Swale Borough Council Planning Services

SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL

PLANNING SERVICES

Planning Items to be submitted to the Planning Committee

7 JANUARY 2010

Standard Index to Contents

PART 1 Reports to be considered in public session not included elsewhere on this Agenda

PART 2 Applications for which permission is recommended

PART 3 Applications for which refusal is recommended

PART 4 Swale Borough Council’s own development; observation on County Council’s development; observations on development in other districts or by Statutory Undertakers and by Government Departments; and recommendations to the County Council on ‘County Matter’ applications.

PART 5 Decisions by County Council and the Secretary of State on appeal, reported for information

PART 6 Reports containing “Exempt Information” during the consideration of which it is anticipated that the press and public will be excluded

ABBREVIATIONS: commonly used in this Agenda

CDA Crime and Disorder Act 1998

GPDO The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995

HRA Human Rights Act 1998

K&MSP Kent and Medway Structure Plan 2006

SBLP Swale Borough Local Plan 2008

INDEX OF ITEMS FOR PLANNING COMMITTEE – 7 JANUARY 2010

• Minutes of last Planning Committee Meeting • Minutes of any Working Party Meetings

1.1 FAVERSHAM TPO No. 3 of 2009 22 Preston Lane Pg 1 – 3

2.1 SITTINGBOURNE SW/09/1012 5 Napier Close Pg 1 – 4

2.2 BORDEN SW/08/0998 Hooks Hole Farm, Pg 5 – 8 Chestnut Street

2.3 UPCHURCH SW/09/1135 Four Gun Field, Otterham Pg 9 – 14 Quay Lane

2.4 SITTINGBOURNE SW/09/1044 83 & 93 Borden Lane Pg 15 – 18

2.5 TEYNHAM SW/09/0942 Swale Marina, Conyer Pg 19 – 23

2.6 HARTLIP SW/09/1018 3 Munns Lane Pg 24 – 28

2.7 IWADE SW/09/0755 Land off Grovehurst Road Pg 29 – 41

2.8 IWADE SW/09/0756 Land East of Woodpecker Pg 42 – 85 Drive, Helen Thompson Close

2.9 SITTINGBOURNE SW/09/1175 Fulston Manor Pg 86 – 102

2.10 MINSTER SW/09/1060 Stonnes Family Centre, Pg 103 – 106 Halfway Road

2.11 BOBBING SW/09/0972 Land adj Upper Toes, Pg 107 – 118 Sheppey Way

2.12 LEYSDOWN SW/09/1103 Land South of Leysdown Road, Pg 119 – 128

2.13 BOUGHTON SW/09/0917 Whatman House, The Charlton’s Pg 129 – 139

2.14 IWADE SW/08/1127 Land adjacent Coleshall Farm, Pg 140 – 201 Sheppey Way, School Lane

2.15 BORDEN SW/09/0825 Land off Woodgate Lane Pg 202 – 208

2.16 NEWINGTON SW/09/1061 Hillview, 104 High Street Pg 209 – 217

2.17 FAVERSHAM SW/09/1168 Morrisons Supermarket, Pg 218 – 222 North Lane

2.18 DARGATE SW/09/0899 Plot 1, Belvedere Farm, Pg 223 – 227 Dargate Road

2.19 BORDEN SW/09/1164 Land adj School Car Park, Pg 228 – 239 School Lane

3.1 LOWER HALSTOW SW/09/1083 18-20 Burntwick Drive Pg 1 – 4

5.1 SITTINGBOURNE SW/08/1338 23 Park Avenue Pg 1 – 3

5.2 SHELDWICH SW/09/0011 North Barn, Westwood Court Pg 4 – 6

5.3 EASTCHURCH SW/09/0658 Site at Appleyard Barn, Pg 7 – 8 Plough Road

5.4 SHELDWICH SW/09/0454 8 Hunters Way Pg 9 – 10

5.5 MINSTER SW/09/0060 Vicarage Road, rear of Pg 11- 14 13 Queens Road

5.6 EASTCHURCH SW/09/0165 Site at North Corner of Pg 15 – 16 Junction between Warden Road and Fourth Avenue

5.7 FAVERSHAM SW/09/0150 35 St Marys Road Pg 17 – 18

5.8 BOUGHTON SW/09/0295 Site at Oak Tree Cottage, Pg 19 – 21 South Street

5.9 BAPCHILD Case 23606 35 Doubleday Drive Pg 22 – 24

5.10 UPCHURCH SW/08/1291 2 Boxted Farm Barns, Pg 25 – 27 Boxted Lane

5.11 UPCHURCH SW/08/1260 Site at 3 The Potteries Pg 28 – 30

5.12 FAVERSHAM SW/08/1330 Site at Co-Operative Retail Pg 31 – 35 Services Ltd, Forbes Road

5.13 EASTCHURCH SW/08/1328 Site at Unit 9, Fletchers Battery, Pg 36 – 40 Swanley Farm, Warden Road

PLANNING COMMITTEE – 7 JANUARY 2010 PART 1

Report of the Head of Development Services

PART 1

Any other reports to be considered in the public session

1.1 TPO No. 3 of 2009 (Case 11925) FAVERSHAM

Location: 22 Preston Lane, Faversham, Kent, ME13 8LF

Proposal: Objection to TPO No. 3 of 2009

Applicant/Agent: Mrs Diana Norman, The Sycamores, 22 Preston Lane, Faversham, Kent, and Mr R Stringer, 24 Preston Lane, Faversham, Kent

Description of Proposal

This report relates to objections made in regard to a Tree Preservation Order made on 25 September 2009 to protect one Sycamore tree growing within the rear garden of 22 Preston Lane, Faversham. The tree is shown as T1 Sycamore on the Tree Preservation Order map. The Order was made on the following ground:

“Policy E10 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008 states that the Borough Council will seek the protection of important trees in the local landscape. The Sycamore tree is a healthy maturing specimen, which contributes significantly to the amenity of the area. A Section 211 Notice has been submitted to fell the Sycamore tree which in the Council’s view would be detrimental to the character of the area. Therefore it is considered expedient to make the Sycamore subject to a TPO in order to secure its long-term retention.”

Relevant Site History and Description

The Sycamore T1 is growing within the rear garden of 22 Preston Lane, Faversham. It is a healthy, mature specimen that is clearly visible from various surrounding public areas making it contribute significantly to the visual amenity of the area.

On 25 September 2009 Tree Preservation Order No. 3 of 2009 was made to protect 1 Sycamore growing within the rear garden of 22 Preston Lane, following the Council’s receipt of a Section 211 Notice under the Conservation Area Legislation giving six weeks Notice of intent to have the Sycamore felled.

Continued . . .

1 1.1 (Contd) PART 1

Other Representations

One letter of objection has been received from the tree owner Mrs Diana Norman of The Sycamores, 22 Preston Lane. An e-mail of objection has also been received from the neighbour Mr Stringer of 24 Preston Lane, Faversham. This e-mail was originally sent to support the proposal to fell the tree, but the writer has confirmed that he wishes these comments to be read as an objection to the Order.

Their comments can be summarised as follows:

• Due to the tree’s height and size the garden and rear of the property suffers greatly from lack of light. • The tree is not a particularly attractive and by its nature is not a threatened species. • The tree produces a slimy substance that covers garden furniture and ornaments that is impossible to remove. • The tree deposits, leaves, seeds and flowers by the millions. • There is concern that if the tree was to fall or branches snap, they would cause severe damage to nearby properties.

Views of Consultees

The Council’s Tree Officer supports the confirmation of the Tree Preservation Order, and considers the tree to be of appropriate amenity value to justify the order. He states that ‘upon inspection the Sycamore was clearly visible from various public areas thus making it contribute significantly to the amenity of the local area.

Planning Policies

Swale Borough Local Plan 2008. Policy E1 which addresses General Development Criteria Policy E10 which refers to the Protection of Trees

Discussion

The Sycamore numbered T1 on the TPO plan is a mature specimen growing within the rear garden of 22 Preston Lane, Faversham. The Council’s Tree Officer has viewed the tree from the surrounding roads and concluded that it is of sufficient quality to be included within the Order. At the time of his inspection the Sycamore exhibited no major defects other than the presence of some minor dead branches which are not unexpected on a tree of this age and size. The removal fo the dead wood can be undertaken without the need for a formal application to be submitted to the Council although at least five working days notice is to be given prior to undertaking of such work. Continued . . .

2 1.1 (Contd) PART 1

Unfortunately, many of the complaints listed by Mrs Norman and her neighbour, Mr Stringer, such as falling leaves, seeds and blockage of light are all common problems when living near to large mature trees and whilst they can be an inconvenience they are not considered sufficient reasons to remove healthy prominent trees.

Therefore, whilst I note the concerns and objections raised by Mrs Norman and her neighbour Mr Stringer, I do not consider they amount to sufficient cause not to confirm the Tree Preservation Order. I consider the tree in part to contribute to the visual amenity of the streetscene and surrounding area.

Recommendation

I consider the tree contributes significantly to the character of the streetscene being visible from various viewpoints along the surrounding roads. I therefore recommend that the Tree Preservation Order be confirmed as soon as possible. ______

Responsible Officer: Graham Thomas (Area Planning Officer)

List of Background Documents

1. TPO No. 3 of 2009 2. Objections to TPO No. 3 of 2009

3 PLANNING COMMITTEE – 7 JANUARY 2010 PART 2

Report of the Head of Development Services

PART 2

Applications for which PERMISSION is recommended

2.1 SW/09/1012 (Case 23839) SITTINGBOURNE

Location: 5 Napier Close, Sittingbourne, Kent, ME10 1RU

Proposal: Pitched roof single-storey extensions to side and rear

Applicant/Agent: Mr A Taylor, c/o Mr P Brown, Hubbard & Houghton Construction Ltd, 33 Chalkwell Road, Sittingbourne, Kent, ME10 2LD

Application Valid: 22 October 2009

Conditions

(1) The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date on which the permission is granted.

Grounds: In pursuance of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

(2) The materials to be used on the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those on the existing building in terms of type, colour an texture.

Grounds: In the interest of visual amenity and in pursuance of policies E1, E19 and E24 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

Reasons for Approval

Having taken all material considerations into account, it is considered that subject to compliance with the attached conditions, the proposal would be in accordance with the development plan and would not cause unacceptable harm to the amenities of the area or prejudice highway safety or convenience. In resolving to grant permission, particular regard has been had to the following policies: E1, E19 and E24 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

Continued . . .

1 2.1 (Contd) PART 2

Description of Proposal

This application seeks planning permission for the erection of single-storey side and rear extensions at 5 Napier Close, a detached bungalow within the built up area of Sittingbourne.

It is proposed to construct an extension across the rear of the property, with it broken up into 3 separate ‘blocks’ as a means to keep the ridge height below the existing. The extensions will project rearwards by approximately 2.2m on the western end (off an existing rear projection), 3m in the middle section, and 3.6m on the eastern end, resulting in a staggered appearance. Ridge height of the proposed extensions is approximately 3.2m, and external materials are to match the existing.

The proposed side extension will replace an existing conservatory on the eastern end of the bungalow. It will project 2.5m to the side and have a height to match the existing ridge.

The extensions will provide a third bedroom, a larger kitchen, and additional living space to enable an elderly relative to live with the applicants.

Relevant Site History and Description

5 Napier Close is a detached bungalow set on a modern housing estate within the built up area of Sittingbourne. The property is set back from the road, with vehicle parking to the front and side, and features a relatively large garden to the side and rear, which backs onto the rear gardens of the houses on Adelaide Drive and Brisbane Avenue. A 2m close-boarded fences run along the boundaries.

The property is roughly L-shaped with a small projection on the western end of the rear elevation, which forms part of the second bedroom. There is an existing conservatory on the eastern side elevation, which appears to have been constructed under permitted development rights.

There is no planning history for the property.

Views of Consultees

No representations have been received.

Other representations

Three letters of objection have been submitted by local residents, raising the following concerns:

Continued . . .

2 2.1 (Contd) PART 2

- Proposed work is too extensive and totally out of harmony with its surroundings; - Extensions will come very close to boundary fence; - Loss of privacy for neighbouring residents; - Subsequent extensions would result in the property dominating the plot; - Design – 3 rear gables resemble “a row of beach huts”; or a boatyard and will be extremely poorly designed. - Loss of light to adjoining rear gardens.

Policies

Policy E1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008 examines general planning considerations relating to design, amenity, parking and access, amongst others. Further to this, policy E19 states that all development should be of a high standard of design and appropriate to its setting.

E24 of the Local Plan supports the above, but with specific reference to householder developments. It comments that all alterations and extensions should be of a high quality design, appropriate to the area, maintain or enhance the street scene and protect residential amenity.

The Council’s adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance, entitled “Designing an Extension,” is particularly relevant in this instance. The SPG recommends a maximum rearward projection of 3m, but states that “on well spaced detached properties or where an extension is to be built away from the boundary a larger extension may be acceptable.” It also notes that “windows to the rear should be at least 21m from the windows of other houses to the rear.”

Discussion

The property lies within the built up area of Sittingbourne and the principle of development is therefore sound.

Whilst I note the submitted comments, I consider the proposed extensions to be of an appropriate design and believe that they sit comfortably upon the dwelling. The use of three small gables reduces the overall bulk, and keeps the resultant ridge height much lower than a single-span roof, whilst providing the applicant with a reasonably sized extension that will suit their requirements.

I do not believe that the development would give rise to any serious loss of light or overshadowing for the surrounding properties, as the extensions would be set a minimum of 2.6m from the rear boundary fence and, as noted above, are not as high as the existing bungalow. Any potential overshadowing would only affect the rearmost portion of the surrounding gardens, but I do not believe that this would be any worse than at present. Continued . . .

3 2.1 (Contd) PART 2

Furthermore, I do not believe that the works would give rise to any serious overlooking or loss of privacy for the adjacent residents. A 2m fence runs along the side and rear boundary, providing extremely limited opportunities for any overlooking of private amenity areas from the bungalows. I noted during my site visit that the upper floors of the properties to the rear were visible over the fence, but at such a distance that any intrusive views into those houses are unlikely. It should also be noted that window-to-window distance between the proposed extensions and the neighbouring properties to the rear is in excess of 21m, in accordance with the SPG guidelines.

Recommendation

This application seeks planning permission for the erection of single-storey side and rear extensions at 5 Napier Close, Sittingbourne. The extensions would provide a third bedroom and additional living space, and I believe the proposal is of an appropriate scale and design.

I have considered issues of scale, design and residential amenity but none, in my opinion, contain or amount to a reason for refusal.

Taking the above into account, I recommend that planning permission be granted. ______

Responsible Officer: Rob Bailey (Area Planning Officer)

List of Backgrounds Documents

1. Application papers for SW/09/1012.

2. Correspondence relating to SW/09/1012.

4 PART 2 2.2 SW/09/0998 (Case 13698) BORDEN

Location: Hooks Hole Farm, Chestnut Street, Borden, Sittingbourne, Kent, ME9 8DA

Proposal: Variation of condition (3) of planning permission SW/08/0464 to allow a 7.00am start and to allow the use to operate on Saturday mornings

Applicant/Agent: Kemsley Farms Ltd, c/o Mr David Bass, George Webb Finn, 43 Park Road, Sittingbourne, Kent, ME10 1DX

Application Valid: 19 October 2009

Conditions

(1) No external storage of scaffolding shall take place at the site.

Grounds: In the interests of visual and residential amenity and in pursuance of Policies E1, E2, E6, E15 and E19 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

(2) The premises shall not be used except between the hours of (07:00) – (17:00) Monday – Friday and (07:00) – (1200 midday) on Saturdays and at no time on Sundays and Bank Holidays. This includes vehicle movements to and from the site.

Grounds: In the interests of residential amenity and in pursuance of Policies E1 & E2 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

(3) The area shown on the submitted plan as loading, off-loading and parking space shall be used for or be available for such use at all times when the premises are in use and no development, whether permitted by the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 or not, shall be carried out on that area of land or in such a position as to preclude vehicular access to this reserved area.

Grounds: In the interests of highway safety and convenience and visual amenity, and in pursuance of Policies E1, E19 & T3 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008

(4) The area edged in red on the approved plan shall be used for the purposes of a scaffolding company and for no other purpose.

Grounds: In the interests of visual and residential amenity, and highway safety and convenience, and in pursuance of Policies E1, E2, E19, T1 and T3 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008. Continued . . .

5 2.2 (Contd) PART 2

Reasons for Approval Having taken all material considerations into account, it is considered that subject to compliance with the attached conditions, the proposal would be in accordance with the development plan and would not cause unacceptable harm to the amenities of the area or prejudice highway safety or convenience. In resolving to grant permission, particular regard has been had to the following policies: E1, E2, E6, E15, B1, RC1, T1 & T3 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

Description of Proposal This application seeks planning permission to vary condition 3 on planning permission SW/08/0464. This planning permission is for the change of use of part of an agricultural building to commercial use (scaffolding storage) with associated parking. Condition 3 of this planning permission was approved by Members on 18th July 2008. Condition 3 of this planning permission is as follows:

(3) The premises shall not be used except between the hours of (07:30) – (17:00) Monday – Friday and at no time on Saturdays, Sundays and Bank Holidays. This includes vehicle movements to and from the site.

Grounds: In the interests of residential amenity and in pursuance of Policies E1 & E2 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

This application seeks to allow the scaffolding company to commence operations 30 minutes earlier than they have permission for Monday to Friday i.e. 7am. In addition, they seek to allow the commencement of the operation on Saturday mornings, 7am to 12 midday.

Relevant Site History and Description The site is located in the countryside, outside the built up area of Borden, and adjacent to the Chestnut Street conservation area. The site is also within Source Protection Zones 1 & 2 of public water supply abstraction.

The building in question was approved under application reference SW/01/0190, is located approximately 70 metres from School Lane, and is substantial in size. Land to the east and west is used for grazing horses and for agricultural purposes.

The planning permission to which condition 3 relates is described in the section above (SW/08/0464).

Views of Consultees

Borden Parish Council object to the application stating that the increased hours would have a detrimental impact on the amenities of the neighbouring residents. Continued . . .

6 2.2 (Contd) PART 2 The Head of Environmental Services has no objection to the proposal. They note that they have not received any noise complaints.

Kent Highway Services have no objection to the proposal.

Other Representations No letters of representation have been received.

Policies

Policies E1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008 (SBLP) gives general guidance regarding design and amenity, amongst others.

Policy E2 (SBLP) seeks to ensure that development does not cause detriment by way of pollution such as noise.

Policy E6 (SBLP) seeks to protect the countryside of the Borough for its own sake by restricting unnecessary development.

Policy RC1 (SBLP) seeks to revitalise the rural economy by encouraging commercial development within the rural area providing that there is no detriment to the amenities of the area.

Policy T3 (SBLP) deals with traffic, and seeks to minimise the highways impacts of any new development through the provision of adequate parking, sightlines, turning space, etc.

Discussion

I consider the key issue to be the impact of the increased hours of operation on the residential amenities of surrounding properties.

The applicant is in need of the extended hours in this case as, at times, the scaffolding company require the flexibility to be able to carryout various activities before 7:30am. The nature of their business requires them to be able to load vehicles and transport scaffolding to various locations. The additional 30 minutes at the beginning of the day will allow them the flexibility to be able to start their journeys before rush hour.

The additional time on Saturdays is also to allow greater flexibility in operating the business. The nature of the construction industry is that there is often activity on a Saturday morning.

The proposal would extend the hours of operation at this site by half an hour during the week and would allow five hours of operation on Saturday mornings. The application site is some 128m from the closest residential property. Noise and activity within the application site would therefore have a limited impact on residential amenities in my view. Moreover, the application Continued . . .

7 2.2 (Contd) PART 2

site is on a working farm that has no restrictions on hours of operation. The nature of an agricultural use is often varied and can sometimes generate a significant level of noise and activity akin to commercial uses. It is my opinion therefore, that the additional 30 minutes during the week and the additional five hours on Saturday mornings would be inconsequential in terms of levels of noise and activity at Hooks Hole Farm in general.

The applicant has given consideration to the potential impact from vehicles associated with the Scaffolding company using the surrounding roads and has already put in place a policy of requesting that drivers turn right at the junction of School Lane and Chestnut Street to get access onto the A249. This ensures that the vehicles travel past far fewer residential properties in accessing the main roads. Whilst this is encouraged, it is not possible to impose a planning condition to require the applicants to undertake such restrictions on vehicle routes. This is because the restrictions would relate to land outside of the applicant’s control and I consider that it would also be an unreasonable restriction in this case. This application merely seeks an extension to the hours of operation of what is an established use. Environmental health have had no complaints regarding noise from this particular use and I am of the view that the extended hours applied for would have no significant impact on the levels of noise and activity or vehicle movements to and from the application site.

I am therefore of the view that the extension of the hours of operation for the scaffolding company would be acceptable in this case.

Summary and Recommendation

Having considered the comments from the Parish Council, consultees and the relevant Development Plan Policies, I am of the view that the extension of the hours of operation to the scaffolding business would have no significant detrimental impact on the residential amenities of the surrounding properties.

Taking the above into account I recommend that planning permission be granted for the variation of condition (3) of planning permission SW/08/0464.. ______

Responsible Officer: Rob Bailey (Area Planning Officer)

List of Backgrounds Documents

1. Application papers for SW/09/0998. 2. Correspondence relating to SW/09/0998. 3. Application papers for SW/08/0464. 4. Correspondence relating to SW/08/0464.

8 PART 2

2.3 SW/09/1135 (Case 16772) UPCHURCH

Location: Four Gun Field, Otterham Quay Lane, Upchurch, Nr Sittingbourne, Kent, ME8 8QP

Proposal: Retrospective application for non-illuminated business sign

Applicant/Agent: Rainham Recycled Aggregates, c/o Kingsley Smith, Chartered Surveyors, Rawscombe Farmhouse, Cuxton, Kent, ME2 1LA

Application Valid: 12 November 2009

Conditions

(1) No advertisement is to be displayed without the permission of the owner of the site or any other person with an interest in the site entitled to grant permission.

(2) No advertisement shall be sited or displayed so as to:

(a) endanger persons using any highway, railway, waterway, dock, harbour or aerodrome (civil or military); (b) obscure; or hinder the ready interpretation of, any traffic sign, railway signal or aid to navigation by water or air; or (c) hinder the operation of any device used for the purpose of security or surveillance or for measuring the speed of any vehicle.

(3) Any advertisement displayed, and any site used for the display of advertisements, shall be maintained in a condition that does not impair the visual amenity of the site.

(4) Any structure or hoarding erected or used principally for the purpose of displaying advertisements shall be maintained in a condition that does not endanger the public.

(5) Where an advertisement is required under these Regulations to be removed, the site shall be left in a condition that does not endanger the public or impair visual amenity.

(6) The sign hereby approved shall not be illuminated.

Continued . . .

9 2.3 (Contd) PART 2 Grounds: In the interests of visual amenity and the character and appearance of the area, in pursuance of Policies E1, E6 & E23 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

Description of Proposal

This application seeks retrospective advertisement consent for a non- illuminated business sign at Four Gun Field, Otterham Quay Lane, Upchurch.

The sign is located at the entrance to the site, set back off the road. It is on poles, is a total of 4 metres in height and the sign itself is 2.440m wide and 1.22m high. The sign advertises “Rainham Recycled Aggregates” and is a mix of white lettering on a green background and green lettering on white.

Relevant Site History & Description

The site is located in the countryside, in a locally important gap, outside the built up area of Upchurch. The site is currently used as an unauthorised aggregate crushing waste use, and has been enclosed by a high fence. The use, together with the fencing and all other ancillary development within the site is the subject of an enforcement notice issued by Kent County Council (the relevant planning authority). A subsequent appeal against the Enforcement Notice has been dismissed, but the appellant has challenged the decision of the Planning Inspectorate in the High Court. At the time of writing, a date has not been set for the hearing.

The planning history is as follows:

A Certificate of Lawful Existing Use was issued by the Council in 1999 under reference SW/98/0692 for the use of the site for ‘the purposes of a brickworks including ancillary open storage of materials related to the use of the land in question and adjacent land as a brickworks, all within class B2 of Part B of the Schedule to the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987.’

A subsequent application (reference SW/00/0204) for a Certificate of Lawful Existing Use for the same use, but for a wider area of land (including the area covered by the approved scheme, with additional land to the east) was submitted in 2000. The Council did not determine the scheme, and the application was the subject of an appeal against non-determination. At appeal, the Planning Inspector issued a certificate for a slightly larger area of land than approved by the Borough Council, but substantially less than that sought by the application.

Outline planning permission was refused for residential development of the site under application SW/00/0101. A subsequent appeal was dismissed.

Planning permission was granted for a new access under reference SW/00/0298. Continued . . .

10 2.3 (Contd) PART 2

Views of Consultees

Kent Highway Services raise no objection, and an extract from their comments is as follows:

“Under the development control protocol, KHS would not expect to be consulted on this application. However, I understand that objectors have raised highway concerns over the sign, and you therefore wish to seek the comments of the Highway Authority to obtain a professional opinion.

The sign is located within the grounds of the applicant, and does not obstruct any vision splays required for highway safety. The content and form of the sign is also not likely to cause any distraction.”

Upchurch Parish Council raise objection, stating that they feel it is inappropriate in this rural location. The Parish Council also considers the business to be inappropriate.

Other Representations

Nine letters/emails of objection have been received. Many of the comments relate to the current unlawful use of the site, the ancillary structures on it, including a CCTV camera, the fencing that surrounds the site, and the perceived lack of action relating to the unauthorised use by Swale Borough Council, Kent County Council and the Environment Agency. As stated above, the unauthorised use and ancillary structures are the subject of enforcement action by Kent County Council. Furthermore, they are not material considerations in determining this application for advertisement consent, and I address this in the discussion section below. The remaining contents of the representations are summarised as follows:

• The sign has already been erected; • The sign is excessively tall; • The applicants have no regard to local residents; • The sign is visible from windows of a number of dwellings opposite the site; • The colours used are not in-keeping with the rural area; • The sign is an eyesore; • The sign adds to the harm to the countryside caused by the wider site; • The sign affects one writer’s enjoyment of their property, contrary to the Human Rights Act; • The sign adds to the erosion of the strategic gap; • The sign advertises an unlawful use; • Forcing the applicants to appeal will cause them to waste money, which one writer considers appropriate; • The sign is unnecessary; Continued . . .

11 2.3 (Contd) PART 2

• The poles on which the advert stands require planning permission; • Swale Borough Council should be seen to be supporting the local community by requiring the sign to be removed; • Otterham Quay Lane has been the area of a number of bicycle, vehicle and pedestrian accidents (including fatal accidents). The sign is a distraction and will add to the existing highway danger; • Lorries accessing the site cause a highway hazard; • Lorries turning to read the sign cause harm to highway safety.

No other representations have been received.

Policies

The following Policies are relevant:

Swale Borough Local Plan 2008

E1 General Development Criteria E6 The Countryside E7 The separation of settlements E19 Achieving High Quality Design and Distinctiveness E23 New Shopfronts, Signs and Advertisements

The Council’s adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance entitled “The Design of Shopfronts, Signs and Advertisements” is also pertinent.

Discussion

I share residents concerns regarding the wider use of the site, and am in little doubt that it causes substantial harm to their residential amenity. However – all of the development of the site is the subject of enforcement action by the County Planning Authority (the appropriate planning authority for the type of use carried out on the site) and in law cannot be the subject of enforcement action by the Borough Council.

With regards the lawful use of the site – this is for Class B2 (General Industrial) uses, as dictated by the two lawful development certificates issued. In determining applications for certificates of existing lawful use or development, the Council cannot consider the planning merits (such as noise and disturbance, dust, or any other harm to amenity) of the use, and is restricted to considering only whether or not the use has been established in planning terms. In issuing the certificate, the Council had regard to the history and previous use of the site. It is worth noting that, in allowing the appeal for the second lawful development certificate, the Inspector considered that “if the authority [Swale Borough Council] had refused the application their refusal would not have been well-founded.” Subsequent Counsel’s advice has confirmed that there is no opportunity to revoke these decisions. Continued . . .

12 2.3 (Contd) PART 2

For the purposes of the advert regulations (the legislation under which applications for advertisement consent are considered) the whole structure, including the poles to which the sign attaches, require advertisement consent. No planning permission is required for this sign. Furthermore, in accordance with the advert regulations, the application can only be determined on the basis of the impact of the sign on amenity and highway safety of the sign itself. Members should therefore be clear that the sign cannot be refused on the basis of the harm to amenity caused by the current unauthorised use, or for reasons relating to the content of the sign (i.e. what it says.) Members are though entitled to consider the size, location and appearance of the sign in reaching their decision.

Members will be aware that this application must be considered on its own merits. The fact that it is retrospective has no bearing on whether or not the proposal should be approved or refused. Nor should this application be used as a means of penalising the applicant.

I have considered the proposal in light of the Human Rights Act, but I do not consider that it contravenes any of the articles therein.

Whilst I note that the sign is tall, and comparatively prominent, it is not in my view excessively large, is located some distance back from the highway, and does not appear out of character with the area. The adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance states that signs will not normally be permitted in the countryside. However - although the site is located in the countryside, it is directly opposite a modern housing estate, and it must be borne in mind that the site has a lawful use for general industrial purposes. The sign is not illuminated, and as there are no other similar signs on the site, I do not consider that it gives rise to a cluttered appearance or to an over-proliferation of signage at the site. I do not consider that it causes harm to the character and appearance of the streetscene, nor that it has a significant impact on the character of the countryside or the openness of the locally important gap.

I note the comments of local residents in respect of the impact of the sign on their residential amenity. However – the sign is approximately 35 metres from the closest dwelling, and at such a distance, given that it is non-illuminated and despite its colour, I do not consider that it has so significant an impact on residential amenity that consent should be refused.

The objections of local residents relating to highway safety are noted. However – issues relating to the wider use of the site & its impact on highway safety are not relevant here. The sign is set well back off the highway, and it cannot in itself give rise to a physical threat to users of the highway. Members will note that Kent Highway Services do not consider the sign to cause a distraction to users of the highway, nor do they object on other highway grounds.

Continued . . .

13 2.3 (Contd) PART 2

Summary and Recommendation

This is an application for advertisement consent for a non-illuminated sign at Four Gun Field, Otterham Quay Lane, Upchurch. I have considered, in accordance with the requirements of the legislation, whether the sign causes harm to amenity and/or highway safety. I do not consider that the sign, given its size, location and lack of illumination, causes harm to amenity, and Kent Highway Services have raised no objection on highway grounds. I therefore recommend that advertisement consent is granted. ______

Responsible Officer: Rob Bailey (Area Planning Officer)

List of Backgrounds Documents

1. Application Papers for Application SW/09/1135

2. Correspondence Relating to Application SW/09/1135

3. Application papers and correspondence relating to Applications relating to SW/98/0962, SW/00/0101, SW/00/0204 & SW/00/0298

14 PART 2

2.4 SW/09/1044 (Case 03608) SITTINGBOURNE

Location: 83 & 93 Borden Lane, Sittingbourne, Kent, ME10 1BU.

Proposal: Advertisement consent for a rectangular “For Sale” sign hung on a timber frame in a V shape.

Applicant/Agent: Greenspan Properties Ltd c/o Paul Hewett R.I.B.A. Chartered Architect, 51 Foxdale Drive, The Dell, Angmering, West Sussex.

Application Valid: 27 October 2009.

Conditions

(1) No advertisement is to be displayed without the permission of the owner of the site or any other person with an interest in the site entitled to grant permission.

(2) No advertisement shall be sited or displayed so as to:

(3) Any advertisement displayed, and any site used for the display of advertisements, shall be maintained in a condition that does not impair the visual amenity of the site.

(4) Any structure or hoarding erected or used principally for the purpose of displaying advertisements shall be maintained in a condition that does not endanger the public.

(5) Where an advertisement is required under these Regulations to be removed, the site shall be left in a condition that does not endanger the public or impair visual amenity.

Grounds: In accordance with the provisions of Regulation (2(1) of the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisement) (England) Regulations 2007.

Continued . . .

15 2.4 (Contd) PART 2 (6) The sign hereby permitted shall be removed and the site restored to its previous condition on or before 1 December 2010.

Grounds: In order that the position may be reviewed at the end of the period stated in pursuance of Policy E1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

Description of Proposal This application seeks retrospective advertisement consent for the erection of a V-shaped “For Sale” sign to the front of 93 Borden Lane, Sittingbourne.

The advertisement stands 1.7m above ground level, and is supported on a timber frame so that it is visible above the boundary wall. The sign is V- shaped, so that it is visible when approaching from both directions along Borden lane, and the two faces each measure approximately 1.4m high x 1.8m wide.

The sign is advertising building plots for sale to the rear of 83 and 93 Borden Lane, and features the site name, a brief description and contact details. It is proposed that the sign remain in situ for one year, until December 2010.

Relevant Site History and Description The sign is positioned in the south western corner of the front garden at 93 Borden Lane, a detached house situated within the built up area of Sittingbourne.

In 1978, planning permission was refused for a new access of No. 93 under application reference SW/78/0097. That application was dismissed at appeal on the basis of harm to highway safety.

In 2007, planning permission was refused for the erection of 7 dwellings on the site under application references SW/07/278, SW/07/421 and SW/07/1220. All three applications were refused for reasons relating to access, the principle of backland development, lack of parking and the impact on residential amenity.

In 2008 application reference SW/08/0429 sought consent for the erection of 9 houses on the site, and was the subject of an appeal against non- determination. The appeal was dismissed, with the Inspector commenting that the proposal would “result in an intensive, urban feel which would be in stark contrast to the verdant garden setting of the site and would also be out of keeping with the general character of Borden Lane”. Issues of visibility and highway safety were also noted in the appeal decision.

Also in 2008, application SW/08/1148 sought permission for erection of 6 dwellings on the site. Permission was refused on the grounds of harm to the character of the area, local amenity and highway safety. An appeal was submitted for that scheme, under reference A/09/2094545, but this was withdrawn by the appellant prior to determination. Continued . . .

16 2.4 (Contd) PART 2

However, permission was granted at appeal earlier this year, under reference SW/09/0111, for the erection of 6 three and four bedroom houses and associated landscaping, following delegated refusal of the application by Officers. Further to the above, Members will recall application SW/09/0730, which was approved by the Planning Committee earlier this year. That application was very similar to the appeal scheme allowed by the Inspectorate, but with minor alterations to Plots 1 and 2 to enable use of the roof space as living accommodation.

Work began on site during the summer of this year, with the demolition of the detached garage at 93 Borden Lane, and clearing of the land to the rear of 83 and 93.

The sign subject to this application stands adjacent to the site entrance and, as noted above, advertises the development plots to the rear of the dwellings.

Views of Consultees

Kent Highway Services have no objection subject to the sign being non- illuminated.

Other representations

Six letters of objection have been submitted by local residents. The majority of their comments are not relevant considerations in determining this application of advertisement consent, but they do raise the following concerns:

- The sign was erected prior to submission of the necessary advertisement consent application; - Erection of the sign in close proximity to residential dwelling is against article 8 of the Human Rights Act; - Sign is too large for a residential area; and - Sign is an eyesore.

Policies

Policy E23 of the Local Plan deals specifically with signs and adverts, and states that they should “cause no harm to amenity, or compromise highway safety.”

Continued . . .

17 2.4 (Contd) PART 2 The Councils Supplementary Planning Guidance: “The Design of Shopfronts, Signs and Advertisements,” gives general guidance on the erection of signs, and should also be noted.

Discussion I note that the sign was erected prior to advertisement consent being either applied for or granted but, as Members will be aware, this is not a deciding factor in the determination of such applications.

Whilst large, the sign is situated back from the highway and is seen in the context of the surrounding buildings, foliage and vehicles parked on the highway. Furthermore, I believe that, whilst the sign could potentially be reduced in size, this would also reduce its visibility and effectiveness.

Signs of this kind, by their very nature, are not visually appealing, as they are designed to serve the purposes of advertising rather than to be aesthetically appealing to the surrounding residents. I believe that an application for a permanent sign of similar appearance would not receive officer support. However, I note that the applicant seeks temporary permission for one year only, and after this time the sign would be removed from site. I do not believe, therefore, that this development would give rise to any lasting harmful effects upon the character and appearance of the local area.

Finally, I am of the opinion that the display of this sign is not contrary to the Human Rights Act, Article 8 of which provides for the freedom to private and family life.

Summary and Recommendation This application seeks retrospective advertisement consent for the display of a V-shaped “For Sale” sign to the front of 93 Borden Lane, Sittingbourne, for a period of one year. The advertisement stands 1.7m above ground level, and is supported on a timber frame. The sign is V-shaped, and the two faces each measure approximately 1.4m high x 1.8m wide.

I have considered issues of visual and residential amenity, but in my opinion neither of these amount to reasons for refusal.

Taking the above into account, I recommend that advertisement consent be granted for a temporary period of one year only. ______

Responsible Officer: Rob Bailey (Area Planning Officer)

List of Backgrounds Documents

1. Application papers for SW/09/1012. 2. Correspondence relating to SW/09/1012.

18 PART 2

2.5 SW/09/0942 (Case 23828) TEYNHAM

Location: Swale Marina, Conyer, Teynham, Kent, ME9 9HR.

Proposal: Retrospective application for the resurfacing of existing access road with installation of lighting.

Applicant/Agent: Swale Marina Services c/o Peter Jackson Architects, harbour Offices, Whitstable, CT5 1AB.

Application Valid: 20 October 2009.

SUBJECT TO: As amended by drawing received 3 December 2009.

Conditions

(1) Within 6 months from the date of this permission, the revised speed bump details, as shown on drawing 1089/3/01/A shall be implemented on site and shall thereafter be retained as such.

