|
|
sw/13/0251 (2.5) - crundalls wharf, north street, queenborough, me11 5el
PRESENT: Councillor Barnicott (Chairman), Councillor Prescott (Vice-Chairman), Councillors Bobbin, Andy Booth, Mick Constable, June Garrad, Mike Henderson, Peter Marchington, Pat Sandle, Ben Stokes, Ghlin Whelan and Tony Winckless.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Kellie Mackenzie and Ross McCardle.
ALSO IN ATTENDANCE: Councillors Sylvia Bennett and Jackie Constable, Mr and Mrs Curtis, Mr Ralph, Mr Wilson, Mrs Christmas, Mr Stewart, Mr Relf, Miss Lowe, Mr Baker, Mr Eatwell, Mrs West, Mrs Swarbrick, Miss Wanstall, Mrs Stewart, A Burrill, Mr and Mrs Summer, Ms Price, Mrs Stimson, Mrs Simpson, Mrs Britton, Mrs Rudd, Mrs Latham, Mr Darby, Mr and Mrs Colllins, Mr Pye, Mr Ablett, Mr Hardy and Mrs Flew, Mr Bell, Mr Mason, Mrs Harris, Mr Moore (applicant).
APOLOGIES: Councillors Mark Ellen, Bryan Mulhern, Alan Willicombe and Jean Willicombe.
|
|
|
sw/13/0409 (2.1) - brogdale farm, brogdale road, ospringe, me13 8xz
PRESENT: Councillor Barnicott (Chairman), Councillor Prescott (Vice-Chairman), Councillors Bobbin, Andy Booth, June Garrad, Mike Henderson, Pat Sandle, Ben Stokes, Ghlin Whelan and Tony Winckless.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Tracy Day, Kellie Mackenzie, Heather Murton and Graham Thomas.
ALSO IN ATTENDANCE: Councillor Sylvia Bennett, Ms O'Sullivan and Mr Moore (applicants), Mr Hillier, Mr Pryjemski (agent), Mr Keel (Ospringe Parish Council), Mr and Mrs Fagg, Mrs Thornhill, Mr and Mrs Moskovits, Mr and Mrs Barker, Mrs Keech, Mr and Mrs Piles, Mr and Mrs Hook, Mr Stephens, Mr Griffin, Mrs Bowman, Mr and Mrs Pontin, and Mr and Mrs Tovey.
APOLOGIES: Councillors Mick Constable, Mark Ellen, Peter Marchington, Bryan Mulhern, Alan Willicombe and Jean Willicombe.
|
|
|
sw/13/0399 (2.2) - 1-2 limes place, preston street, faversham, me13 8pq
PRESENT: Councillor Barnicott (Chairman), Councillor Prescott (Vice-Chairman), Councillors Bobbin, June Garrad, Mike Henderson, Pat Sandle, Ben Stokes, Ghlin Whelan and Tony Winckless.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Tracy Day, Kellie Mackenzie, Heather Murton and Graham Thomas.
ALSO IN ATTENDANCE: Councillors Sylvia Bennett and Anita Walker, Mr Cook (Applicant/Agent), Mr Abram (Faversham Town Council), Mrs Abram, Mrs Salmon (Faversham Society) and others including Mr Collins, Ms Baxter, Mrs Wolfe, Mr and Mrs Perkins, Mrs Wong, Mr and Mrs Ely, Ms Dickenson, Mr Phillys, Ms Archer, Ms O'Connor, Mr Garrett, Ms Catchsides, Mr Tuyluoglu, Mr Ackles, Mr Dinc, Mrs Pilcher, Mrs Milton, Mr Croydon (Faversham Buildings Preservation Trust) and Mr and Mrs Nolson.
APOLOGIES: Councillors Andy Booth, Mick Constable, Mark Ellen, Peter Marchington, Bryan Mulhern, Alan Willicombe and Jean Willicombe.
|
|
90
|
declarations of interest
Councillor Peter Marchington declared a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest in respect of item 2.5 (SW/13/0251 (2.5) - Crundalls Wharf) as he had had financial dealings with the applicants. Councillor Marchington did not speak at the meeting.
|
|
91
|
sw/13/0251 (2.5) - crundalls wharf, north street, queenborough
The Senior Planner introduced the application which sought retrospective temporary planning permission for the siting of a container with portacabin for three years. He explained that the container would be used to store harbour tackle and the portacabin was used as a lookout and also served as an office for the Harbour Trust who were responsible for the operations at the harbour. The Senior Planner stated that the site was 90 metres to the northwest of Queenborough Conservation Area.
