original floorspace in 1994.

The Planning Officer reported that Minster Parish Council raised no objection and no other representations had been received. He outlined various policies of rural restraint which protected the site from residential development. The Planning Officer considered that the application would result in harm to the countryside.

Mrs Gosney, the Applicant, drew the Planning Officers' attention to amended drawings she had previously submitted, which Officers had not received, showing that the single storey extension would be finished with a lean-to roof, rather than a flat roof as stated in the report. She presented a statement to be circulated to all Members of the Committee, which outlined her reasons for making the application.

Members then toured the site and asked the Planning Officer and Development Control Manager questions which they answered.

sw/08/0057 – 35 broadway, sheerness

The Development Control Manager explained that the application sought permission for variation of condition (ii) of planning permission SW/92/0041 to reduce the number of parking spaces provided for the three flats within 35 The Broadway, Sheerness from four to two. He also advised that Kent Highway Services raised no objection subject to a condition retaining the remaining two spaces. Six letters of objection had been received from local residents. The Development Control Manager stated that the Highway Authority considered the application was in a sustainable location close to jobs, shops and schools and easily accessible by public transport. They also considered that four car spaces were not required to serve the properties and that two would be acceptable.

The Agent explained that the four spaces were not currently being used by the residents in the flats and that since the initial application had been approved in 1992 car parking provision had changed. He clarified that the two spaces would in fact remain but be available for anybody to use.

The Ward Member raised objection to the application and considered that if further developments proposed in the vicinity went ahead parking would become a serious problem for residents.

Local residents were concerned that the reduction of the number of parking spaces for occupiers of the flats would lead to parking problems for occupiers of the adjoining properties.

Members then toured the site and asked the Development Control Manager and Kent Highways Officer questions which they answered.