Grounds: In the interest of public safety and amenity, and in pursuance of policy E1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

(2) The lighting columns hereby approved shall be so angled and shielded as to ensure that the light falls wholly within the curtilage of the site and such lighting shall be of an intensity as set out in the manufacturers details submitted on 20 October 2009 and shall be retained as such unless otherwise agreed in writing by the District Planning Authority.

Grounds: In the interests of the amenity of occupiers and in pursuance of Policies E1 and E2 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

Reasons for Approval

Continued . . .

19 2.5 (Contd) PART 2

Description of Proposal

This application seeks retrospective planning permission for the resurfacing of the existing access road to Swale Marina, Conyer, and the installation of street lighting.

The existing gravel and hardcore access road has been resurfaced with tarmac and four ‘sleeping policemen’ speed bumps constructed along its length. Three new street lights have also been erected, roughly alongside each speed bump. The lights stand approximately 4m tall and feature cowls that direct the majority of the light beam downwards.

The submitted Design & Access Statement comments:

“The site comprises the access road to Swale Marina. Over time the drive has become rutted and generally unsatisfactory. Gravel and hardcore had been used to fill ruts and potholes to provide a reasonably level surface for vehicular and pedestrian access. A number of vehicles were also being driven at speeds that were unsafe for the mixed use of the roadway, and were also tending to throw up an unacceptable level of dust. There had been complaints that this was a public nuisance. A public right of way exists over the drive which is frequently used by pedestrians and cyclists. The need for the works were highlighted recently when a pedestrian tripped and fell during the hours of darkness.

The owners of the site have undertaken what they regard as maintenance of the road. they have done so to provide greater safety for all those using the access and its related facilities. The works have comprised laying a new 50mm wearing course of 10mm close grated tarmacadam over the existing sound tarmac road and over the worn out parts.

Excessive speed of vehicles has been corrected by the use of speed ramps (sleeping policemen) substantially increasing safety, especially for pedestrians. Additionally three lights have been installed to illuminate the road, increasing safety and providing a more satisfactory route, after dark, for pedestrians. The particular design of light was carefully selected to be energy efficient and to direct its output downwards and avoid light spill…”

Relevant Site History and Description

The access road runs from the junction of Conyer Road and The Moorings, in the centre of the village, down to the Marina. It was previously uneven, and surfaced with a mixture of hardcore and gravel, with numerous potholes along its length.

The site lies outside of the built up area, within a special landscape area and within the coastal zone. The southern edge of the access road forms part of the Saxon Shore Way public footpath.

Continued . . .

20 2.5 (Contd) PART 2

There is no relevant planning history specifically related to the access road. Swale Marina has been operating for many years, and there have been numerous approvals for new pontoons, buildings and other alterations on the site since 1968.

Views of Consultees

Teynham Parish Council has no objection.

The Kent County Council Public Rights of Way Officer objects to the erection of the speed bumps along the access. As noted above, the southernmost edge of the access forms a public footpath, and KCC are concerned about liability if pedestrians trip or fall as a result of the speed bumps. The KCC officers state that, at a minimum, the entire development be brought up to Kent Highway Services adoptable standard if the speed bumps are to remain.

Natural England has no comments.

The Council’s Environmental Health team have no objections.

Other Representations

One letter of support has been received from a local resident, commenting that the resurfacing of the access has reduced road noise and dust, and that the “lighting has been well selected and does not add much to the existing light pollution.”

One letter of objection has been received from a local resident, commenting that previous gravel surface served its purpose for many years, and that the new surfacing is not appropriate for a rural area.

Policies

Policies E6 and E9 seek to afford protection to the countryside and the Special Landscape Area in which the site is located, and state that developments should protect or enhance the character, appearance and amenity value of these areas.

Further to this, policy E13 affords protection to the Coastal Zone, and states that developments will not be permitted if they would have an adverse impact on the scenic quality (amongst others) of the area.

Continued . . .

21 2.5 (Contd) PART 2 Policy T1 encourages the improvement of existing accesses and the incorporation of safety through design.

Discussion

Whilst the site lies within the countryside it directly abuts the built up area of Conyer, and the access road is viewed primarily in conjunction with the main road running through the village and not the surrounding countryside. I therefore do not believe that the development impacts negatively upon the character or amenity of the countryside, but rather that it has improved upon the appearance of the village by replacing a worn and rutted track with a road that blends seamlessly with Conyer Road.

It should also be noted that the access serves a working marina, and the new surfacing will provide easier access for vehicles that may be towing boats. The new street lights will also facilitate pedestrian access, and use of this part of the Saxon Shore Way, especially during the winter months.

I note the Public Rights of Way Officer’s comments regarding the speed bumps being a possible tripping hazard for users of the public footpath, and that KCC may be liable should anyone be injured. However, liability is not a planning consideration, and I do not believe that bringing the whole route up to KHS adoptable standards to be a reasonable solution. Furthermore, such works would likely include the laying of kerbstones and painted road markings, which would have a far greater visual impact.

I have discussed the matter with the agent for the scheme, who had further concerns that vehicles would drive too fast along the route should the bumps be removed, which is likely to pose an even greater threat to pedestrian safety. I agreed with the agent, therefore, that a more acceptable compromise would be for the removal of the parts of the speed bumps that lie across the public footpath, and amended drawings have been received to show this.

Summary and Recommendation

This application seeks retrospective planning permission for the resurfacing of the existing access road to Swale Marina, Conyer, and the installation of street lighting. The road has been paved with tarmac, and four ‘sleeping policemen’ speed bumps constructed along its length. Three new street lights have also been erected.

I have considered issues of visual and countryside amenity, and the comments of the Kent County Council Public Rights of Way Officer, but none contain or amount to a reason for refusal in my opinion. Continued . . .

22 2.5 (Contd) PART 2

Taking the above into account, I recommend that planning permission be granted. ______

Responsible Officer: Rob Bailey (Area Planning Officer)

List of Backgrounds Documents

1. Application papers for SW/09/0942.

2. Correspondence relating to SW/09/0942.

23 PART 2

2.6 SW/09/1018 (Case 23627) HARTLIP

Location: 3 Munns Lane, Hartlip, Kent, ME9 7SY

Proposal: Part excavation of front garden to form new hardstanding for 2 cars, together with new extended crossover

Applicant/Agent: Mr M Blackman, c/o Mr D Lakeman 16 Gregory Close, Kemsley, Sittingbourne, Kent, ME10 2UD

Application Valid: 21 October 2009

SUBJECT TO: and as amended by drawing received 3 December 2009.

Conditions

(1) The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date on which the permission is granted.

Grounds: In pursuance of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

(2) No development shall take place until details of the materials to be used in the construction of the development hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the District Planning Authority.

Grounds: In the interest of visual amenity and in pursuance of policies E1 and E19 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

(3) No development shall take place until full details of both hard and soft landscape works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the District Planning Authority and these works shall be carried out as approved. These details shall include existing features, planting schedules of plants, noting species, plant sizes and numbers where appropriate, means of enclosure, hard surfacing materials, and an implementation programme.

Grounds: In the interests of the visual amenities of the area and in pursuance of Policies E1 and E19 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

Continued . . .

24 2.6 (Contd) PART 2

(4) All hard and soft landscape works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. The works shall be carried out prior to the occupation of any part of the development or in accordance with the programme agreed in writing with the District Planning Authority.

Grounds: In the interests of the visual amenities of the area and in pursuance of Policies E1 and E19 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

(5) Upon completion of the approved landscaping scheme, any trees or shrubs removed, dying, being severely damaged or becoming seriously diseased within five years of planting shall be replaced with trees or shrubs of such size and special as may be agreed in writing with the District Planning Authority, and within whatever planting season is agreed.

Grounds: In the interests of the visual amenities of the area and in pursuance of Policies E1 and E19 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

Reasons for Approval

Description of Proposal

This application seeks permission for excavation of part of the front garden at 3 Munns Lane to provide an additional vehicle parking space, and extension of the existing vehicle crossover.

It is proposed to excavate a 3.5m wide strip, extending from the front of the house to the highway edge, which will allow the applicants to park an additional car within the front garden area. The garden currently stands 592mm higher than the existing driveway. The existing dropped kerb will be extended, and permeable block paving laid down, although the block paving would not in itself require planning permission.

The works require planning permission solely by virtue of the excavation required, as this constitutes an engineering operation.

Continued . . .

25 2.6 (Contd) PART 2

Relevant Site History and Description

3 Munns Lane is a semi-detached house set within the built up area of Hartlip. It is set back and slightly above the road, with a very narrow driveway to the side and a slightly raised garden area to the front. The surrounding properties have parking to the front and side. The properties either side of the application site have mainly soft landscaped front gardens. However, the properties to the east have fully hard surfaced frontages for the parking of several cars.

There is no planning history for the property.

Views of Consultees

Hartlip Parish Council objects to the application, commenting:

“HPC notes that it would appear that there is already garaging for one car and parking spaces for a further 4 cars along the drive at these premises. HPC therefore objects to this application in its present form. HPC would prefer to see the retention of the front of the garden to protect the rural street scene, rather than the urban expanse of tarmac or brick. HPC would like to see a reduced crossover of the pavement and adequate site drainage so that water is not discharged on to the road or footpath. A scheme for parking for one additional car would be more acceptable.”

In light of these comments I requested amended plans from the agent, showing the parking area reduced to the current size. The Parish Council have been reconsulted and I await their response. I will report further to Members at the meeting.

Kent Highway Services has no objection subject to the above conditions.

No other representations have been received.

Policies

Policy T3 relates specifically to vehicle parking, and seeks appropriate provision for all developments. Continued . . .

26 2.6 (Contd) PART 2

The Council’s adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance, entitled “Designing an Extension,” is also relevant in this instance. The SPG comments that it may not be an acceptable solution to provide all of the parking at a property within the front garden, as this may have a detrimental impact upon the street scene.

Discussion

I note the comments of the Parish Council, and also the advice of the adopted SPG. However, in this instance I do not believe that the development would give rise to sufficient harm to the visual amenity to warrant a recommendation of refusal.

Following discussions with the agent amended drawings have been submitted which reduce the size of the proposed parking area, and leave the majority of the front garden available for landscaping. This would help to soften the impact of the development and retain the green, rural character of the area. Furthermore, I have recommended the above landscaping condition, which would enable the Council to seek appropriate planting to the front of the site that would further contribute to the appearance of the site.

I am also mindful of the properties further to the east which have fully hard surfaced frontages for the parking of several vehicles. The character of this particular streetscene is therefore varied. It is unlikely that an appeal on design grounds would be successful in my view.

Whilst the Parish Council is correct in noting that there is parking available to the side and rear of the site, this is very narrow and substandard by today’s requirements. During my site visit I noted vehicles parked to the side of the property, and the drivers had great difficulty in getting out due to the limited space between the house and the boundary wall. The garage to the rear of the site has very limited access due to its location close to the rear corner of the house.

I would also point out to the Parish Council that the scheme does in fact only provide parking for one additional vehicle. Admittedly the originally submitted scheme was generous in the allocation of parking space, but it still only allowed for one extra car to be parked to the front of the site. The revised scheme has reduced the proposed parking area considerably, however. As noted above, I await comments from the Parish Council in response to the revised drawings.

Recommendation

This application seeks permission for excavation of part of the front garden at 3 Munns Lane to provide an additional vehicle parking space, and extension of the existing vehicle crossover. Continued . . .

27 2.6 (Contd) PART 2

I have considered issues of necessity and visual amenity but neither, in my opinion, contain or amount to a reason for refusal.

Taking the above into account, I recommend that planning permission be granted. ______

Responsible Officer: Rob Bailey (Area Planning Officer)

List of Backgrounds Documents

1. Application papers for SW/09/1018.

2. Correspondence relating to SW/09/1018.

28 PART 2

2.7 SW/09/0755 (Case 21062) IWADE

Location: Land off Grovehurst Road, Iwade, Sittingbourne, Kent

Proposal: Provision of temporary haul road (3 years) whilst land to the west of Woodpecker Drive/Helen Thompson Close is developed

Applicant/Agent: Ward Homes, c/o Judith Ashton, Judith Ashton Associates, The Studio, Sherbrook Cottage, Silver Hill, Hurst Green, East Sussex, TN19 7QB

Application Valid: 13 August 2009

Conditions

Planning (1) The temporary haul road hereby approved shall only be constructed and used upon approval of the application for the residential development of land east of Helen Thompson Close and Woodpecker Drive (planning reference SW/09/0756).

Grounds: To ensure the temporary haul road is constructed only in connection with constrution of the dwellings, whereby the development in isolation would be considered unacceptable and harmful to the countryside, in accordance with Policies E6 and E8 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

(2) The temporary haul road hereby approved shall cease its use either on or before 30 December 2012, or the completion of the construction of the dwellings the subject of planning application SW/09/0756, whichever is the sooner, whereby the land shall be restored to its former use within three months of the elapsed time period or construction completion of the dwellings, whichever is the sooner.

Grounds: In order that countryside land can be returned to its lawful use and In pursuance of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended and Policy E6 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

(3) The temporary haul road hereby apporved shall only be used for construction and personnel traffic connected with the construction of the dwellings on land east of Helen Thompson Close and Woodpecker Drive the subject of application SW/09/0756 or any subsequently approved scheme, or related farm traffic, and shall not be used for any Continued . . .

29 2.7 (Contd) PART 2

other purpose whether permitted by the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (as amended) or the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (as amended) or any Order revoking or reeanacting that Order.

Grounds: To ensure the temporary haul road is used only in connection with the housing development or farm traffic in order to limit is usage to protect residential amenity in pursuance of Policy E1 and E6 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

Ecology

(4) Prior to the commencement of any works which may affect great crested newts or their breeding sites or resting places, and widespread reptiles and their habitat, a detailed mitigation strategy shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the District Planning Authority. All works shall then proceed in accordance with the approved strategy unless otherwise agreed in writing by the District Planning Authority.

Grounds: To ensure the development adequately mitigates for great crested newts that are present on the site and in accordance with Policy E11 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

Environmental Protection

(5) The commencement of the development shall not take place until a programme for the suppression of dust and noise during the construction, use and removal of the haul road has been submitted to and approved by the District Planning Authority. Works shall be carried out in accordance with those approved details and shall be employed throughout the period of the construction, use and removal unless any variation has been approved by the District Planning Authority.

Grounds: To ensure the development does not prejudice conditions of residential amenity and in accordance with Policies E1 and E2 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

(6) The construction of the temporary haul road hereby approved shall only take place between 08.00 - 18:00 hours on weekdays & between 08.00 – 12.00 hours on Saturdays and not at anytime on Sundays and Bank Holidays. There shall be no queuing of vehicles prior to the start times on the haul road any further north than the second passing place, as identified on drawing number 1408-GA-07B.

Grounds: To ensure the development does not prejudice conditions of residential amenity and in accordance with Policies E1 and E2 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008. Continued . . .

30 2.7 (Contd) PART 2

(7) Construction and personnel traffic using the temporary haul road hereby approved in connection with the dwellings the subject of application SW/09/0756 shall be allowed only between the hours of 0730 to 1800 Monday to Friday and 0800 to 1400 Saturdays and at no times on Sundays or Bank holidays. There shall be no queuing of vehicles prior to the start times on the haul road any further north than the second passing place as identified on drawing number 1408-GA- 07B.

Grounds: To ensure the development does not prejudice conditions of residential amenity and in accordance with Policies E1 and E2 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

Highway

(8) Details of wheel washing facilities by which vehicles will have their wheels, chassis and bodywork effectively cleaned and washed free of mud and similar substances shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the District Planning Authority, and agreed measures shall be installed prior to, and during construction of the development hereby approved.

Grounds: To ensure the highway is kept clear of mud in pursuance of Policy T1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

(9) The access details shown on the approved plans shall be completed to the satisfaction of the District Planning Authority, and the access shall thereafter be maintained throughout the duration of the associated construction works that it is intended to serve.

Grounds: To ensure that that the junction provides for safe access and in accordance with Policy T1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

(10) Before the haul road hereby approved is first brought into use, it shall be surfaced with a properly consolidated and bound surface (not loose stone or gravel), details of which shall have been submitted to and approved by the District Planning Authority.

Grounds: To ensure that that the temporary haul road is satisfactory and in accordance with Policy T1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

(11) Any entrance gates erected shall be hung to open away from the highway only and shall be set back a minimum distance of 9m from the carriageway edge.

Continued . . .

31 2.7 (Contd) PART 2 Grounds: To ensure that that the junction provides for safe access and is not a danger to highway safety and in accordance with Policy T1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

(12) The haul road hereby permitted shall not be brought into use until the visibility splays shown on the submitted plan have been provided with no obstruction to visibility at or above a height of 0.9m above the nearside carriageway level. The visibility splays shall thereafter be maintained free of obstruction at all times.

Grounds: To ensure that that the junction provides for safe access and is not a danger to highway safety and in accordance with Policy T1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

(13) Prior to the commencement of the construction of the temporary haul road hereby approved, details of a scheme of signage to direct construction traffic to the entrance to the temporary haul road shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the District Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with those approved details.

Grounds: To minimise the disturbance caused to residential amenity from construction vehicles entering the village and in pursuance of Policies E2 and T1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

Reason for Approval

Having taken all material considerations into account, it is considered that subject to compliance with the attached conditions, the proposal would be in accordance with the development plan and would not cause unacceptable harm to the amenities of the area or prejudice highway safety or convenience. In resolving to grant permission, particular regard has been had to the following Policies AAP9; E1; E2; E6, E8, E11 and T1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

Discussion

Members will recall this item being presented at the 5th November Planning Committee where Members voted for a site visit; this took place on Monday 30th November. The item was presented again at the 3rd December planning committee under the minutes of the planning working group. Members voted to defer the application as they considered this application must be determined together with the application SW/09/0756 and not independently.

I have appended the committee report to this update; the minutes of the last meeting can be found in Appendix B to the report in respect of the related application, reference SW/09/0756, for 98 dwellings. Continued . . .

32 2.7 (Contd) PART 2

There has been discussion regarding whether this road should serve as a permanent access to the development. This is not supported by officers as the temporary road is located entirely within the countryside where the principle of development is generally resisted, and I would be genuinely concerned with regards to amenity to residents in Cormorant Road, who would suffer harm to their residential amenity. Members will be aware that officers consider the acceptability of this application is solely for reasons that material circumstances apply in order to relieve pressure of construction traffic entering the village.

In addition, Kent Highways Services stated to Members both at the planning working group and at the 3 December committee that a permanent road would also not be supported. A permanent road would require a completely different surface to a temporary haul road, where it would also be required to be suitable surfaced, drained and lit, and the junction with Grovehurst Road would be unacceptable and detrimental to highway safety and convenience.

Therefore officers remain of the firm view that the application should be supported as a temporary measure only. ______

Responsible Officer: Jim Wilson (Major Projects Officer)

List of Backgrounds Documents

1. Application Papers for Application SW/09/0755

2. Correspondence Relating to Application SW/09/0755

3. Application papers and correspondence for SW/09/0756.

APPENDIX A ITEM 2.7 PART 2

34 PART 2

2.8 SW/09/0756 (Case 21062) IWADE

Location: Land East of Woodpecker Drive and Helen Thompson Close, Iwade, Nr Sittingbourne, Kent

Proposal: Construction of 98 dwellings comprising 25 two bed; 49 three bed; 18 four bed and 6 five bed units together with associated highway and landscaping works

Applicant/Agent: Ward Homes, c/o Judith Ashton, Judith Ashton Associates, The Studio, Sherbrook Cottage, Silver Hill, Hurst Green, East Sussex, TN19 7QB

Application Valid: 13 August 2009

SUBJECT TO: The receipt of further information and the further views of Natural England; and the signing of a Section 106 Legal Agreement

Conditions

Planning

(1) The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

Grounds: In pursuance of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended.

(2) Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved details of the materials to be used in construction of the dwellings shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the District Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with those approved details.

Grounds: In the interests of visual amenity and in pursuance of Policies E1 and E19 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

(3) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (as amended) (or any order revoking or re-enacting that order) no fence, wall or gate or other means of enclosure shall be erected or provided in advance of any wall or dwelling fronting a highway or other front area (such as a public open space) without the written consent of the District Planning Authority.

Continued . . .

42 2.8 (Contd) PART 2

Grounds: In the inetersts of visual amenity and in pursuance of Policies E1 and E19 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

Landscaping

(4) Notwithstanding the submitted plans, no development shall take place until full details of the specifications for the open space amenity land, the compensatory habitat land and the sustainable urban drainage system land as indicated in the submitted landscape statements and on the approved landscape drawings no.1395/06, 1395/01 Rev A, 1395/09 Rev A and planning layout drawings 12-1651-201 Rev F received 13 August 2009 have been submitted to and approved in writing by the District Planning Authority. Details shall include the location and specifications of the play equipment; pathways and public accessible areas on all sites; hard landscaping; planting and species noting plant sizes and numbers where appropriate; soft landscaping; boundary treatments; and a timetable for their commencement and delivery. These details shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and thereafter retained and maintained unless otherwise agreed to in writing by the District Planning Authority.

Grounds: To ensure that the open space land, compensatory habitat land and SUDS land are delivered to an acceptable timetable and to a high standard of quality and in pursuance of Policy E1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

(5) No development shall take place until full details of both hard and soft landscape works for the housing areas have been submitted to and approved in writing by the District Planning Authority and these works shall be carried out as approved. These details shall include existing features, planting schedules of plants, noting species, plant sizes and numbers where appropriate, means of enclosure, hard surfacing materials, and an implementation and maintenance programme. The works shall be carried out prior to the occupation of any part of the development or in accordance with the programme agreed with the District Planning Authority.

Grounds: In the interests of the visual amenities of the area and in pursuance of Policies E1 and E9 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

(6) Notwithstanding the submitted plans no development shall take place until full details of the buffer boundary planting on the eastern boundary of the housing land has been submitted to and approved in writing by the District Planning Authority. These details shall include existing features, planting schedules of plants, noting species, plant sizes and numbers where appropriate, means of enclosure, hard surfacing Continued . . .

43 2.8 (Contd) PART 2 materials, and an implementation and maintenance programme. The works shall be carried out prior to the occupation of any part of the development or in accordance with the programme agreed with the District Planning Authority.

Grounds: In the interests of the visual amenities of the area and in pursuance of Policies E1, E9 and E10 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

(7) For the approved landscaping scheme, any trees or shrubs removed, dying, being severely damaged or becoming seriously diseased within five years of planting shall be replaced with trees or shrubs of such size and species as may be agreed in writing with the District Planning Authority, and within whatever planting season is agreed.

Grounds: In the interests of the visual amenities of the area in pursuance of Policies E1, E9 and E10 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

Amenity (8) No construction work in connection with the development shall take place on any Sunday or Bank Holiday, nor on any other day except between the following times: Monday to Friday 0730 - 1800 hours, Saturdays 0800 - 1400 hours.

Grounds: To ensure the development does not prejudice conditions of residential amenity and in accordance with Policies E1 and E2 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

(9) Adequate underground ducts shall be installed to the satisfaction of the District Planning Authority before any of the buildings hereby permitted are occupied to enable telephone services and electrical services to be connected to any premises within the application site without resource to the erection of distribution poles and overhead lines, and not withstanding the provisions of Article 3 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 no distribution pole or overhead line shall be erected other than with the express consent of the District Planning Authority.

Grounds: In the interests of residential amenity and in accordance with Policy E1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

(10) No impact pile driving in connection with the construction of the development shall take place on the site on any Saturday, Sunday or Bank Holiday, nor any other day except between the following times: Monday to Friday 0900-1700hours unless in association with an emergency or with the written approval of the District Planning Authority. Continued . . .

44 2.8 (Contd) PART 2

Grounds: In the interests of residential amenity and in accordance with Policy E2 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

(11) The commencement of the development shall not take place until a programme for the suppression of dust and noise during the construction, use and removal of the haul road has been approved by the District Planning Authority. Works shall be carried out in accordance with those approved details and shall be employed throughout the period of the construction, use and removal unless any variation has been approved by the District Planning Authority.

Grounds: To ensure the development does not prejudice conditions of residential amenity and in accordance with Policies E1 and E2 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

(12) No groundwork or construction work shall be commenced until a dust fence of a standard and quality to the satisfaction of the District Planning Authority has been constructed along the southern and western boundaries to protect existing residents. Agreement to remove the fencing shall be given by the District Planning Authority with the satisfactory completion of the southern and western parts of the site.

Grounds: In the interests of residential amenity and in accordance with Policies E1 and E2 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

Sustainabile Development

(13) Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved Sustainability Report submitted on 21 September 2009 unless otherwise agreed in writing by the District Planning Authority. The applicants shall submit the pre-assessment report prior to the commencement and shall submit a post construction certificate within six months of completion of the development.

Grounds: In the interests of sustainable development and in accordance with Policies NM11 of the South East Plan 2009 and E1 and E21 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

Land Contamination and Drainage

(14) If during the construction of the development hereby approved, contamination not previously identified is found to be present on site, then details of how this unsuspected contamination shall be dealt with shall be submitted to an approved in writing by the District Planning Authority before the site is further progressed.

Continued . . .

45 2.8 (Contd) PART 2

Grounds: In the interests of the amenities of the area to ensure that adequate action is taken to deal with any contamination of the land and in accordance with Policy E3 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

(15) Development shall not begin until full details for the Sustainable Urban Drainage System to be located to the east of the development and an assessment of the hydrological and hydrogeological context of the development) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the District Planning Authority. The scheme shall subsequently be implemented in accordance with the approved details before the development is completed, and retained in perpetuity.

Grounds: To prevent the increased risk of flooding, to improve and protect water quality, improve habitat and amenity, and ensure future maintenance of the surface water drainage system and in pursuance of Policy E4 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

Archaeology

(16) No development shall take place until the applicant, or their agents or successors in title, has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written specification and timetable which has been submitted to and approved in writing by the District Planning Authority.

Grounds: To ensure that features of archaeological interest are properly examined and recorded in pursuance of Policy E16 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

‘Hawk-eye’ Cameras

(17) Before any part of the development hereby approved is first occupied, public street-lighting columns within the development shall be fitted with wiring necessary to accommodate the “Hawkeye” surveillance system at the time of their installation, in locations agreed in writing by the District Planning Authority

Grounds: In the interest of public amenity and safety and in pursuance of Policy E20 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

Highway and Car Parking

(18) The area shown on the submitted layout as vehicle parking space shall be provided, surfaced and drained to the satisfaction of the District Planning Authority before the use is commenced or the premises occupied, and shall be retained for the use of the occupiers of, and visitors to, the premises, and no permanent development, whether or Continued . . .

46 2.8 (Contd) PART 2 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 so shown or in such a position as to preclude vehicular access to this reserved parking space.

Grounds: To ensure the development provides for adequate and satisfactory parking areas and in pursuance of Policy T3 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

(19) The proposed estate road, footways, street lighting, sewers, drains, retaining walls, service routes, surface water outfall, vehicle overhang margins, embankments, visibility splays, access, carriage gradients, shall be constructed and laid out in accordance with details to be submitted and approved by the District Planning Authority in writing before their construction begins. For this purpose plans and sections indicating as appropriate the design, layout, levels, gradients, materials and method of construction shall be submitted to the District Planning Authority.

Grounds: To ensure that the roads are constructed and laid out in a satisfactory manner and in pursuance of Policies E1 and T1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008

(20) During construction of the development hereby approved adequate space shall be provided on site, in a position previously agreed by the District Planning Authority to enable all employees and contractors vehicles to park, load and off land and turn within the site.

Grounds: In the interests of highway safety and convenience in accordance with Policy T1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

(21) The garages hereby permitted shall be used only for the parking of private motor cars or for uses ordinarily incidental to the enjoyment of the occupiers of the dwelling houses and no development, whether permitted by the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 or not, shall be carried out on the site, in such a manner or in such positions as to preclude vehicular access to the garages.

Grounds: In order to ensure that adequate provision is made for the parking of motor vehicles and in order to safeguard the amenities of the area and in pursuance of Policy T3 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008

(22) As an initial operation on site, adequate precautions shall be taken during the progress of the works to guard against the deposit of mud and similar substances on the public highway in accordance with proposals to be submitted to, and agreed in writing by the District Continued . . .

47 2.8 (Contd) PART 2 Planning Authority. Such proposals shall include washing facilities by which vehicles will have their wheels, chassis and bodywork effectively cleaned and washed free of mud and similar substances. The agreed measures shall be retained throughout the duration of the construction of the development.

Grounds: In the interests of highway safety and convenience in accordance with Policy T1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

(23) No dwelling/building shall be occupied or the approved use commenced until space has been laid out within the site in accordance with the details shown on the application plan(s) for cycles to be parked.

Grounds: In order to ensure that adequate provision is made for cycle parking and in pursuance of Policy T4 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008

(24) Before the first occupation of a dwelling the following works between that dwelling and the adopted highway shall be completed as follows:

(A) Footways and/or footpaths shall be completed, with the exception of the wearing course;

(B) Carriageways completed, with the exception of the wearing course, including the provision of a turning facility beyond the dwelling together with related: (1) highway drainage, including off-site works, (2) junction visibility splays, (3) street lighting, street nameplates and highway structures if any.

Grounds: In the interests of highway safety and convenience in accordance with Policy T1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008

(25) Pedestrian visibility splays 2 m x 2 m with no obstruction over 0.6 m above the access footway level shall be provided at each vehicular access prior to the use of that access, and shall be subsequently maintained.

Grounds: In the interests of highway safety and convenience in accordance with Policy T1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008

(26) The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the visibility splays shown on the submitted plan have been provided with no obstruction to visibility at or above a height of 0.9m above the nearside carriageway level. The visibility splays shall thereafter be maintained free of obstruction at all times. Continued . . .

48 2.8 (Contd) PART 2

Grounds: In the interests of highway safety and convenience in accordance with Policy T1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008

Ecology

(27) Prior to the commencement of any works which may affect bats or their breeding sites or resting places, a detailed mitigation strategy shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the District Planning Authority. All works shall then proceed in accordance with the approved strategy with any amendments agreed in writing.

Grounds: To ensure the development adequately mitigates for bats that are present on the site and in accordance with Policy E11 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

(28) Prior to the commencement of any works which may affect great crested newts or their breeding sites or resting places, a detailed mitigation strategy shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. All works shall then proceed in accordance with the approved strategy with any amendments agreed in writing.

Grounds: To ensure the development adequately mitigates for bats that are present on the site and in accordance with Policy E11 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

(29) Prior to the commencement of any works which may affect reptiles or their habitat, a detailed mitigation strategy shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. All works shall then proceed in accordance with the approved strategy with any amendments agreed in writing.

Grounds: To ensure the development adequately mitigates for bats that are present on the site and in accordance with Policy E11 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

(30) Prior to the commencement of any works which may affect noble chafer or its habitat, a detailed mitigation strategy shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. All works shall then proceed in accordance with the approved strategy with any amendments agreed in writing.

Grounds: To ensure the development adequately mitigates for bats that are present on the site and in accordance with Policy E11 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

Continued . . .

49 2.8 (Contd) PART 2 (31) No development shall take place until a management and monitoring programme in respect of affected habitat and species has been submitted to and approved in writing by the District Planning Authority. All works shall then proceed in accordance with the approved strategy with any amendments agreed in writing.

Grounds: To ensure the development adequately mitigates for bats that are present on the site and in accordance with Policy E11 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

(32) Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved Keystone Environmental ecology mitigation strategies received on 13 August 2009; with the additional translocation phasing plan received 30 October 2009; and with the additional great crested newt report and plans received 11 December 2009, where no development shall take place on the old orchard land until the identified compensatory habitat land has been provided and planted and all translocation of the great crested newts and other reptiles has been completed.

Grounds: To ensure the development adequately mitigates for bats that are present on the site and in accordance with Policy E11 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

(33) Any further removal or amendments to conditions required by Natural England.

Reason for Approval

Having taken all material considerations into account, it is considered that subject to compliance with the attached conditions, the proposal would be in accordance with the development plan and would not cause unacceptable harm to the amenities of the area or prejudice highway safety or convenience. In resolving to grant permission, particular regard has been had to the following policies: CC1; W2; H3; H4; and NRM11 of the South East Plan 2009 and Policies AAP9; H2; H3; H5; E1; E2; E3; E4; E9; E10; E11; E16; E19; E21; C3; T1; T2; T3; and T4 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

Discussion

Members will recall this tem being presented at the 5th November planning committee where Members voted for a site visit; this taking place on Monday 30th November. The item was presented again at the 3rd December planning committee under the minutes of the planning working group. Members voted to defer the application in order for further information on the compensatory habitat land to be provided, and for further discussions with Natural England to take place and for Natural England to provide a clear ‘non objection’ consultation response; as well as an additional report on traffic implications upon School Lane. Continued . . .

50 2.8 (Contd) PART 2

I have prepared an updated report addressing the above issue, and have appended the committee report (reported to the meeting on 5 November 2009) and the minutes of the last meeting (held on 3 December 2009).

Ecology

Members will know that the site is of high ecological value for great crested newts, other reptiles, chafer beetles and bats; and that the Old Orchard land (to the north of the site) is identified as the highest value area of habitat.

Natural England (NE) has been closely involved in assessing this application with officers in ensuring the development fully considers and mitigates the protected and other wildlife habitat on this site.

As set out on Page 51 of the (appended) November committee report, NE has assessed the application in three areas: namely the impact on the SSSI/SPA/Ramsar; the impact to the great crested newts and other reptiles; and bats. My report stated that the former and latter aspect is considered acceptable, but that concerns over the future habitat of great crested newts and other reptiles remain a concern where the applicants have yet to fully address the concerns of NE.

NE’s current position is that they do not object to the principle of the proposal, fully recognising that the site is allocated in the Local Plan and having been fully tested through the Local Plan Inquiry. They do, however, have concerns over matters of detail; in particular the mechanics of translocation of the great crested newts and the quality of the new habitat land, which the applicants had hoped could be controlled by condition.

The applicants have attempted on a number of occasions to overcome the concerns of NE. On 18 September and 1 October 2009 the applicant’s ecologists Keystone Environmental submitted a letter and email response to NE’s initial objection to the scheme, as well as submitting a translocation phasing plan on 30 October 2009 and an additional Great Crested Newt Report with additional plans received 11 December 2009. The applicants also engaged an environmental lawyer, DLA Piper, who submitted a full ecology response with existing and proposed quality habitat plans on 28 October 2009.

The applicants consider the above additional information in addition to the submitted ecology reports and the measures being negotiated within the s.106 Agreement and the conditions as set out, that NE has enough information and security to be satisfied that appropriate and robust measures to secure the longevity of the habitats on site are in place.

Continued . . .

51 2.8 (Contd) PART 2

However, a meeting is scheduled with NE, the applicants and ourselves took place on 17th December to try to resolve any outstanding concerns. NE indicated at the meeting that they are now sufficiently satisfied to withdraw their objection. I will update Members at the meeting, by which time I hope to have confirmation that NE raise no objection.

Members will note that I have added the conditions recommended in NE’s letter which I tabled at the last committee. Whilst the applicants are stating that the conditions are unnecessary as they will be covered by the s.106 Agreement, I will only remove them on the advice of NE. I have also added a phasing condition (under 32 above) at the request of NE to ensure that no development takes place on the old orchard land, until the compensatory habitat land is provided, planted and habitat translocated.

Access

The principle of development on this site is accepted, with vehicular access to be provided from Woodpecker Drive and Helen Thompson Close, as agreed at the Local Plan Inquiry. Notwithstanding this position, Members at the 3rd December committee expressed concern over the impact of the traffic on School Lane, considering that the issue had not been fully assessed and requiring a further statement.

Members will note that the application is submitted with a transport statement which has been considered, and fully accepted by Kent Highways Services (KHS). Nonetheless KHS have prepared an additional statement as follows:

“The application was supported by a Traffic Impact Assessment, which considered many aspects of the proposed development, including the the existing conditions on the highway network, and the effect the volume of traffic likely to be generated by the proposal would have. In order to quantify the existing traffic flows, an automated traffic count was undertaken over a 7 day period on Ferry Road, together with manual counts taken at the affected junctions between Grovehurst Road and School Lane. The data collected from these surveys was used, in accordance with approved methodology, to produce the morning and afternoon peak traffic flows, together with average and 85th percentile speeds. It should be noted that the data was collected in 2008, specifically for the production of the Transport Assessment. In order to predict the traffic flows generated by the proposal, the industry accepted TRICS database was used.

The results of this analysis showed that the two peak flows occurred between 8am and 9am, and between 5pm and 6pm. This data was growthed up in accordance with accepted procudures to indicate the future traffic flows for the year 2014, and then the predicted development generated traffic was added to show the comparison. The manual counts undertaken at the junctions were able to forecast the likely trip distribution patterns, so the resultant traffic flows could be used to model the operation of the critical junctions. Continued . . .

52 2.8 (Contd) PART 2 Essentially, the development is likely to generate an additional 45 to 48 vehicles to the 2-way flow of traffic on Ferry Road during each peak hour. The existing surveyed flows suggested that between 534 and 578 currently pass the site during the peak hour. The impact of the additional vehicles, equating to 1 every 80 seconds during the peak hour, was modelled on the critical junctions, and showed that there were likely to be no significant changes to the operation of these. The analysis did show that there would be a significant increase in traffic using the junctions of Woodpecker Drive and Helen Thompson Close, but they would still operate well within their capacities.

KHS has carefully studied the Transport Assessment, and is completely satisfied with its findings that demonstrate the traffic impact of the proposed development is acceptable. Consequently, this is the reason why KHS has not raised objection to the application.”

It is clear from the above, that the development will not in the judgement of KHS have a significant adverse impact on traffic flow or road safety in School Lane.

Developer Contributions Members will note page 56 of the appended committee report listed the contributions being sought for this scheme. The following are updates to that list: 1. On point 14, a £10,000 towards bus stop improvements £5,000 towards cycle parking at Kemsley Railway Station has now been agreed; and 2. On point 11, a £264,425 towards off-site formal sports provision to spend on improvements to the recreation ground at School Lane has been agreed; and 3. Correction to point 13 that the total sums for the northern relief road should total £45,178

Conclusion The above discussion concludes that this development will not cause unnatural harm to the ecology of the site nor will there be significant harm to highway safety and conservation.

