sw/07/1396 – 11 minterne avenue, sittingbourne

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

OFFICERS PRESENT: Kellie Mackenzie, Shelley Rouse and Jim Wilson.

ALSO IN ATTENDANCE: Mr & Mrs Annand, Mr Bett, Mr & Mrs Simpson, Mr Taylor (local residents) and Mr & Mrs Carnt (Applicants).

APOLOGIES: Councillors Monique Bonney and Prescott.

sw/07/1066 – bannister house, bannister hill, borden, sittingbourne

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

OFFICERS PRESENT: Peter Bell, Kellie Mackenzie and Jim Wilson.

ALSO IN ATTENDANCE: Mr J Fenn, Mr & Mrs Hetherington and Mr Wintle (local residents), Mr Ducheshe (Applicant) and Mr Rogers (Agent).

APOLOGIES: Councillors Monique Bonney, Elvina Lowe and Prescott.

declarations of interest

No interests were declared.

part b minutes for information

sw/07/1396 - 11 minterne avenue, sittingbourne

The Planner explained that the proposal was for the removal of the existing pre-fab building and garage and construction of a two storey side and single storey rear extension. Amended plans had been received which gave details of the proposed gap between No. 11 and No. 9 Minterne Avenue.

The applicant advised that they had amended the application to include a pitched roof rather than flat. They had been in consultation with their neighbours at No. 9 Minterne Avenue and had agreed to increase the gap of the side wall to 600mm. They had also agreed to pay for any Party Wall agreement costs and employ a structural engineer to ensure the work was carried out to a satisfactory standard.

Local residents raised the following concerns: the detached property would have a detrimental effect on the streetscene, should not be allowed to build beyond the building line, the proposed dwelling would be an 'eyesore' and that this was just a way for the applicants to make money.

The applicant advised that this was not an application to make money just to increase their family home.

Members viewed the amended plans and then toured the site and asked the Area Planning Officer and Planner questions which they answered.

sw/07/1066 – bannister house, bannister hill, borden, sittingbourne

The Area Planning Officer explained that the proposal was for the replacement of the existing adjoining garage with a single storey side extension to Bannister House, and the relocation of the front entrance and extension to the rear of the house. The erection of a new double garage with a studio building above with a floor area of approximately 30 square metres was also proposed. He explained that the proposal was the result of lengthy discussions between Planning Officers, the Conservation Officer, agent and applicant. He considered that the application would result in considerable enhancement to the character of the Conservation Area. In respect of residential amenity concerns from the occupiers of 'Lowlands' he advised that that dwelling would be approximately 35 metres from the proposed outbuilding and well screened by the well established dense, tall screen of leylandii. Kent Highway Services raised no objection and considered the application could improve highway safety at the site.

The Agent considered this to be an improvement on the current garaging arrangements.

Local residents raised the following concerns: that the hedge between the development and “Lowlands” could be removed, overlooking, the site could be used for future in-filling, unacceptable contemporary design in a conservation area, why the need for a studio above the garage and concerns regarding what it would be used for and that the applicants could apply to turn the studio into a home at a later stage.

In response to questions from Members, the applicant confirmed that they would use the un-lit route from the new garage at the bottom of the garden to the house at night and the proposed studio would not be used for the playing of music.

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