sw/07/1496 (2.8) - 138 the street, boughton, faversham

PRESENT: Councillor Adrian Crowther (Chairman), Councillors Barnicott, Bobbin, Duncan Dewar-Whalley, David Garside, Sue Gent, Mike Henderson, Ben Stokes and Roger Truelove.

OFFICERS PRESENT: Philippa Davies, Alun Millard (Kent Highway Services) and Graham Thomas.

ALSO IN ATTENDANCE: Mr Skinner (agent), Mr Roberts (applicant), Mrs Williams, Messrs Creed, Fitchett, Wraight (Boughton Parish Council), Mr Baldock and Mrs Deeble (Local Residents).

APOLOGIES: Councillors Monique Bonney, Mark Ellen, Elvina Lowe, Prescott and Pat Sandle.

sw/08/0380 (2.12) - part of 2 broadacre and 76 bradfield avenue, teynham

PRESENT: Councillor Barnicott (Chairman), Councillors Bobbin, Adrian Crowther, Duncan Dewar-Whalley, David Garside, Sue Gent, Mike Henderson, Ben Stokes and Roger Truelove.

OFFICERS PRESENT: Philippa Davies, Claire Dethier, Alun Millard (Kent Highway Services) and Graham Thomas.

ALSO IN ATTENDANCE: Councillor John Disney (Ward Member), Mr Bunce (agent), Mr Ackroyd and Mr Smith (developers), Mr Lilliott (Teynham Parish Council), Mr Atkins, Mr Bowen, Mr Brown, Miss Caffell, Ms Caffell, Mr Caress, Mrs Croucher, Mrs Edwards, Miss Ekavanagh, Mr and Mrs England, Mrs Featherstone, Mr Friend, Mrs Gates, Mr and Mrs Gibbons, Mr Grover, Mrs Harper, Mr Holder, Mr and Mrs Houston, Mrs Ingram, Mrs James, Mrs Jenner, Mrs Kenny, Mr Purves, Mr Rumble, Mr and Mrs Sindall, Mr Skilton, Mr Smith, Miss Sterns, Mrs Stuart-Adams, Miss Tilling, Mrs Walters, Mr and Mrs Warren (Local Residents).

APOLOGIES: Councillors Monique Bonney, Mark Ellen, Elvina Lowe, Prescott and Pat Sandle.

sw/08/0044 (2.7) - thorn hill lodge, thorn hill road, warden

PRESENT: Councillor Barnicott (Chairman), Councillors Bobbin, Adrian Crowther, Duncan Dewar-Whalley, David Garside, Sue Gent, Mike Henderson, Pat Sandle, Ben Stokes and Roger Truelove.

OFFICERS PRESENT: Philippa Davies, Ross McCardle and Alun Millard (Kent Highway Services)

ALSO IN ATTENDANCE: Mr Carrier (agent), Mr and Mrs Clymer, Ms Clymer, Mr Cunningham, Mr Johnson, Mr and Mrs Mason, Mr Nash, Mr Price and Mr Tatton.

APOLOGIES: Councillors Monique Bonney, Mark Ellen, Elvina Lowe and Prescott.

declarations of interest

No interests were declared.

part b minutes for information

sw/07/1496 (2.8) - 138 the street, boughton, faversham

The Area Planning Officer explained that the application was for the demolition of the existing bungalow and garage and the erection of two dwellings, with garages. He explained the site was within Boughton Conservation Area and had previously been an old kitchen garden, with high walls on three sides and trees on the fourth side, at the front of the site. The trees included oak, sycamore and lime and although they provided a screen, they were not considered to be of any particular merit. He explained that most of the trees would be felled to allow widening of the existing access to the site.

He outlined the planning history of the site which included applications that had been refused and explained that the Planning Inspector had dismissed the appeals on highway grounds. She welcomed the design of the houses and the widening of the existing access to the site.

The Area Planning Officer explained that Boughton Parish Council were opposed to the loss of the trees as they considered it would be detrimental to the street scene. Letters of objection had been received from local residents which included issues of lack of privacy and inaccuracy of the plans.

Mr Skinner, the agent, explained that the site would be dealt with sympathetically to allow a balance between the needs of the Conservation Area and highway needs. He explained that anomalies in the report had been resolved and that further trees would be planted on the site.

A representative from Boughton Parish Council explained that they wanted to protect the street scene and raised objection to the loss of the trees which had been part of the street scene for one hundred years.

A Ward Member raised concern with regard to the loss of the trees. He raised no objection to the proposal.

Local residents raised the following concerns: protection of the surrounding wall; access needed for repairs to the wall; type of materials used on the houses and inaccuracy of plans.