The Senior Planner reported that Natural England, Environment Agency and Head of Service Delivery raised no objection to the proposal. He further reported that two letters of objection had been received raising concerns which were outlined in the Planning report. A further letter of objection had been received since the report had been written which raised no fresh issues.
The Senior Planner considered that development would be acceptable in principle and that need was not a material planning consideration. The Senior Planner acknowledged that the structure appeared alien within the landscape but noted that it was a temporary structure so would not have a lasting effect on the landscape. With regard to concerns about parking he stated that there were no grounds to refuse the proposal for parking reasons.
Mr Moore, the applicant, explained that Queenborough Harbour Trust was a Queenborough local community not for profit charity (Community Interest Company) and safeguarded Queenborough Harbour for the community, after the Council divested itself of the harbour. Mr Moore explained that the facility of a harbour lookout with a basic office, and view of the harbour, satisfied both customer focus need and contributed to the safety and security of the local waters. He further explained that the lookout provided harbour users with VHF radio and visual contact with the harbour controller and that both these forms of communications were not available from the South Street premises.
Mr Moore stated that Aesica granted permission for a temporary lookout on their land and confirmed no planning applications were required for their temporary structures. He explained that the Trust had asked the Council if planning approval was required for a temporary harbour lookout on Aesica's land, namely on Crundall's Wharf, and had been led to believe that planning consent was not required, however, once they had learnt this was not the case retrospective planning permission was sought. Mr Moore advised that donations from Queenborough Fishery Trust and others had enabled the installation of the temporary lookout.
Mr Moore acknowledged the structure was not attractive but explained that it fulfilled its purpose to provide a lookout above flood level and also as a drop-in centre for the public and harbour users providing tourist and local information. The office facilitated mooring fee collection, and a point right at the access to the all tide landing for dealing with harbour queries. Mr Moore advised that the structure would be equipped with CCTV.
Mr Moore stated that the Council and the Trust had identified that a permanent harbour lookout was possible by modifying the toilet and substation building at the corner of Elephant Park. This could be achieved by simply adding another floor level to the building. Mr Moore then spoke about two potentially life threatening incidents at the harbour avoided due to the temporary lookout being in-situ.
Councillor Jackie Constable, a Ward Member, spoke against the proposal. She reported that she had received numerous complaints from local residents. Councillor Constable raised concern that enforcement action had been retracted and considered that three years was a long time for such a 'monstrosity' to remain. She explained that whilst she had some sympathy with the Harbour Trust local residents did not want the temporary lookout on the wharf.
Mr Pye, Queenborough Town Council, stated they supported the Trust but had to consider the views of local residents who were largely against the proposal.
Mr Eatwell, Queenborough Harbour Trust reiterated some of the points raised by Mr Moore and added that the area was a SSSI and Ramsar site and the temporary lookout was vital in ensuring the safe passage of sea going ships and recreational vessels.
Mr Bell, Even Keel Project, advised that the Project took disabled and disadvantaged young people sailing and relied heavily on the support of Queenborough Harbour Trust and considered that the temporary lookout also helped to support their project.
The following points in support of the proposal were made: three years was not a long time; would allow the harbour to flourish; visitors to the creek are often unsure where to go and the temporary lookout supported tourism; the lookout was needed to ensure the wharf remained economically viable; the moorings may be lost if the lookout is not approved; and consider painted the lookout blue so it would disappear against the skyline.
Local residents made the following comments: Queenborough Harbour Trust could use the old harbour masters office for storage; was a blot on the landscape and not just for residents of Queenborough; having the structure behind the sea wall as originally proposed would have been better; impedes on watersurface; there is a beacon adjacent to the temporary lookout, what would happen if it was lit?; the structure was dangerous; the lookout took up parking spaces; caused access problems for a local childminder; parking problems would be worse in the summer months; which planning officer said that planning permission was not required?; when was the wharf last flooded?; a compromise would be a smaller building so not so intrusive; a lot of the supporters don't live in Queenborough; not in keeping with historical Queenborough; what are the operating times of the lookout; loss of toilet and shower facilities if the substation building was modified; if a local resident put a similar structure up they would be asked to remove it; the toilet block has an electrical sub-substation adjacent to it so the proposals to modify that would be much further than three years away; there was already a lookout at Garrison Point which was manned full-time, so this temporary lookout was not needed; Swale Borough Council (SBC) had successfully operated the harbour without the need for the lookout on the wharf; aware of an incident recently whereby two boats hit each other and this was not picked up by the temporary lookout but from a CCTV camera located elsewhere on the wharf, why don't the Trust simply install CCTV and transmit to their office behind the sea wall?; the Trust don't operate Ship to Shore VHF radio but ship channel eight, which is from boat to boat; and no disabled access.
