Meeting documents

Planning Working Group
Tuesday, 22 March 2011

planning working group

MINUTES of the Meeting held in Sheerness on Tuesday 22nd March 2011 from 9:30 am to 9:57 am.

Present: Councillor Barnicott (Chairman), Councillors Mick Constable, Chris Foulds, Pat Sandle, Ben Stokes and Jean Willicombe.

Officers Present: Peter Bell, Philippa Davies, Claire Dethier and Emma Eisinger.

Also In Attendance: Mr and Mrs Borg, Mrs Boswell, Mr and Mrs Bray, Mr and Mrs Coombes, Mrs Day, Mr and Mrs Dhamman, Mr Duncroft, Mr Georgeson (Sheerness Society), Mrs Golding, Miss Graham, Miss Johnson, Miss L Martin, Miss M Martin, Mr McCall, Mrs Nelson, Mr and Mrs Norris, Miss Norris, Miss Packman, Miss Pashley, Ms Piper, Mr and Mrs Pugh, Mr Pyke, Mrs Rickwood, Mr and Mrs Searle, Mr Sellen (Sheerness Society), Mrs Skinner, D Staples, Miss Stevens, Mrs Thanenthiran, Mrs Thrower, Mr Townsend-Blazier, Miss Underwood, Mrs Van Dyke, Mrs Walker, Mrs Wigham-McCall and Mr and Mrs Wormald (local residents and business people).

Apologies: Councillors Bobbin, Andy Booth, Mike Henderson, Prescott and Alan Willicombe.

769  

declarations of interest

No interests were declared.

 
770  

sw/10/0692 (2.11) - 32 broadway, sheerness

The Senior Planning Officer explained that the application was for change of use and re-development of an existing workshop and yard to create two residential flats and two A2 class professional units. A three storey building would be erected at the front of the site, with one professional services unit at ground floor level with a maisonette above and the erection of a two storey building at the rear of the site for further professional services, with a flat above. There would be an inner courtyard for amenity use.

The Senior Planning Officer reported that the proposed building would be slightly lower in height than the building on the left and slightly higher than the church building on the right. She outlined the dimensions, as set out in the report and explained that there would be high level windows to the rear of the residential part of the buildings to address overlooking issues.

The Environment Agency had acknowledged that the site was known to be at risk from flooding, but had raised no objection to the proposal, subject to the Council being content that the site met the requirements of the sequential tests. The Environment Agency had also recommended that conditions preventing flood risk be added. The Head of Service Delivery had raised no objection, subject to additional conditions in relation to potential contamination, limiting the hours of construction, dust suppression and the restriction of mechanical equipment. Kent Highway Services (KHS) had raised no objection subject to the provision of cycle parking. KHS had also stated that they did not consider a need for provision of off-street parking due to the close proximity of public car parks and the town centre location. KHS did not consider the proposal would significantly increase traffic and parking issues.

The Senior Planning Officer reported that 17 letters of objection had been received which she summarised: lack of security; noise from church; loss of light to neighbouring properties; the proposal was too cramped; parking issues; mix of use, residential and business, was not appropriate for the location; the application was similar to a previous one and had not addressed issues raised previously; should be sensitive to the community use of the church; there were already available flats nearby; overlooking; the site was too narrow; construction nuisance and noise; the proposal was not necessary and there were other vacant units available in Sheerness.

Local residents and business people raised the following objections: the proposal would impact on right for light; the noise from evening youth clubs and church services could impact on residents and generate complaints; there was movement within the church building and new foundations could disturb this further; proximity of buildings and risk of fire and concern over restricted means of escape along the narrow alleyway; the emergency exit from the church was near to the construction site and this could cause problems if the exit was needed; the proposal was not feasible on the size of plot; parking issues; safety of children attending church activities, especially if there was a fire; there was too much business use in the area; the affect on the local amenity; needed to preserve 'flagship' buildings; risk of falling masonry; fire safety and the development proposal was too overcrowded. A local business woman confirmed that she would look into the law regarding uninterrupted light for 20 years on a property, in time for Planning Committee on 31st March 2011.

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

 

Related pages