Home   Sheerness   News   Article

Swale council rejects plans for flats on former Victoria Working Men’s Club site, Sheerness

An application to build a five-storey development of flats in Sheerness has been rejected after councillors branded it “drab” and “uninspiring”.

Members of Swale’s planning committee voted almost unanimously to refuse Faversham-based Mr C Boorman permission to build eight two-bedroom flats next to Victoria Working Men’s Club, Broadway.

Planning officers recommended members turn the plans down on the grounds of the flats’ inappropriate design, style and size.

The former Victoria Working Men's Club
The former Victoria Working Men's Club

EP Architects, which designed the block of flats, was criticised for not seeking advice from the Swale Design Panel before submitting the proposal.

The panel is part of Design South East, a board of experts who advise on aspects of the planning process.

When presenting the application in the chamber, the council’s conservation and design manager, Peter Bell, said the flats would be “overbearing” as they would be two storeys higher than the tallest surrounding buildings.

He added: “I’ve no doubt the design could have been improved following consultation with the panel.

“The applicant didn’t even go to the panel. They need help and they are not taking it.”

A number of members, including Cllr James Hunt (Con) and Cllr Mike Baldock (Ukip), also criticised the proposal – saying the design meant it would be out of character with its
location, which falls within the Sheerness Mile Town Conservation Area.

What the flats next to the Victoria Working Men's Club, sheerness, would look like
What the flats next to the Victoria Working Men's Club, sheerness, would look like

But Island councillor Mark Ellen (Lab) threw his weight behind the project, arguing that the shortage of homes on Sheppey made the proposal attractive.

The Sheerness representative said: “I would really like to see development on this site – houses for people who really require them.

“It’s not the prettiest of buildings, I agree.”

He also voiced fears that rejecting the proposal could mean that it would be years before the empty site was built on, adding: “Something has to be done pretty quick.

“If [the application] is sent back, it might be another two years before another proposal comes up.”

The application was rejected by 11 to three, with three abstentions.

Close This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies.Learn More