20/500887/FULL 224-226 Minster Road, Minster-on-Sea, Sheerness, Kent, ME12 3LL

The Chairman welcomed everyone to the meeting.

The Planner introduced the application which sought planning permission for the erection of single storey side extensions and two storey rear extensions to the existing dwellings, and erection of two semi-detached properties to the rear of 224 – 226 Minster Road, Minster.  Access to the new properties would be from Porter Close.  She explained that there was another application at the site which had been approved in early December 2020 which granted permission for the extensions to 224 and 226 Minster Road.  An application had also been submitted at neighbouring Barton House for a two-storey side extension.  The Agent for this application was aware of this, and an amended plan would be submitted before Planning Committee on 4 February 2021 to indicate where the additional parking space, which would be lost, would be re-located.

The Planner showed videos and stills of the site.  These indicated: the junction of Porter Close and Minster Road; access through Porter Close; Barton House, indicating where the access would be; the turning point in Porter Close; front and side extension of nos. 224 and 226 Minster Road; front extension of no. 224 Minster Road; rear of site and rear elevation of existing properties; and rear elevations of properties in Silverdale Avenue.

Parish Councillor John Stanford, representing Minster-on-Sea Parish Council, spoke against the application and raised the following points:

·         This was overdevelopment;

·         there would be a loss of privacy;

·         overlooking issues;

·         parking problems;

·         the new development was out-of- character with the surrounding area;

·         the previous long gardens offered good residential amenity and this would be lost; and

·         this was an inappropriate development.

Local residents raised the following points:

·         There needed to be footage of the area at weekends and in the evenings to indicate parking issues;

·         the road was narrow and there were accessibility issues, especially for large vehicles like fire engines;

·         there was not enough space for the parking for nos. 224 and 226 Minster Road;

·         there would be parking issues in Porter Close;

·         there was a blind spot coming out of Porter Close and that was dangerous;

·         overlooking issues from the two new dwellings;

·         the turning circle was not large enough;

·         highway safety; and

·         the width of the road and access needed to be checked.

In response to questions, the Planner advised that the extensions to 224 and 226 Minster Road had commenced, but not the new properties.  She agreed to check the hours of construction for the permission.

The Agent was invited to speak and raised the following points:

·         The development was placed comfortably on the site;

·         the original design was a lot closer to the rear boundaries, now it was further away;

·         there were only windows on the north and south elevations to reduce overlooking;

·         this was traditional in form, and set back from Minster Road;

·         access through Barton Hose would require negotiations with the owners of Barton House; and

·         the scheme would be an investment to the area and provide a positive contribution.

A Ward Member was invited to speak on the application.  He asked about the development in relation to the Council’s 5-year supply of housing and whether this made a difference to the application?  The Planner explained that as the development was in the built-up area, it was acceptable in principle, subject to amenity impacts.  In response to a question from the Ward Member, the Development Manager suggested local residents submitted photographs of the area at busy times and sent them to the case officer, and they could be viewed at the Planning Committee on 4 February 2021.   The Ward Member also asked who owned the land in front of Barton House?  The Planner advised that this was owned by Barton House, and reminded Members that Optivo owned Porter Close, but this was a private matter.  The Planner also confirmed that parking for the development was in accordance with the Council’s parking standards.

A Member advised that Councillor Pete Neal, a Ward Member, had sent his apologies.  The Member asked about the additional parking in the curtilage of Barton House.  The Planner explained that approval of the extension to Barton House would take up land where the parking spaces were proposed, and another space would be needed, and this would be addressed at Planning Committee on 4 February 2021.

A Member asked that if Barton House refused access, how much material consideration was required with this scenario?  The Planner explained that access to the front of Barton House was a private matter and separate to the planning application in terms of feasibility.  If access was not permitted, the planning application if granted, could not be implemented.  The Planner re-affirmed that this was a private matter and should be considered separate to the planning application.

A local resident asked what the acceptable width of a footpath and roadway was in front of a property?  The Development Manager explained that Porter Close was a private road, owned by Optivo.  Kent County Council (KCC) Highways and Transportation had said that access was acceptable.  The Planner advised that the access was six metres in depth where the proposed parking area was shown, which was acceptable, and she confirmed that the footpath width would be made available at the Planning Committee on 4 February 2021.  The Agent said the footpath in front of Barton House was 1.5 metres wide.

The Chairman thanked everyone for their comments.