TUNBRIDGE WELLS BOROUGH COUNCIL
NUMERICAL LIST OF PLANNING APPLICATIONS LIKELY TO BE CONSIDERED AT THE MEETING OF THE (040712/EAP001) Eastern Area Planning Committee at 5.30pm on 12 July 2004
An Area Planning Committee of Councillors will decide the following applications. The Planning Officers’ report of recommendation is available from the Planning Reception or on our Website. You may attend the committee meeting and put your views to the Councillors. A copy of "Your Right to Speak at Planning Meetings" is available from our website or from our offices.
APPL. NO. DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION DECISION PAGE NO.
TW/04/01271 Conversion of redundant hopper hut to holiday 1 – 5 accommodation. Ayleswade Farm, Ayleswade Lane, BIDDENDEN.
TW/04/00962 Two storey extension and conservatory extension to rear of 6 – 8 existing kitchen. East Lodge, Commenden Manor, Cranbrook Road, FRITTENDEN.
TW/04/01373 Barn and stables for private use. 9 – 12 Swattenden Barn, Swattenden Lane, CRANBROOK.
TW/04/01059 RETROSPECTIVE – Removal of condition 2 of TW/92/02237 – 13 – 17 The occupancy shall be restricted to a person or persons wholly or mainly employed in the operation of The Bull Public House. Internal and external alterations and retention of existing close boarded fence. The Hay Loft, High Street, BRENCHLEY.
TW/04/01057 LISTED BUILDING CONSENT – Minor internal and external 18 – 20 alterations. The Hay Loft, High Street, BRENCHLEY.
TW/04/01277 Extension to conservatory. 21 – 23 Little Orchard, Crook Road , BRENCHLEY.
TW/03/02300 Erection of flood retaining wall. 24 – 30 Bayham Lake Estate, Bayham Abbey, LAMBERHURST.
040712/EAP001 - E1 -
EASTERN AREA PLANNING COMMITTEE
REPORT OF THE HEAD OF PLANNING SERVICES
12 JULY 2004
PLANNING APPLICATIONS FOR CONSIDERATION
APPLICANT REFERENCE LOCATION PROPOSAL
CONTACT ADDRESS DATE VALID GRID REFERENCE DATE OF APPLICATION
MR AND MRS Q JOHNSON TW/04/01271 Ayleswade Farm Conversion of redundant (MGA Ayleswade Lane hopper hut to holiday 54 Henwood Green Road BIDDENDEN accommodation. Pembury FR Tunbridge Wells Kent TN2 4LH) 27/05/04 84214/41564 13/05/04
DESCRIPTION
This building is a single storey brick structure, currently one open room with no internal walls. At the south end there is the original “kitchen area” open to the adjoining field with a central chimney stack.
The building was visited in 1996 when Members noted the building had no roof, and was basically three brick walls and a chimney stack.
Since then it would appear that an onduline roof has been installed supported on a new set of timber roof trusses. The new roof has also gone some way to stabilising the three brick outside walls. In addition a large brick pillar has been constructed in the southern open kitchen area to stabilise this end wall. At the northern end there is a new blockwork wall on the inside and an entirely new outside brick wall. This has also strengthened and stabilised the walls of the building. However, this has replaced the original timber panels that existed here as originally there would probably have been double doors. These recent works were carried out without reference to the Planning or Building Control services.
The proposal now involves:
- Underpinning the remaining three walls, as the original walls show signs of movement and more recent cracking (due partly to the fact there is a shrinkable clay sub-soil). - Providing further ceiling ties to restrain the feet of the roof rafters, to address some lateral displacement of the external walls. - Provide additional internal support to the roof by way of purlins and struts. - Insulate the building to meet Building Regulation standards. - Install all new windows and doors. - Construct internally a first floor sleeping gallery with access from a spiral staircase. - Enclosing the original open kitchen area at the southern end of the building and incorporating this floor area into a proposed living room.
The building sits in the corner of a field, close to the road. It is in a very remote rural location, and is currently screened from views along the road by a mature boundary hedge.
040712/EAP001 It is proposed to form a parking and domestic recreation area 20 metres x 20 metres around the building, surrounded by a hedge. Access to the building would be by way of 20 metres of new road across the field, from the existing farm access to the applicants own house. - E2 -
It is proposed to plant up a small coppice of indigenous trees and shrubs between this new access road and the boundary hedge to the public highway.
The application is referred to Committee at the request of the Parish Council.
RELEVANT HISTORY
TW/90/01797 – Conversion of hopper hut to dwelling – Refused 15/01/91.
TW/96/00592 – Conversion to dwelling – Refused.
TW/96/01270 – Conversion to dwelling – Refused 23/09/96.
POLICIES
1. Kent Structure Plan 1996
- Policy ENV1 – Protection of the countryside. - Policy ENV13 – Rural lanes. - Policy ENV4 – Low Weald Special Landscape Area. - Policy RS5 – Development at hamlets and in the countryside.
2. Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan Adopted 1996
- Policy LBD1 – Development outside the Limits to Built Development. - Policy EN1 – Design and other control criteria. - Policy T1 – Tourist accommodation.
3. Kent and Medway Structure Plan – Deposit Plan, September 2003
- Policy E1 – Protecting Kent’s Countryside. - Policy E5 – Special Landscape Areas. - Policy E14 – Rural Lanes. - Policy FP9 – Sustainable tourism development. - Policy FP7 – Farm diversification.
4. Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan Review – Second Deposit Copy, October 2002
- Policy LBD1 – Development outside the Limits to Built Development. - Policy EN1 – Design and other Development Control criteria. - Policy EN24 – The rural landscape of the Borough – site in Low Weald Special Landscape Area. - Policy T3 – New tourist accommodation outside the Limits to Built Development.
5. Supplementary Planning Guidance
- Re-use of Rural Buildings Adopted 1998. - Rural Lanes Adopted 1998.
CONSULTATIONS AND BACKGROUND PAPERS
1. Frittenden Parish Council
18/06/04 – Approve – This is a historical Kent building, an example of one of the few brick hopper huts left in Kent. It should remain in the same ownership and part of Ayleswade Farm.
