Swale Borough Council Planning

SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL

PLANNING SERVICES

Planning Items to be submitted to the Planning Committee

4 MARCH 2010

Standard Index to Contents

DEFERRED ITEMS Items shown in previous Minutes as being deferred from that meeting may be considered at this meeting

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 – 4 MARCH 2010

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

Deferred Items:

Pg 1 - 23 BOBBING SW/09/0972 Land adj Upper Toes, Sheppey Way

No Part 1’s

Part 2’s:

2.1 SITTINGBOURNE SW/09/1219 83 & 93 Borden Lane Pg 1 – 9

2.2 SITTINGBOURNE SW/09/1282 2A Gore Court Road Pg 10 – 15

2.3 & 2.4 THROWLEY SW/09/1249 & Yew Tree House, Bethel Row Pg 16 – 24 SW/09/1250

2.5 OSPRINGE SW/10/0036 Brogdale Farm, Brogdale Road Pg 25 – 29

2.6 & 2.7 OSPRINGE SW/09/1089 & Brogdale Farm, Brogdale Road Pg 30 – 37 SW/10/0019

2.8 EASTLING SW/09/1306 6 Meesons Close Pg 38 – 42

2.9 FAVERSHAM SW/10/0079 23A Preston Street Pg 43 – 50

2.10 MINSTER SW/09/1329 Land r/o 18 Baldwin Road Pg 51 – 56

2.11 SHEERNESS SW/09/1268 Land rear of 35 Broadway Pg 57 – 66

Part 3’s:

3.1 EASTCHURCH SW/10/0030 52 Hazeldene Close, Pg 1 – 4 Fourth Avenue

No Part 4’s

Part 5’s:

5.1 QUEENBOROUGH SW/08/1345 Land at Nil Desperandum, Pg 1 – 4 Rushenden Hill

5.2 FAVERSHAM Case 23542 Site at 35 St Marys Road Pg 5 – 8

5.3 BAPCHILD Case 02150 Hempstead House, London Road Pg 9 – 10

5.4 FAVERSHAM Case 23750 Howdens Joinery Limited, Block G, Pg 11 – 12 Whitstable Road

5.5 LOWER HALSTOW Case 23301 Jack Russell Place Pg 13 – 14

5.6 SITTINGBOURNE Case 06048 Land at 1-14 Julia Spicer Homes, Pg 15 – 17 Bell Road

5.7 FAVERSHAM SW/08/1215 & Site at Church Road, Upper Brents Pg 18 – 20 SW/08/1216

5.8 BOUGHTON SW/08/0635 Thunder Hill Farm, Hickman Green Pg 21 – 24

PLANNING COMMITTEE – 4 MARCH 2010 DEFERRED ITEM

Report of the Head of Development Services

DEFERRED ITEMS

Reports shown in previous Minutes as being deferred from that Meeting

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.

Continued . . .

1 DEFERRED ITEM

(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.

(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.

Continued . . .

2 DEFERRED ITEM (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.

(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.

(10) No development shall take place until full details of surface water drainage have been submitted to and approved in writing by the District Planning Authority. The approved details shall show, amongst other things, that any surface water draining to a watercourse shall be attenuated for the 1:100 year return storm. The approved details shall be implemented in full prior to the occupation of the site.

Grounds: In order to prevent flooding of local watercourses, in compliance with Policy E4 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, E2, E3, E4, E6, E7, E14, E19, H4, T1 and T3 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

Background to this Report

Members will recall that I reported this application to the Committee’s rescheduled meeting on 11th January with a recommendation that it be approved. My report set out the reasoning behind the recommendation and considered, amongst other things, whether the proposals were acceptable as

Continued . . .

DEFERRED ITEM a matter of principle, and whether harm would be caused to the Important Local Countryside Gap, to visual and residential amenity and to the setting of the adjacent listed building. A copy of that report is attached at Appendix A.

Members will note from their Minute of the January meeting that the Area Planning Officer informed them of the receipt of three additional letters of objection from local residents, and that the Lower Medway Internal Drainage Board raised no objection subject to condition (10) above regarding surface water drainage.

Members deferred the item for a site meeting, which took place on 25th January, and the application was reported back to the Planning Committee at its last meeting on 4th February, where I tabled a paper from my Area Planning Officer detailing the policy position, his further consideration of the pertinent issues and his conclusion. A copy of that paper is attached at Appendix B.

After a brief discussion of the application, it became clear that Members were minded to refuse the application due to the impact of the development on the Important Local Countryside Gap in which the site is located.

Determination of the application was therefore deferred to this meeting in accordance with the Terms of Reference of the Planning Committee, since a refusal of planning permission would have been contrary to my recommendation, contrary to policy and guidance, and as in my view Members had failed to demonstrate sound planning reasons for refusing the application which could be substantiated on appeal.

In this new report I do not intend to repeat the assessment of the application as set out in the original report, nor do I intend to replicate the detail in the tabled paper. I will though assess the possible implications of a decision to refuse planning permission and confirm my recommendation that permission be granted.

Possible implications of a decision to refuse planning permission for application SW/09/0972 My concerns over a possible decision to refuse planning permission for this development is based on the need for planning decisions to reflect a proper assessment of planning policies and other material considerations (Section 54A of the Planning Act) and for Members, when overturning officer recommendations, to present sound, justifiable and defensible planning reasons for refusal related to the likely impact of the proposed development;

Members will be aware of the relevant policy considerations relating to gypsy/traveller applications, as these are set out in the Committee report and the tabled item both appended to this report, and as they have considered numerous applications for such development throughout the Borough over the past few years. Continued . . .

DEFERRED ITEM

Members sought to refuse planning permission based on the erosion of the Important Local Countryside Gap in which the site is located. I was not content that Members had adequately justified the reason for refusal. Members did not in my view adequately identify the harm that they considered would be caused to this locally designated area by the development proposed.

Should Members proceed on these grounds, they would need to establish how the proposal would result in the encroachment or piecemeal erosion of land or its rural and undeveloped character, as set out in the wording of Policy E7 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

The harm to the openness and undeveloped character of the area is in my view slight. However, I recognise this is to an extent a subjective judgement, and one which Members are entitled not to share. Nonetheless, if it is considered that some harm would be caused to the purposes of this local designation and to the open and undeveloped character of the area, Members must fully consider the other policy issues relating to gypsy/traveller site provision. Members should also consider the issue in the context of ODPM Circular 01/2006, relating to gypsy and traveller sites, which states at paragraph 54, that ‘rural settings, where not subject to special planning constraints, are acceptable in principle.’ I do not consider that the Important Local Countryside Gap amounts to a special planning constraint in this respect.

In my view, refusing planning permission on the basis put forward at the last meeting would not have amounted to a sound and justifiable reason that my officers could robustly defend at an almost inevitable appeal to the Planning Inspectorate and would almost certainly have resulted in such an appeal being allowed, with a real possibility of costs being awarded against the Council.

As set out in my initial report to the Planning Committee, and as reiterated in the tabled paper at the last meeting, I remain firmly of the view that the development is acceptable, and recommend that planning permission is granted. ______

Responsible Officer: Rob Bailey (Area Planning Officer)

List of Background Papers

1. Application Papers for Application SW/09/0972

2. Correspondence Relating to Application SW/09/0972

APPENDIX A – SW/09/0972 (Case 07305) DEFERRED ITEM

APPENDIX A (Contd) – SW/09/0972 (Case 07305) DEFERRED ITEM

APPENDIX B ITEM 2. PART 2

PLANNING COMMITTEE – 4 MARCH 2010 PART 2

Report of the Head of Development Services

PART 2

Applications for which PERMISSION is recommended

2.1 SW/09/1219 (Case 03608) SITTINGBOURNE

Location: 83 & 93 Borden Lane, Sittingbourne, Kent, ME9 1BU

Proposal: Erection of 6 x three/four bedroom detached houses, some with integral garages, together with new access road, car port and amenity. (Amendments to scheme approved under SW/09/0111)

Applicant/Agent: Mr. R. Mason c/o Mr. P. Hewitt, 51 Foxdale Drive, The Dell, Angmering, West Sussex, ME9 4HF

Application Valid: 27 December 2009, and as amended and clarified by drawings received 27 January 2010 and as amended by plans received on 10 February 2010

SUBJECT TO: The further views of Kent Highway Services and other representations, closing dated 25 February 2010 . 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 dwellings hereby approved shall achieve at least a Level 3 rating under The Code for Sustainable Homes or equivalent, and 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 the production of renewable energy such as wind power, or solar thermal or solar photo voltaic installations. Upon approval, the details shall be incorporated into the development as approved. Continued . . .

1 2.1 (Contd) PART 2

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 Plan 2008.

(3) No development shall take place, including any works of demolition, until a Construction Method Statement has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the District Planning Authority. The approved Statement shall be adhered to throughout the construction period. The Statement shall provide for:

i. the parking of vehicles of site operatives and visitors ii. loading and unloading of plant and materials iii. storage of plant and materials used in constructing the development iv. the hours of construction work v. means of disposal of waste vi. wheel washing facilities vii. measures to control the emission of dust and dirt during construction viii. the phasing of the construction of the houses in relation to the construction of the access roads and footpaths.

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

(4) 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.

(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.

Continued . . .

2 2.1 (Contd) PART 2

(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.

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

(9) The parking spaces and garages shown on the approved plans shall be kept available for the parking of vehicles 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 or in such a position as to preclude vehicular access thereto.

(10) Notwithstanding the provisions of Class A, Part 2, Schedule 2, of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (as amended) or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order, no fences, gates walls or other means of enclosure shall be erected within the application site without the prior written approval of the District Planning Authority. Continued . . .

3 2.1 (Contd) PART 2

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

(11) No development shall take place until a scheme of ecological mitigation measures has been submitted to and approved in writing by the District Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme and permanently retained as such thereafter.

Grounds: In the interest of preserving and enhancing the biodiversity interest of the area, and in pursuance of policies E1 and E11 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

(12) The visibility splay shown on drawing CS402 SK04 Rev.A shall be laid out and kept clear of any obstruction to visibility above a height of 1.05m above the level of the nearside carriageway prior to the occupation of any dwelling hereby permitted and shall be permanently retained as such thereafter.

Grounds: In the interest of highway safety and amenity and in pursuance of policy T1 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, E2, E3, E4, E11, E19, E21, H1, H2 and T1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008; and CC6 and BE1 of the South East Plan.

Description of Proposal

This application seeks permission for the erection of 6 no. three and four bedroom houses on land at 83 & 93 Borden Lane, Sittingbourne. The scheme amounts to an amended version of the application approved at appeal under reference SW/09/0111. The submitted Design and Access Statement comments;

“The form of the houses in this submission, the spacing, the layout, the size and design details were considered at some length by the Inspector in his consideration of appeal ref: APP/V2255/A/09/2102044. This application seeks to resolve the slightly unsatisfactory remote parking arrangements for a number of the units.

Continued . . .

4 2.1 (Contd) PART 2 The majority of the houses now have integral garaging, as opposed to just Plots 1 & 5. The slight criticism of the consented layout received from local agents and potential purchasers, is the distance between the houses and the covered car parking on the northern boundary.

As a result, we have re-designed the units on Plots 3, 4 & 6 so that they have integral garaging – thereby retaining all the car parking and garaging on the plots, with the exception of Plot 2, which is at the rear of the property.

The houses designed follow closely those that were approved previously, and which the Inspector felt were sympathetic to local detailing and architectural styles.

In conclusion, the application seeks minor house type changes to the consented scheme. It wholly respects the approved layout and house type designs, and in particular, the spacing between the houses and the distances to boundaries remain similar to the original, consented submission.”

In addition to the above, this application amends the layout of the access road to provide driveways to properties 1 and 3 to 6. The parking barn to the rear of Plot 2 has been reduced from 4 to 2 parking spaces, to serve Plot 2 only.

Relevant Site History and Description

The site lies within the built up area of Sittingbourne. Formerly serving as part of the rear gardens for nos.83 & 93 Borden Lane, the land has been cleared and readied for development following grant of planning permission at appeal last year. The land slopes downwards to the east, and the rear of site is therefore set significantly lower than the highway. Access to the site has been created between nos.93 and 95 Borden Lane, involving the demolition of the existing double garage serving no.93.

Development would be arranged with two dwellings lying east-west to the rear of no.93, and four dwellings arranged north-south along the eastern boundary of the site behind both 83 and 93, similar to the previously approved schemes on the site. A covered parking area/barn serving Plot 2 is located to the rear of no.83.

Dwellings would be staggered in height, as the site slopes downwards to the east, with a maximum ridge height 9.5m. Footprint of units is approximately 7m wide x 10m deep for units 2, 3, 4 and 6, and 9m wide x 10m deep for units 1 and 5. The dwellings are of a modern design, with a mixture of traditional facing materials proposed. The proposed dwellings would be in excess of 21m from the existing adjacent dwellings, with the exception of unit 1, where the flank wall of the proposed dwelling would be approximately 15.5m from the rear elevation of no.93 Borden Lane.

Previously, planning permission has been refused for numerous residential development proposals on the land. Continued . . .

5 2.1 (Contd) PART 2

In 1978, planning permission was refused for a new access at no.93 (in the position of the access for the appeal proposal) under application reference SW/78/0097. This 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 of these applications proposed similar access arrangements and dwellings of a similar design and were refused permission 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, but this was withdrawn by the appellant prior to determination.

However, permission was granted at appeal last year, under reference SW/09/0111, for the erection of 6 three and four bedroom houses and associated landscaping. That proposal was much the same as the current scheme, albeit without the minor amendments noted above. Subsequently application SW/09/0730 approved minor amendments to the scheme, introducing dormer windows to the rear of Plots 1 & 2 to enable use of the loft space.

Views of Consultees

Kent Highway Services have requested a number of minor amendments in order to make the scheme acceptable. Amended drawings have been received, and I await further comments. I will update Members at the meeting.

The Lower Medway Internal Drainage Board “welcomes the use of SUDS in new developments, but the applicant must provide engineering proof that the proposed soakaways will be effective in the Sittingbourne area and not put an unnecessary strain on the other surface water drainage systems.”

Continued . . .

6 2.1 (Contd) PART 2 Other Representations

Four letters of objection, and five letters containing general comments have been submitted by local residents. A number of comments refer to the principle of development, which has been established by the previous approvals, or discuss issues not relevant to the planning process. However, the following summarised points have been raised:

- Many existing new build properties are not selling; - Construction traffic is causing an obstruction on the highway; - Adequate landscaping should be provide to screen the development; - Addition of dormer windows to plots 1 & 2 increases their overall height; - Footprint of properties has increased to accommodate integral garages; and - Integral garages are not a feature of the surrounding area;

Two letters of support have been received from the immediate neighbours, commenting that the addition of garages may resolve some parking pressures within the area.

Policies

Policy E1 of the adopted Local Plan seeks to ensure that all development proposals, amongst others, be well sited and of a scale, design and appearance that is appropriate to the location and cause no demonstrable harm to local amenity.

E19 of the Local Plan focuses on design, specifically, and comments that all development proposals should enrich the qualities of the existing environment by promoting and reinforcing local distinctiveness and strengthening the sense of place. The policy wording continues to state that new development should be appropriate to its context.

Policy H2 of the Local Plan is a general housing policy, and states that new residential development should be provided within the built up areas of the Borough, and in accordance with the allocated housing provision requirements.

H2 is supported by the guidance of national Planning Policy Statements 1 and 3 which encourage the use of land within existing built up areas, and close to jobs and services, for the provision of new housing.

Policy CC6 of the South East Plan seeks to ensure that all development “respects, and where appropriate enhances, the character and distinctiveness of settlements and landscapes.” Policy BE1 of the South East Plan supports CC6 and states that Councils should “promote and support design solutions relevant to context and which build upon local character and distinctiveness and sense of place.” Continued . . .

7 2.1 (Contd) PART 2

In addition to the above, the Kent Design Guide, at 2.2, states that “surrounding scale, grain, street patterns, massing, landscape, materials, colours, style and detailing should be respected.” It continues; “new buildings should form a harmonious composition with surrounding buildings…”

Discussion

Whilst I note local opposition to the principle of developing this site for residential use, it should be reiterated that planning permission has been granted at appeal for a very similar scheme. This application only seeks to gain approval for minor amendments to that permission.

The addition of the dormer windows to plots 1 and 2 was approved under application reference SW/09/0730. This has resulted in a slight increase in the overall ridge height of the properties from the scheme allowed at appeal, of between 200mm and 300mm. I do not believe that this is significant, however, and it is unlikely to give rise to any serious adverse amenity concerns for the surrounding residents. There is no reduction in space between the flank walls of the two properties, in any case, this amendment has already been approved.

The inclusion of integral garages has necessitated a change in the overall design of the properties. The proposed dwellings however do not differ drastically from those granted permission previously, and are of a similar scale and design. I believe that they will sit comfortably on the site, and that they would not be poorly designed or appear incongruous within this location.

An amended drawing has been received, showing a bay window to the front elevation of Plot 4. Local residents have been reconsulted on this and I will therefore advise Members at the meeting of any additional presentations received.

The alterations to the access road and the provision of driveways to the majority of the properties will not, in my opinion, result in any additional harm to the character and appearance of the area in comparison to the previously approved schemes. Whilst there is an increase in the amount of hardstanding, it is positioned appropriately and surrounded by areas of soft landscaping. The above conditions will ensure that planting takes place at a sufficient level to provide adequate screening and soften the impact of the development. The proposed areas of hardstanding would not be increased to the extent that was refused under SW/08/0429, which was subsequently dismissed at appeal on Grounds of harm to visual amenity.