I am therefore seeking delegated authority to approve the application subject to the signing of the S.106 Agreement, which must first be agreed by NE and their formal objection withdrawn; and to impose the conditions as set out in their memo unless they advise that they are not required. ______

Responsible Officer: Jim Wilson (Major Projects Officer)

List of Backgrounds Documents 1. Application Papers for Application SW/09/0756 2. Correspondence Relating to Application SW/09/0756 3. Application papers and correspondence for SW/09/0755

APPENDIX A ITEM 2. PART 2

APPENDIX B ITEM 2. PART 2

55 PART 2

2.9 SW/09/1175 (Case 16835) SITTINGBOURNE

Location: Fulston Manor, Sittingbourne, Kent

Proposal: Variation of the planning obligation for the residential development, as approved under SW/00/1174, of Eden Village in respect of the primary school contributions

Applicant/Agent: David Wilson Homes Ltd, c/o Cripps Harries Hall LLP, Wallside House, 12 Mount Ephraim Road, Tonbridge Wells, Kent, TN1 1EG

Application Valid: 16 November 2009

SUBJECT TO: Any further representations (closing date 11 January 2010)

Conditions

NONE

Reason for Approval

Having taken all material considerations into account, it is considered that, the proposal would be in accordance with the development plan and would not cause unacceptable harm to the amenities of the area or prejudice highway safety or convenience. In resolving to approve the variation of the Section 106 agreement particular regard has been had to the following policies: E1 and C2 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

Description of Proposal

This application seeks approval for the variation of the Section 106 agreement that accompanies the planning permission (reference SW/00/1174) for residential development at Fulston Manor (also known as Eden Village), Sittingbourne.

In particular, the application proposes that the requirement for financial contributions towards the provision of primary school places be removed. The applicant has commissioned a specialist consultant, who has produced a report addressing the need for both primary school and secondary school contributions, and justifying the conclusion that a primary school contribution is no longer required. The report is attached as Appendix A, and is discussed below.

Continued . . .

86 2.9 (Contd) PART 2

The relevant pages of the Section 106 Agreement, namely numbers 5, 7, 23 and 24 are attached as Appendix B. Members will note that the Agreement sets out a requirement that for each qualifying dwelling the sum of £3,579.38 be paid towards the cost of providing ‘primary educational facilities’.

Members will also note that, to date, the County Council have received the required education contributions (primary and secondary) for the first 150 dwellings, which amounts to £907, 940.66.

Relevant Site History & Description

The planning permission – which permits the residential development of 22 hectares of land on the south-eastern edge of Sittingbourne – has largely been built-out; reserved matters details have been approved for 615 dwellings, and, as of 31 October 2009, 464 of these had been occupied.

As Members will probably know, the Section 106 Agreement for the development of the Fulston Manor site includes requirements for a number of developer contributions in addition to the contributions towards the cost of school places. The key ones are as follows:

(1) Affordable housing – 25% of the dwellings erected on the site must be affordable; (2) Public Open Space – the provision of Community Orchard area of public open space (to measure not more than 0.4 hectares) and the Neighbourhood Equipped Area of Play (NEAP), which measures approximately 90m by 250m. (3) School Site – this required the developer to offer land within the Fulston Manor development to Kent County Council for the future development of a primary school. This requirement was complied with, though the County Council elected not to take-up the offer. (4) Junction improvements to the Brenchley Road/Bell Road and Swanstree Avenue/Canterbury Road (A2) intersections; traffic light junctions have now been provided at both locations.

In addition to the requirements of the Section 106 Agreement, planning conditions attached to the permission required that the road known as the Swanstree Avenue Extension (granted permission under references SW/00/1175 and SW/08/0910) be delivered by the developer, to provide a connection between the Brenchley Road and Swanstree Avenue cul-de-sacs. This highway is open to traffic.

Views of Consultees

Kent County Council have confirmed that they no longer require a contribution towards primary school places.

Continued . . .

87 2.9 (Contd) PART 2

Other Representations

No representations have been received. The closing date for comments is 11 January 2010, and if further representations are received I will update Members at the meeting.

Policies

Policies E1 (general development criteria) and C2 (housing developments and the provision of community services and facilities) of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008 are relevant here.

Policy C2, is of particular relevance, and reads as follows:

“Housing Developments and the provision of Community Services and Facilities.

For all new housing developments resulting in 10 or more dwellings, the Borough Council will seek, through negotiation at planning application stage, the provision of, or a contribution towards, new or improved community services and facilities1 where the need for the facilities arises as a result of the development proposed. The provision of contribution sought will relate to the:

1. existing pattern of provision in the immediate locality;

2. scale and nature of the development proposed; and

3. other priorities for contributions arising from the site.

The agreed provision, or contribution, will be subject to the completion of a suitable legal agreement and, unless agreed otherwise with the Borough Council, the provision of the facilities should be completed before the development they serve is first occupied. '1community services and facilities’ includes schools and other education provision, social services, adult education, libraries, youth and community services, police and emergency services, health, culture, places of worship, recreation and amenity space, sport, local shopping, public utilities, and transport. “

Discussion

Members will note the justification put forward by the applicant in support of their argument that no further contributions should be paid in respect of primary school places. This is, as noted above, attached as Appendix A. In particular, Members will note paragraph 19, which reads as follows:

Continued . . .

88 2.9 (Contd) PART 2 “Primary

19. My forecasts suggest that there are sufficient places available within a 2 mile radius of the Fulston Manor development to accommodate current and projected numbers on roll. I believe that it is significant that

i. The County Council appears to have accommodated the children moving onto the development so far (about 514 units) without additional provison.

ii. the County Council has given up the reserved primary school site on the development and

iii. is now running down the Grove Park Primary school from 595 to 420 places despite having increased it between 2003 and 2008.”

And paragraph 26, from the ‘summary and conclusions’, which reads as follows:

“26. In fact, between 2003 and 2009 there was a net reduction in the number of places available at primary schools. Further reductions are programmed as Grove Park school reverts to two forms of entry (420 places). As far as I can discover, there are no plans to extend primary schools in a two mile radius of Fulston Manor and it is doubtful whether contributions from Fulston Manor are still justified.”

Members will also note the comments received on behalf of the County Council, who have confirmed that they no longer require a contribution for the provision of primary school places.

I am also mindful of the Government guidance in ‘Circular 05/2005 – Planning Obligations’ which, among other things, sets (at paragraph B5) out five requirements that a Section 106 Agreement must satisfy. It must be:

“(i) relevant to planning; (ii) necessary to make the proposed development acceptable in planning terms; (iii) directly related to the proposed development; (iv) fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the proposed development; and (v) reasonable in all other respects.”

Conclusion

Given that the County Council have confirmed that there is no longer a justification for requiring a contribution towards the cost of primary school places, I conclude that the agreement requires amendment in order to comply with these tests. Continued . . .

89 2.9 (Contd) PART 2

In particular, Members’ approval is sought, subject to no new issues being raised by responses to the consultation (closing date 11 January 2010), for the Section 106 to be varied to delete the requirement for a contribution towards the provision of primary school places. ______

Responsible Officer: Jim Wilson (Major Projects Officer)

List of Backgrounds Documents

1. Application papers and correspondence relating to Application SW/09/1175 2. Application papers and correspondence for SW/00/1174 3. Application papers and correspondence for SW/00/1175 4. Application papers and correspondence for SW/08/0910

APPENDIX A ITEM 2.9 PART 2

APPENDIX B ITEM 2.9 PART 2

92 PART 2

2.10 SW/09/1060 (Case 15155) MINSTER

Location: Stonnes Family Centre, Halfway Road, Minster, Sheerness, Kent, ME12 3AA.

Proposal: Retrospective application for change of use of building from garden centre office to use for therapeutic, holistic complementary treatments and sale of associated products

Applicant/Agent: Phiniel Ltd, c/o Mr Anthony Millard, D O Facilities, 348 Lordswood Lane, Chatham, Kent, ME5 8JT.

Application Valid: 29th October 2009 and as amended by e-mail received 17 December 2009

Conditions (1) Retail sales from the building shall be restricted to the sale of holistic products and services only, in a manner ancillary to the use hereby approved.

Grounds: In the interests of protecting the vibrancy and vitality of Sheerness Town Centre, and in pursuance of Policies E1, B1, B3 and RC1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

Reason for Approval Having taken all material considerations into account, it is considered that subject to compliance with the attached conditions, the proposal would be in accordance with the development plan and would not cause unacceptable harm to the amenities of the area or prejudice highway safety or convenience. In resolving to grant permission, particular regard has been given to the following policies: E1, B1, B3 and RC1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

Description of Proposal This application seeks retrospective planning permission for the change of use of an office building to treatment rooms at Stonnes Family Centre (formerly Stones Garden Centre), Halfway Road, Minster.

The existing building, which is of a timber construction, measures 11 metres in length by 4.9 metres in depth by 3 metres in height. No external changes have been made or will be made to the building; the application is for a change of use only.

The tenants of the building, Calm Company, have submitted a statement in support of the application, which includes the following information: Continued . . .

103 2.10 (Contd) PART 2 “Calm Company is a group of holistic therapists working from Stonnes Family Centre selling their services therapeutic holistic complementary treatments such as reflexology, stress management, aromatherapy and massage. They also promote and sell Neal’s Yard organic oils and creams as well as organic make-up from their small beauty therapy department. Calm Company believes that holistic therapy does not belong in a hairdressing salon where the client has no real chance to relax due to the noise and use of chemicals for hairdressing and nail bars (often found in hair salons). They do not wish to enter a hair salon to go into a (usually) small room where they can hear noise all around them , and also have to listen to noisy music…Calm Company believes that someone who wishes to go for therapy would choose a calm and peaceful setting over what has been described above, and they believe that they have found this calm within the beautiful and relaxing setting of Stonnes Family Centre.”

The building in question is situated in the centre of the garden centre, adjacent to areas devoted to plant sales, etc. The site is outside of the built-up area.

Relevant Site History and Description

There is a long and varied history for this large site, but the most pertinent to the present application are those which have been submitted since the present owners bought the site; that history is as follows:

SW/08/0927 – Retrospective application for change of use of existing building from A1 (Shop) to A3 (Café), with retrospective application for the erection of adjoining conservatory – Approved.

SW/09/0349 – Retrospective change of use of bungalow from residential to A1 (retail-use) and erection of fence fronting highway (retrospective) – Approved.

SW/09/0519 – Retrospective application for the erection of a toilet block for customer use – Approved.

SW/09/0716 – Retrospective application for the erection of a temporary building for use as a small retail outlet – Approved.

SW/09/0944 – Retrospective application for change of use of building from Class B1 Business (Office) to Class A1 Shop (Beauty Salon) – withdrawn when Agent realised that the description of the proposal was inaccurate.

SW/09/1169 – Retrospective application for the establishment of an on-site hand car wash and valeting service – Ongoing Application.

Views of Consultees

Minster Parish Council raises no objection to the proposal. Continued . . .

104 2.10 (Contd) PART 2 Other Representations

Five emails of objection have been received. Their contents may be summarised as follows: • Inappropriate in a garden centre – should be in town centre. • Awful application – totally out of character for a garden centre. • Why is this a retrospective application? Why can’t these people do things properly? Site has changed so much recently. • Dirty animals, mice and rats on site. Very dirt café area. Very poor entrance surfaces to centre. Non existent health and safety on site. Wild animals and wild birds locked up (this must be illegal). Dumping of waste in gulley alongside entrance. Poor customer relations. • Transportation issues – not all people have transport to get to the centre. The owners of the centre are exploiting other businesses in the area that cannot get suitable accommodation.

One email of support has also been received, and is summarised as follows: • A relaxed place for this business. • Development is good – not just a garden centre, but now a place for all the family.

Planning Policies

The following policies of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008 are relevant:

E1 (General Criteria) B1 (Supporting and Retaining Existing Employment Land & Business) B3 (Maintaining & Enhancing the Viability of Town Centres) RC1 (Helping to Revitalise the Rural Economy)

Discussion

This is a retrospective application for the change of use of an existing building from an office to a holistic therapy centre at Stonnes Family Centre, Minster. It is unfortunate that this application, like others previously submitted, is retrospective. I have recently met with the applicant on site and have explained the potentially serious consequences of development without first gaining planning permission. However, any application, retrospective or proposed, must be decided on according to its merits and compliance with planning law and policy.

I note the objections raised by local residents, and would respond as follows:

• I agree with the tenants of the building, that a business such as theirs should, if possible, be conducted in a quieter location, rather than in a busy town centre. • The semi-pastoral nature of a garden centre is therefore a suitable location. Continued . . .

105 2.10 (Contd) PART 2 • As noted above, a retrospective application should not be treated differently from any other proposal. • The allegations regarding the animals on site are serious. I have consulted with colleagues who recently made a site inspection of the animals section (a little like a ‘Pets Corner), who report no significant concerns. They did note evidence of mice on the site, and report that the site owners are actively engaged in stopping this problem. However, it should be noted that this is not a planning issue. • There are similar serious allegations regarding the hygiene of the café. Again, colleagues from the Council’s Food Hygiene team have recently conducted an inspection, and report no significant issues. Again, however, this is not a planning issue. • I do not believe that the surface of the entrances is a significant safety issue. Having visited the site on numerous occasions, I would not describe the entrance to the site as dangerous. • I can find no evidence of dumping of waste in the streambed at the front of the site. • On the subject of transportation, it should be noted that the site is situated on a bus route.

I note the tenant’s statement, and would concur that this is an ideal location for this business. I would further contend that such a business, using natural products, is a suitable business to be found within a garden centre, a business place devoted to the sensitive cultivation of nature. I do, however, believe that this individual use should be restricted as such, hence the inclusion of the above condition. As such, I believe that this diversification is acceptable and worthy of support.

Recommendation This is a retrospective application for a change of use of an existing building from an office use to therapeutic holistic treatment use at Stonnes Family Centre, Halfway Road, Minster. As noted above, there will be no loss of amenity, and I would contend that the change of use is suitable for this site.

I therefore recommend that retrospective permission be granted. ______

Responsible Officer: Graham Thomas (Area Planning Officer)

List of Backgrounds Documents 1. Application Papers and Correspondence for Application SW/09/1060 2. Application Papers and Correspondence for Application SW/09/1169 3. Application Papers and Correspondence for Application SW/09/0944 4. Application Papers and Correspondence for Application SW/09/0716 5. Application Papers and Correspondence for Application SW/09/0519 6. Application Papers and Correspondence for Application SW/09/0349 7. Application Papers and Correspondence for Application SW/08/0927

106 PART 2

2.11 SW/09/0972 (Case 07305) BOBBING

Location: Land adj Upper Toes, Sheppey Way, Bobbing, Sittingbourne, Kent, ME9 8QP

Proposal: Change of use of land to use as a residential caravan site for one gypsy family with two caravans (including one static caravan), erection of amenity block and laying of hardstanding

Applicant/Agent: Mr Robert Beck, c/o Mr Philip Brown, Philip Brown Associates Ltd, 74 Park Road, Rugby, Warwickshire, CV21 2QX

Application Valid: 14 October 2009

Conditions

(1) The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date on which the permission is granted.

Grounds: In pursuance of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

(2) No development shall take place until full details of both hard and soft landscape works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the District Planning Authority. These details shall include existing trees, shrubs and other features, planting schedules of plants, noting species, plant sizes and numbers where appropriate, means of enclosure, hard surfacing materials, and an implementation programme.

Grounds: In the interests of the visual amenities of the area and in pursuance of policies E1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

(3) All hard and soft landscape works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. The works shall be carried out prior to the occupation of any part of the development or in accordance with the programme agreed in writing with the District Planning Authority. Grounds: In the interests of the visual amenities of the area and in pursuance of policies E1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

Continued . . .

107 2.11 (Contd) PART 2

(4) Upon completion of the approved landscaping scheme, any trees or shrubs that are removed, dying, being severely damaged or becoming seriously diseased within five years of planting shall be replaced with trees or shrubs of such size and species as may be agreed in writing with the District Planning Authority, and within whatever planting season is agreed. Grounds: In the interests of the visual amenities of the area and in pursuance of policies E1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

(5) No more than one static caravan and one touring caravan shall be stationed on the site at any one time.

Grounds: In the interests of the amenities of the local area, and in pursuance of policies E1, H4, E7 & E6 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

(6) The caravans shall only be occupied by persons of Gypsy status (as defined in ODPM Circular 01/2006) and by no other person(s) whatsoever.

Grounds: To ensure that the site occupants are gypsies, in pursuance of policies H4 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

(7) The site shall only be used for residential purposes, and it shall not be used for any business, industrial or commercial use. In this regard no open storage of plant, products or waste may take place on the land, and no vehicle over 3.5 tonnes shall be stationed, parked or stored on the land.

Grounds: In recognition of the terms of the application, and because an uncontrolled use of the land would be unacceptably detrimental to the character and amenities of the area, and in pursuance of policies E1, E7, H4 and T3 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

(8) No floodlighting, security lighting or other external lighting shall be installed or operated at the site, other than in accordance with details that have first been submitted to and agreed in writing by the District Planning Authority.

Grounds: In the interests of preventing light pollution, in pursuance of policy E2 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

Continued . . .

108 2.11 (Contd) PART 2 (9) The area shown on the submitted plan as ‘proposed gravel hardstanding’ shall be kept available for use as a parking area at all times and no permanent development, whether permitted by the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking or re-enacting that Order) or not, shall be carried out on the land so shown or in such a position as to preclude vehicular access thereto; such land and access thereto shall be provided prior to the residential use of the site hereby permitted.

Grounds: Development without adequate provision for the parking or garaging of cars is likely to lead to car parking inconvenient to other road users and detrimental to amenity and in pursuance of policies E1 and T3 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

Reasons for Approval

Description of Proposal

This application seeks permanent planning permission for the change of use of land from agriculture to a residential caravan site for one gypsy family. One static caravan and one mobile caravan would be provided within the site as well as a single storey pitched roof amenity block which would provide a toilet, shower room, kitchen and dining room. The access to the site is already in place and it is proposed that additional hardstanding would be provided within the application site.

The applicant has submitted a supporting statement. Extracts of this are set out below:

‘The proposed site would accommodate Robert and Mary Beck together with their children…..They are currently doubling-up on Mr Beck’s father’s site in Hempstead, but are having to live in one touring caravan. Living conditions are overcrowded…Robert and Mary Beck have a need for lawful accommodation of their own…

Mr Beck attends all of the traditional horse fairs to buy and sell horses, and travels away in his caravan for economic purposes for at least 7-8 weeks per year. He is clearly a Gypsy as defined in paragraph 14 of Circular 01/2006. His children attend Hempstead Junior School, and the provision of a settled site in the area would allow them continuity of education…’

Continued . . .

109 2.11 (Contd) PART 2 Relevant Site History and Description The application site lies outside of any defined built up area boundary and within the countryside. It also lies within an Important Local Countryside Gap. The site lies 1.3km from the Petrol Filling Station, restaurants and hotel on the outskirts of Bobbing, 0.9km from Bobbing Primary School and 1.4km from the doctors surgery within Iwade village. A grade II listed residential dwelling lies to the east of the application site and there are various outbuildings associated with this property that run along the boundary between the two sites. The Garden of England Crematorium and Memorial Gardens lie directly opposite the application site on the north side of Sheppey Way. The site is mostly surrounded by open fields. However, residential properties are scattered along this part of Sheppey Way and these are interspersed with large agricultural/commercial buildings.

The application site has been recently used as a small holding and has a lawful use as agriculture. There is a large barn immediately to the east of the application site. This building and the land to the south and west are owned by the applicant. This additional land and the adjacent barn are currently used by the applicant for the keeping of horses in association with his horse trading business. At present, there is no extant planning permission for this specific use. The applicant is aware that there is a requirement to regularise this use and any subsequent planning applications will be considered on its merits.

Planning permission was recently refused under reference SW/07/1243, for the erection of a detached dwelling on land immediately to the north of the application site. The reason for refusal stated that the development was unacceptable by virtue of being outside of the built up area boundary and contrary to Policies E6 and RC5 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008 which seek to prevent unnecessary development outside of defined existing settlements.

Members will recall that this application was due to be discussed at the last Planning Committee meeting. It was withdrawn from the agenda due to complications with the distribution of public speaking letters.

Views of Consultees Bobbing Parish Council have objected to the proposal on the grounds that a planning application for a house on this land was refused and that this application should be considered on the same grounds.

The Head of Environmental Services has no objections subject to the control of hours of construction.

Kent Highway Services have no objection subject to a condition to ensure that the parking area is retained for this use.

Continued . . .

110 2.11 (Contd) PART 2

Natural England have no objections to the proposal noting that the condition of the land within the application site is unlikely to provide a habitat for protected species. The standing advice from Natural England states that no protected species survey is required in this case.

The Environment Agency have no comment on the proposal.

Other Representations

Thirty letters of objection have been received from the surrounding local residents, two from local businesses, one from the opposite crematorium and one from the management of Blossoms Lodge Holiday Accommodation. A summary of their comments is as follows:

• The caravans would not be in keeping with the surrounding area; • How can an extension to a property/erection of a new dwelling on this same site, be refused on the grounds of the impact on the character of the countryside when this proposal is likely to be allowed; • There would be an unacceptable impact on the setting of the crematorium opposite the application site; • It would be difficult to control the number of caravans on site; • Horse breeding on this site should be prevented; • The increased traffic associated within the development would be dangerous; • The site could attract additional caravans that would park illegally on the surrounding land; • The development would devalue a nearby property; • The development would set a precedent for further gypsy sites in the area; • There could be an increase in petty crime and social nuisance as a consequence of this proposal; • The proposal would affect the setting of the adjacent listed building; • Holiday accommodation would be seriously affected along with the outlook of the scenery; • The proposal would not comply with policies within the Kent and Medway Structure Plan and the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008; • There is no reason for the amenity block; • The site is being unlawfully used for the keeping of horses; • The development is more than 2km from Sittingbourne; • The applicant’s do not provide sufficient information to demonstrate that they are gypsies and do not provide sufficient clarification on their current living accommodation; • A landscape impact assessment should be submitted with the proposal;

Continued . . .

111 2.11 (Contd) PART 2

• There are trees within the vicinity of the application site that should be protected; • Permitted development rights for gates, walls and fences should be removed from the site; • The development would be prominent from several vantage points unless adequate landscaping is provided; • The need for the applicant to reside at the application site in order to be in close proximity to the land on which they keep their horses is given as justification for allowing the development. This application should therefore be dealt with concurrently with an application to regularise the equestrian use of the adjoining land; • The application site is close to the A249 and an assessment should therefore be made of the impact of air quality on the future occupants of the land. • The Council should be fair and even-handed and not discriminate between applicants. Why should gypsies be allowed to develop this site when a previous application for a single house was refused. • This is an ad hoc application and does not form part of the Council’s Local Development Framework. • Two Site Notices about this application have been removed within two days of being displayed. • The development could destroy the environment within which rare and protected species may reside. • There is no need for the applicants to be allowed residence here.

A letter from Bobbing Neighbourhood Residents Committee has also been submitted. They note, amongst matters already reported to Members, that the application, if approved would be against their human rights, that the gypsies are required to provide a need and that there are inaccuracies in the application.

Policies

Policies E1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008 (SBLP) gives general guidance regarding design and amenity, amongst others. Policy E19 (SBLP) aims to achieve high quality design on all developments in the Borough.

Policy E14 (SBLP) seeks to ensure that development does not harm the setting of a listed building.

Policy E6 (SBLP) seeks to protect the countryside of the Borough for its own sake by restricting unnecessary development. It goes on to state that sites for gypsies or travelling showpersons may be permitted where they comply with Policy H4. Policy E7 of the Local Plan looks more specifically at protecting Strategic Gaps in the interest of retaining the individual character and setting of settlements. Continued . . .

112 2.11 (Contd) PART 2 Policy H4 of the Local Plan, “Providing Accommodation for Gypsies and Travelling Showpersons,” states that the Council will grant permission for the use of land for the stationing of homes for persons, provided that;

- They can demonstrate they are gypsies with a local connection; - The site is close to local services and facilities; - There will be no more than 4 mobile homes; - There is no suitable site available within the built up area; - The land is not within a flood risk area - Screening and landscaping can be provided to minimize adverse impacts; - There is no conflict with pedestrian or highway safety; - The site is not designated for its landscape importance and; - Residential amenity is not affected, amongst others.

However, Policy H4 has been largely superseded by ODPM Circular 01/2006, which provides guidance on dealing with applications for gypsy and traveller sites and takes precedence over H4. Importantly, it recognises the need for an increased number of authorised privately owned gypsy sites and sets out the requirement for Council’s to identify potential site within there boroughs. At paragraph 54, this circular states;

“Sites on the outskirts of built up areas may be appropriate. Sites may also be found in rural or semi-rural settings. Rural settings, where not subject to special planning constraints, are acceptable in principle…Sites should respect the scale of, and not dominate the nearest settled community. They should also avoid placing undue pressure on the local infrastructure.”

The circular also provides a definition of gypsies and travellers:

“Persons of nomadic habit of life whatever their race or origin, including such persons who on grounds only of their own or their family’s or dependent’s educational or health needs or old age have ceased to travel temporarily or permanently, but excluding members of an organised group of travelling show people or circus people travelling together as such.”

This circular goes on to explain that traditional gypsy lifestyles involve scrap metal, laying tarmacadam, seasonal agricultural work, casual labouring and other employment are changing, and that the community has become more settled, and is now operating in trades which require less mobility. This is essentially leading to the need for more permanent sites, from which gypsies can travel, and this allows better access to education and health care.

In July 2009 the Council published a Gypsy and Traveller Corporate Policy to address the issue of gypsy site provision. This Policy sets outs the Council’s approach to the Government’s requirement for Councils to make provision for gypsy sites within their boroughs and proposes a full survey of potential sites set against a set of criteria in accordance with Government Guidance. This survey is now complete and its findings are due to be reported to the Local Development Framework Panel in January 2010. Continued . . .

113 2.11 (Contd) PART 2

Policies T3 and T1 (SBLP) deal with traffic and access, and seek to minimise the highways impacts of any new development through the provision of adequate parking, sightlines, turning space, etc.

Discussion

I consider the key issues to be the principle of a gypsy site in this location, the impact on the setting of the adjacent listed building and the acceptability of the site in respect of highway safety and visual impact.

Principle

The information submitted with the supporting statement demonstrates that, in my opinion, the applicants are Gypsies and that they have family connections to the local area and the area of Hempstead, approximately 9 miles away. I do not therefore dispute the Gypsy status in this case.

The policy guidance noted above is clear that Local Planning Authorities should not look to refuse applications such as this unless there are clear planning reasons indicating that the site is inappropriate. It is stated in Circular 01/2006 that even where areas are locally designated for their particular features, this does not in itself amount to a reason for refusal. As stated above, rural sites with no special planning constraints are acceptable in principle. Taking into account the fact that this site has no national or local planning constraints, I do not consider that refusal of planning permission on grounds relating to the principle of the use proposed would be advisable in this case as this would be contrary to the advice set out in Circular 01/2006.

In my opinion, the site is within a relatively sustainable location, within walking distance of Bobbing and Iwade (1.3km and 1.4km respectively). The site is not contaminated and is not within a flood risk zone. It therefore meets the principle test set out in government guidance

This application site did not form part of the site survey conducted as part of the Gypsy and Traveller Corporate Policy (June 2009). The Gypsy and Traveller Corporate Policy is however, a useful tool for assessing the acceptability of a site for its use as a gypsy site. The assessment of sites is broken down into specific criteria such as: site access and parking; whether the land is contaminated; whether the site is screened from the road; distance from neighbouring properties etc. In this case, the application site scored highly with most criteria positively met, for example, the site is not likely to be contaminated, there is an existing suitable access to the site, there is the potential for landscaping at the site, the site is a suitable distance from neighbouring properties also.

Continued . . .

114 2.11 (Contd) PART 2

One of the objectors has noted that this application should be considered at the same time as an application to regularise the use of the adjacent land for the keeping of horses noting that being close to the paddocks is provided as justification for allowing residential accommodation at the application site. The applicant is aware that there is a requirement to regularise the equestrian use of the adjacent land and any subsequent planning applications will be considered on its merits. Members should note that I have given no weight to the close proximity of the application site to the applicant’s land used for keeping horses. For the reasons set out above, the application is considered to be acceptable in principle, independently of the use of the adjacent site, and I am therefore of the strong view that this application can, and should be, considered independently of any future application for the equestrian use of adjacent land. Members should also note that by granting planning permission for the use of this site for one gypsy family this does not have any bearing on the outcome of an application for the use of the adjacent land for the keeping of horses, whether this is for private equestrian activity, or for commercial equestrian activity. I am unaware at this stage of the exact nature and intensity of the applicant’s horse trading business and whether the land adjacent to the application site is the only land available for the operation of this business. However, I have asked for this information to be provided with any subsequent application for the regularisation of the use of the adjacent land. At that time, the Council will be in the position to assess the acceptability of such a use. Members should note that at the time of my site visits, I only noticed 2 horses on the land in question.

Despite the objector’s concerns regarding non-compliance with planning policies such as E6 and E7, Circular 01/2006 is clear in that ‘Rural settings, where not subject to special planning constraints, are acceptable in principle.’ The refusal of planning permission for the detached dwelling on land immediately to the north of this site was assessed under the relevant policies within the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008 which seek to restrict development within the countryside. As such, whilst a new permanent dwelling within the countryside will not generally be accepted, a gypsy site will be acceptable in principle for the reasons set out in Circular 01/2006 and as noted in the Council’s Gypsy and Traveller Corporate Policy. Notably, these documents make it clear that Gypsies and Travellers are a recognised ethnic minority under the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000 with the recognised right to live a traditional and nomadic lifestyle.

The need for the utility block has been questioned by an objector. However, it is quite common for gypsy sites to have a permanent building that can be used as a utility block. No sleeping accommodation would be provided within this particular building and I am of the opinion that there would be no principle harm in allowing the applicant’s a building that can be fully insulated etc for use as a bathroom etc.

Continued . . .

115 2.11 (Contd) PART 2 I do not consider that a temporary permission would be necessary here owing to the acceptability in principle of its use as a gypsy site and good relationship to the highway network and local amenities/services including a school, shop and health centre, and, as discussed below, the acceptability of the site in respect of the impact on visual amenities and highway safety.

Visual amenities

The area of the application site that would contain the two caravans and utility block is set back from Sheppey Way by 30m. There is vegetation at a height of approximately 3.5m, that runs along the boundary with Sheppey Way to the northwest of the caravans’ proposed location. This provides a certain amount of screening for the application site and the applicant has offered to increase the density of this vegetation to further screen the site from public views from Sheppey Way. Although outside of the application site, as the applicant owns this adjacent land, conditions (2), (3) and (4) can be applicable to this particular boundary and can ensure that the applicant’s suggestion is implemented.

There would be some view of the proposed caravans and utility building from Quinton Road, to the southwest. However, this would be at a distance of 180m which would significantly limit the presence of these structures within the landscape in my view. Additional landscaping will also help to screen these views.

In my view, the proposal, set against the context of the large utilitarian barn immediately to the east of the application site and the other scattered buildings fronting Sheppey Way, would have a limited impact on the character or visual amenities of the surrounding area.

The visual impact of this proposal would be further limited, in my opinion, by condition (6) which restricts the number of caravans on this site (one static and one touring), condition (7) which restricts the use of the site to ensure that no commercial activities take place on site and/or not commercial vehicles over 3.5 tonnes are allowed to be parking on site and finally, condition (8) which restricts the type of lighting at the site.

Listed Building

Uppertoes is the adjacent grade II listed building immediately to the north-east of the site. The application site is divided from this building by the large agricultural barn to the east of the siting of the proposed caravans, dense vegetation along the boundary between the two sites and a collection of outbuildings within the curtilage of Uppertoes. The main listed building is also 27m from the siting of the proposed caravans. I therefore consider that the proposed caravans and utility block would have no detrimental impact on the setting of this grade II listed building. Uppertoes and the proposed caravans/utility block would be viewed within different contexts in my opinion. Continued . . .

116 2.11 (Contd) PART 2

Highway Implications

The access to the application site is already established and has been since planning permission was granted for it in 1982 (SW/82/0425). The previous use of the application site as a small holding would have attracted a certain number of vehicles to the site. I do not envisage that the number of vehicles using the site as part of the proposed residential use, would be significantly increased. The use of the access for the current unauthorised equestrian use of the land to the south and west will need to be considered separately from this proposal.

Kent Highway Services have no objection to the proposal on highway grounds. I therefore consider that the proposed development would have no detrimental impact on highway safety and convenience.

Other Issues

There have been a number of comments made from local residents, and the owners of the crematorium, that the proposed gypsy site would have a detrimental impact on the setting of the crematorium. I have given some consideration to this matter but am of the opinion that there will be no significant noise and activity created by the proposed development owing to the limited number of residents at the site which would be restricted by the number of caravans allowed to be stationed there (condition 5). I also consider that the visual impact would be limited for the reasons set out above.

I do not consider it necessary to impose a condition restricting the hours of construction owing to the small scale of built development proposed and the distance that the adjacent residential dwelling would be from the development.

The devaluation of properties is not a material planning consideration. The opinions regarding the potential increase in petty crime/anti-social behaviour are completely unsubstantiated and are not material planning considerations in this case.

The Kent and Medway Structure Plan has been quoted by some objectors. This is no longer a material planning consideration as it no longer forms part of the Development Plan.

The Head of Environmental Services has no concerns in respect of the air quality at this site. I do not therefore consider that the development should be prohibited as a consequence of the presence of the A249.

I do not consider that the removal of permitted development rights for the erection of gates, walls and fences will be necessary in this case. The site would be enclosed by landscaping, to be agreed via condition (2). This would Continued . . .

117 2.11 (Contd) PART 2 limit any views of walls and fences within the site. Any walls and fences over 1m in height adjacent to the road would require planning permission. This is where such features would be most visible and I consider that there would already be sufficient control without the need to removed permitted development rights.

With regards to protected species, the standing advice from Natural England does not identify the land within the application site as potentially providing a habitat for protected species. There is no need for a survey of this site in this case. Natural England confirm that there are no records of badgers on or close to the application site and as there are no buildings to be demolished/trees removed as a consequence of the development, the development would not affect bats. With regards to reptiles and great crested newts, Natural England advise that the limited ground cover at this site would not provide a habitat for these species.

Recommendation

Having considered the letters of representation from local residents and businesses, the comments of the Parish Council, comments of consultees and the relevant Development Plan Policies, I am of the opinion that this development is acceptable in principle. It would comply with Policy H4 and the guidance set out in ODPM circular 01/2006 and would also score highly on the Gypsy and Traveller Corporate Policy assessment pro forma. The proposal would have a limited impact on the visual amenities of the surrounding area in my opinion and subject to further landscaping, would not be prominent within the landscape. The application site is also separate enough from the adjacent listed building, in my view, to ensure that it would have no detrimental impact on the setting of the listed building. There are no highway implications identified by Kent Highway Services and I am of the view that the existing access would be sufficient for the use of one gypsy family.

Taking the above into account I recommend that planning permission be granted subject to appropriate conditions. ______

Responsible Officer: Rob Bailey (Area Planning Officer)

List of Backgrounds Documents

1. Application papers for SW/09/0972

2. Correspondence relating to SW/09/0972

3. Application papers for SW/07/1243

4. Correspondence relating to SW/07/1243

118 PART 2 2.12 SW/09/1103 (Case 23656) LEYSDOWN

Location: Land South of Leysdown Road, Leysdown, Sheppey, Kent, ME12 4LH

Proposal: Change of use of land from agriculture to agriculture and boot fair on Sundays and bank holidays between 1st March and 31st October being the relocation of the car boot fair use permitted under SW/95/0858 (case no 5764) dated 7th November 1996.

Applicant/Agent: Mr Henry Cooper, c/o Mr P Sharpe, Paul Sharpe Associates, The Old Rectory, Burytown Lane, Broad Blunsdon, Swindon, Wilts, SN26 7DQ

Application Valid: 5 November 2009

Conditions (1) The use of the land for boot fairs shall cease on or before 31st October 2012.

Grounds: In the interests of the amenities of the area, and to allow the situation to be reviewed at the end of the period, in pursuance of Policies E1 and E2 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

(2) The boot fair use shall exist only for the benefit of H Cooper Esq, and for no other person or persons whatsoever, and shall be operated on Sundays and bank holidays between 1st March and 31st October only and not on any other days.

Grounds: In the interests of the amenities of the area and highway convenience and in pursuance of policies E1 & E2 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

(3) The number of sales pitches (vehicles and stalls) on the site at any one time shall not exceed 200.

Grounds: In the interests of the amenities of the area and highway safety and convenience and in pursuance of policies E1, E2 & T1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008

(4) The highway alterations as shown on drawing number H357/01 Revision A, including the insertion of the pedestrian crossing and new footway, and the inclusion of new dropped kerbs to both the proposed access into and exit from the site shall be completed prior to the use hereby permitted being commenced and shall be maintained until the use ceases. Continued . . .

119 2.12 (Contd) PART 2

Grounds: In the interests of highway safety and convenience and in pursuance of policy T1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

(5) Traders' vehicles shall not be permitted to arrive, be unloaded or loaded within the site before 7.00am or after 2.00pm and customers vehicles shall not be admitted to the site before 8.00am. All vehicles and stalls brought onto the site shall be removed by 3.00pm.

Grounds: In order to protect neighbouring amenity and in pursuance of policies E1 & E2 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

(6) The areas shown on drawing 09.23.02C as an area of bootfair pitches and parking for visitors shall be reserved for these uses and shall be kept available for those purposes only at all times when the bootfair is open.

