sw/07/1025 – 15 vincent road, sittingbourne

PRESENT: Councillor Barnicott (Chairman), Councillor Prescott (Vice-Chairman), Councillors Simon Clark, Harrison, Kenneth Pugh, Pat Sandle, Ben Stokes and Alan Willicombe.

OFFICERS PRESENT: Rob Bailey, Kellie Mackenzie and Alun Millard (Kent Highway Services).

ALSO IN ATTENDANCE: Mr Kenneth Jaques (Applicant) and Mr Michael Withers (Local Resident).

APOLOGIES: Councillors Bobbin, Bonney, Sandra Garside and Jean Willicombe.

sw/07/1259 – st michael's church, hernhill, faversham

PRESENT: Councillor Barnicott (Chairman), Councillor Prescott (Vice-Chairman), Councillors Simon Clark, Harrison, Kenneth Pugh, Pat Sandle, Ben Stokes and Alan Willicombe.

OFFICERS PRESENT: Peter Bell, Claire Dethier, Kellie Mackenzie and Graham Thomas.

ALSO IN ATTENDANCE: Councillor Bowles (Ward Member), Mr & Mrs Rhodes (Church Wardens), Mr & Mrs Geliot, Mr Chapman, Mrs Butler, Mrs Bryar, Mrs Cook, Miss Robb, Mr Bryant and Mrs Dawes (Local Residents), Mrs Figgis (Hernhill Parish Council) Mr Taylor (Church Restoration Committee), Reverend Burrows (Applicant), Mr George (Architect).

APOLOGIES: Councillors Bobbin, Bonney, Sandra Garside and Jean Willicombe.

sw/07/0256 and sw/07/0454 – tesco stores ltd, crescent road, faversham

PRESENT: Councillor Barnicott (Chairman), Councillor Prescott (Vice-Chairman), Councillors Simon Clark, Harrison, Bryan Mulhern, Kenneth Pugh, Pat Sandle, Ben Stokes and Alan Willicombe.

OFFICERS PRESENT: Peter Bell, James Freeman, Kellie Mackenzie, Graham Thomas and Alun Millard (Kent Highway Services), Laurence Young (Subsidiarity Officer).

ALSO IN ATTENDANCE: Councillor Cindy Davis, Councillor Anita Walker (Ward Member), Mrs Colebrook, Mrs Ward, Mr & Mrs Phillips, Mr Salmon, Hert Samit, Campbell Forsyth, (Local Residents), Mr Swain (Faversham Town Council), John Coulter (Faversham Town Council), Sir Roger Moate (Faversham Enterprise Partnership), Patricia Doyle (Abbey Street Residents Association), Mr Barkaway (Local Retailer), Mrs Beardmore, Mrs Bean, Mr Dean (Agents) Mr Bevan (Applicant) and Canon Oehring, (Parish Church of St Mary of Charity).

APOLOGIES: Councillors Bobbin, Bonney, Sandra Garside and Jean Willicombe.

declarations of interest

No interests were declared.

part b minutes for information

sw/07/1025 – 15 vincent road, sittingbourne

The Planning Officer explained that the proposal was for the erection of a four- bedroomed house on land to the rear of 15 Vincent Road, Sittingbourne.

He explained that the proposed house would measure 11.6 metres deep, 7.3 metres wide, and 7.3 metres high to the ridge of its roof. An integral garage, together with off-street parking was proposed to the front of the dwelling. A rear garden of 10 metres was proposed, and the proposed dwelling would be a minimum of 21 metres from the rear facing windows of the dwellings fronting Vincent Road. Amended plans showing details of the streetscene elevation had been received.

He reported that the site was located within the built-up area of Sittingbourne. He drew attention to the tall leylandii trees on the boundary of the site with Ambleside and also pointed out that the southern side of Vincent Road was characterised by semi-detached houses with long rear gardens. He informed Members that planning permission had been refused under delegated powers for the development of the site under application SW/07/0685 in early 2007, due to the bulk and scale of the proposed dwelling, and advised that the application under consideration was reduced in size, compared with the earlier scheme. He asked Members to note the existing house on land rear of no. 23 Vincent Road, which fronted onto Ambleside and which was approved in 1977. He also advised that Members had previously approved an application for the erection of a detached house on the adjacent site at 17 Vincent Road at the Planning Committee in August 2006.

