BOUGHTON ALUPH AND EASTWELL PARISH COUNCIL
Minutes of a Meeting held on Monday 10th June 2013, 4.30pm at
Sandy Acres Sports Club, Sandyhurst Lane
1.
Present
Cllr Matthews (Chairman), Cllr Ley (Vice-chairman), Cllr Miss Le Clercq, Cllrs Anthony, Avery, Hardie,
Newman and Mrs S Wood (locum Clerk). Nine members of the public attended, including Mr Hanson
(applicant, planning application 13/00565/AS, Manor Cottage), Miss Cobb (solicitor, acting for the
Parish Council, agenda item 5) and the President and Secretary of the Cricket Club.
2.
Apologies
Received from Cllr Chandler (prior commitment) and Mr Hopkins (Clerk).
3.
Declarations of Interest
Cllr Hardie (OSI, agenda item 4, planning application 13/00565/AS, as occupier of neighbouring
property).
4.
Planning applications
13/00565/AS Land at Manor Cottage
Erection of one detached dwelling
The Chairman suspended the meeting to allow Mr Hanson to answer questions on the application.
Cllr Newman asked how many trees would be removed. Mr Hanson replied that the
arboriculturalist’s report had recommended that dead trees and those not of great importance should
be removed, including one yew; replacements would be planted. The impartiality of the report was
questioned by a resident, given that it had been commissioned by the applicant. Mr Hanson stated
that the report had been submitted as part of the planning application. Mr Richardson (occupier of
the neighbouring property) circulated photos showing the treescape, with particular reference to two
pruned yews. Mr Hanson noted that no conditions were attached to a previously granted application
on the site for retention of the yews (12/01087/AS).
Mr Richardson stated that he would be objecting to the application. He felt that the proposed
dwelling would be overbearing in nature, was over-development of the site, was to be positioned only
1m from his boundary, would overlook and block the light to his conservatory.
Mr Hanson stated that the design of the application is contemporary, reflecting the changing style of
properties in the village over the years. Mrs Hardie felt that the design conflicted with the Parish
Design Statement (PDS), and was out of keeping with the rural nature of the village. She further
noted that the PDS was commissioned by the borough council and was independent of, although
supported by, the Parish Council (PC). Cllr Anthony advised that the PDS had been drawn up after
extensive public consultation, including public meetings, questionnaires and workshops. He
reiterated that the PDS is supported by, but independent of, the PC.
Mrs Bunker was concerned that the application proposed infilling, contrary to the PDS, and expressed
surprise that the previous application (12/001087/AS) had been granted. The Chairman noted that
minor infilling is permissible in certain circumstances under the PDS. Mrs Bunker felt that the
application proposed major infill.
Cllr Anthony referred to the PDS, which states that the character and setting of the Conservation Area
should be preserved and enhanced; most developments should be limited to alterations or smallscale infilling. Mr Bunker noted that the PDS also stated that infilling, in general, should be
discouraged.
Cllr Anthony noted that the application would infringe 4 of the 7 design guidelines in the PDS, viz:
1. Any development should not be overly-prominent.
2. Any development should not give rise to over-development.
3. Local style should be reflected.
4. New development in the Conservation Area should be sympathetic in scale and architectural
design.
The Chairman reconvened the meeting.
Cllr Miss Le Clerq stated that the design was out of keeping with the area and that she was against the
proposal. Cllr Newman was not against infilling on the site, but felt that the proposed building was
too large; he was, therefore, against the proposal. Cllrs Ley, Anthony and Avery all agreed with Cllr
Miss Le Clerq.
A vote was taken: by 6 votes, with 1 abstention (Cllr Hardie):
Resolved:
That Boughton Aluph and Eastwell Parish Council objects to the planning application.
13/00521/AS Wye Free School (Kempe Centre)
Removal of condition 4 on planning permission 94/00472/AS to allow use of Learning Resource
Centre as a Free School.
The Chairman advised that the school will open in September using the existing buildings, and noted
that the traffic generated will impact on neighbouring areas.
Cllr Anthony stated that there would be an annual intake of 90 pupils, with an eventual school roll of
600. It had also been proposed that 300 homes be built in Wye. He regretted that the PC had not
been consulted on the traffic plan. Cllr Anthony said that while he supported the development plan
there was a need to evaluate the impact of the increased traffic on the parish, this could be included
in the forthcoming traffic survey.
Cllr Ley noted that a similar situation had arisen when Goat Lees Primary School was built – the PC
had not been consulted on the traffic plan; the problem will increase when there is further
development at Eureka Park.
Cllr Hardie reported that the application under discussion is to lift an Order, thereby allowing use of
the library for alternative educational proposals. He was not against the free school but shared the
general concerns at the lack of consultation; and was wary of setting a precedent for development of
other parts of the college by Imperial College.
The Chairman agreed with the preceding comments, and will ask that the Parish Council is included as
a Consultee for the housing development planning application.
Cllr Anthony felt that delays at the level crossing would need to be addressed, and regretted the
closure of Wye College, but this itself had generated traffic. A ban on large vehicles using Wye Road
would not be practical as this would adversely affect children coming from Challock. Cllr Ley thought
that the necessary infrastructure would be lacking, cf Chilmington Green.
