|
|
sw/14/0367 (2.3) – the goods yard, station approach road, selling
PRESENT: Councillor Barnicott (Chairman), Councillor Bryan Mulhern (Vice-Chairman), Councillors Sylvia Bennett, Adrian Crowther, Ben Stokes and Tony Winckless.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Philippa Davies and James Wilson.
ALSO IN ATTENDANCE: Mr Samuel Bowman and Mr Peter Cook (Agents), Miss Bryan, Mr Cooper, Mr and Mrs Hutton, Mr and Mrs Northfield, Mr Shaw, Mr and Mrs Smart, Mrs Stevenson and Mr Verney (local residents).
APOLOGIES: Councillors Derek Conway, Mark Ellen, Sue Gent and Mike Henderson.
|
|
165
|
sw/14/0367 (2.3) – the goods yard, station approach road, selling
The Major Projects Officer introduced the application which was for 11 houses and three flats, to include four, three bedroom houses, seven, four bedroom houses and three, two bedroom flats. He advised that they would be located within a previously developed site, within the built-up area, on land which covered an area of 0.4 hectares (one acre).
The Major Projects Officer reported that 10 representations had been submitted in objection to the proposal. Selling Parish Council had also raised concern with the proposal and their views were noted in the report.
Statutory consultees, including Kent County Council (KCC) Highways had not raised objection.
The Major Projects Officer explained that the proposal was acceptable in principle as it was within the built-up area and on a brownfield, sustainably located site, adjacent to the railway station. The proposals had been seen by the Swale Design Panel at the pre-application stage and significant refinements made to address any issues with regard to layout and design. The density of the properties was 35 dwellings per hectare; the acceptable figure was between 30 to 50 properties, so the figure sat comfortably within this range.
The Major Projects Officer explained that 27 car parking spaces would be provided on the site, and KCC Highways were happy with this figure. He was mindful of the concerns raised by local residents and the Parish Council, but considered that the site would be laid out in such a way as to address affects to residential amenity to existing properties. He recommended delegating to officers for approval, subject to the conditions in the report and a suitably worded Section 106 Agreement.
Mr Cook, the Agent, explained that he had considered comments on the proposals and he outlined further some of the details of the proposal. He stated that the houses were 1.5 metres less in height than those in Sondes Court; there was only one window facing Sondes Court; most of the development was made up of two-storey or 2.5 storey units; there would be a 1.8 metre high cill height on the side of the dwellings; no windows to the rear, just roof lights; and the site levels would be lowered due to the removal of some made-up ground from the site.
Local residents' comments included the following: support a good housing scheme, but this proposal was contrary to Policy E1; H01 and H02 were close to the adjoining property's boundary; a large mass with large windows; too close to the boundary line; no room for vegetation; loss of trees and shrubs; the flats were not in-keeping with the village; the 3-storey flats were in breach of Policy E1, the top flat was too high; overlooking issues; impact on neighbouring properties; loss of privacy; new dwellings were higher than existing, so overlooking issues increased; plans were inaccurate; village has low density, this transforms the village and changes nature of village; the Council should stop this type of development; does not fit in with existing development; this area was not called Neames Forstal; queries with access to site; these were the best plans so far; in favour of residential development, but not happy with the scale; the skewed angle resulted in a 'massing' effect; overshadowing; if slab level was raised, that would mean the long hedge would be buried and could die off; the new properties could block reception from Dunkirk mast and interfere with Broadband reception; there were too many houses planned for the site; too dense; and they were higher than surrounding gardens.
Members asked how many trees on the boundary would be retained and sought clarification on the position of access to the site. The Major Projects Officer explained that there were landscaping conditions included within the report, together with details of the precise levelling of the site to be carried out. The Chairman advised that further responses could be given at the Planning Committee meeting on 7 August 2014.
Members then inspected the site with the Officer.
|