The Planning Officer advised that Kent Highway Services raised no objection, subject to the inclusion of adequate conditions in respect of parking, garaging and access details. The Planning Officer considered that the loss of the existing trees, which were not indigenous species, would not cause significant harm to the character and appearance of the area. He also considered that the scheme did not amount to 'backland' development, as it would directly front onto a highway and that the dwelling would not harm the character and appearance of the area or be harmful to the residential amenity or highway safety of the area.

Mr Jacques, the Applicant, explained that the proposed access to the site would be 8.5 metres to the corner of the adjacent garage, and that in his opinion this would be acceptable. He also considered that the proposed dwelling would represent an improvement on the current streetscene, and that it would improve security in an area where young people tended to congregate. He showed the Chairman photographs which showed the area at various times during the day to demonstrate the level of parking in Ambleside.

Mr Withers, a neighbour, considered the leylandii should be removed and was in favour of the application.

Mr Millard, (Kent Highway Services) advised that no objection was raised in respect of highway matters.

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

sw/07/1259 – st michael's church, hernhill, faversham

The Planning Officer explained that the proposal sought permission for the erection of a single storey side extension to provide space for a toilet at St Michael's Church, Hernhill.

The proposed extension would project from the side of the building by 2.2 metres and would be situated in the angle between the tower and the west end of the nave, obscuring it from the principal views of the church from the north and partially obscured from the west. The extension would feature a curved pitched roof and would measure 5.2 metres in height at the highest point. Access would be through the existing building.

She reported that English Heritage had requested that, in making their decision, the District Planning Authority should pay regard to national and local policy guidance.

Two letters of objection had been received which raised the following points; questioned the need for a toilet, as there were nearby facilities; should be kept within the existing building; and the proposal would fundamentally change the appearance and architectural integrity of the most distinctive part of the Grade I church.

The Planning Officer referred to Planning Policy PPG15 which stated that the best way of securing the upkeep of historic buildings would be to keep them in active use.

The Conservation Officer explained that all buildings needed to accommodate change, and that it was a question of balancing the needs of the community against the importance of the grade I listed building. He considered the need for the toilet had been demonstrated by the Applicants. He explained that the applicant had worked closely with English Heritage and the Diocesan Advisory Committee to identify the best possible location and design for the kitchen and toilet.

Reverend Jean Burrows, the Applicant, explained that there were currently no public conveniences in Hernhill, and felt that this did put people off coming to the church, particularly the elderly and families. It was a particular problem during concerts and exhibitions at the Church. She considered that over time the extension would blend in with the existing building and that the toilet was vital to ensure the church remained open.

Mrs Figgis, Chairman of Hernhill Parish Council stated that the Parish Council at their meeting had actually been five to one against the application. She advised that there were other places in the village where people could use toilets. If the toilet was a necessity then it should be separate to the Church rather than an extension.

The Ward Member advised of emerging European legislation to provide such facilities but that Members needed to ensure that this application was the best alternative to provide this. He thanked the Planning Committee for calling a site meeting as it was important to hear local residents' views.

Mr Taylor, the Chairman of the Church Restoration Committee, believed that the toilet was essential and that the Church had already been modified over the centuries to suit changing times.

Some local residents considered the application should be allowed and that adequate facilities should be provided in a place of worship.

One local resident who had previously been the Church Warden, considered that in his experience he had never known a demand for a toilet at the Church. He considered generally people made provisions before leaving to attend Church. There was also a toilet available in the local Public House.

Other local residents raised the following objections; vandalism of a Grade I Church and unlikely that more people will come to Church just because there is a toilet.

In response to a question from a Member, the Conservation Officer explained that materials to be used would be a mix of ragstone and flint with tiles being used for the roof.

