|
|
sw/12/1423 (3.1) - harefield house, hogbens hill, selling
PRESENT: Councillor Barnicott (Chairman), Councillor Prescott (Vice-Chairman), Councillors Bobbin, Andy Booth, Mick Constable, Mike Henderson, Roger Truelove, Ghlin Whelan, Alan Willicombe and Jean Willicombe.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Peter Bell, Philippa Davies, Andy Jeffers and Jim Wilson.
ALSO IN ATTENDANCE: Mr and Mrs Norton (Applicants), Mr Jonathan Barber (Agent), Mr David Stewart (Agent), Councillor Bowles (Ward Member), Parish Councillor Mike Harris (Selling Parish Council), Mr Brandon (Campaign for the Protection of Rural England (CPRE)), Mr Arnold, Mrs Clark, P Evans, Mr Neame, Mrs Saunders, Mr Stephenson, Mrs Upson, Mrs Vinson and Mr Woolett (local residents).
APOLOGIES: Councillor June Garrad.
|
|
|
sw/12/1523 and sw/12/1524 (2.4 and 2.5) - building 1, standard quay, abbey road, faversham
PRESENT: Councillor Barnicott (Chairman), Councillor Prescott (Vice-Chairman), Councillors Bobbin, Andy Booth, Mick Constable, June Garrad, Pat Sandle, Mike Henderson, Bryan Mulhern, Roger Truelove, Ghlin Whelan, Alan Willicombe and Jean Willicombe.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Peter Bell, Philippa Davies, Andy Jeffers, Alun Millard, Andrew Spiers and Graham Thomas.
ALSO IN ATTENDANCE: Councillor Mike Cosgrove (Borough Councillor), Councillor David Simmons (Faversham Town Councillor and Borough Councillor), Councillor Anita Walker (Faversham Town Council), Councillor Tom Gates (Faversham Town Council), Mrs Campbell (Faversham Town Council), Mr Gwyn Jones (Faversham Creek Trust), Mr White (Faversham Creek Trust), Ms Cooper (Standard Quay Faversham Ltd), Miss McWethy (Faversham Times), Mr Read (Sunday Express), Mr Akhurst, Mrs Akhurst, Miss Banaigs, Miss Benson, Mr Bales, Ms Bales, Mr Barr, Mr Berk, M Beules, Mr Boorman, Miss Brown, Mrs Cackett, Mr Chambers, Mrs Chambers, D Chesterman, Ms Colebrook, Mrs Collins, Mr Croydon, Mr Cummins, Mrs Cummins, Mrs Curry, Mr Dagg, Ms Delmage, Mr Dodds, Mr Dorman, Ms Ellis, Mr R Ely, Mr S Ely, Mrs Ely, Mr Fancourt, Mr Frake, Mrs Fox, Mr Gaiger, Mrs Geoghegan, Mr Green, Ms Harrington, Mr Hendry, Mr Hillman, Mr Hinchliffe, Mrs Holder, U Hongbun, Mr Krish, Mr Lambert, Mr Lamoon, Ms Lawther, Ms Mackarell, Mr Maloney, Mrs Martin, Ms Matthews, Ms Medhurst, Ms Merraus, Miss Monk, Mr Mussett, Ms Mussett, Mr Neagle, Mr Perkins, Mrs Pleasance, Mr Pollard, Mr Pollock, Mr Rawlings, Mr Ramsden, Ms Ransom, Ms Reekie, Dr Reid, Mr Reid, Mr Rubenstein, Mrs Rubenstein, Mr Saddington, Ms Saddington, Mrs Slythe, Mr P Smith, Mr R Smith, Mr Tambini, Mr Telford, Mrs Thompson, Mr Tucker, Dr Turner, Mr Ward, Mrs Ward, Mr Warner, Miss Webb, Mrs Webb, Mr Wellard, Mr Wogan, Mr Wood, Miss Wood, Mr Wright and Ms Yeomans.
|
|
696
|
sw/12/1423 (3.1) - harefield house, hogbens hill, selling
The Major Projects Officer introduced the application and explained that the proposal was for the erection of a retaining wall, excavation to create a large pond, terracing, erection of an estate fence, and change of use of part of the site from agricultural to garden use.
The Major Projects Officer reported that Selling Parish Council was in support of the proposal. The Campaign for the Protection of Rural England (CPRE) had objected to the proposal, the Environment Agency had commented on flood risk and the Kent Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty Unit (AONB) expressed concern. Fourteen letters of objection had been received. The Major Projects Officer explained that since the Planning Committee meeting on 11 April 2013, two further letters of objection had been received. He also advised that since that meeting additional information was being sought, by the Case Officer, on the exact area of the application site, further details of the depth of the proposed pond, and the exact area of the proposed change of use.
The Major Projects Officer reported that part of the application site lay within the curtilage of Harefield House. He stated the reason for refusal was because the change of use of these parts of the site outside the residential cartilage were contrary to Policy RC10 of the Swale Borough Local Plan, which only permitted extension of a garden in the countryside if the proposal would result in no significant harm to the landscape. He also explained that the change of use could harm the special character of the AONB and, as such, the development would also be contrary to Local Plan Policy E9. The reason for refusal was not because the site was within a conservation area or because of drainage or flood risk reasons.
Mr Norton, the Applicant, explained that he understood, from a document from SBC, that the application site was indicated as residential use and as such was unaware that there was a change of use issue. He explained that it was not his intention to convert the field into a garden, there would be clear demarcation and he was not trying to bring the field into his garden. He explained that, contrary to the Committee report, only part of the application site had been levelled and he confirmed that some terracing had been carried out. He had also had to carry out some work to 'make good' some ground that had hardcore in it. He advised Members that the field had for many years been a kitchen garden.