2. Maidstone Borough Council
No views received at time of writing report. 040712/EAP001 3. Ashford Borough Council
28/06/04 – This Council raises no objection to the proposal.
040712/EAP001 - E3 -
4. Environment Agency
22/06/04 – We request a holding objection. The building lies close to the fringe of the indicative 100 year flood plain of the Hammer Stream, though the property is located just outside of the indicative flood risk area. We have some concerns over the inclusion of ground floor sleeping within a property located so close to the fringe of the flood risk area, due to the danger to life this could pose. The applicant needs to provide a level survey related to Ordnance Datum Newlyn which depicts the ground levels between the property and the water course. This survey may be able to confirm the level of risk to the property and in the light of new information, the Agency may be able to reconsider its current position.
APPRAISAL
The main issues are:
- Does the proposal comply with Policy T1 of the Local Plan and will the works involve “substantial reconstruction” and altering the character of the building? - Will the proposal have an adverse impact n the character of the Low Weald rural landscape?
Policy T1
I agree with the Parish Council that this was once a building that contributed to the character and history of the area. It could be said to be in keeping with its surroundings.
However, as in 1996, I am concerned at the amount of reconstruction needed to convert these former three walls to residential accommodation. Clearly, since 1996 further work has been carried out, without permission. A Building Control Surveyor has recently visited the property and confirmed that the building that now exists can be converted without further extensive reconstruction, once the walls are underpinned and the new roof strengthened. The existing mud floor will also need to be replaced with a solid floor and damp proofing.
However, I am concerned that no detailed structural appraisal has been submitted with the application, as required by Section 4 of the Adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance. Moreover, I am concerned that significant reconstruction work has already taken place.
In addition, I am concerned that the proposal to enclose the original open kitchen area; replace the wooden doors at the south end with a brick wall; and to install a gallery bedroom with a new upstairs window and spiral staircase will completely change the original simple hopper hut character and appearance of the building – contrary to criteria (4) of Policy T1.
Impact on the rural landscape
The building currently sits in an open field, cut for a hay crop. What is now proposed is to create a residential curtilage/parking area and access road and landscape area.
There will thus be a significant change in the open character of this corner of the field to the detriment of the rural landscape.
Other material considerations
The views of the Parish Council are noted and Members need to consider whether weight should be given to the fact this proposal will restore a building that is part of the local farming history.
It will also accord with Structure Plan Review Policy FP7, which recognises that on farms such as this there is a need to re-use farm buildings for non-agricultural use to secure the viability of such farms.
Conclusion
In my view other considerations identified do not outweigh the environmental policy objections set out above.
040712/EAP001 - E4 -
RECOMMENDATION – REFUSE
(1) The proposed amount of building work, when considered in connection with work recently carried out to the building, results in substantial reconstruction and will have an adverse impact on the character of the original building. As such the proposals are considered to be contrary to the provisions of Policy RS5 of the Kent Structure Plan 1996, Policy T1 of the Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan Adopted 1996 and Policy T3 of the Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan Review – Second Deposit Copy, October 2002.
(2) The proposals for the conversion, access and parking would be harmful to the landscape of this sensitive location within the Low Weald Special Landscape Area. As such the proposals would be detrimental to the character and appearance of the countryside, contrary to Policies ENV1 and ENV4 of the Kent Structure Plan 1996, Policies E1 and E5 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan – Deposit Plan, September 2003, Policy EN23 of the Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan Adopted 1996 and Policy EN24 of the Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan Review – Second Deposit Copy, October 2002.
(3) The application is not accompanied by a detailed structural appraisal of the existing building to demonstrate the amount of work necessary to comply with the appropriate Building Regulations in accordance with Section 4 of the Adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance.
PLANS
The following plans are the subject of the recommendation above: 1192 sheets 1, 2 and 3.
Reference: AJB/NC
040712/EAP001 040712/EAP001 - E6 -
APPLICANT REFERENCE LOCATION PROPOSAL
CONTACT ADDRESS DATE VALID GRID REFERENCE DATE OF APPLICATION
MR AND MRS S REDGROVE TW/04/00962 East Lodge Two storey extension and (Architectus Commenden Manor conservatory extension to Muir House Cranbrook Road rear of existing kitchen. Broadwater Road FRITTENDEN Worthing FR West Sussex BN14 8HY) 13/04/04 799900/391650 13/04/04
DESCRIPTION
The property is a detached three bedroom dwelling, outside the Limits to Built Development. It is at the private entrance to a drive leading up to Commenden Manor, and was clearly built originally as an entrance lodge for staff accommodation in connection with the main house. It now sits in its own grounds and is only partially screened from public views from the main road. It was extended in 1976 and a detached double garage building was built in 2002.
The proposal is to add a two storey extension on the east end elevation of the house, nearest the road. This will match the design of the extension on the western end elevation of the house.
In addition a small glazed conservatory with a footprint of 12 square metres is proposed on the rear elevation, with access from the kitchen/breakfast room.
The increased volume of the dwelling is as follows:
Volume of new extension and Existing Percentage increase conservatory 381 cubic metres 219 cubic metres 57%
The application is referred to Committee at the request of the Parish Council.
RELEVANT HISTORY
TW/76/00863 – Alterations and extensions (this added 145 cubic metres) – Approved 16/11/76.
TW/01/02079 – Double garage – Approved 03/01/02.
POLICIES
1. Kent Structure Plan 1996
- Policy RS1 – Rural settlements – general policy. - Policy RS5 – Development in rural Kent. - Policy ENV4 – Protection of Kent Special Landscape Area.
2. Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan Adopted 1996
- Policy LBD1 – Development outside the Limits to Built Development. - Policy EN1 –Design and other control criteria. - Policy H13 – Extensions to dwellings outside the defined Limits to Built Development. - Policy EN23 – High Weald Special Landscape Area.