As noted above, I am awaiting the further comments of Kent Highway Services in regard to highways and access issues, and will update Members at the meeting.

Continued . . .

8 2.1 (Contd) PART 2

Summary and Recommendation

The proposed amendments will alter the design of the properties to enable inclusion of integral garages and driveways on Plots 1 and 3 to 6, use of the loft spaces as bedrooms on Plots 1 & 2, and a two-bay car port to the rear of Plot 2.

I have considered issues of amenity and design but none, to my mind, contain or amount to a reason for refusal. Taking the above into account, I recommend subject to the further views of Kent Highway Services and the receipt of any other representations (closing date 25 February 2010) that planning permission be granted. ______

Responsible Officer: Rob Bailey (Area Planning Officer)

List of Backgrounds Documents

1. Application papers for SW/09/1219. 2. Correspondence relating to SW/09/1219. 3. Application papers for SW/09/0730. 4. Correspondence relating to SW/09/0730. 5. Application papers for SW/08/0111. 6. Correspondence relating to SW/08/0111.

9 PART 2

2.2 SW/09/1282 (Case 12173) SITTINGBOURNE

Location: 2A Gore Court Road, Sittingbourne, Kent, ME10 1QL

Proposal: Pitched roof side and rear extension

Applicant/Agent: Mr J Smith, c/o Mr P Brown, Hubbard & Houghton Const Ltd, 33 Chalkwell Road, Sittingbourne, Kent, ME10 2LD

Application Valid: 14 December 2009 and as amended by drawings received 20 January 2010 and by e-mail received 21 January 2010

SUBJECT TO: Any additional representations received by 15 February 2010

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 in the construction of the external surfaces of the extension hereby permitted shall match those on the existing building in terms of type, colour and texture.

Grounds: In the interest of visual amenity and in pursuance of policies E1, E18, E19 and E24 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

(3) Upon completion, no windows shall be inserted into the northern elevation of the roof of the extension hereby permitted, whether permitted by Classes A, B or C 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, without the prior permission in writing of the District Planning Authority.

Grounds: In the interests of residential amenity and in pursuance of policies E1, E18, E19 and E24 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

Continued . . .

10 2.2 (Contd) PART 2

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. In resolving to grant permission, particular regard has been had to the following policies: E1, E18, E19 and E24 of The Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

Description of Proposal

This planning application seeks permission for a pitched roof side and rear extension. The single storey extension would provide a bedroom, shower room and day room for the disabled mother-in-law of the applicant. It would project 3.5 metres from the side elevation of the host property and 10.1 metres along the common boundary with ‘Gortanore’. The eastern side section of the proposed roof to the extension has been amended and would now have a full hip with a ridge height of 4.8 metres whilst the western section would have a dual pitched roof with a lower ridge height of 3.8 metres. The extension would be sited 7 metres from the front elevation of ‘Gortanore’ and 9.4 metres from the side elevation of 1 Lyndhurst Grove.

The materials proposed would match those of the existing dwelling.

Relevant Site History and Description

Planning application SW/89/0302 for the creation of vehicular access and off- street parking facilities was refused but subsequently allowed on appeal.

2A Gore Court Road is a three bedroom, semi-detached, two storey house with existing off street parking to the front for at least two cars and is situated within the built-up area of Sittingbourne and within an Area of High Townscape Value.

Views of Consultees

Kent Highway Services raise no objection, whilst recommending the following condition:

“The area shown on the submitted layout as vehicle parking and turning 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 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. Continued . . .

11 2.2 (Contd) PART 2

‘It is considered that the parking area for 2 vehicles is in accordance with the current vehicle parking standards, and is therefore adequate for this dwelling.’

This condition is considered unnecessary in this instance but it is noted that the parking arrangements meet with Kent Highway Services requirements.

Other Representations

Councillor J Willicombe, the Ward Member, requested that the application be put before Planning Committee citing the following reason;

‘This will allow all parties concerned a fair chance to put forward the case for objection and for the applicant to give further evidence to the committee.’

Several letters of objection have been received from two adjacent houses, which are summarised as follows;

• The extension is overlarge in relation to the dwelling. • A flat roof extension is preferable. • The pitched roof is not aesthetically pleasing. • If the extension is a granny annex, it has no separate entrance. • Requests that the development be delayed due to terminal illness of a neighbour. • Why does a granny annex need two storeys? • The extension is in fact a granny annex. • Potential terracing, overbearing, overshadowing and loss of sunlight. • 2A Gore Court Road is on higher land than Gortanore so the affect will be increased. • Size, design and positioning will affect neighbours. • The extension should beset back 900mm from the common boundary. • Rear projection contravenes the Extensions SPG. • Proximity to the school crossing and entrance. • Large number of delivery lorries. • Affect on trees. • The extension increases the footprint of the building by 56%.

One letter of general observation has also been received which is summarised as follows;

• No objection to the construction of this extension, but it does have the potential to be extended at first floor in the future which would lead to a cumbersome appearance, encroachment and loss of light. Continued . . .

12 2.2 (Contd) PART 2

Policies

The following Policies are relevant:

Swale Borough Local Plan 2008

Policy E1 (General Development Criteria) is a broadly based policy which seeks to ensure that all development is positive, appropriately considered and designed whilst protecting residential amenity and highway issues.

Policy E18 (Area of High Townscape Value) details that proposals in such areas should conserve or enhance the local historic and architectural character, together with its greenspaces and landscaping.

E19 (Achieving High Quality Design and Distinctiveness) encourages high quality design that responds positively to its environment.

E24 relates specifically to householder extensions, stating that the Council will only grant permission for extensions that:

- are of high quality design; - are of an appropriate scale to the building and its surroundings; - maintain or enhance the character of the street scene; and - protect residential amenity.

The Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance entitled ‘Designing an Extension: A Guide for Householders’ is also relevant.

Discussion

The issues raised by local residents are noted. The proposal is not, in my view, a granny annex because it is physically linked to the host property and does not have the necessary facilities to be considered as such. Contrary to the letters of objection, the proposal is single storey.

Whilst I have sympathy regarding the health problems of one of the neighbours, this is not a material consideration in the determination of this application. There is no mandatory requirement for the proposal to be set off the common boundary. A certain amount of disruption is inevitable during building works which will be short term given the relatively minor nature of the proposal, in any case the affect on the entrance and crossing for The Oaks Community Infant School would be minimal. The said trees are not within a conservation area or protected by a tree preservation order and therefore do not come under the Council’s control. The increase in floorspace is not relevant to this scheme, because the property is within the built up area boundary.

Continued . . .

13 2.2 (Contd) PART 2

Design

Following an objection to the original design from the occupier of ‘Gortanore’, the drawings were amended on 5 January 2010 to show a barn hip with the retention of the flat roof to the rear in an attempt to mitigate the objection.

Following discussion with the agent, further design amendments were received on 20 January 2010 namely a hipped roof to the front with a pitched roof to the rear (an email from the agent dated 21 January 2010 confirmed the velux window no longer forms part of the scheme).

The design of the extension is particularly important because it is visible from two public vantage points on Gore Court Road and Lyndhurst Grove. The hipped roof to the front, pitched roof to the rear, choice of materials and overall design will ensure a satisfactory appearance within the area of high townscape value, and will not harm the character and appearance of the dwelling.

Residential Amenity

The concerns of residents are noted. The front elevation of ‘Gortanore’ faces the side elevation of the application property. The existing 1.8 metre tall fence on this boundary would screen a considerable proportion of the extension from view. The hipped roof ensures that the bulk of the roof slopes away from the boundary in a manner which would further reduce the impact on ‘Gortanore’. The rear extension element projects 0.60 metres beyond that advised in the aforementioned SPG but given the 7 metre distance between the two properties I consider the level of any significant overbearing or any loss of light to be minimal which does not warrant refusal in this instance.

Similarly, the 9.4 metre gap between the extension and 1 Lyndhurst Grove would ensure no significant impact upon the residential amenity of the occupiers of this property.

Condition (3) is recommended in order to prevent the insertion of side windows into the extension which would overlook ‘Gortanore’ thus preventing overlooking issues in the future.

Terracing

The single storey and hipped roof design of the extension, in combination with the 7 metre separation distance from ‘Gortanore’ would maintain the visual gap and ensure minimal impact on the openness of the streetscene.

Continued . . .

14 2.2 (Contd) PART 2

Recommendation

This planning application seeks permission for a pitched roof side and rear extension at 2A Gore Court Road, Sittingbourne for the use of the disabled mother-in-law of the applicant. I do not envisage significant harm to residential or visual amenity, or to the character and appearance of the Area of High Townscape Value.

Taking the above into account and subject to any further representations being received by 15 February 2010, I recommend that planning permission be granted. ______

Responsible Officer: Rob Bailey (Area Planning Officer)

List of Background Papers

1. Application papers for SW/09/1282

2. Correspondence relating to SW/09/1282

15 PART 2

2.3 SW/09/1249 (Case 19295) THROWLEY

Location: Yew Tree House, Bethel Row, Throwley, Faversham, Kent, ME13 OJR

Proposal: Converting old barn into annexe. New tennis court and ancillary works.

Applicant/Agent: Dr A Murphy, C/O Mr E Hinchliffe, Affinis Design, 3 Ewell Barn, Graveney Road, Faversham, Kent.

Application Valid: 8th December 2009 and as amended by letter and drawing 0816/1C received 9 February 2010

SUBJECT TO: Views of the Head of Environment, and to outstanding representations (closing date 4 March 2010) 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 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 before any development takes place and shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details.

Grounds: In the interests of preserving the special architectural or historic interest of the listed building and in pursuance with policies E1, E9, E14 and E19 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

(3) Detailed drawings of all new external and internal joinery work and fittings together with sections through glazing bars, frames and mouldings shall be submitted to and approved by the District Planning Authority before any development takes place. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Grounds: In the interests of preserving the special architectural or historic interest of the listed building and in pursuance with policies E1, E14 and E19 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

Continued . . .

16 2.3 (Contd) PART 2

(4) All rainwater goods to be used as part of the development hereby permitted shall be of cast iron.

Grounds: In the interests of preserving the special architectural or historic interest of the listed building and in pursuance with policies E1, E14 and E19 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

(5) 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, E9 and E10 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

(6) 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 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.

(7) 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 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, E9 and E10 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

(8) The area shown on the submitted drawing no 0816/1C as existing car park shall be provided, surfaced and drained before the use is commenced, and 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. Continued . . .

17 2.3 (Contd) PART 2

Grounds: In the interest of highway safety and amenity, and in pursuance of policies E1 and T3 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008

(9) 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.

(10) The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out otherwise than in complete accordance with the approved plans and specifications, including tennis court levels and height of tennis court fencing.

Grounds: In the interests of residential amenity and landscape impact, and in pursuance of policies E1, E9, E14 and E19 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

(11) The annexe hereby permitted shall not be occupied at any time other than for purposes ancillary to the residential use of the dwelling known as Yew Tree House.

Grounds: Its use as a separate dwelling unit would be contrary to the provisions of the development plan for the area and in pursuance of policies E1 and E6 of the Swale Borough Local Plan.

(12) No lighting shall be installed or operated over the tennis court hereby approved.

Grounds: In the interests of the amenities of the area and adjoining dwellings, and in pursuance of policies E1, E2 and E9 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 preserve the special architectural or historic interest of the listed building and would not cause unacceptable harm to the amenities of the area. In resolving to grant permission, particular regard has been had to the following policies E1, E2, E6, E9, E14 and E19 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008. Continued . . .

18 2.3 (Contd) PART 2

2.4 SW/09/1250 (Case 19295) THROWLEY

Location: Yew Tree House, Bethel Row, Throwley, Faversham, Kent, ME13 OJR

Proposal: Listed Building Consent for converting old barn into annexe

Applicant/Agent: Dr A Murphy, C/O Mr E Hinchliffe, Affinis Design, 3 Ewell Barn, Graveney Road, Faversham, Kent.

Application Valid: 8th December 2009

Conditions

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

Grounds: In pursuance of Section 18 of the Listed Building Act 1990 as amended by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

Grounds: In the interests of preserving the special architectural or historic interest of the listed building and in pursuance with policies E1, E9, E14 and E19 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

Grounds: In the interests of preserving the special architectural or historic interest of the listed building and in pursuance with policies E1, E14 and E19 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

(4) All rainwater goods to be used as part of the development hereby permitted shall be of cast iron.

Continued . . .

19 2.3 & 2.4 (Contd) PART 2

Grounds: In the interests of preserving the special architectural or historic interest of the listed building and in pursuance with policies E1, E14 and E19 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

(5) The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out otherwise than in complete accordance with the approved plans and specifications.

Grounds: In the interests of preserving the special architectural or historic interest of the listed building and in pursuance with policies E1, E14 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 preserve the special architectural or historic interest of the listed building and would not cause unacceptable harm to the amenities of the area. In resolving to grant permission, particular regard has been had to the following policies E1, E6, E9, E14 and E19 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

Description of Proposal

These applications seek planning permission and listed building consent for the conversion of an existing barn into an annexe. The planning application also includes the creation of a new tennis court. The tennis court would be sited over 5m from the northern boundary of the site and would have a black plastic sheathed mesh fence surrounding the court, and according to latest drawings would be set below road level with a maximum height of 2.75 metres. The area of the location of the tennis court slopes gradually and it is proposed to dig down approximately 0.75 metres thus the mesh fence would appear to have a height of 2.020 metres compared to road level adjacent to the western boundary. A practice wall of 2.75 metres would be located along part of the northern boundary of the tennis court and would have a width of 8.4 metres.

The existing barn which is currently being used as a garden shed is located to the north of Yew Tree House. The proposed conversion would feature one bedroom, a shower room, kitchen/dining area and a bed-sitting area. A small extension is proposed on the northern elevation which would be used as a shower room accessible from the outside; a boiler room is also proposed in the small extension.

A proposed swimming pool would be located near the eastern boundary of the site adjacent to the proposed annexe.

Continued . . .

20 2.3 & 2.4 (Contd) PART 2

The drawings originally indicated a proposed footpath diversion, but as the proposals do not affect the route of the existing footpath, and because this matter is dealt with by other legislation, the diversion has been deleted from the drawings, and does not affect the merits of the proposals.

Relevant Site History and Description

Yew Tree House is a grade 2 listed building which features a barn within the curtilage. The property lies within the designated countryside and Kent Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The neighbouring properties are Cobbs Cottage and Bethel Row to the north of the property and Crooked Cottage to the south. The existing barn is currently being used as a garden shed.

Existing parking provision is located to the rear of the site and is accessed off Bell’s Forstal Road.

Planning History

SW/09/0555 - application for a similar scheme was withdrawn following discussions with officers as it was felt that the design of the annex conversion could be improved. It was also suggested that the mesh fencing for the tennis court be reduced in height.

Views of Consultees

Throwley Parish Council - no response

Countryside Access Service - object to the proposal as the (superseded) plans show a diversion of the footpath to the northern boundary of the site which would be considered unacceptable.

Head of Environment raises no objection subject to condition restricting hours of construction.

Other Representations

Protect Kent (Kent CPRE) object to the proposal for the following grounds:

• Not in line with policy H2, the site is not in an allocated area for housing or within the built-up area • No local need for housing in the area • Not a modest extension to a dwelling within the countryside • The existing building is suitable for non-residential use and to be so used at present • Footpath should not be moved

Continued . . .

21 2.3 & 2.4 (Contd) PART 2 Five letters of objections have been received making the following comments: • Construction of a tennis court and a practice wall would have a serious negative impact on the quality of life of neighbouring residents • Homes and gardens could no longer be enjoyed • Security risks associated with the moving of the footpath • Footpath re-locating would result in people having to use the narrow lane for a greater distance • Noise from the use of the tennis court • Value of properties would go down • Current footpath can’t be used because of the dogs running loose • The use of the tennis court would result in noise and pounding from the practice wall • Neighbouring oil storage tank would be located in close proximity to the proposed re-routed footpath • Lack of details relating to lighting of the tennis court

Neighbours have been re-consulted on the latest proposals which reduce the height of the tennis court fencing and re-orientate and reduce the size of the practice wall. The period for comments now extends until 4 March 2010 and I will update Members on any views at the meeting.

Planning Policies

The policies most relevant to this application are-

Swale Borough Local Plan 2008 E1 General Development Criteria E2 Pollution E6 The Countryside E9 Protecting the Quality and character of Borough’s landscape E14 Listed buildings E19 Achieving high quality design and distinctiveness

The Council’s SPG3 (1993) entitled ‘The conservation of traditional farm buildings’.

Discussion

The previous planning application for a similar scheme (SW/09/0555) was withdrawn following officer’s advice as the proposed design of the conversion was considered unacceptable. It was also felt that the green mesh fencing at a height of 3.6 metres was too tall and prominent in the landscape, being close to the highway. My main considerations in determining these new applications is whether the proposed tennis court and its attendant fencing has a detrimental impact on the neighbouring properties and the surrounding area, and whether the proposed conversion of the barn is acceptable in terms of its impact on the character of the building, and the setting of the principal building. Continued . . .

