sw/07/1418 - 91 scocles road, minster

PRESENT: Councillor Barnicott (Chairman), Councillor Prescott (Vice-Chairman), Councillors Bobbin, Monique Bonney, Mark Ellen, Harrison, Kenneth Pugh, Pat Sandle, Ben Stokes and Alan Willicombe.

OFFICERS PRESENT: Philippa Davies, Andrew Jeffers and Alun Millard (Kent Highway Services).

ALSO IN ATTENDANCE: Councillor Lesley Ingham (Ward Member), Mr Hobbs (Agent), Messrs Parker and Parker (Applicants) and Mr and Mrs Wichman (local residents).

APOLOGIES: Councillors Simon Clark, Sandra Garside, Brenda Hammond, Elvina Lowe, Roger Truelove and Jean Willicombe.

sw/06/0993 - land at garnett cottage, lower halstow, sittingbourne

PRESENT: Councillor Barnicott (Chairman), Councillor Prescott (Vice-Chairman), Councillors Bobbin, Monique Bonney, Simon Clark, Mark Ellen, Harrison, Elvina Lowe, Kenneth Pugh, Pat Sandle, Ben Stokes and Alan Willicombe.

OFFICERS PRESENT: Rob Bailey, Philippa Davies, Andrew Jeffers and Alun Millard (Kent Highway Services).

ALSO IN ATTENDANCE: Mr Drury (Lower Halstow Parish Council), Mr Holdstock (Agent), Mr Powell (Lower Halstow Parish Council), Mr Tucker (Lower Halstow Parish Council), Mr and Mrs Bennett, Mrs Brown, Mr Ferrell, Mr Heron, Mrs Peatfield, Mr Smith, Mr Swift and Mr Woollett (local residents).

APOLOGIES: Councillors Sandra Garside, Brenda Hammond, Roger Truelove and Jean Willicombe.

sw/07/1025 - bell centre and bell house, bell road, sittingbourne

PRESENT: Councillor Barnicott (Chairman), Councillor Prescott (Vice-Chairman), Councillors Bobbin, Monique Bonney, Simon Clark, Mark Ellen, Brenda Hammond, Harrison, Elvina Lowe, Pat Sandle, Ben Stokes and Alan Willicombe.

OFFICERS PRESENT: Philippa Davies, David Ledger, Alun Millard (Kent Highway Services) and Jim Wilson.

ALSO IN ATTENDANCE: Mr Cadoret (Architect), Mr Cronk (Applicant), Ms Treanor and Mr Walker Robson (Agents), Mrs Austin, Mr Belcher, Mr Blundell, Mrs Brisley, Mr and Mrs Cadwallader, Mrs Harmon, Mr and Mrs Judges, Mrs Lawther, Mr Mount, Mr Notcutt, Mrs Oughton, Mrs Parker, Mrs Shiers, Mr and Mrs Smith, Mr Smith, Mr and Mrs West and Mr Westcatt.

APOLOGIES: Councillors Sandra Garside, Kenneth Pugh, Roger Truelove and Jean Willicombe.

declarations of interest

No interests were declared.

part b minutes for information

sw/07/1418 - 91 scocles road, minster

The Development Control Manager explained that the proposal was for a detached bungalow in the curtilage of the existing bungalow at 91 Scocles Road, Minster. The boundary between the built up area and the countryside ran through the middle of the site and the proposed new bungalow would be within the countryside part of the site. He outlined various policies of rural restraint which protected the site from residential development and stated that any building should be within the defined built up area. He explained that if permission was granted it could set a precedent elsewhere.

The Development Control Manager outlined the history of the site and explained that an identical application had been refused in November 2007. Other applications in 1974, 1976 and 1986 had also been submitted. All the historic applications had been refused because the site was in the countryside and the 1974 and 1986 applications were dismissed on appeal. The existing bungalow was at the end of the line of built development and the proposed bungalow would lie outside the built up area.

The Agent explained that the Applicant's bungalow was too large for him now and he wanted to build a new purpose built bungalow on the site.

A Ward Member considered that a smaller bungalow would be ideal for the Applicant and queried whether an additional property would really make a difference as there were properties already built on the other side of the road.

Mr Parker (junior) brought the Working Group's attention to lines that he had set out to show the boundary line of the built up area and also where the former railway line had been. He suggested that, if the built up area boundary had remained on the line of the old railway line; there would not be an issue with the proposed new bungalow being built.

Mr Parker, the Applicant, presented the deeds of the site and explained that he considered that the building line boundary should be where the site of the old railway was.