3. Kent and Medway Structure Plan – Deposit Plan, September 2003
040712/EAP001 - Policy HP6 – Extensions to dwellings to be modest. - Policy E5 – Special Landscape Areas. - E7 -
4. Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan Review – Second Deposit Copy, October 2002
- Policy LBD1 – Development outside the Limits to Built Development. - Policy EN1 – General control criteria. - Policy H12 – Extensions to dwellings outside the defined Limits to Built Development. - Policy EN24 – Landscape issues in the Borough.
CONSULTATIONS AND BACKGROUND PAPERS
1. Frittenden Parish Council
23/04/04 – Recommend refusal if proposal does not fit in with the County and Borough planning policies. Notes that there have been extensions in the past.
APPRAISAL
The two main issues are:
- Is this a modest extension, complying with Policy H13 of the Adopted Local Plan? - Does the proposal have any adverse impact on the character of this rural landscape?
Policy H13
Policy H13 of the Local Plan, requires the increase in volume to be compared with the existing dwelling.
The extension slightly exceeds the 50% guideline, but the proposal is well designed and is in scale with the existing dwelling and in my view will not dominate it visually. I thus conclude there is no conflict with Policy H13.
Impact on the rural landscape
The site is in the High Weald Special Landscape Area. Although the dwelling is only partially screened from the road outside the site, in my view the extension could not be said to cause harm to the wider rural character of this area.
SUMMARY
The following is a summary of the main reasons for the recommendation:
- The development would be a modest extension to the existing dwelling which would be satisfactory in this rural location.
- The scale, location and design of the development would preserve the landscape character of the locality.
RECOMMENDATION – APPROVE SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
(1) Standard detailed YZ01.
(2) Materials to match existing D002.
PLANS
The following plans are the subject of the recommendation above: SAND/001A.
Reference: AJB/NC
040712/EAP001 040712/EAP001 - E9 -
APPLICANT REFERENCE LOCATION PROPOSAL
CONTACT ADDRESS DATE VALID GRID REFERENCE DATE OF APPLICATION
MR N LESTON TW/04/01373 Swattenden Barn Barn and stables for private (Woodchurch Clarke Swattenden Lane use. Pennybridge Farm CRANBROOK Mayfield CR East Sussex TN20 6QB) 21/05/04 7703/3448 21/05/04
DESCRIPTION
The applicant lives in a converted barn, which adjoins the site and has recently purchased the field as he wishes to stable his 2 horses.
The proposal is for a two bay stable block and tack room measuring 10 metres x 5.5 metres, constructed of stained weatherboarding with a steel corrugated sheeting roof with outside concrete yard. On the other side of the yard will be a barn, of similar materials, to store the horsebox and hay. The barn measures 9.8 metres x 7 metres and will be 4.8 metres high.
The two buildings are sited in a group of mature oak trees which will part screen the building and further screening will be provided by the retention of all boundary hedges. Access to the yard and stable building will be from the existing vehicular access to the house and garage block. The buildings will be 50 metres to the west of the house.
The application is referred to Committee at the request of the Parish Council.
RELEVANT HISTORY
TW/90/00101 – Conversion of barn to dwelling – Approved 03/08/90.
TW/04/00251 – Barn and stables – Refused 18/03/04.
POLICIES
1. Kent Structure Plan 1996
- Policy ENV1 – Protection of the countryside. - Policy ENV3 – Protection of the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. - Policy ENV4 – Protection of Kent Special Landscape Area. - Policy RS1 – Development at small rural towns and villages. - Policy RS5 – Development in rural Kent.
2. Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan Adopted 1996
- Policy LBD1 – Development outside the Limits to Built Development. - Policy EN1 – General Development control criteria. - Policy EN23 – Landscape protection. - Policy R15 – Equestrian development.
3. Kent and Medway Structure Plan – Deposit Plan, September 2003
- Policy E1 – Protecting Kent’s Countryside. - Policy E4 – High Weald Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty. - Policy E5 – High Weald Special Landscape Areas.
040712/EAP001 - E10 -
4. Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan Review – Second Deposit Copy, October 2002
- Policy LBD1 – Development outside the Limits to Built Development. - Policy EN1 – Design and other development criteria. - Policy EN24 – Landscape protection. - Policy R9 – Equestrian development.
CONSULTATIONS AND BACKGROUND PAPERS
1. Cranbrook Parish Council
04/06/04 – Members would not object to the stables and tack room if sympathetically sited but felt that the scheme with the large barn was too over-intensive and too dominant on the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and Special Landscape Area.
2. Environmental Services Manager
13/06/04 – I have visited site. My only comments are manure must not be burnt on site. Any manure must be stored and disposed of in accordance with an agreed scheme. Any leachate from stored manure must not contaminate any nearby ditches and streams.
APPRAISAL
The main issue is whether this small private stable block, and barn for storage of hay and the horsebox, will have an adverse impact on the character of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty countryside and the amenities of adjoining residents, and whether it accords in particular with Local Plan Policies EN23 and R15.
This application follows negotiations with officers following refusal of a previous proposal for a larger building on a different part of the paddock.
In particular the hay barn has been reduced in height from 5.8 metres to 4.8 metres and the siting for the two buildings has been moved away from an open part of the field, into a group of trees in a position nearer the boundary hedge and main house and garage.
In my view the proposed size and siting for the stable and barn in the current application preserves the rural character of the surrounding Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty landscape.
SUMMARY
The following is a summary of the main reasons for the recommendation:
- The scale, location and design of the development would preserve the character and appearance of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and Kent Special Landscape Area.
- Any potentially significant impacts on the amenities of nearby dwellings can be satisfactorily mitigated by conditions.
RECOMMENDATION – APPROVE SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
(1) Standard detailed YZ01.
(2) The existing hedge and trees on the site particularly on the boundaries shall be retained.
Reason: In the interests of protecting the visual amenities of the area in accordance with Policies EN1 and EN23 of the Local Plan.
(3) The stables shall only be used ancillary to the residential occupancy of “Swattenden Barn” and not for any trade of business use. No horses/ponies shall be kept at the site other than those owned by residents of this dwelling.