22 2.3 & 2.4 (Contd) PART 2 Tennis Court Following discussions with the agent and applicant the revised scheme addresses my original concerns relating to the colour and height of the proposed plastic mesh fence which has now been reduced to a maximum height of 2.75m. The fence would appear to be approximately 2 metres in height adjacent to the hedgerow along the western boundary of the site as the ground would be levelled and lowered at this point. Thus the fence would not be unduly noticeable from the lane. Furthermore the proposed black colour of the fencing would ensure that the fence would not appear overly obtrusive in the surrounding landscape. The agent has submitted site levels showing the proposed fencing would not be higher than the existing boundary hedges. I am of the opinion that this reduction in height results in the proposed fencing blending well into the surrounding countryside and would not result in an obtrusive structure.

The proposed practice wall would now be located on the northern side of the tennis court to the rear of the site. The siting of the practice wall at this location would ensure that the noise travels back into the site and that there would be a minimal noise disturbance to the neighbouring properties. Furthermore, the practice wall would have a minimal visual impact on the neighbouring property due to its siting close to the garage building located at the rear of Cobbs Cottage. The wall would be 5m off the boundary, and the proposed 250mm thickness of the wall should ensure that the acoustic nuisance is significantly decreased but I am hoping for an expert view on this. I would also like Members to note that the tennis court, without the proposed fencing, would not require planning permission. Its use would be as any garden, with playing hours determined by daylight.

I note the comments made by the objectors relating to the visual impact and noise creation as a result of the use of the tennis court but feel that there would be a minimal noise disturbance and that the proposed mesh fence would now not be visually prominent.

Footpath and swimming pool The latest drawing omits the re-routing of the footpath as this is not a planning matter and should therefore not be included as part of the application. The comments made by the objections in relation to the re-routing of the footpath are not considered relevant to this planning application. The re-routing of the footpath is a matter to be dealt with by Kent County Council.

The swimming pool is not prominently sited, and should raise no issues.

Conversion of existing barn The proposed conversion has been well designed and has been sympathetically designed taking account of the existing historic features of the existing barn. The proposed extension would appear subservient to the main barn and is considered acceptable. The proposed materials are of suitable quality and in keeping with the surrounding area and character. The design Continued . . .

23 2.3 & 2.4 (Contd) PART 2 detail which includes the use of stable doors results in a conversion that enhances and protects the historic character of the barn. I have suggested a condition restricting the use of the annexe to ancillary accommodation for the users of Yew Tree House.

The conversion is in line with guidance as set out in the Council’s SPG 3 (The conservation of traditional farm buildings). The proposed design uses the existing historic features to ensure that the conversion retains the historic character of the barn.

I have suggested conditions relating to samples of materials, landscaping, parking provision, rain water goods, construction hours and joinery details to ensure that the development is completed to a high standard.

I note the comments made by Protect Kent which in general relate to an additional dwelling in the countryside. As the proposed conversion would create an annexe to an existing dwelling I do not consider the comments made relevant to the proposal.

Recommendation

Taking all of the above into consideration in my opinion the design of the annexe and the creation of a tennis court with fencing would not have an unduly detrimental impact on the surrounding area or the neighbouring properties. The footpath re-routing has been omitted from this planning application as this a matter for determination by Kent Countryside Services and not a matter to be determined under this application.

I consider that the annexe and swimming pool will be in general accordance with local planning policy guidance.

I therefore recommend subject to the views of the Head of Environment and any outstanding representations (closing date 4 March 2010) and appropriate conditions that both planning permission and Listed Building Consent be granted.

Responsible Officer: Graham Thomas (Area Planning Officer)

List of Background Documents

1. Application Papers and correspondence relating to application SW/09/001249 and SW/09/1250.

2. Application papers for application SW/09/0555

24 PART 2

2.5 SW/10/0036 (Case 1485) OSPRINGE

Location: Brogdale Farm, Brogdale Road, Ospringe, Nr Faversham, Kent, ME13 8XU

Proposal: Change of use, conversion and extension of existing cold store to provide B1 business use.

Applicant/Agent: Hillreed Ltd, C/O Mr Martin Page, DHA Planning, Eclipse House, Eclipse Park, Sittingbourne Road, Maidstone, Kent

Application Valid: 12th January 2010 and as amended by additional information received on 4 February 2010

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 use hereby permitted shall be restricted to the hours of 8 am to 6pm on any day.

Grounds: In the interests of residential amenity and in pursuance of Policy E1, E2, E19 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. In resolving to grant permission, particular regard has been had to the following policies E1, E2, E6, E9, E19, RC1 and B26 of The Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

Description of Proposal

This application seeks planning permission for the change of use from former cold store to office accommodation (B1) at Brogdale Farm.

The application also includes a small front extension which would have a depth of 2.5 metres and would provide space for an entrance lobby and some additional office space. Continued . . .

25 2.5 (Contd) PART 2

The change of use would be located in a unit of the existing cold store which is currently vacant.

The alteration to the front elevation (north elevation) would feature tall glazed windows and an entrance doors. A ramp would lead up to the entrance lobby. The rear elevation (south elevation) would have windows at ground and first floor and a small door. The conversion of the space would include a mezzanine to provide a first floor creating a total of 292 squared metres of office space.

Areas of landscaping are proposed to the side of the premises along the north elevation, these would be in the form of a brick surrounded raised bed with high level planting.

The existing car parking facility at Brogdale farm would be used for parking provision. Though a tenant has not been confirmed the agent has indicated that approximately 18 full-time and 2 part-time staff would be located at the premises.

The application is supported by a Planning Statement setting out the history and aspirations of the Brogdale site, and by a Design and Access Statement explaining the proposed works.

Description and Planning History

The area to be converted is located within an existing vacant cold store part of which has already been converted to be used for offices and labs (B1).

The site is located south of Faversham and the M2 motorway, within a Special Landscape Area and the countryside. It has an extensive planning history, but of particular relevance to this application is the following:

SW/08/0271 - change of use of existing cold store to catering use (food preparation) and/or B1 use and minor alterations to the external appearance of the building- Approved 28th April 2008.

SW/08/0194 - change of use and alterations to chemical store to plant display and sales use with ancillary office and store, outdoor plant display area, new canopy, erection of glazed link between existing glasshouses and creation of additional craft/retail unit- Approved 28th March 2008.

SW/07/0189 - change of use and alterations to part of existing cold store to form offices and labs (B1)- Approved 5th April 2007.

Continued . . .

26 2.5 (Contd) PART 2

Views of Consultees

Ospringe Parish Council has no objection to the proposed alterations but make the following comments:

‘Our greatest concerns remain the issue of traffic use and the hours of operation of the proposed office. We would expect to see a transport assessment specific to this proposal rather than one used for previous applications. The proposed hours of use would be of great concern to us, other users on the site having been referred to the enforcement team relatively recently. If planning permission is to be granted at some stage then we would wish to see clear and unambiguous operating hours. Consideration of the application should also take into account the pressure which will be brought to bear on the existing car parking facilities, including the overspill parking.’

In response to these queries the applicant has clarified proposed hours of use as 8.00am to 6.00pm, and likely staff numbers as 20. The site is well away from dwellings, and these hours and numbers of staff should not cause impact above that associated with on-going activity at Brogdale.

Other Representations

3 letters of objection have been received making the following comments:

• Empty converted spaces should be used first • Various applications have been submitted for the site • Existing opening hours are not upheld • Tenants can enter the site anytime of the day • Noise and disturbance from site affects the neighbours and the proposal could only increase this • Distinctive elements of the parish should not be threatened • Brogdale Farmhouse, a grade 2 listed building would be affected by the encroaching industrial estate • Overspill car park should only be used on an occasional basis when additional parking is required • Why is the business use of the site expanding • Overspill car park use is already being abused as regular parking • Cars already park close to the existing hedges creating a fire hazard

One general letter asking for clarification of what B1 entails and saying that if it entails light industrial or heavy industrial use then the traffic and noise would increase.

Continued . . .

27 2.5 (Contd) PART 2

Planning Policies

The policies most relevant to this application are-

Swale Borough Local Plan 2008 E1 (General Development Criteria) E2 (Pollution) E6 (the Countryside) E9 (Quality and Character of Boroughs Landscape E19 (Design) B26 (Brogdale National Fruit centre) is specific to the site and suggests how new development here should enhance the site’s character RC1 (Helping to revitalise the rural economy)

Discussion

Even though Policy B26 provides specific guidance on the proposed uses for Brogdale Farm I am of the opinion that as the site lies within the designated countryside Policy RC1 is of particular importance in determining this application. Policy RC1 supports the provision of new employment space in the designated countryside if the proposal is appropriate in scale, there is no detriment to landscape character and the use would not result in a significant increase in traffic. The proposal seeks the change of use of an existing part of the cold store which Policy RC1 supports. I am of the opinion that the proposal would result in a non-detrimental use of the vacant building and would not have a significant impact on the character of the site.

The proposed office use would not have a detrimental impact on the character of the existing surrounding area and would bring a vacant cold store back into use. In addition the premises next door has already been granted planning permission for change of use for office and laboratory use (planning ref SW/08/0271) without obvious harm arising. In my opinion the conversion and change of use of part of the vacant cold store would compliment the existing uses of the site and that of the converted cold store next door.

I note the comments made by the objectors in particular the concerns relating to parking provision. The proposal would use the existing parking provision and in my opinion the site is able to provide sufficient parking provision. The present parking provision for staff and visitors provides an adequate amount of parking spaces and in my opinion the additional use of the car park would not place an unreasonable demand on the parking provision. Approximately twenty additional spaces would be required which the existing parking provision could supply. I have considered the traffic implications and do not consider that there would be a significant increase in the amount of traffic to and from the site.

Continued . . .

28 2.5 (Contd) PART 2

I have suggested a condition restriction the hours of use of the premises to ensure that there is no detrimental impact on the neighbouring properties. The hours of use are in line with the existing hours of use for the rest of the site and I therefore am of the opinion that there would not be any significant noise or disruption as a result of the proposed change of use.

Recommendation

The proposed change of use to (B1) office use results in the conversion of an empty cold store. The conversion has been well designed and the proposed use would be considered acceptable in this location. The proposed change of use to office accommodation would compliment the existing uses on the site and would not appear out of character to the surrounding uses.

I consider that the proposal to be in accordance with local planning policy guidance on providing employment spaces in the designated countryside.

Responsible Officer: Graham Thomas (Area Planning Officer)

List of Background Documents

1. Application papers and correspondence relating to application SW/10/0036.

2. Application papers for applications SW/08/0271, SW/08/0194 and SW/07/0189

29 PART 2

2.6 SW/09/1089 (Case 1485) OSPRINGE

Location: Brogdale Farm, Brogdale Road, Ospringe, Nr Faversham, Kent, ME13 8XZ

Proposal: Planning permission for removal of 3 x 6 metre high flag poles to main car park forecourt, erection of 3 x 5 metre high single lampposts with banners, 3 x double lamp posts and 1 x single lamp fixed to wall with bracket

Applicant/Agent: Mr Tony Hillier, Hillreed Homes Ltd, Hillreed House, 6 College Road, Maidstone, Kent, ME15 6SJ

Application Valid: 8th January 2010

SUBJECT TO: Outstanding representations (closing date 24 February 2010)

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 lighting hereby permitted shall not be operational after 9pm or before 7am on any day and shall be switched off when the site is not in use 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

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, E6, E9, E14, E19, E23, B1, B5 & B26 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

Continued . . .

30 2.6 (Contd) PART 2

2.7 SW/10/0019 (Case 1485) OSPRINGE

Location: Brogdale Farm, Brogdale Road, Ospringe, Nr Faversham, Kent, ME13 8XZ

Proposal: Advertisement consent for removal of 3 x 6 metre high flag poles to main car park forecourt, the erection of 3 x 5 metres high single lamp posts with banners, 3 x double lamp posts

Applicant/Agent: Mr Tony Hillier, Hillreed Homes Ltd, Hillreed House, 6 College Road, Maidstone, Kent, ME15 6SJ

Application Valid: 8th January 2010

SUBJECT TO: Outstanding representations (closing date 24 February 2010)

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 lighting on the advertisements hereby permitted shall not be operational after 9pm or before 7am on any days and shall be switched off when the site is not in use 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

Description of Proposal

These applications propose planning permission for the removal of three flag poles, and the erection of a total of six lamp posts – three with single lamps which would feature banners, three with double lamps, and also the replacement of an existing very bright flood light with a single wall mounted light. Advertisement consent is also sought for the lamppost mounted banners. The site is Brogdale Farm, Brogdale Road, Faversham.

Continued . . .

31 2.6 & 2.7 (Contd) PART 2

The proposed lamp posts would all measure 5 metres in height and would be positioned three on either side of the car park. The three lamp posts proposed to be sited on the southern side of the car park would feature double lamps facing over the main car park and the first part of the overflow car park.

The existing flood light located on the office building would be replaced with a wall mounted single lamp.

A plan showing the impact of the proposed lighting in terms of lux levels within the site has been submitted with the application. It shows that due to the modern design of the lamps, the light would be tightly focussed on the car parking and a majority of the light would remain within the site, and adjacent to the site boundaries the lux levels would be very low.

The proposed banners would measure 0.6 metes in width by 1.8 metres in length. The banners would all feature the words “Brogdale Farm, Welcome” and a picture of a tree and apple. The design is very similar to that approved by Members for an earlier application for three banners (SW/07/1365). One banner would be attached to each lamp post.

The agent has supplied a design and access statement with the application. An extract reads as follows;

“In order to accommodate the increasing use of Brogdale Farm it is felt necessary to provide safety and amenity lighting within the main car park area to ensure the ongoing safe use of the facilities on offer.

This follows a number of incidents and complaints relating to the use of the car park at night, predominantly in the winter months. The owner, Hillreed Land Ltd, as a responsible landlord wishes to ensure the safety of all people accessing the site.

The only lighting provided is a large halogen floodlight located over the front door of the main building. This is set at the rear of the car park,

The proposed timings will remain the same – that is during the hours of darkness and within normal opening hours to allow safe use of the premises from 07:30 to daylight in the morning and from dusk to no later than 30 minutes following closing which is generally by 20:00 hours.

During the process a number of solutions were considered:

1. Additional floodlight – discounted as felt not to be focussed sufficiently and would result in a large amount of unwanted light spillage; 2. Low level lighting bollards – the size of the car park and resultant lighting levels that can be produced are not acceptable. These are further reduced and obscured once vehicles are parked in front of them. Continued . . .

32 2.6 & 2.7 (Contd) PART 2

3. Provision of a small number of lighting columns utilising the latest technology in lighting design was considered and found to be the most efficient solution, both in terms of providing the appropriate level of lighting and limiting the overspill by employing the use of focussed lighting reflectors.”

Relevant Site History and Description

The site is located south of Faversham and the M2 motorway, within a Special Landscape Area and the countryside. Brogdale Farm House is located adjacent to the site and is a Grade II Listed Building. It has an extensive planning history, but most is not directly relevant to the current applications.

The most recent relevant applications include the following:

• SW/08/0271 – Change of use of existing coldstore to catering use and B1 use and minor alterations. This application was approved. • SW/08/0194 - Change of use and alterations to chemical store to plant display and sales use with ancillary office and store. This application was approved. • SW/07/1365 - Retrospective advertisement consent for three flagpoles each with one flag. This application was approved at committee by Members.

There is a current undetermined application (SW/10/0036) for the change of use, conversion and extension of an existing cold store to provide B1 business use, which is reported elsewhere as an item on this Agenda.

Views of Consultees

Ospringe Parish Council are opposed to the proposals, and have commented that they consider an “insufficient case has been made for the amount of lighting deemed to be required. There is already illumination from the existing spotlight and any shortcomings in lighting could be addressed by low-level and low-intensity apparatus. We wish to avoid further light pollution in this rural area”.

They also state that they are opposed to the banners as they are commercially unnecessary and cause noise pollution when windy.

Faversham Town Council recommend refusal for the reasons:

• The proposed lighting columns are unnecessarily high and of a clumsy design. • The Town Council appreciates the need for a low level of lighting for convenience and safety but is anxious to avoid light pollution in the countryside and the intrusion of urban elements in the rural area. Continued . . .

33 2.6 & 2.7 (Contd) PART 2

Other representations

Five letters of objection/concern have been received in respect of the applications and three letters of support have also been received.

The objections/ concern can be summarised as follows:

• Would be ten lights in total – too many in rural location • The existing light situation is a nuisance as it shines straight into my bungalow • Cannot understand why so much lighting is required in the car park as most visitors and businesses have left before 6pm • Do not want lights shining late into the night – not used to this and have lived here for 25 years • This would be light pollution • Flag poles/banners have been source of noise nuisance and are visually unpleasant • Goodness knows why they were allowed to be erected in the first place • Already adequate lighting • The street lights in surrounding area are very sympathetic and fit in with rural location • Strongly object to their replacement and additional lighting • Brogdale is a quiet hamlet and should be protected • Lighting here should be minimal to discourage light pollution • Low-level lights might be better option and only a ‘few’ • Already a very powerful light which illuminates the entrance drive and is normally left on during hours of darkness • Events at Brogdale are normally held during the Spring, Summer & Autumn and normally finish before darkness – no need for more lighting • New lighting would illuminate our bedroom • Do we need this unnecessary form of advertisement when visitors have already arrived there?

The letters of support can be summarised as follows:

• Car park is extremely dimly lit for both staff and visitors. This should be corrected • This is needed in the interests of maintaining visitors to the site outside of daylight hours in support of existing businesses • Required for health and safety • This is a diverse employment zone and is a huge visitor attraction • Current lack of lighting discourages visitors and makes working conditions for our staff less safe • This would encourage us to invest further and create more jobs and help the local community further • More lighting is a necessity Continued . . .