Grounds: In order to ensure that adequate provision is made for parking and stall holders and to ensure highway safety and convenience, in pursuance of policies E1, E2 & T3 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

(7) Any loudspeaker, public address system or music used in connection with the bootfair/funfair shall not be audible beyond the boundary of the site.

Grounds: In order to protect neighbouring amenity and in pursuance of policies E1 & E2 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

(8) Litter bins or containers shall be provided throughout the site for use by the public at a minimum ratio of one bin per six stalls. The application site, and all verges and footpaths within 50m of the site shall be cleared of all litter, debris etc resulting from the bootfair within 1 hour or its closure to the public.

Grounds: In the interests of the visual amenities of the area and in pursuance of policies E1 & E2 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

(9) Each stall shall be provided with a refuse container and all refuse sacks, containers and skips shall be removed from the site within one hour of the closure of the bootfair to the public.

Grounds: In the interests of the visual amenities of the area and in pursuance of policies E1 & E2 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

(10) A mobile toilet block shall be kept available for use whenever the bootfair is in operation.

Continued . . .

120 2.12 (Contd) PART 2

Grounds: In the interests of amenity and in pursuance of policy E1of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

(11) The sight lines shown on drawing H357/01 Revision A shall be provided with no obstruction over 1.05 metres above carriageway level prior to the first bootfair use, and thereafter no such obstruction shall be placed within the sight lines once agreed.

Grounds: In the interests of highway and in pursuance of policy T1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

(12) The eastern site access shall be used as an ingress only and a scheme of signage to ensure no exit by bootfair vendors or customers vehicles from this access shall be submitted to and approved by the District Planning Authority and maintained whenever the bootfair is operated.

Grounds: In the interests of highway and in pursuance of policy T1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

(13) At all times when the bootfair is being operated, marshalls shall be employed to control traffic and to give effect to the above conditions relating to traffic entry and exit and litter collection etc.

Grounds: In the interests of the amenities of the area and highway safety and convenience and in pursuance of policies E1, E2 & T1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

Reason for Approval

Description of Proposal

This application proposes the change of use of a field from agriculture use to also include a bootfair use on Sundays and bank holidays between 1st March and 31st October at land South of Leysdown, Leysdown Road, Sheppey. The proposal is a relocation of an existing bootfair permission which was located on the other side of Leysdown Road which was permitted under planning reference SW/95/0858.

Continued . . .

121 2.12 (Contd) PART 2

Members may recall that a similar application for the same site was recently refused by the Planning Committee in July 2009. This is a resubmission that seeks to specifically deal with the three reasons for refusal which related to highway concerns. The three reasons for refusal were as follows;

“(1) The proposed development is likely to generate an increase in pedestrian traffic on a highway lacking adequate footways and crossing facilities with consequent additional hazards to all users of the road. As such the proposal would be detrimental to highway safety and convenience, contrary to Policies E1 and T4 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008. (2) The traffic generated by the proposed development would be likely to increase the conflict of traffic movements close to an existing junction resulting in additional hazard and inconvenience to all users of the road. As such the proposal would be detrimental to highway safety and convenience, contrary to Policies E1 and T1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008. (3) The traffic generated by the proposal would be likely to lead to delays on the local highway network, and cause unnecessary inconvenience and additional hazards to all users of the highway. As such the proposal would be detrimental to highway safety and convenience, contrary to Policies E1 and T1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.”

This application is the same in all respects to the previous application except alterations have been proposed to meet the highway concerns, which include alterations to the proposed access/ egress, a new pedestrian crossing, a revised “in-out” arrangement and marshalling on boot fair days. In addition the applicant has requested a permanent permission due to the cost involved in carrying out the proposed alterations, such as the insertion of a pedestrian crossing and new footway.

The application site abuts Leysdown Road and has two existing entrances, one opposite Warden Bay Road, which is the proposed exit, and the other opposite the telephone exchange, which is the proposed entrance. The site measures approximately 5.6 hectares and is relatively flat.

Portable chemical toilets would be provided on the site to serve the bootfair and two staff would be employed on a regular basis, with five others performing part time roles. Litter bins would be provided at the end of each aisle and two skips would be located on site, one for cardboards and one for general waste.

The proposed site layout for the bootfair includes a large area for car parking which covers just over half of the site and would be located at the western side of the site spanning from the road to the back of the site. The boot fair pitches would be located at the eastern side of the site, with a disabled parking area to the front of the pitches. Continued . . .

122 2.12 (Contd) PART 2

The agent has submitted an accompanying statement. An extract reads as follows;

“Background Planning permission reference SW/95/0858 (Case No. 5764) for use of land to the north of Leysdown Road for Mr Cooper’s car boot fair was granted (on appeal) on 7th November 1996 and, being a permission personal to Mr Cooper, has operated successfully on Sundays and Bank Holidays since that time.

However, part of the above site has now been sold to Kent County Council for education purposes and the remainder has been ploughed up, such that it is not possible to stage a car boot fair on the permitted site. Mr Cooper neither owns the site on the north side of Leysdown Road nor has he any lease thereof and therefore is not able to implement his personal permission for a car boot fair on that site.

The current application therefore seeks simply to relocate a car boot fair that has operated successfully since at least 1995 from one side of Leysdown Road (north side) to the other (south side), to a site known as Caesar’s Field.

Proposed use Caesar’s Field is used generally for grazing purposes but has been the site of a visiting fun fair for the last 30 years. During the summer of 2009 a funfair was held on the site generally at the same time at the same time as the boot fair. In practice, the boot fair would finish by 2.00pm whereas the funfair tended to be an evening event. Nevertheless, in future the site will be used only for boot fair use and the funfair will find an alternative venue. This has been agreed with the owner of the boot fair site

As before the current proposal is simply to relocate Mr Cooper’s boot fair from the site of planning permission SW/95/0858 to Caesar’s Field, thus changing the use of the field from agriculture and fun fair use to “agriculture and car boot fair use”.

The proposed car boot fair would continue to be operated by Mr Cooper and would operate on Sundays and Bank Holidays between 1st March and 31st October.

Generally, the boot fair would open at 6.00 am, litter bins having first been set up at the ends of each aisle together with temporary directional signage for car parking and disabled parking. Space exists for about 200 pitches, about 450 parking spaces and about 30 disabled parking spaces. Adequate space would also be available for cycle parking and a scheduled bus stop exists on the Leysdown Road frontage of the site.

The boot fair would provide employment for 2 people and 5 others on a part- time basis. Two skips would be located on-site, one for cardboard and one for general waste and they would be emptied as required. Three chemical toilets would also be provided.”

Continued . . .

123 2.12 (Contd) PART 2

Highway Improvements

Following the refusal of planning permission in July 09 informal discussions have taken place with Mr Alun Millard of Kent Highway Services who, without prejudice, has indicated that the associated highway issues are capable of resolution. Consequently PFA Consulting were commissioned to address the issues and a Transport Report together with drawing H357/01 Rev A detailing highway improvement works now accompanies the application.

The drawing shows revised arrangements for vehicular access/egress to/from the site and in particular improved arrangements for pedestrians to cross Leysdown Road especially those approaching from the Warden Bay Road direction. Not only would the proposed crossing point for pedestrians improve arrangements for visitors to the boot fair but pedestrian access to the bus stop to the south side of Leysdown Road would also be improved.

Dropped kerbs at the exit and entrance points together with an “in-out” arrangement and appropriate marshalling on boot fair days complete the application proposals appropriately addressing the highway concerns.

In summary, the proposed highway arrangements and works appropriately address the reasons for refusal previously cited by the Highway Authority. Adequate facilities would be provided for pedestrians crossing Leysdown Road; conflicting traffic movements would be minimised and delays on the network would be obviated. In addition improved access to a bus stop would be facilitated.”

Relevant Site History and Description

The site is located in the countryside, outside of the built up area boundary of Leysdown.

As explained earlier in the report, planning permission was refused in July 2009 under planning reference SW/09/0408 for a similar proposal for change of use of the land to include a bootfair use on Sundays and bank holidays between 1st March and 31st October.

The previous site used by the applicant for the bootfair has a complex history. I will briefly outline the details.

SW/94/258 – change of use from grazing to grazing and Sunday boot fair between 1 March and 31 October each year. This application was approved on a temporary basis in May 1994 and allowed the bootfair to operate until the end of October of the same year. This permission also included a condition restricting the types of goods that could be sold at the bootfair ie not goods that you would normally find on a market stall or a retail shop.

Continued . . .

124 2.12 (Contd) PART 2

Following this permission, the applicant applied to renew the permission later the same year under planning reference SW/94/1135. This was approved in April 1995 with similar conditions, although the temporary period had been increased to three years, and the condition (12) restricting the sale of certain goods had been altered to state “No stall or vehicle brought onto the site in association with the Sunday bootfair use hereby permitted shall be used primarily for the sale of new goods; a sign reading "No market Traders" shall be erected at both entrances and removed when the boot fair is not in operation. The grounds read “As unrestricted retail sales could be detrimental to the vitality and viability of the retail centre of Leysdown”.

In 1995 under planning reference SW/95/858 the applicant applied to remove conditions 1 and 12 of the previous approval (SW/94/1135) which in effect were the removal of the temporary time period and the restriction of the type of goods that could be sold. The application was reported to at Committee where it was resolved to refuse the application, although the application remained undetermined.

Following this the applicant appealed to the Planning Inspectorate who allowed the appeal on the basis that the conditions were unreasonable and unnecessary and failed to meet the tests set out in the circular relating to planning conditions. The Inspector concluded that a bootfair operating for just 5 hours a week would not represent significant competition with permanent premises in Leysdown.

Views of Consultees and Other Representations

Natural England have raised no objections to the application.

The Environment Agency have no comments to make.

No comments have been received to date from Leysdown Parish Council, Kent Highway Services or local residents although the closing date for comments has passed.

Planning Policies

The policies most relevant to this application are E1 (general criteria), E2 (Pollution), E6 (Countryside), E8 (Development on agricultural land), E11 (Protecting the quality of the landscape), RC1 (Revitalising the rural economy), RC2 (Retaining rural services and facilities), B3 (Town Centres), B4 (New Retail Development), T1 (Providing safe access) & T3 (parking for new development) of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

Continued . . .

125 2.12 (Contd) PART 2

Discussion

The main considerations in this case have not altered since the previously refused application on highway grounds and the key considerations remain;

• Whether the proposed use is acceptable in principle and essentially demands a rural location • What the implications are arising from the previous appeal decision • What the benefits could be to the local area • Impact on highway safety and convenience

The revised application has sought to deal with the highway concerns. All other aspects of the application remain unchanged.

With regards to the first consideration, I consider the proposed location in a rural field to be acceptable on the basis that it is a use that would usually only take place on one day in any week. The main use of the land would continue to be as an agricultural field. Of course the principle was carefully considered back in the mid 1990’s when the bootfair use was first granted at the previous site, which was also located in the countryside. I therefore do not consider that the proposed alternative use of the site would compromise the agricultural use of the site, which incidently remains in the ownership of a farmer. Although the use does not necessarily demand a rural location, it would be very difficult to locate a site of a suitable size to be able to accommodate such a use within a built up area. In addition, because of the occasional nature of the use (usually one day a week), I do not consider the proposal would have a significant impact on the character of the rural area or raise environmental concerns.

Concern has been raised previously by some neighbouring residents and Leysdown Parish Council regarding the type of goods that can/ should be sold at the bootfair and if this causes competition with the shops in Leysdown and whether the proposal should really be called a market rather than a bootfair. This is not a new issue, but is something that has been carefully considered during all of the previous planning applications for the bootfair (at both this site and the previous site). It is also an issue that Members of the Planning Committee previously raised concern about at the previous site and wished to control by way of a planning condition restricting the type of goods that could be sold. The aim of this was to try and prevent a loss of trade to businesses within Leysdown. However, the applicant successfully appealed against a non-determined application that sought to remove the condition that restricted the type of goods sold in 1995 (planning reference SW/95/0858) and the Inspector concluded that it was unreasonable to restrict the type of goods sold as the bootfair only operates for 5 hours a week, this would not impact greatly on the viability of Leysdown. Given this strong message from the Planning Inspector on such matters, I have not recommended a condition of this type be attached to this application should Members wish to permit the change of use. Continued . . .

126 2.12 (Contd) PART 2

There is also a counter-argument that Members may wish to consider which is that the bootfair could actually help to support the retail trade in Leysdown rather than compete with it.

Some residents previously raised concern about issues such as litter and mud on the road. I have attempted to address such issues by way of planning conditions, however, as I am recommending a temporary permission, these issues can of course be monitored over the temporary period.

With regards to the likely impact on highway safety, this is an issue that previously was of great concern to the Parish Council, Kent Highway Services some local residents and the committee. In response to these concerns, the applicant commissioned PFA Consulting to undertake a transport report to attempt to resolve the concerns raised, specifically in respect of the reasons for refusal.

The revised proposal involves the creation of a new pedestrian crossing towards the western end of the site along Leysdown Road. A new footway link is also proposed to the southern side of Leysdown Road, linking the proposed crossing point, the existing bus stop facility and the application site. The application also proposes to widen the existing access and to provide a dedicated lane for vehicles turning into the site from the west and the east with signage and marshalling. The parking arrangements have been arranged to ensure that vehicles can park quickly without the need to queue back on the road.

I have considered the proposal very carefully, taking into account the new highway measures proposed by the applicant. I understand that the report commissioned based on discussions with Kent Highway Services who have advised what measures they consider would overcome their objections to the application. Although I have yet to receive formal comments from Kent Highway Services regarding the application, I do not expect them to raise objection to the application. I consider the measures proposed by the applicant would successfully deal with the previous reasons for refusal, and the new pedestrian crossing in particular would offer significant benefits to the whole community. I would also like to remind Members that the proposal would only operate for limited months of the year, and generally for just a few hours on only one day in any week (except for Bank Holidays). Therefore I consider the proposed highway measures would be effective in preventing highway safety and convenience issues at the site bearing in mind the limited days and hours of operation. However, to ensure this is the case, and despite the applicant’s request and the obvious costs of the proposed works, I believe that a temporary permission is appropriate to enable the Council to assess how effective these measures are on the ground.

Continued . . .

127 2.12 (Contd) PART 2

Recommendation

This application seeks a change of use from agriculture to agriculture and bootfair on Sundays and Bank Holiday Mondays between 1st March and 31st October at land South of Leysdown, Leysdown Road, Sheppey.

The application seeks to address Members’ previous concerns on highway grounds and has proposed site specific measures to provide access to the site.

Members will note that despite the applicants request for a permanent permission I am recommending a temporary permission which I consider to be reasonable in this case as we are dealing with a new site with different highway implications and it would allow officers to monitor the situation, particularly with regards to the highway issues and to monitor whether the proposed measures have successfully alleviated the highway concerns.

I consider that subject to the above conditions, the proposal would not give rise to unacceptable harm to neighbouring amenity or highway safety issues.

Responsible Officer: Graham Thomas (Area Planning Officer)

List of Background Documents

1. Application Papers for Application SW/09/1103

2. Application Papers for Applications SW/09/0408, SW/94/0258, SW/94/1135 and SW/95/0858

128 PART 2

2.13 SW/09/0917 (Case 22334) BOUGHTON

Location: Whatman House The Charlton’s Boughton Kent ME13 9AQ

Proposal: Demolition of the existing two storey building and the construction of 5 x 2, 3 and 4 bedroom houses with front and private rear gardens and 8 x 1 and 2 bedroom flats (including 2 wheelchair flats) with car parking facilities, cycle storage, bin stores and landscaped amenity area

Applicant/Agent: Mr S Farley, Amicus Horizon, c/o Mr G Curtis, The Tooley & Foster Partnership, Warwick House, 116 Palmerston Road, Buckhurst Hill, Essex,

Application Valid: 14 October 2009 and amended by email dated 14 December 2009

SUBJECT TO: Receipt of satisfactorily amended drawings, information regarding protected species and a Unilateral Undertaking in relation to retention of affordable housing.

Conditions

(1) The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date on which the permission is granted.

Grounds: In pursuance of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

(2) Prior to the commencement of development, details of the external finishing materials to be used on the development hereby permitted shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the District Planning Authority and shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details.

Grounds: In the interest of visual amenity and in pursuance of policies E1 and E19 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

(3) No works shall take place until all door and window details, at a suggested scale of not less than 1:20 have been submitted to and approved in writing by the District Planning Authority. Continued . . .

129 2.13 (Contd) PART 2

Grounds: In the interest of visual amenity and in pursuance of policies E1 and E19 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

(4) No development shall take place until full details of both hard and soft landscape works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the District Planning Authority. These details shall include existing trees, shrubs and other features, planting schedules of plants, noting species, plant sizes and numbers where appropriate, means of enclosure, hard surfacing materials, and an implementation programme.

Grounds:In the interests of the visual amenities of the area and in pursuance of policies E1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

(5) All hard and soft landscape works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. The works shall be carried out prior to the occupation of any part of the development or in accordance with the programme agreed in writing with the District Planning Authority.

Grounds: In the interests of the visual amenities of the area and in pursuance of policies E1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

(6) Upon completion of the approved landscaping scheme, any trees or shrubs that are removed, dying, being severely damaged or becoming seriously diseased within five years of planting shall be replaced with trees or shrubs of such size and species as may be agreed in writing with the District Planning Authority, and within whatever planting season is agreed.

Grounds: In the interests of the visual amenities of the area and in pursuance of policies E1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

(7) All trees to be retained must be protected by suitable fencing of a height not less than 1.2m at a distance as specified in Table 1 or Figure 2 of BS 5837 (1991) ‘Trees in Relation to Construction’ before any equipment, machinery or materials are brought on to the site and shall be maintained until all equipment, machinery and surplus materials have been removed from the site. Nothing shall be stored or placed, nor fires lit, within any of the area fenced in accordance with this condition and the ground levels within those areas shall not be altered, nor shall any excavation be made, without the written consent of the District Planning Authority.

(8) Grounds: To safeguard the existing trees to be retained and to ensure a satisfactory setting and external appearance to the development and in pursuance of policies E1 and E10 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008. Continued . . .

130 2.13 (Contd) PART 2

(9) The cill level of kitchen windows to flat units 10 and 11 shall be set at not less than 1.7m above floor level of that flat.

Grounds: In the interests of the amenities of the area and in pursuance of policies E1 and E19 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

(10) The vehicle parking spaces shown on the approved plan shall be provided prior to the occupation of the respective dwelling and shall be kept available for such use at all times and no permanent development shall be carried out on the land so shown or in such a position as to preclude vehicular access to the vehicle parking spaces.

Grounds: To ensure a permanent retention of vehicle parking for the properties as supported by policies E1 and T3 of The Swale Borough Local Plan 2008

(11) No development shall take place until full details of the method of disposal of foul and surface waters have been submitted to and approved by the District Planning Authority. The approved details shall be implemented before the first use of the development hereby permitted.

Grounds: In order to prevent pollution of water supplies and in pursuance of policy E1, E2 E3 and E4 of The Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

(12) Notwithstanding the details contained in the submitted Lloydbore Ecology Report dated September 2009, no development shall be carried out on the land until the applicant, or their agents or successors in title, have submitted a mitigation strategy for the protection of the bat population at the site.

Grounds: To ensure the retention of the protected species (common pipistrelle bat) population at the site in pursuance of PPS9 and Policies E1 and E11 of The Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

(13) No development shall take place until details have been submitted to, and approved in writing by the District Planning Authority, which set out what measures will be taken to ensure that the development incorporates sustainable construction techniques such as rainwater harvesting, water conservation, energy efficiency and where appropriate, the use of local building materials; and provisions for optimizing the orientation of the solar thermal and photovoltaic installations. Upon approval, the details shall be incorporated into the development as approved.

Continued . . .

131 2.13 (Contd) PART 2

Grounds: In the interest of promoting energy efficiency and sustainable development, and in pursuance of policies E1 and E21 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

(14) The amenity area shown on the approved plans shall be retained for use by the residents of all the flats throughout the duration of the development.

Grounds: In the interests of residential amenity and in pursuance of policies E1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

(15) No development shall take place until full details of the proposed cycle store have been submitted to and approved in writing by the District Planning Authority.

Grounds: In the interests of the visual amenities of the area and in pursuance of policies E1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008

(16) No development shall take place until a programme for the suppression of dust during the demolition of existing buildings and construction of the development has been submitted to and approved by the District Planning Authority. The measures shall be employed throughout the period of demolition and construction unless any variation has been approved by the District Planning Authority

Grounds: In the interests of residential amenity and in pursuance of policies E1 and E2 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

(17) No construction work in connection with the development shall take place on any Sunday or Bank Holiday, nor on any other day except between the following times:-

Monday to Friday 0730 – 1900 hours, Saturdays 0730 – 1300 hours unless in association with an emergency or with the prior written approval of the District Planning Authority.

Grounds: In the interests of residential amenity and in pursuance of policies E1 and E2 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

(18) No impact pile driving in connection with the construction of the development shall take place on the site on any Saturday, Sunday or Bank Holiday, nor any other day except between the following times:-

Monday to Friday 0900-1700 hours unless in association with an emergency or with the written approval of the District Planning Authority. Continued . . .

132 2.13 (Contd) PART 2

Grounds: In the interests of residential amenity and in pursuance of policies E1 and E2 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

(19) Adequate precautions shall be taken during the period of demolition and construction to prevent the deposit of mud and/or other debris on the public highway.

Grounds: In the interests of highway safety and convenience in accordance with Policy E1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

Reasons for Approval

Having taken all material considerations into account, it is considered that, subject to compliance with the attached conditions, the proposal would be in accordance with the development plan and would not cause unacceptable harm to the amenities of the area or prejudice highway safety. In resolving to grant permission, particular regard has been had to the following policies: SP4, E1, E10, E11, E19, E21, H2, H3, T1, T3 of The Swale Borough Local Plan 2008 and CC1, CC4, CC6, of The South East Plan 2009

Description of Proposal

The scheme proposes the provision of affordable and market housing totalling 13 units.

The mix of housing proposed at the site is: 2 x 1 bedroom flats 6 x 2 bedroom flats (2 being dedicated for disabled people) 2 x 2 bedroom houses (semi-detached) 2 x 3 bedroom houses (semi-detached) 1 x 4 bedroom house (detached)

Essentially the site would comprise 2 distinct elements – the flats being contained to the southern extent of the site and the houses to the north with a car park area/access placed centrally.

The houses would comprise 2 sets of semi-detached houses and one 4 bedroom detached house each with a rear garden accessed via the side of the dwelling. Parking would be provided for 2 cars at each property.

The flats would be 2 storey in height and comprise 2 ground floor units (2 bedrooms) for disabled people with 2 x 2 bedroom flats at first floor and , in a separate block, 1 and 2 bedroom flats at ground and first floor level.

The flats for the disabled would have private gardens with the remaining flats sharing the communal amenity space to the southern extent of the site.

Continued . . .

133 2.13 (Contd) PART 2

Parking for the flats would be provided by way of a car park area providing 5 spaces and a further 4 spaces provided to the front of Units 8 and 9.

Solar panels would be fitted to the roof slopes of both the flats and houses in order to achieve 10% renewable energy requirements.

The application also originally proposed to demolish the garage block (currently used by residents) located to the east and accessed via a road between Numbers 32 and 34 The Charltons. However, due to objections by residents, this element of the scheme has now been withdrawn.

Somewhat erroneously, the submitted Design and Access Statement, states that the design team have complied with the requirements of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan 2006 and re-deposited Swale Local Plan (July 2005) and Inspectors Report (December 2007). However, in assessing the proposed scheme and formulating a Recommendation I have had regard to government guidance and policies contained within current advice in The Swale Borough Local Plan 2008 and The South East Plan 2009.

The application is supported by an Energy Demand and Sustainability Assessment, and it is anticipated that the inclusion of solar panels will meet 10% renewable energy targets for major developments as set out in the South East Plan.

Relevant Site History and Description

Whatman House is located to the north west of the village of Boughton under Blean which is within the rural area. Located within the built confines, the application site lies to the western side of the highway in The Charltons. This street comprises a mix of semi - detached and terraced dwellings set back from the highway by approximately 4m and built of red brick with concrete tile over. Parking is mainly on street and at the garage bock.

Whatman House was once a sheltered housing unit comprising 25 bedsits and run by Swale Housing Association who received confirmation from Swale Borough Council 9 February 2009 that prior approval was not required for the demolition of the building.

The site is fairly level towards the eastern extent but the topography of the area is such that the land falls steeply to the south and west thus properties beyond the southern and western boundaries are at a lower level.

The existing building is of no particular architectural merit and appears to have reached the extent of its useful life providing inadequate sized rooms and in need of extensive refurbishment to bring it to the required current standards for this type of accommodation.

Continued . . .

134 2.13 (Contd) PART 2

Views of Consultees

Boughton under Blean Parish Council raises no objections to the proposal but expresses concern that adequate parking should be provided and that access the recreation ground and The Charltons to the far eastern corner of the garage block is maintained.

Kent Highway Services have raised a number of detailed queries which I have asked the agent to address. I hope to be able to report on amended drawings at the meeting.

Other Representations

7 letters from local residents have been received raising the following objections:

• Loss of parking spaces – in particular the loss of the garage block currently used by residents • Loss of roadside parking • Garages currently being rented and used by residents • The proposed car park would fall foul of the same level of anti-social behaviour as experienced at the village hall car park • Needs of local residents not taken in to account • Insufficient existing parking • Loss of screening by trees as the scheme does not make it clear which trees will be retained

These representations were received prior to the amendment withdrawing the demolition of the garage block. The amendment appears to have overcome the majority of the objections received.

Policies

The following policies of The Swale Borough Local Plan 2008 are relevant:

Policy SP1 Sustainable Development Policy SP4 Housing Policy E1 General Development Criteria Policy E10 Trees and Hedges Policy E11 Protecting and enhancing the Borough’s Biodiversity and Geological Interests Policy E19 Achieving High Quality Design and Distinctiveness Policy E21 Sustainable Design and Build Policy H2 Providing for New Housing Policy Policy H3 Providing Affordable Housing Policy T1 Providing Safe Access to New Development Policy T3 Vehicle Parking for New Development Continued . . .

135 2.13 (Contd) PART 2

The following policies of The South East Plan 2009 are also relevant:

Policy CC1 Sustainable Development Policy CC4 Sustainable Design and Construction Policy CC6 Sustainable Communities and Character of the Environment Policy H5: Housing Design and Density Policy T4: Parking Policy NRM11 Development Design for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

Also relevant: Planning Policy Statement 1 – Delivering Sustainable Development (PPS1) Planning Policy Statement 3 - Housing (PPS3) Planning Policy Guidance 13 (PPG13):Transport

Discussion

Determining Issues.

Principle

The residential use at the application site has been established and high quality redevelopment for continued residential accommodation would be wholly in accordance with PPS1 which states that the Government is committed to protecting and enhancing the quality of the natural and historic environment, in both rural and urban areas. PPS3 underlines the government’s objective to continue to make effective use of land by re-using land that has been previously developed as well ensuring that good design is fundamental to providing high quality new housing which contributes to the creation of sustainable mixed communities.

Policy SP1 of The Swale Borough Local Plan requires that development provides a range of mixed housing types including affordable housing and policy SP4 aims to address the housing needs of the borough by providing lower priced housing and efficient use of previously developed land and policy H2 states that permission will be granted for new residential development within defined built areas, subject to the provisions of other Local Plan policies. Therefore, it is considered that the proposed scheme has been devised in accordance with the aims and objectives of both government guidance and development plan policy as it seeks to provide high quality housing, affordable housing and market housing on previously developed land within the confines of built development and in an area where there are existing community facilities.

Continued . . .

136 2.13 (Contd) PART 2

Scale, Design and Siting The flats would rise to an overall height of 10m and would be sited in an ‘L’ shaped configuration at the southern extent of the site, adjacent to the existing footpath. Whilst this would bring the built form closer to dwelling Number 52 The Charltons than the existing situation, the new building would retain a distance of 8m between the properties – the footpath being unaffected between the 2 buildings. The roof slope to the flats has been designed to be asymmetrical in order that the mass and bulk of the building does appear over dominant when viewed from Number 52.

The design of the flats represents the local vernacular through its use of a wide palette of materials, textures and colours – including the use of self- coloured render, black weatherboarding, tile hanging and red brickwork. The roof would be red/brown plain tile and there would be a small area of zinc roofing to the rear entrance canopies.

The proposed houses would be 9.7m in height and would be sited 1m from each side boundary. Each house would possess a gable feature to the front elevation with none of the gable features being identical adding interest and variety to the development. Like the flats they would comprise a mixture of external finishes.

The scale of the proposed dwellings would reflect that of the surrounding area and the individual designs would add quality and interest to the surrounding area thus the proposal would accord with provisions of development plan policy.

Visual Amenity (Streetscene) There would be a distance of 2m (at eaves level) between the houses allowing for good spatial quality within the streetscene. The proposed orientation of the flats would allow for good use of available space without a cramped appearance. When taking this into account along with the unique design of the development I consider that criteria contained within policies E1 and E19 of The Swale Borough Local Plan 2008 would be adhered too.

Residential Amenity The nearest dwelling to the west of the site (Millhouse) is sited some 4m from the western boundary. Whilst this is fairly close, the property is at a lower level and the nearest new dwelling would be some 12m distant – beyond the boundary which is screened by well established trees. The only first floor rear windows here are to kitchens and a bathroom and I have recommended condition (9) above requiring high cill levels to kitchens to prevent loss of privacy. To the southern extent the flats would be sited close to the south- east boundary but the flank wall to the flats would not have any side windows and the block itself would be set back from the line of the nearest dwelling, Number 52. It is considered unlikely, therefore, that there would be a significant loss of amenity through overlooking or loss of privacy. Continued . . .

137 2.13 (Contd) PART 2 Highways and Parking The layout has been designed to meet with current government guidance and KCC parking standards. The government places particular emphasis on the importance of integrating decisions on planning and transport in order to reduce the need for travel by car. Policy T4 Parking of The South East Plan 2009 requires that Local Development Documents (LDDs) and transport plans should apply guidance set out in PPS3 reflecting local circumstances and ensure the provision of cycle parking in all new development including secure cycle storage for new flats and houses which lack garages. In line with this a cycle store is proposed to the rear of Unit 7 providing cycle storage for 6 cycles. I consider that a condition should be applied to an approval requiring details of the store to be submitted and approved.

Trees and Landscaping A Planting Plan has been submitted in support of the application although this does not appear to be to scale, nor does it correlate with the proposed layout plans in that the cycle store is not indicated and various amounts of hedging are shown in different locations. The drawing also indicates the removal of conifer trees to the western boundary. I consider that a more researched landscaping scheme, at a larger scale, is required along with a methodology regarding the protection of trees during construction and this can be required by way of condition (4) to an approval.

Occupancy The development would provide a variety of 1, 2 and 3 bedroom dwelling mixes as well as provision for disabled persons. It is unclear from the submitted information as to which units would be affordable and which would be market housing.

I am treating all previous accommodation as affordable, and whilst I am not opposed to Housing Associations re-developing their stock to invest in the most appropriate new forms of development, I do not wish to see all affordable housing lost here. I have therefore asked the applicants for a Unilateral Undertaking to require at least some of the new dwellings to remain affordable. I will report further on this issue at the meeting.

Ecology The presence of the Common pipistrelle bat has been confirmed and a full, detailed Ecology report (Lloydbore September 2009) has been submitted with the application which also includes a mitigation strategy.

It also appears that there may be badger setts to the western side of the site. No documentation has been submitted with regard to this, although the setts appear unused and have been cordoned off on site, it is unclear as to whether an expert has been engaged to provide advice to the applicant or whether the advice of Natural England has been sought. It is essential that this matter be addressed and I have asked the applicant for comments on this issue. However, Members are reminded of the Judicial Review Judgement 5 June Continued . . .

138 2.13 (Contd) PART 2

2009: Woolley v Cheshire East Borough Council and Millennium Estates Limited in which the judgement clarified that it was not sufficient for LPAs to claim they had discharged their duties by imposing a condition requiring the developer to obtain a license from Natural England. Natural England advises that an appropriate survey should support a planning application prior to determination.

I will report further at the meeting.

Recommendation

I consider that the use of the land for residential development would clearly accord with the latest government guidance, and with other considerations such as scale, design, siting, highways considerations and other material considerations as assessed above, and is in accordance with development plan policy.

There are outstanding issues relating to highway issues, affordable housing and the possible presence of badgers on site. Subject to these being addressed I recommend that planning permission is granted. ______

Responsible Officer: Graham Thomas (Area Planning Officer)

List of Background Papers

1. Application Papers for Application SW/09/0917

2. Correspondence Relating to Application SW/09/0917

139 PART 2

2.14 SW/08/1127 (Case 23404) IWADE

Location: Land adjacent Coleshall Farm, Sheppey Way/School Lane, Iwade, Kent, ME9 8QY

Proposal: Development of housing, employment up to 3000sqm, public open space and pavilion (up to 110sqm), with access from School Lane and Sheppey Way, including roads, cycle paths, footpaths, stream crossings, landscaping and ancillary works

Applicant/Agent: Hillreed Homes Ltd, c/o Mr Martin Page, DHA Planning, Eclipse House, Eclipse Park, Sittingbourne, Kent, ME14 3EN

Application Valid: 16th October 2009 and as clarified by information received on 5 March 2009, 25 June 2009, 20 July 2009, 27 July 2009 and 29 July 2009 and as amended by plans received 20 July 2009

SUBJECT TO: the further views of Kent County Council, and the signing of a suitably worded agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended, and the amendment of condition (26) (to make specific reference to the need for all construction traffic leaving the site to use the wheel-washing facilities) as agreed at the Committee meeting on 13 August 2009

Conditions

(1) For each phase of the development, details relating to the layout, scale and appearance of the proposed building(s), the access thereto (for those parts of the layout where access details are not hereby approved) and the landscaping shall be submitted to and approved by the District Planning Authority before any development is commenced on that phase.

Grounds: In pursuance of Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

(2) The applications for approval of reserved matters referred to in Condition (1) above must be made not later than the expiration of five years beginning with the date of the grant of outline planning permission.

Continued . . .

140 2.14 (Contd) PART 2 Grounds: In pursuance of Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

(3) The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than the expiration of two years from the final approval of the reserved matters or, in the case of approval on different dates, the final approval of the last such matter to be approved.

Grounds: In pursuance of Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

(4) The landscaping details that are agreed pursuant to condition (1), in respect of each phase of the development hereby approved - which shall include a land survey in accordance with British Standard 5837: 2005 ‘Trees in Relation to Construction – Recommendations’ with indications of all existing trees and hedgerows on the land, and details of any to be retained, together with measures for their protection in the course of the development and a programme for the approved scheme’s implementation and long-term management, shall be carried out prior to the occupation of any part of that phase of the development or in accordance with a programme agreed in writing with the District Planning Authority.

Grounds: In the interests of the visual amenities of the area and in pursuance of policies E19 and E1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

(5) Landscaping details shall be submitted, pursuant to condition (1), for all those areas of the site not within a phase of the residential or commercial development within 12 months of the date of this permission – or such other timetable as may be agreed in writing by the District Planning Authority – and the agreed landscaping shall be implemented in full before the first occupation of any of the dwellings hereby approved - or at such other time as may be agreed in writing by the District Planning Authority.

Grounds: In order to ensure that the site is properly landscaped and in the interests of visual amenity, pursuant to Policies E1, E10 and E11 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008

(6) Upon completion of the approved landscaping scheme for each phase of the development, any trees or shrubs removed, dying, being severely damaged or becoming seriously diseased within five years of planting shall be replaced with trees or shrubs of such size and species as may be agreed in writing with the District Planning Authority, and within whatever planting season is agreed. Continued . . .

141 2.14 (Contd) PART 2 Grounds: In the interests of the visual amenities of the area in pursuance of Policies E19 and E1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

(7) Before any part of the development hereby approved is first occupied, public street-lighting columns within that phase of the development shall be fitted with the wiring necessary to accommodate the “Hawkeye” surveillance system at the time of their installation, in locations agreed in writing with the District Planning Authority.

Grounds: In the interests of public amenity and safety and in pursuance of Policy E20 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008

(8) In respect of the employment part of the development hereby approved, no external lighting shall be erected unless the written approval of the District Planning Authority has been given for it.

Grounds: In the interests of the character and appearance of the area and in pursuance of Policies E1 and E2 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008

(9) No development shall take place until the applicant, or their agents or successors in title, has secured the implementation of:

(i) archaeological field evaluation works in accordance with a specification and written timetable which has been submitted to and approved in writing by the District Planning Authority; and (ii) following on from the evaluation, any safeguarding measures to ensure preservation in situ of important archaeological remains and/or further archaeological investigation and recording in accordance with a specification and timetable which has been submitted to and approved in writing by the District Planning Authority. Grounds: To ensure appropriate assessment of the archaeological implications of any development proposals and the subsequent mitigation of adverse impacts through preservation in situ or by record, in pursuance of policies E1 and E16 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

(10) Surface water drainage shall take the form of a SUDS system unless otherwise agreed in writing by the District Planning Authority, and no development shall take place until details, showing a comprehensive surface water drainage strategy - incorporating the SUDS measures set out at paragraph 7.1.8 of the Flood Risk Assessment and Surface Water Drainage Strategy prepared by PBA Associates and dated October 2008 (reference 21187/001) – or such other measures subsequently agreed with the Environment Agency for the entire site Continued . . .

142 2.14 (Contd) PART 2

and demonstrating that runoff rates will not exceed the existing runoff rate from the undeveloped site, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the District Planning Authority. The agreed details shall then be implemented in full before the first occupation of any of the buildings hereby approved.

Grounds: In the interests of ensuring the sustainable management of surface water runoff, and in pursuance of Policies E1, E4 and AAP9 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008

(11) The development hereby approved shall be carried out in strict accordance with the approved Flood Risk Assessment prepared by PBA Associates and dated October 2008 (reference 21187/001), unless otherwise agreed in writing by the District Planning Authority.

