|
|
sw/14/0079 (deferred item) – the school pool, oare road, faversham
PRESENT: Councillor Barnicott (Chairman), Councillors Sylvia Bennett, Adrian Crowther, Mike Henderson, Peter Marchington and Ben Stokes.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Andrew Jeffers, Kellie Mackenzie and Graham Thomas.
ALSO IN ATTENDANCE: Mr Downes (applicant), Mr Plant, Mrs Taylor, Mr and Mrs Garnham, H Coleman, Mr Davies, K Frawley and T Wood (local residents).
APOLOGIES: Councillors Mark Ellen, Bryan Mulhern, Prescott and Ghlin Whelan.
|
|
|
sw/13/1250 (2.5) – new bungalow, staplestreet road, dunkirk, nr faversham
PRESENT: Councillor Barnicott (Chairman), Councillors Sylvia Bennett, Adrian Crowther, Mike Henderson, Peter Marchington and Ben Stokes.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Andrew Jeffers, Kellie Mackenzie, Alun Millard and Graham Thomas.
ALSO IN ATTENDANCE: Councillor Bowles, Mrs Kisbee (Agent), Ms Lloyd (applicant), Mr Bradley (supporter), Mrs Newman, Mrs Hayes, Mr and Mrs James, Mrs Young, Mrs Peto, Mr Pigott, Mrs O'Leary, Mr Gilham, Mrs Winnard, Mr Cunningham-Sherret, Mrs Jones, Mr Young, Mr Harris, Mr McDonnell, Mr Campbell, Mr Hannah, Mr Griffin, Mrs Pope, Mrs Sampson, Miss Davis, Mr Lewis (objectors), Ms May, Mr Mellett, Ms Clarkson, Mr Tutt and Mr Peto (Dunkirk Parish Council).
APOLOGIES: Councillors Mark Ellen, Bryan Mulhern, Prescott and Ghlin Whelan.
|
|
|
sw/14/0397 (2.6) – manor house, staplestreet road, dunkirk, nr faversham
PRESENT: Councillor Barnicott (Chairman), Councillors Sylvia Bennett, Adrian Crowther, Mike Henderson and Ben Stokes.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Andrew Jeffers, Kellie Mackenzie, Alun Millard and Graham Thomas.
ALSO IN ATTENDANCE: Councillor Bowles, Mr Owen and Mr Gardinar (Agents), Miss Belsey, Mrs Newman, Mrs Hayes, Mr and Mrs James, Mrs Young, Mrs Peto, Mr Pigott, Mrs O'Leary, Mr Gilham, Mrs Winnard, Mr Cunningham-Sherret, Mrs Jones, Mr Young, Mr Harris, Mr McDonnell, Mr Campbell, Mr Hannah, Mr Griffin, Mrs Pope, Mrs Sampson, Miss Davis, Mr Lewis (objectors), Ms May, Mr Mellett, Ms Clarkson, Mr Tutt and Mr Peto (Dunkirk Parish Council).
APOLOGIES: Councillors Mark Ellen, Bryan Mulhern, Prescott and Ghlin Whelan.
|
|
88
|
declarations of interest
No interests were declared.
|
|
89
|
sw/14/0079 (deferred item) – the school pool, oare road, faversham
The Area Planning Officer introduced the application which was for a single toilet and shower unit on land adjoining the lake at the Faversham Angling Club at The School Pool, Oare Road, Faversham.
The Area Planning Officer reported that the proposed toilet block would measure 3.1 metres wide, 3.9 metres deep and 4.5 metres high. He stated that originally the applicant proposed to locate the block in front of new houses in Davington Park but following numerous objections (11 letters) from local residents the applicants agreed to re-locate the block in the north west corner of the site.
The Area Planning Officer explained that Members had agreed to defer the application at their meeting on 8 May 2014 to respond to queries about siting; consulting local residents and disabled anglers; and whether there was a practical reason for the proposed location.
