|
|
sw/11/1370 (2.2) - former raf mast site, dunkirk, faversham
PRESENT: Councillor Barnicott (Chairman), Councillors Bobbin, Adrian Crowther, Mark Ellen, Mike Henderson, Roger Truelove, Ghlin Whelan, Alan Willicombe and Jean Willicombe.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Peter Bell, Philippa Davies, Claire Dethier and Alun Millard.
ALSO IN ATTENDANCE: Mr Cutmore (Applicant), Mr Scott (Agent), Mr Coles (Dunkirk Parish Council), Mr Howland (Dunkirk Parish Council), Ms May (Dunkirk Parish Council), Mr Peto (Dunkirk Parish Council), Mr Tutt (Dunkirk Parish Council), B Berry, P Berry, Mrs Bradley, Mrs Bradley, Mrs Branton, Miss Branton, Mr Chapman, D Davis, Mr and Mrs Dobson, Mr and Mrs Farrington, Mr and Mrs Gransden, Mr and Mrs Hooker, Mr Jobson, Mr Lofts, Mr and Mrs May, Mr and Mrs McDougall, V Mount, Mrs Mullender, Mr Mummery, Mr Preuter, Mrs Terry, T Thackray, Mr R Tutt, Mr and Mrs Walker, D Ward, Mr and Mrs Ward and Mrs Wills (local residents).
APOLOGIES: Councillors Andy Booth, Mick Constable, Derek Conway, June Garrad, Bryan Mulhern, Prescott, Pat Sandle and Nick Williams.
|
|
471
|
site visit
The Planning Officer explained that the proposal was for the erection of a two storey data storage facility (B8) and a permanent historical exhibition (D1), with parking and hard standing. The proposed building would be 32 metres by 13 metres in size and would be sited 10 metres from the front of the site. The ground floor of the building would be open-plan for the data storage, and the first floor would contain a museum and teaching area. A turning area and hard standing would be positioned to the rear, with parking for 21 vehicles. Access to the site would be re-positioned; with the current access closed.
The Planning Officer reported that Dunkirk Parish Council had objected to the proposal and had raised concern with increased traffic and safety issues; noise and light pollution; out of scale with other nearby buildings; and people scaling the building. Natural England had recommended that regard be given to their standing advice. The County Archaeological Officer had stated that it was unlikely that significant archaeology below ground would be disturbed by the proposed development. English Heritage had recommended that the application be determined in accordance with national and local policy guidelines.
The Planning Officer reported that 34 letters of objection had been received. She outlined the main issues which included: traffic problems; detrimental affect on local amenity; overlooking; the site was a heritage site; maintenance issues; there were protected species on the site; the design impact on the surrounding area; commercial development was not appropriate in a residential area; and the proposed building was too large/high and not appropriate in a special landscape area. Two letters of support had been received from the RAF museum in Norfolk and Bawdsey Radar in Suffolk.
The Agent explained that he considered the presence of staff on the site would have very little effect on the local area; and he explained that as the building was a permanent exhibition, it was not likely to attract large amounts of visitors.
Mr Peto and Mr Tutt, representing Dunkirk Parish Council, spoke in opposition to the proposal and raised the following points: this is the thin edge of the wedge; the site was within a special landscape area and outside the village envelope; SBC drew the lines to exclude the site from the village envelope; it would set a precedent; traffic issues; detrimental affect on visual amenity; there is a listed building nearby; it was reported as a brown field site, but this is a complete change of use, so brown field site is not appropriate; residents want this to be reserved for the Neighbourhood Plan; the previous application was unacceptable because of the principle and contrary to planning policies, the chief difference between this and the previous application was that this was 'by appointment only'; biodiversity issues, contrary to policies; and the impact on the visual amenity was massive.
Local residents raised the following concerns: the proposed new entrance was un-gated, with the potential loss of security; the museum was not necessary, there were already two in Kent; problem of overgrown vegetation on neighbouring properties; 24/7 operation, this would need to be powered by noisy generators in cases of electricity outages; perception that this is a low level operation is incorrect, it would have an impact on the quiet surrounding area; machinery needed to be kept cool, any power outage would affect water supply; there were more suitable locations for this type of development; lack of publicity of proposed development; security issues of data storage and threat of terrorism; site was currently poorly maintained, would this change; difference in size of previous application; not suitable for country village; roads and access not suitable; the museum was not needed; with wireless, does this need to be sited at this location; parking issues; nature of village would change; proposed building was too large; zinc roof was not appropriate; style of building not appropriate for site/area; building should not be two storeys and should be positioned further back from front of site; there was an alternative building nearby that could be used instead; privacy issues; services were not good in village, cannot cope with further burden of this development; detrimental affect of lighting; underground tunnels needed to be taken into consideration; overlooking; safety issues on road; site was not big enough for the proposed building; and health and safety issues of the mast needed to be considered.
Officers responded to Members' questions; advising that it was solely the mast that was listed and this was owned by the applicant. It was also confirmed there would be a condition to ensure the applicant submitted a long term plan for maintenance of the mast. The Agent confirmed that he was not aware of any underground tunnels at the site.
Members then toured the site with the Planning Officer, Conservation Officer and Highways Officer.
|
