|
|
sw/13/0670 (3.1) - land adj. 9/11 ashford road, faversham
PRESENT: Councillor Barnicott (Chairman), Councillor Prescott (Vice-Chairman), Councillors Andy Booth, Mike Henderson, Ben Stokes, Alan Willicombe, Jean Willicombe and Tony Winckless.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Peter Bell, Kellie Mackenzie, Alun Millard and Graham Thomas.
ALSO IN ATTENDANCE: Mr Drury and Mr Hedges (Agents), Mrs Rush-Ryan, Mr Martin, Mrs Brown, Mrs Campbell and Mrs Russell (local residents).
APOLOGIES: Councillors Bobbin, Mick Constable, Mark Ellen, Peter Marchington, Bryan Mulhern, Pat Sandle, Ghlin Whelan, and Nick Williams.
|
|
|
sw/13/0841 (2.7) - land to the rear of 20-32 tanners street, faversham
PRESENT: Councillor Barnicott (Chairman), Councillor Prescott (Vice-Chairman), Councillors Andy Booth, Mike Henderson, Bryan Mulhern, Ben Stokes, Alan Willicombe, Jean Willicombe and Tony Winckless.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Peter Bell, Kellie Mackenzie, Andrew Spiers and Graham Thomas.
ALSO IN ATTENDANCE: Mr Gates, Mrs Marguie, Mr Alexander, Mr Hampshire, Mr and Mrs Latter (local residents), Mr Roake (applicant) and Miss Elvey (Faversham News).
APOLOGIES: Councillors Bobbin, Mick Constable, Mark Ellen, Peter Marchington, Pat Sandle, Ghlin Whelan, and Nick Williams.
|
|
258
|
declarations of interest
Whilst not a member of the Planning Committee, County Cllr Mr Tom Gates declared an interest in application SW/13/0841 (2.7) Land to the rear of 20-32 Tanners Street, Faversham as his friend owned a garage close to the site and he was also a Trustee of the Almshouses.
|
|
259
|
sw/13/0670 (3.1) - land adj. 9/11 ashford road, faversham
The Area Planning Officer reported that the proposal was for the development of 12 properties at land adj. 9/11 Ashford Road, Faversham. The Area Planning Officer reported that the site was outside the designated built-up boundary of Faversham and within the town's conservation area and that there were two grade II listed cottages within the site.
The Area Planning Officer spoke about access to the site and explained that there were currently two access points to the site, one onto the A251 Ashford Road, and another safer and wider access to the A2 Canterbury Road. The Area Planning Officer explained that the applicants proposed to close the A251 Ashford Road access and that access for five of the new properties would be via the A2 access and an adoptable cul-de-sac south of the existing entrance. The two entrances would not be joined other than by a footpath link.
The Area Planning Officer explained that whilst the applicant appreciated that the site was outside the built-up area of Faversham the application proposed traditional family houses of a very high quality of design and was therefore acceptable. The Area Planning Officer then outlined the views from the applicant's supporting statements and site history as outlined in the Committee report.
The Area Planning Officer reported that Faversham Town Council, English Heritage, Environment Agency, Faversham Society and Kent County Council (KCC) Highways all raised objection, for reasons which he outlined. The County Archaeological Officer had requested a condition to ensure that a programme of archaeological work be undertaken at the site. The Head of Service Delivery had recommended conditions to deal with: construction hours, dust suppression during construction, and possible land contamination.
The Area Planning Officer further reported that the Council's tree consultant had noted that the majority of the orchard trees within the site were in decline, apart from a sycamore adjacent to the Ashford Road, which he would like a detailed tree protection plan to be provided. The Area Planning Officer stated that Mouchel, on behalf of KCC, had requested £6,450.38 developer contributions which could be the subject of a Section 106 Agreement.
The Area Planning Officer considered that the proposal should be refused for reasons which included highway safety grounds and contrary to policies contained within the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.
Mr Drury, the agent, spoke in support of the proposal. Mr Drury raised the following points: access concerns would be reduced with the closure of the A251 Ashford Road access; would not set a precedent as was contained and comparable to other sites in the area, such as Ospringe Place and Brogdale; and there was scope at the site for further parking to be provided if required.
Local residents raised the following points: more parking needed to be provided as separate garages were not always used; would prefer a route through rather than the proposed cul-de-sac; and ideal site for family homes.
In response to a query from a Member, the Area Planning Officer confirmed that the orchard adjacent to the application site was in the control of Troika Investments Co. Ltd., and it was possible via a Section 106 Agreement to impose a covenant that no development took place on that land in the future.
The Conservation Officer responded to a query from a Member about the conservation area. He explained that the conservation area takes in points of architectural interest such as the listed cottages at the site. The Conservation Officer stated that the setting of the cottages had been identified as unique and a piece of rural Kent, almost within the town of Faversham. He considered that the orchards could be restored and that the application would not preserve the character of the cottages.
Members then toured the application site and adjoining orchard with Officers.
|
|
260
|
sw/13/0841 (2.7) - land to the rear of 20-32 tanners street, faversham
The Planner outlined the application which was for the demolition of an existing shed and construction of one new bungalow with parking area for two cars and private garden at land to the rear of 20-32 Tanners Street, Faversham.
The Planner confirmed that the two sycamores on the site would be felled but one ash and one Norway maple would be retained as they were covered by a Tree Preservation Order.
The Planner reported that both Faversham Town Council and KCC Highways raised no objection. The Faversham Municipal Charities 2010 raised concern about the close proximity of the proposed bungalow to their boundary wall and requested that the two protected trees were reduced in size.
The Planner further reported that eight emails of objection had been received which he outlined for Members.
A local resident raised the following comments: one had no objection to the proposal as such but would like to see the Ash and Norway maple removed from the site; other residents that it would lead to significant overlooking of properties in Tanners Street; proposed dwelling would be significantly larger than neighbouring dwellings; many local residents oppose the scheme; would make it difficult for emergency vehicles to access Tanners Street; would exacerbate drainage problems in the vicinity; the elevated position of the site would lead to overlooking; would have an adverse impact on the area; and the original planning application for properties in Tanners Street stated that vehicles must be parked in rear gardens and this was not happening.
Mr Roake, the applicant, spoke in support of the proposal. He raised points which included: the proposal would be 24 metres from adjoining boundaries, more than policies required; proposed fence would make it more private so there would be no overlooking; drainage was not a planning issue; fire brigade regulations stated that access had to be 3.1 metres wide and the road to the site was 3.9 metres wide so well within regulations; and a single storey proposal would not have an adverse impact on the surrounding area.
The Planner then responded to various questions from Members relating to the position and ridge height of the proposed dwelling.
Members then toured the site and then viewed the site from a property in Tanners Street (when they were necessarily accompanied by the owner) with Officers, whilst the applicant remained on the site in order to indicate to Members the height of a proposed fence.
|