The Faversham Angling Club had advised that the existing block could not be used as Redrow Homes had advised that it would not be possible to provide an electricity supply to that part of the site. The Area Planning Officer considered that the proposed siting would have far less impact on residents and noted that it could be screened.
Mr Downes, the applicant, stated that they had worked with local residents to ensure the most appropriate location for the toilet block was found and responded to local concerns. Mr Downes stated that the block would be appropriately screened and could be positioned so that entry was facing away from the direction of Davington Park. With regard to concerns about mud on the track, Mr Downes stated that they had an agreement with Redrow Homes to provide a path at the site, so that would resolve that issue.
Mr Downes stated that he was not aware of any incidents of vandalism at the site for the last 15 years and did not consider that it was likely that people would congregate around the toilet block. Mr Downes advised that the gates were locked all night and only members of the Club had keys to the site and all members' vehicle details were known. He noted concerns that the site had been used as a short-cut but the site was now fenced off with secure palisade fencing.
Local residents raised concerns and queries which included: new site was better than that previously proposed, but would still have an impact on local residents; was potential for people to congregate around the toilet block; nobody wants to view a toilet from their window; Redrow Homes claim that they could not provide electricity was a 'red-herring', they just wanted to keep costs down; was the best location but would be better if a lower single pitched roof was provided; would the anglers use the facility?; and some residents felt that the position of the building was logical and sensible.
In response to queries, Mr Downes stated that the toilets would be cleaned daily and that only anglers were given keys to enter the site.
In response to queries from a Member, the Area Planning Officer stated that screening would help and that Officers were liaising with Redrow Homes to ensure trees they had agreed to provide along the boundary of Davington Park and Faversham Pool were planted. The Area Planning Officer considered lowering the height of the toilet block would be a mistake as it was already much smaller than the adjoining garage. He considered the design of the proposal was in keeping with the area.
Members then inspected the site with Officers
|
|
90
|
sw/13/1250 (2.5) – new bungalow, staplestreet road, dunkirk, nr faversham
The Area Planning Officer explained that the application was for the extension of New Bungalow and provision of 3 new dwellings at New Bungalow, Staple Street Road, Dunkirk.
The Area Planning Officer advised that a new access would be created from Dawes Road to serve the new properties. The Area Planning Officer stated that the applicant had submitted amended plans reducing the size of the bungalows (units 2 and 3) so that they were now low-height bungalows reducing their ridge height from 8.2 metres to 4.5 metres. The Area Planning Officer stated that Kent County Councils (KCC) Public Rights of Way Officer raised no objection. The Head of Service Delivery raised no objection, subject to conditions on hours of construction and dust suppression, and KCC Highways were awaiting further amended plans drawings regarding access to Unit 1.
The Area Planning Officer reported that Dunkirk Parish Council had raised considerable objection to the previous scheme, but following submission of the amended plans welcomed the amendments to Units 2 and 3.
Mrs Kisbee, the Agent, stated that the amended scheme significantly reduced the height of Units 2 and 3. Mrs Kisbee further stated that they had liaised with KCC Highway officers to ensure minimal traffic generation. Mrs Kisbee confirmed that the necessary ground surveys had been undertaken.
Mr Peto, representing Dunkirk Parish Council, welcomed the amended plans, however they were still concerned about drainage and the potential for flooding and also the impact on the local rural road network. Mr Peto considered the local roads would not be able to support further traffic, due to issues with subsidence, particularly at Potters Corner and queried whether Section 106 monies could be used to make the necessary improvements. Mr Peto queried whether soil testing had been carried out at the site.
Councillor Bowles, the Ward Member, stated that he disliked back-garden developments but was not able to find any planning reasons for the application to be refused.