The Chairman suspended the meeting to allow members of the public present to raise any concerns.
Mrs Hardie noted that a business operating on White Hill is accessed by large vehicles, and expressed
surprise that the ward member was not present at the meeting.
Mr Oliver suggested that a weight restriction be put in place on Wye Road, and questioned the value
of a transport plan – that produced for Towers School was inaccurate. He further recommended that
a Condition be attached to any planning permission that the school size be limited until money is put
forward to address the traffic problems.
Cllr Ley replied that there would need to be a definition of an acceptable level of traffic.
Mr Richardson noted that the volume of traffic had already increased, and that problems in the village
should be addressed, not just those for the school.
Cllr Ley agreed, suggesting that the speed limit on Faversham Road should be reduced, and the
footway kept clear. He repeated his statement that traffic would increase when Eureka Park is further
developed. The Chairman stated that the proposals for the northern link road may be resurrected,
given that they remain in the Core Strategy.
Cllr Ley advised that outline planning permission for Eureka Park expires in July; the PC should press
for traffic improvements.
The Chairman reconvened the meeting and stated that the new county councillor (Charlie Simpkins)
and the ward member will be invited to a PC meeting to discuss these concerns. He also requested
that the Borough Council be advised by e-mail before 14 June of the concerns relating to the medium
term generation of additional traffic in the area due to the planning proposals in Wye.
5.
Lees green – freehold/application for QEII status
The Chairman welcomed Miss Cobb, and suspended the meeting to allow her to present a report on
the status of the proposal.
Miss Cobb stated that the field already has QEII status, and the PC holds the field on a lease from
Fields in Trust (FIT). The field is also classified as a village green – therefore renovation of the cricket
pavilion or building of a new pavilion is prohibited. To enable the proposed improvements to be
carried out part of the field would have to be deregistered as a village green, by applying to the
Secretary of State for the Environment. A fee of £4900 is payable, and if the area in question is
>200m2, an equivalent area must be set aside as a replacement. This is not a requirement for an area
<200m2, but the same fee is payable. The application has to be completed by the owner (FIT). Miss
Cobb further advised that SITA funding is not available for building works, therefore the cricket
pavilion would not be eligible; but there are other funding streams.
Cllr Ley suggested that the payment of the fee be subject to negotiations between the PC and the
Cricket Club.
Mr Brooks (Cricket Club President) asked who had applied for QEII status, as he had been unaware of
the application. He was advised that the decision to apply had been at a meeting at which he had
been present, and had been Minuted. The Chairman apologised that the Cricket Club had not been
informed that the application had been successful.
Miss Cobb noted that the registration as a village green should not have been allowed as it is owned
by a Charitable Trust – this confers sufficient protection.
Mr Carney (Cricket Club Secretary) stated that the PC has held Trustee status of the field for over 70
years, and that the Cricket Club would welcome a move to deregister in order that the new pavilion
be built. He also sought assurances that the Club has security of tenure.
Miss Cobb replied that the PC holds the lease from FIT and there is an informal arrangement to sublease it to the Club, but there is no documentation. She recommended that a formal agreement be
drawn up, as 26 years remain on the lease from FIT. Mr Brooks felt that a tenancy had been created
as the Club had maintained the green and pavilion over many years.
Mr Carney said that there had been a suggestion that FIT was willing to transfer the freehold to the
PC; Miss Cobb is to make enquiries of FIT. Mr Brooks queried whether a Charity would be permitted
to give away an asset, rather he felt that the current lease would be rescinded and a new lease of 100
years granted.
Mrs Hardie suggested that a condition be attached such that the cricket pavilion is the only building
that could be put up, and a restriction as to its use.
The Chairman stated that even if the PC held the freehold, deregistration would still be necessary for
the building works. He noted that the Cricket Club is unwilling to release funds towards the fee until
the questions on the freehold and security of tenure have been clarified.
In answer to a question from Miss Cobb, she was told that the proposed new pavilion would be
approx 250m2. She advised that this would necessitate making an equivalent area available; there is
no suitable site, therefore the size must be reduced to less than 200m2. Mrs Hardie suggested that
the pavilion be 2 storey, to reduce the footprint.
Miss Cobb undertook to report back to the PC as soon as possible regarding the questions raised,
following which an information-gathering meeting will be held between representatives of the Cricket
Club and the PC. The Chairman and Mr Carney are to liaise re a convenient date.
6.
Any Other Business
6.1 Cllr Anthony advised he has received the submission from David Axford for the traffic survey, but
that the costs are higher than expected, so priorities will have to be drawn up. These will be
discussed at the July meeting. Cllr Anthony is to circulate the submission.
6.2 Mr Hardie asked if the planning process for application 12/01087/AS should go to Judicial
Review. A fee of £400 would be payable; however this application would have to be made by July
2nd as there is a 3 month deadline from the date of the act or omission that is being challenged.
This will be discussed at a meeting of the PC, but Cllr Anthony advised that considerable costs
would be incurred given that the PC would wish to instruct a barrister.
The meeting closed at 6.02pm.