sw/09/1282 (2.2) - 2a gore court road, sittingbourne

PRESENT: Councillor Barnicott (Chairman), Councillors Mick Constable, Derek Conway, Duncan Dewar-Whalley, Mike Henderson, Elvina Lowe, Roger Truelove, Ghlin Whelan and Jean Willicombe.

OFFICERS PRESENT: Emma Eisinger, Martin Evans and Kellie Mackenzie.

ALSO IN ATTENDANCE: Mr Brown (Agent), Susan Hughes (Staying-Put (Swale Borough Council)), Mr Smith (applicant), Mr M Smith and Mrs Cape (Local Residents).

APOLOGIES: Councillors Andy Booth, Mark Ellen, David Garside, Prescott and Ben Stokes.

sw/09/1306 (2.8) – 6 meesons close, eastling, faversham

PRESENT: Councillor Barnicott (Chairman), Councillor Prescott (Vice-Chairman), Councillors Derek Conway, Duncan Dewar-Whalley, Mike Henderson, Elvina Lowe, Roger Truelove, Ghlin Whelan and Jean Willicombe.

OFFICERS PRESENT: Kellie Mackenzie, Andrew Spiers and Graham Thomas.

ALSO IN ATTENDANCE: Mr Bell, Mr and Mrs Jones, Mr and Mrs Neaves and Mr Showell (local residents) and Mr and Mrs Parker (Applicants).

APOLOGIES: Councillors Andy Booth, Mick Constable, Mark Ellen, David Garside and Ben Stokes.

declarations of interest

No interests were declared.

part b minutes for information

sw/09/1282 (2.2) 2a gore court road, sittingbourne

The Senior Planner introduced the application, which sought planning permission for a single storey rear and side extension to provide a bedroom, shower room and day room for a disabled person. The eastern side section of the roof to the extension had been amended and would now have a full hip with a ridge height of 4.8 metres. The western section would have a dual pitched roof with a lower ridge height of 3.8 metres. The extension would be seven metres from the front elevation of 'Gortanore' and 9.4 metres from the side elevation of 1 Lyndhurst Grove. The Senior Planner reported that the development was within the built-up area of Sittingbourne and within an Area of High Townscape Value. Kent Highway Services (KHS) raised no objection to the proposal.

The Senior Planner reported that eight letters of objection had been received which she summarised.

The Senior Planner explained that the design of the extension was important because it was visible from two public vantage points on Gore Court Road and Lyndhurst Grove, but considered the overall design would ensure a satisfactory appearance within the area.

Mr Smith, the applicant, stated that the proposal would enable his disabled mother-in-law to live with them as she was now living alone.

Local residents raised the following concerns: the proposal would have a detrimental and overbearing impact on 'Gortanore' the adjacent property; concerns over the height of the proposed fence; over intensification of the site; loss of sunlight to 1 Lyndhurst Grove; why does the extension need to be so large; building works would cause dust and noise nuisance to local residents; and the openness of the area would be lost.

Susan Hughes (Staying-Put Manager (SBC)) stated it was important to consider the long-term needs of the family. Refusal of the proposal would result in the applicant's mother-in-law, who has long-term health issues, remaining isolated and needing to apply for a grant from SBC to adapt her property.

Mr Brown, the agent considered the design to be appropriate and that the amendment to the flat roof had been included following discussions with Officers from SBC.

In response to queries from Members, the Senior Planner clarified the eaves height of the proposed extension in comparison to 'Gortanore' and the location of the windows proposed.

Members then toured the site and asked the Senior Planner and Planner questions which they answered.

sw/09/1306 (2.8) 6 meesons close, eastling, faversham

The Planner introduced the application for the removal of the existing roof with a steeper pitched roof to create rooms in the roofspace and a front and side extension. Following the applicants' decision to remove the proposed vehicle crossover and parking space from the plans KHS had withdrawn their objection. He explained that a similar side and front extension had already been approved under planning permission SW/07/1483. The proposed front extension had been slightly increased in depth to 4.5 metres with a width of seven metres and drew attention to the roof extensions already approved at nos. 1, 2 and 3 Meesons Close.

The Planner reported that one letter of objection and three letters of support had been received which he outlined. Eastling Parish Council raised objection and considered the proposal was overlarge and out of keeping with the character of the rest of the bungalows.

Mr Parker, the applicant, explained that he did not consider the proposal to be over- intensive for the site and that it would only enhance that which currently existed.

Mrs Parker stated that the proposal would not encroach on adjoining properties.

Local residents raised the following concerns: the Close was designed to have bungalows only and the proposal would result in loss of light to 5 Meesons Close.

One resident spoke in support of the application and did not consider it would have a detrimental impact on the Close.

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