34 2.6 & 2.7 (Contd) PART 2

Planning Policies

The policies most relevant to this application are E1 (general criteria),E2 (Pollution), E6 (Countryside), E9 (Special Landscape Area), E14 (Listed Buildings), E19 (design), E23 (Adverts), B1 (Supporting local Businesses) B5 (Existing Tourist Attractions) B26 (site specific policy for Brogdale) of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008; and the Councils adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance entitled “The Design of Shopfronts, Signs and Advertisements”.

Discussion

In this case, I consider the key considerations to be whether the proposed lamp posts and lights are acceptable in design and amenity and suitable for this location both within the countryside and within a Special Landscape Area and whether the adverts would have an impact on amenity or highway safety.

With regards to the first issue, the proposed lamp posts are shorter than the posts in place today (that would be removed as part of this proposal) and the lighting has been carefully designed to fit in with the rural surroundings, both technically and aesthetically. The design of the posts and lamps is very simple, and would not in my view detract from this sensitive rural setting. In addition the shorter posts to those currently on site would further screen the development from outside of the site as they would be unlikely to be seen above the existing leylandii hedge that surrounds the site. I therefore consider the design to be an improvement on the existing flagpoles that were approved previously by Members at Planning Committee.

In terms of potential impact on the countryside and Special Landscape Area, whilst initially I had concerns about potential light pollution, I am now content that it is very unlikely the proposal would result in such significant light pollution to cause harm to neighbouring amenity. This is due to the design of the lamps and their positioning within the site. A technical drawing has been submitted to show what the lux levels would be, and that by the time any light reaches the boundaries of the site, this is very low. In addition, the lamps would be positioned to shine downwards, and the design of the lamp would ensure that very little light would be directed sideways or upwards. I therefore consider it would be difficult to argue that the proposed lighting scheme would result in harm to neighbouring amenity or be detrimental to the rural character of the area over the relatively short periods of use. In addition to this, the scheme proposes the removal of the existing flood light, which is currently directed at neighbouring properties, with a more appropriate wall mounted light which would also be directed downwards.

It should be borne in mind that the promotion of Brogdale as a tourism and employment site is a unique situation, and that approval of lighting here should not be seen as weakening concern over light pollution more generally. Continued . . .

35 2.6 & 2.7 (Contd) PART 2

In terms of the proposed advertisements, I do not consider they would have an impact on highway safety as they would be located well within the site and are not easily visible from the adjacent highway. In terms of amenity, they are very similar in design to the adverts previously approved by Members at the site in January 2008 under planning reference SW/07/1365. I understand that Members were very keen to support the proposal at that time as they were keen to support Brogdale Farm and felt that the fruit collection should be promoted and they also felt that the flagpoles were not out of place in that setting. Bearing in mind the lampposts within the current application are no more numerous, and have been reduced in height compared to the existing flag poles, and the banners have also been reduced in size, I consider this is a proposal that the Council should be supporting. In addition to that, I have paid particular regard to local plan policy B26 which encourages the Council to take a flexible approach to development on this site both in recognition of the unique factors applying to this site and also in order to maintain the Collection. I therefore consider that although the proposed adverts would be repetitious, which is normally resisted by the Council, they would be acceptable here due to the dual purpose of the proposed poles and to help promote Brogdale, which is strongly encouraged within the Local Plan policy.

I have also considered the potential impact of the banners and lighting scheme on the setting of the adjacent listed building, Brogdale Farm House, and for all of the reasons mentioned previously, I consider the proposals would have a neutral impact on the setting of the listed building. This is primarily because there would be very little light overspill from the site and it is unlikely that the adverts would be visible from the listed building because of the existing high hedge.

I have noted the comments of both neighbouring residents and businesses located within Brogdale regarding the proposal and carefully considered these comments before coming to a recomendation. I consider a lot of the concerns raised by residents would not be as significant as they fear, as their concerns are largely based on the existing adverts and lighting, which in my opinion has more of an impact on neighbouring amenity than the proposed scheme would. I also recognise the necessity for a more appropriate lighting scheme for the benefit of staff and visitors to Brogdale as pointed out by some of the businesses currently located there.

Recommendation

These applications seek planning permission to remove existing flag poles and adverts and to replace them with 6 shorter poles with smaller adverts to promote the site. The poles would double up as lamp posts to provide additional lighting for the site and a replacement light is proposed to be wall mounted. Advertisement consent is also proposed for the banner signs. I do not consider either application would result in significant harm to neighbouring Continued . . .

36 2.6 & 2.7 (Contd) PART 2

amenity or cause harm to the character of the area. I consider the proposal meets the aims of Local Plan policy B26 which seeks to promote and assist the continuation of Brogdale.

I recommend that planning permission and express consent are granted. ______

Responsible Officer: Graham Thomas (Area Planning Officer) ______

List of Background Documents

1. Application papers and correspondence relating to application SW/07/1365 2. Application papers and correspondence relating to application SW/08/0194 3. Application papers and correspondence relating to application SW/08/0271 4. Application papers and correspondence relating to application SW/10/0019

37 PART 2

2.8 SW/09/1306 (Case 16265) EASTLING

Location: 6 Meesons Close, Eastling, Faversham, Kent, ME13 0AW

Proposal: Front extension, side extension, new roof

Applicant/Agent: Mr Parker, 6 Meesons Close, Eastling, Faversham, Kent, ME13 0AW

Application Valid: 21st December 2009

SUBJECT TO: The receipt of amended drawings removing the proposed vehicle crossover, access and parking area

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 external materials to be used in the development shall match exactly in type, colour and texture those of the existing property.

Grounds: In the interests of visual amenity and in pursuance of Policies E1, E9, E19 and E24 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

(3) No additional windows, doors, voids or other openings shall be inserted, placed or formed at any time in any elevation of the development hereby permitted unless agreed in writing with the District Planning Authority.

Grounds: To prevent overlooking of adjoining properties and to safeguard the privacy of neighbouring occupiers and in pursuance of Policy E1 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: Policies E1, E9, E19, E24 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008. Continued . . .

38 2.8 (Contd) PART 2

Description of Proposal

This application seeks planning permission for the removal of the existing roof and replacement with a steeper pitched roof to create rooms in the roofspace, a front extension, a side extension and a vehicle crossover and parking space at 6 Meesons Close, Eastling. The present bungalow is single storey and has a roof pitch of 30 degrees. The proposed roof would have a steeper pitch of 41 degrees, which would create a total height of 6 metres, 1 metre higher than at present. It should be noted that a similar front extension and side extension have already been approved under planning permission SW/07/1483. The present application shows the side extension unchanged (8.3 metres by 1.4 metres), but the proposed front extension has been slightly increased in depth (4.5 metres, rather than 4.3 metres), with a width of 7 metres. The height of both extensions would remain the same as those already granted permission; it is the main original roofslope which is proposed to be raised in this application.

The drawings also show a proposed side boundary wall of 1.8 metres height, to replace the existing fence of similar height. This work would not require planning permission.

The drawings further show a new vehicle crossover from the main Eastling Road, with an area of shingle behind gates for parking provision, but these elements are to be deleted.

Relevant Site History and Description

The property is a bungalow situated within the built-up area of Eastling, adjacent to but outside of the Conservation Area.

In 2007, an application for front and side extensions together with a new roof, was refused (SW/07/0743) as being incongruous and detrimental to the streetscene. This featured a larger roofspan than is now suggested with dormer windows to front and rear rooflights. In 2008, a revised scheme with a far better roof profile was approved (SW/07/1483). It is this second application which granted permission for the front and rear extensions which remain virtually identical in this application.

It should be noted that similar roof extensions have been previously approved at nos. 1, 2 & 3 Meesons Close (SW/04/0069, SW/08/0347 and SW/08/1327).

Views of Consultees

A letter from Eastling Parish Council raises objection to the proposal, as they believe the extension would be “overlarge and that the proposed roof is too high. They consider that the proposed extensions would be out of keeping with the character of the rest of the bungalows in the Close.” Continued . . .

39 2.8 (Contd) PART 2

Kent Highway Services raise objection to the proposed new crossover and parking area. Having discussed this with the applicant, he has agreed to remove this part of the proposals from the application, and I await his accordingly amended drawings.

Other Representations

One letter of objection from the immediate neighbours to the north has been received. The contents may be summarised as follows:

• If approved, the proposal will turn the bungalow ‘into what is effectively a 6-bedroom two-storey dwelling (which) is out of keeping with the character of the street and would detract from its ambience.” • Scale, height and mass of front extension would be oppressive and lead to a significant loss of light. • Proposed parking area would lead to “the unpleasantness of vehicle noises and emissions”. • Road safety implications. • Far more excessive than recent roof extensions to 2 & 3 Meesons Close. • Eastling Parish Council has raised objections. • The properties in the Close were not designed as large family dwellings.

Three letters of support from local residents (including the immediate neighbour to the south) have also been received. These letters may be summarised as follows:

• No objection to the proposals • Proposals are well thought out, offer an enhancement to the area, and also sit sympathetically with all the properties in the village as a whole. • The applicants have lived in the village all their lives, and have contributed a great deal into the village community. The application, if approved, will enable them to stay in the village. • Whilst the proposed extension will be visible from my house, it will not make a significant impact on the local environment; therefore, I raise no objections.

Planning Policies

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

E1 (General Criteria) E9 (AONB) E19 (Design Criteria) E24 (Extensions)

Continued . . .

40 2.8 (Contd) PART 2

Discussion

The application is for the renewal of the roof on a steeper pitch to allow for bigger rooms in the roofspace, and front and side extensions, at 6 Meesons Close, Eastling. No side windows are proposed, and the issues are confined to those of design, mass and overshadowing.

As virtually identical front and side extensions to this property have been previously approved in 2008 (SW/07/1483) under the provisions of the existing Local Plan, my discussion will mainly concentrate on the proposed raising of the main roof.

The present roof has quite a shallow pitch, and I would contend that the proposal to increase the pitch from 30 degrees to 41 degrees will produce a roof that would not have an overly steep pitch. This would produce an overall height change of only one metre.

The Parish Council raises objection to the proposal on grounds of scale and the contention that the proposal would not be in keeping with the other properties in Meesons Close. However, as similar proposals have already been approved at Meesons Close, I find it difficult to see how the application would be overlarge and out of keeping with the immediate area.

The letter from the neighbours to the north seems to mainly concentrate on the front extension and the access. The front extension has largely already been approved by the previous permission, and I therefore contend that the issue of any impact on residential amenity to other properties in the vicinity has been addressed before.

I do not find that raising the main ridge level will create undue massing or overshadowing.

Recommendation

The application is for the renewal of the roof on a steeper pitch to allow for rooms in the roofspace, and front and side extensions at 6 Meesons Close, Eastling.

Whilst I note the objections raised by the Parish Council and one neighbour, I would contend that the raising of the roof would not constitute adverse harm to the character and appearance of the area, or to residential and visual amenity.

Continued . . .

41 2.8 (Contd) PART 2

I therefore recommend subject to the receipt of appropriately amended plans that the application be granted planning permission.

______

Responsible Officer: Graham Thomas (Area Planning Officer) ______

List of Backgrounds Documents

1. Application Papers and Correspondence for Application SW/09/1306. 2. Application Papers and Correspondence for Application SW/08/1483. 3. Application Papers and Correspondence for Application SW/08/0473. 4. Application Papers and Correspondence for Application SW/08/1327. 5. Application Papers and Correspondence for Application SW/08/0347. 6. Application Papers and Correspondence for Application SW/04/0069.

42 PART 2

2.9 SW/10/0079 (Case 05248) FAVERSHAM

Location: 23A Preston Street, Faversham, Kent, ME13 8NZ

Proposal: Change of use of office to provide three first floor and one second floor residential flats and rear two storey extension to provide two further flats

Applicant/Agent: Mr Peter Attraell, c/o Mr Patrick Jordan, Wyndham Jordan Architects, 7 Bramley Avenue, Faversham, Kent, ME13 8NL

Application Valid: 22 January 2010 and as amended by drawings received 10 February 2010

SUBJECT TO: Outstanding representations from the Crime Reduction Officer, Kent Highway Services and outstanding representations (closing date 3rd March 2010)

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 grassed area shown on the approved plans (drawing no PS0907.04) shall be retained for amenity use by the residents of the flats at all times and be kept available as such.

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

(3) The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out otherwise than in complete accordance with the approved plans and specifications.

Grounds: In the interests of residential amenity and in pursuance of policies E1 and E15 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

Continued . . .

43 2.9 (Contd) PART 2

(4) Details in the form of samples of external finishing materials including a 1 metre square sample panel of brickwork and pointing to be used in the construction of the development hereby approved shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the District Planning Authority before any development takes place and shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details.

Grounds: In the interest of visual amenity and the special character of the conservation area and in pursuance of policies E1, E15 and E19 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

(5) Detailed drawings of all new external joinery work and fittings together with sections through glazing bars, frames and mouldings shall be submitted to and approved by the District Planning Authority before any development takes place. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Grounds: In the interest of visual amenity and the special character of the conservation area and in pursuance of policies E1, E15 and E19 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

(6) No development shall take place until constructional details at a suggested scale of 1:5 of the eaves, brick arches, stone cills and post and beam supporting the over sail of first floor have been submitted to and approved in writing by the District Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Grounds: In the interest of visual amenity and the special character of the conservation area and in pursuance of policies E1, E15 and E19 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

(7) All rainwater goods to be used as part of the development hereby permitted shall be of cast iron.

Grounds: In the interest of visual amenity and the special character of the conservation area and in pursuance of policies E1, E15 and E19 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

(8) The brick bonding to be used on the extension hereby permitted shall match the existing.

Grounds: In the interest of visual amenity and the special character of the conservation area and in pursuance of policies E1, E15 and E19 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

Continued . . .

44 2.9 (Contd) PART 2 (9) 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, E10 and E15 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

(10) 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 with the District Planning Authority.

Grounds: In the interests of the visual amenities of the area and in pursuance of policies E1, E10 and E15 of the Swale Borough Local Plan.

(11) 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 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, E10 and E15 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

(12) 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 interests of promoting energy efficiency and sustainable development and in pursuance of policies E1 and E21 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

(13) 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: Continued . . .

45 2.9 (Contd) PART 2 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 policy E1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

(14) The area shown on the submitted drawing no PS0907.04 as vehicle parking space shall be provided, surfaced and drained 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 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: In the interest of highway safety and amenity, and in pursuance of policies E1 and T3 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, and would preserve or enhance the special character and appearance of the conservation area. In resolving to grant permission, particular regard has been had to the following policies: E1, E2, E10, E15, E19, E20, E21, H2 and T3 of the adopted Swale Local Plan 2008

Description of Proposal

This application seeks planning permission for change of use of the upper floors from office space to create three 1st floor flats and one 2nd floor residential flat and a rear two storey extension to provide two additional flats at 23a Preston Street. A total of 6 new flats are proposed consisting of three 1 bed flats and three 2 bed flats.

The proposed rear extension would have a width of 5.5 metres, a depth of 10.8 metres deep at ground floor level and 13.2 metres at first floor level with an eaves height of 5.5 metres creating two flats each with a floor area of 50 metres squared and 61.5 metres squared.

The rear two storey extension would be located on the north east corner of the site creating an ‘L’ shaped building. A total of five parking spaces would be provided to the rear of the site accessed via the public car park off Newton Road. Continued . . .

46 2.9 (Contd) PART 2 A comprehensive Design and Access statement has been submitted as part of the application and states the following:

‘The proposed flats will be located on the first and second floors, and the extension to the rear. The existing property has a commercial use on the ground floor with office use on the two floors above.

The existing building first floor area will remain unchanged at 182 metres squared but the second floor at the rear will be extended to the full width of the building thus creating a flat with a floor area of 76 metres squared where previously the office space was 34 metres squared’.

The application is also supported by evidence of unsuccessful marketing of the existing office space, which addresses criticism of a previous similar application on this site.

Relevant Site History and Description

The site is located within the designated built-up area of Faversham, lies within the designated Faversham Conservation area and the secondary shopping area. The front of the property faces down Stone Street, whilst the rear faces Newton Place Surgery. A path connecting Preston Street to the surgery runs through the site.

. The ground floor space of the premises is currently being used as commercial space by ‘Corals’ a betting office, which is to remain in its current use. The upper floor space is currently vacant having been previously used as an office.

Planning History

SW/09/0608 application for a similar scheme was refused as it was felt that the design which included the re-routing of the alleyway was unacceptable. The application was also submitted with no market testing evidence and as such the loss of the employment space could not be justified.

The original permission for the creation of the recently built Newton Place Surgery under SW/97/0676 restricts any changes to the footpath link to Preston Street shown on the approved drawings and that the footpath shall be for use by pedestrians by the time that the surgery first opens to the public (under condition viii).

SW/99/1028- formation of car parking area, approved.

SW/04/1267- change of use from A1 (retail) to class A2 (financial and professional services), approved. Continued . . .

47 2.9 (Contd) PART 2

Views of Consultees

Faversham Town Council – no objection, welcoming the design improvements and retention of the existing path.

I am awaiting comments from Kent Highway Services and the Kent Police Crime Reduction Officer (closing date 3 March 2010) and will update Members at the meeting.

