sw/09/0039 (2.1) - 493 minster road, minster

PRESENT: Councillor Barnicott (Chairman), Councillors Andy Booth, Adrian Crowther, Duncan Dewar-Whalley, Elvina Lowe, Pat Sandle, Ben Stokes and Ghlin Whelan.

OFFICERS PRESENT: Philippa Davies, Andrew Jeffers and Graham Thomas.

ALSO IN ATTENDANCE: Mr Loader (Applicant), Parish Councillors Peter MacDonald, Pullinger and Tania Thompson (Minster Parish Council), Mrs Tough, Mr and Mrs Wildish and Mrs Williams (local residents).

APOLOGIES: Councillors Sue Gent, Bryan Mulhern, Prescott and Roger Truelove.

sw/09/0011 (3.1) - north barn, westwood court, sheldwich

PRESENT: Councillors Barnicott (Chairman), Councillors Andy Booth, Duncan Dewar-Whalley, Mark Ellen, Elvina Lowe, Pat Sandle, Ben Stokes and Ghlin Whelan.

OFFICERS PRESENT: Philippa Davies, Tracy Day, Andrew Jeffers and Graham Thomas.

ALSO IN ATTENDANCE: Mr Drury (Agent), Mrs Ayley, Mr and Mrs Burnikell, Mrs Gilronan, Mrs Howe, Mrs Skinner and Mr Smyth (local residents).

APOLOGIES: Councillors Adrian Crowther, Sue Gent, Bryan Mulhern, Prescott and Roger Truelove.

sw/08/1330 (2.5) - co-op welcome store, forbes road, faversham

PRESENT: Councillor Barnicott (Chairman), Councillors Andy Booth, Duncan Dewar-Whalley, Mark Ellen, Mike Henderson, Elvina Lowe, Bryan Mulhern, Pat Sandle, Ben Stokes and Ghlin Whelan.

OFFICERS PRESENT: Peter Bell, Sam da Costa (Kent Highways Services (KHS)), Philippa Davies, Tracy Day, Andrew Jeffers, Alun Millard (KHS) and Graham Thomas.

ALSO IN ATTENDANCE: Councillor Anita Walker (Ward Member), Town Councillors John Coulter and Hacche, Mrs Bruxelle, Mrs Campbell, Mr Creed, Mrs Hacche, Mr Hinchcliffe, Mrs Hitchcock, Mr Jennings, Mrs Mussett, Mrs Roper and Mrs Wolfe (local residents).

APOLOGIES: Councillors Adrian Crowther, Sue Gent, Prescott and Roger Truelove.

declarations of interest

No interests were declared.

part b minutes for information

sw/09/0039 (2.1) - 493 minster road, minster

The Area Planning Officer explained that the application was for a pitched roof over the main part of a flat roofed former telephone exchange. He advised that additional parts to the side of the building were not included in the application. The new pitched roof would be fully hipped and the proposed eaves would be lower than the existing roof line.

The Area Planning Officer explained that there had been three previous applications on the site. One application had been withdrawn and two had been refused as they had included the entire footprint of the building within the proposal for the pitched roof and this could have had a detrimental effect on neighbouring properties. He suggested that the revised application would not have a detrimental effect on neighbouring properties and pointed out that the house to the left was derelict and bungalows to the right were positioned lower down the slope than no. 493. Minster Parish Council had raised concern with regard to the re-application's impact on nearby properties. Five letters of objection had been received which raised issues of loss of light and overshadowing. The Area Planning Officer emphasised that there would be no windows in the proposed roof.

Mr Loader, the Applicant, explained that he wanted to add a pitched roof to help prevent leaking from the flat roof. He considered the pitched roof was an improvement to the building and would be in keeping with nearby buildings. He explained that the pitch would be at a 30 degree angle which was the lowest angle it could be to enable water to run off it. He considered the revised application would not cut out light to the neighbouring bungalows as the pitched roof would not include the attached garage. He acknowledged that previous applications had raised issues of overlooking and overshadowing but considered that overlooking was no longer an issue.

Mr MacDonald, Minster Parish Council, explained that the Parish Council were concerned that nearby residents were affected as little as possible by the proposal, especially with regard to loss of light. He considered the pitched roof would be more attractive than the flat roof presently there. Mrs Thompson, Minster Parish Council, considered the pitched roof would not add to any loss of light issues.

A Ward Member considered that the loss of light to the neighbouring bungalows was insignificant.

Local residents raised the following concerns: overshadowing onto kitchen and garden, loss of privacy, loss of direct sunlight, will feel blocked in, skyline will be taken away and an emphasis on no windows being allowed.

In response to a question, the Area Planning Officer explained that he would report back to the Planning Committee, on 2nd April 2009, on the true height of the proposed pitched roof, in relation to the flat roof.