In response to a query from a Member about discussions with planning officers regarding locating the lookout behind the sea wall, the Planning Officer stated that he understood this had been discussed with officers but was not aware of the details.
The Chairman requested that details of the previous facilities and hours of operation of the lookout be provided at the Planning Committee on 4 July 2013.
Members then toured the site with the Planning Officer.
|
|
92
|
sw/13/0409 (2.1) - brogdale farm, brogdale road, ospringe
The Chairman stated that there may have been confusion at the last meeting about whether the registered speakers would be able to speak at the Planning Committee following this site meeting. Therefore it had been agreed that Mrs Simmons (Ospringe Parish Council), Mrs Moskovits (Objector) and Mr Moore (Applicant) would be able to speak at the next Planning Committee on 4 July 2013. He stated that this was due to exceptional circumstances and would not set a precedent.
The Planning Officer stated that she found the application poorly conceived and presented without any thoughts for the amenity of local residents and had considerable sympathy with them. However, in the spirit of being “Open for Business†and examining all aspects of the application she had sought to explore solutions with the applicant.
The Planning Officer advised that since preparing the report she had met with the applicant, his planning consultant, and the landlord at Brogdale to explore the extent of the early morning use, and the scope for planning conditions to mitigate against nuisance to neighbours. The meeting had established that only some of the staff (the managers and trained butchers) needed to arrive before 7am, with two delivery drivers arriving from 7am to start deliveries from 7.30am.
The Planning Officer stated that unfortunately, at present all the butchery staff and drivers parked in the main or overflow car parks close to residents and in fact, delivery drivers then started up the delivery vehicles - also parked here - and drove them to the unit at the rear of the site, causing noise at early hours.
The Planning Officer advised that the landlord of the site had agreed to offer space for delivery and butcher staff parking close to the unit at the rear of the site. The applicant had agreed to require his early arriving staff to use this area, as well as to park all his own delivery vehicles there, thus avoiding the impact of early morning parking and engines starting-up close to residents. The Planning Officer considered that this should substantially ease the potential for loss of amenity for residents and in her view worth trialling for a temporary period.
The Planning officer reported that the applicant had sent a letter setting out the points in more detail and that this had been emailed to Members and also tabled at the last Planning Committee meeting.
The Planning Officer advised that there was an error in the report and that KCC Highways had not been consulted. The Planning Officer reported that the Economic Development Officer raised no objection and was pleased that agreement had been reached with the applicants about conditions; and that this demonstrated an 'open for business' approach to finding solutions to potential planning issues and should permission be given will help secure an important element of the company's business. The Planning Officer stated that the Head of Service Delivery raised no objection.
The Planning Officer reported that one further letter of objection had been received raising concerns already outlined in the report and also that Brogdale Road was a narrow, winding country road already overloaded by traffic, and with delays at the A2 junction caused by the volume of traffic.
The Planning Officer further reported that he had received a letter from the occupier of Brogdale Farmhouse included survey data detailing disturbance from recent very early hours operations which he attributed to the applicant. This indicated that the applicant was working well outside the hours of use he was now seeking permission for, but also noted that few staff actually arrived before 8am, calling into question the benefits of the proposed relaxation of hours. The Planning Officer stated that the information had been emailed to Members and had also been tabled at the last meeting of the Planning Committee.
The Planning Officer stated that having considered all the points carefully, a revised set of conditions to control early morning parking and delivery operations, including a condition requiring that all the applicant's delivery vehicles were not ever parked in the main or overflow car parks, but were always parked near to the unit - as will the early morning staff cars - had been drafted. The Planning Officer advised that the conditions would very substantially safeguard the neighbours from the impacts of staff arriving early. The conditions also included a temporary condition so that Officers could be absolutely sure that the operation could be reigned back if it did continue to cause problems for residents.
The Planning Officer considered that, in this way, a compromise that would allow the operation to continue with minimal impact on the neighbours could be reached. She asked that Members focused on the potential to grant planning permission with conditions, not on the past record of the applicant whilst operating without said conditions, and that Members put the latest survey data out of their minds in determining the application on its merits.
