land adjacent 26 the leas, minster

PRESENT: Councillor Prescott (Vice-Chairman in the Chair), Councillors Barnicott (Chairman), Mike Brown, John Disney, Sandra Garside, Elvina Lowe and Ben Stokes.

OFFICERS PRESENT: Miss Davies and Messrs Bailey, Jeffers and Parker (Swale Borough Council (SBC)) and Mrs Ellis and Mr Millard (Kent Highway Services (KHS)).

ALSO IN ATTENDANCE: Councillors Chris Boden and Kenneth Pugh (Ward Members), Councillor Adrian Crowther (Local resident), Mr Pullinson (Minster Parish Council), Mesdames McCook and Morgan and Messrs Barber (Agent), McCook and Seymour.

APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE: Councillors Fiona Gowdy, Jennie Ronan, Alan Willicombe, Jean Willicombe and Woodland.

new cane farm, holywell lane, upchurch

PRESENT: Councillor Barnicott (Chairman), Councillor Prescott (Vice-Chairman), Councillors Adrian Crowther, John Disney, Sandra Garside, Elvina Lowe and Ben Stokes.

OFFICERS PRESENT: Miss Davies, Ms Davies and Messrs Jeffers and Ledger (SBC) and Mrs Ellis and Mr Millard (KHS) and Mr Carpenter (Kent County Council (KCC)).

ALSO IN ATTENDANCE: Councillor John Wright (Ward Member), Mesdames Child, Emmett, Flipping, Taylor, Woodhouse, Wright and Messrs Atarell, Catford (Upchurch Parish Council), Cooper (Applicant), Emmett, Foulds (Upchurch Parish Council), Gregory, Thompstone and Wright.

APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE: Councillors Mike Brown, Fiona Gowdy, Jennie Ronan, Alan Willicombe, Jean Willicombe and Woodland.

5 st patrick's row, rodmersham green, rodmersham

PRESENT: Councillor Barnicott (Chairman), Councillor Prescott (Vice-Chairman), Councillors Adrian Crowther, John Disney, Sandra Garside, Elvina Lowe and Ben Stokes.

OFFICERS PRESENT: Misses Davies and Dethier and Messrs Bell and Wilson (SBC) and Mrs Ellis and Mr Millard (KHS).

ALSO IN ATTENDANCE: Councillor Abbott (Rodmersham Parish Council), Mesdames Meredith, Stringer, Lansdowne and Dungay and Messrs Beckham and Osmer.

APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE: Councillors Mike Brown, Fiona Gowdy, Jennie Ronan, Alan Willicombe, Jean Willicombe and Woodland.

part b minutes for information

land adjacent 26 the leas, minster

The Planning Officer explained that the application was for outline planning permission for a detached bungalow and separate garage. The layout and access to the site were to be determined under the application, with scale, external appearance and landscaping reserved for future consideration. The bungalow would be at right angles to the adjoining property, 26 The Leas, and was 13 metres from the conservatory on that property. The site was within the built up area of Minster and was a continuation of the existing development. He did not consider the proposal to be over-development of the site; it would not harm the street scene and the property would not fill the plot. Kent Highway Services and Minster Parish Council had raised no objection. Minster Parish Council requested that any approval required screening to the boundaries of the site.

The agent brought Members' attention to the fact that the conservatory to 26 The Leas was a significant part of the living area and this had not been shown on the plans. He raised concern with regard to the closeness of the proposed bungalow and garage to the neighbouring house and highlighted the difference in levels of the land, which he considered to be approximately one metre. This could result in overshadowing and loss of privacy. He considered the condition of the road to be used for access to the proposed bungalow was not adequate.

The Kent Highway Services Officer explained that the Isle of Sheppey had numerous unmade roads and he considered that the road was capable of taking any traffic to the proposed bungalow.

A representative from Minster Parish Council confirmed that they had no objection, but would like some screening to be added. He explained that the site visit had shown that the land was sloped.

The Ward Members agreed that the proposed bungalow appeared to be close to the neighbouring property.

The owner of the neighbouring house explained to the Working Group that the proposed bungalow would overlook her property and brought Members' attention to the slope of the land.

In response to queries regarding the exact position of the proposed bungalow, the Area Planning Officer confirmed that accurate details would be provided and with reference to the site levels he would contact the architect and report back to the Planning Committee on Thursday 29th March 2007.

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

new cane farm, holywell lane, upchurch

The Area Planning Officer explained that the proposal was for an outline application for the erection of two 9,000 bird, organic free range egg laying units. He considered that the layout did not have a detrimental effect on the local landscape. He explained that access to the site was along a restricted road, but that right of access was not a planning matter. He reported that access along the road was for vehicle access only. There would be 1,000 birds per hectare on the site.

The Head of Environmental Services and Kent Highway Services had raised no objection to the proposal. Objections from local residents had been received which included concerns with regard to odour, noise and traffic generation. The nearest residential property was 200 metres from the site.

The KCC Public Rights of Way Officer explained that access to the site was via a restricted byway. The Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006, stated that if a landowner needed to access land, he had an established right. He explained that there was a potential issue of conflict and it challenged the free right of passage. He confirmed that KCC only maintained the byway up to the standard of bridleway and that the responsibility for the vehicular use and any damage to the surface needed to be resolved. The public footpath (ZR26) which crossed the site would be unhindered by the proposal and two kissing gates would be added at either end of the units.

Representatives from Upchurch Parish Council expressed concerns with the large lorries that could be arriving on the site and the amount of droppings that would be on the site.

The Ward Member raised concerns with regard to the large vehicles that would be driving along the country roads and the impact of the large buildings on the open rural landscape; he considered that enhanced screening was necessary. He expressed concerns with regard to the amount of time that the incinerator would be in use, the odour from the site and noise from vents on the buildings.

In response to a question, the Area Planning Officer confirmed that the application was for outline permission, which looked at the principle, layout and scale of the development. Details of its appearance and landscaping would be considered in the future under Reserved Matters.

Local residents raised objections to the proposal and emphasised the following points:- concerns over what would happen to the site if the proposed use was not viable, increase in heavy vehicles, the need for some form of screening, the impact on wildlife, problems of flies and vermin, noise and light pollution and cross contamination with neighbouring businesses.

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

5 st patrick's row, rodmersham green, rodmersham

The Planning Officer explained the history of the site and reported that the application was to sub-divide an existing property into two dwellings, both with a rear extension, but no parking provision. She outlined objections that had been received which raised issues that included loss of residential amenity, harm to the character of the area and damage to the tree in the garden. She considered that there would be no overlooking and that the proposal was in accordance with the adopted supplementary guidance. The sub-division would revert the cottage back to its original status. The tree in the garden would remain there.

The Conservation Officer considered that the proposal was a positive opportunity to restore the houses back to their original status and was an opportunity to get smaller houses within the village.

The representative from Rodmersham Parish Council agreed that there was a need for this type of accommodation in Rodmersham.

Local residents expressed concerns regarding symmetry of the back of the cottages, loss of sunlight, parking problems, loss of privacy, accessibility to the electricity sub-station, concerns regarding the revised boundaries and disruption whilst the building work was being completed.

The Planning Officer confirmed that there were additional conditions to require details of the means of enclosure to the front and back boundaries and details relating to the timber and joinery to be used.

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