040712/EAP001 Reason: In the interests of protecting the rural amenities of the locality and in accordance with Policy EN1 of the Local Plan.
040712/EAP001 - E11 -
(4) The development shall be carried out using the materials specified in the application.
Reason: To ensure a satisfactory appearance upon completion of the development in accordance with Policy EN1 of the Local Plan.
(5) No burning of manure shall take place on the site and all manure and waste bedding shall be stored on site and subsequently removed for disposal.
Reason: To protect the residential amenities of the area in accordance with Policy EN1 of the Local Plan.
(6) There shall be no outside storage of fodder and bedding material on site other than in accordance with a scheme to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such a scheme shall include details of any protection against the weather.
Reason: In order to protect the landscape of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty from intrusive development in accordance with Policy EN23 of the Local Plan.
PLANS
The following plans are the subject of the recommendation above: 01, 02A, 03B.
Reference: AJB/NC
040712/EAP001 040712/EAP001 - E13 -
APPLICANT REFERENCE LOCATION PROPOSAL
CONTACT ADDRESS DATE VALID GRID REFERENCE DATE OF APPLICATION
A WITMOND AND A HARRIS TW/04/01059 The Hay Loft RETROSPECTIVE – Removal (Joyce and Partners Ltd High Street of condition 2 of 75 High Street BRENCHLEY TW/92/02237 – The Tunbridge Wells BR occupancy shall be Kent restricted to a person or TN1 1XZ) persons wholly or mainly employed in the operation of The Bull Public House. Internal and external alterations and retention of existing close boarded fence.
20/04/04 6790/4174 20/04/04
DESCRIPTION
This two storey former barn/store stands to the rear of the Bull Inn Public House in the High Street, and is accessed between the pub and the adjoining houses. Formerly used as tourist letting rooms in association with the pub it has now been converted into a detached dwelling and is now called the “Hay Loft”. The planning permission TW/02/02237, under which this conversion was achieved, included a condition:
(2) The occupancy shall be restricted to a person or persons wholly or mainly employed in the operation of the Bull Public House, together with any resident dependants.
Reason: The accommodation is not considered appropriate for unrestricted residential use by reason of its proximity to the public house as well as insufficient amenity and parking space.
The owners of the public house and this detached building then appealed against this specific condition. The Planning Inspector in May 2003 dismissed the appeal (see reason in history section below) and upheld the condition.
Since the appeal decision was made the public house has changed hands but the Hay Loft has remained in the ownership of the former owner who occupies it as a dwelling. This application is therefore made to remove the occupancy condition attached to the original planning consent, and to make certain alterations internally and externally to the building to address the comments made by the Inspector in his appeal decision letter. These include a revised parking and turning layout following the removal of a pergola at the front of the building, and alterations to the building itself to form a new opening to the rear, so opening up the kitchen area to the rear garden.
The application also seeks to regularise the position in respect to a 1.8m close boarded fence erected between the rear of the public house and the Hay Loft. An area of new planting is indicated in outline in front of the building on the position at which car parking was previously indicated. The building is “curtilage” listed and the report on an accompanying application, TW/04/01057, for alterations follows this report.
The application is referred to Committee at the request of the Parish Council.
RELEVANT HISTORY
TW/88/00104 – Change of use of part of barn to office – Approved 29/03/88.
TW/98/01847 – Listed Building Consent – Conservatory to public house and alterations to barn to convert to function room and 4 letting rooms – Approved 16/11/98.
040712/EAP001 TW/02/01338 – Change of use from letting rooms to a single dwelling – Refused 10/09/02.
TW/02/01337 – Listed Building Consent – Works to change to single dwelling – Approved 10/09/02. - E14 -
TW/02/02237 – Change of use from letting rooms to a single dwelling. Approved 07/11/02. With condition (2), details above.
Appeal against Condition 2 of TW/02/02237 – Dismissed 09/05/03.
The Inspector rested his consideration on the acceptability or otherwise of the condition (2) in terms of Criteria 1 and 3 of Adopted Local Plan H10 – (Change of Use to Residential Accommodation Within the Defined Limits to Built Development). These are that:
(1) The environment surrounding a building the subject of a change of use is suitable for residential use, and
(3) That a proposal sited with access onto a Primary, District or Local Distributor Route must be provided with adequate on-site parking and manoeuvring facilities.
In his consideration of (1), the Inspector identified that the Public House, together with a neighbouring building dominated the area in front of the Hay Loft by reason of the size in relation to it and falling ground levels. In addition, car parking spaces as shown would immediately abut the façade of the Hay Loft, adjacent to a window of a habitable room. Although there is a suitable area of garden to the rear, the quality of the environment in front of the building is poor rendering it unsuited to independent residential use other than as residential accommodation occupied in connection with the Public House.
In respect to Local Plan Policy H10 criteria (3), the Inspector considered it proper that the Council imposed parking standards for residential use on this independent residential dwelling. Traffic generated from an unrestricted residential occupation would be likely to be greater than for the extant use as letting rooms or the restricted use approved i.e. with an occupancy condition. Saying that however the Inspector acknowledged that two spaces as proposed was sufficient for the use of the building as a dwelling. He went on to state that the inability to provide adequate on site turning space amounted to an unacceptable deficiency. The fence makes turning impossible. Even if the yard were open and shared easy use would not result and could well lead to vehicles reversing onto or from the High Street.
The Inspector thus concluded that the condition (2) imposed on TW/02/02237 was both necessary and reasonable, and the appeal was dismissed.
POLICIES
1. Kent Structure Plan 1996
- Policy RS1 – Rural settlement, general policy. - Policy ENV17 – Conservation areas. - Policy ENV19 – Buildings of architectural or historic interest. - Policy T17 – Parking.
2. Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan Adopted 1996
- Policy EN1 – Design and other control criteria. - Policy EN3 – Listed Buildings of architectural and historic importance. - Policy EN5 – Development in conservation areas. - Policy H10 – Change of use to residential accommodation within the defined Limits to Built Development. - Policy TP1 – Vehicle access. - Policy VP1 – Parking standards.