Members then toured the site and asked the Area Planning Officer and Development Control Manager questions which they answered.

sw/09/0011 (3.1) - north barn, westwood court, sheldwich

The Planning Officer reported that the application was for the reconstruction of an existing residential dwelling following fire damage and the division of the property into two residential units. The site was a converted barn within designated countryside which had been severely damaged by fire following a lightning strike. The revised application, from one property to two, was for a total of seven bedrooms and four parking spaces. The Planning Officer raised concern with the loss of the integral garage space, originally approved to serve the unit, to become living space with patio doors and shutters. She raised issues of access to the middle dwelling and that additional fences to mark the two gardens would have an impact on the rural setting and countryside. She suggested that the courtyard could become cluttered and that the loss of the original opening to the building would result in the appearance of a terrace, and there was no identified need for the proposal.

Mr Drury, the Agent, confirmed that fire damage to the property had occurred in 2008 and considered the same Planning Policies applied to one dwelling as to two.

A representative from Cardy, the applicant, outlined the background of the proposal and explained that the barn had been purchased in 2003 to convert for residential purposes. He advised that South Barn had been sold in 2007 and that the North Barn had been on the market for two years before the fire and one offer had been received. He advised that a decision had been made to divide the dwelling into two residential units to increase the selling potential and he considered two smaller units would appeal to the present market, rather than one. He reported that a covenant existed which meant that repair costs to the access road could be divided between the residents.

Local residents made the following comments: unwilling to repair road used by heavy vehicles and others; traffic will increase; access issues to new parking area; visual amenity will change; impact on countryside; access is a bridleway, not a road; middle dwelling will have access problems; proposal will devalue other property; loss of community spirit; proposal is against the covenants on the building; will look like a terrace; original manner of conversion was partly responsible for the fact that it did not sell; divided gardens and small areas; loss of privacy; lack of storage; pressure of additional residents; increase in visitors; lack of parking and will spoil rural feel.

Members then toured the site and asked the Planning Officer, Development Control Manager and Area Planning Officer questions which they answered.

sw/08/1330 (2.5) - co-op welcome store, forbes road, faversham

The Area Planning Officer explained that the application was for the demolition of the existing retail shop and the construction of a new shop with 14 flats above, on three levels. He advised that there would be dedicated parking spaces for customers of the shop, but no parking was specified for the residents of the flats and that KHS was happy with this. The Area Planning Officer reported that the new building would be brought forward in line with Forbes Road and the building was designed to fit in with the slope of the site. He explained that the proposal would bridge the gap between the Queens Hall on Forbes Road and Chase House on Preston Street. He outlined the materials that would be used which included brick, timber clad metal frames and glass. The roofs would be green and could be walked on.

The Area Planning Officer explained that the proposal was within Faversham Conservation Area and although the site was near listed buildings, these did not form part of the streetscene at the site as the backs of the houses, rather than the front, were near to the application site. He advised that Faversham Town Council welcomed the overall principle of the proposal including the strong street frontage. English Heritage also welcomed the proposal and considered that it was well designed and they welcomed the modern approach.

The Area Planning Officer reported that 13 letters of objection had been received which raised the following issues: lack of parking; proposal too large; too modern; does not fit in with the Conservation Area; too high; too many flats; not sustainable; and the potential for crime and disorder problems.

The Area Planning Officer outlined the Planning Policies that SBC had to follow with regard to the duty to preserve the setting of listed buildings and the character of the Conservation Area. He explained that the proposal was on a key site on the approach into Faversham; its high quality design on a brown field site respected the sloping ground and was appropriate in scale and design.

The KHS Officer confirmed that KHS was happy to accept a scheme with no residents' parking as the site was near the mainline railway station, a bus stop, a public car park and the shops. He further advised that the site was surrounded by waiting restrictions to prevent on-street parking outside the development.

A representative from the Faversham Society raised concern with regard to the height of the proposed building in relation to Chase House in Preston Street and the bulk of the building in comparison with Queens Hall. He considered the site was important on the approach into Faversham and the modern design did not fit in with the older buildings in the area and was harmful to the Conservation Area. He questioned whether there was a demand for the flats.

A Ward Member raised concern that the proposal would dominate and overshadow the area. She highlighted concerns with regard to increased pressure on sewerage disposal and that parking would be a problem and there was insufficient space for deliveries to the shop. She considered that over-looking would be a problem and the proposal was too modern and did not fit in with the area.

Local residents made the following comments: if development goes ahead, what will happen to the present shop's employees; how long will it take to build; overlooking; people may park in the loading bay; the green roofs may encourage people to use them; lack of parking; building too high; building is overpowering; too bulky; may set a precedence; will put pressure on parking in nearby streets; a blight to Victorian houses; potential for anti-social behaviour in covered spaces; limited access for delivery vehicles; inappropriate and unsympathetic to the area; lack of storage room for the shop; will be too prominent; too modern; does not fit in; does not complement Faversham; aesthetically wrong; overlooking; lack of privacy; not sustainable; more environment friendly measures should be incorporated in the design; brickwork needs improving; traffic safety issues; where are the bike sheds/bins; loss of open space in front of present building; too intrusive; two storeys would be better; poor design; too many flats; the site historically had low buildings on it; flats too small; loss of view of back of listed building on Preston Street; and the proposal detracts from the setting of the listed buildings and the view on entering the Conservation Area.

In response to a question, the Area Planning Officer explained that he would report back to the Planning Committee, on 2nd April 2009, on the mix of the size of the flats and to get more details from Southern Water on their comments in the report on the application.

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