Other Representations

To date I have not received any comments though members should note that the closing date for representations is 3rd March 2010 and I will update Members at the meeting of any representations received.

Planning Policies The policies most relevant to this application are- Swale Borough Local Plan 2008 AAP1 Faversham town centre AAP E1 General Development Criteria E10 Trees and Hedges E15 Conservation areas E19 Achieving high quality design and distinctiveness E20 Promoting safety and security through design E21 Sustainable Design and Build B1 Retention of employment land H2 Providing for new housing T3 Parking for new development

Discussion

The previous planning application for a similar scheme (SW/09/0608) was refused as officer’s were of the opinion that the re-routing of the existing footpath through the site would have been unacceptable as it would have resulted in an unattractive and convoluted route creating a footpath with an under-pass that would have had an acute change of direction creating a potentially dangerous blind spot for users. Under the previous planning application no evidence of market testing to support the loss of the upper floor employment space was provided with the application and the proposal was therefore contrary to policy B1 which sets out the criteria for loss of employment space.

I consider the key issues now to be the design of the proposal and the loss of the upper floor employment space. Continued . . .

48 2.9 (Contd) PART 2

Design considerations

Though the two storey rear extension protrudes some 13.2 metres from the existing rear elevation I am of the opinion that the rear extension would not have a detrimental impact on the surrounding area as neighbouring properties also extend to the rear and therefore there would be no significant loss of light nor a detrimental impact on the amenity of the area. I am of the view that the proposed extension would not be out of keeping with the surrounding rear elevations. It would preserve the special character of the conservation area.

The proposal includes an area of amenity space for use of the residents of the flats which creates an attractive open aspect to the rear of the building. The layout of the scheme has been well thought out and features a one bed ground floor flat that meets disability requirements.

I consider the proposed rear extension to be of an appropriate design and believe that it sits comfortably on the rear elevation. The mass and size of the proposed extension would not appear unduly dominant in comparison to the surrounding area. The design of the overhanging first floor creates a visually attractive rear elevation, in keeping with its surroundings.

The previous scheme would have resulted in the re-routing of the alleyway through the development creating areas of blind spots potentially creating an unsafe passageway through to Newton Place Surgery. This scheme has taken the comments in relation to this issue into consideration and the proposed extension has now been sited to ensure that the alleyway would remain in its existing position. In my opinion moving the rear extension away from the boundary also results in a more suitable projection to the rear and creates less of an impact on the neighbouring properties.

Loss of employment space

Policy B1 of the Local Plan sets out the Council’s preference for retention of employment space, and in principle the loss of the employment space on the upper floors would only be considered acceptable if it has been demonstrated by market testing that there is insufficient demand to justify its retention for any employment use. Two letters from letting agents have been submitted as part of the application which confirm that the upper floor office space has been marketed unsuccessfully since June 2008. It has been confirmed that there has been no serious interest in the office space since June 2008 and to date no tenant has been found and the space remains vacant. I consider the information sufficient evidence to confirm that the upper floor employment space has not been in use since June 2008 and that attempts to find a tenant have been unsuccessful. I therefore consider the change of use to residential use is acceptable in these circumstances.

Continued . . .

49 2.9 (Contd) PART 2

Policy B1 further requires that where a change of use to residential is suggested that the site should incorporate, where viable, a mixed use element. In this instance, the ground floor would remain in use as a betting shop and the use of the upper floors as residential would result in a mixed use site as in accordance with the guidance set out in Policy B1.

Recommendation

Taking all of the above into consideration in my opinion the design and the proposed works are of a high quality and will result in a successful development of the vacant upper floors of this building. The loss of the employment space would be acceptable as sufficient evidence has been submitted to confirm that the employment space is no longer a viable option. I believe that the reasons for refusal of the previous application have been addressed and that the proposed development would now be considered acceptable.

I consider that proposal to be in accordance with local planning policy guidance on new residential development in the built-up area, protecting conservation area character, and loss of employment space.

I therefore recommend subject to the various outstanding representations and appropriate conditions that planning permission be granted. ______

Responsible Officer: Graham Thomas (Area Planning Officer)

List of Background Papers

1. Application Papers and correspondence relating to application SW/10/0079.

2. Application Papers and correspondence relating to application SW/09/0608.

50 PART 2 2.10 SW/09/1329 (Case 23892) MINSTER

Location: Land r/o 18 Baldwin Road, Minster, Kent, ME12 2SJ

Proposal: New Chalet Bungalow

Applicant/Agent: Mrs P Heagren, c/o Mr D Hobbs, Quiet Waters, Ferry View Road, Horning, Norfolk, NR12 8PT

Application Valid: 29th December 2009

SUBJECT TO: the views of Kent Highway Services and Kent County Council Archaeological Unit

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 exterior of the development hereby permitted shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the District Planning Authority before the development is commenced.

Grounds: As the details submitted are not clear, and in the interests of visual amenity and in pursuance of policies E1 and E19 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

(3) No additional windows, doors, voids or other openings shall be inserted, placed or formed at any time in any elevation or roof slope of the dwelling hereby permitted unless agreed in writing with the District Planning Authority.

Grounds: To prevent overlooking of adjoining properties and to safeguard the privacy of neighbouring occupiers and in pursuance of policy E1 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 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. Continued . . .

51 2.10 (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.

(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 interest of visual amenity and in pursuance of policy E1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

(6) 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 species as may be agreed in writing with the District Planning Authority, and within whatever planting season is agreed.

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

(7) 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 policy E1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

(8) 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 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 order to ensure sustainable development pursuant to policies E1 and E21 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

(9) The areas shown on the submitted layout as two car parking spaces shall be provided before the premises are occupied, and 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 Continued . . .

52 2.10 (Contd) PART 2

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: In the interest of highway safety and amenity, and in pursuance of Policies E1 and T3 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

(10) Pedestrian visibility splays of 2m x 2m with no obstruction over 0.6m above the access footway level shall be provided prior to the commencement of any other development in this application and shall be subsequently maintained.

Grounds: In the interests of highway safety and in pursuance of policies E1 and T3 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

(11) Details of the proposed slab levels of the building and the existing ground levels shall be submitted to and approved 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.

(12) 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) (Amendment) (No. 2) (England) Order 2008 (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.

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.

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: Policies E1, E19, E21, H2 and T3 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

Continued . . .

53 2.10 (Contd) PART 2

Description of Proposal

This application seeks full planning permission for the construction of a new chalet bungalow at land to the rear of no.18 Baldwin Road, Minster. The rear garden for the proposed property would also incorporate part of the rear garden of no. 20 Baldwin Road. The site measures 13.5 metres in width at the front, reducing to 10 metres at the rear, with a depth of 18.5 metres. The chalet bungalow itself has a ground floor area of 9.6 metres by 6.2 metres, with a ridge height of 6.5 metres. The bungalow would comprise of a living/dining room, downstairs shower room, bathroom and three bedrooms. The plans show off-street parking for two vehicles, with a front garden of 4 metres depth and a rear garden of seven metres depth.

Relevant Site History and Description

The site is located within the built-up area of Minster. The site comprises of parts of the rear gardens to Nos. 18 and 20 Baldwin Road and fronts onto a section of Queens Road, which is a steep, deeply rutted unmade road. Various chalet bungalows and 2 storey houses fronting Baldwin Road lie to the west of the site, whilst to the east is a terrace of three 2-storey houses known as 1 to 3 Ocean Terrace. There is no relevant planning history for the site.

Views of Consultees

Minster Parish Council raises no objection to the proposal.

No response has been received from KCC Archaeology.

I await the views of Southern Water, which I will report to Members.

Kent Highway Services raise no objection, subject to conditions noted above.

Other Representations

Three letters of objection (one from three separate householders combined) have been received. The comments contained therein can be summarised as follows:

• The proposed building would be an intrusive feature, detrimental to the streetscene • Would create a terracing affect • Design is out of character • Recommends a site meeting

Continued . . .

54 2.10 (Contd) PART 2

• An area of hardstanding used by local residents for parking, situated at the front of the site, has not been taken into consideration • Condition of the unmade road should be taken into account • Poor drainage in the area • Overlooking and loss of privacy • A letter from the water board was sent to local residents in the past, stating that no new properties should be built on this side of the road • A passageway to the rear of the gardens of nos. 20, 22 & 24 Baldwin Road “seems to have been taken over by the residents of no. 1 Ocean Terrace”.

Planning Policies

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

E1 (General Criteria) E19 (Design Criteria) E21 (Sustainable Design and Build) T3 (Parking) H2 (Providing for New Housing)

Planning Policy Statement 3 (PPS3) - Housing

Discussion The application is for the construction of a detached three bedroom chalet bungalow at land to the rear of 18 Baldwin Road, Minster.

Three letters and emails of objection have been received, all from the owners/occupiers of those properties which are situated in the immediate environs of the site. To consider the points raised by the objectors in turn;

1. The local area has an eclectic mix of differing properties, and the design of this proposed property is in keeping with this mix. I would also observe that, with a gap of four metres between the proposed property and no.1 Ocean Terrace, I fail to see how this could constitute a terracing effect.

2. With only rooflights on the rear elevation upstairs, and these serving the landing and the bathroom, I do not consider that any new issues of overlooking to the rear gardens of Baldwin Road would be created.

3. With regard to drainage issues, Southern Water do not normally wish to comment on proposals for less than ten dwellings, but I will check with them in case they do have a view here, and will report any such views to the Committee at the meeting. Continued . . .

55 2.10 (Contd) PART 2 4. The issues regarding the ownership of an existing parking area and access to the rear gardens of properties in Baldwin Road, are private legal issues rather than planning matters.

5. It is a decision for Members whether or not a site meeting is required.

6. Whilst I would acknowledge that the condition of the roadway is poor, I would contend that the vehicle movements appertaining to one additional property would not create substantial further wear and tear on the surface of the road. The road is not adopted, and any issues of upkeep would be a private legal matter rather than a planning matter.

I would also note that the provisions of PPS3 encourage the use of brownfield sites for residential development. I would contend that this proposal is based upon a site that would be considered as brownfield, in accordance with the provisions of PPS3.

PPS3 also encourages the development of smaller, more affordable housing, and I would again contend that the proposal is very much in accordance with the provisions of PPS3 with regard to this matter.

Policy H2 requires that all new development “will be expected to make the most efficient use of land”, and I would argue that this proposal is broadly in accordance with that requirement.

As noted above, whilst I understand the concerns raised by local residents, I do not believe that those concerns would be realised if the proposal were to be permitted, and the proposal strongly supports the provisions of both the Local Plan and PPS3.

Recommendation The proposal is for the construction of a chalet bungalow at the rear of 18 Baldwin Road, Minster. As noted above, I believe that the concerns of local residents would not be realised if permission was granted, and that the proposal is in accordance with both local and national policy. In view of these facts, I therefore recommend that the application be granted planning permission, subject to the conditions noted above. ______

Responsible Officer: Graham Thomas (Area Planning Officer)

List of Background Papers 1. Application Papers and Correspondence for Application SW/09/1329.

56 PART 2

2.11 SW/09/1268 (Case 22454) SHEERNESS

Location: Land rear of 35 Broadway, Sheerness, Kent, ME12 1TP

Proposal: Erection of four storey building for six one bedroom flats with four car parking spaces

Applicant/Agent: Wards Hill Development Ltd, c/o Michael Gittings Associates, 14 Vale Road, Loose, Maidstone, Kent, ME15 0EP mi

Application Valid: 27 January 2010

SUBJECT TO: Views of Kent Highway Services and outstanding representations (closing date 3 March 2010), and to receipt of satisfactorily amended drawings

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.

(2) No development approved by this permission shall be commenced prior to a contaminated land assessment (and associated remediation strategy if relevant), being submitted to and approved in writing by the District Planning Authority, comprising:

a) A desk study and conceptual model, based on the historical uses of the site and proposed end-uses, and professional opinion as to whether further investigative works are required. A site investigation strategy, based on the results of the desk study, shall be approved by the District Planning Authority prior to any intrusive investigations commencing on site. b) An investigation, including relevant soil, soil gas, surface and groundwater sampling, carried out by a suitably qualified and accredited consultant/contractor in accordance with a Quality Assured sampling and analysis methodology. c) A site investigation report detailing all investigative works and sampling on site, together with the results of analyses, risk assessment to any receptors and a proposed remediation strategy which shall be of such a nature as to render harmless the identified contamination given the proposed end-use of the site and surrounding environment, including any controlled waters. Continued . . .

57 2.11 (Contd) PART 2 Grounds: To ensure any land contamination is adequately dealt with, pursuant to policies E1, E2 and E3 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008

(3) Before any part or agreed phase of the development is occupied, all remediation works identified in the contaminated land assessment and approved by the District Planning Authority shall be carried out in full (or in phases as agreed in writing by the District Planning Authority) on site under a quality assured scheme to demonstrate compliance with the proposed methodology and best practice guidance. If, during the works, contamination is encountered which has not previously been identified, then the additional contamination shall be fully assessed and an appropriate remediation scheme agreed with the District Planning Authority.

Grounds: To ensure any land contaminated is adequately dealt with, pursuant to policies E1, E2 and E3 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

(4) Upon completion of the works identified in the contaminated land assessment, and before any part or agreed phase of the development is occupied, a closure report shall be submitted which shall include details of the proposed remediation works with quality assurance certificates to show that the works have been carried out in accordance with the approved methodology. Details of any post-remediation sampling and analysis to show the site has reached the required clean- up criteria shall be included in the closure report together with the necessary documentation detailing what waste materials have been removed from the site.

Grounds: To ensure any contaminated land is adequately dealt with, pursuant to policies E1, E2 and E3 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008

(5) Details of facing bricks and roofing tiles to be used on the development hereby permitted shall be submitted to and approved by the District Planning Authority before the development is commenced.

Grounds: In the interests of conserving visual amenity and the setting of the adjoining conservation area and in pursuance of policies E1, E15 and E19 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008

(6) The areas shown on the submitted plan as vehicle parking space and cycle storage shall be provided, before the premises are first occupied and shall be retained for such use of the occupiers of and visitors to the premises and no permanent 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.

58 2.11 (Contd) PART 2 Grounds: The development without the provision of the parking 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 and in pursuance of policies T3 and T4 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008

(7) The finished floor level of all the accommodation shall be at a minimum level of 6.4m AODN.

Grounds: To significantly reduce the risk of damage to life and property as a result of flooding and in pursuance of policies E1 and E4 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008

(8) No development shall commence on site until a scheme detailing flood damage prevention measures, surface water drainage arrangements, and a means of escape at first floor level or above have been submitted to and approved by the District Planning Authority Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Grounds: To reduce the risk of flood damage to the fabric of the building and in pursuance of policies E1 and E4 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008

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

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

(10) 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.

(11) 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:- Continued . . .

59 2.11 (Contd) PART 2 Monday to Friday 0900-1700hours unless in association with an emergency or with the written approval of the District Planning Authority.

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

(12) 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 the production of renewable energy such as wind power, or solar thermal or solar photo voltaic installations. 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 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 or harm the setting of the adjoining conservation area. In resolving to grant permission, particular regard has been had to the following policies: E1, E2, E4, E19, E21, H2 and T3 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008 and policies CC1, CC4, CC6, of The South East Plan 2009

Description of Proposal

This application seeks permission for the construction of a 4 storey building containing 6 x 1 bedroom flats with four basement parking spaces. The land is currently used as car parking for the adjacent Post Office site and the applicant states in the submitted Design and Access Statement that this arrangement will cease in order for the land to become available.

An application for a similar scheme was submitted under reference SW/07/0016 and was refused against officer recommendation in January 2009 on the grounds that the development would amount to over-intensive use of the site, resulting in cramped development with no parking or amenity space, and a poor relationship with adjoining land uses in a manner detrimental to the visual amenity of the area and residential amenities of future occupiers. Continued . . .

60 2.11 (Contd) PART 2

There was also concern regarding parking and the second reason for refusal reflected this - being that without parking provision at the site, this would inevitably lead to occupants of the flats and their visitors parking or waiting in the adjoining access road.

This revised scheme has sought to address the previous concerns and the applicant has had meetings with KCC Highways to agree the minimum amount of vehicle spaces required – especially mindful of the site’s location close to the town centre. This scheme would now provide 4 dedicated vehicle parking spaces.

Relevant Site History and Description

The application site lies outside the Sheerness Mile Town Conservation Area boundary which includes the adjoining properties fronting Broadway. Part of the application site is currently used as surface level parking for Post Office vehicles at the adjoining site to the west.

The existing driveway is accessed from the Esplanade which this site would front onto. Immediately opposite the site across the Esplanade are the gardens outside the Council Sports Centre, beyond which is the beach.

The site is located in an area considered to be at significant risk from tidal flooding and classified as Flood Zone 3 by the Environment Agency.

Planning permission was granted on adjacent land in November 1991 under application SW/90/1141 for 8 flats over four floors (now known as Beachfield Lodge) which shares access to the application site. This scheme provided 8 parking spaces and a small amenity space and these facilities are reduced to 6 parking spaces by these proposals.

Planning permission was refused by Members in 2007 for the variation of condition (ii) of planning permission SW/92/0041 which sought to reduce the number of parking spaces from 4 to 2 for the occupiers/owners of flats at No. 35 Broadway under application SW/08/0057. These spaces are not affected by this proposal.