3. Kent and Medway Structure Plan – Deposit Plan, September 2003
- Policy QL1 – Quality of development and design. - Policy QL7 – Conservation areas. - Policy QL9 – Buildings of architectural or historic importance. - Policy TP19 – Parking standards. 040712/EAP001 - E15 -
4. Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan Review – Second Deposit Copy, October 2002
- Policy EN1 – Design and other Development Control criteria. - Policy EN3 – Listed Buildings. - Policy EN5 – Development in conservation areas. - Policy H5 – Change of use/redevelopment to residential development. - Policy TP5 – Kent vehicle parking standards.
CONSULTATIONS AND BACKGROUND PAPERS
1. Highways Manager
22/06/04 – The area shown for turning is not sufficient to allow a simple manoeuvre to take place in anything other than a small car. I do not, however, wish to maintain an objection to this proposal since the adverse affect on the highway is minimal.
2. Brenchley Parish Council
11/05/04 – Unable to comment as to whether the Appeal Inspectors comments have been satisfactorily met. We rest with our earlier representation that the occupancy should be by a person employed at the public house.
3. Private
- Three letters from neighbours support removing the condition – Point out former pub garden was too near to their private rear gardens. A private dwelling use is more appropriate for the building.
- Purchases and new owners of public house confirm that for business reasons did not want to buy the building.
APPRAISAL
The primary consideration in this case is whether the re-arrangements to the internal and external layouts have addressed the comments made in 2003 by the Inspector when determining the appeal against the imposition of the occupancy condition. One has in particular to look at the reasons for imposing the condition in 2002.
In addition consideration should be had to the fact that the circumstances have changed wherein following the change of ownership of the public house the Hay Loft is no longer included in the same ownership.
Amenity space
The alterations proposed to the building itself would open up a second of the ground floor rooms, the kitchen, to the garden at the rear rather than, only having an outlook toward the rear of the public house. This will therefore mean that two out of the three ground floor rooms will face the private rear garden, with both provided with direct access into that area. The remaining ground floor room will still face the public house, this being the room mentioned in the Inspectors decision letter as having parking spaces directly abutting it. However as part of these proposals the parking spaces are relocated and an area of planting, as yet not detailed, is shown in this position. Were consent to be granted I consider that conditions should require this planting to be detailed and implemented, and the alterations to the rear elevation to be completed in a specific timetable. These improvements will, I consider, improve the setting and the conditions in front of the building. Although the space will always be dominated by the public house the occupiers of the dwelling will only call on it to provide car parking. In my view this has therefore satisfied the Inspectors concerns.
Parking and turning space
040712/EAP001 Space for parking two vehicles is indicated. As pointed out by the Highways Manager, turning facilities are very limited but there is room for a small car to turn. He is making no objection in respect of any impact on the free flow of traffic from vehicles reversing onto the High Street. The public house tends to be serviced from the front or from the alley at the side. Thus the parking issues identified by the Inspector have been addressed.
040712/EAP001 - E16 -
Conclusion
In considering all these matters I have concluded that sufficient progress has been made satisfy the comments made by the appeal Inspector.
There is no objection in conservation terms to the retention of the boundary fence, which now reflects the fact the site is in two separate ownership.
SUMMARY
The following is a summary of the main reasons for the recommendation:
- The development would provide a satisfactory residential environment for future occupants.
- The development would preserve the special character and appearance of the Conservation Area.
- The development makes adequate provision for the parking of vehicles within the application site.
RECOMMENDATION – APPROVE SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
(1) The works to the south elevation of the building shown on the approved drawings shall be completed within six months of the date of this permission or such alternative date as may be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To ensure a satisfactory appearance and to maintain the residential amenity of the occupiers in accordance with Policy EN1 of the Local Plan.
(2) Materials to Match Existing D002.
(3) The area shown on the approved plan as vehicle parking, turning and manoeuvring space, shall be retained for the use of the occupiers of the premises, and no permanent development, whether or not permitted by the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking and re- enacting that Order), shall be carried out on that area of land or in such a position as to preclude its use.
Reason: Development without provision of adequate accommodation for the parking and turning of vehicles is likely to lead to such activities inconvenient to other road users and detrimental to amenity in accordance with Policy VP1 of the Local Plan.
(4) The area shown on drawing 3314/SK02/Rev A as a landscaped area shall be landscaped in accordance with a scheme to be submitted for approval in writing, within one month of the date of this decision and the work shall be carried out within three months of the date of this decision.
Reason: To ensure a satisfactory appearance to the area in accordance with Policies EN1, EN3 and EN5 of the Local Plan.
PLANS
The following plans are the subject of the recommendation above: 3314/SK01 Rev. A; 3314/SK02 Rev. A; 3314/SK03; 3314/SK04; 3314/SK05 Rev. A; 3314/SK06 Rev. A; 3314/SK07; 3314/SK08.
Reference: TA/NC
040712/EAP001 040712/EAP001 - E18 -
APPLICANT REFERENCE LOCATION PROPOSAL
CONTACT ADDRESS DATE VALID GRID REFERENCE DATE OF APPLICATION
A WITMOND AND A HARRIS TW/04/01057 The Hay Loft LISTED BUILDING CONSENT (Joyce and Partners Ltd High Street – Minor internal and 75 High Street BRENCHLEY external alterations. Tunbridge Wells BR Kent TN1 1XZ) 20/04/04 6790/4174 20/04/04
DESCRIPTION
The previous report sets out the recent planning history of this building and the steps proposed to address the issues raised by the Inspector in respect to an appeal to remove an occupancy condition imposed on a 2002 planning consent.
The building is deemed to be “curtilage” listed as the public house itself is Grade II Listed. Hence the need for this application for alterations to the structure which primarily include a new double door opening in the south elevation and internal alterations at ground floor level to open up one of the rooms toward the garden area at the rear, thus ensuring the two principal living rooms face the rear private garden area.
This case has been referred to Committee at the request of the Parish Council.
RELEVANT HISTORY
See previous report on application TW/04/01059.