Mr Pryjemski, the agent, drew attention to the letter sent to Members on 17 June 2013 responding to queries raised by Mr Tovey. He considered the proposed changes to the parking arrangements would mitigate noise created by parking. Mr Pryjemski stated that the application was necessary to allow the viability of the business which employed local people.
Mr Keel, representing Ospringe Parish Council, spoke against the proposal. He explained that there had been consistent planning permissions at the site over the years which had seen it grow from a fairly low-key farm to an agricultural/retail/commercial business. Mr Keel stated that the increase in activities at the site had had a detrimental impact on residential amenity as SBC had recognised by imposing time limits and that this proposal would dilute the consistency of past decisions. Mr Keel felt that the proposed conditions would allay some concerns but early morning activities would still harm the residential amenities of local residents.
Mrs Tovey, Brogdale Farmhouse a grade II listed building, stated that the applicant had not complied with the conditions of the previous application so why would they adhere to the proposed operating times. Mrs Tovey stated that the applicants had shown a complete lack of disregard for their amenity with deliveries being made before 4am in the morning. She explained that they were often woken by the rattling noise of meat delivery trolleys moving over concrete and the opening and shutting of car doors.
Mrs Tovey stated that in 2009 they had contacted SBC's enforcement section and had been advised to keep notes of times when the deliveries were made, which they did, but nothing improved. She stated that it would be unfair to reward the applicants with approval when they had not adhered to the previous conditions.
Mr Moore, the applicant advised that his business had grown since 2008 and now employed eleven members of staff, of which four were young trainees, and that all staff lived locally. Mr Moore explained that the nature of the job was to start work early so that meat could be freshly prepared and that the 90 schools they supplied relied on an early delivery due to KCC regulations about storage of fresh products. The business would generate £2.5 million in sales and that only meat from local farmers and local suppliers was used. Mr Moore advised that they had recently been audited by SBC's Environmental Health section and achieved the highest grade of five for cleanliness, management and staff knowledge.
Mr Moore drew attention to the letter emailed to Members on 17 June 2013 which he considered addressed the comments raised by Mr Tovey, Brogdale Farmhouse. Mr Moore considered that the proposed additional conditions and the proposed changes to the parking arrangements would mitigate issues around parking noise. Mr Moore accepted that vehicles arriving onsite could make a small amount of noise/disruption but advised that they had had the road monitored between 5 am - 6 am that morning and they counted 56 cars and three milk vans travelling along Brogdale Road so their four vehicles pulling into Brogdale should not be an issue. Mr Moore stated that no noise could be heard from the unit itself.
Mr Moore considered that the suggested conditions seemed fair and workable.
Mr Hillier, the landlord, stated that they supported their tenants and were happy to make more land available to ease parking issues.
Local residents made the following comments: back access should be used and car park restored to an orchard; rural location was not the right site for a butcher; a good neighbour would show respect; the national fruit collections were not dependant on the success of Brogdale; no guarantee that the applicants would observe the proposed conditions; local residents were there first; the units at the site were not devolved on fruit and agriculture; poorly presented application; applicant does not only use local produce; refuse and meat lorry deliveries are the main cause of disturbance; dispute the applicant's traffic survey and believe the amount of vehicles counted was a gross exaggeration as very few vehicles used the road before 7am; when the site was a farm it was only operated five days a week and the staff walked to the site.
Councillor Prescott, the Ward Member, spoke against the proposal. He stated that the applicant had flouted planning conditions since he had been at the site and did not believed the applicant would adhere to the proposed conditions. Councillor Prescott queried whether local residents were aware of the recent alterations to the operating pattern of the applicant.
In response to a query, the Chairman advised that it would be up to SBC's legal services to enforce any breach of conditions.
Members then toured the site with the Planning Officers including the butchers' unit.
|
|
93
|
sw/13/0399 (2.2) - 1-2 limes place, preston street, faversham
The Planning Officer introduced the application which was for the conversion of the ground floor accommodation at 1-2 Limes Place, Preston Street, Faversham to an A5 hot food takeaway and extension of the premises of a detached rear outbuilding to create five flats. The Planning Officer reported that a detached coach house, to the rear of the site adjacent to Union Street was to be converted into two 2 bedroom flats with a first floor extension. The Planning Officer then outlined the key issues.