The agent advised that there would be restraints on the heights of the buildings and it would not be possible to add loft rooms at a later date. He reassured the Working Group that the plans were now correct. The applicant advised that he had met with local residents and was committed to working with them.

The Kent Highway Services Officer explained that he had previously raised concerns with regard to access and had recently received further comments which he would look into and report back to the Planning Committee on 19th June 2008.

Some Members raised concern with the protection of the wall and the loss of the trees. In response to a question, the Area Planning Officer explained that the loss of trees was because the road was being widened to enable access to the development. He reminded Members that the Planning Inspector had not seen the loss of the trees as a problem.

Members then toured the site and asked the Area Planning Officer and Kent Highway Services Officer questions which they answered.

sw/08/0380 (2.12) - part of 2 broadacre and 76 bradfield avenue, teynham

The Planning Officer explained that the application was for the demolition of a semi-detached bungalow and the construction of eleven 3 bedroom houses with garages and a parking space per dwelling. The density would be 35 dwellings per hectare and small amendments were being sought to the plans with regard to the lengths of the gardens. She explained that there were no significant trees on the site and gave a brief history of the site. The Planning Officer reported that 29 letters of objection and a petition with 168 signatures had been received. Concerns included highway issues; improved infrastructure needed; over intensification and loss of village character. She explained that the application site was within the built up area of Teynham, was of the appropriate scale, would not be too visible and considered the development would not be harmful to surrounding houses.

Mr Lilliott, representing Teynham Parish Council, confirmed that he had sent the Planning Department a letter of objection which included the following points: the site was not a site planned for development; the plot sizes were too small; overlooking; the visual appearance of half a bungalow; flooding and drainage problems; water seepage from underground springs; parking problems and the threat to wildlife in the area, especially slow worms.

Councillor John Disney (Ward Member) explained that there was strong public feeling in Teynham against the proposal. He considered that the issue of traffic had not been considered adequately in the report and advised that he was currently analysing 400 questionnaires that had been returned from local residents. Issues such as speeding, congestion and parking had been highlighted as problem areas.

Local residents raised the following concerns: the demolition of half a bungalow; increased volume of traffic; flooding; parking problems; too many T-junctions; lack of accessibility for emergency vehicles and dustcarts; condition of road would get worse; loss of trees; pollution from proximity of garages to existing properties; loss of character of village; traffic congestion during construction; flooding; water seepage; over-intensification and threat to wildlife.

In response to a question, the agent explained that legislation contained within the Party Wall Act would ensure that the remaining bungalow's wall was finished to a safe standard. He explained that with regard to flooding concerns, the houses would be built to Level three of the sustainable homes code which would mean that measures had to be taken to ensure that no surface water seeped out of the boundary of the site. He explained that rain water harvesting methods would be installed at each property.

The Kent Highway Services Officer explained that he considered the size of the development would not increase parking problems; the development would have its own access road and would be set back from the main road. Kent Highway Services maximum standard of two parking spaces per house had been applied. He confirmed that he would respond to a question regarding the quality of the soak-aways in Station Road at the Planning Committee on 19th June 2008.

Members then toured the site and asked the Area Planning Officer, the Planning Officer and Kent Highway Services Officer questions which they answered.

sw/08/0044 (2.7) - thorn hill lodge, thorn hill road, warden

The Planning Officer explained that the proposal was for an outline planning application for the demolition of the existing building, garages and swimming pool, to be replaced with four 3-bedroomed houses with integral garages. Two of the proposed houses would use the existing access, and a new access would be made for the other two. The proposed development was on previously developed land, within the built up area of Warden. He believed the road adjoining the proposed properties was subject to a private maintenance agreement. He reported that Kent Highway Services raised no objection. Warden Parish Council raised objection and eleven letters of objection had been received. He explained that the proposals for the site met the aims of current planning policy.

Mr Carrier, the agent, reminded Members that the application was for outline permission. He considered that any increase in traffic would be minimal.

Mr Tatton, Warden Parish Council, suggested that the hydrant to the front of the property was on private, not public land. He raised a land ownership issue on part of the site and that there were problems of water run-off from the site onto the unmade road, and that the width of the road had been narrowing over time.

Local residents raised the following concerns: increase of cars on the unmade road; access problems; increased running water; congestion of road during construction; an existing condition that only bungalows, and not houses, were built on the estate; land ownership issues and overlooking.

The Chairman confirmed that the land ownership issues would be looked into before the next meeting of the Planning Committee.

Members then toured the site and asked the Planning Officer and Kent Highway Services Officer questions which they answered.