POLICIES
1. Kent Structure Plan 1996
- Policy ENV17 – Conservation areas. - Policy ENV19 – Buildings of architectural or historic interest.
2. Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan Adopted 1996
- Policy EN3 – Listed buildings of architectural and historic importance. - Policy EN5 – Development in conservation areas.
3. Kent and Medway Structure Plan – Deposit Plan, September 2003
- Policy QL97 – Conservation areas. - Policy QL9 – Buildings of architectural or historic interest.
4. Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan Review – Second Deposit Copy, October 2002
- Policy EN3 – Listed buildings. - Policy EN5 – Development in conservation areas.
CONSULTATIONS AND BACKGROUND PAPERS
See previous report on application TW/04/01059.
APPRAISAL
040712/EAP001 I consider the proposals are well designed and are appropriate to address the particular planning issue at this site as set out in the previous report. I have no objection to the proposal either from a Listed Building or a Conservation Area point of view and it should be noted Listed Building Consent TW/02/01337 has already been granted to change the letting rooms to a single dwelling. - E19 -
SUMMARY
The following is a summary of the main reasons for the recommendation:
- The works would protect the special character and appearance of the Listed Building.
- The development would preserve the special character and appearance of the Conservation Area.
RECOMMENDATION – APPROVE SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITION:
(1) Before any work commences, drawings as a scale of 1:5 to show full details of any new joinery, including full size details of sections and mouldings, shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the work shall be carried out in strict accordance with those details.
Reason: To ensure a satisfactory appearance upon completion of the development in accordance with Policies EN1, EN3 and EN5 of the Local Plan.
PLANS
The following plans are the subject of the recommendation above: 3314/SK01 Rev. A; 3314/SK02 Rev. A; 3314/SK03; 3314/SK04; 3314/SK05 Rev. A; 3314/SK06 Rev. A; 3314/SK07; 3314/SK08.
Reference: TA/NC
040712/EAP001 040712/EAP001 - E21 -
APPLICANT REFERENCE LOCATION PROPOSAL
CONTACT ADDRESS DATE VALID GRID REFERENCE DATE OF APPLICATION
MR AND MRS RUSSELL TW/04/01277 Little Orchard Extension to conservatory. HOLLANDS Crook Road (John Floydd and Associates BRENCHLEY 36 High Street BR Ashford Kent TN24 8TE) 27/05/04 69195/42355 14/05/04
DESCRIPTION
Little Orchard was built as a replacement dwelling pursuant to a consent granted in 2002. A subsequent permission added a conservatory measuring approximately 4m X 2.5m centrally on the rear elevation. More recently permission for a detached garage was refused and the subsequent appeal was dismissed.
This proposal seeks to extend the conservatory sideways by a further 2.5m so that its west flank wall is level with that of the house.
The application is referred to Committee at the request of the Parish Council.
RELEVANT HISTORY
TW/02/00060 – Replacement dwelling – Approved 09/07/02.
TW/02/01911 – Minor alterations and erection of conservatory – Approved 03/10/02.
TW/03/00983 – Detached single garage. Conversion of integral garage to study and boiler room – Refused 03/06/03 – Appeal – Dismissed 18/06/04. Inspector considered that the siting to the front of the plot would impact on the character and appearance of the area and harm the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
POLICIES
1. Kent Structure Plan 1996
- Policies ENV3 & ENV4 – Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty and Special Landscape Areas. - Policy RS1 – Rural settlement – general policy. - Policy RS5 – Development at hamlets and in the countryside.
2. Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan Adopted 1996
- Policy EN1 – Design and other control criteria. - Policy EN23 – Landscape and setting. - Policy H13 – Extensions to dwellings outside the defined Limits to Built Development.
3. Kent and Medway Structure Plan – Deposit Plan, September 2003
- Policy E4 – Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty. - Policy E5 – Special Landscape Areas. - Policy QL1 – Quality of development and design. - Policy HP6 – Housing development in the countryside.
4. Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan Review – Second Deposit Copy, October 2002
- Policy EN1 – Design and other Development Control criteria. - Policy EN24 – The rural landscape of the Borough. 040712/EAP001 - Policy H12 – Extensions to dwellings outside the defined Limits to Built Development.
- E22 -
CONSULTATIONS AND BACKGROUND PAPERS
1. Brenchley Parish Council
15/06/04 – The council consider this to be an over intensification of use of what was once a small two bedroomed cottage. Had the house remained unsettled for several years we would have recommended approval, but with the continuous increase in size over the past 12-15 months we have to recommend refusal.
APPRAISAL
This is a small addition to the overall volume of the dwelling and will not, owing to its position on the rear of the house, have an adverse impact either on the character or appearance of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, nor on the residential amenity of the adjoining occupiers.
SUMMARY
The following is a summary of the main reasons for the recommendation:
- The development would not be harmful to the residential amenities of nearby dwellings.
- The development would be a modest extension to the existing dwelling which would be satisfactory in this rural location.
- The scale, location and design of the development would preserve the character and appearance of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and Kent Special Landscape Area.
RECOMMENDATION – APPROVE SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
(1) Standard Detailed YZ01.
(2) Materials to Match existing D002.
PLANS
The following plans are the subject of the recommendation above: 1363 02 Rev. M; 1363 03.
Reference: TA/NC
040712/EAP001 040712/EAP001 - E24 -
APPLICANT REFERENCE LOCATION PROPOSAL
CONTACT ADDRESS DATE VALID GRID REFERENCE DATE OF APPLICATION
GOLD GROUP INTERNATIONAL TW/03/02300 Bayham Lake Estate Erection of flood retaining LTD Bayham Abbey wall. (Tim North and Associates Ltd LAMBERHURST 17A Reading Road LA Pangbourne Berkshire RG8 7LR) 18/09/03 63910/36660 18/09/03
DESCRIPTION
This application was originally for a flood retaining wall but was deferred from consideration at the 8 December 2003 Committee because the applicant requested time to try and negotiate a more visually pleasing design with the Environment Agency.
As a result amended plans have been received 1 June 2004, showing a proposed alternative design solution, namely a flood retaining embankment. Any further views received from consultees about this amended proposal will be reported verbally.