Views of Consultees

The Environment Agency has asked the Council to consider whether there are alternative flood free locations for the proposal, under PPS25’s sequential test, but assuming that is not so (there are no flood free locations in Sheerness) their main concern is that the development will be safe and that conditions about floor levels, drainage and means of escape are imposed. They have also suggested that occupants are made aware of and registered with the Agency’s Flood Warning Service by condition, but I consider such a condition to be unenforceable and unreasonable. Continued . . .

61 2.11 (Contd) PART 2

The proposal meets the Agency’s suggested flood free floor levels, and I have recommended that conditions cover this, and other matters raised by the Agency. Finally, the Agency recommend that emergency planners are satisfied that the development is acceptable.

I hope to be able to report the views of Kent Highway Services to the meeting, but the scheme appears to have been designed to meet their requirements.

Lower Medway Internal Drainage Board comment that the Board has no objection to the application provided that the application meets Environment Agency requirements and all surface water drainage from the site discharging to a local watercourse is attenuated for the 1:100 year return storm with a limited discharge of 7 l/s/ha or the equivalent run off from the Greenfield site for the 1:2 year storm. However, the site is currently fully hard surfaced, so the development cannot make matters worse, and I do not consider attenuation to be a reasonable request.

Other Representations

One letter of objection has been received raising the following concerns:

• The same project has been previously refused • The only difference is that the amended car parking facility under the building and the provision of a waste storage bin area • The project has already been refused and the developer never exercised his right to appeal • The over-intensiveness of the site has not been reduced within 12 months • The development will not improve the surrounding area • There is uncertainty regarding the parking arrangement with the Post Office • The proposed parking allocation would be sited in a very dangerous position with cars backing onto a busy driveway which serves local businesses as well as residents to Beachfield Lodge • The increase in noise from cars parking underneath the building would be amplified by being enclosed • The turning area for vehicles is questionable and vehicles would come dangerously close to the existing flats at Beachfield Lodge • The increase in parking spaces would be detrimental to road safety and the free flow of traffic • The main entrance to the building would be onto a busy driveway which is unsafe. • The waste area would increase the problems already experienced by residents with the existing refuse area – in terms of smell, flies and vermin

Continued . . .

62 2.11 (Contd) PART 2

• There would be increased noise and disruption to residents due to the extra residents and visitors with the front door being close to the existing building • The increase in traffic would increase noise levels • The existing street lighting is inadequate for security – vehicles are broken into; damaged and a haven for people congregating • Security for the Post Office questionable • The amount of money spent on Beachfield Park by the Council to increase tourism and community facilities would be blighted by the erection of a further building that is not needed • The project may have an adverse effect on the future of the Post Office in Sheerness

The period for representations extends until 1 March 2010, and I will report any further comments to the meeting.

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 E2 Pollution Policy E4 Flooding and Drainage Policy E15 Conservation Areas Policy E19 Achieving High Quality Design and Distinctiveness Policy E21 Sustainable Design and Build Policy H2 Providing for New Housing Policy Policy T1 Providing Safe Access to New Development Policy T3 Vehicle Parking for New Development Policy T4 Cycle Parking

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

Also relevant:

Planning Policy Statement 1 – Delivering Sustainable Development (PPS1) Planning Policy Statement 3 - Housing (PPS3) Planning Policy Guidance 13 (PPG13):Transport Planning Policy Guidance 11 – Planning and the Historic Environment Continued . . .

63 2.11 (Contd) PART 2

Discussion

Determining Issues.

Principle

The site is within the defined built up area of Sheerness where the provision of flats as a use of land is acceptable as a matter of principle. PPS1 advises that in delivering sustainable development, LPAs should promote the more efficient use of land through higher density, mixed use and the use of suitably located and previously developed land and buildings. PPS3 underlines the government’s objective to continue to make effective use of land by re-using land that has been previously developed. Paragraph 41 states that the national annual target is that at least 60% of new housing should be provided on previously developed land. This includes land and buildings that are vacant or derelict as well as land that is currently in use but which has potential for re-development.

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. I consider 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 housing, on previously developed land within the confines of built development and in an area where there are existing community facilities.

Scale, Design and Siting

The design concept has been based on the existing flats to the east and in terms of scale; the proposed building would be of a similar height. There are a number of tall buildings nearby, and in this central location I consider the massing of the building to be acceptable.

The main bulk of the building would sit on columns – a result of the Flood Zone location – and at first floor the level of accommodation would be set at 6.4m AOD, (600mm above the 5.8m floor level as required by the Environment Agency).

Continued . . .

64 2.11 (Contd) PART 2

Visual Amenity (Streetscene)

A number of flatted developments have been built in recent years. These comprise of multiple storeys constructed in yellow brick with red soldier course detailing such as that at the adjoining buildings Beachfield Lodge and Jacobs House. These buildings have had a significant impact on the nearby conservation area to the south and east of the application site. The proposed development is very much in keeping with these recent approved schemes and as such will not cause significant harm to the visual amenities of the surrounding area.

Impact on the Setting of the Conservation Area

The Sheerness Mile Town conservation area wraps around the site including the grounds of the former Victoria Working Mens’ Club. Beachfield Lodge sits between the site and the conservation area, acting to set the tone for its setting. Development within the conservation area is primarily traditional frontage development, whereas beyond its boundaries and adjacent to the seafront gardens (which lie outside the conservation area) there are two existing tall-flat schemes.

The surroundings of the conservation area are by way of tall buildings and gardens, in sharp contrast to the tightly developed commercial frontages along The Broadway. I do not believe that the scale or nature of the proposals are especially harmful to the setting of the conservation area. The statutory test of having regard to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character of the conservation area should include having regard to its setting. Having done so, I do not find that the proposal will alter the current setting, even though the existing tall buildings may not represent everybody’s ideal view of what ought to adjoin the conservation area.

Residential Amenity

The design of the proposed block is such that windows facing the flats to the east would serve hallways and would be obscured glazed. Given the distances to other nearby buildings, I do not consider there would be a significant loss of amenity through overlooking or loss of privacy.

With regard to lack of provision of amenity space, this is a location close to local facilities and the beach. Taking account of the location and the fact that the accommodation is for 1 bedroom flats, I do not consider lack of private amenity space to be a singular reason for refusal. It can easily be argued that there exists very good public communal facilities and amenity space in the close proximity to the development sufficient to meet the requirements of the occupiers of the dwellings.

Continued . . .

65 2.11 (Contd) PART 2

Highways and Parking

Previously, there was no objection from KCC Highway Services regarding the lack of parking provision. 4 dedicated spaces are now offered and I do not expect Kent Highway Services to raise objection to the quantum of parking offered. I am however, seeking clarification of the height of the parking spaces, as I understand that ground levels are to be altered, and the inclusion of secure cycle parking facilities. I expect to be able to present amended drawings at the meeting.

Flood Risk

The applicant has submitted a basic Flood Risk Assessment with the application and copies of correspondence with the Environment Agency. The Environment Agency have not raised objection to the proposal. I believe that the flood risk issue is properly addressed, provided conditions are imposed as recommended.

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, impact on the adjoining conservation area, highways considerations and other material considerations as assessed above, and can be found to be in accordance with development plan policy. The scheme addresses Members’ previous concerns to the extent that I believe they are not likely to be upheld at appeal.

I therefore recommend that planning permission be granted, subject to conditions. ______

Responsible Officer: Graham Thomas (Area Planning Officer)

List of Background Papers

1. Application Papers for Application SW/09/1268

2. Correspondence Relating to Application SW/09/1268

3. Papers for applications SW/07/0016, SW/90/1141, SW/92/0041 and SW/08/0057

66 PLANNING COMMITTEE – 4 MARCH 2010 PART 3

Report of the Head of Development Services

PART 3

Applications for which REFUSAL is recommended

3.1 SW/10/0030 (Case 4848) EASTCHURCH

Location: 52 Hazeldene Close, Fourth Avenue, Eastchurch, Sheppey, Kent, ME12 4EW

Proposal: Variation of Condition (ii) of SW/94/0588 to allow No. 52 Hazeldene Close to be used as Site Warden’s Chalet

Applicant/Agent: Mr B Catlin, C/O Mrs Ann Cambridge, Hazeldene Sheppey Man Co Ltd, 33 Hazeldene Close, Fourth Avenue, Eastchurch, Sheppey, Kent

Application Valid: 13th January 2010

Reason

(1) The site lies in a rural area outside any town or village, and is characterised by holiday accommodation limited to occupation principally during the spring, summer and autumn seasons. The proposed development would be tantamount to the provision of permanent residential accommodation which is considered to be unacceptable as a matter of principal, being contrary to rural restraint policies which seek to resist permanent residential accommodation outside the built-up area and a second warden chalet is not required as the site already benefits from an approved Warden’s chalet. The proposal is therefore contrary to policies E1, E6, H2, B7 and B8 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

Description of Proposal

This application seeks permission for the variation of condition (ii) of planning permission SW/94/0588 to allow 52 Hazeldene to be used as site warden’s chalet. This permission itself was a variation to the original seasonal occupancy conditions on this site, permitting use of chalets for 11 days over the Christmas and New Year periods in accordance with current Local Plan Policy B7.

The currently permitted occupancy is March to October inclusive, and the 11 day Christmas and New Year period. Continued . . .

1 3.1 (Contd) PART 3

Relevant Site History and Description

Hazeldene Chalet Park is located off Warden Road and has 50 chalets on the site. No 52 Hazeldene Close is located near the entrance to Hazeldene Holiday Park.

No 33 Hazeldene Close is already used all year as Warden’s accommodation under SW/09/1139 which expires on 31st December 2014.

The site lies within the designated countryside and does not fall within a flood zone.

Planning History

SW/09/1139 - Variation of condition (ii) of SW/94/0588 to allow 33 Hazeldene Close to be used as site warden’s chalet- approved.

SW/09/0870 - Variation of condition (ii) of SW/94/0588 to allow 33 Hazeldene Close to be used as site warden’s chalet (withdrawn following officer advice).

SW/04/1086 - Renewal of temporary planning permission SW/99/0959 for warden accommodation- approved.

SW/99/0959 - Renewal of temporary planning permission SW/94/0898 for warden accommodation- approved.

Views of Consultees

Eastchurch Parish Council objects to the proposal and feel that one warden is sufficient for the site.

Other Representations

Six letters of support have been received stating that an additional warden’s chalet to the front of the holiday park site should be supported as it provides direct views of the front entrance gate. Two wardens would provide a better maintenance service and holidays/sickness cover would not an issue.

One letter of objection has been received stating that the site already has one warden’s chalet and that another is not required and raised concerns that this is a way of getting all year round occupancy.

Continued . . .

2 3.1 (Contd) PART 3 Planning Policies

The Policies most relevant to this application are-

Swale Borough Local Plan 2008 Swale Borough Local Plan 2008 E1- General Development Criteria E6- The countryside B7- Seasonal occupancy period for holiday parks B8- Residential accommodation for use by a warden or security person on a holiday park

Discussion

No 33 Hazeldene Close recently received temporary five year permission for a warden’s chalet in January 2010 (application reference SW/09/1139). No 33 Hazeldene overlooks the back fence of the site and daily site checks would be carried out by the warden. I am concerned that a second planning application has now been submitted which seeks planning permission for an additional Warden’s chalet on the site. Though No 52 Hazeldene Close is located in a position that would have views of the front entrance into Hazeldene Holiday Park the gate should remain shut during the closed season. This would be a secure point and therefore in my opinion there is no significant need for a warden’s chalet near the gate. I do not consider that it is necessary to have a second Warden’s chalet on a site of this size and I am of the opinion that such an additional security measure is not required.

The approved warden’s chalet at No 33 Hazeldene Close overlooks the rear of the site and provides sufficient security measures. I am not of the opinion that a warden’s chalet is needed near the entrance of the site as these gates should be locked when chalets are unoccupied and therefore this is an unlikely place for a security breach.

The site lies within the designated countryside and permanent residential development would not be permitted in this location. An additional warden’s chalet would add to the use of the site as permanent residential accommodation which is not supported by planning policy guidance.

I am of the opinion that other security measures could be explored such as CCTV cameras and an alarm system rather than an additional warden’s chalet for the site.

Recommendation

Taking all of the above into consideration I do not believe that an additional Warden’s chalet is required on this site as a Warden’s chalet has already been approved and is sufficient for this site. In my opinion other security measures should be more fully explored. Continued . . .

3 3.1 (Contd) PART 3

I consider that proposal would not be in accordance with local planning policy guidance on warden’s accommodation on holiday parks and should therefore be refused.

Responsible Officer: Graham Thomas (Area Planning Officer)

List of Background Documents

1. Application papers and correspondence relating to application SW/10/0030.

2. Application papers for applications SW/94/0588, SW/99/0959, SW/04/1086, SW/09/0870 and SW/09/1139.

4 PLANNING COMMITTEE – 4 MARCH 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/08/1345 (Case 11070) – Erection of replacement dwelling and garage - Land at Nil Desperandum, Rushenden Hill, Queenborough, Sheppey, Kent, ME11 5LB

APPEAL DISMISSED

The Inspector commented as follows:

“Background 2. As related by the Appellant, the history of the appeal site is far from straightforward. The dwelling which once stood upon it, and where the proposed dwelling is intended to be built, was fire-damaged in 2001. It was then demolished as a dangerous structure at the insistence of the emergency services and the Council. The site was formerly included within the proposed built-up area of Queenborough as was adjoining land which is described as a paddock. Both were allocated for residential development under Policy H40 in the adopted (July 2000) Swale Borough Local Plan. The Review of the Local Plan changed this notation, and a large greenfield site close to the urban area at Bapchild, Sittingbourne, was allocated to achieve the required amount of housing in the Borough. The appeal site is now included, the Appellant says, within the urban fringe and as land beyond the defined built-up area of Queenborough.

3. In accordance with the policies contained in the original Local Plan, the Council granted outline planning permission for residential development on the appeal site in June 1999. It was not, however, implemented, and it expired about 7½ years ago in 2002. An application for planning permission was submitted in 2003 for low density housing to provide for 16 2-storey dwellings, but the Council refused planning permission 22 months later essentially because it was mainly regarded as a greenfield site and thus low in the sequential approach for the release of housing land as set out in the then current Planning Policy Guidance (PPG) 3. An Inspector dismissed the subsequent appeal in April 2006 partly on the basis of conflict with the higher density requirements advocated in PPG 3 (APP/V2255/A/05/1193076).

4. As the representations demonstrate, the Appellant has submitted a succession of planning proposals to secure the appeal site for residential development. He says that at no time has he taken any action to abandon the site or to remove the remains of the former dwelling, and the Council does not dispute this statement. However, Continued . . .

1 5.1 (Contd) PART 5

as it was held in Iddenden v SSE [1972] P&CR 553 that a use cannot survive the destruction of buildings and installations necessary for it to be carried on, I am unable to concur with the Appellant’s view that the appeal site still has a lawful residential use, even bearing in mind the particular reasons for the demolition of the former building. The matters relating to the background of the appeal, including the Inspector’s conclusions, are material considerations, but they have to be taken into account in the context of current national and local policies and other planning circumstances. That has been my approach in the determination of the appeal.

Main issues

5. Two main issues arise in the determination of the appeal. They are:

a) whether the site can reasonably be treated as having the status of previously-developed land as defined in Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 3 Annex B; and, b) whether the development would result in serious harm to the character and appearance of the locality.

Reasons

The status of the land

6. On the site of the former dwelling is a large pile of rubble, up to about 1.5 m tall, clearly visible from the entrance to the appeal site at Well Road. It looks somewhat isolated in the open surroundings. Closer inspection reveals a concrete slab, measuring about 13 m x 14 m, upon which the rubble is heaped. Further close inspection reveals a concrete path, about 1.2 m wide, leading from the remains of the dwelling towards the north-western edge of the site. Close to the slab are the weathered remains of the base of what appears to have been outbuildings, one measuring about 3.5 m x 8 m and another measuring about 4.5 m x 3 m. All these measurements were agreed on site. Towards the northern end of the site are the mainly sunken brick remains of what seems to have been a swimming pool. At one time the land included stables. It is thought that these were towards the south-east end of the appeal site, but I could not identify any evidence of them. There are small pieces of rubble strewn elsewhere on the site, and the overall impression is of land sorely in need of attention to enhance its essentially open appearance.

7. The Annex B defines previously-developed land as that which is or was occupied by a permanent structure, including the curtilage of the developed land and any associated fixed surface infrastructure. Clearly the circumstances of the appeal site accord with the definition thus far. The definition then excludes certain categories. Of especial relevance in this case is land which was previously-developed but where the remains of the permanent structure or fixed surface structure have blended into the landscape in the process of time (to the extent that it can reasonably be considered to be part of the Continued . . .

2 5.1 (Contd) PART 5

natural surroundings). Nearer 4 than 3 years ago the previous Inspector concluded that the remains of the buildings are clearly evident on the site; I do not agree with the suggestion by the Council that the previous structures on the site have now blended into the natural surroundings. The Appellant relies a good deal on this conclusion, and I would not expect the appearance of the appeal site to have changed much during the last few years.

8. Apart from the pile of rubble, in my experience a not entirely unexpected feature in some parts of the countryside, almost all that remains of the previous structures are at or below the prevailing ground level. They cannot be seen from any appreciable distance from the site and are thus unobtrusive in the openness which prevails. The Inspector who adjudicated on the objections to the Local Plan noted in respect of the appeal site and paddock that it Is concluded that the land is overwhelmingly greenfield in character and appearance, and that accords with my detailed inspection of the appeal site. It is a matter of fact, degree and judgement, and my conclusion on this issue from my examination of the site is that the land cannot reasonably be regarded as having the status of previously-developed land. And even if a contrary view were to be taken on the status of the land, there is no presumption that land that is previously-developed is necessarily suitable for housing development. That brings me to my next issue.