Grounds: In the interests of minimising flood risk, both to the development hereby approved and existing development in the vicinity, and in pursuance of Policies E1, E4 and AAP9 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008

(12) The details submitted pursuant to condition (1) shall, for each phase of the development hereby approved, demonstrate how measures to enhance biodiversity, building upon the suggestions in the ‘Planning Statement’ (October 2008) will form an integral part of the development. The agreed measures shall then be implemented in full before any of the development on that phase is first occupied, unless an alternative timetable has been agreed in writing by the District Planning Authority.

Grounds: In the interests of encouraging biodiversity and in pursuance of Policy E11 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008 and the guidance in PPS9 – ‘Biodiversity and Geological Conservation’ (2005).

(13) The dwellings hereby approved shall achieve at least a Level 3 rating under the Code for Sustainable Homes and the commercial buildings shall achieve at least a BREAAM ‘good’ rating. For each plot of the development, certification shall be provided at the pre-development stage and at the completion stage demonstrating that the required rating has been achieved.

Grounds: In the interests of minimising the environmental impact of the development, and in pursuance of Policy E21 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008 and the guidance in the Supplement to PPS1 on Climate Change.

Continued . . .

143 2.14 (Contd) PART 2 (14) The details submitted pursuant to condition (1) shall, for each phase of the development, show building layouts and individual buildings designed to minimise the carbon footprint and the implications of the development in terms of water use.

Grounds: In order to minimise the environmental impact, and in pursuance of Policies E1 and E21 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008, Policy W2 of the South East Plan , and the guidance in the Supplement to PPS1 on Climate Change.

(15) The development hereby approved, and the detail submitted pursuant to condition (1), shall accord with the principles set out in the Development Brief – ‘Iwade South-west Sector, July 2009’, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the District Planning Authority.

Grounds: In the interests of delivering a well-planned development, and in pursuance of AAP9 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008

(16) The details submitted pursuant to condition (1) shall, for the employment (commercial area) component of the development, show the buildings set back from the southern site boundary by a minimum of five metres.

Grounds: In the interests of visual amenity, and in pursuance of Policies E1, E19 and AAP9 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008

(17) No construction access for the development hereby permitted shall be taken from School Lane other than for the purposes of completing the permitted improvement of the lane and its frontage, formation of new accesses on the lane, the construction of a maximum of 30 dwellings and associated landscaping works. Other than this, all construction access shall be from the Sheppey Way, in the form of the two access points shown on drawing number 293/01.

Grounds: In the interests of highway safety and residential amenity, and in pursuance of Policies E1, T1, T2 and AAP9 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008

(18) Prior to the commencement of the 30th dwelling on the development, details of all bridges proposed on the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the District Planning Authority. The development shall then be implemented in accordance with the agreed details.

Grounds: The use of clear-spanning bridges will maintain the river corridor and allow the movement of both the river and associated wildlife, and in pursuance of Policies E1, E4 and AAP9 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008 Continued . . .

144 2.14 (Contd) PART 2

(19) Notwithstanding the provisions of Class A, Part 2, Schedule 2 to the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (as amended), no gates, fences, walls or other means of enclosure shall be erected or provided in advance of any wall or any dwelling fronting on a highway, or other front area (such as a public open space) without the consent in writing of the District Planning Authority.

Grounds: In the interests of residential amenity and in pursuance of policies E1 and E19 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

(20) Adequate underground ducts shall be installed before any of the buildings hereby permitted are occupied to enable telephone data and electrical services to be connected to any premises within the application site without resource to the erection of distribution poles and overhead lines, and notwithstanding the provisions of Article 3 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 no distribution pole or overhead line shall be erected other than with the express consent of the District Planning Authority.

Grounds: In the interests of residential amenity and in pursuance of policies E1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

(21) The details submitted pursuant to condition (1) above shall show adequate land, reserved for the parking or garaging of cars (in accordance with the currently adopted Kent County Council Vehicle Parking Standards) which land shall be kept available for this purpose at all times and no permanent development, whether permitted by the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking or re-enacting that Order) or not shall be carried out on such land (other than the erection of a private garage or garages) or in a position as to preclude vehicular access thereto; such land and access thereto shall be provided prior to the occupation of the dwelling(s) hereby permitted.

(22) The details submitted pursuant to condition (1), in respect of the commercial area, above shall show adequate land reserved for the parking of vehicles (in accordance, where appropriate, with the currently adopted Kent County Council Vehicle parking standards for the particular development proposed) and for the loading and off- loading of commercial vehicles, and upon approval of the details no permanent development, whether permitted by the Town and Country Continued . . .

145 2.14 (Contd) PART 2

Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking or re-enacting that Order) or not, shall be carried out on the land so shown or in such a position as to preclude vehicular access to this reserved space; such land and access thereto shall be provided prior to the occupation of the building hereby permitted and shall be used for or be available for use for the parking, loading and off-loading of vehicles at all times when the premises are in use.

Grounds: The development, without the provision of parking, loading and off-loading space, would be detrimental to amenity and likely to lead to inconvenience and danger to road users by virtue of vehicles parked on the public highway amenity and in pursuance of policies E1 and T3 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008

(23) The proposed estate roads, footways, footpaths, verges, junctions, street lighting, sewers, drains, retaining walls, service routes, surface water outfall, vehicle overhang margins, embankments, visibility splays, access, carriageway gradients, drive gradients, car parking, street furniture and bus stop locations shall be constructed and laid out in accordance with details to be submitted and approved by the District Planning Authority in writing before their construction begins. For this purpose plans and sections indicating as appropriate the design, layout, levels, gradients, materials and method of construction shall be submitted to the District Planning Authority.

Grounds: To ensure that the roads are constructed and laid out in a satisfactory manner, and in pursuance of policies E1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

(24) During construction of the development adequate space shall be provided on site, in a position (s) previously agreed by the District Planning Authority to enable all employees and contractors vehicles to park, load and off load and turn within the site.

Grounds: In the interests of highway safety and convenience in accordance with Policy E1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

(25) Adequate precautions shall be taken during the period of construction to prevent the deposit of mud and/or other debris on the public highway. In accordance with details (including wheel washing equipment to be sited at the Sheppey Way and School Lane exit / access points) submitted to and approved by the District Planning Authority before development commences.

Grounds: In the interests of highway safety and convenience in accordance with Policy E1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

Continued . . .

146 2.14 (Contd) PART 2

(26) Before any work is commenced on site a Method Statement showing the phasing of the development - and explaining the arrangements and timing for the provision of the spine road - shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the District Planning Authority and the development shall not proceed otherwise than in accordance with the approved programme.

Grounds: In the interests of highway safety and convenience in accordance with Policy E1 and T1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

(27) The access details shown on the approved plans shall be completed to the satisfaction of the District Planning Authority prior to the occupation of any building authorised by this permission, the occupation of any buildings hereby approved, and the use of the site being commenced.

Grounds: In the interests of highway safety and convenience in accordance with Policy E1 and T1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

(28) No impact pile driving shall take place on the site, except with prior written approval of the District Planning Authority.

Grounds: In the interests of residential amenity and in pursuance of Policy E2 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008

(29) No construction work in connection with the development shall take place on any Sunday or Bank Holiday, nor on any other day except between the following times:-

Monday to Friday 0730 – 1900 hours, Saturdays 0730 – 1300 hours unless in association with an emergency or with the prior written approval of the District Planning Authority.

Grounds: In the interests of residential amenity and in pursuance of policies E1 and E2 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

(30) No development shall take place until a programme for the suppression of dust during the construction of the development has been submitted to and approved by the District Planning Authority. The measures shall be employed throughout the period of demolition and construction unless any variation has been approved by the District Planning Authority

Grounds: In the interests of residential amenity and in pursuance of policies E1 and E2 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

Continued . . .

147 2.14 (Contd) PART 2

(31) The employment (commercial area) element of the development hereby approved shall be used for office, industrial or research and development purposes falling within Class B1 of the Schedule to the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (as amended), and for no other purposes.

Grounds: In the interests of the amenities of the area and in pursuance of policies E1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008

(32) The details submitted pursuant to condition (1) shall, in respect of the employment (commercial area) of the development hereby approved, show an acoustic fence enclosing the northern and western boundaries with the adjacent housing parcels. Full details of the acoustic fence, to include the precise location, height and specification, shall be submitted to and approved by the District Planning Authority. The approved details shall be implemented in full before the construction of the employment (commercial area) is commenced, and shall be retained in perpetuity.

Grounds: In the interests of residential amenity, and in pursuance of Policy E1 and AAP9 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

(33) Particulate/odour/fume extraction and filtration shall be provided to any areas where paint spraying takes place, details of which shall be submitted to and approved by the District Planning Authority and installed before any such activities take place. Grounds: In the interests of residential amenity, and in pursuance of Policies E1 and E2 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

(34) No outside working or storage shall take place on the Commercial Area of the site without the express permission, in writing, of the District Planning Authority.

Grounds: In the interests of residential amenity, and in pursuance of Policies E1 and E2 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

(35) No air conditioning, ventilation or refrigeration equipment shall be installed within the Commercial Area element of the development until full details of its design, siting, discharge points and predicted acoustic performance have been submitted to and approved by the District Planning Authority.

Grounds: In the interests of residential amenity, and in pursuance of Policies E1 and E2 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

Continued . . .

148 2.14 (Contd) PART 2

(36) Access doors (and fire escape doors) to the buildings within the Commercial Area shall be kept closed at all times except for the explicit purpose of access to and egress from the premises.

Grounds: In the interests of residential amenity, and in pursuance of Policies E1 and E2 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

(37) If, during construction of the development, contamination not previously identified is found to be present on site, then details of how this unsuspected contamination shall be dealt with shall be submitted to and approved by the District Planning Authority before progression of the affected phase of the development.

Grounds: To ensure that the development complies with the approved details in the interests of protection of the environment and in accordance with Policy E3 of the Swale Local Plan 2008.

(38) Construction of any building authorised by this permission shall not commence until details of the proposed means of foul sewage disposal have been submitted to and approved by the District Planning Authority. The development shall then be implemented in accordance with the agreed details.

Grounds: In the interests of ensuring adequate provision for the disposal of foul sewage, and in pursuance of Policy E4 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008

(39) Construction of any building authorised by this permission shall not commence until details of the proposed water infrastructure plans have been submitted to and approved by the District Planning Authority.

Grounds: In the interests of ensuring adequate arrangements for the supply of water to the development, and in pursuance of Policy E1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008

(40) None of the dwellings hereby approved shall be occupied until the District Planning Authority is satisfied, and has confirmed this in writing, that the necessary water infrastructure capacity is available to adequately service the development.

Grounds: In the interests of ensuring adequate arrangements for the supply of water to the development, and in pursuance of Policy E1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008

Continued . . .

149 2.14 (Contd) PART 2

(41) All trees to be retained must be protected by barriers and or ground protection, as recommended in Clause 7 and as shown in figure 2 of British Standard 5837: 2005 ‘Trees in relation to construction – Recommendations’ before any equipment, machinery or materials are brought onto the site and before any construction or stripping of soil commences; and shall be maintained intact until all machinery, equipment and surplus materials have been removed from the site. No alterations or variations to the approved works or tree protection measures shall be carried out without the prior written approval of the District Planning Authority.

Grounds: To safeguard existing trees to be retained and to ensure a satisfactory setting and external appearance of the development, and in pursuance of Policy E10 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

(42) No development shall take place until:

a) a site investigation has been carried out to determine the nature and extent of any lizard population within the site b) a written report of the site investigation has been prepared by a competent person. The report shall include the investigation results and details of a scheme to ensure the long-term health and well being of any lizard population within the site. The report shall be submitted to and approved by the District Planning Authority c) the development shall then be implemented in accordance with the approved scheme

Grounds: In order to safeguard protected species that may be present within to the site and in pursuance of PPS9 and Policies E1 and E11 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

(43) The details submitted pursuant to condition (1) above shall show permeable surfacing to all roads (other than those to be adopted), drives and other areas of hardstanding, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the District Planning Authority.

Grounds: In the interests of minimising the amount and rate of surface water runoff from the site, and in pursuance of Policies E1 and E4 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008

150 2.14 (Contd) PART 2 In resolving to grant permission, particular regard has been had to the following policies: AAP9, E1, E2, E3, E4, E9, E10, E14, E11, E16, E19, E20, E21, H2, H3, H5, T1, T2, T3, T4 and T5 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008; of the South East Plan

Background At the Planning Committee meeting on 13 August 2009, Members resolved to grant planning permission for this development subject to the 44 conditions set out in the report (attached here as Appendix A), the amendment of one of the conditions (see the minute of the meeting, which is attached here as Appendix B), and the signing of a suitably Section 106 Agreement.

Since the meeting, discussions have been taking place between the applicant the Council, and Kent County Council and progress is being made towards the completion of the Section 106 Agreement, and the issuing of the planning permission.

Description of Proposal The development remains as considered by Members in August. This report is before Members because the applicant would like to see draft condition (18) omitted from the final approval, and to seek Members’ views on certain aspects of the Section 106 Agreement. In particular, the contributions being sought by Kent County Council for libraries, adult social services, adult education and youth and community; by Kent Highway Services for the Sittingbourne Northern Relief Road; and the contributions needed for maintenance of public open space.

Condition (18), which is set out on Page 74 of Appendix A, reads as follows:

“The employment floor space hereby approved - to consist of 3000 square metres of industrial (Class B1), office (Class B1) or research and development floor space, or such other amount as may be agreed in writing by the District Planning Authority – shall be constructed and available for occupation prior to the occupation of the 100th residential unit on the development hereby approved.

In the interests of delivering a balanced development containing a mix of residential and employment development, and in pursuance of Policy AAP9 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008”

The applicant’s arguments in support of the removal of the condition are set out in their planning agent’s letter of 23 November 2009, which is attached as Appendix C.

Members will note that the 3000 square metres of employment space would be provided in the form of a commercial area to accommodate buildings for light industrial, office or research and development purposes (all Class B1) uses; the submitted illustrative layout suggests an area of 0.92 hectares for this use, to be located at the south-eastern corner of the site, accessed from Sheppey Way. Continued . . .

151 2.14 (Contd) PART 2 Content of Section 106 Agreement Members will note the consideration of Section 106 issues on Pages 99 and 100 and 102 (Appendix A to the report to the August meeting) of my report to the August meeting, included in full here as Appendix A.

Members will also note the minute of that meeting, included as Appendix B. The minute of that meeting alluded to my update regarding the contributions being sought by Kent County Council for libraries, adult social services, adult education and youth and community; I advised Members that the Section 106 Agreement would require the developer to pay these contributions. With regard to the Sittingbourne Northern Relief Road, Members will note that on Page 100 of Appendix A the developer is offering a ‘maximum contribution of £241 per dwelling …” subject to confirmation that the Council is entitled to collect this money. On page 99, Item 4 of the developer’s list of contributions being offered is money to go ‘towards the maintenance of public open space’.

The developer is now seeking to agree a Section 106 Agreement that does not include the contributions being sought by Kent County Council as described (the only KCC contribution that the developer is prepared to accept is for the provision of primary school places). The developer is also seeking to provide a commuted sum for the maintenance of the public open spaces in respect of only a proportion of the public open space within the development. Their arguments are set out in Appendix D.

The purpose of this part of the report is to draw these matters to Members’ attention to the current state of negotiations and to seek delegation to incorporate the changes suggested by the applicant in the Section 106 Agreement if my colleagues and I conclude that they accord with planning policy guidance. This is discussed below.

Relevant Site History & Description This information is set out on Pages 83 and 84 of my report to the August Planning Committee.

Views of Consultees I have not consulted the Parish Council on the proposed omission of condition (18) or the proposed changes to the delegation to Officers in respect of the Section 106 Agreement. Their earlier comments and those of the other bodies previously consulted on this application are set out on Pages 84 to 89 inclusive of Appendix A.

Other Representations I have not re-consulted local residents on the proposed omission of draft condition (18) or the proposed changes to the delegation to Officers in respect of the Section 106 Agreement. There are therefore no new comments to report.

The comments previously received following local consultation are set out on pages 89 to 92 inclusive. Continued . . .

152 2.14 (Contd PART 2

Policies

Circular 11/95 ‘The Use of Planning Conditions’ sets out the Government advice on the use of planning conditions.

Circular 5/2005 ‘Planning Obligations’ explains how the Government expects the Local Authorities to use Section 106 Agreements. Members will note the five tests, set out at Paragraph B5, that they must meet:

“A planning obligation must be:

(i) relevant to planning;

(ii) necessary to make the proposed development acceptable in planning terms;

(iii) directly related to the proposed development;

(iv) Fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the proposed development; and

(v) reasonable in all other respects.”

Policy AAP9 sets the parameters for the development of this site and the other piece of land at Iwade – located on the eastern side of the village - allocated for residential development under the adopted Swale Borough Local Plan 2008. The Policy reads as follows:

“Policy AAP9

Iwade

An Area Action Plan is designated at Iwade, as shown on the Proposals Map. Within this area, planning policies and proposals will aim to provide the existing and new communities the services and mix of uses that ensures that the village functions as a more sustainable settlement. In addition to the development, and provision of new and improved community facilities comprising the first phase of development as outlined in the currently approved Development Brief, planning permission will be granted for development comprising:

1. housing, for approximately 400 additional dwellings on sites in the south-western and eastern parts of the village respectively; 2. expansion of the recreation ground in School Lane; and 3. the provision of some 3,000 square metres of employment floorspace.

Planning permission will not be granted for the additional 400 dwellings proposed until: Continued . . .

153 2.14 (Contd) PART 2 a. a revised Development Brief has been approved by the Borough Council.

b. It is demonstrated to the Council’s satisfaction that flooding problems arising from the Iwade Stream can be resolved as part of the additional development. c. The construction of the Ridham and Kemsley employment area has commenced; and d. An assessment of the likely significant effects of development upon nearby European Sites for nature conservation and other important areas of biodiversity has been undertaken and its recommendations implemented.”

The other policies that relate to the development in general should also be noted; these are set out on page 93 of the original report, which as Members will have noted is attached as Appendix A.

Discussion As noted above, this report is before Members for two purposes. The first of which is that the applicant is now seeking the removal of condition (18). As the planning permission has not yet been issued, there is the option of Members amending their original resolution in respect of this development (the minute is attached as Appendix B) to omit this condition.

The condition was included in the interests of ensuring that the employment component of the development was delivered to coincide with the provision of the housing – rather than possibly at a later date, when the housing areas have been completed. This would clearly be desirable in the interests of creating a mixed use development, with employment opportunities to complement the predominant housing. The benefit of this would be enjoyed by Iwade as a whole, rather than just the development site.

The applicant’s argument against the imposition of the condition is encapsulated in the letter attached as Appendix C. The crux of their argument is that neither Swale Borough Local Plan 2008 policy, in particular Policy AAP9, nor the Government guidance on the use of planning conditions – Circular 11/95 ‘The Use of Planning Conditions’ – support the imposition of condition (18).

With regard to AAP9, Members will note that the wording of the Policy makes no reference to the relative timing of the delivery of the housing and employment components of the development. I therefore conclude that the wording of the Policy does not include a mechanism for imposing condition (18).

With regard to the Government advice in Circular 11/95, Members will note that the applicant has drawn attention to the advice at paragraph 62, which deals with ‘completion of elements of a development’ and notes that it may be desirable to use a planning condition to phase the timing of the delivery Continued . . .

154 2.14 (Contd) PART 2

different parts of development, but ‘the approach adopted must, of course, be reasonable.’ In this instance, the applicant is arguing that the condition is not reasonable because AAP9 does not include wording on which to hang a condition such as the one in question and, furthermore, that ‘it is onerous, making it difficult to finance the development, introducing premature construction unrelated to market demand…’ I am inclined to accept this argument.

It is also worth noting that because the employment land is at one edge of the site, rather than being in a prominent central position, there would not be a significant harmful impact on the appearance of the development or its functioning if it were delivered after the housing.

The second reason for this report is that I am seeking delegation to negotiate a Section 106 Agreement that does not accord with the delegation given when Members considered the application in August.

Members will have noted in the ‘description of proposal’ section above that the developer is now seeking to exclude certain contributions, namely all those sought by the County Council, other than for primary school places, and to meet only part of the Council’s requirements in terms of funding for the maintenance of public open space. On the latter point, the developer’s position is set out in Appendix D.

Members will note the tests that Section 106 contributions must satisfy. The applicant is arguing that in the areas described above the tests are not being met. I await input from colleagues and therefore have not reached a final view on this argument. However, I am seeking Members’ agreement that where I am satisfied that the contributions sought in the areas described above do not meet the tests set out in Circular 05/2005, the contributions in question can be omitted from the final agreement.

Summary and Recommendation

Members will re-call resolving, at the meeting on 13 August 2009, that planning permission should be granted for this development subject to 44 conditions, which are set out in the report attached as Appendix A, and the signing of a suitable s106 agreement.

Since the meeting, the applicant has put forward an argument (set out in the letter attached as Appendix C) that condition (18), which requires the delivery of the employment component of the development before the occupation of the 100th dwelling, should be omitted. The applicant argues that the policy in the Local Plan that governs development of this site, AAP9, and the Government guidance on the use of planning conditions support the conclusion that the imposition of the condition is unreasonable. In addition, it is argued that the requirement of the condition is financially onerous. Continued . . .

155 2.14 (Contd) PART 2

The applicant is also arguing that some of the developer contributions described in my report to the August Planning Committee are not justified.

I conclude that although there is an obvious benefit in ensuring that the employment part of the development is delivered to coincide with the provision of the housing – rather than possibly at a later date, when the housing areas have been completed – I accept that there is not a robust planning mechanism for achieving this, either in Policy AAP9 or elsewhere in the Local Plan or Government planning guidance. The applicant has made a compelling case for the condition to be omitted, and I therefore recommend that Members endorse the amendment of the planning permission to give effect to this change. With regard to the negotiation of the Section 106 Agreement, Members’ approval is sought to conclude the negotiation of the Section 106 Agreement on the basis that contributions sought by Kent Council Council (except for primary school contributions, which the developer agrees to) and by this Authority for the maintenance of the public open spaces will only be included where the contributions meet the tests in Circular 05/2005, which are set out above. ______

Responsible Officer: Jim Wilson (Major Projects Officer)

List of Backgrounds Documents

1. Application Papers for Application SW/08/1127

2. Correspondence Relating to Application SW/08/1127

156

APPENDIX A ITEM 2.14 PART 2

APPENDIX B ITEM 2.14 PART 2

APPENDIX C ITEM 2.14 PART 2

APPENDIX D ITEM 2.14 PART 2

157 PART 2

2.15 SW/09/0825 (Case 23786) BORDEN

Location: Land off Woodgate Lane, Borden, Sittingbourne, Kent, ME9 7QB

Proposal: Change of use of land forming part of property known as Ebbisham to use for private caravan site for one mobile home and one touring van for residential use with associated hardstanding, formation of access, utility room septic tank and dog kennels

Applicant/Agent: Mr O Street & Ms S Laundon, Oakdene, Woodgate Lane, Borden, Sittingbourne, Kent

Application Valid: 2 September 2009

SUBJECT TO: the submission of suitably amended plans and clarification regarding connection to utilities.

Conditions (1) The use hereby permitted shall cease, the structures shall be removed and the site restored to the satisfaction of the District Planning Authority on or before 1st February 2012

Grounds: In order that the position may be reviewed at the end of the period stated in pursuance of Policy E1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

(2) No more than one mobile home and one touring caravan shall be stationed on the site at any one time.

Grounds: In the interests of the amenities of the local area, and in pursuance of policies E1, H4, E7 & E6 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008

(3) The caravans shall only be occupied by persons of gypsy/traveller status (as defined in ODPM Circular 01/2006) and by no other person(s) whatsoever.

Grounds: To ensure that the site occupants are gypsies/travellers, in pursuance of policies H4 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

(4) The use hereby permitted shall cease and all caravans, structures, fences, equipment and materials brought onto the land for the purposes of such use shall be removed within 28 days of any one of the following requirements not being met: Continued . . .

202 2.15 (Contd) PART 2 i) within 3 months of the date of this decision there shall have been submitted for the approval of the local planning authority a scheme for the landscaping of the site (hereafter referred to as the Landscaping Scheme) which shall include details of the planting of a native hedgerow between the closeboarded fence on the western boundary of the site and Woodgate Lane. The said scheme shall include a timetable for its implementation. ii) within 11 months of the date of this decision the Landscaping Scheme shall have been approved by the local planning authority or, if the local planning authority fail to approve such a scheme, or fail to give a decision within the prescribed period an appeal shall have been lodged and accepted as validly made, by the Secretary of State. iii) if an appeal is made in pursuance of requirement (ii) above, that appeal shall have been finally determined and the submitted Landscaping Scheme shall have been approved by the Secretary of State. iv) all works comprised in the Landscaping Scheme as approved shall have been implemented, and completed within the timetable set out in the approved scheme.

Grounds: In the interests of visual amenity and in pursuance of Policies E1 and E19 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

(5) At the same time as the Landscaping Scheme required by condition 3 is submitted to the local planning authority there shall be submitted a schedule of maintenance for a period of five years of the proposed planting commencing at the final phase of the implementation as required by that condition; the schedule to make provision for the replacement, in the same position, of any tree, hedge or shrub that is removed, uprooted or destroyed or dies or, in the opinion of the local planning authority, becomes seriously damaged or defective, with another of the same species and size as that originally planted. The maintenance shall be carried out in accordance with the approved schedule. Grounds: In the interests of visual amenity and in pursuance of Policies E1 and E19 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

(6) The site shall only be used for residential purposes, and it shall not be used for any business, industrial or commercial use. In this regard no open storage of plant, products or waste may take place on the land, and no vehicle over 3.5 tonnes shall be stationed, parked or stored on the land. Grounds: In the interests of visual amenity and in pursuance of Policies E1 and E19 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008. Continued . . .

203 2.15 (Contd) PART 2

Reason for approval

Description of Proposal

Planning permission is sought for the use of land off Woodgate Lane, Borden, as a gypsy/traveller site. The site has been laid out with a static caravan at its south eastern corner, with a shed/utility room and kennels beyond. A septic tank has been installed in between the shed and the kennels. The caravan and other buildings are separated from the boundary with Woodgate Lane by an area of hardstanding. A close boarded fence has been erected along the length of the boundary with Woodgate Lane. The applicants have submitted a supporting statement, which details that they are new age travellers, giving a brief account of their circumstances including employment, and sites where they have stayed over the past few years. In addition, a number of letters have been submitted by the applicants to corroborate their gypsy/traveller status, including one from the Director of Gypsy and Traveller International Affairs, a locally based organisation which represents gypsies and travellers.

The actual layout on the site does not reflect that shown on the submitted application details, which shows the caravan to the northern end of the site and the kennels to the south. I have requested plans accurately showing the layout and hope to present these to Members at the meeting.

Relevant Site History & Description

The site lies in the countryside, outside the built up area of Borden, as defined in the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008. The site and general area in the vicinity does not have any other local nor any national designation. The site lies outside any flood risk area. Woodgate Lane is an unmade road and bridleway which rises to the south west and links Oad Street and Maidstone Road.

The site was, I understand, wooded prior to being cleared for the development the subject of this application, and the surrounding land to the east and north retains a significant number of trees. The site is located approximately 2.6km from Borden Primary School, and 3km from the centre of Newington with its shops and services.

There is no planning history for the site.

Continued . . .

204 2.15 (Contd) PART 2 Views of Consultees

Kent Highway Services raise no objection.

The Head of Environmental Services raises no objection subject to a condition regarding hours of construction. As the application is retrospective, I have not included such a condition above.

Borden Parish Council object to the scheme, and comment as follows:

“Borden Parish Council have had the opportunity to discuss the above application and would like to object on the grounds that it is an unsuitable development and is not in keeping with the area/out of character.

They trust you have explored whether they are a true gypsy family.”

Other Representations

Six letters of objection have been received, many of which question the gypsy/traveller status of the applicants, and state that Mr Street is the son of the occupiers of Ebbisham, the dwelling to the north east, and that the applicants formerly resided within that site. The other contents of these letters are summarised as follows:

• The development is retrospective; • The site harms the visual amenities of the area; • The dogs in the kennels and an electricity generator on the site give rise to noise and disturbance, harmful to the peaceful surroundings; • The development will affect property prices; • The site was formerly occupied by slowworms and bluebells; • The applicants intend to commercially breed dogs at the site; • To approve this application would be unfair given recent refusals for other development at dwellings in the vicinity of the site; • Trade waste is burnt on the site; • Will set a precedent.

No other representations have been received.

Policies

Policy E1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008 (SBLP) gives general guidance regarding design and amenity, amongst others. Policy E19 (SBLP) aims to achieve high quality design on all developments in the Borough.

205 2.15 (Contd) PART 2 Policy H4 of the Local Plan, “Providing Accommodation for Gypsies and Travelling Showpersons,” states that the Council will grant permission for the use of land for the stationing of homes for persons, provided that;

The circular also provides a definition of gypsies and travellers:

206 2.15 (Contd) PART 2

Policies T3 and T1 (SBLP) deal with traffic and access, and seek to minimise the highways impacts of any new development through the provision of adequate parking, sightlines, turning space, etc.

Discussion

I note the objections of local residents in terms of harm to protected flora and fauna on the site. However, as the site has now been cleared and developed, any protected flora or fauna have been lost. I have no direct evidence to demonstrate that the site contained protected species, and in any case, such activity is policed by separate legislation. This does not amount to a reason for refusing planning permission.

In terms of the gypsy/traveller status of the applicants, I note that this is disputed by local residents. However – the applicants have provided six letters to support their claim of gypsy status, including one from the Director of International Gypsy and Traveller Affairs, an organisation who represent gypsies and travellers, and who my officers have dealt with in the past regarding such matters. Furthermore, in their supporting statement, the applicants have detailed that they travel for work across the south east, including horse trading, agricultural labour and sale of livestock. In my view, the applicants fall within the government definition of gypsies/travellers detailed in the Policy section above. Whilst they may have, from time to time, resided at the nearby dwelling, this does not preclude them from amounting to gypsies/travellers. I do not dispute the status of the applicants and do not consider that permission should be refused on this basis.

As detailed in ODPM Circular 01/2006, rural sites with no special planning constraints are acceptable in principle. Taking into account the fact that this site has no national or local planning designations or constraints, I do not consider that refusal of planning permission on grounds relating to the principle of the use proposed would be advisable in this case, as this would be contrary to the advice set out in Circular.

In addition, I have appraised the site under the criteria of the Corporate Gypsy and Traveller Policy. It is not likely to be contaminated (Members will note that the Head of Environmental Services raises no objection and does not suggest any contamination conditions be imposed), is not in a flood risk area and is not adjacent to any industrial or otherwise harmful uses nor does the proposed use give rise to harm to residential amenity – the site is not adjacent to any dwellings.

I am mindful that the Corporate Policy criteria sets out that sites should be within 2km of schools, shops and services, and that this site is 2.6km from the nearest primary school, 3km from Newington’s shops and services, and further from secondary schools. In addition – access to the site is off an unmade, poorly surfaced road. I am of the opinion that there may well be Continued . . .

207 2.15 (Contd) PART 2

preferable sites elsewhere in the Borough in these respects, and I therefore recommend that a two year temporary permission only is granted, in order that the site appraisals, consultation and list of preferred sites under the Corporate Policy can be carried out and prepared.

I am also concerned at the connection to utilities for the site. The site has had a septic tank installed, which raises no concerns. However – whether the site can be connected to mains electricity is a concern. At present, the site is served by a petrol/diesel generator, which creates a degree of noise and disturbance to the quiet nature of the rural area. I am seeking clarification regarding this matter and will report further to Members at the meeting.

The existing close-boarded fence, on the boundary with Woodgate Lane, in my view, is of a suburban design which causes visual harm to the character and appearance of this country lane. However – I am mindful that the occupiers of the site require a degree of privacy and I do not therefore recommend that it is removed. I do though consider that a substantial, native hedgerow should be planted to the front of the fence. This would soften the appearance of the site, and help assimilate it into the rural streetscene. This can be achieved by way of condition (2) above.

Recommendation

I consider that the applicants fall within the definition of gypsy/travellers as set out in Circular 01/2006. I have appraised the suitability of this site under the terms of the Council’s Corporate Policy and the Policies of the Development Plan and consider that, subject to the above conditions, and to clarification regarding means of provision of electricity supply, the use of the site should not cause demonstrable harm to the character and appearance of the area, nor to visual or residential amenity. I am though concerned at the somewhat remote location of the site and the suitability of the access road.

I consider that it is possible that a preferable range of sites could be presented under the Corporate Gypsy and Traveller Policy. Therefore, subject to clarification regarding electricity supply, and to the submission of amended plans accurately showing the layout of the site, I recommend that temporary planning permission is granted. ______

Responsible Officer: Rob Bailey (Area Planning Officer)

List of Backgrounds Documents

1. Application Papers for Application SW/09/0825 2. Correspondence Relating to Application SW/09/0825

208 PART 2 2.16 SW/09/1061 (Case 19385) BORDEN

Location: Hillview, 104 High Street, Newington, Sittingbourne, Kent, ME9 7SH

Proposal: Erection of two storey extension to front and first floor extension to rear of No. 104 Hillview. Erection of new dwelling – revised application and alterations to vehicular access

Applicant/Agent: Dr L Eperon, c/o Mr Andrew Twigg, Twigg & Associates, Langdale House, Naseby Road, Clipston, Market Harborough, Leics, LE16 9RZ

Application Valid: 2 November 2009

SUBJECT TO: Any comments from the Head of Environmental Services and any additional conditions recommended by them.

Conditions (1) The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date on which the permission is granted.

Grounds: In pursuance of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

(2) No development shall take place until details have been submitted to the District Planning Authority and approved in writing, which set out what measures have been taken to ensure that the development incorporates sustainable construction techniques such as water conservation and recycling, renewable energy production including the inclusion of solar thermal or solar photo voltaic installations, and energy efficiency. Upon approval, the details shall be incorporated into the development as approved.

Grounds: In the interest of promoting energy efficiency and sustainable development, and in pursuance of policies E1, U3 and E21 of the Swale Borough Local Plan2008.

(3) Upon completion, no further development, whether permitted by Classes A, B, C or D of Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (as amended) (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order) or not, shall be carried out without the prior permission in writing of the District Planning Authority. Continued . . .

209 2.16 (Contd) PART 2

Grounds: In the interests of the amenities of the area and in pursuance of policies E1 and E24 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

(4) Details in the form of cross-sectional drawings through the site, of the existing and proposed site levels shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the District Planning Authority before work commences and the development shall be completed strictly in accordance with the approved levels.

Grounds: In order to secure a satisfactory form of development having regard to the sloping nature of the site in accordance with Policy E1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

(5) Prior to the commencement of development, details in the form of samples of external finishing materials to be used in the construction of the development hereby approved shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the District Planning Authority and shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details.

Grounds: In the interest of visual amenity and in pursuance of policies E1 and E19 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008. (6) No development shall take place until full details of both hard and soft landscape works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the District Planning Authority. These details shall include existing trees, shrubs and other features, planting schedules of plants, noting species, plant sizes and numbers where appropriate, means of enclosure, hard surfacing materials, and an implementation programme.

Grounds: In the interests of the visual amenities of the area and in pursuance of policies E1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

(7) All hard and soft landscape works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. The works shall be carried out prior to the occupation of any part of the development or in accordance with the programme agreed in writing with the District Planning Authority. Grounds: In the interests of the visual amenities of the area and in pursuance of policies E1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008..

(8) Upon completion of the approved landscaping scheme, any trees or shrubs that are removed, dying, being severely damaged or becoming seriously diseased within five years of planting shall be replaced with trees or shrubs of such size and species as may be agreed in writing with the District Planning Authority, and within whatever planting season is agreed. Continued . . .

210 2.16 (Contd) PART 2 (9) Grounds: In the interests of the visual amenities of the area and in pursuance of policies E1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008..

(10) The area shown on the submitted plan as car parking space shall be kept available for such use at all times and no permanent development, whether permitted by the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking or re- enacting that Order) or not, shall be carried out on the land so shown or in such a position as to preclude vehicular access thereto; such land and access thereto shall be provided prior to the occupation of the dwelling(s) hereby permitted.

(11) The sight lines shown on the approved plans shall be provided prior to the occupation of the dwelling and thereafter maintained clear of any structure, tree, plant or other obstruction shall be permitted which exceed 0.6 metres above carriageway level within the approved sight lines.

Grounds: In the interests of highway safety and in pursuance of policies E1 and T1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

(12) No development shall take place until full details of the method of disposal of surface waters have been submitted to and approved by the District Planning Authority. The approved details shall be implemented before the first use of the development hereby permitted.

Grounds: In the interests of highway safety in pursuance of policy E1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

Informative: 1. The applicant is advised that this permission does not convey any approval for the required vehicular crossing or any other works within the highway which a licence must be obtained. Applicants should telephone 08458 247800 in order to obtain the necessary Application pack.

Reasons for Approval Having taken all material considerations into account, it is considered that subject to compliance with the attached conditions, the proposal would be in accordance with the development plan and would not cause unacceptable harm to the amenities of the area or prejudice highway safety or convenience. In resolving to grant permission, particular regard has been had to the following policies: E1, E24, H2, E19, T1 and T3 of the Swale Borough Local Plan. Continued . . .

211 2.16 (Contd) PART 2 Description of Proposal This application seeks planning permission for an extension to the existing dwelling within the application site and the erection of a new dwelling within an area of land to the west of the existing dwelling.

The proposal would consist of a first floor rear extension and two storey front extension to Hillview. Internally, the extensions would provide a large dining room at ground floor and a fourth bedroom.