The application site is within an English Heritage designated Historic Park, part of the Bayham Abbey Estate.
One of the main features of the park is a lake constructed in the early 19th century for the Third Marquis of Camden. He had previously commissioned Humphrey Repton, one of the leading landscape gardeners of the later Georgian period, to devise a scheme for the entire park and this included construction of the lake as one of the main features. A dam was formed across the River Teise to form the lake that exists today. This probably utilises an earlier Hammer pond.
All private dams holding more than 25,000 cubic metres of water above the normal level of any part of the adjoining land are regularly inspected and licensed by the Kent County Council under the provisions of the Reservoirs Act 1975. This Act places a mandatory duty on the part of any landowner, irrespective of his financial circumstances, to carry out any work recommended by the Panel of Engineers, appointed by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. This Panel make a statutory inspection every 10 years.
In this case, following the 2000 floods, the Panel Engineer noted that the lake overflowed the top of the dam to a height of approximately 0.6 metres flooding the road leading to the main house. In time such overflow of water could weaken the dam structure.
Members should also note that following the 2000 floods in Lamberhurst village, the dam at Bayham Lake has been upgraded to a Category B Reservoir i.e. one where a breach of engineering controls:
(i) Could endanger lives not in a community and (ii) Could result in extensive damage.
This has increased the need to carry out these works as soon as possible.
However, the Environment Agency has also been carrying out a “Catchment Flood Management Plan”, for the whole of the River Teise. This has shown that flood risk in Yalding is increased by the introduction of storage on the upper reaches of the River Teise. Normally flood water from the River Teise is the first to reach Yalding and any attenuation at Lamberhurst would delay the arrival of the peak to coincide with that of the other two rivers at Yalding, worsening flood risk. Hence, there has been a need to look again at the proposals in this application, which has led to further delays in reporting on this application to Members.
The solution now designed by the Panel Engineer and the Environment Agency is to construct a flood retaining embankment at the lakeside edge, near where the access road to the main house crosses the top of the dam. The embankment will have a maximum height of 1.5 metres and will be graded on either side creating a total width 040712/EAP001 of about 13.5 metres. On the lake side it will have a slope of 1 in 2; whereas there will be a much gentler slope on the side sloping to the road.
- E25 -
The embankment will be built of compacted earthfill, covered with a topsoil filled geosynthetic soil reinforcing mat, that will then be seeded or turfed. The design follows discussions with English Heritage and is considered to be the least visually damaging solution causing minimum harm to the character of the Historic Park landscape.
RELEVANT HISTORY
TW/86/00973 – Fishery manager’s house, rod room, car park and landscape works – Approved 31/08/86. (Note rod room not yet built). Section 52 Agreement.
TW/90/01166 – Alternative plans for a club room, changing area and rod room and car park in connection with fishery – Approved 29/11/90. Not built.
TW/95/11026 – Renewal of TW/90/01166 – Approved 29/01/96. Not built. New owner constructs car park in accordance with 1986 application.
TW/00/01178 – Retrospective, observation platform, kitchen patio extension with grotto under, boatstore, Klargester cover, entrance gates, messroom/toilet block, works to the drive, helicopter pad, and associated landscape works – Appeal lodges against non determination. Public Inquiry 5 and 6 June 2001 and 2 and 3 August 2001. Appeals withdrawn 11 September 2001. Costs awarded against appellant.
TW/03/02037 – Removal of Occupancy Condition on house, demolition of part of the toilet block, defining a curtilage to house. Considered at 17/11/03 Eastern Area Planning Committee.
TW/00/01167 – Removal of occupancy condition (2) on house – Refused 24/11/03. Appeal lodged. Provisional Public Inquiry date of 1 March 2005.
POLICIES
1. Kent Structure Plan 1996
- Policy RS1 – General policy new development in rural Kent. - Policy RS5 – Development in the countryside. - Policy ENV1 – Countryside to be protected for its own sake. - Policy ENV3 – Landscape protection (Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty). - Policy ENV4 – Landscape protection (Special Landscape Area).
2. Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan Adopted 1996
- Policy LBD1 – Development outside the Limits to Built Development. - Policy EN1 – General control criteria. - Policy EN12 – Historic parks and gardens – English Heritage Register. - Policy EN23 – Landscape protection (Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty/Special Landscape Area).
3. Kent and Medway Structure Plan – Deposit Plan, September 2003
- Policy E1 – Protection of the countryside. - Policy E3 – Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty. - Policy E4 – Special Landscape Areas. - Policy QL1 – Quality of development and design. - Policy QL10 – Historic landscape features.
4. Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan Review – Second Deposit Copy, October 2002
- Policy LBD1 – Development outside Limits to Built Development. - Policy EN1 – General control criteria. - Policy EN11 – Historic parks and gardens. - Policy EN24 – Landscape of Borough.
040712/EAP001 5. English Heritage Register of Parks and Gardens of Special Historic Interest
- Listed as Grade II. - E26 -
CONSULTATIONS AND BACKGROUND PAPERS
1. English Heritage
29/10/03 – Recognise that in these sort of situations “safety comes before history”. This is a case to be determined locally and do not wish to make any representations on this occasion. Telephone call confirmed – No objections.
2. Kent County Council Network Management Division
08/10/03 – Confirm that as Enforcement Authority under the Reservoirs Act 1975, Kent County Council has no right of determination as to what works are done (this is for the Panel of Engineers). Kent County Council simply has to ensure any safety measures identified by the Panel Engineers are properly designed and implemented.
02/12/03 – Confirm that following 2000 flooding the dam has been upgraded to Category B. Work will need to be implemented and certified by the Panel Engineers.
23/03/04 – Urge that as this is a matter of Public Safety must be a more pro-active approach to approve and complete works.
3. Garden History Society
On the basis of information submitted we do not wish to comment.
4. Environment Agency
13/11/03 – The proposed works have been recommended by the Panel Engineer within the provisions of the Reservoirs Act 1975.