Character and appearance

9. Judging from the photographs of the former dwelling, the proposed dwelling would be of much the same size and site coverage, but would be of better design and appearance. There are 2 large dwellings and associated buildings to the west. Nevertheless, the appeal site lies outside the edge of the built-up area which is clearly defined by the residential development along nearby roads, including Well Road, Swale Avenue and Alsager Avenue. Not surprisingly, the land is outside the main built-up area as defined in the recently adopted (2008) Swale Borough Local Plan, and a new dwelling here would intrude into the generally open, rural scene, eroding and thereby causing serious harm to its essential open character and appearance. The proposal is therefore contrary to the quoted policies, and particularly to Local Plan Policy E6 which seeks to protect or enhance the countryside from all but the most exceptional types of development, including for agriculture and for the acceptable rebuilding of a dwelling currently in residential use.

Conclusion

10. I have taken account of all the other points raised. These include the problems arising from trespass and fly-tipping, the proposed use of modern methods of construction, local facilities in Queenborough. They do not, however, outweigh those considerations which have led to my decision.” Continued . . .

3 5.1 (Contd) PART 5

Observations

Full support for the Council’s decision to refuse permission for a new house on a cleared site, one that has previously been granted outline permission for housing, but now lies outside the Local Plan’s built up area boundary, and where the development would represent a new house in the countryside.

Responsible Officer: Graham Thomas (Area Planning Officer)

List of Background Papers

1. Planning Inspectorate Appeal Decision ref: APP/V2255/A/09/2110533

2. Appeal Papers (statements and correspondence)

3. SBC Decision on Application: SW/08/1345

4 PART 5

5.2 C23542 – Site at 35 St Marys Road, Faversham, Kent, ME13 8EH

APPEAL DISMISSED AND THE ENFORCEMENT NOTICE UPHELD

The Inspector commented as follows:

“Appeal Ref: APP/V2255/C/09/2110283 35 St Mary’s Road, Faversham, Kent ME13 8EH

• The appeal is made under section 174 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by the Planning and Compensation Act 1991. • The appeal is made by Adam Sobczyk against an enforcement notice issued by Swale Borough Council. • The Council's reference is ENF/09/031. • The notice was issued on 15 July 2009. • The breach of planning control as alleged in the notice is: ‘Without planning permission:

The removal of a timber vertically sliding sash window from the front first floor elevation and its replacement with a uPVC window’.

• The requirements of the notice are:

(i) Remove the uPVC window from the front first floor elevation of the property.

(ii) Reinstate a timber vertically sliding sash window the design to precisely match that of the front ground floor window.

• The period for compliance with the requirements is three months. • The appeal is proceeding on the grounds set out in section 174(2)(b), (f) and (g) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended. Since the appeal is fee exempt, the application for planning permission deemed to have been made under section 177(5) of the Act as amended (the deemed planning application) also falls to be considered.

Summary of Decision: The appeal is dismissed and the enforcement notice upheld.

The appeal on ground (b) 1. In appealing on ground (b), the burden of proof is on the Appellant to demonstrate that the breach of planning control alleged in the enforcement notice has not occurred as a matter of fact. However, there is no evidence before me to this effect. The case made under this heading in the Appellant’s submissions concerns only his lack of awareness that planning permission had not been granted and readily acknowledges the installation of the window in question. The appeal on ground (b) therefore fails. Continued . . .

5 5.2 (Contd) PART 5 The deemed planning application Main issue 2. The main issue in determining the deemed planning application (DPA) is the effect of the uPVC window on the character and appearance of the appeal property and the Faversham Conservation Area, within which it lies.

Reasoning 3. The conservation area is extensive and encompasses a wide range of architectural styles. However, I found St Mary’s Road to exhibit greater uniformity in this regard, being comprised for the most part of two storey terraced houses set behind short front gardens, albeit that there is some variety in form and detail. The appeal property is a mid- terrace dwelling typical of the street. The front elevation is prominent over considerable distances in views from both north and south and, the unauthorised window notwithstanding, retains much of its original character. Photographs indicate that the uPVC window has replaced a traditional vertically sliding sash window in painted timber, of the kind still evident at ground floor level.

4. I have taken note of the Appellant’s survey information to the effect that a large proportion of buildings in the street now feature either uPVC fenestration or other types of replacement window that depart from the original style. Inevitably, such alterations have had an impact on the sense of place. Nonetheless, several terraced properties retain timber sash windows and are sufficient in number to amount to an important vestige of the area’s traditional architecture and uniformity. Where they remain, such windows complement the façades they occupy and fulfil an important role in helping to preserve the historic character of the area.

5. In sharp contrast, the replacement uPVC window lacks elegance and fine detail. Its framing is heavy and bulky, with a flat smooth finish that fails to replicate the texture of painted wood. It also opens outward rather than vertically, which exacerbates its incongruity. Rather than being subsumed by other alterations in the vicinity, it compounds the visual harm so caused. I find these neighbouring replacement windows clumsy in comparison with traditional timber fenestration and unworthy of replication. Indeed, their detrimental presence makes it all the more important to resist further changes of this kind. The poor condition of No 111, although regrettable, provides no justification for allowing the retention of other harmful elements in the street scene.

6. I conclude that, rather than being in keeping with its present surroundings, the uPVC window at No 35 replicates a negative aspect of the prevailing townscape to the further detriment of the street scene. It fails to preserve the character or appearance of the host property or the wider conservation area and, accordingly, its retention would be contrary to Policies E1, E15 and E19 of the adopted Swale Borough Local Plan 2008 and relevant national guidance in Planning Policy Guidance Note 15: Planning and the Historic Environment.

Continued . . .

6 5.2 (Contd) PART 5 Other matters 7. I have considered all the other matters raised in relation to the planning merits of the development. I accept that uPVC can sometimes be advantageous in comparison with painted timber in terms of maintenance and insulation. However, there is no reason why properly constructed timber windows should not be weather tight. Nor is there anything in national or local guidance to the effect that such considerations are more important than the effects of change on the character and appearance of a conservation area.

8. I note that language difficulties led to a misunderstanding as to whether planning permission had been granted for the replacement window. I also acknowledge that changing the window back and the subsequent maintenance of timber fenestration would be costly and have taken into account the Appellant’s comments regarding his financial position. However, it has not been demonstrated that boarding up the opening rather than replacing the window, to the detriment of the street scene, would be an inevitable consequence of this. I am also mindful that, were enforcement notice not complied with, the Council would be empowered to carry out the required works itself and, at its discretion, could extend the period for compliance under section 173A(1)(b) of the 1990 Act as amended, should a sound case for doing so be made.

9. In any event, paragraph 21 of the government publication The Planning System: General Principles makes it clear that personal circumstances of this kind will seldom outweigh more general planning considerations. I have not been advised of the circumstances in which uPVC windows have been introduced to other properties in the street and, even if these were known to me, each scheme must still be dealt with primarily on its own merits. Therefore, neither these nor any other matters raised are of such significance as to outweigh the factors that have led to my conclusion on the main issue. Accordingly, I am not minded to grant retrospective planning permission.

The appeal on ground (f) 10. In appealing on ground (f), the Appellant should present a case to the effect that the requirements of the enforcement notice are excessive and that lesser steps would overcome the objections to the window. However, no lesser steps have been specified, the only arguments put forward under this heading being that, for various reasons, the window should be allowed to remain. These go to the planning merits of the development and I have already considered them in determining the DPA. The appeal on ground (f) therefore fails.

The appeal on ground (g) 11. Contrary to the Appellant’s apparent understanding, the appeal process does not shorten the specified period for compliance. The enforcement notice does not take effect unless and until it is upheld by means of this appeal. No reason has been put forward as to why, in such circumstances, three months would not be long enough to accommodate the replacement of the unauthorised window in the manner specified. Nor has the Appellant indicated how much additional time he seeks. The appeal on ground (g) therefore fails.

7 5.2 (Contd) PART 5

Conclusion

12. For the reasons given above and having regard to all matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should not succeed. I shall uphold the enforcement notice and refuse to grant planning permission on the DPA.

Formal decision

13. I dismiss the appeal and uphold the enforcement notice. I refuse to grant planning permission on the application deemed to have been made under section 177(5) of the 1990 Act as amended.”

Observations

A good decision that acknowledges the importance of protecting the frontage of properties located in the Article 4 area. This decision re-inforces a recent decision to dismiss a planning appeal elsewhere in Faversham on this same subject.

Responsible Officer: Graham Thomas (Area Planning Officer)

List of Background Papers

1. Planning Inspectorate Appeal Decision ref: APP/V2255/C/09/2110283

2. Appeal Papers (statements and correspondence)

3. SBC Decision on Application: ENF/09/031

8 PART 5

5.3 C02150 – Non-illuminated banner sign at Hempstead House, London Road, Bapchild, Sittingbourne, Kent, ME9 9PP

APPEAL DISMISSED

The Inspector commented as follows:

“Decision 1. I dismiss the appeal.

Main issues 2. The main issues in this case are the effect of the proposed banner display on the public safety and amenity of the area.

Planning Policy 3. The Council has drawn attention to its policies and supplementary guidance for effective control over the display of advertisements, particularly in the countryside outside the defined built-up areas. I have taken these policies and guidance into account as a material factor in my consideration of the appeal. As the Regulations require that the local planning authority, and the Secretary of State on appeal, shall exercise their powers only in the interests of amenity and, where applicable, public safety, taking into account any material factors, I do not consider that the Council’s policies should, by themselves, be decisive.

REASONS Public Safety 4. I note the Council’s comments about the effect of the banner on public safety and in this case I share its concerns. The banner measuring 6.4m by 0.9m would advertise events and promotions at Hempstead House. The messages would vary but the Appellants have provided an indicative display showing three separate elements each with some five or six lines of text. The banner would be aimed at eastbound traffic and because of its size and exposed siting would command a focal point in London Road, part of the busy A2, at its T-junction with Panteny Lane. The latter provides access to the related hotel and restaurant complex.

5. This part of the A2 is on a generally straight and level alignment allowing generally forward visibility. However, the site is close to a petrol filling station where vehicles may be turning in or out. Eastbound drivers also have to be aware of right-turning traffic taking up position in advance of the T-junction, or turning off or rejoining the A2 from a number of adjacent residential driveways.

6. I consider that, once attracted to the banner and in order to assimilate its long and complex messages, drivers might be unduly distracted from road conditions, so increasing the risk of accidents on a section of London Road where a high level of attention is required. I conclude, therefore, that the proposed display would be against the interests of public safety. Continued . . .

9 5.3 (Contd) PART 5

Amenity

7. Although commercial premises are in evidence to the west, the appeal site is outside the defined, built-up area of Bapchild. The land apparently forms part of a large hotel and restaurant complex but the adjacent buildings are of domestic scale and appear to be in residential use in keeping with the mainly residential setting around the junction. The banner is no longer in position but, as applied for, it would be displayed at an overall height of 3m, in a position largely divorced from any commercial activity readily associated with the hotel. Indeed, on the evidence of my visit it would be mounted on a wooden frame, above trellis that encloses part of the residential garden against a deep background of mature trees on the skyline.

8. I consider that, even in non-illuminated form, the large, vinyl banner would appear incongruous within a residential garden and unduly conspicuous in this generally residential setting. Its unduly assertive display would also spoil the amenity value of mature trees at a point where the built development of Bapchild gives way to open countryside to the east. Emphasised by its angle of presentation, the banner would command a long and wide range of visibility encompassing a number of the dwellings diagonally opposite. I consider that, because of its size and exposed siting, the banner would unduly intrude on the outlook from nearby houses. Its display would also over-emphasise the commercial aspect of Hempstead House at a point on London Road, close to countryside and framed by trees, where there is a need to maintain a proper balance between the residential and commercial use aspects.

9. I conclude for these reasons that the proposal would be detrimental to the interests of amenity. I have considered all other matters raised including the comments made by local residents but there is nothing of sufficient weight to alter my decision that the appeal must fail.”

Observations

A very pleasing decision in which the Inspector agreed with the Council that the advertisement would be harmful to visual amenity, and that it would pose a risk to public safety.

Responsible Officer: Rob Bailey (Area Planning Officer)

List of Background Papers

1. Planning Inspectorate Appeal Decision ref: APP/V2255/h/09/2102419 2. Appeal Papers (statements and correspondence) 3. SBC Decision on Application: SW/09/0127

10 PART 5

5.4 C23750 – Advertisement consent for 1 fascia sign - Howdens Joinery Limited, Block G, Whitstable Road, Faversham, Kent, ME13 3BG

APPEAL DISMISSED

The Inspector commented as follows:

“Main issue

2. The main issue is the impact of the proposed sign on the site and surroundings including the amenity of local residents.

Reasons

3. The premises comprise a large, apparently new and as yet unoccupied industrial unit. They form part of a commercial/industrial estate set back behind new modern residential development on the southern side of Whitstable Road. The proposal is for a non- illuminated fascia panel, measuring 6m by 1.5m, denoting the name of the joinery.

4. The appeal effectively arises from a ‘split decision’. The Council granted consent for a similar display (Sign 1) above the customer entrance on the shallower, principal southern elevation, facing the customer car park and a unit occupied by a large veterinary practice. It refused consent for the appeal display (Sign 2) on the much deeper northern rear elevation, fronting an access road serving the adjacent dwellings.

5. The area has a mixed character but care has been taken to ensure that the obvious commercial aspect of the industrial estate does not intrude on the new residential development. In these circumstances, it is to be expected that the display of advertisements will be in keeping with the general street scene. However, the appeal proposal does not respect this discipline.

6. Although professionally executed, Sign 2 would be mounted towards the top of the building on its exposed north-western corner. When viewed from the north it would stand out, apparently at random, in a position largely divorced from the main commercial aspect of the premises. It appears that new planting will gradually soften the starkness of the northern elevation but the appeal sign would stand out well above this, commanding a wide range of visibility encompassing several of the adjacent dwellings. I consider that, because of its size and exposed, apparently random siting, Sign 2 would unduly intrude on local residents’ amenity of outlook and present as a discordant and unduly assertive feature in the generally well-ordered street scene.

Continued . . .

11 5.4 (Contd) PART 5

7. The Appellant has emphasised that Sign 2 is required to denote the position of the joinery on approach along the long access road. However, the Regulations generally require decisions to be made only in the interests of amenity and, where applicable, public safety. Since public safety is not an issue in this appeal, it is the issue of visual amenity that must be decisive for present purposes. That said, the Council is not dismissive of commercial need and has suggested the alternative display of a similar sign on the western gable-end, which is also readily visible from the access road. However that is not something that I can meaningfully comment on further in the context of this appeal.

8. In all these circumstances, I conclude that the display of Sign 2 would be detrimental to the interests of amenity. I have considered all other matters raised but there is nothing of sufficient weight to alter my decision that the appeal must fail.”

Observations

A very good decision where the Inspector fully acknowledges the importance of residential amenity.

Responsible Officer: Graham Thomas (Area Planning Officer)

List of Background Papers

1. Planning Inspectorate Appeal Decision ref: APP/V2255/H/09/2115210

2. Appeal Papers (statements and correspondence)

3. SBC Decision on Application: SW/09/0677

12 PART 5

5.5 Case 23301 – Variation of condition (5) of SW/08/0917 (no commercial use) - Jack Russell Place, Halstow Lane, Lower Halstow, Kent, ME9 7AB

APPEAL DISMISSED

The Inspector commented as follows:

“Decision 1. I dismiss the appeal.

Main issue 2. There is one main issue in this case, namely the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area.

Reasons 3. The appeal site lies in open countryside between Lower Halstow and Upchurch and, although a number of the surrounding fields have been divided into paddocks with small ancillary buildings, the area has an essentially open and rural character. The site is clearly visible from both directions along Halstow Lane.

4. At the time of my visit the site included a mobile home and kennels/stabling at the far (northern) end of the site, and other smaller structures closer to the entrance. The location of various elements on the site differs considerably from that shown on the plan which was apparently the subject of the two year limited period planning permission described above. The plan showed a mobile home and touring caravans towards the front of the site, with a stable at the rear, and grazing land between.

5. The policy context is most directly provided by the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008. This includes policies to protect the quality, character and amenity value of the countryside (policy E6), and requires development to be appropriate to its location (policy E1). Specifically in relation to gypsy sites (it is common ground that the appellant and her family are gypsies), policy H4 provides that screening and landscaping should be provided to minimise adverse impact.

6. In my view, based on these policies and given the exposed and visible location of the site, the disputed condition serves a necessary function. That is to control the use of the site so as to minimise visual encroachment and to protect the character of the area.

7. There is a lack of clarity as to what is sought by the appeal. It is stated by the appellant that the intention is to park a 7 tonne vehicle for work purposes on the site. It is not stated if the work in question is intended to be carried out on this site or elsewhere. On the face of it, the appeal seeks the removal of the condition in its entirety, and does not suggest any alternative which might meet some of the objectives of the disputed condition, whilst allowing the parking of a vehicle.

Continued . . .

