|
|
site visit attendance
PRESENT: Councillor Barnicott (Chairman), Councillors Bobbin, Mark Ellen, Mike Henderson, Pat Sandle, Ben Stokes, Ghlin Whelan and Tony Winckless.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Philippa Davies, Alun Millard, Andrew Spiers and Graham Thomas.
ALSO IN ATTENDANCE: Councillor Bowles (Ward Member), Parish Councillor Tutt (Dunkirk Parish Council), Mr Tom Barton, (Applicant), Mr Perrin Charlton (Applicant), Mr Ron Thompson (Architect) and Mrs Collins, Mr and Mrs Everley, Mrs Gray, Mr and Mrs Harpin, Mr Huggett, Mr Last, Ms Meadows, Mrs Muteham, Mr and Mrs Rowe, Mr and Mrs Scratchley, Mr Sullivan and Miss Talbot (local residents).
APOLOGIES: Councillors Andy Booth and Prescott.
|
|
160
|
sw/13/0569 (2.5) - the builders' yard, horselees road, boughton
The Area Planning Officer reported that the proposal was for redevelopment of the former builders' yard to mixed private housing, comprising of four family dwellings and five flats.
He reported that amended plans had been received which had provided six more parking spaces. Clarification regarding the diversion of the sewage system had also been received, which had been agreed by Southern Water. The sewage would now go under the open part of the site, not under any houses.
The Area Planning Officer explained that the proposal was within the built up area of Dunkirk, on brown field land. There had been two previous applications on the site and the Area Planning Officer explained that this was a much improved scheme.
Dunkirk Parish Council had objected to the proposal. They had raised the following concerns: land ownership issues, as Kent County Council owned part of the land; drainage issues; asbestos and contamination concerns; lack of parking; road safety issues; the density was too high; and the proposal was contrary to the adopted Local Plan. Boughton under Blean Parish Council had also raised these objections.
The Area Planning Officer reported that Kent County Council (KCC) Highways were happy with the amended parking provision. The Head of Service Delivery had raised no objection to the proposal, subject to conditions to include contaminated land assessments surveys, hours of construction and piling.
Twelve letters of objection had been received from local residents, where the following points had been raised: concerns with traffic; lack of parking; the status of the tree at the front of the site, a Tree Preservation Order should be placed on the tree; density of proposed dwellings; height of flats on the corner of the plot; the proposal was harming the character of the village; increased pressure on local schools; drainage issues; and there was poor public transport in the village.
The Applicants had nothing to add at this stage.
A Ward Member raised the following concerns: density of the proposal; drainage of the site, there was a history of flooding; and this proposal was premature as the works on Boughton Hill had not yet resolved subsidence problems, and this development could make it worse.
Parish Councillor Tutt, representing Dunkirk Parish Council, explained that the Parish Council welcomed some development on the site as it was a brown field site, but also made the following comments: contamination issues; density was too high, a lower density would be better; there would be too many vehicles on the site; drainage and surface water run-off concerns; flooding on the site; the ditch had been covered; buildings and roadways on the site would cover 66.8 per cent of the land, so water would not be able to drain away; 22 car parking spaces, some were nose-to-tail, right up to garages; there would be an extra three per cent of traffic on the roads as a result of the development; traffic on the road would 'stack-up'; land ownership issues, land at front of site could present potential issues as some of it was owned by KCC and if they sold it, it could present potential issues of multiple ownership.
Local residents raised the following points: accept some development on the site, but there were problems of parking and congestion and traffic issues were 'an accident waiting to happen'; access issues, access point not wide enough for emergency vehicles; over-development; traffic issues and queuing at junction; road was very narrow; back-up problems on road; vehicles come down hill very fast, skidding issues; school children safety issues; subsidence at Boughton Hill, unstable land, piling needed to be carried out regularly; concern with the amount of water that came off Boughton Hill; water drainage; surface water drainage, too much hard surface, the debris from the hill blocks stream; safety of pedestrians when vehicles parked on pavements; do not consider parking issues have been resolved, people do not use their garages; nose-to-tail on driveway would not solve parking issue, 'blocked-in' issues; people have more than one car, especially in this location where there was a lack of public transport; parking was appalling; buildings too high; environmental impact; lack of landscaping; flooding issues; concerned that problems on the site have not been addressed; risk to building on site because of local subsidence and ongoing investigations; even though tree at front of site may not be in application area, the roots may be; the tree provides screening of the site; the site was very undulating; and flooding issue should have been looked into before the application was submitted.
Mr Barton, one of the Applicants, responded to some of the issues that were raised. He advised that the ditch was opened up on the application site, with a grid on top and the flow rate would be monitored, but covered to the left and right. Water on the land was channelled to the ditch and sumps would catch any gravel, and water would then be discharged into the culvert. Mr Barton confirmed that there had been a Compulsory Purchase Order on the land at the front of the site, near the road. He advised that consequently if the land was to be sold, it would be offered to the original owner first which would negate the issue of a third party owner of the land.
A Ward Member raised concern with who would monitor the ditch/sumps in the future and suggested that a condition be added to made the hard-standings totally permeable as much as possible.
The KCC Highways Officer explained that garages were not taken into consideration when parking provisions were being looked at as it was considered that residents did not usually park their cars in garages. He confirmed that he was happy with the revised plans and that the number of spaces met the Kent Vehicle Parking Standards, including the size of the car parking spaces. He explained that access from Horselees Road was wide enough for the vehicles using it and it met design requirements. Three per cent increase in road usage was not considered to be a material increase in traffic.
A Member requested more information on whether the substantial trees on the site would be retained, and whether the potential flooding was a problem to the housing to be built, or would the new housing make it worse for the existing houses. The Area Planning Officer confirmed that if the water flowed too fast, it would overflow and become a problem to houses lower down the hill. The Area Planning Officer, in response to a question, explained that the development would be built to at least a Level 3 rating under The Code for Sustainable Homes and this was outlined in condition (5) in the report.
An update on the issue of the substantial trees on the site would be provided at the Planning Committee meeting on 1 August 2013.
Members then toured the site with the Area Planning Officer and Highways Officer.
|
