|
|
sw/11/1571 (2.4) - land adj. 27 hilton close, faversham
PRESENT: Councillor Barnicott (Chairman), Councillor Prescott (Vice-Chairman), Councillors Bobbin, Andy Booth, Mike Henderson, Pat Sandle, Roger Truelove and Ghlin Whelan.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Kellie Mackenzie, Alun Millard, Andrew Spiers and Graham Thomas.
ALSO IN ATTENDANCE: Mr and Mrs Moore (applicants), Mr Jarrett (Agent), Mr Trevor Abram, Mrs Cindy Davis and Mr Ted Wilcox (Faversham Town Council), Mr Mason, Mr North, Mr Webb, Mr and Mrs Springett, Mrs Harris, Mrs Herring, Mrs Monsarrat, Mrs Ellis, Mr and Mrs Mayes, Mr and Mrs Baldock, Mr Klech, Mrs Connolly, Miss Pressley and Mrs Fehule (local residents).
APOLOGIES: Councillors Derek Conway, Mark Ellen, Lesley Ingham, Alan Willicombe and Jean Willicombe.
|
|
|
sw/11/1602 (2.9) - 26 key street, sittingburne
PRESENT: Councillor Barnicott (Chairman), Councillor Prescott (Vice-Chairman), Councillors Bobbin, Andy Booth, Derek Conway, Mike Henderson, Pat Sandle, Roger Truelove and Ghlin Whelan.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Kellie Mackenzie, Andrew Mills and Graham Thomas.
ALSO IN ATTENDANCE: Mrs Fielding (applicant), Mr Mutch (Architect) and Mr and Mrs Billing and Mr Hance (local residents).
APOLOGIES: Councillors Mark Ellen, Lesley Ingham, Alan Willicombe and Jean Willicombe.
|
|
|
sw/11/1086 (2.8) - 8 hawthorn avenue, sheerness
PRESENT: Councillor Prescott (Vice-Chairman, Chairman for the meeting), Councillors Bobbin, Andy Booth, Mike Henderson, Pat Sandle, Roger Truelove and Ghlin Whelan.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Kellie Mackenzie, Ross McCardle and Rob Bailey.
ALSO IN ATTENDANCE: Mr Saxena (Agent).
APOLOGIES: Councillors Barnicott (Chairman), Derek Conway, Mark Ellen, Lesley Ingham, Alan Willicombe and Jean Willicombe.
|
|
626
|
declaration of interests
No interests were declared.
|
|
627
|
sw/11/1571 (2.4) - land adj. 27 hilton close, faversham
Members toured the site with Officers.
The Planner introduced the application and explained that the proposal was for a new three-bedroom house and garage adjacent to 27 Hilton Close, Faversham. He outlined the application as set out in the report. The Planner reported that Faversham Town Council raised objection as they considered it would be an over-intensification of the site; removal of important screening and an area of openness and the new drive access would have an adverse effect on road safety. He further reminded Members that 18 letters of objection had been received raising various objections which included: would exacerbate current parking problems; no footpath on bend; loss of trees; loss of parking space; poor design; overlook gardens at nos. 29 and 44; loss of value to surrounding properties; loss of view; danger from traffic to children using playground opposite and a full geotechnical and environmental survey was required. The Planner stated that these points reiterated those raised by the thirty four objections received in relation to the previous application.
The Planner reported that Kent Highway Services (KHS) raised no objection and the Head of Service Delivery also raised no objection following receipt of the applicant's geotechnical report.
Mr Jarrett (Agent), considered that the concerns of local residents had been addressed and therefore the proposal should be approved.
Councillor Ted Wilcox, (representing Faversham Town Council), considered that the hedge and trees at the site added character to the area and must not be lost. They also considered the proposal was an over-intensification of the site.
A representative of the Finch Close Residents Committee raised concern that the root system of the trees on the cliff would become weakened and unstable following construction work, leading to safety concerns for residents of Finch Close.
Members of the public made the following comments: would cause overlooking to the backgarden of No. 29 Hilton Close; bats roost at the site; lack of pavements made it dangerous for children leaving the nearby play area; applicants had misrepresented the size of the plot; drawings were not accurate; removal of soil and pile driving would leave the cliff unstable; catslide roof was out of character with the area; there would be less parking; loss of view; size of proposed property too large for the plot; lorries removing and delivering soil would cause damage to the current road structure; access to the site not wide enough for construction traffic; construction traffic would make the area unsafe for children; could have an adverse effect on the local drainage system increasing the risk of flash flooding; loss of root systems could leave the cliff unstable; would lead to an increase in parking problems; road was not wide enough for current use so how would construction traffic be able to negotiate the site; the trees at the site were visually important to the whole area and any damage to them during construction work must be avoided and there are four properties in the area with catslide roofs so they would be in keeping with the area.
In response to a query from a Member, the Planner confirmed that there were conditions outlined in the report to ensure the trees would be protected during construction work.
Members then viewed the cliffside from Finch Close with Officers.
|
|
628
|
sw/11/1602 (2.9) - 26 key street, sittingbourne
The Planner introduced the application and explained that the proposal was for a part single-storey and part two-storey side/rear extension at Pine Lodge Care Centre, 26 Key Street, Sittingbourne. He outlined the application and the site history, as set out in the report.
The Planner reported that two letters of objection had been received from residents in Cherryfields. Borden Parish Council also raised objection on the grounds that the proposal would cause overlooking to properties in Cherryfields.
Mr Mutch, (Architect, Harrison Mutch) showed drawings which outlined the scheme approved in 2001 and the proposed scheme. He outlined the differences in the proposed scheme which he considered would address concerns of overlooking. The flat-roofed ground floor en-suite would be set back further from the boundary line.
Local residents raised concern that the loss of the leylandii at the southern rear of the site would have an adverse impact on the visual amenity of residents in Cherryfields.
In response to queries from Members, the Area Planning Officer advised that the applicant had already started work on application SW/01/1269 and this proposal was a revision of that scheme.
Members then toured the site with Officers.
|
|
629
|
sw/11/1086 (2.8) - 8 hawthorn avenue, sheerness
The Planner introduced the application and explained that the proposal was for the erection of a two-storey end-of-terrace house adjacent to 8 Hawthorn Avenue, Sheerness. He outlined the application as set out in the report.
The Planner reminded Members that three letters of objection had been received which were summarised in the report. The Planner stated that the dwelling was within the built-up area of Sheerness and considered it to be of appropriate scale and design. He explained that the proposed flank windows and the 15 metre deep rear garden would reduce the possibility of overlooking. He noted the proposal was in a high flood risk zone, but advised that the Environment Agency raised no objection, subject to the key habitable rooms raised to first floor level. KHS raised no objection following receipt of amended plans.
Mr Saxena, the Agent, provided Members with a list of responses to issues raised by local residents, addressing concerns about: fire risk; drainage; house prices and the distance between the new dwelling and existing.
In response to queries from Members, the Area Planning Officer advised that the proposed change from semi-detached to mid-terrace was not a material planning consideration which would justify refusal here. He stated that the proposed off-street parking was in accordance with KCC Parking Standards.
|