The Development Control Manager explained that the Applicant could have objected to the boundary line as part of the recent Local Plan Inquiry process. In response to a question, the Development Control Manager explained that under Planning Policy Statement 3, there was no presumption that land should be developed if it had previously been occupied by a permanent structure, which due to re-vegetating of the site had merged back into the landscape over time.

A local resident considered that one more bungalow would not harm the area.

Members then toured the site and asked the Development Control Manager and Highway Officer questions which they answered.

sw/06/0993 - land at garnett cottage, lower halstow, sittingbourne

The Planning Officer reported that the applicant had recently died. Swale Borough Council's legal department had confirmed that the application could still be determined and he advised that an update would be provided at the Planning Committee meeting on 31st January 2008. He explained that the application sought outline planning permission to establish the principle of residential development to the rear and both sides of Garnet Cottage. He advised that the indicative site layout had been amended to address concerns that Kent Highway Services had regarding access to the site and highway safety in School Lane. The Planning Officer explained there that was no planning history for the site which lay in the built up area. He advised that additional comments from Lower Halstow Parish Council had been received, and that they wished to comment on the type of housing that would be built. The Planning Officer explained that this type of detail would be considered under any future application for approval of reserved matters at the site. He also advised that the site was unlikely to amount to previously developed land, but that it was also too small for agricultural use.

The Planning Officer stated that the comments of Natural England had not yet been received and that Members would be updated at the Planning Committee meeting on 31st January 2008. He also advised that the Environment Agency had confirmed that the site was not in a flood risk area and that they did not therefore wish to comment on the application.

The Agent believed the site had some planning history. He explained that sustainable measures would be incorporated into the development and suggested that the proposal may help young people to continue to live in the village.

A representative from Lower Halstow Parish Council explained that they had no objection, in principle, to the proposal, subject to no overlooking and a range in the type of housing. They had concerns with access problems and explained that they supported speed limits of 20 mph in the village.

The Ward Member raised concern with the access into the site and the additional traffic generation the development could create.

Local residents raised the following concerns: overshadowing of neighbouring houses, highways issues related to pavement and highway widening, the site was near the old mill pond and liable to flooding and further buildings will increase the problem, muddy and boggy site, no need for this development, should be sited elsewhere.

In response to questions, the Planning Officer confirmed that the Environment Agency's comment had been received via a telephone conversation and that he would request written confirmation before the next Planning Committee meeting. He also confirmed that permission for the development had not already been granted by the Council.

Some members of the public expressed dissatisfaction with the chairing of the meeting, and queried the format of the meeting. The Chairman and Officers assured them that all their views would be noted and considered by members of the Planning Committee on 31st January 2008.

Members then toured the site and asked the Development Control Manager, the Planning Officer and the Highway Officer questions which they answered.

sw/07/1025 - bell centre and bell house, bell road, sittingbourne

The Area Planning Officer explained that the application was for partial demolition to produce an open walkway and reconfiguration of the entrance within Bell Shopping Centre and Bell House. The upper floors would be converted and a third floor added to provide 24 flats. There would also be vehicle and parking alterations, soft landscaping and provision of a mix of retail use and office use. He explained that the height would be 15 metres, which was similar to that at Riverbourne Court, opposite the proposed development, and the highest part of the existing Bell House. He explained that improved CCTV would be provided to link with the existing SBC system and he considered that the character of the area would be improved and given more vitality.

The Agent explained that the proposal was an opportunity for regeneration and that with the balance of uses, a 24 hour community could be established. He confirmed that the night club would be removed. A piazza would be created and he considered the development would be beneficial to that end of the High Street.

The Architect presented his plans and explained that he wanted to improve the ground level experience of the area especially with the use of an open arcade. The outside character of Bell House and the Bell Centre would be changed and soft and hard landscaping added to the public space. Some measures to make the development eco-friendly would be incorporated. Lighting would be added and the covered walkway would be locked at night. Refuse areas would be concealed and rubbish bins provided in the piazza.

A Ward Member explained that she generally welcomed the proposals, but raised concern with regard to the height of the building and overshadowing of Riverbourne Court. In response, the Agent explained that studies had been done to show that the impact would not be large and a further study would be presented to Members at the next Planning Committee.

A representative from the Retail Association welcomed the proposals.

Local residents raised the following concerns: overshadowing, loss of sunlight, security problems, type of takeaways proposed and their opening times.

The Area Planning Officer confirmed that conditions would be in place to regulate opening hours. In response to a question, he confirmed that he would update the Planning Committee at their next meeting with regard to the number of car parking spaces that would be lost.

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