The Planning Officer stated that Faversham Town Council and Faversham Society raised objection and 28 letters of objection had been received raising objections which included: would ruin the historic aspect of Preston Street; should not encourage yet another junk food outlet; increase in traffic would block a busy bus route; already a lack of parking on Preston Street; and delivery and rubbish trucks could not currently make it up Union Street.
The Planning Officer reported that amended drawings had been received addressing minor architectural points. A further letter of objection had been received raising issues which included: the impact of deliveries from the rear of Union Street and the visual impact of the proposed flue. The Planning Officer stated that Members would also have received an email from a neighbour criticising the application and the applicant for confusion over whether or not Domino's pizzas are to take over the premises, and about a typing error in the report relating to a property at the rear which is now in residential use, not in non-residential use. The applicant had since clarified the error, and that he had a right of way over the rear access but did not intend to see this used for deliveries to or from the premises.
The Planning Officer stated that the writer argued that whilst the previous application was refused on one ground that did not prevent the second application being refused on other grounds. The Planning Officer asked Members not to seek to refuse the application on fresh grounds as this could lead to the Council being criticised by a Planning Inspector on grounds of unreasonableness and lack of consistency.
The Planning Officer stated that she considered the scheme had sufficiently addressed the previous design and architectural concerns. She also considered the proposed takeaway use and creation of flats to be very much in accordance with aspirations for diversification of the town centre.
Mr Cook, the applicant, explained that they had been marketing the site for five years but had no interest and considered that the proposal would assist them in marketing the site. Mr Cook confirmed that the application was not for Dominos Pizzas and that they might be selling off the coach house to the rear separately.
Councillor Anita Walker, a Ward Member, stated that Preston Street was once the main shopping street in Faversham, but over the years its shop capacity had been eroded. Councillor Walker considered that Preston Street had reached saturation point as regards food outlets with four public houses; six take-aways; 10 café/restaurants and the Alexander Centre Trust which operated an occasional café. The site would be better used for retail to help regenerate the area.
Councillor Walker considered that the proposed condition that all deliveries to the proposed take-away and all deliveries to customers be made from the front entrance of Preston Street made sense, as the rear leads into Victoria Place and Union Street which already become blocked regularly by delivery lorries to the Chinese Restaurant or refuse collection vehicles. She added that the vehicles had to reverse one way as there was nowhere to turn round.
Councillor Walker stated that the application would greatly increase traffic problems in Preston Street due to the current waiting restrictions. Councillor Walker noted that 95 per cent of trade would be by delivery and there would be more than one delivery vehicle so where would these vehicles park while waiting for customers' orders'. Councillor Walker explained that that part of Preston Street became "one way" with cars having to wait for oncoming traffic and the effective gridlock in Preston Street could prove fatal should there be a fire or serious accident in the area.
Councillor Walker stated that the residential development proposed would greatly add to the traffic congestion in Victoria Place and Union Street and the disruption caused by vehicles delivering materials while development was taking place would cause a lot of problems. Councillor Walker stated that this would obviously have to be done from the rear as that was where the proposed development was. Councillor Walker also asked where would workmen park while carrying out the work? Also that damage had already been done to premises in Union Street. Councillor Walker stated that she understood that not all the development land proposed was actually in the ownership of Cooks.
Mrs Salmon, Faversham Society, welcomed the removal of the roof lights and replacement with a dormer and that servicing would not be from the rear but was still concerned that the proposal would cause traffic problems in Preston Street.
Local residents raised the following comments: would be harmful to residential amenity; access concerns; delivery and refuse lorries park in the street; query the need for room for six bikes and were these pushbikes'; problems with headlights from delivery vehicles into residential properties; local businessmen support each other and sponsor local activities, would a business such as Dominos Pizza do the same?; car park was often blocked and unable to access; the area was already subjected to noise on a Friday and Saturday evening; saturated with fast-food; how can the site be classed as A5 when food is to be delivered; would increase parking problems; how will delivery vehicles access the site from 5pm to 6pm?; and litter problems would increase.
Photographs showing access problems caused by refuse vehicles were circulated.
Mr Croydon, Faversham Building Preservation Trust, spoke against the proposal. He stated that it was already difficult accessing properties in Preston Street and felt that eating in the street would lower the tone and increase litter which was already an issue in the vicinity.
In response to queries, Mr Cook advised that they had purchased access rights over the rear access twenty years ago.
Members then toured the site with Planning Officers.
|