The proposed dwelling would have 2 storeys and would provide 3 bedrooms. A wider vehicular access is proposed with a new parking and turning area to the front of the site. Five parking spaces would be provided in total for the existing and proposed dwellings. The construction of the parking area would involve the excavation of the land to provide a surface almost level with the highway and the provision of retaining walls.

The submitted design and access statement comments on the design of the current planning application in relation to a recently refused planning application for a similar scheme (details provided below):

‘Following the refusal, the proposed new dwelling has been reduced in height, length and width and moved further forward on the plot to reduce any possible impact on adjacent properties. Additional landscaping details have been supplied and the proposed new dwelling has been sited on the plot further away from number 102 High Street.’

Relevant Site History and Description The application site lies within the built-up area boundary of Newington and is also within an Air Quality Management Area. It forms part of a line of residential properties either side of High Street just to the east of the centre of Newington village. These properties have a variety of designs and are a mix of detached and semi-detached dwellings. The dwelling immediately to the west of the application site is a chalet bungalow design whereas no. 106 High Street is a more recent in-fill two storey development.

Planning permission was granted for the erection of a detached dwelling with double garage and new vehicular access to the east flank of Hillview under reference SW/02/1283. This property was built within the curtilage of Hillview.

Planning permission was refused under reference SW/09/0529 for a similar scheme to that now put before Members. The reasons for refusal are as follows:

‘1. The proposed new dwelling, by virtue of its size and siting within the application site, would amount to cramped development detrimental to the visual amenities of the surrounding area and out of character with the immediate street scene and would lead to an over-intensification of development at this site contrary to Policies E1 and E19 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.’ Continued . . .

212 2.16 (Contd) PART 2

‘2. The proposed new dwelling would, by virtue of its close proximity to no. 102 High Street, have an unacceptable overshadowing impact and an overbearing effect on the area of private amenity space to the rear of this neighbouring property to the detriment of their residential amenities contrary to Policy E1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.’

Views of Consultees

Newington Parish Council object to the proposal on the grounds that the proximity of the proposed dwelling to no. 102 High Street would have a detrimental impact on their residential amenities. In addition, they are concerned that the increased use of the vehicular access would be detrimental to highway safety.

Kent Highway Services have no objection to the proposal subject to conditions to require details of the disposal of surface water, the permanent provision of parking spaces and turning areas and the provision of pedestrian visibility splays.

Other Representations

Three letters of objection have been received from the residents of 77, 89 and 102 High Street. A summary of their objections is as follows:

• The proposal would result in the loss of vegetation to the front of the site. Large trees have already been removed from the site; • There would be a inadequate number of parking spaces provided; • The increased use of the access would be detrimental to highway safety; • The application site is within an Air quality Management Area. The new dwelling will add to the poor air quality; • The development may be turned into a residential care home/clinic; • The revised application only makes marginal changes; • The proposed dwelling would amount to cramped development, out of character with the surrounding area; • The development would lead to an over-intensification of development on this site; • The development would have a detrimental impact on the visual amenities of the surrounding area; • The proposed dwelling would overshadow no. 102 High Street; • The proposed dwelling would have an overbearing impact on no. 102 High Street.

Policies Policy E1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008 (SBLP) gives general guidance regarding design and amenity, amongst others. Policy E19 (SBLP) aims to achieve high quality design on all developments in the Borough. Continued . . .

213 2.16 (Contd) PART 2

Policy E24 (SBLP) seeks to ensure that extensions to dwelling have no undue impact on the adjacent properties and are designed appropriately.

Policy H2 (SBLP) encourages the provision of new housing within the built up areas of the Borough, and in locations with good access.

Policy T3 (SBLP) deals with traffic and seeks to minimise the highways impacts of any new development through the provision of adequate parking, sightlines, turning space, etc. Policy T1 (SBLP) seeks to ensure that development does not significantly increase the levels of traffic using an access.

Discussion

I consider the key issues to be the principle of development, the impact on the visual amenities of the surrounding area, the impact on the residential amenities of adjacent dwellings, the adequacy of accommodation and the adequacy of parking and any highway safety implications.

Principle

Policy H2 of the Local Plan notes that permission for new housing will be granted for sites within the defined built-up areas as shown on the proposals map. All proposals will be expected to make the most efficient use of land and provide house types appropriate to its location. As the application site is within the built-up area boundary of Newington, I consider that the proposal would comply with Policy H2 and would therefore be acceptable in principle. In addition, the site is currently in residential use and the surrounding area is characterised by residential properties.

I am also mindful of the planning permission granted in 2002 for the detached dwelling within the curtilage of Hillview. The similarities between these two in- fill schemes are significant in the consideration of this proposal my opinion.

Visual Amenities

The proposed dwelling is set within a very varied street scene. The design of the properties immediately surrounding the application site varies from chalet bungalows to more modern two storey dwellings. There is also a mix of semi- detached and detached dwellings along this part of High Street, Newington. In this context, I consider the proposed dwelling to be of an appropriate design.

I have also considered the spatial relationship between the proposed dwelling and the adjacent dwellings and do not consider that there would be any detriment caused to the character or appearance of the area as a consequence of the proposal. When assessing the common relationship Continued . . .

214 2.16 (Contd) PART 2 between properties along this part of High Street, there is an irregular pattern with some being clustered together more closely than others. I am of the view that the proposed in-fill development would be in-keeping with the more clustered parts of High Street. As this forms part of the character of the street, I am of the view that the spatial relationship would be acceptable here.

In visual terms, the main differences between the refused scheme and the current proposal are the lower ground level of the proposed dwelling which brings the ridge height in line with no. 102 High Street and, the alteration to the design of the roof. A hipped roof design has been provided instead of the previous gable design. Both of these changes help to reduce the presence of the dwelling within the street scene in my view and also help to improve the visual relationship between the proposed dwelling and no. 102 High Street.

The design of the proposed dwelling would be of a good standard in my opinion. There is a level of detail to the elevations that adds interest to the façade and I consider, with the use of appropriate finishing materials, would compliment the street scene. The height of the proposed dwelling would be comparable with the adjacent dwellings in my opinion. Condition (4) is recommended to ensure that the site levels are approved by the Council so that the ridge height of the proposed dwelling would be relative to the adjacent dwellings.

The loss of landscaping to the front of the site is regrettable and Members should note that the large trees to the front of the site have already been removed. However, the quality of these trees was poor in my view. Their replacement with an approved landscaping scheme would be preferable in my opinion. Conditions (6), (7) and (8) require the applicant to submit a landscaping scheme and for this landscaping to be maintained.

The proposed parking area would significantly alter the appearance of the front of this site in my opinion. However, the resulting arrangement would not be dissimilar to that at 106 High Street, the previous in-fill property. The landscaping proposed would soften the appearance of the parking area in my view. Despite Members concerns with the previous proposal, I consider that the new dwelling would have no undue impact on the visual amenities of the surrounding area.

The proposed extensions to the existing dwelling would be in-keeping with the scale, form and massing of the main dwelling in my opinion. The extensions would not look out of place within such a varied street scene in my view. The significant depth of the front garden would ensure that the front extension does not project forward of an established building line. Moreover, the proposed front extension would ensure that there would be a gradual staggering of 104, the proposed dwelling and, 102 High Street. Subject to matching finishing materials, I do not consider that the proposed extension would have a detrimental impact on the visual amenities of the surrounding area. Continued . . .

215 2.16 (Contd) PART 2

Residential Amenities/Adequacy of Accommodation

The internal and external living space would be of an acceptable size and standard in my opinion. The proposed dwelling would have a garden with a depth of 19m. This is comparable with the garden depths of surrounding properties. The position of the proposed dwelling would be such that there would be no overshadowing or overbearing effect on its future residents from the existing adjacent dwelling. I am therefore of the view that the proposal would provide an acceptable standard of living.

The proposed dwelling would be adjacent to the west flank elevation of 102 High Street. This property has been extended to the rear and this extension runs along the boundary with the application site. There are no windows within the flank elevation of this extension and the proposed dwelling would not project beyond the rear elevation of this neighbouring extension. Members may recall that the previously refused development would have projected 2 metres beyond this rear elevation. The impact would therefore be reduced in comparison with the previous scheme. I do not therefore consider that there would be a detrimental impact on the residential amenities of this adjacent dwelling in terms of an overshadowing or overbearing effect. There would be no windows within the west flank elevation of the dwelling and only one window within the east flank elevation of the proposed dwelling. This would look out onto the front garden of Hillview. I therefore consider that there would be no undue overlooking from the proposed dwelling.

The proposed dwelling would be set forward of the proposed front extension to Hillview by 4 metres. Any impact on levels of sunlight would be during the evening and for short period only. I therefore consider that this would not have a significant impact on the residential amenities of the existing dwelling.

The proposed first floor rear extension to Hillview would be a distance of 8 metres to the proposed dwelling and over 19 metres to the existing dwelling, to the east, 106 High Street. I therefore consider that this element of the proposal would cause no detriment to neighbouring properties.

Highway Implications

The proposal would provide 2 parking spaces for the proposed 3 bedroom dwelling and 3 parking spaces for the existing 4 bedroom dwelling. A turning area would also be provided. The number of parking spaces would be consistent with the current residential parking standards provided by Kent Highway Services. I therefore consider that the number of parking spaces provided would be acceptable in this case. I am also mindful of the close proximity of this site to Newington Railway Station and it is located on a bus route. Reliance on the use of a car is therefore reduced.

Continued . . .

216 2.16 (Contd) PART 2

The proposed extension of the existing vehicular access would appear to improve pedestrian visibility. I have recommended condition (10) to ensure that the new slight lines are provided prior to the occupation of the new dwelling. Kent Highway Services and I are of the opinion that the potential increased use of the access would not be to the degree that there would be a highway safety hazard.

Other Issues

I am awaiting comments from the Head of Environmental Services regarding the implications of the Air Quality Management Area on the proposed development. However, initial indications from this consultee are that the scale of the development is such that there would be limited impact on air quality in this case owing to the scale of the development.

Recommendation

Having considered the comments from local residents and the relevant planning policies, I am of the view that the principle of a new dwelling at this site would be acceptable owing to its location within the built-up area boundary. I also consider that the proposed dwelling and extensions to the existing dwelling would have no undue impact on the visual amenities of the surrounding area. The internal space and garden area would be of an acceptable standard in my view. The relationship between the proposed dwelling and the adjacent properties would ensure that there is no detriment caused to residential amenities in my opinion. I also consider that the number of parking spaces would be adequate and that there would be no detrimental impact on highway safety as a consequence of the proposal. Lastly, I do not envisage any significant increase in poor air quality as a consequence of this development. However, the formal comments of the Head of Environmental Services are awaited on this matter.

Taking the above into account I recommend that planning permission be granted subject to the comments of the Head of Environmental Services and any additional conditions recommended by them. ______

Responsible Officer: Rob Bailey (Area Planning Officer)

List of Backgrounds Documents

1. Application papers for SW/09/1061 2. Correspondence for SW/09/1061 3. Application papers for SW/09/0529. 4. Correspondence relating to SW/09/0529.

217 PART 2 : 2.17 SW/09/1168 (Case 13068) FAVERSHAM

Location: Morrisons Supermarket, North Lane, Faversham, Kent, ME13 7DY

Proposal: Advertisement Consent for 3 externally illuminated letter signs, 1 externally illuminated totem sign and 1 Welcome/Opening Hours sign

Applicant/Agent: Butterfield Signs Ltd 174 Sunbridge Rd Bradford West Yorkshire BD1 2BZ

Application Valid: 17 November 2009

Conditions (1) The maximum luminance of the illuminated areas shall not exceed 800cd/m as recommended in the Institution of Lighting Engineers Technical Report No. 5.

Grounds: In the interests of the amenities of the area and in pursuance of policies E1, E19 and E23 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

(2) The illumination of the signs hereby approved shall be static.

Grounds: In the interests of the amenities of the area and in pursuance of policies E1, E2, E19 and E23 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

(3) The sign(s) shall not be illuminated except during the hours that the premises to which it/they relate are open for business.

Grounds: In the interests of the amenities of the area and in pursuance of policies E1, E2, E19 and E23 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

Description of Proposal The advertisement application seeks consent to install 3 externally illuminated letter signs to the west and east elevations and entrance canopy to the south, along with 1 externally illuminated totem sign at the North Lane entrance and 1 free-standing non-illuminated Welcome/Opening hours sign. It should be noted that the signs have already been installed.

The letter signs measure 4946mm x 610mm overall and are fixed directly onto west and east elevations and to a steel structure mounted onto the canopy to the main entrance to the south elevation. Manufactured in acrylic, all the signs are illuminated by way of external spotlights. Continued . . .

218 2.17 (Contd) PART 2

The totem sign has an overall height of 3800mm with a width of 1350mm and depth of 200mm. The sign is constructed of aluminium panels and is lit via 2 Uniflood mini class II uplighters set into the ground below the sign.

The Welcome/Opening Hours sign comprises 2 panels on one stand measuring 1800mm x 600mm and is non-illuminated.

Relevant Site History and Description

The former Co-op supermarket building is accessed via a vehicle entrance at North Lane and is set approximately 70m from the junction. The main pedestrian entrance to the store is to the southern elevation and both this elevation and the west elevation have canopied colonnades. The building is well sited within its own, mainly walled and substantially landscaped grounds and the nearby trees help to screen the car park area .

To the south of the site lies West Street, one of Faversham's most historic streets and comprising a number of listed buildings. The supermarket building can be clearly seen from the north side of the street although its position is well back within the site. The nearest dwelling is some 20m distant and the street frontage consists of a boundary wall and railings that screen the car park. To the west the building is visible from Flood Lane which comprises houses and an area of green space and trees leading to Faversham Creek.

In September 2009, the applicant submitted a scheme for 5 internally illuminated acrylic signs comprising letter signs, motif signs and a taller internally illuminated totem sign. Following advice from the case officer and after much opposition from local residents, who objected to the signs on the grounds of scale, amount, use of materials, method of illumination and effect on the Conservation Area, this application was withdrawn and discussions took place to advance a more suitable scheme.

Relevant planning history concerning advertisement consents at the site dates back over 10 years but, nonetheless, is worthy of note in that in 1999 an application for 2 freestanding internally illuminated signs was refused consent and a subsequent appeal by the applicant was dismissed. The Inspector noted that the site was within the Faversham Conservation Area where it was necessary to “pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing its character and appearance”.

Other, much older planning history includes:

SW/91/1181 – Illuminated box and pole signs – Refused SW/92/213 - Illuminated shop signage - Approved after revised drawings were submitted for more traditional, smaller, signage

Continued . . .

219 2.17 (Contd) PART 2

Views of Consultees

I have not yet received comments from Faversham Town Council.

Other Representations

11 letters of objection have been received raising the following summarised concerns:

• Objection to the way in which Morrisons have gone about things. Their first application was refused, yet they went ahead and erected the signs anyway. • The amended application does not address the original objection regarding size of letters and lighting • The externally illuminated letters affect residents of West St • Pedestrians using the West Street entrance know where Morrisons is • Shoppers not familiar with the site will be directed all over the town to the north entrance • No objection to the totem sign or illuminated letters on North Street car park entrance which is an industrial part of town • The effect of external illumination is not much different to internal illumination • West Street residents are not allowed to change their facades – equivalent standards should be applied here • The signs are too large in relation to the roofline of the building,and are not needed • The signs are grossly obtrusive in size, colour and design and disfigure the Conservation Area • The sign over the entrance is particularly obvious to passing traffic on West Street, it should be smaller and if possible hung under the canopy • You can see the signs from miles around • Such signs would not be allowed on a house, not even satellite dishes are allowed • The highest professional standards should be used on a thorough appraisal of the visual impact of the signs in context.

A site meeting should be held to consider objections

Policies

The Swale Borough Local Plan 2008 E1 General Development Criteria E2 Pollution E15 Development Affecting a Conservation Area E19 Achieving High Quality Design and Distinctiveness E23 New Shopfronts, Signs and Advertisements Continued . . .

220 2.17 (Contd) PART 2 Discussion

Scale, Design and Siting

Policy E23 of The Swale Borough Local Plan 2008 requires that advertisements respond positively to the character of the building and its locality. Of a standard, modern and corporate design, the scheme now proposed is much reduced in scale and amount in comparison to the previously, withdrawn proposal.

Letter Signs

I consider that the letter signs are in scale with the building and reflect its modern attributes. They are sited in 3 logical positions on the building and do not detract from the architectural style of the store.

The use of external spotlights reduces the visual intrusiveness of the signs and ensures that pollution from glare is minimised to the extent that this element of the scheme would accord with the criteria set in development plan policies.

Totem Sign and Freestanding Sign

With regard to the totem sign, its height, width, use of aluminium panels and relatively discreet uplighting combine to provide a sign of high quality which does not dominate the adjacent building or streetscene. It essentially replaces the former Co-op sign to similar dimensions.

The freestanding ‘Welcome’ sign is also of low visual impact and of a scale and design appropriate to its location.

Conservation Area

The character of the Conservation Area is such that the surrounding buildings (with the exception of buildings to the far east and north of the site) are small in scale. The supermarket building, by comparison is a large building which, due to its position within its own grounds and the surrounding mature trees, reads as an important backdrop to the historic core of the nearby public realm. The introduction of 3 externally illuminated signs, totem sign and non- illuminated free standing sign do not cause detriment to the visual amenity of the area or harm the character and appearance of the Conservation Area,. I consider, therefore that the proposal accords with provisions of policy E15 of The Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

Highway Safety

I do not consider that the proposed advertisements would cause a danger to highway safety at this location. Continued . . .

221 2.17 (Contd) PART 2

Recommendation

Having taken all material considerations into account, I consider that the proposal would accord with provisions of policies E1, E2, E15, E19 and E23 of The Swale Borough Local Plan 2008 and guidance contained in the Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance ‘The Design of Shopfronts Signs and Advertisement’ and accordingly should receive advertisement consent. ______

Responsible Officer: Graham Thomas (Area Planning Officer)

List of Background Papers

1. Application Papers for Application SW/09/1168

2. Correspondence Relating to Application SW/09/1168

3. Application papers for applications SW/91/1181, SW/92/213 and SW/09/0906

222 PART 2

2.18 SW/09/0899 (Case 23819) HERNHILL

Location: Plot 1, Belvedere Farm, Dargate Road, Dargate, Nr Faversham, Kent

Proposal: Erection of a four bay garage (partly retrospective) and change the second floor from storage as approved under application SW/06/1364 to bedrooms and bathrooms

Applicant/Agent: Mr N Roberts c/o Michael Gittings Associates, 14 Vale Road, Loose, Maidstone, Kent, ME15 0EP

Application Valid: 22nd September 2009

Conditions: (1) Samples of all new facing materials and details of all external finishes shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the District Planning Authority before any further works to the garage hereby permitted are carried out. The development shall then proceed in accordance with the approved details.

Grounds: To protect the amenities of the area and the character of the countryside, and in pursuance of Policies E1, E6, E9 and E19 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008

(2) Prior to the commencement of any works hereby permitted detailed drawings of all new external joinery work, including doors and frames, together with sections through all members including glazing bars, frames and mouldings and showing the relationship to the face of the wall, at a scale of 1:20 and 1:1 or 1:2, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the District Planning Authority. The development shall then proceed in accordance with the approved details.

Grounds: To protect the amenities of the area and the character of the countryside, and in pursuance of Policies E1, E6, E9 and E19 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008

Reason for Approval Having taken all material considerations into account, it is considered that subject to compliance with the attached conditions, the proposal would be in accordance with the development plan and would not cause unacceptable harm to the amenities of the area or prejudice highway safety or convenience. In resolving to grant permission, particular regard has been had to the following policies: E1, E6, E9, E19 & T3 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008. Continued . . .

223 2.18 (Contd) PART 2

Description of Proposal

This application seeks planning permission for the erection of a four bay garage, which is partially constructed, and to change the second floor of the dwelling house from a store room to two bedrooms and a bathroom at Plot 1, Belvedere Farm, Dargate.

The house was approved as part of a small housing development in 2006 under application reference SW/06/1364. The house appears to be substantially completed from the outside, although the interior has not been fully fitted out. The application seeks to change the internal layout of the first floor from storage, as approved under the application for the erection of the house, to two bedrooms with an en-suite bathroom to be shared between the two bedrooms. This alteration does not involve any external alterations as the roofspace was originally shown to be lit by dormer and other windows.

The proposal also involves the erection of a four bay brick built detached garage which would feature a tiled roof. This has been partially erected, although it is not substantially completed. The garage would measure approximately 13 metres in length by 6 metres in width and 4.8 metres in height to the top of the pitch.

Relevant Site History and Description

The site is located outside of any built up area boundary and is located within an Area of High Landscape Value. The site is located on the former site of Belvedere Farm and is accessed from Dargate Road. The site formerly comprised a range of agricultural buildings, including one occupying a larger area than the proposed garage.

The dwelling was approved in 2006 under application reference SW/06/1364. This application gave permission for the redevelopment of the farmyard to form 4 detached dwellings, and resulted in an appeal regarding commercial uses of existing buildings on the site being withdrawn.

An application was submitted in 2008 under planning reference SW/08/0934 for the conversion of the integral garage to a family room and library. This application was approved in October 2008.

Views of Consultees

I have not received any comments from Hernhill Parish Council.

Kent Highway Services have raised no objection to the application.

Natural England have raised no objections.

Continued . . .

224 2.18 (Contd) PART 2

Other Representations

Seven letters of objection have been received from neighbouring residents regarding their proposal. Their comments can be summarised as follows:

• It seems it was always the intention of the applicant to apply for retrospective permission for the garage as the footings were dug at the same time as the house • Having already been given consent for the conversion of the two bay garage to living accommodation, wonder what powers the planning department have to refuse this application • Strenuously object as the building bears no resemblance to the drawing originally submitted • No stone pencil line and stone porch capping • Property has been built substantially higher than it should have been – at least 1m • Building now out of character – Georgian style • Any additional buildings on the site would constitute over development and would be disproportionate • The scale of the house with 7-8 bedrooms & 4 bay garage would be out of scale for a farm house • Change from storage to bedrooms will encroach on our privacy – cause overlooking • Garage too large for the development • Conversion of house to 3 storey out of keeping with traditional farmhouse • Would not be 21 metres from the side of plot 1 to my outside seating area • Application for a commercial use or flats may be made in future • Side windows don’t have opaque glass

Policies

Policies E1, E6, E9, E19 & T3 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008 are relevant to this application. They address general development criteria, the countryside, area of High Landscape Value, good quality design and new development and parking.

Discussion

In my view, the key considerations in this case are whether the design of the garage is acceptable for this sensitive location in the countryside and an area of High Landscape Value, whether its location is acceptable in terms of impact on neighbouring amenity and whether the conversion of the former storage space to bedrooms/ bathroom within the dwelling is acceptable in terms of impact on neighbouring amenity and parking provision. Continued . . .

225 2.18 (Contd) PART 2

With regards to the first issue, the proposed garage, although a relatively large building, would be located on a very similar footprint to buildings that formerly occupied the site under its former use and part of that building which was constructed of corrugated metal still remains today. I therefore do not consider the proposed garage, which is of a brick and tile design, would result in significant harm to neighbouring amenity. The relationship between the neighbouring properties and the former building was very similar, but with a typical farm building, which was not particularly of architectural merit. I therefore consider the current proposal would be significantly better for the neighbouring properties than the previous situation. It is also worth noting that planning permission for a domestic outbuilding of similar scale was granted to the adjoining property, Chudley House in July 2008, although that building was larger than now proposed.

With regards to the design, I consider this to be acceptable and in keeping with the style of the main property and appropriate for this rural setting within the Area of High Landscape Value. I have, however, recommended that materials be approved by the Council prior to works continuing to ensure that these are of a high quality and in keeping with the overall development.

The conversion of the first floor storage space to living accommodation in the form of two bedrooms and a shared bathroom is acceptable in my view. The proposal would not result in any changes to the current external appearance of the property. Therefore, the key considerations for this part of the proposal are whether the proposal would result in harm to neighbouring amenity and whether the site has sufficient parking to serve the enlarged property.

In respect of neighbouring amenity, the key consideration in this case is whether the proposal would lead to overlooking. Windows were approved on both side elevations of the property at second floor level under the original permission for the development and these windows would remain under this proposal, albeit now serving bedrooms rather than a storage room. However, the minimum distance from a side window with a direct view to a neighbouring window is approximately 22.5 metres and would face the front of a neighbouring house rather than a private amenity area. I therefore do not consider that the proposal would result in unacceptable overlooking issues.

With regards to parking, the scheme involves the erection of a four bay garage, which of course will provide ample parking provision for a dwelling of this size, and a driveway was approved under the original housing scheme. I therefore do not consider the increased accommodation within the house would result in a need for any additional parking to that already proposed.

I note the comments made by neighbouring residents regarding the proposal. Several comments have been raised regarding differences between the approved design of the dwelling and how it has been built. In particular that Continued . . .

226 2.18 (Contd) PART 2

the house has allegedly been built up to one metre higher than shown on the approved plans. These issues have been investigated by both the enforcement and development control teams, and although there do appear to be some differences, these are not to my mind very significant, nor do I consider they result in particular harm to the overall design quality or to neighbouring amenity. I do not consider the issues relating to the earlier planning application to be directly related to the current application or material considerations in this case. I would therefore request Members consider the application based upon the facts submitted.

Residents have commented that the garage and extra bedrooms would be out of scale with a traditional farmhouse. However, the footprint of the dwelling is not being altered and the floor area is simply being put to a slightly different use. I therefore do not consider this would alter the ‘scale’ of the property or the accommodation on offer. With regards to the proposed garage, although it is a reasonably large building, it would be largely obscured from view from outside of the site and relatively well obscured from within the development and is also of a design that complements the development. I therefore consider it would be difficult to argue that it is out of keeping or scale with the development.

Recommendation

This application seeks permission for the erection of a four bay garage, and to change the second floor of the dwelling house from a store room to two bedrooms and a bathroom. I have considered issues of the impact such a proposal would have on the rural area/Area of High Landscape Value in which it is situated and whether the proposal would result in harm to neighbouring amenity or parking issues. I consider the proposal to be acceptable in all of these respects and consider the garage would fit in with the design of the surrounding development. I therefore recommend that this application be approved.

Responsible Officer: Graham Thomas (Area Planning Officer)

List of Background papers

1. Application papers and correspondence relating to SW/06/1364

2. Application papers and correspondence relating to SW/08/0934

3. Application papers and correspondence relating to SW/08/0450

227 PART 2

2.19 SW/09/1164 (Case 20780) SITTINGBOURNE

Location: Land adj School Car Park, School Lane, Borden, Sittingbourne, Kent, ME9 8LJ.

Proposal: Single storey pre-school building with associated parking and change of use of the land to Use Class D1.

Applicant/Agent: Borden Preschool Ltd, C/o Mr. T. Day, Artlab Architects Ltd, 15 London Road, Sittingbourne, Kent, ME10 1NQ.

Application Valid: 17 November 2009.

SUBJECT TO: The submission of additional information as follows;

1) Further explanation of the need to develop this site in the countryside. 2) Awaiting Environment Agency comments on Contamination Study by 1 January 2010 3) Other representations received before 23 December 2009 deadline.

Conditions

(1) The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date on which the permission is granted.

Grounds: In pursuance of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

(2) Details of facing materials to be used on the development hereby permitted shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the District Planning Authority before the development is commenced and shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details.

Grounds: In the interest of visual amenity and in pursuance of policies E1, E6 and E19 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

(3) A working drawing cross section at a scale of 1:20 showing details of the building, roof structure, hyperbolic paraboloids, roof edge fascias, soffit of the covered play area and sedum roof shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the District Planning Authority before the development is commenced and the development shall be implemented in strict accordance with the approved details. Continued . . .

228 2.19 (Contd) PART 2 Grounds: In the interest of visual amenity and in pursuance of policies E1, E6 and E19 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

(4) No development shall take place until full landscaping and planting details in regard to the sedum roof, as shown on drawing number 2442/4 have been submitted to and approved by the District Planning Authority. These details shall include planting schedules of plants, noting species, sizes, and numbers where appropriate, and an implementation programme. Upon completion of the approved scheme the areas of green roof shall be maintained in a good condition, any vegetation that is removed, dying, severely damaged or becoming seriously diseased within 5 years of planting shall be replaced. . Grounds: In the interests of the visual amenities of the area and in pursuance of Policies E1, E6 and E19 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

(5) The area shown on the submitted layout as vehicle parking space shall be retained for the use of the occupiers of, and visitors to, 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 so shown or in such a position as to preclude vehicular access to this reserved parking space.

Grounds: Development without adequate provision for the parking of cars is likely to lead to car parking inconvenient to other road users and detrimental to amenity and in pursuance of policies E1 and T3 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

(6) The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied or the approved use commenced until space has been laid out within the site in accordance with the details shown on the application plans for cycles to be parked.

Grounds: Developments should provide adequate cycle parking in pursuance of policies E1 and T4 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

(7) No development hereby permitted shall take place until a schedule of tree and shrub planting to the site boundaries, with a plan giving species and planting densities, has been submitted to and approved by the District Planning Authority. The schedule shall include the timescale for implementation, and planting shall be carried out in accordance with the approved timescale. Any trees or shrubs removed or dying within 5 years of planting shall be replaced with trees or shrubs of such size or species as may be agreed in writing by the District Planning Authority. Continued . . .

229 2.19 (Contd) PART 2

Grounds: In the interests of the visual amenities of the area and in pursuance of policies E1 and E6 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

(8) The proposal hereby approved shall meet the Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method standard of ‘good’.

Grounds: In the interests of promoting energy efficiency and sustainable development, and in pursuance of policies E1 and E21 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

(9) Prior to commencement of the development, details of the works to the Public Right of Way shall be submitted to and approved by the District Planning Authority. The works shall be carried out in accordance with the submitted details.

Grounds: In order to maintain the Public Right of Way and in pursuance of policy T4 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

(10) Prior to commencement of development, a further study into the potential presence of reptiles shall be undertaken and any appropriate mitigation measures specified.

Grounds: In the interests of protected species and in pursuance of Policy E11 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

Informative

At the request of Kent County Council’s Public Rights of Way Officer, the applicant should be aware that no furniture may be erected on or across public rights of way without the express consent of the Highway Authority. There must be no disturbance of the surface of the right of way, or obstruction of its use, either during or following any approved development. No hedging or shrubs should be planted within 0.5 metres of the edge of the public footpath. Planning permission confers no consent or right to disturb or divert any public right of way at any time without the express permission of the Highway Authority.

Reason for Approval Having taken all material considerations into account, it is considered that subject to compliance with the attached conditions, the proposal would be in accordance with the development plan and would not cause unacceptable harm to the amenities of the area or prejudice highway safety or convenience. In resolving to grant permission, particular regard has been had to the following policies: E1, E2, E3, E6, E9, E10, E11, E19, E21, RC7, T3, T4, and C1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008, and policies NRM1, NRM2, C4, C6 and S3 of the South East Plan 2009. Continued . . .

230 2.19 (Contd) PART 2

Description of Proposal

This application seeks planning permission for a single storey pre-school building with associated parking and change of use of the land to Use Class D1 (school) at land adjacent to the school car park, School Lane, Borden, Sittingbourne.

The school building would measure 20.4m long, 8.2m wide and 3.4m to roof height. The northern section of the building would provide a canopy, under which a soft play area would be installed. The walls would be made of natural cedar cladding with fibre concrete plinth and the windows would be painted timber. The building would have a sedum roof with 1m tall hyperbolic paraboloids shading canopies over frameless glazed roof lights.

The change of use to Use Class D1 (school), applies to an area of 0.09 hectares which has been donated by the William Barrow Trust.

Five car parking spaces, including one disabled parking space, would be provided to the south of the building which would be accessed via a new tarmac cross over. Three cycle parking stands would be provided.

Vehicle access to the site is from the existing school car park, which in turn is accessed from Munsgore Lane. The existing car park has an approximate capacity of 27 spaces and Munsgore Lane is classified as a rural lane. Pedestrians can also access the site from a public right of way which runs along its southern boundary from School Lane onto the open farmland to the west. Part of the public right of way would be surfaced with tarmac to allow vehicle access to the proposed parking spaces.

Relevant Site History & Description

The application site is outside the Borden built up area boundary. This parcel of overgrown, previously undeveloped land, is located to the north west of the junction of School Lane and Munsgore Lane. Borden Primary School is located to the east on the opposite site of School Lane. The site sits 2.4 metres below School Lane in part of a valley which extends to the west.

Nearby residential properties include Trumpeters Lodge, School Lane (75 metres away), Sorrento, School Lane (100 metres away) and South View, Munsgore Lane (132 metres away).

Borden Village Pre-School provides schooling for 2 – 5 year old children. The pre-school is currently based in the hall of Borden Church of England Primary School. The following is taken from the submitted design and access statement;

Continued . . .

231 2.19 (Contd) PART 2

‘Over the last 4 – 5 years the main school has made it clear that each time they have had an Ofsted Inspection they have been put under pressure to “get their hall back”. They have up to now kept Ofsted at bay even gaining the prestigious “outstanding” merit from them last year.

This however has led to new pressure being placed on the preschool to vacate the hall and find their own building. Fortunately due to the success of Borden Preschool, Kent County Council have also now requested they find new premises for which a substantial amount of money will be made available to help.’

The Council is awaiting copies of the following from the agent;

• The Ofsted Inspection which requests that Borden School ‘get their hall back’. • Correspondence from Kent County Council which requests that the pre-school ‘find new premises’. • Further justification of the need to use this site and how the building could not be accommodated within the current school grounds. • Justification of the need for a building of this size.

The pre-school has 5 staff and provides schooling 4 mornings per week. The pre-school has 35 registered children, with 26 attending on any one day. There is currently a waiting list of children which will enable the new pre- school to be open full time in the new building from 0730 – 1800 hours Monday to Friday.

There is no planning history for the application site, although this application has been the subject of extensive pre-application discussions with officers.

Views of Consultees

Borden Parish Council objects to the proposal on the grounds that the design is out of character with the rural area, parking concerns and impact on local roads.

The Head of Environment and Amenities were consulted and recommended an hours of construction condition which is unnecessary in this instance because there are no nearby residential properties.

Kent Highways Services raised no objection subject to conditions 6 and 7 above.

Kent County Council Public Rights of Way Officer requested that the above informative be placed on any permission. I have suggested a condition above to ensure that the crossing of the Public Right of Way is appropriately surfaced.

Continued . . .

232 2.19 (Contd) PART 2 The Environment Agency raised the following objection;

‘1. We consider the level of risk posed by this proposal to be unacceptable. 2. The application fails to provide assurance that the risks of pollution are understood, as a preliminary risk assessment (including a desk study, conceptual model and initial assessment of risk) has not been provided. PPS23 takes a precautionary approach. It requires a proper assessment whenever there might be a risk, not only where the risk is known. 3. Under PPS23, the application should not be determined until information is provided to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority that the risk to controlled waters has been fully understood and can be addressed through appropriate measures. This is not currently the case.

Reason: To ensure the site is in accordance with Planning Policy Statement 23: Planning and Pollution Control. The application is for a sensitive end use and is located within a sensitive area for groundwater. This is because it is underlain by a principle aquifer (Lewes Nodular Chalk), and is within the Source Protection Zone 2 for potable water abstractions in Sittingbourne. The site is also within a 300m radius of former chalk and gravel pits, as well as an historic landfill site at Hooks Hole which was known to take putrescible waste. Further clarification should be sought from the Local Authority’s Environmental Health Officer with respect to issues relating to harm to human health.

We recognise that most of the proposed development land is on a Greenfield site, however, PPS 23 states: “Because of the widespread potential occurrence of contamination, the possibility should always be considered , regardless of past land use, when development is proposed involving or introducing a particularly sensitive use such as …schools.”

Sufficient information should be required to determine the existence or otherwise of contamination, its nature and the risks it may pose and whether these can be satisfactorily reduced to an acceptable level. The minimum requirement that should be provided by an applicant is the report of a desk study and site reconnaissance (walk-over). This will, in some cases be sufficient to develop a conceptual model of the source of contamination and pathways by which it might reach vulnerable receptors as well as the means by which the identified pollutant linkage can be broken.’

I am awaiting a consultation response from the Environment Agency on a Contamination Study submitted by the applicant by 1 January 2010. I will update members at the meeting.

Natural England recommended condition (10) in relation to reptiles in light of the Phase 1 habitat study submitted by the applicant.

Kent County Council Archaeology Officer was consulted and no response was received.

Kent County Council’s County Planning Officer was consulted for comments in relation to school provision and no response was received. Continued . . .

233 2.19 (Contd) PART 2

Other Representations

Three letters of support were received from the William Barrow’s Charity, and the headteacher and the vice-chair of the governing body of Borden Church of England Primary School which are summarised as follows;

• Fully supportive of application • The school need the hall back on a full time basis • Ofsted Report 2004 outlined that the use of the hall by the pre-school restricts learning opportunities • The pre-school is a vital source of future intake for the school • The Parish Council failed to consult the school before objecting • The application will not increase traffic, it will move it across the road • Drop off and pick up times at the school and pre-school are staggered • The car park will be refurbished once the pre-school is complete • No complaints from neighbours about the design which is discreetly sighted and not easily seen from the road • Want to continue to provide high quality education that the community deserves • If refused the pre-school may have to relocate • The school will work with community support officers to avoid illegal parking

Two letters of objection were received from local residents which are summarised below;

• The design of the building is inappropriate for its rural location and would detract from the historic nature of the area and school building. • The need for the building in this location. The pre-school building does not need to be near the actual school. • Dangerous speeding traffic and parking problems in the area. • Many of the 26 pre-school children do not come from the parish so the building does not have to be near the school. • There is an identified need for a community building, however the Parish Council have recently started to look into this. Such a building would cater for a pre-school and other groups from the area. • Given its rural location, any new building should offer maximum usage and not be restricted to just 30 people a couple of times a week. • The building is not in the best location for maximum community benefit. • If built, it would make the job of locating a further new building even more difficult. • Requested that a bigger car park be installed. • At the start and end of the school day there are 100 cars plus parked on the roads. • Previous complaints have been ignored. Continued . . .