16/02/04 – Confirm that have now completed modelling work for “Catchment Flood Management Plan” for River Teise. Agree that this work recommended by the Panel Engineers will need to be done and they will now give priority to commenting on the application.
24/03/04 – Having discussed with Panel Engineers are now satisfied that impacts of the reservoir are likely to be minimum flooding in catchment as a whole. Raise no objection to proposal.
21/06/04 – Confirms that they are not the Reservoir Authority until 1 October 2004, when they take over responsibility from KCC.
5. Upper Medway Internal Drainage Board
03/10/03 – Site is outside Board’s drainage district – do not wish to comment.
6. Lamberhurst Parish Council
09/10/03 – No objection provided the appropriate authorities consider the proposed development has no negative consequences that would increase the risk of flooding downstream, and in particular the village of Lamberhurst.
7. Frant Parish Council.
No views received.
8. Wealden District Council
No views received.
040712/EAP001 - E27 -
9. Bayham Abbey Residents Association Ltd
07/10/03 – Confirm they own the road on top of the dam, i.e. between the Bayham Lake and the river. Concerned about:
- Original wall proposal was within inches of the road and this road is the only access into and out of site for twenty member households. Road must not be weakened and must not be obstructed during construction.
- The closer the wall is to the road, the more likely there will be drainage problems with water running onto their access road.
- Concern about appearance and adverse impact of this wall on the historic landscape.
22/06/04 – The revised scheme does seem to be more attractive and would appear to have less impact on the road, since it curves away from it.
However we are worried about the fact large amounts of soil will need to be brought in and this will put extra weight on the bridge and affect access to the estate. This is the only means of access to the estate for 20 households and service and emergency vehicles. Lorry weights need to be kept to a minimum and any likely disruption to access discussed in advance with us.
There is a note saying road drainage to be to satisfaction of employers representative. As we own the road it should say to satisfaction of BARAL.
There are pipes running below the surface of the dam and under the road, we still have right to extract water and do not want the pipes destroyed.
Can all this be subject to planning conditions? We are happy to have early discussions with the applicants or their representative to resolve these issues…well in advance.
10. Former owner of lake
26/09/03 – Why not look at other options? E.g. correct original construction errors. When lake was built the control gate is at downstream end of inspection chamber, therefore raising of this drainage gate impossible when lake full of water. Secondly, lake has no spillway through which floodwater might pass into river below dam.
Alternatively why not fill in the south west end of lake, which is heavily silted and the you could reduce capacity of lake to a level that eliminates it from provision of Reservoir Act? Or you could even drain the whole lake.
11. Bayham Abbey Conservation Group
Any views on amended plans will be reported verbally.
12. Two letters from residents upstream
Very concerned that this design solution of the Panel Engineer will increase flooding upstream and possibly place the lives of people at risk who are residing and working upstream of the lake.
Do not consider the Panel Engineers have researched local knowledge of flood conditions at upper end of River Teise. Consider they have not produced adequate hydraulic calculations/flow rates or plans on the workability of their scheme in flood conditions. Other solutions to this problem need to be looked at.
13. Agents for Trustees of Fifth Marquis of Camden
24/10/03 – We support the objections lodged by residents/landowners upstream on land management grounds.
040712/EAP001 - E28 -
APPRAISAL
There are three issues:
- Is there a need for the flood retaining embankment? - Will it have any adverse implications for flood risk? - Will it have an adverse impact on the Historic Park landscape?
Need for the flood retaining embankment
It should be noted that under the provision of the Reservoirs Act 1975 neither the applicant, the Environment Agency, nor Kent County Council has any option to ignore the recommendation of the Panel of Engineers.
There is however the option of completely draining the lake. This would clearly not be in the best interests of maintaining this important water feature in the Historic Park and therefore the Local Planning Authority needs to give considerable weight to the solution put forward by the Panel of Engineers. In my view the need for the structure has been established.
Flood risk
The embankment is intended to prevent wave action washing over the dam in time of flood. It is not intended to impound water in the lake at a higher level than would otherwise occur.
The concerns of residents upstream that these proposals could worsen the risk of flooding for them has to be balanced against the situation that could develop downstream in Lamberhurst village if the dam were to fail. Clearly this issue has been considered by the Panel Engineer. It has also to be noted that the owners consider the waterway beneath the bridge is of sufficient size to pass the increased flow during flooding conditions. This is however disputed by residents upstream, who urge that other solutions be explored, such as building a spillway or lowering/draining the lake.
In my view, Members should take into account that all these engineering design matters have been taken into account by the Panel Engineers. They are also recommending as a matter of Public Safety that this flood retaining embankment is built as a matter of urgency now that the dam has been upgraded to Category B risk.
I can seen no planning policy reason to justify refusing the application now submitted and Gold Group International should now be permitted to proceed with this work as soon as possible.
Impact on the Historic Park Landscape
Clearly this amended design solution for an embankment will have minimum impact and is the result of discussions with English Heritage, who recognise safety reasons for this development. I consider there is no preferable solution in landscape terms and once the embankment is seeded it will merge into the landscape.
SUMMARY
The following is a summary of the main reasons for the recommendation:
- The design and location of the development will minimise harm to the landscape of the Historic Park and Garden and the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty Landscape.
- The issues raised by neighbouring landowners have been assessed and there are not any planning policy issues that would warrant refusal of the application.
RECOMMENDATION – APPROVE SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
(1) The development hereby permitted shall begin and be completed within one year of the date of this decision.
Reason: There is an urgent need to carry out these works to a Category B dam, in accordance with the requirements of the Reservoirs Act 1975.
040712/EAP001 040712/EAP001 - E29 -
(2) The embankment shall be constructed and landscaped fully in accordance with the details shown on drawing D811612-101-1002 Rev P2.
Reason: In the interests of visual amenity having regard to the sites location in the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and Historic Park in accordance with Policy EN23 and EN12 of the Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan Adopted 1996.
PLANS
The following plans are the subject of the recommendation above: Drawing 811612-101-1002 Rev P2.
Reference: AJB/NC
040712/EAP001 040712/EAP001