Councillor Mike Harris, representing Selling Parish Council, reported that the Parish Council were in support of the proposal.
Mr Peter Brandon, CPRE, spoke in objection to the proposal and raised concern with the encroachment of the garden into the countryside and considered the proposal would reduce the rural feel of the Borough which needed to be retained. He endorsed the Committee report and agreed that the application was contrary to the NPPF and Local Plan Policy E9 and RC10.
Local residents raised the following points: this is an agricultural field which should be retained; works so far had been disruptive; needed to adhere to planning guidelines; it could set a precedent; the land has been in agricultural use for years; potential risk of flooding from the pond, down the gradient to cellar and this could undermine foundations; this site was never considered to be agricultural, but an amenity for the house; if pond leaked, this would be managed by the soakaways, which had never flooded; concern with the change of landscape as the area was beautiful. A local resident asked if the local pond warden had been notified of the proposed new pond.
A Ward Member spoke in support of the proposal. He asked for clarification of the legal status of the application site, particularly given the letter referred to by the applicant; clarification of which part of the site the change of use related to; and of the harm arising from the change of use.
The Major Projects Officer confirmed that responses to the queries raised would be given at Planning Committee on 9 May 2013.
Members then toured the site with Officers.
|
|
697
|
sw/12/1523 and sw/12/1524 (2.4 and 2.5) - building 1, standard quay, abbey road, faversham
The Planning Officer explained that the proposal was for a single storey rear extension and internal alterations to a grade II listed warehouse building with change of use to restaurant and art gallery/function room.
Twelve letters/emails of support had been received and 121 in objection. Views in favour included that it was a sustainable use and would provide employment opportunities. Those against had raised concern over the loss of a maritime use, highway issues, potential harm to the setting of the building, and harm to the conservation area. The Planning Officer reported that there would be 13 reserved car parking spaces for the restaurant but they would not be marked out. He also noted that he had sought clarification from Visit Kent with regard to the status of their representations, and was awaiting their response.
The Agent provided a brief outline on the history of Standard Quay. He explained that boat building had not taken place in the application building itself; it had been used for storage and he added that the building had not been properly maintained previously. He advised that the applicant had carried out urgent repairs on the building and it was well suited to the new proposed use. He considered it was a viable use which would attract people to the area, increase job opportunities and also help revitalise other businesses in the area, it would be a positive addition for Faversham and he advised that the museum would be open all week.
A representative from Faversham Town Council spoke against the proposal. She explained that it was an important listed building and the need to comply with building regulations would have an adverse affect on the character of the building. She considered the application for change of use was premature and piecemeal as work was currently going on with Neighbourhood Plan projects in the area as a whole. She explained that the restaurant would damage the prospects of a maritime future and it was important to listen to the people of Faversham.
Representatives of the Faversham Creek Trust spoke against the proposal. The following comments were made: highway implications of the proposal were serious; clarification on the number of parking spaces was needed; increased parking in the area would change the character of the area; need figures on estimated traffic generation; it was not known how many customers the restaurant would generate and there could be 20 vehicles arriving at the site just for the employees; Standard Quay was a vital part of the conservation area, and it was a vibrant part of a unique maritime working environment; the proposal will damage the individual character forever; it was important to have a working Standard Quay; it has been a working quayside for years, and was a haven for traditional wooden boats; there are already 40 establishments serving food in Faversham; Standard Quay was zoned for maritime purposes in SBC's Area Action Plan; there were other options that could be put in place for the building; and the potential of the quay needed to be unlocked.
A representative of Standard Quay Faversham Limited spoke against the proposal. She made the following comments: Standard Quay was the perfect place for maritime skills to be learnt; and for the provision of maritime facilities; concern that the restaurant would have windows; there was a lot of work to be done to repair the building, and local people were willing to take this forward.
Local residents raised the following points: the maritime features in the building should not be damaged or removed; access problems to the site along Abbey Street, including difficulties that emergency vehicles may have; the building is a real treasure, we need to be careful what we do with it; do not develop the building in a way that encouraged increase in traffic; this is a wooden building, there is a fire risk; restaurant is a 'quick fix', and not a long-term solution; people want to see barges here and a maritime use, if this is changed it will blight everything; the opinion of Visit Kent was not the corporate opinion, but just one person's point of view; boat owners have been driven out by increases in berthing costs; this was a working maritime community with lots of skills; maritime, rather than restaurant use of building could provide employment; concern with alterations that have already taken place within the building; this is rare and special building and a 'gem' of Faversham; it is important to preserve the building; the proposal is setting a precedent; concern that the barges will disappear if the building becomes a restaurant; another restaurant is not needed in Faversham; a working creek is important; if maritime skills are not carried on, they will be lost forever; this is 'the thin end of the wedge'; and the image of the creek was changing each day, it was important to preserve it.
A Member asked for an update on highway issues (a response would be given at Planning Committee on 9 May 2013) and how the fabric of the building could be preserved if it was to be a restaurant.
The Conservation Officer provided an overview of the work that would be required to be carried out to ensure the building was fit for use as a restaurant; this would still allow the joists to be visible. He also confirmed that there would be no windows on the ground floor; however, there would be some on the first floor which would restore the building to how it appeared, and the king-post roof would be restored, to its configuration prior to the fire.
In response to a question, the Planning Officer confirmed that there had been an application for Listed Building Consent for the external staircases, which had been approved in 2012.
Members then toured the site with Officers.
|