Local residents raised points which included: would have an adverse impact on drainage and exacerbate flooding problems; loss of view; proposed access was not suitable; Dawes Road was already a busy and dangerous road to negotiate and the proposal would make things worse; green spaces within villages should be protected; road network already crumbling due to local ground conditions; does not make sense to put a junction so close to an accident 'black spot'; would increase the danger for cyclists and horse riders negotiating Dawes Road; what protection would there be for any structural damage caused by pile-driving at the site; development would cause flooding for properties at the bottom of Dawes Road; overshadowing to neighbouring properties; and that on the day of the site visit a road adjoining the application site was closed for tree and hedge cutting, so the road was not as busy as it usually was.
Members then viewed the application site and the access to the site from Dawes Road.
|
|
91
|
sw/14/0397 (2.6) – manor house, staplestreet road, dunkirk, nr faversham
The Area Planning Officer explained that the application was for six new properties; four detached and two semi-detached along with the restoration of the existing Manor House at Staplestreet Road, Dunkirk.
The Area Planning Officer drew attention to an aerial photograph of the site provided by the applicant's agent which showed the layout of the proposed development for those attending. The Area Planning Officer noted that the site was within the defined built-up area of Boughton and Dunkirk and part of the “local service centreâ€.
The Area Planning Officer advised that the new houses would be traditionally designed in weatherboarding and/or brick with hipped and multi-pitched roofs to keep heights in line with The Manor House. The Area Planning Officer stated that distances to houses opposite in Staplestreet Road exceeded normal privacy standards and the 13 parking spaces proposed met the current parking standards. The Area Planning Officer advised that the application was supported by a Design and Access Statement which concluded that the development would not increase local flood risk or disturb bats which roosted in The Manor House.
The Area Planning Officer reported that a new access to the site would be provided from Berkeley Close. Construction traffic would however still access the site from the current access (Staplestreet Road).
The Area Planning Officer reported that Dunkirk Parish Council raised objection for reasons which included: loss of open aspect; the hedges and orchard at the site should be considered as ancient or species-rich hedgerows; area suffers from subsidence problems and properties have been underpinned; Berkeley Close was a cul-de-sac where children play so the application would be a safety risk; and it does not comply with Local Plan policies.
The Area Planning Officer further reported that the Faversham Society raised objection and considered the proposal would be an overdevelopment of the site and was out of keeping with the area.
The Area Planning Officer stated that 24 letters of objection had been received raising concerns which included: site access was on a dangerous blind bend; impact on existing drainage problems; extra pressure on oversubscribed village school; and overshadowing and overlooking.
The Area Planning Officer stated that in principal the development was acceptable and in accordance with Local Plan policies.
Mr Owen, the Agent, advised that The Manor House would be refurbished as one dwelling with minimal changes to ensure it complied with building regulation standards.
Mr Tutt, Dunkirk Parish Council, spoke against the proposal. Mr Tutt stated that they considered six properties was too many for the site and four would be more appropriate. They noted that Swale Borough Council's Conservation Officer felt The Manor House should be listed, but English Heritage did not have the funds to do this. Mr Tutt raised concern that flooding and subsidence was already a problem in the vicinity and the application would only add to this problem.
Councillor Bowles, the Ward Member, considered that the application was an over-intensification of the area.
Local residents raised points which included: if the construction traffic can access the current entrance to the site why can't the new development?; loss of privacy; safety concerns for children playing in Berkeley Close; site was not large enough for the amount of properties proposed; compromise was needed and four properties would be more acceptable; new access not suitable as was on a blind bend where cars parked; already flooding and subsidence properties, if orchard in-filled where will the water drain off to?; vehicles passing in Staplestreet Road currently used the existing access to The Manor House as a passing-point, they would not be able to if that access was removed; junction with Berkeley Close and Stoney Road had no junction road markings, they needed to be installed before any development commenced; and impact on local wildlife.
In response to a query, the KCC Highways Officer stated that construction traffic could be managed, but vehicles from the new development would need to be via the proposed access so that suitable sightlines could be provided.
Members then viewed the site with Officers and the proposed new access site from Berkeley Close, they also viewed the junction with Berkeley Close and Stoney Road where no road markings exist.
|
