|
|
sw/05/0401 (1.1) and sw/08/0644 (2.9) - site of woody's nightclub, wood street, sheerness
PRESENT: Councillor Barnicott (Chairman), Councillor Prescott (Vice-Chairman), Councillors Bobbin, Andy Booth, Adrian Crowther, Mark Ellen, David Garside, Sue Gent, Mike Henderson, Bryan Mulhern, Pat Sandle, Ben Stokes and Ghlin Whelan.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Peter Bell, Philippa Davies, James Freeman and Andrew Jeffers.
ALSO IN ATTENDANCE: Councillors Harrison and Worrall (Ward Members), Mr Burton and Mr Mackenzie (Agents), Miss Cresswell, Miss Rush, Messrs K Georgeson, C Georgeson, Hughes, Reed, Stanford, B Watson and Watson (local residents).
APOLOGIES: Councillors Simon Clark and Duncan Dewar-Whalley.
|
|
|
sw/08/0896 (2.1) - port of sheerness, isle of sheppey
PRESENT: Councillor Barnicott (Chairman), Councillor Prescott (Vice-Chairman), Councillors Bobbin, Andy Booth, Adrian Crowther, Mark Ellen, David Garside, Sue Gent, Mike Henderson, Bryan Mulhern, Ben Stokes and Ghlin Whelan.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Richard Allen, Susannah Cooper, Philippa Davies, James Freeman, Mark James, Andrew Jeffers, David Ledger, Kevin Tucker and Jim Wilson.
ALSO IN ATTENDANCE: Councillor Paul Hayes, Parish Councillor John Clarke, Mr Dibley (Agent), Ms J Elmes, S Elmes, A Elmes, T Elmes, Moore, Newton, Williams, Mesdames Adams, Allsworth, Burgess, Castle, Collins, Curtis, Dunnicliffe, Duval, Georgeson, Gower, Gransden, Hancock, Hunn, Kendall, Payne, Pope, Ratcliff, Sherriff, Vine, Watts, Williams, Messrs Allsworth, Baillie, Baultime, Carter, Castle, Childs, Curtis, Duval, Georgeson, Goodhew, Gransden, Hancock, Hunn, Jarvis, Kendall, Mason, Pope, Price, Rayfield, Rowan, Stokes, Watts, Wood, and Williams.
APOLOGIES: Councillors Simon Clark and Duncan Dewar-Whalley.
|
|
681
|
sw/05/0401 (1.1) and sw/08/0644 (2.9) - site of woody's nightclub, wood street, sheerness
The Development Control Manager reminded Members that there were two applications to consider, one was for the amendments that had been carried out with regard to application SW/05/0401 for the demolition of the building and the erection of a medical centre and 23 apartments. The second application, SW/08/0644 was for the amendment to that application, SW/05/0401 replacing the Medical Centre with two lock up commercial retail units with eight flats above.
The Development Control Manager explained that the site was at the location of the former Woody's Nightclub, within the Sheerness Mile Town Conservation Area. He reported that there were two Grade II Listed Buildings a windmill to the rear and No. 97 High Street immediately to the north. Work had started on the site, but complaints had been received that there had been discrepancies in the work that had been carried out, compared to the original plans that had been approved. Revised drawings had been submitted which included an increase in the width and depth of the staircase projection to the north east elevation, reduction in the distance from the listed windmill, alterations to the height of the building and the use of aluminium windows instead of timber.
The Development Control Manager explained that the applicant had been informed that any work carried out before the application was approved would be at his own risk. He emphasised that the application was for the amendments to the original application. The proposed increase of the width of the staircase was to one metre, however the actual staircase windows would be obscured and only 0.1 metre wider than originally approved. The Development Control Manager reported that the change in the height of the eaves level and the roof profiles had been put in place to satisfy the Environment Agency's requirements that residential sleeping accommodation should be above 6.4 Above Ordnance Datum as the application site was within a flood risk area. Consultation had been carried out on the amendments which had raised objections, which included the following points; it was detrimental to neighbouring properties and the conservation area, concern over the common boundary treatment with the windmill and concern over exposed wall treatment to No. 97.
The Development Control Manager considered that the changes that were proposed were neutral and that he would have recommended approval if they had been included in the original application.
The Development Control Manager explained that the second application was to replace the originally planned Medical Centre on the site with two commercial units, with eight flats above. The Primary Care Trust had built another Medical Centre nearby and the proposed one on this site was considered not to be needed. The proposal was to replace the two storey medical centre with a three and four storey building. During the processing of the application the proposals had been improved with regard to its design and its impact on the setting of the Listed Building at No. 97 High Street. Amended plans had been recently received showing alterations to the front alignment of the building with No. 97, Officer's opinions upon these would be further reported at the meeting on 5th March 2009. He explained that although the residential separation distances were less than normal, he considered that in this case, as the site was a brown field site and that there was 16 metres between habitable windows, that the proposal was acceptable and did not cause harm to the setting of the area.