234 2.19 (Contd) PART 2

The closing date for representations from the public is 23 December 2009. If further comments are received, I will update members at the meeting.

Policies

The following Policies are relevant: Swale Borough Local Plan 2008

Policy E1 (general development criteria) is a broad based policy which seeks to ensure that all development is positive, appropriately considered and designed whilst protecting residential amenity and highway issues.

Policy E2 (pollution) states that proposals will minimise and mitigate pollution impacts including those to human health, rural areas, water supply sources, groundwater aquifers and local hydrology.

Policy E3 (land contamination). On sites know or suspects of being contaminated, permission will only be granted if the developer undertakes effective investigation and remediation work to overcome any identified hazard.

Policy E6 (the countryside) aims to protect and enhance the quality, character and amenity value of the countryside. Proposals will only be permitted when; it provides a service that enables existing rural communities to meet their essential needs local, or it provides necessary community infrastructure.

Policy E9 (protecting the quality and character of the borough’s landscape). Within the countryside development should be informed by and sympathetic to local landscape character and quality. Development should minimise impacts on such land.

Policy E10 (trees and hedges). Development proposals should retain trees as far as possible and provide for new tree planting to maintain and enhance the character of the locality.

Policy E11 (protecting and enhancing the borough’s biodiversity and geological interests). The Boroughs biodiversity interests will be maintained or enhanced. Where proposals would potentially adversely impact upon biodiversity the Council will ensure that site evaluation is undertaken to establish the nature conservation interest. Where there may be significant harmful effects development will only be permitted if; there is an overriding need for the development that outweighs the harmful effects; there is no reasonable alternative site that would result in less or no harm; adequate mitigation measures are in place to minimise the harmful effects; or where harmful effects cannot be prevented or mitigated, appropriate compensation measures will be undertaken by the developer in accordance with current best practice. Continued . . .

235 2.19 (Contd) PART 2

Policy E19 (achieving high quality design and distinctiveness) encourages high quality design that responds positively to its environment.

Policy E21 (sustainable design and build). The use of innovative and high quality low-impact design and build techniques will be supported.

Policy RC7 (rural lanes) Development will not be permitted that would harm the character of rural lanes, either physically or as a result of increased traffic levels.

Policy T3 (vehicle parking for new development) Permission will only be granted for developments providing appropriate vehicle parking, in accordance with adopted Kent County Council Standards.

Policy T4 (cyclists and pedestrians) Permission will only be granted for developments where existing points public rights of way are retained, or exceptionally, diverted. On new development, cycle parking facilities are required in accordance with Kent County Council standards.

Policy C1 (existing and new community services and facilities). Permission will be granted for new or improved community services and facilities. Additionally, where proposals would meet an identified local need in an accessible location, the Council will permit development proposals that will help maximise the use of existing public and private community services and facilities, including those that would make them available for wider public use, in locations where shortfalls in local public provision could be met.

The South East Plan 2009

Policy NRM1 (sustainable water resources and groundwater quality). Water supply and ground water will be maintained and enhanced through avoiding adverse effects of development on the water environment.

Policy NRM 2 (water quality). Water quality will be protected. When determining planning applications local authorities will take account of water cycles studies, groundwater vulnerability maps, groundwater source protection zone maps and asset management plans as prepared by the Environment Agency.

Policy C4 (landscape and countryside management). Outside nationally designated landscapes, positive and high quality management of the regions open countryside will be encouraged.

Policy C6 (countryside access and rights of way management). Local authorities should encourage access to the countryside by maintaining and improving the public rights of way system. Continued . . .

236 2.19 (Contd) PART 2

Policy S3 (education and skills). The Council should work to ensure the adequate provision of pre-school, school and community facilities.

Discussion

I consider the key issues to be the principle of the change of use of the land, the impact of the proposed school building on the visual amenities of the surrounding area, the impact on the character of the countryside, design, provision of community facilities, affect on the highway network and parking provision, and impact on the public right of way.

Principle of Change of Use

Borden Church of England Primary School and its immediate curtilage are approaching capacity in terms of the buildings it can accommodate. The attached playing fields are the property of the owners of Trumpeters Lodge and are rented by the school. Therefore, the scope to provide the building within the grounds of the school is severely restricted. If it were, a substantial proportion of the school playground would be taken up, in a manner harmful to the education of the school children. The application site is in extremely close proximity to the school and given its donation for the purpose of this application, represents an opportunity to provide an essential facility to the community of Borden.

As noted above, I am awaiting further justification from the applicant explaining why the site is appropriate, and why it could not be located elsewhere.

The application site is not agricultural land and although overgrown, it is both physically and visually linked to the adjacent car park via the gap in the fence of the public right of way which allows access to the site. Pending the response to the contamination desk study from the Environment Agency and a further reptile study as requested by Natural England, I consider the site suitable for use as a pre-school, especially given its close proximity to the existing Borden Church of England Primary School.

Visual Amenities

The building would be substantially obscured from view along School Lane due to the lower ground level and significant eastern and northern boundary hedges and trees. When viewed from Munsgore Lane the building would be set in the context of a foreground car park and substantially taller electricity pylon to the west. Given this context and the use of natural cedar walls the visual impact from Munsgore Lane is acceptable in my opinion.

Continued . . .

237 2.19 (Contd) PART 2

The building would be a substantial distance from each of the three noted residential properties. It would be most visible from a house known as ‘South View’, however the separation distance of 132m would ensure minimal visual impact. I recommend imposing Condition 8 to screen the building and minimise any visual impact on the views from the west.

Character of the Countryside

The building would be visible from the countryside to the south west. However, it would be set against the context of a large car park and substantially taller electricity pylon which, in my opinion, break up the undulating open character of the countryside in this location. Condition 8 and existing northern boundary planting would ensure that views of the building from the countryside to the west and north would be substantially obscured. The sedum roof would further reduce any impact. Also of consideration is the fact that the land is not designated for its special landscape character, nor is it in an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. I therefore consider that the proposal would have a limited impact on the character of the countryside in this location.

Design

Contrary to the concerns of the Parish Council, the use of cedar walls and a sedum roof would ensure a natural finish to the building which in my opinion is suitable for this rural setting. This high specification pre-fabricated building fully incorporates sustainable design. Indeed, my colleagues and I consider that this is an ‘innovative proposal’. I therefore consider the design to be acceptable.

Provision of community facilities

The submitted design and access statement acknowledges that there is a waiting list for the existing pre-school. Clearly there is a demand for this facility within the local area. The provision of the pre-school will continue to allow the education of pre-school and primary school age children in close proximity to each other. The building would also allow for the future expansion of the service. Borden Church of England Primary School would also get the full use of its hall back to the benefit of its pupils.

Affect on the highway network and parking provision

I note the concerns of the Parish Council, however Members should note the following. The existing pre-school is accommodated within the hall of Borden Church of England Primary School. Therefore, the numbers of cars visiting the locality and the said rural lane would not increase. The number of available car parking spaces would actually increase by 5 as a result of the Continued . . .

238 2.19 (Contd) PART 2

proposal which would improve parking provision. Additional cycle parking spaces would also be provided. Kent Highways Services are also supportive of the proposal, and do not anticipate harm to highway safety or convenience.

Impact on the public right of way

The public right of way would be covered with tarmac to create a vehicle cross over to allow access to the new car parking spaces and building. However, the right of way would be maintained. A planning condition to control the details is included above.

Recommendation

The principle of the change of use of the land may, in my opinion, be acceptable given that the application site is not agricultural land and is in close proximity to the existing school. Members will note that I have sought further explanation for the need to locate the facility here, rather than in the built up area. I will provide an update at the meeting.

The combination of sensitive design, incorporated sustainability principles and the use of a planting condition will allow the provision of an essential community service whilst utilising the existing and creating additional parking space.

Having taken all material planning considerations into account, I recommend, subject to the further information, any further representations (closing date 23 December 2009), and the further comments of Natural England and the Environment Agency, that planning permission be granted. ______

Responsible Officer: Rob Bailey (Area Planning Officer)

List of Backgrounds Documents

1. Application papers and correspondence for SW/09/1164.

239 PLANNING COMMITTEE – 7 JANUARY 2010 PART 3

Report of the Head of Development Services

PART 3

Applications for which REFUSAL is recommended

3.1 SW/09/1083 (Case 00821) LOWER HALSTOW

Location: 18-20 Burntwick Drive, Lower Halstow, Kent, ME9 7ES

Proposal: Installation of roller shutters

Applicant/Agent: Mr J Thandi, The Foresters Arms, 150 Parrock Street, Gravesend, Kent, DA12 1ER

Application Valid: 3 November 2009

Reason

(1) The proposed roller shutters would, by virtue of their design and solid appearance, be detrimental to the visual amenities and character of the surrounding residential area contrary to Policies E1 and E19 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008 and the Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance: The Design of Shopfronts, Signs & Advertisements.

Description of Proposal

This application seeks planning permission for the installation of a roller shutter to the front of a small retail unit. The roller shutter would be made of solid metal and would cover the entire frontage of this retail unit. At the top of the shutter, a box would be installed to house the shutter when it is open. The box would project 60cm from the façade of the building.

Relevant Site History and Description

The application site lies within the built-up area boundary of Lower Halstow. The surrounding area is characterised by two storey semi-detached and terraced residential properties. The front elevation of the application property is prominent within the street scene when approaching from the north.

Planning permission for the installation of display windows was approved under SW/74/0935. A planning application for the change of use of the premises from a butchers shop to a fish and chip takeaway was refused under SW/84/263. Continued . . .

1 3.1 (Contd) PART 3

Views of Consultees

Lower Halstow Parish Council support the application. They make the following comment:

‘I have been informed that when it was previously owned as a shop around 10 years or so ago, they had a break in and lost stock. The Post Office/shop in the neighbouring village has shutters. They (the parish council) also believe that it will cause the owners insurance premiums to be too high or non obtainable without the shutters. The surrounding properties have had to put up with the awful frontage for the last 10 years and would rather see it with shutters then to look at an empty shop.’

Other Representations

Five letters of objection have been received from the surrounding residents. A summary of their comments is as follows:

• The shutters would not be in-keeping with the appearance of the rural village; • The shutters would be detrimental to the appearance of Burntwick Drive; • The shutters would have a detrimental impact on property values in the vicinity; • Previous lease holders have not found it necessary to install shutters; • The noise of the shutters opening and closing would have an impact on residential amenities; • The shutter would be very prominent within Burntwick Drive owing to the angle it would be in relation to the road. They would be the first thing you see as you enter the road; • The shutter would provide the opportunity for graffiti; • The industrial type shutters would spoil the quite residential character of the street and; • The proposal does not comply with the guidance set out in the Council’s SPG: The design of shopfronts, signs and advertisements.

Policies

The Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG): The design of shopfronts, signs and advertisements is also relevant.

Continued . . .

2 3.1 (Contd) PART 3

Discussion

I consider the key issue to be the impact of the roller shutters on the visual amenities of the surrounding area.

The application property is sited at such an angle to the road that it would be extremely prominent when turning into Burntwick Drive from the north. Burntwick Drive is a residential street. The traditional 1960s design of the residential properties and semi-mature soft landscaping to the front of the properties establishes the character of the area as being a quite residential street. The introduction of an industrial type roller shutter at this point would significantly detract from this residential character in my opinion. The extent of the roller shutter, which would span the entire width of the frontage of the retail unit, would compound the visual impact in my view.

The SGP for shopfront and advertisements specifically refers to security doors and grilles. It states that roller shutters can have a detrimental effect on both the appearance of the building and the street scene in general. This guidance recommends methods for securing shops without relying on external shutters such as the introduction of new smaller windows that are sub-divided. Also internal grills could be installed without the need for planning permission.

This guidance is clear that roller shutters of the type proposed under this application are not acceptable. Despite the Parish Council’s security concerns, there are other methods of securing the shop without needing to install an external roller shutter and a box for housing the shutter that would project over half a metre from the façade of the building. This box in itself would appear bulky and incongruous in my view. Graffiti is also a potential problem for solid roller shutters.

I am aware that the Parish Council would like to see the shop unit occupied and brought into use. However, the refusal of this planning application would not necessarily prevent the shop from being occupied. In light of the above, I consider that the proposal should be refused.

Other issues

The value of properties is not a material planning consideration.

I am of the view that the noise from the roller shutters would be minimal and would not cause significant detriment to neighbouring properties. Any noise generated would be confined to once in the morning and once in the evening. It would not cause a continuous disturbance to local residents in my view. However, this does not alter my view that the proposal would be unacceptable in terms of its visual impact.

Continued . . .

3 3.1 (Contd) PART 3

Recommendation

Having considered the comments from the Parish Council, local residents and the relevant Development Plan Policies, I am of the view that the proposed shutters would have a significant detrimental impact on the visual amenities of the surrounding area and would be out of keeping with the residential character of the street. There are much better design solutions for improving security at this property and the refusal of this application would not necessarily prevent the shop from being occupied.

Taking the above into account I recommend that planning permission be refused. ______

Responsible Officer: Rob Bailey (Area Planning Officer)

List of Backgrounds Documents

1. Application papers for SW/09/1083. 2. Correspondence relating to SW/9/1083.

4 PLANNING COMMITTEE – 7 JANUARY 2010 PART 5

Report of the Head of Development Services

PART 5

Decisions by County Council and Secretary of State, reported for information

5.1 SW/08/1338 (Case 23222) Two storey side and rear extension - 23 Park Avenue, Sittingbourne, Kent, ME10 1QY

APPEAL DISMISSED

The Inspector commented as follows:

“Decision

1. The appeal is dismissed.

Procedural Matter

2. Following the site visit, the Council has confirmed that its decision to refuse the application was based on drawing no.CA/08/161.02.

Main Issues

3. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.

Reasons

4. The appeal property is one of a pair of two-storey semi-detached houses under a pitched and hipped roof. The house has a side garage accessed by a hardsurfaced driveway. The neighbouring house at No. 21 is gable-ended and lies close to the common side boundary although a small gap has been retained. The proposal is to remove the existing garage and construct an L-shaped extension wrapping around the side and rear of the house and abutting the boundary with No.21 at both ground and first floor levels.

5. Park Avenue lies within a predominantly residential area. This particular stretch is characterised mainly by detached and semi- detached pairs of twostorey houses of similar age. An important feature of the street scene is the visual relief derived from the gaps between the houses, particularly at the upper levels above garages or other single-storey side additions, so that there are views between the buildings of open sky and informal, longer-distance vistas containing trees and other vegetation. This contributes to the generally spacious and low-density settlement pattern which is a major characteristic of this outer part of Sittingbourne.

Continued . . .

1 5.1 (Contd) PART 5

6. The introduction of substantial built form at the upper level would disrupt the visual relief expressed between Nos. 21 and 23. By building up to the side boundary, the extension would infill most of the space between the two dwellings and would create a terracing effect. This would be inconsistent with the spacious development pattern in Park Avenue where side gaps have in the main been retained. In this context, the extension could not be successfully assimilated into the street scene and the surrounding pattern of development without appearing discordant and visually damaging.

7. I am mindful of the appellants’ attempt to maintain the architectural style of the dwelling with matching materials. Additionally, the cat-slide style roof, partial hip and stepping down from the main roof ridge would go some way towards mitigating the bulk of the extension and achieving a degree of subordination in relation to the existing house. However, given its width up to the boundary and its very limited set- back from the main front wall, I consider that these positive aspects of the extension would not outweigh the intrusiveness and terracing effect I have identified.

8. With regard to garaging, this facility would be retained as indicated on the submitted plans and elevations. In any event, I do not consider that displaced parking onto the front driveway would cause any significant visual harm. From my site visit I observed that forecourt or driveway parking is not an uncommon feature in Park Avenue and could in any event be lawfully continued at the appeal property whether or not the proposed development is implemented. I am satisfied that this aspect of the scheme would cause no material impact on the street scene and I therefore see no reason to prevent the development on this particular ground.

9. Nevertheless, I conclude that the proposed extension would cause harm to the character and appearance of the area, in conflict with the relevant aspects of policies E1, E19 and E24 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008 which seek to protect the built environment and maintain the character of the street scene. I also find conflict with the design criteria of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan policy QL1 and with the Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance: Designing an Extension: A Guide for Householders which, among other things, requires two-storey side extensions to avoid creating a terracing effect.

10. With regard to the examples of other nearby extensions which have been brought to my attention, I do not consider that they are directly comparable to the proposal before me in terms of the nature of their locations, relationship with adjoining properties or general surroundings. In any event, some have failed to avoid the creation of a terracing affect while others, in my view, are not good examples to follow or repeat in terms of their adverse environmental impact. I have therefore considered this particular case on its own merits.

Continued . . .

2 5.1 (Contd) PART 5

11. For the reasons given above and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.”

Observations

Full support for the Council’s decision, which affirms our stance on proposals of this kind. The Inspector rightly draws attention to the potential terracing effect which would have eroded the character of the area had the appeal been allowed.

Responsible Officer: Rob Bailey (Area Planning Officer)

List of Background Papers

1. Planning Inspectorate Appeal Decision ref: APP/V2255/A/09/2106685/WF

2. Appeal Papers (statements and correspondence)

3. SBC Decision on Application SW/08/1338

3 PART 5

5.2 SW/09/0011 (Case 23484) – Re-construction of existing residential dwelling following extensive damage by fire. Dividing dwelling into two residential units - North Barn, Westwood Court, Sheldwich, Faversham, Kent, ME13 9QD

APPEAL DISMISSED

The Inspector commented as follows:

“Reasons

2. The appeal property comprises part of a traditional farmstead building, previously associated with a fruit and hops operation. It forms part of the historic curtilage of adjacent 16th and 19th century Westwood Court which is listed Grade II. Redundant for agriculture, it had been converted into two residential units but was severely damaged by fire following a lightning strike. One unit has been rebuilt and is occupied. The remaining dwelling has been re-roofed and generally weatherproofed but not fitted out. The appellant wishes to convert this part into two dwellings rather than complete it as one.

3. The building is visible from a considerable distance in the open fields that surround it and currently, converted into 2 dwellings, largely retains its utilitarian, rural character and appearance. The appeal property is large but not exceptional in terms of floor area. It is not a great deal larger than the adjoining occupied house. If it was to be fitted out as two units, the floor area of each would be much smaller but would still be adequate for the 3 and 4 bedroom dwellings proposed. However, the proposed conversion would have important implications for the appearance of the building as a whole.

4. The existing use of an internal space for garaging and storage, behind large cart entrance doors, means that for most of the time the doors are likely to be kept closed. Use of this space for living purposes would lead to the doors being open in daylight hours, revealing glazing and giving a distinctly domestic feel to the west elevation. The layouts of the proposed houses show very little internal storage space and although I appreciate that individual rooms could accommodate cupboards, there is no provision at all for many of the items required by most families such as bicycles, play equipment and items such as tools and mowers for garden maintenance. The normal requirement for such items is very likely to lead to outside domestic clutter and paraphernalia which, added to the enhanced domestic appearance of the building itself, would detract from its rural character and appearance and perception of its historic function. The addition of a new boundary fence, even lightweight in nature, separating the private rear gardens of the new dwellings would add to this impression.

5. I consider it very likely that there would be an increased demand for parking. This would be a result of the likely increase in the number of occupants of two dwelling units which together would contain 7 bedrooms. Although 4 car parking spaces have been indicated at the Continued . . .

4 5.2 (Contd) PART 5

far eastern corner of the plot, these would be in a double parking arrangement which in my opinion would be awkward to use. Notwithstanding that concern, it is much more likely that vehicles would be parked in closer proximity to the houses. A substantial number of vehicles there would add further to the strong impression of an obviously domestic environment. The loss of garaging, required by a condition on the existing planning permission, would not help in this respect. I understand that farms usually have a great deal of clutter in and around buildings but there is a great difference between cars belonging to residents and the storage of items and machinery associated with production from the land. In my view, this would reinforce an overly residential, urban character. It would not respect the farmstead setting or be sympathetic to the rural location.

6. Moreover, an additional dwelling here would not conform to national and local policies which discourage new houses in the countryside in unsustainable locations away from settlements. The additional residents that would occupy this development would need to use vehicles for most day to day needs and to get to a place of employment. Whilst re-use of agricultural buildings for residential purposes is supported in certain circumstances, proposals must be sympathetic to the local landscape character and quality. It has not been shown that an additional dwelling would have benefits that would outweigh the disadvantages identified.

7. I have had regard to the need to make better use of the existing stock (a requirement of the South East Plan), the need to use land efficiently and the failure of the appellant to sell the property. The efficient use of land is an important objective but only one aspect of policy that needs to be taken into account. Whilst certainly a material consideration, whether a building can be sold depends upon many factors including marketing, price and demand in the area as well as its individual characteristics. Market conditions vary from one year to the next. Conversion to two dwellings would be permanent. Nothing has been provided to persuade me that the appeal property is unviable or unsaleable at a reasonable price as a single dwelling or that these considerations should outweigh the disadvantages of splitting it into two units.

8. I have had regard to all the other matters raised including the removal of many of the previous agricultural buildings from the site and the appellant’s preference for a two dwelling conversion at the time of the original application. I have considered the appeal proposal on its merits now in accordance with current planning policies. The additional dwelling would be in a rural location away from any settlement and would lead to an overtly domestic appearance which would appear inappropriate and discordant in a historic farmstead setting which is sensitive to change. I conclude that the proposed development would conflict with the relevant aims of policies E1, E6, E9 and H2 of the Swale Borough Local Plan of 2008.”

Continued . . .

5 5.2 (Contd) PART 5

Observations

Members will recall a site meeting on this proposal. This is an excellent decision which fully supports the Counci’s decision to refuse planning permission.

Responsible Officer: Graham Thomas (Area Planning Officer)

List of Background Papers

1. Planning Inspectorate Appeal Decision ref: APP/V2255/A/09/2105329

2. Appeal Papers (statements and correspondence)

3. SBC Decision on Application SW/09/0011

6 PART 5

5.3 SW/09/0658 (Case 16029) Single storey porch to rear of barn with a translucent roof - Site at Appleyard Barn, Plough Road, Eastchurch, Sheerness, Kent, ME12 4JH

APPEAL ALLOWED

The Inspector commented as follows:

“1. I allow the appeal, and grant planning permission for a single storey porch to the rear elevation of the Barn with a translucent roof at Appleyard Barn, Plough Road, Eastchurch, Sheerness ME12 4JH in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref SW/09/0658 CASE16029, dated 17 July 2009, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following conditions:

1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision. 2) The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the extension hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building.

Main issue

2. The one main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the countryside through its effect on the character of the building itself.

Reasons

3. Although Appleyard Barn is prominently sited on a hilltop, its appearance from the west is largely obscured by the adjoining Cripps Farm House and its lower parts are shielded by trees and hedging. The Barn is not listed as a building of special architectural or historic interest, nor does it stand in a conservation area but it is a substantial, handsome building. At close quarters, it can be seen to be a building of symmetry. On the elevation facing Plough Road, this is not compromised in any way. On other elevations, modern inserted windows are not symmetrically placed but do not detract from its symmetrical form.

4. To one side is a garage in an exposed position. This shares the formal symmetry of the barn itself. In less exposed positions are other outbuildings, including a flat roofed shed.

5. At the rear, the barn roof sweeps down so that this fa de of the barn

is only single storey. This fa de is hidden from public view by the detached garage on one side and by hedging on the other. For this

reason, although the position of the extension proposed at one end of

the fa de would compromise the symmetrical form of the barn, it would not be publicly visible and so would cause no harm to any matter of public interest.

7 Continued . . .

8 5.3 (Contd) PART 5

6. Policy E1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan adopted in February 2008 expects all development proposals to accord with adopted Supplementary Planning Documents. Planning and Development Guideline Number 3 concerns the Conservation of Traditional Farm Buildings. It advises that the purpose of converting a traditional building will be to adapt it with the minimum of alteration for the purpose required and that an extension to accommodate the use will not normally be considered appropriate. Policy E6 (2) applying policies RC1 and RC6 has the same effect. That advice and policy has been respected in the conversion carried out some time previously.

7. What we have now is a proposal to extend a residential dwelling rather than to convert or adapt the building, so policies E6 (4) and RC4, which would permit the modest extension of a dwelling currently in residential use, apply rather than E6 (2), RC1 and RC6. Furthermore, policy E19 requires a high quality of design in which, amongst other things, proposals should respond positively to ensuring the long term maintenance and management of buildings, achieving flexibility to respond to future changes in use and lifestyle and maximising opportunities for including sustainable design and construction techniques. The addition of a porch to exclude driving rainwater would be consistent with those aims.

8. I conclude that although the proposal would compromise the formal symmetry of Appleyard Barn, its secluded position would cause no harm to the character and appearance of the countryside. It would therefore comply with Local Plan policies E6 (4), RC4 and E19. I concur with the Council’s view that a condition should ensure that materials should match those used elsewhere on site but the submission of samples seems excessive in the circumstances.”

Observations

An extremely poor and disappointing decision where the Inspector did not agree that this very mundane porch would significantly alter the traditional character of the converted but well preserved barn.

Responsible Officer: Graham Thomas (Area Planning Officer)

List of Background Papers

1. Planning Inspectorate Appeal Decision ref: APP/V2255/D/09/2113965

2. Appeal Papers (statements and correspondence)

3. SBC Decision on Application SW/09/0658

9 PART 5

5.4 SW/09/0454 Case 16432 – Loft conversion and internal alterations - 8 Hunters Way, Sheldwich, Faversham, Kent, ME13 0NB

APPEAL DISMISSED

The Inspector commented as follows:

“Main issues

2. I consider the main issue to be whether the proposal would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Sheldwich Conservation Area.

Reasons

3. The Sheldwich Conservation Area is characterised by low density residential development and large areas of open space. Policy E15 of the Swale Borough Local Plan (2008) requires development within conservation areas to preserve or enhance all features that contribute positively to the areas special character or appearance. Amongst other matters, policy E24 requires alterations and extensions to be of a high quality of design and in scale with the existing building and its surroundings.

4. Hunters Way is characterised by simply designed bungalows and houses similar in appearance to the appeal property. The existing detached bungalow is of a simple, uncluttered design with a long shallow pitched roof and a gable end feature to the front elevation. There are two similar gables to the rear.

5. The proposal would introduce a substantial dormer window with a balcony between the rear gables. It is designed to have a contemporary box-like appearance and would extend beyond the existing roof and rear elevation. I accept that the proposed the dormer window would introduce a contemporary feature to the rear elevation of the property, nonetheless, due to its scale, it would dominate the rear elevation and detract from the design and appearance of the original dwelling.

6. The proposal would extend above the ridge of the existing roof by about 0.5 metres, and would contrast with the simple uncluttered appearance of the appeal property and the other dwellings within the conservation area. The appellant suggests that this projection would not be readily visible, however, due to the prominent location of the property at the end of the cul de sac, I consider that it would be noticeable in views from Hunters Way.

7. I therefore conclude that the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the Sheldwich Conservation Area and would fail to comply with policies E15, and E24 of the Local Plan. Continued . . .

9 5.4 (Contd) PART 5

8. The proposal would not be visible within the wider landscape or harm the Kent Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty in which it is located.

Conclusion

9. For the reasons given above, and taking account of all material considerations,

I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.”

Observations

Full support for the Council’s decision.

Responsible Officer: Graham Thomas (Area Planning Officer)

List of Background Papers

1. Planning Inspectorate Appeal Decision ref: APP/V2255/d/09/2114703

2. Appeal Papers (statements and correspondence)

3. SBC Decision on Application SW/09/0454

10 PART 5

5.5 SW/09/0060 Case 23037 – Proposed detached bungalow - Vicarage Road, rear of 13 Queens Road, Minster, Sheerness, Kent, ME12 2HE

APPEAL ALLOWED

The Inspector commented as follows:

“Decision

1. I allow the appeal, and grant planning permission for a detached bungalow at Vicarage Road, rear of 13 Queens Road, Minster, Sheerness, Kent ME12 2HE in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref SW/09/0060, dated 20 January 2009, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the conditions in Annex A.

Main issue

2. The main issues in this case are the effect of the proposed bungalow on the character and appearance of the surrounding area and the impact on neighbours’ living conditions, having regard to issues of privacy and disturbance.

Reasons Character and appearance

3. The appeal site is an overgrown area of land at the rear of No 13 Queens Road which I understand was formerly part of that property’s rear garden. Vicarage Road, an unmade lane, runs alongside the site and would provide pedestrian and vehicular access to the proposed bungalow. The lane currently gives vehicular access to 3 dwellings, including the local vicarage and an associated car park. It also links to a pedestrian footpath running south towards the church and an access way serving garages/outbuildings at the bottom of the back gardens of dwellings in Queens Road west of No 13.

4. Queens Road and the immediate locality contain a variety of residential properties as well as a small supermarket east of Vicarage Road. The general feel of the area is of small scale medium density development. Although No 13 Queens Road and the neighbouring dwellings to the west have good size back gardens, the bungalows are quite closely spaced and the general street scene does not give an impression of spaciousness.

5. The view westward across the appeal site from Vicarage Road encompasses the garages/outbuildings in the neighbouring gardens and some modern 2 storey houses in Cardinal Close. On the east side of the lane 2 modern bungalows have been constructed on land at the rear of the supermarket. Although the vicarage and church grounds to the south are more open, they are partially screened by vegetation and visually separated from the residential area, the general character of which appears intimate rather than spacious. Continued . . .

11 5.5 (Contd) PART 5

6. In my judgement the development of the vacant appeal site would not appear cramped or out of character with its surroundings. In accordance with policy H2 of the Swale Borough Local Plan (LP), adopted in 2008, it would make efficient use of the land. It would comply with the aims of LP policies E1(6) and E19(8) in terms of its scale, height and massing in relation to its surroundings.

7. I do not consider that the grant of planning permission in this case would undermine the Council’s position in controlling future proposals which could arise on other sites, since each case would be judged on its merits in the light of development plan policies and other material considerations applying at the time.

8. I conclude that the proposed bungalow would have an acceptable effect on the character and appearance of the surrounding area.

Living conditions

9. The west wall of the bungalow would be located 1 metre from the common boundary with No 11 Queens Road, facing the part of the garden furthest from the dwelling itself. No windows are proposed in this elevation and this combined with a substantial existing boundary fence would prevent the likelihood of harmful overlooking of No 11 and its garden.

10. To the east, across Vicarage Road, 2 bungalows face the appeal site and there is potential for views between habitable rooms in the proposed and existing dwellings. At my site visit I observed that front windows in the existing bungalows had drapes to maintain privacy. These could be augmented by screen planting in the front gardens or by the boundary treatment of the new development, which would be controlled by planning condition.

11. Any additional disturbance due to vehicles gaining access to the site along the existing lane would be insufficient to justify the refusal of planning permission.

12. I conclude that, having regard to issues of privacy and disturbance, the proposed bungalow would have an acceptable impact on neighbours’ living conditions, in accordance with the requirements of LP policy E1(8).

Other Matters

13. I have seen no evidence to suggest that the level of traffic using the lane following development would prevent its safe and convenient use. In my view the proposal would not be an over intensive use of the site, having regard to its single storey nature and the proportion of the site which would remain open. I agree with the Council that the proposal would cause no harm to the setting of the listed vicarage, which is some distance to the south. Continued . . .

12 5.5 (Contd) PART 5

14. The submitted plan shows 2 tandem parking spaces to serve No 13. They are also mentioned in the Design and Access Statement but would be outside the appeal site. At my site visit I observed several mature trees which might obstruct access to these spaces. I am unaware of their ownership and therefore of the appellant’s ability to remove them. However, given the general thrust of the advice in PPG13 to discourage car usage by limiting parking provision, and that neither the planning nor the highway authority has expressed any concern about the trees or their position, I do not find this to be something that should weigh against my conclusions on the main issues.

Conditions

15. I have considered the conditions suggested by the Council in the light of the advice in Circular 11/95. In order to safeguard the character and appearance of the area, and having regard to neighbours’ privacy, I consider it necessary to impose conditions requiring details of materials and of hard and soft landscaping, including means of enclosure, to be submitted for approval by the local planning authority.

16. In the interest of highway safety, and having regard to the relatively narrow and unmade nature of the lane adjoining the appeal site, I shall also impose a condition requiring the retention of the 2 parking spaces shown on the appeal site. This excludes reference to the spaces indicated for No 13 for the reasons discussed in paragraph 14, above.

17. To protect neighbours’ living conditions I shall impose conditions restricting the hours during which construction may take place, preventing the burning of materials on the site and requiring an effective means of dust suppression. In order to promote energy efficiency and sustainable development I shall impose a condition requiring the achievement of at least a Level 3 rating under The Code for Sustainable Homes or equivalent.

Conclusion

18. For the reasons given above and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.”

Observations

A disappointing decision, the Inspector was of the opinion that though the site is small it was acceptable for the proposed development, despite having little in common with the character of the area.

Continued . . .

13 5.5 (Contd) PART 5

The Inspector was of the opinion that there would be no detrimental harm to the surrounding residential amenity.

Responsible Officer: Graham Thomas (Area Planning Officer)

List of Background Papers

1. Planning Inspectorate Appeal Decision ref: APP/V2255/A/09/2104858

2. Appeal Papers (statements and correspondence)

3. SBC Decision on Application SW/09/0060

14 PART 5

5.6 SW/09/0165 (C13801) Hoarding on two posts - Site at North Corner of Junction Between Warden Road and Fourth Avenue, Eastchurch, Sheerness, Kent, ME12 4EW

APPEAL DISMISSED

The Inspector commented as follows:

“Main Issues

2. The main issues are the effect of the proposed sign on the character and appearance of the area and on highway safety.

Reasons

3. The proposed sign would be a free-standing structure to be displayed in an angled position immediately alongside the carriageway at the junction of Warden Road and Fourth Avenue. It would be mounted above ground level on two posts and would measure 1.2m. x 1.37m.

Character and appearance

4. Given its substantial proportions and prominent corner position, I consider that the sign would be particularly dominant and intrusive. It would reduce still further the attractiveness of this rural area which is mainly characterised by roads lined with trees, shrubs and hedges, but is impaired by the existing proliferation of signage at this particular location. The proposed sign would add to the already uncoordinated jumble of sign-boards and would result in a visual impact harmful to the street scene and the character and appearance of this pleasant rural area.

Highway Safety

5. Firstly, I consider that the Fourth Avenue road sign and cycle route signs should retain particular prominence and should be kept free from the obstructing or distracting influence of other signage. Secondly, the large dimensions of the sign and its position immediately adjoining the carriageway at the very apex of this right- angled junction, would cause obstruction to drivers’ and pedestrians’ forward vision. The existence of trees and shrubs with only limited set- back distances from each road effectively limits intervisibility between Warden Road and Fourth Avenue and the addition of a large sign in the position indicated on the submitted plan would exacerbate this situation. During my visit to the area, I observed that local traffic flows were light and intermittent but were nevertheless significant, with vehicles often proceeding rapidly along Warden Road, given its straight alignment. I therefore consider that drivers need to exercise particular care at this junction and I conclude on this issue that the proposed development would be harmful to highway safety.

Continued . . .

15 5.6 (Contd) PART 5

6. I sympathise with the appellant’s wish to facilitate visitor access. I also acknowledge that Circular 03/2007 emphasises the essential nature of advertising in commercial activity. Nevertheless, the requirement remains for advertisements to have regard to their surroundings without causing adverse impact on visual amenity or highway safety and in my view, the proposed sign would fail to achieve these objectives. I have had regard to all matters raised in the representations but find no compelling reason why planning consent should be granted, irrespective of any previous signage which may or may not have been lawfully displayed in the position currently proposed. The appeal therefore fails.”

Observations

A good decision where the Inspector fully supported the Council’s decision and that the proposed advert would have an adverse impact on highway safety and the visual amenity.

Responsible Officer: Graham Thomas (Area Planning Officer)

List of Background Papers

1. Planning Inspectorate Appeal Decision ref: APP/V2255/H/09/2104920

2. Appeal Papers (statements and correspondence)

3. SBC Decision on Application SW/09/0165

16 PART 5

5.7 SW/09/0150 (C23542) Replacement windows and door on the front elevation - 35 St Marys Road, Faversham, Kent, ME13 8EH

APPEAL DISMISSED

The Inspector commented as follows:

“Reasons for the Decision

2. The appeal property is within the designated Faversham Conservation Area (CA). The CA covers an extensive area of the town centre and contains a range of buildings of varying ages and styles. The architecture in St. Mary’s Road, a predominately residential street, is more consistent with mostly two storey terraced houses of a generally similar age set on fairly narrow plots with short front gardens. The front windows and front doors of these properties are an important feature of the design of their front elevations and the street scene generally.

3. The appeal property is a centre terraced two storey house with one window at first floor and one at ground floor and a door in the front elevation. The proposal is to replace the windows with white UPVC units and the front door with an oak coloured UPVC unit. The first floor window has already been replaced by a white UPVC unit. The ground floor front window currently retains its wooden sash unit.

4. Policies E1, E15 and E19 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008 (LP) expect proposals to respond positively by reflecting the positive characteristics and features of the site and locality; to preserve or enhance all features that contribute positively to the special character and appearance of a conservation area; and to promote and reinforce local distinctiveness, among other things.

5. In my opinion, timber window frames and doors of a traditional design are a positive characteristic of older buildings in the CA such as the appeal property. I consider that the white UPVC replacement window which has already been installed, and the proposed UPVC window and door, would be out of keeping with the traditional character and appearance of the existing building and that they would neither preserve nor enhance the character and appearance of the CA, and would therefore cause harm. I find therefore that the appeal proposal would be contrary to the LP Policies referred to above.

