planning working group
MINUTES of the Meeting held at the site listed below on Wednesday 20th April 2011 from 9:30 am to 10:30 am.
Present: Councillor Barnicott (Chairman), Councillors Bobbin, Mike Henderson, Ben Stokes, Roger Truelove, Ghlin Whelan, Alan Willicombe and Jean Willicombe.
Officers Present: Rob Bailey, Emma Eisinger and Kellie Mackenzie, all Swale Borough Council and Mr Hogben (Kent Highway Services).
Also In Attendance: Councillor John Wright. Mrs Jenny Zaluska and Mr J Zaluska (Applicants AmicusHorizon), Mrs Syed, Mr & Mrs Clackett, Mr Palmer, Mr and Mrs Haywood, Mrs Benson, Mr and Mrs Holland, Mrs Drake, Mr Lampard, Mr Greene, Mr and Mrs Horton, Mr Gamm, Mr and Mrs Leppenwell, Mrs Chalmers, Mrs Stanton, Mrs Blackett, Mr Faithful, Mr and Mrs Underdown, Mrs Leach, Mr and Mrs Small, Mr and Mrs Thwaites, Mr Whenham, Mr Dennison, Mrs Savage, Mr and Mrs Davey and Mr Goldsharph (local residents), Mrs Baron, Mr Harris and Mr Martin-Young (Newington Parish Council).
Apologies: Councillors Prescott and Pat Sandle.
|
784
|
declarations of interest
No interests were declared.
|
|
785
|
sw/10/1629 (2.7) - vicarage court, newington
The Senior Planner explained that the application was for the erection of ten properties comprising of: 2 two bedroom houses; 2 two bedroom flats; 4 three bedroom houses and 2 four bedroom houses. All of the properties would be affordable, with seven units for social rented accommodation and three for shared ownership. Newington Church Conservation Area, was 155 metres to the north and the site was within the built-up area of Newington.
The Senior Planner advised that Kent Highway Services raised no objection as there was adequate access to the site and the parking bays provided met the required standards. They considered the proposal was similar to the previous use of the site and the design of the site was adequate to allow emergency vehicles to access.
The Senior Planner advised that 32 additional letters of objection had been received and both Ward Members had objected to the proposal.
The Senior Planner reported that the Council's Tree Officer still had some concerns about the position of the flats in relation to the trees within the adjacent site, in that there would be a definite need to prune the tree in the future. However, the Tree Officer acknowledged that there were other planning considerations and therefore recommended that leaf guards were fixed onto the gutters of the proposed flats. The applicant was willing to do this.
Mr Zaluska, the applicant, explained that AmicusHorizon was a charity and non-profit making organisation. He explained that the previous use of the site as a home for the elderly was not up to standard and had therefore been demolished. He stated the proposed development met local housing needs. Mr Zaluska advised that they had worked alongside the Council's Planning Officers to ensure a high quality scheme was produced and were sensitive to local concerns. With regard to the Section 106 Agreement, Mr Zaluska stated that monies would be allocated to local amenities and all funding was in place and the development could be completed within one year.
Mr Harris, representing Newington Parish Council spoke in support of the proposal and thanked AmicusHorizon for leaving the site in a presentable condition following demolition of Vicarage Court. Mr Harris stated that although on-street parking was a problem at the top of Church Lane onto the A2, it was not an issue along the application site. He also considered that traffic flows and parking problems reduced during the school holiday periods. He considered that the proposal could not be compared to a proposal for nine dwellings at Playstool Close which was refused, as that proposal would have caused overlooking.
A Ward Member spoke against the proposal. He raised the following concerns: density; no garages provided; adjacent conservation areas already had severe parking problems and narrow footpaths; proposal would exacerbate existing parking problems in Church Lane; lack of play/amenity space; elderly previously lived at the site so few vehicle movements; already increased vehicle movements in Church Lane, including HGVs, accessing Newington Enterprise Centre and other commercial businesses in the locality; overshadowing and loss of amenity to No. 111 Church Road and the proposed homes would not be sustainable.
Mr Parry, Chairman of the Governors for Newington Primary School, advised that they had approached the developers about the possibility of a gate and entrance being created from the school playing field via the proposed development. Mr Parry reported that this was a separate issue and dependent on the design and layout of the proposal and approval from Kent County Council and would not be considered as part of this application.
Local residents raised the following concerns: lack of parking spaces would increase on-street parking problems in School Lane; current sewage system was inadequate, and had resulted in some properties being flooded with sewage, further development would exacerbate the problem; the proposal should include sheltered housing; would be an over-intensification of the site and should therefore be refused on the same grounds as application SW/05/1406 land at Playstool Close, Newington; reasons for refusal for application SW/10/1088 land adjacent 2 Hasted Road, Newington were relevant to this application; the previous occupants of the site were elderly, therefore little traffic was generated; lack of play space in the area could increase anti-social behaviour; speeding vehicles in Church Lane made it dangerous for pedestrians to negotiate; Section 106 relates to improvements to Newington Recreation Ground, which was some distance from the site, it should be amended so that a play area can be developed either at or near the application site; would lead to an incremental increase in air pollution along the A2; Church Lane was used as a rat-run by vehicles avoiding roadworks along the A2; Church Lane was already a single lane road due to on-street parking which made it difficult for vehicles to pass safely; traffic count for six hour period on Friday 8th April 2011 showed a total of 747 traffic movements in Church Lane between 7am to 12pm and 3pm-4pm; Newington Enterprise Centre, Wardwell Lane and other businesses within the area had increased congestion in Church Lane; lorries accessing Newington Enterprise Centre were often unable to negotiate the low bridge in Church Lane leading to congestion; present electricity supply was not adequate for current usage, how will it be able to support further development; relocation of the Cherries Play Group to Newington Primary School had increased traffic flow in Church Lane; proposed properties were not large enough for a family; would be detrimental to the safety of horse riders who often use School Lane and Church Lane; need to ensure firm commitment from applicant that the correct infrastructure was in place before any building works commenced; would have a detrimental impact on the adjacent conservation areas; the Parish Council had only very recently liaised with local residents on the proposals; would lead to the urbanisation of Church Lane and School Lane and ultimately Newington; general lack of amenities and places for young people to go in Newington and on-street parking would make it dangerous for vehicles leaving the site.
Mr Clackett, a local resident, provided copies of a summary of objections and supporting appendices. The Chairman advised that these would be circulated to Members of the Planning Committee.
In response to a query from a Member, the Senior Planner reported that drawings showing the previous development at the site would be available for Members to view at the Planning Committee on 28th April 2011. The Chairman advised that information relating to concerns about the electricity supply at the site would also be available at the meeting if necessary.
Members then toured the site with Officers.
|
All Minutes are draft until agreed at the next meeting of the Committee/Panel
View the Agenda for this meeting 