Mr Mackenzie, the Agent, explained the application and re-iterated that the reason for the increased level of the first floor from ground level was because of flood risk. He explained that amendments to the building had been made to improve its design and appearance and considered that the different storey heights reduced the effect of bulk of the building and enabled it to fit in with the different ages of nearby buildings.
The Conservation Officer explained that there was a duty to regard and consider the setting of the adjacent listed buildings and that the development should not cause harm to the conservation area.
A Ward Member raised concern with the changes to the application that had been carried out by the developer without planning permission. He explained that the windmill near the application site was an important part of Sheerness' heritage and stated that it would become hidden by the proposed building. He advised that there was a lot of opposition to the changes from local people, especially with regard to more flats in Sheerness.
Another Ward Member emphasised the fact that the developer had acted contrary to the conditions on the original application. She considered the windmill to be a visual amenity for the area.
Local residents made the following comments: additional shops were not needed in the town centre as there were many empty units within the town; the listed windmill and conservation area needed to be protected; the proposed building was an eyesore; the view of the windmill would be blocked; the site was historical; the need for Sheerness to improve; the building was too high; the building did not fit with the other historical buildings in the area; the building should be on a smaller scale; why has building work been permitted so close to the windmill; the setting of a listed building needed to be protected; strong views against the revised plans; the building was out of scale; it was detrimental to the Victorian streetscene; the new building should enhance the area and over-intensification.
Members then toured the site and asked the Development Control Manager and Conservation Officer questions which they answered.
|
|
682
|
sw/08/0896 (2.1) - port of sheerness, isle of sheppey
The Senior Planner explained that the application was for the erection of four wind turbines on the Lappel Bank in the Port of Sheerness. Each turbine would be 125 metres in height, with a ninety metre span. There would be a distance of 450 metres between each turbine. The whole site would be 1.5 kilometre in length and 12 Megawatts of electricity would be supplied to up to 6,000 homes.
The Senior Planner reported that 53 letters of objection had been received. Queenborough Town Council and Minster Parish Council had raised objection to the proposal. One further letter of objection had been received since the last Planning Committee meeting which raised issues already covered in the report. One letter from Queenborough Town Council had yet to be assessed; an update would be given at the next meeting. He outlined the objections that had been received, which included: noise, including general noise and humming; the effect of the turbine on local residents' enjoyment of their homes and health issues. He reported that Queenborough Town Council had suggested that the method of determining noise levels in the report was a flawed process. He advised that Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 22 gave clear guidelines and stated that noise levels from this type of development were generally low and no higher than five decibels above background noise levels; the proposed four turbines complied with these guidelines. He explained that there was a very low percentage of low frequency noise and together with the existing background noise, the proposal would not be harmful to the amenity or to health. He explained that the rating had been done following the Energy Technology Support Unit method. He advised that if the conditions within the report were adhered to, the proposed wind turbines would not be harmful. Following guidelines within PPS22, the proposed fall over distance was acceptable; it was four times the recommended fall over distance required.
The Senior Planner explained that issues related to siting and design, ecology, shadow flicker, heritage, highways, contamination, effect on landscape, electro-magnetic interference and flooding had been carefully considered in the application. The application was considered acceptable against national, regional and local plan policies, especially Policy U3 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.
The Environmental Protection Manager explained that there was currently background noise on the site from industrial and traffic noise nearby. He considered that the noise from the wind turbines would not be a problem and would vary depending upon on the background noise and the wind direction. He explained that the conditions within the report had been written to be workable and enforceable.
Dr le Las, speaking on behalf of Queenborough Town Council, queried when the noise tests were carried out and suggested times that would have been more suitable. She explained that the distance suggested in the report for the minimum distance to residential areas, was recommended as a lower figure by the Department of Trade and Industry. She considered the conditions in the report to be unenforceable.
Local residents made the following comments: loss of visual amenity; noise; potential hazard; effect on house prices; put wind farm in estuary instead; detrimental to quality of life; area will be degraded; wind turbines will be very visible; no one wants them located here; light pollution; threat to wildlife; health and safety; health issues and long term effects; danger to nearby gas turbine; danger of blades falling off; the area should only be used for Port related industries and television interference.
The Area Planning Officer confirmed that 900 residents had been consulted on the application. In response to a question regarding building on reclaimed land, he confirmed that the applicant would have been required to have looked into the suitability of the land and given details of the method of piling. He also explained that one of the conditions in the report required the submission, and approval, of piling details.
A petition containing 93 signatures was handed to the Chairman.
Members then toured the site and asked the Senior Planner and Major Project Officer various questions which they answered.
|