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

sw/07/0256 and sw/07/0454 – tesco stores ltd, crescent road, faversham

The Area Planning Officer explained that the proposal was for planning permission and listed building consent for a proposed extension to Tesco retail store, conversion of vacant floors of the former brewery buildings to provide 24 residential units and conversion of Court Street House to provide a restaurant at ground floor, first floor and second floor levels and associated car parking, highways and landscaping works.

The Area Planning Officer explained the history of the site and stated that the buildings and outside spaces were all owned by the applicants and that all, apart from the areas currently occupied by them as a supermarket and related functions, had remained vacant for the last 15 years. There had been specific reference made to these buildings in the emerging and current Swale Borough Local Plan, and the application was in line with policy. An existing tree in the car park would be removed and trees in Crescent Road would also be removed. The 24 flats would be accessed from Court Street, and have 22 dedicated car parking spaces. It was proposed to move the current vehicle entrance and replace the traffic lights.

He explained that the application was supported by a Planning Statement, Design and Access Statement, Consultation Statement, Landscape Statement, Transport Assessment, Flood Risk Assessment and a Retail Statement and Supplementary Retail Statement. The Retail Statement explained why the applicants wanted to increase the store and gave details of the range of goods to be added for sale. The applicants had originally wanted to increase the floorspace from 15 per cent to 30 per cent, but had now agreed to only increase it to 20 per cent.

He reported that Faversham Town Council considered that the extension to the current store would be beneficial to the town and requested ways to ensure that the benefits outweighed the disadvantages via a Section 106 Agreement. They considered the 22 parking spaces to be provided unrealistic and would have preferred that Court Street House be changed to a hotel rather than restaurant. They also requested the link be improved to the town centre.

English Heritage requested a better relationship between the restaurant and the remaining buildings involving a re-arrangement and reduction in residential parking.

Kent Highway Services raised no objection event if the flow of traffic in Preston Street was reversed.

The Faversham Enterprise Partnership raised concern that it would affect the town centre and requested several measures that could be secured via a Section 106 Agreement.

The Faversham Society were broadly in support of the application. The applicants had agreed that they could store historic artefacts above the existing superstore.

SBC's Environmental Pollution Team had raised concerns over increase in noise.

The Area Planning Officer reported that a petition containing around 1,100 signatures had been presented to the Chairman expressing concern over the possible impact of the expansion of the supermarket on small businesses in the town and the potential closure of local shops.

The Agents for Kent County Council had noted that the residential development proposed would place demands on local education services, and sought contributions through the Section 106 Agreement.

The Abbey Street Residents' Association had written raising concern regarding the loss of any trees adjacent to Court Street.

Eighteen letters from local residents had been received. They raised the following points: the trees on Court Street and by Court Street House should be retained; improved control of supermarket trolleys be provided; CCTV should be improved; the restaurant entrance should be from Tesco's car park and not from Crescent Road; the reservation of parking spaces in Court Street for local residents in the evening; expansion of the supermarket would impact negatively on local traders; the flats should be affordable housing; and the capacity for extra traffic lights.

Mrs Jennie Bean, the Agent, explained that they had undergone eight years of discussions with Officers at Swale Borough Council, and a comprehensive scheme needed to be provided. She considered the proposed use for Court Street House would benefit the town. She explained that the restorations to the listed building were costly and were only viable with an extension to the Tesco store. She reported that Tesco had agreed to provide 20 per cent non-food sales and that that gave SBC control on the floorspace of non-food sales. She considered the overall floorspace requested realistic and believed that it met the needs of the town. There were benefits of bringing vacant buildings into use and the restaurant would provide an added attraction to the site. She reported that the site had been identified in the Swale Borough Local Plan for mixed use. With regard to the Section 106 Agreement she advised that Tesco's had agreed to contribute to various projects, but their lawyers had advised that legally it would not be possible to provide the level of contribution sought by Faversham Town Council.

