In the absence of the Chairman and Vice-Chairman, Councillor Cameron Beart was elected Chairman for the meeting at Land adjacent to Sheppey Academy East, Admirals Walk, Halfway.

10am – (2.4) 18/500283/FULL Land adjacent to Sheppey Academy East, Admirals Walk, Halfway, Sheerness, Kent, ME12 3JQ

11am (approximately) – (3.1) 18/502643/FULL – 3 Chetney View, Iwade, Sittingbourne, Kent, ME9 8SQ

The Chairman welcomed the applicants and the members of the public to the meeting and outlined the format the meeting would take.

The Major Projects Officer introduced the application and explained that it proposed the erection of 31, 3 bedroom dwellings on a site which was allocated for housing in the adopted Local Plan.  He explained that the proposed dwellings were a mixture of 2 and 2 and a half storeys in height, each with their own dedicated parking spaces and rear private amenity space, and the site would have a total of 73 parking spaces, including 11 visitor spaces.

The Major Projects Officer explained that the closest proposed property to No. 2 Admirals Walk, on the western boundary of the application site, would sit approximately 3.5m forward of the front elevation of the existing property and on the opposite side of Admirals Walk, the closest proposed element of plot number 31 would be broadly in line with the front elevation of No. 1 Admirals Walk and there would be a 4m gap.

The Major Projects Officer advised that the rear of four of the proposed dwellings in the western part of the application site would face towards the rear of Nos. 65, 67, 69 and 71 Highfield Road and the closest rear to rear separation distance was 29m, rising to 35m.  He added that this was in excess of the minimum distance of 21m the Council would usually expect.

The Major Projects Officer said that in the northern part of the site, the rear of 14 proposed units would face towards the rear of a number of properties on the southern side of Minster Road and the separation distances were in excess of 50m with vegetation retained between the rear gardens of the existing and proposed dwellings.

The Major Projects Officer referred to the parking and highway issues raised at the Planning Committee meeting on 16 August 2018, and highlighted that the car ports had been designed specifically to be lightweight to make them far less susceptible to conversion in the future.  He added that condition (8) of the proposed Planning Approval notice required the retention of those parking spaces.  The Major Projects Officer advised that Kent County Council (KCC) Highways and Transportation considered that the development did not represent an overbearing impact on the local highway network, did not require highway improvements and raised no objection to the proposal.

The Major Projects Officer advised that a Flood Risk Assessment had been submitted with the application and after consultation with KCC and Southern Water, neither had raised objection.  He said that 3 standard conditions had been recommended.

The KCC Highways and Transportation Officer stated that the principle of the access to the site was already established due to its allocation in the local plan, and liaison with the agent had lead to initial concerns around parking layout being overcome.  He advised that a turning head on the site would be able to accommodate large vehicles and the Highway Manager  ...  view the full minutes text for item 186.

The Chairman invited the Area Planning Officer to introduce the application.

The Area Planning Officer introduced the application which sought the erection of a single storey side and rear extension with a pitched roof, and repositioning of a garden side wall.  He explained the proposed position of the wall, which was a maximum of 2.6m from the existing wall and 0.75m from the outer boundary of the property. The Area Planning Officer explained that the extension was acceptable but the repositioning of the garden side wall was prominent and visually harmful to the streetscene.

The applicant explained that the extension could not be built without moving the wall as the existing garden was not big enough, and the wall in its current position would cause a large shadow across the garden.  She explained that landscaping would be carried out in front of the wall to minimise impact.  The applicant said that planning permission had been granted to a near neighbour for a similar proposal.

A visiting Member spoke in support of the application and stated that the road was not widely used.

In response to a question from a Member, the applicant clarified her ownership of the garage and parking spaces to the rear of the garden.

In response to questions from Members, the Area Planning Officer avised that landscaping could be secured by condition and agreed to advise on whether a split decision was possible.

Members toured the application site.