Agenda and minutes

Venue: at the site listed below

Contact: Democratic Services, 01795 417330 

Items
No. Item

117.

Declarations of Interest

Councillors should not act or take decisions in order to gain financial or other material benefits for themselves or their spouse, civil partner or person with whom they are living with as a spouse or civil partner.  They must declare and resolve any interests and relationships.

 

The Chairman will ask Members if they have any interests to declare in respect of items on this agenda, under the following headings:

 

(a)          Disclosable Pecuniary Interests (DPI) under the Localism Act 2011.  The nature as well as the existence of any such interest must be declared.  After declaring a DPI, the Member must leave the meeting and not take part in the discussion or vote.  This applies even if there is provision for public speaking.

 

(b)          Disclosable Non Pecuniary (DNPI) under the Code of Conduct adopted by the Council in May 2012.  The nature as well as the existence of any such interest must be declared.  After declaring a DNPI interest, the Member may stay, speak and vote on the matter.

 

(c)          Where it is possible that a fair-minded and informed observer, having considered the facts would conclude that there was a real possibility that the Member might be predetermined or biased the Member should declare their predetermination or bias and then leave the room while that item is considered.

 

Advice to Members:  If any Councillor has any doubt about the existence or nature of any DPI or DNPI which he/she may have in any item on this agenda, he/she should seek advice from the Monitoring Officer, the Head of Legal or from other Solicitors in Legal Services as early as possible, and in advance of the Meeting.

 

Minutes:

No interests were declared.

118.

19/500577/REM Land to the north of Vicarage Road, Sittingbourne, Kent, ME10 2BL

10am - 19/500577/REM Land to the north of Vicarage Road, Sittingbourne, Kent, ME10 2BL

Minutes:

The Chairman welcomed the applicants, the applicants’ architect, the developer and members of the public to the meeting.

 

The Senior Planner introduced the application which sought reserved matters of access, appearance, landscaping, layout, and scale further to the outline grant of permission under application reference 18/501409/OUT for the erection of two detached houses and one detached chalet bungalow at land to the north of Vicarage Road, Sittingbourne.  The Senior Planner stated that the site was within the built-up area boundary for Sittingbourne, and had a Public Right of Way (PROW) running north to south across the site

 

The Senior Planner explained that previously garages had stood on the site, but these had been demolished in the mid 90s and the derelict site was now subject to anti-social behaviour.  The Senior Planner stated that the dwellings would stand approximately 7.3 metres tall and be a minimum of 12 metres from dwellings in Middletune Avenue (north of the site), 27 metres from dwellings in Vicarage Road to the south, and 11.5 metres from dwellings in Roberts Close (west of the site).  He advised that these distances complied with the Council’s minimum requirements.

 

The Senior Planner reported that amended drawings had been received from the applicant’s agent, reducing the scale of the proposed  chalet bungalow.  Access to the site was off Vicarage Road and a turning area would be provided in the centre of the site for a refuse lorry or fire engine.   The access road was approximately 5.3 metres wide at the site entrance, narrowing to 2.7 metres wide at the tightest point, and being approximately 3 metres wide for the majority of the length.  The Senior Planner further reported that 7 letters of objection from local residents had been received and none of the statutory consultees had raised objection.

 

Local residents raised the following points:

 

·         The development would create a 30 foot brick wall at the back of garden;

·         would be oppressive development close to existing dwellings;

·         why was no affordable housing being provided?;

·         the style of the proposed dwellings would not fit-in with the others in the neighbourhood;

·         should consider providing all bungalows, these would not block-out light to adjacent properties;

·         scale of the proposal would cause overlooking into the gardens of adjacent dwellings;

·         would have an adverse impact on the local area;

·         the developer had already removed all the trees on the site;

·         not sure the applicants were being truthful with local residents on what was proposed;

·         could provide a petition with 100 signatories all against the proposed diversion of the PROW;

·         local residents were vulnerable following the removal of the fencing around the site by the developer;

·         there was a private fence along the access at the pinch point, there was no way a fire engine would be able to get through;

·         would be a rat-run created between the adjacent dwellings’ boundary and the new boundary fence;

·         a notice advising of the application was displayed at the site but local residents had not received letters notifying them ;  ...  view the full minutes text for item 118.