Mr Swaine, representing Faversham Town Council and also the Director of Faversham Enterprise Partnership, explained that they were excited at the prospect of regeneration and that it was greatly needed and could bring assets to the town. They considered that if the application were approved that a condition should be imposed for better policing of delivery vehicles to the store, as lorries often stacked around the building affecting the flow of traffic. They considered that Tesco should be contributing more through the Section 106 Agreement and that it was an opportunity for local businesses and improved footfall to Faversham. He considered the dimensions of the Section 106 Agreement should be independently assessed as others had been at other large development sites in Kent. He clarified that Faversham Town Council had never suggested £500,000 be provided for the Alexander Centre and that this was a Swale Borough Council issue.

The Ward Members raised the following concerns: that both Court Street and Abbey Street be provided with resident designated parking; that Tesco's should ensure the site was better policed as anti-social behaviour particularly at night was a concern to local residents; improved supermarket trolley control measures be implemented; improvement of the traffic flow at peak times and that the pedestrian crossing needed a pelican sign.

Sir Roger Moate, Faversham Enterprise Partnership, wished to thank both Officers of SBC and Tesco's on their helpful and positive attitude and considered the submission well researched. He hoped that the upper floor windows of the existing store would be replaced as they looked old and unsightly. With regard to the Section 106 Agreement he considered it not just about the money but achieving results for the town and that the site needed to be linked to the High Street. He considered that the sum that Tesco's were offering was not enough.

Mrs Patricia Doyle, representing the Abbey Street Residents' Association, handed in a statement to be circulated to all Members of the Committee which outlined their concerns.

Canon Anthony Oehring, Parish Church of St Mary of Charity, raised concern in respect of litter and trolleys from Tesco's which often ended up in the churchyard. He advised that he had written to Tesco's but received no reply. He asked why there was nothing for the Church in the Section 106 Agreement. He considered that people often shopped at Tesco's after worship and that the Church was spiritually important to the site.

Mr Chris Barkaway, Local Retailer, explained that this was the largest change to Faversham since Tesco first opened in 1995. Local retailers were concerned that Tesco's would now be selling items previously unsold and that this would lead to saturation of the current market in the town centre and adversely affect local retailers. They supported the Faversham Enterprise Partnership's request for more financial support through the Section 106 Agreement. They requested that a better entrance to the town from the A2 should be considered. More money for events such as the Hop Festival and car rally events, which brought 30,000+ visitors to Faversham, should be provided by Tesco's. He advised that they were pleased Court Street House was being turned into a restaurant.

Local residents raised the following points: the proposed car parking spaces to be provided inadequate; traffic flow problems with emergency vehicles on occasion being unable to access Court Street; Abbey Street already the overflow for Tesco's; loss of identity as a market town and increased noise and litter.

Mr Campbell Forsyth, a local resident, handed in a statement to be circulated to all Members of the Committee which outlined his concerns.

Mr Millard, Kent Highway Services advised that 24 parking spaces were the maximum that were required. The Government were trying to reduce car ownership, and accepting a reduction in parking provision in sustainable locations was encouraged.

A Member queried whether adequate ventilation was being provided in the restaurant kitchen to ensure no complaints were received from residents in the proposed flats. He also asked whether KHS were confident that the measures proposed to improve traffic flow would help.

The Area Planning Officer explained that there were no flats planned above the restaurant and that the kitchen was to the rear of the restaurant and would not affect the proposed flats.

Mr Millard, Kent Highway Services, advised that the main junction lights at Tesco's would be replaced with high tech lights with improved sensors. This would improve traffic flow and pedestrian flow at the junction, as the current system was inefficient.

A Member requested an updated report on all the amendments to the scheme.

In response to a question from a Member, the Area Planning Officer confirmed that two CCTV cameras would be included as part of the Section 106 Agreement.

In response to a question, Mr Millard, Kent Highway Services, agreed to look into the question of whether a pelican crossing was considered at the junction of Court Street.

Members then toured the site and asked the Head of Development Services, Area Planning Officer, Conservation Officer and Highway Officer questions which they answered.