6. The Council has made an Article 4 (2) Direction which requires among other things that planning permission be obtained on unlisted dwellings in respect of changes to windows and doors which front a highway. The Council’s document giving guidance and advice with regard to the Article 4 (2) Direction makes clear that the removal of traditional timber windows and doors and the installation of inappropriate replacements in aluminium or plastic will normally be resisted. Continued . . .

17 5.7 (Contd) PART 5

7. The appellant has referred to other properties in St. Mary’s Road which have had replacement doors and windows. I noted that a considerable number of these have UPVC window and door units in a variety of designs. In particular, I noted that the adjoining property to the north of the appeal site and some properties opposite have UPVC units. I also saw the house in poor condition further along the road and the larger properties in Newton Road to which he has referred. However, the full circumstances of these other cases are not before me. In particular, it is not clear to me from the information I have been given whether the alterations to windows and doors at other properties in St. Mary’s Road took place before or after the Article 4 Direction came into effect.

8. In any case, in my view, sufficient properties in St. Mary’s Road still retain their traditional timber windows and doors for these to remain an important part of the character of this part of the CA.

9. I have noted the appellant’s personal circumstances set out in his grounds of appeal, including the misunderstanding of a communication from the Council which led him to replace the first floor window. I have also noted his references to the energy efficiency and ease of maintenance of UPVC units, the cost of new wooden windows, safety concerns and the fact that the present window and door leak. I have also noted the supporting letter from a neighbour. However, I do not regard these other considerations as being sufficient to outweigh my conclusion that the appeal proposal would cause harm for the reasons set out above and that the appeal should therefore be dismissed.”

Observations

A very good decision where the Inspector fully supports the importance of protecting the original characteristics of properties located in the Article 4 area.

Responsible Officer: Graham Thomas (Area Planning Officer)

List of Background Papers

1. Planning Inspectorate Appeal Decision ref: APP/V2255/A/09/2107833/WF

2. Appeal Papers (statements and correspondence)

3. SBC Decision on Application SW/09/0150

18 PART 5

5.8 SW/09/0295 (Case 10898) – To demolish existing single storey utility/shower room at rear (north) of property and replace with two storey extension incorporating new kitchen and bedroom - Site at Oak Tree Cottage, South Street, Boughton-under-Blean, Faversham, Kent, ME13 9NR

APPEAL DISMISSED

The Inspector commented as follows:

“Reasons for the Decision

2. The main issue in this case is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the existing building and the area generally.

3. The appeal site is in a rural area outside the boundaries of any settlement. The existing house is of two storeys and is of a traditional design with a small extension to the rear with pitched roof. The house has previously been extended on its western side with a two storey extension granted planning permission in 1987 and there is a detached garage beyond that.

4. The proposal would replace the existing single storey rear extension, which is in a poor condition structurally, with a two storey extension. A previous planning permission in December 2006 for a single storey rear extension to replace that existing rear extension has not been implemented. The full details of that existing planning permission are not before me.

5. Policy E1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008 (LP) is a general policy which expects development to protect and enhance the natural and built environment, to be well sited and of a scale, design and appearance appropriate to the location, among other things. Policies E19 and E24 expect development to be of a high quality design, with Policy E24 additionally requiring extensions to be in scale. Policy E6 seeks to protect the quality, character and amenity value of the countryside but does allow modest extension of a dwelling in accordance with Policy RC4.

6. The parties are not in agreement with regard to the floorspace calculations either of the original building or the two storey extension permitted in 1987, the appellant’s figures being lower than those submitted by the Council. My own calculations are generally consistent with those provided by the appellant and indicate that the two storey extension permitted in 1987 increased the floorspace of the original building by about 55%, and that the current appeal proposal taken together with the 1987 extensions, and after allowing for the loss of floorspace in the existing rear extension, would increase the floorspace of the original building by about 81%.

Continued . . .

19 5.8 (Contd) PART 5

7. The ground floor area of the original building was greater than 50 sq.m. Policy RC4 makes clear that for dwellings in the rural area with an existing ground floor area of 50 sq.m. or more, only modest extensions will be permitted taking into account any previous additions undertaken. The Council’s guidance on Designing an Extension – A Guide for Householders, to which I give limited weight, says at paragraph 3.3, that the Council will not normally approve an extension to a dwelling in the rural area if it results in an increase of more than 60% of the property’s original floorspace. The proposal taken together with the previously permitted and built two storey extension would exceed this figure by a significant margin.

8. I do not therefore consider that the appeal proposal, taken together with the two storey extension already permitted and built, can be regarded as a modest extension. I therefore find that the proposal would be contrary to LP Policies RC4 and E6 in this respect.

9. I am also concerned at the visual impact of the appeal proposal. The existing single storey rear extension can be glimpsed from the road from the east, but makes little visual impact on the area. The proposed extension, whilst lower than the main house roof, would be significantly higher than and would extend further rearwards than the existing rear extension. It would also be located closer to the eastern flank wall of the original building which can be clearly seen from the road. I consider that the proposal would significantly increase the bulk and scale of the building and would be prominent and clearly visible from the road from the east and could not be satisfactorily screened by landscaping. In my opinion, it would have an adverse effect on the character and appearance of the existing building and the area generally. The proposal would therefore be contrary to LP Policies E1, E6, E19 and E24 in this respect.

10. I have noted the appellant’s reasons for wanting the proposed development, including the current condition of the existing rear extension, improvements in internal layout and room sizes and the family bathroom which would result, and her statement that no additional rooms are to be provided. I also note the intention that the proposal be built to a high standard with a lower carbon footprint, and that it would have roof tiles to match the main house. However, these other considerations are not of sufficient weight to overcome my view that the proposal would be unacceptable for the reasons set out above and that the appeal should be dismissed.”

Continued . . .

20 5.8 (Contd) PART 5

Observations

An excellent decision, where the Inspector fully supported the Council’s policies on rural restraint.

Responsible Officer: Graham Thomas (Area Planning Officer)

List of Background Papers

1. Planning Inspectorate Appeal Decision ref: APP/V2255/A/09/2107871/WF

2. Appeal Papers (statements and correspondence)

3. SBC Decision on Application SW/09/0295

21 PART 5

5.9 Case 23606 – High Hedge Appeal - 35 Doubleday Drive, Bapchild, Sittingbourne, Kent, ME9 9PJ

APPEAL DISMISSED

The Inspector commented as follows:

“Main Issue

2. The main issue is the effect of the hedge upon the reasonable enjoyment of the property at 37 Doubleday Drive by its occupier and whether the Council's decision not to issue a Remedial Notice is appropriate and reasonable.

Reasons

3. No.37 Doubleday Drive (belonging to the appellant) is west of No.35 (belonging to the hedge owners) and the hedge, which consists of three evergreen Lawson Cypress trees, is situated near the southern boundary of No.35.

4. Amongst other points, in his complaint the appellant says the hedge deprives his south-facing garden and home of sunlight and light, and in his appeal he says that the sunlight is limited (to his garden) for the complete year. On my visit, the hedge appeared to have been trimmed recently. Noting that the appellant challenges a key input used by the Council and mindful that my decision can only be based on the physical features of the hedge seen at the time of my visit, I checked key data on site. The hedge is now 7.4 metres1 long (at right angles to the boundary with No.37), 5.4 metres high and 2.85 metres deep (close to the No.37 boundary) and the orientation from the appellant's garden is about 105O, which by interpolating BRE guidelines2 produces a factor of 0.367. These figures differ from the inputs used by the Council, probably as a result of recent trimming3. I also found that the hedge's foliage is 8.85 metres from the nearest main room window in the appellant's house (namely the glazed door between his conservatory and dining room as highlighted in his evidence)4.

1 As with many measurements concerning trees, trunks and foliage, the figures quoted in this decision are approximate; so also are the directions (N, 5, E & W). 2 Hedge height andiight loss (Office of the Deputy Prime Ministe/Buiiding Research Establishment, revision edition October 2005) (henceforth HH&LL), paragraph 4.2, table 1. 3The Council's figures were 8.0, 5.5 and 4.0 metres for the hedge's length, height and width, and south east for orientation (giving a factor of 0.3). 4 The Council used a figure of 11.5 metres from the foliage to the kitchen window at No.37, whereas BRE guidelines for assessing the effects of loss of light advise (at paragraph 5.1) that where a dwelling has a conservatory, the opening between it and the house, not the front or side windows of the conservatory, is taken as the window position. Continued . . .

22 5.9 (Contd) PART 5

5. Using BRE methodology to assess the height above which the hedge is likely to cause a significant loss of light at No.37 produces Action Hedge Heights (AHH) of 13.9 metres for garden and 9.85 metres for windows; being lower, the latter is also the overall AHH. In view of the many changes in input data, it is not surprising that these figures differ from the Council's AHHS'.

6. Although the hedge is quite prominent when viewed from the southern parts of his garden and must cause some deprivation of light and rainfall on his lawn and plants, I did not find it to be obtrusive in the garden as suggested by the appellant. Indeed during my visit, the morning sun was shining onto his green house and onto parts of his lawn, garden and conservatory.

7. When I looked out from his dining room, kitchen and conservatory (and mindful in my objective assessment that the appellant uses the conservatory as a part of his dwelling), I could only see the higher parts of some of the hedge and therefore consider that the hedge does not cause a major loss of light and sunlight in his house.

8. Noting also that the hedge is about 45% lower than the overall AHH and 61% lower than the AHH for garden, I consider that it does not either dominate or overpower the appellant's property. Therefore, even though the hedge causes some loss of light and sunlight at No.37, I consider that these losses are not unreasonable (mindful of ODPM guidance about the meaning of reasonable in relation to the enjoyment of a property and the need to introduce a degree of objectivity in assessing the impact of a hedge6). For these reasons, I consider that the hedge does not adversely affect the reasonable enjoyment of 37 Doubleday Drive by its occupier and conclude that the appeal fails on the first issue.

9. Having also noted that these findings are similar to those of the Council when it dismissed the complaint, on the second issue I conclude that the Council's decision not to issue a Remedial Notice is appropriate and reasonable.

Other Matters

10. Amongst other points, the appellant mentions the hedge's potential for increased growth and spread of foliage and he says that trimming the parts overhanging his property imposes unreasonable risk and cost. Be that as it may as I have no power under the Act to issue a purely preventative notice and the hedge was well trimmed and did not overhang his property at the time of my visit, I have not allowed these points to influence the considerations leading to my decision.

5 The Council's AHHs were 8.1 metres for garden and overall, and 12.5 metres for windows. 6 High Hedges Complaints: Prevention and Cure (ODPM 2005), especially paragraph 4.41. Continued . . .

23 5.9 (Contd) PART 5

11. I also note some conflicts between the appellant's and hedge owners' evidence about the past height and trimming of the hedge and the appellant mentions other matters concerning the Council's handling of his complaint. As the considerations leading to my decision take note of the hedge at the time of my visit, I have not allowed possible past actions to influence my deliberations. As such, I consider that the appellant has not been prejudiced in the handling of his appeal.

Conclusion and Decision

12. Having considered all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.

13. I dismiss the appeal.”

Observations

An excellent decision where the Inspector supported the Council’s reason for refusing a remedial notice to carry out works to this high hedge, as there was no major loss of light to the complainant’s dwelling.

Responsible Officer: Rob Bailey (Area Planning Officer)

List of Background Papers

1. Planning Inspectorate Appeal Decision ref: APP/HH/09/834

2. Appeal Papers (statements and correspondence)

3. SBC Enforcement Notice reference HH/01/09

24 PART 5

5.10 SW/08/1291 (Case 13283) Single storey side extension at 2 Boxted Farm Barns, Boxted Lane, Upchurch, Sittingbourne, Kent, ME9 7BY

APPEAL DISMISSED

The Inspector commented as follows:

“Decision

1 I dismiss the appeal.

Reasons for the Decision

2. The main issue in this case is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the building to which it relates and the area generally.

3. The appeal site is in a rural area outside the boundaries of any settlement. The existing building is single storey with brick elevations and a tiled roof. It is attached to 1 Boxted Farm Barns, which is a two storey building of a different design from the appeal building, with a stained weather boarded front elevation. The appeal building was converted from an agricultural barn under a planning permission granted in 1991. It is set back from but visible from the road despite being partly screened from the west by a large outbuilding close to the road shared between the two properties. There are some agricultural buildings of a utilitarian appearance to the east.

4. Policy E1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008 (LP) is a general policy which expects development to protect and enhance the natural and built environments and to be well sited and of a scale, design and appearance appropriate to the location. Policy RC6 expects, among other things, that the re-use of a rural building for housing should not involve the need for significant extension. Policy RC4 generally allows only modest extensions to dwellings in the rural area and expects them to be of an appropriate scale, mass and appearance for the location. Policy E6 takes a similar approach only allowing modest extensions to dwellings in the countryside and seeking to protect the character and amenity value of the countryside. Policy E19 says that development should be of high quality design and appropriate to the context in respect of scale, height and massing, among other things.

5. The Council has drawn my attention to Supplementary Planning Guidance: The Conversion of Traditional Farm Buildings (SPG). This document was adopted for development control purposes by the Council in 1992 following public consultation. It therefore predates the LP by some years and this limits the weight I can attach to it. The SPG makes clear that conversions of such buildings will not be permitted where the conversion cannot take place without a significant number of alterations which would be detrimental to the character of the building. Continued . . .

25 5.10 (Contd) PART 5

6. The proposed south eastern side elevation and the proposed floor plan are not consistent with each other in terms of their dimensions but based on the proposed floor plan the development would increase the floorspace of the existing building by about 60%. Although the appellant states on the planning application form that he received pre- application advice from the Council that as a rule of thumb a 60% floorspace increase could be acceptable, I do not consider that an increase of this size can be considered modest in relation to the appeal property and find that the proposal would be contrary to LP Policies E6, RC4 and RC6 in this respect.

7. The existing building is of a simple L-shaped plan with the front section projecting forward about 8m from the other part of the building, and slightly less far forward of the attached two storey building comprising 1 Boxted Farm Barns. The front projecting section of the appeal building is the most prominent part of it when viewed from the road.

8. The proposed extension would be of a similar width and height to the front projecting section of the existing building, and despite being set back from the front wall of that projecting section, the proposal would significantly increase the overall bulk of the appeal building when seen from the road. In my opinion, from that direction, it would appear to almost double the size of the existing building.

9. In my view, the proposal would not be subservient to the existing building. I consider that the proposal would be overlarge and would detract from the simple historic agricultural character and appearance of the existing L-shaped building. It would introduce a further element parallel to the existing front projecting element, with its own half hipped roof competing in visual terms with the existing half hipped roof. Furthermore, the proposal by its size, bulk and design would harm the character and appearance of this area of attractive undulating countryside. The proposal would therefore be contrary to LP Policies E1, E6 and E19 in this respect.

10. The proposal is for the use of stained softwood feather edged boarding “to match the adjacent barn”, but I note that the appellant would be willing to use matching brick elevations. However I do not consider that the use of brick elevations rather than stained boarding would overcome my concerns set out above.

11. I find therefore that the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the building to which it relates and the area generally, and that it would be contrary to the LP Policies and the guidance in the SPG referred to above.

12. The appellant says that the existing accommodation in the original building is very limited and that increased living space is required and necessary for family living requirements. However, the personal circumstances of appellants are seldom sufficient to justify Continued . . .

26 5.10 (Contd) PART 5

development which is otherwise unacceptable as the harm caused by the development would remain long after those personal circumstances had ceased to exist. I do not find that these other considerations put forward by the appellant are sufficient to outweigh the harm which I have identified above.

13. For the above reasons and having considered all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.”

Observations

A good decision which supports the Council’s policies on rural restraint. In this case the Inspector considered that the size and design of the proposed extension would not be modest and would have a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the building and area generally.

Responsible Officer: Rob Bailey (Area Planning Officer)

List of Background Papers

1. Planning Inspectorate Appeal Decision ref: APP/V2255/A/09/2109078/WF

2. Appeal Papers (statements and correspondence)

3. SBC Decision on Application SW/08/1291

27 PART 5

5. SW/08/1260 (Case 23463) Change of use from agriculture/grazing land to garden - Site at 3 The Potteries, Upchurch, Sittingbourne, Kent, ME9 7AF

APPEAL ALLOWED

The Inspector commented as follows:

“Decision

1. I allow the appeal and grant planning permission for the change of use from agricultural/grazing land to garden, at rear of 3 The Potteries, Upchurch, Sittingbourne, Kent ME9 7AF, in accordance with the terms of the application, reference SW/08/1260 dated 24 November 2008, and the plans submitted therewith, subject to the following conditions:-

1. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no enlargement, improvement or other alteration of a dwellinghouse, nor any building or enclosure, swimming or other pool incidental to the enjoyment of a dwellinghouse, nor any container for domestic heating purposes, whether permitted by Classes A and E of Part 1 of Schedule 2 to that Order or not, shall be carried out or erected on the land.

2. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no gate, fence, wall or other means of enclosure, whether permitted by Class A of Part 2 of Schedule 2 to that Order or not, shall be erected on any part of the land other than the post and wire fence which currently exists on its western boundary.

Reasons for the Decision

2. The main issue in this case is the effect of the appeal proposal on the character and appearance of the countryside.

3. The appeal site comprises a triangular piece of land adjoining the curtilage of the dwelling at 3 The Potteries. The development applied for has already taken place and the site has been enclosed on the western side by a post and wire fence.

4. The buildings comprising 3 The Potteries include the dwelling itself and a conservatory and a small garden shed and are located very close to the eastern boundary of the appeal site. A large outbuilding to 27 Horsham Lane adjoins its northern boundary.

Continued . . .

28 5.11 (Contd) PART 5

5. Although the appeal site is generally at a higher level than the agricultural land to the west, it is shielded from public view from Horsham Lane by the outbuilding at 27 Horsham Lane referred to above, and the garden and boundary fences of that property. The appeal site can be glimpsed in the distance from the public footpath which runs south-westwards from the end of Crosier Court, but from that direction it is set against the background of the buildings which adjoin it to the east and north.

6. The appeal site lies outside the village boundary and appears to me to fall within the Strategic Gap between the urban areas of the Medway Towns and Sittingbourne north of the A2 where Policy E7 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008 (LP) resists development which would result in encroachment or piecemeal erosion of land or its rural open and undeveloped character.

7. LP Policy E6 seeks to protect and enhance the quality, character and amenity value of the wider countryside including all the land falling outside the built-up area boundaries, but the policy would allow the change of use to garden land in accordance with Policy RC10. That policy resists proposals to extend the garden of a dwelling in the rural area, or to use such land as amenity land unless there is insignificant harm to the landscape or form of a settlement. Policy E1 expects all development proposals to accord with the policies of the Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

8. Whilst the appeal site is outside the built-up area of the village, it is adjacent to it and it is a small piece of land and not generally visible from public land. In visual terms, it is not significantly different in character at the present time from the agricultural land beyond it. I consider that the current use of the appeal site generally complies with LP Policies RC10, E6 and E7 and results in insignificant harm to the landscape or to the form of the settlement. I am, however, concerned to ensure that no structures are built on it and that fencing remains of an unobtrusive style appropriate to a rural area. If this were not the case, then significant harm to the character and appearance of the countryside could occur.

9. I consider that the removal of permitted development rights as suggested by the Council in relation to incidental buildings or enclosures, swimming and other pools, containers for domestic heating purposes, and the erection of gates, fences, walls and other enclosures, is necessary in order to safeguard the character and appearance of the countryside.

10. Whilst I note the Council’s view that permitted development rights in relation to the enlargement of the dwellinghouse at 3 The Potteries cannot be removed as it falls outside the appeal site, I have also noted that the appellant does not oppose the removal of permitted development rights.

Continued . . .

29 5.11 (Contd) PART 5

11. It seems to me that, as the appeal relates to change of use to a garden and is on land immediately adjoining the curtilage of 3 The Potteries and the appeal site is clearly being used in connection with that dwelling, it is necessary that permitted development rights related to the enlargement of the dwellinghouse onto the appeal site should be removed, in order that harm to the character and appearance of the countryside should not occur. I have therefore reworded the conditions suggested by the Council accordingly. I consider that these conditions meet all the tests set out in Circular 11/95: The Use of Conditions in Planning Permissions.

12. I have noted the concerns of the Council and some local residents that the proposal could set a precedent for similar garden extensions in the area. I have also noted the other examples where the appellant says the Council has tolerated extension to gardens outside the village envelope. The full circumstances of these other cases are not before me. Each case has to be considered on its own merits having regard to relevant planning policies and other material considerations. These other considerations are not of sufficient weight to lead me to a different conclusion with regard to this appeal

13. I conclude that the proposal does not significantly adversely affect the character and appearance of the countryside and that the appeal should be allowed, subject to the conditions set out above.”

Observations

A disappointing decision where the Inspector failed to agree with the Council’s view that the change of use of the land, although small in area, would contribute to the piecemeal erosion of the countryside and the strategic gap.

Responsible Officer: Rob Bailey (Area Planning Officer)

List of Background Papers

1. Planning Inspectorate Appeal Decision ref: APP/V2255/A/09/2107533/NWF

2. Appeal Papers (statements and correspondence)

3. SBC Decision on Application SW/08/1260

30 PART 5

5.12 SW/08/1330 Demolish single storey food retail store and construct new building with similar size food retail store at ground level and residential apartments above - Site at Co-operative Retail Services Ltd, Forbes Road, Faversham, Kent, ME13 8QG

APPEAL DISMISSED

The Inspector commented as follows:

“Main issues

2. There are two main issues. The first is the impact of the proposed development on the surrounding development and on the character and appearance of the Faversham Conservation Area; and the second is the impact on the living conditions of neighbouring occupants, in terms of any loss of privacy, overlooking or loss of light.

Reasons

3. The site is occupied by a Co-operative convenience store with on site parking to the front and side. It is in a sustainable urban location on a main approach to the town centre, close to the railway station, by a bus stop and next to a public car park. There is no objection to the principle of a mixed use scheme on the site which would accord with national planning policies in Planning Policy Statement 1 (PPS1) and PPS3 on the prudent use of resources and the objective of policy CC1 of the South East Plan to achieve and to maintain sustainable development.

4. If efficient and effective use is to be made of previously developed land by way of redevelopment, there will inevitably be a change to the character and appearance of the site. The question is whether that change is acceptable in relation to the surrounding development, which here includes the setting of Listed Buildings, and to the statutory duty to pay regard to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the Conservation Area.

5. The character of the Conservation Area is mixed. Other than the appeal site in retail use, in the immediate vicinity there are outside car sales opposite, the open expanse of the pay and display car park next to Queens Hall on its prominent elevated site and now in residential use, then streets of Victorian and Edwardian terraced houses to the west with Georgian houses in Preston Street behind the appeal site to the east. The 2004 Conservation Area appraisal describes development in the vicinity of Forbes Road as being ‘somewhat disjointed in appearance’ and the appeal site makes no positive contribution to the streetscene. This is acknowledged by the Council’s grant of Conservation Area Consent to demolish the existing store without an approved redevelopment scheme.

Continued . . .

31 5.12 (Contd) PART 5

6. Planning Policy Guidance note 15 (PPG15) refers to many conservation areas including gap sites, or buildings that make no positive contribution to, or indeed detract from, the character or appearance of the area and that ‘their replacement should be a stimulus to imaginative, high quality design’. In this case the appeal scheme is a contemporary design using a mix of materials with brickwork broken by areas of timber boarding and glazed walls, some backed with solid panels, under extensive green and bio-diverse roofs with a glass pitched roof with solar panels above the residential entrance. English Heritage supports the proposals, describing the 4 storey building as well designed and carefully scaled. No objection is made by the Council to its design or materials, the single reason for refusal referring only to its bulk and height and in the appeal statement to its enlarged built footprint.

7. Although the proposed built footprint would be nearly double that of the existing store, that in itself should not be objectionable, if better use is to be made of urban land, subject to the scale and siting of the building being appropriate to its setting. The appeal scheme would sit forward on the site, level with the side gable wall of Chase House (No. 55). Whilst it would obscure the long views that are currently obtained from Forbes Road of the backs of 55 and 56 Preston Street, this has to be weighed against the benefit of the reinstatement of a strong street frontage on this important site at the entrance to the town centre. Similarly I do not consider the loss of the current wide views from the east of the roof and eastern gable of Queens Hall unacceptably harmful to the character of the area. There would be a change in the balance of built form within the streetscape but I see that as a positive response to the local environment which would, in general, be an improvement on its current rather disparate and disjointed appearance.

8. It was accepted by the Council at the hearing that the scheme is of a high quality and carefully thought through and in the main I agree. However I do have concerns about the height and bulk of the proposed building particularly in relation to the scale of the Georgian houses fronting Preston Street and to Queens Hall. It would be 4 storey and essentially flat roofed rising to a height of 11.5m, similar to the ridge height of Queens Hall, but with a substantially greater mass and with a central glazed pitched element, the southern slope of which would be solid with solar panels, that would add a further 2.2m. As such, due to its height, it would have a dominant presence that would detract from the character of Queens Hall, which because of its elevated position is an important feature in Forbes Road. The design steps down to the east and there would be a set back of some 12.5m from the eastern wall of the first floor element to the rear elevation of No. 55. However, the building, because of its overall height and bulk, would still appear as a dominant presence from the windows and gardens of 55 and 56 Preston Street and when seen from Forbes Road.

Continued . . .

32 5.12 (Contd) PART 5

9. The importance of good design is stressed in PPS1 and design inappropriate in its context or which fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area and the way it functions, should not be accepted. This is an important site in a Conservation Area where development would be within the setting of Listed Buildings. The objections to the appeal scheme may be limited, nonetheless I am not satisfied that the scheme is of a scale, in terms of its height and bulk, that is appropriate to its historic and townscape context and therefore that it complies with the objectives of PPS1 and with policies E1 and E19 of the Swale Borough Local Plan. Thus it could not be said that it would preserve the setting of the Listed Buildings or the appearance of the Conservation Area, contrary to national policy and Local Plan policies E14 and E15.

10. Objections were also made by those living in Nos. 55 and 56 to the scale of the building in terms of the impact on their outlook, loss of privacy, loss of light and overlooking. Clearly there would be a change in the outlook from the upper rear windows of both houses which currently enjoy open views over the top of the Co-op store. However this is a sustainable location in an urban area where more intensive use of land is encouraged and where redevelopment of the site with a building of two or more storeys is desirable in townscape terms. I am satisfied from what I saw on my visit that the design of the building would not cause an unacceptable loss of sunlight or daylight to the neighbouring houses. The nearest part would only be 2 storeys in height with a green roof and some 12.5m from No. 55. The building then steps up and it was established at the hearing there could be access from the third floor to a canopied roof area enclosed by a glass balustrade only around 24m from Nos. 55 and 56, with potential for overlooking and loss of privacy to gardens and rear windows . I accept that access to this area could be controlled by condition, however in practice that might be difficult to enforce and to my mind the need for such a condition is a further indication of the inappropriate scale of the development in relation to the surrounding development.

11. There is a brick wall and trees along the northern boundary with No. 56 and the new building would be set back for the majority of its length from the boundary and stepped in height. I am satisfied from what I saw that there would be no unacceptable loss of light to the rear garden of No. 56. Other than from the roof area mentioned above, the only windows in the north elevation are shown on the western projecting element which would look over the garage of No. 56 and the car park and I do not consider that the scheme would result in any material loss of privacy to residents of No. 56 in their garden.

12. The scheme would provide customer parking in a dedicated area discreetly located through an arch at the side with service access at the front. Whilst there were concerns that there would be more illegal on-street parking, the Highway Authority made no objection to the

Continued . . .

33 5.12 (Contd) PART 5

proposals. As to the potential for anti-sociable behaviour with youths congregating under the arch, I was told that crime prevention had been considered in the design and residents of the new apartment would provide a degree of natural surveillance. Subject to further details being agreed relating to the physical layout and management of the service lay-by, I consider that the parking, access and servicing proposals are acceptable and appropriate for this edge of centre site.

13. I conclude that whilst the appeal scheme has considerable merit, in making good use of a sustainable site in an urban location, replacing a poor quality single storey building with an attractive modern mixed use development, the building, in terms of its height and bulk, would be overly big for the site, out of scale with the adjacent development. As such it would adversely affect the setting of the Listed Buildings and would fail to preserve the appearance of the Conservation Area contrary to the objectives of national policy and Local Plan policies E1, E14, E15 and E19.

14. I have taken into account all other matters raised including the provision by the appellant of a Unilateral Undertaking to provide for contributions towards community infrastructure. I am satisfied that, if planning permission were to be granted, its provisions would meet the tests of Circular 05/2005 and fulfil the County Council’s requirements that have support via policy CC5 of the South East Plan. I have also had regard to the sustainability credentials of the new building. However none are of such weight as to override my conclusions, for the reasons given, that the appeal should be dismissed.”

Observations

The Appeal Hearing was attended by 2 Members: Councillor Duncan Dewar- Whalley and Councillor Brian Mulhern who were there to support Members’ decision to refuse the scheme, contrary to Officers’ recommendation at Committee. Members will note that the Inspector considered there were two main issues – the impact of the development on the surrounding area and the impact on the residential amenity of neighbouring occupants. Whilst recognizing there would be a change in the character and appearance of the streetscene and balance of built form the Inspector saw this as a positive response to the local environment. In accordance with views of Members, the Inspector also considered the scheme to be of a high quality but had concerns regarding the height and bulk of the proposed building in relation to the properties in Preston Street and nearby Queens Hall. Concern was also expressed by the Inspector that access to the canopied roof area could lead to overlooking and loss of privacy to gardens and rear windows and considered that this would be difficult to enforce by way of condition which was in itself further indication of the inappropriate scale of the development.

Continued . . .

34 5.12 (Contd) PART 5

The Inspector concluded that in terms of height and bulk the development would be overly large for the site and out of scale with adjacent development which would adversely affect the setting of the Listed Building and fail to preserve the appearance of the Conservation Area.

Responsible Officer: Graham Thomas (Area Planning Officer)

List of Background Papers

1. Planning Inspectorate Appeal Decision ref: APP/V2255/A/09/2108861/NWF

2. Appeal Papers (statements and correspondence)

3. SBC Decision on Application SW/08/1330

35 PART 5

5.13 SW/08/1328 (C00118) Use of the building for weekend and holiday accommodation - Site at Unit 9, Fletchers Battery, Swanley Farm, Warden Road, Eastchurch, Sheerness, Kent, ME12 4ET

APPEAL ALLOWED

The Inspector commented as follows:

“Decision

1. I allow the appeal, and grant planning permission for the use of the building for weekend and holiday accommodation at Unit 9 Fletchers Battery, Swanley Farm, Warden Road, Eastchurch, Sheppey, Kent ME12 4ET in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref SW/08/1328, dated 15 December 2008, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following conditions:

1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

2) The building shall be used solely as holiday accommodation and not for any other purpose, including occupation at any time by any person or persons as their sole or main residence.

3) The building shall not be occupied other than between 1 March and 31 October and 23 December and 2 January the following year.

4) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking, re-enacting or modifying that Order), the property shall not be extended or altered externally.

5) A scheme of hard and soft landscaping shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The landscaping scheme shall include details of boundary treatment and programme of implementation. The landscaping scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details and a programme of implementation. Any trees or shrubs that fail within 5 years shall be replaced on a like for like basis, or as otherwise first agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.

Preliminary Matter

2. The policies within the Kent & Medway Structure Plan have been superseded by those within ‘The South East Plan Regional Spatial Strategy for the South East of England’ (2009) and ceased to have effect in July 2009.

Continued . . .

36 5.13 (Contd) PART 5

Background 3. I understand that the appeal property was originally used for military purposes, and this use ceased in the 1950’s. Although the property was previously used as holiday accommodation, this use was unauthorised and ceased in 1986, following enforcement action by the Council.

4. In 1977, 1986, 1992, and 2002, appeals in respect of similar proposals were dismissed. Although the Inspectors accepted that a single dwelling would be unlikely to harm the character of the rural area, they were concerned that it would set a precedent for similar proposals that the Council would find difficult to resist. They were of the opinion that the cumulative effect of further holiday accommodation could harm the character of the surrounding countryside, and were not convinced that it would be practical to enforce a seasonal occupancy condition.

Main issue 5. I consider the main issue to be the effect of the proposal on the character of the surrounding countryside.

Reasons 6. The appeal property is one of several single storey buildings arranged along the northward extension of Warden Road. Three of the properties within the original group of ten are in permanent residential use, one has been demolished, and a further unit is used for weekend and holiday accommodation.

7. The site occupies a gap between a large caravan park to the west and Fletchers Battery Caravan site to the north east. The property is a small brick built building that occupies the majority of the plot. It has the appearance of a derelict residential property, and includes a number of domestic features such as decorative surrounds to the sliding sash windows and timber fascia boards. The proposal would provide a small two bedroom dwelling for use as holiday accommodation.

8. The most recent appeal in 2002 was determined on the basis of the Kent & Medway Structure Plan and the guidance in Planning Policy Guidance Note 7: The Countryside – Environmental Quality and Economic and Social Development. These policies have since been superseded by those within The South East Plan, the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008, and Planning Policy Statement 7: Sustainable Development in Rural Areas (PPS7). Whilst the replacement policies continue to afford the countryside a high level of protection, they also adopt a positive approach towards tourism and facilities for tourists.

9. In particular, policy TSR2 of the South East Plan encourages tourism where it would provide jobs for local residents and is of a scale and type appropriate to its location, whilst policy TRS5 requires the diversity of tourist accommodation to be reflected in tourism and planning policies. Continued . . .

37 5.13 (Contd) PART 5

10. The Local Plan confirms that tourism is an important part of the local economy particularly on the Isle of Sheppey, and identifies the lack of good quality accommodation as a barrier to developing the tourist economy. It encourages the provision of self-catering accommodation through the conversion of existing rural buildings in accordance with policies B5 and RC1. Whilst policy RC1 is not specifically directed towards tourism it supports proposals that would help to diversify the rural economy through the provision of new rural jobs and services. In addition, policy E6 of the Local Plan seeks to protect the countryside and sets out a number of criteria for development within the countryside. These include the re-use or adaptation of an existing rural building in accordance with policy RC1.

11. The appeal property has been vacant for many years and its run-down appearance does little to enhance the character of the surrounding countryside. The proposal would not involve any external alterations to the property. There is limited external space around the property, and a formal boundary treatment such as found at other properties along this part of Warden Road could detract from the rural appearance of the surrounding area. Notwithstanding this, provided this area is landscaped in an appropriate manner, I consider the rural character could be safeguarded. I am satisfied that this is a matter that could be dealt with by way of a condition.

12. The Council contend that the proposal would amount to a new chalet outside of an established holiday park, and would be contrary to policy B6 of the Local Plan. Whilst I appreciate the Council’s desire to control the spread of caravans and chalets, it is apparent from the pre-amble to policy B6 that the intention is to control static caravans and chalets such as those typically found within holiday parks, and not permanent buildings elsewhere. I therefore do not consider the proposal conflicts with Local Plan policy B6.

13. At the time of the previous appeals, holiday accommodation within the Isle of Sheppey was considered to be at saturation point. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I must assume that the policies within the adopted Local Plan are based on recent and up-to- date information in relation to the supply of, and need for, tourist accommodation. These policies clearly encourage the provision of tourist accommodation throughout the Local Authority area, including the Isle of Sheppey.

14. Although, the proposal would make only a limited contribution to rural diversification and employment, it would comply with the intention of policy RC1, namely to diversify the rural economy. Drawing these points together, I therefore conclude that the proposal would not harm the character of the surrounding countryside and would comply with policies TRS2 and TRS5 of the South East Plan and policies B5, RC1 and E6 of the Local Plan.

Continued . . .

38 5.13 (Contd) PART 5

15. The proposal accords with the relevant development plan policies, and none of the material considerations brought to my attention justify a decision other than in accordance with the development plan. The Council contend that should this appeal be allowed, it would be difficult to resist the conversion of the other properties in this group. Whilst I acknowledge that this may the case, should such proposals come forward they would be considered in relation to the prevailing development plan policies and all other material considerations.

Conditions

16. I have considered the conditions put forward by the Council, in the light of the advice in Circular 11/95. I agree that use of the property should be restricted to holiday accommodation, and that a seasonal occupancy condition is necessary in order to avoid the establishment of a residential use. The seasonal occupancy condition suggested by the Council would reflect that used elsewhere in the locality, and would enable the Council to monitor compliance with it more in a more straightforward manner, thereby overcoming the concerns raised at the time of the previous appeals. As mentioned above, and discussed at the Hearing, landscaping details, including boundary treatment are necessary in order to safeguard the appearance of the surrounding countryside. In view of the sensitive location of the property and the small size of the site, I agree that any extensions or alterations need to be strictly controlled, I therefore agree that permitted development rights should be restricted.

Conclusions

17. I am conscious that I have reached a different conclusion from that of my colleagues in respect of the previous appeals. However, on the basis of the information available, it would seem that development plan policies have changed significantly. The proposal would comply with the objectives and relevant policies within the South East Plan and the Local Plan. Planning Policy Statement 1: Delivering Sustainable Development is clear that where the development plan contains relevant policies, applications for planning permission should be determined in line with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

18. For the reasons given above, and taking account of all material considerations including the previous appeal decisions, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.”

Observations

A disappointing decision. The proposal has previously been dismissed at appeal on four separate occasions (see paragraph 4) but this Inspector has decided that the policy scenario for rural diversification and employment is now in favour of a tourist use of this property. Continued . . .

39 5.13 (Contd) PART 5

I do not consider that this decision has any seriously detrimental implications for the Council’s tourism policies, especially as the Inspector has imposed our normal holiday occupancy period by condition.

Responsible Officer: Graham Thomas (Area Planning Officer)

List of Background Papers

1. Planning Inspectorate Appeal Decision ref: APP/V2255/A/09/2109923/NWF

2. Appeal Papers (statements and correspondence)

3. SBC Decision on Application SW/08/1328