13 5.5 (Contd) PART 5 8. Taking the appeal on that basis, and assuming that it seeks the removal of the entire condition, this would allow business, industrial or commercial uses to take place on the site, along with the open storage of plant, products or waste, together with the parking of commercial vehicles. Such an unrestricted use of the site could lead to substantial visual harm from the various activities, stored material and parked vehicles. It would be contrary to the policies summarised above.

9. If the approach of the authority were adopted, namely that the appeal only seeks the removal of the prohibition of commercial vehicles, I consider there would still be significant harm to the appearance of the area. Such a vehicle or vehicles could be parked anywhere on the site, as there is no suggested parking area, and might be located in prominent positions. The parking of commercial vehicle(s) would be an intrusion into this open and rural setting.

10. I do not consider that planting and landscaping would serve to significantly screen the vehicle(s) especially bearing in mind that planning permission has only been granted for a limited period and planting would have very little time to mature. Even after this period, depending on the location of the parked vehicle(s), landscaping might not screen the parking area and could, in itself, draw attention to the presence of the vehicle(s) and any associated activity. In any event, no condition regarding further landscaping has been suggested.

11. I appreciate that some gypsies run their businesses from the site on which their caravans are stationed, although this has not been detailed in this case. In any event, given the very prominent nature of the appeal site, I consider the condition is necessary and reasonable.

12. Overall, I find the removal (or partial removal) of the condition would harm the character and appearance of the area. It would harm the policies I summarised above.

13. For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.”

Observations A good decision which supports the Council’s application of such conditions. It also provides interesting commentary on the exposed location of the appeal site and the open characteristics of the surrounding landscape.

Responsible Officer: Rob Bailey (Area Planning Officer)

List of Background Papers

1. Planning Inspectorate Appeal Decision ref: APP/V2255/A/09/2109893/NWF 2. Appeal Papers (statements and correspondence) 3. SBC Decision on Application: SW/08/0917

14 PART 5

5.6 Case 06048 – Access road and provision of parking spaces - Land at 1-14 Julia Spicer Homes, Bell Road, Sittingbourne, Kent, ME10 4EA

APPEAL DISMISSED

The Inspector commented as follows:

“Decision 1. I dismiss the appeal.

Main issue 2. There is one main issue in this case, namely whether the proposal would preserve the special architectural and historic interest and setting of Julia Spicer Homes and Whitehall Court, and its effect on the wider character and appearance of the area.

Reasons 3. The appeal site is part of the landscaped garden in front of Julia Spicer Homes, which is an L shaped almshouse development arranged around two sides of the garden. The almshouses are on the eastern side of Bell Road, from which the buildings are substantially screened by a wall and shrubbery.

4. The almshouses have recently been included on the List of Buildings of Special Architectural or Historic Interest (Grade II), apparently in response to the current planning application. The almshouses were built in 1930 in an asymmetrical neo-vernacular style and are externally intact. The Listing description notes that they are a rare building type in the area, and that they form part of a group with the cemetery buildings on the opposite side of the road.

5. The area generally is residential in nature. In particular Whitehall Court, on the west side of Bell Road almost opposite the appeal site, is also a Listed Building.

6. The existing vehicular access to the almshouses is adjacent to the northern limb of the development, and provides a single parking space. The proposed car park would be located in the part of the landscaped area furthest from the almshouses, in the south west of the garden. The appellant has explained that the proposed car park would be for doctors, nurses, ambulances, mini buses, carers, and visitors – as well as providing a drop off and pick up facility. The car park would be set 600mm below surface level, with a low bund around the edge. Existing boundary planting would be augmented.

7. The particular attraction and special interest of the almshouses is a direct result of the unaltered nature of the buildings and their footprint. To this must be added, in my opinion, the tranquil and apparently largely unchanged nature of the informal garden in front of the buildings.

Continued . . .

15 5.6 (Contd) PART 5

8. Although I appreciate that the scheme has been designed to minimise the impact on the Listed almshouses, the loss of part of the open grassed area and its replacement by a bund and the partially sunken car park would seriously harm the setting of this well preserved complex. This would be exacerbated by the view which would be obtained of the upper parts of parked vehicles. I appreciate that a direct view of the car park would not be obtained from much of the northern limb of the almshouses due to the intervening yew trees. However the peaceful setting of the almshouses and their relationship with the garden can be appreciated from a wide range of vantage points within the development.

9. For these reasons, I consider the proposal would not preserve the setting of Julia Spicer Homes. It would conflict with general policies1 aimed at ensuring that development should reflect the positive characteristics of the site, and specifically with those policies2 aimed at preserving the integrity and setting of Listed Buildings.

10. I appreciate that the site is within an area designated as being of High Townscape Value in the Local Plan, wherein the policy3 is that the area should be conserved or enhanced. I have also considered the effect of the proposal on the setting of Whitehall Court opposite. However, the proposal would only be visible to a limited extent from outside the curtilage of the almshouses, due to the wall and shrub planting, which would be supplemented. The proposed entrance would not, in my view, have any significant effect on the area. I therefore do not consider the wider area or the setting of Whitehall Court would be affected.

Other matters and conclusion

11. I have considered the appellant’s argument that the car park is needed to provide a facility for residents and carers, although I appreciate from representations that not all residents of the almshouses support the proposal. In any event, this matter does not outweigh the harm which would be caused to the setting of the Listed Building.

12. I appreciate that officers supported an earlier, arguably more intrusive, scheme. However this was before the almshouses were included on the Statutory List, and this introduces a new material consideration. In any event, I have to deal with the formal position of the authority rather than the views of officers.

13. For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.”

1 Swale Borough Local Plan (LP) 2008 policy E1 2 LP policy E14 3 LP policy E18

Continued . . .

16 5.6 (Contd) PART 5

Observations

An excellent decision where the Inspector fully supported the Council’s view that the new parking area and associated works would have a detrimental impact on the historic character and setting of Julia Spicer Homes, a Grade II Listed Building. The Inspector gave weight to the tranquil setting that the garden provides to the former almshouses, noting that this would be disrupted by the car park.

Responsible Officer: Rob Bailey (Area Planning Officer)

List of Background Papers

1. Planning Inspectorate Appeal Decision ref: APP/V2255/A/09/2111846

2. Appeal Papers (statements and correspondence)

3. SBC Decision on Application: SW/09/0008

17 PART 5

5.7 SW/08/1215 and SW/08/1216 (Case 18062) – Conversion of Church to single dwelling, double garage and alterations to vehicle access - Site at Church Road, Upper Brents, Faversham, Kent, ME13 7DR and Former St Johns Church, Church Road, Upper Brents, Faversham, Kent, ME13 7DR

APPEALS DISMISSED

The Inspector commented as follows:

“Reasons

2. The building is listed Grade II and the proposals involve internal and external alterations, internal sub-divisions, and a new garage, and therefore the main issue in both appeals is the effect of the proposals on the architectural or historic interest of the listed building and its setting within the Faversham Conservation Area. I find the drawings lacking in the necessary information to be able to judge the effect of much of this work. However, my visit and the factual comments of the appellant assisted, including that, notwithstanding the information on the drawings, it is not intended to remove the altar step, and what are shown as roof voids in places are in fact the open upper parts of the relevant rooms in the side aisle and chancel. Whilst I have read of the removal of the organ, and it was certainly not in place at the time of my visit and is not shown on either the existing or the proposed floor plans, this matter is not before me.

3. The appellant considers that the principle of residential use has been accepted by the grant in 2006 of planning permission and listed building consent for the conversion to a single residence (Ref; SW/06/0610 and SW/06/0609) and that this has been implemented. Whether or not that is the case, it is clear to me that this earlier proposal involved very little physical works to the internal fabric or spaces and it is my view that these decisions were made on the basis of the acceptability of the effect on the interest of the building. I concur with both the appellant and the Council that this would have been an unusual arrangement of living space, not being sub-divided and with little or no privacy, but that was what was sought in the applications and that is what the Council approved. Due to these fundamental differences, I can attach limited weight to that consent in considering the present proposals which do involve sub-division and a greater degree of intervention. I turn now to consider the details.

4. There would be sub-division in the nave to form a mezzanine floor with cellular rooms below and a single lounge on a deck above, open to the side and roof. There would also be sub-division of the aisle into three rooms which I understand would each be open to the roof but that the dividing walls would be full height. The appellant refers to these as ‘pods’ although they do not sit within the space free of any connection to the structure, but rather they would abut the side walls and in the case of the aisle would fill the space entirely, stopping off

Continued . . .

18 5.7 (Contd) PART 5

the present views through the arcading and in both cases severely reducing the appreciation of the space, the roof and the windows. The works would, in my judgement, erode the architectural interest of the building to a greater degree than the previously consented works and would be unacceptable.

5. There would also be the insertion of insulation in the roof, but I have little information on whether any would be placed at the walls, or on the work required to provide heating. On the information before me I consider the lining and insulation proposed, and partly in place at the time of my visit, would seriously and adversely affect the visual interest of the roof construction and further erode the appreciation of the spaces. The result would appear to be a form of cold roof construction with a ventilated void above the insulation. I understand that this is in order to comply with requirements over bat roosts, but consider this poses the risk of condensation occurring unseen, threatening the integrity of the roof timbers. 6. It is proposed to place toughened glass external to the windows which would, I consider, detract from the interest of the outside of the building and could cause a build-up of heat or moisture in the void, which could harm the existing glazing. Also outside would be the proposed new garage which as applied for would appear out of place alongside the church building, harming its setting and, being visible from the road, would fail to preserve the character and appearance of the conservation area. The appellant refers to the possibility of a single garage, and a drawing not seen by the Council. I can attach very little weight to this proposal as it has not been considered or commented on. Lastly with regard to the external proposals is the gate. This was stated in the reason for refusal to be too close to the highway, and I concur with that view as the siting would not provide a safe access as required by Swale Borough Local Plan Policy T1. There is however sufficient land to provide for a safer location and were all other matters acceptable, this could be dealt with by condition.

7. The use of conditions would not, in my opinion, overcome the objections that I have detailed above. There may be some scope for seeking further details, where these are lacking, but the information that I have is sufficient for me to find the proposals for the subdivision of the space, the lining of the roof and the works to the windows unacceptable in their effect on the architectural and historic interest of the listed building and the garage would harm its setting and hence the conservation area. The proposals would fail the statutory tests in the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 with regard to the listed building and the conservation area, and would be contrary to advice in Planning Policy Guidance Note 15 “Planning and the Historic Environment” on the value of internal spaces and features of historic interest. The proposal would also not accord with Local Plan Policies E14 and E15 which seek the preservation of buildings and areas of historic or architectural interest.

Continued . . .

19 5.7 (Contd) PART 5

8. The appellant refers to the need to find a viable use for the building and the risks of it remaining unused, and there is some support for that view among local residents; I can understand the possibility of problems living next to a vacant building. I am also mindful of advice in PPG15 on the importance of keeping buildings in use. That advice goes on to state that applicants for listed building consent must be able to justify their proposals. They will need to show why works which would affect the character of a listed building are desirable or necessary. I am not persuaded that the need to find a use for this building is of such urgency as to justify the harm that would be caused by the proposals, or that the formation of a single dwelling would be of great importance in the provision of housing. For the reasons given above I conclude that both appeals should be dismissed.”

Observations

Two very good decisions where the Inspector agreed with the Council that the proposals would fail to protect the special interest of the listed building, and the necessary adaptions would fail to preserve its character and should not be allowed.

Responsible Officer: Graham Thomas (Area Planning Officer)

List of Background Papers

1. Planning Inspectorate Appeal Decision ref: APP/V2255/E/09/2107279/WF

2. Appeal Papers (statements and correspondence)

3. SBC Decisions on Applications SW/08/1215 and SW/08/1216

20 PART 5

5.8 SW/08/0635 Case 03577 – Variation of condition (5) of SW/08/0635. This condition restricts the use of units 1-4 to light industrial uses falling within Class B1(c) and no person, firm or company shall occupy any of the said units other than agreed by the Council - Thunder Hill Farm, Hickman Green, Boughton, Faversham, Kent, ME13 9NT

APPEAL ALLOWED

The Inspector commented as follows:

“Decision 1. I allow the appeal and vary the planning permission No SW/08/0635 for the change of use of, and alterations to, 2 former intensive poultry rearing buildings to create 5 units for use for purposes within Use Class B1(c) Light Industrial or Class B8 Storage and Distribution, and creation of vehicle parking area granted on 05 February 2009 by the Swale Borough Council by deleting Condition No 5 and substituting for it the following condition, as the Appellant proposes:

The use of units 1-4 hereby permitted shall be only as a repository and not for any other use falling within Class B8 and/or for light industrial uses falling within Class B1(c) of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (or for any Order amending, revoking or re-enacting that Order).

Main issue 2. One main issue arises in the determination of this appeal. This is whether the condition in dispute serves a clear planning purpose which is properly related to the development in question and is reasonable in all other respects.

Reasons 3. The appeal site, land edged red on Drawing No 131/01, includes 2 buildings, formerly used for intensive poultry rearing, connected at their northern end by a corridor which serves the toilets. It is the building towards the eastern end of the appeal site, closer to the parking spaces, wherein units 1-4 are proposed. At my inspection, I also entered the neighbouring building to its western side, comprising unit 5. This is used by the Appellant for her hogroast business and for the supply and distribution of new hog-roast machines. The Condition No 5 in dispute does not, however, apply to this part of the land.

4. I have carefully considered this condition in the context of the tests of reasonableness set out in Circular 11/95 The Use of Conditions in Planning Permissions, the current development plan and national planning policies and the particular planning circumstances of the case. The appeal site is in a rural area, approached by a narrow lane of single track width and devoid of street lighting and properly marked footways. It serves several dwellings, including Hickory House which fronts it, and leads towards a track and a footpath, the latter being Continued . . .

21 5.8 (Contd) PART 5 within the appeal site, contrary to what is shown on the above mentioned Drawing. Local residents who have written to the Inspectorate are concerned about the possible increase in traffic generated by units 1-4. It is the Government’s long established policy, however, as set out in Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 7 to support the re-use of appropriately located and suitably constructed existing buildings in the countryside where this would meet sustainable development objectives.

5. These 4 units would not be within the main confines of a village, but they would be in a well constructed building in a group of others of similar size and type. For a building dating from the early 1960s, it appears to be in good condition, no doubt due mainly to the improvements carried out by the Appellant. The units would be of modest size, ranging from no more than 140 sq m (unit 4) to 213 sq m (unit 1). This consideration, together with their restricted internal headroom along each side and the large number of timber roof supports which restrict manoeuvrability, would much reduce their attractiveness to many potential occupiers, and particularly to those requiring large, spacious premises for industrial or warehousing purposes which often generate a good deal of traffic. In these circumstances, I am not persuaded that the existing Condition No 5, with its complete embargo on Class B8 Uses and its requirement for the Council’s written consent concerning prospective occupiers, is necessary. The matters to which the quoted policies apply are relevant to planning, but owing to the considerations outlined above, I do not consider that it is relevant to the development which has been permitted.

6. Physical limitations would make these 4 units attractive only to small businesses unlikely to generate much, if any, more traffic than the existing use of the building. A Class B1(c) Use is one which, by definition, is suitable within any residential area, and Condition No 3 provides that for units 1-5 there shall be no vehicular movements to and from the site outside 07.00-19.00 hrs Monday-Friday, 07.00-13.00 hrs on Saturdays and not at all on Sundays and Bank Holidays. The enforcement of this condition and the restriction of Class B8 uses solely to that of a repository, where the emphasis is on storage rather than distribution, should further limit the generation of traffic. Conditions should be tailored to tackle specific problems but, bearing in mind the modest size of the units of less than 235 sq m, it would be unreasonable and against the general policy of the Circular to prevent any change from a Class B1(c) to a repository. The amount of traffic and noise and other disturbance resulting from these 4 units should not result in serious danger or inconvenience on the public highway or unduly harm the living conditions of neighbours.

7. In theory, I consider that that part of the condition which refers to the written consent of the Council is enforceable, but I suspect that it would require a good deal of monitoring, and maybe place considerable demands upon the Council’s resources, especially as it may have more urgent enforcement priorities. I am therefore not Continued . . .

22 5.8 (Contd) PART 5

convinced about the practicalities of enforcing it. It much resembles an occupancy condition resulting in a system of vetting by the Council. I accept, however, that it is precise in so far that it is not vague, and so can be understood. But I am more concerned about its effect. It is unduly onerous, taking away too much of the benefit of the permission. And so, as the Circular puts it, it is not reasonable in all other respects.

8. The Council says that the demand for the units, subject to the conditions imposed, has not been ascertained by way of a proper marketing exercise. True, but in my opinion the combination of the physical characteristics of the building and the unreasonable degree of control over it which the Council seeks to retain would make the units unattractive to all but the most flexible and undemanding of occupiers. Little if anything can be done about such matters as the restricted height, but in all probability the effect of the condition would be to prevent a suitable, beneficial use of the building, to the disadvantage of local employment prospects and the revitalisation of the rural economy. It contravenes the policy of the Circular that, since planning controls are concerned with the use of land rather than the identity of the user, the question of who is to occupy premises for which permission is to be granted will normally be irrelevant. The circumstances of this case do not outweigh that policy.

9. I conclude, therefore, that the condition in dispute does not serve a clear planning purpose, it is not properly related to the development in question and it is not reasonable in all other respects. The proposed development, with Condition No 5 varied as I have decided, accords with the quoted policies. This varied planning permission which stems from my decision stands alongside the previous permission which the Council granted on 05 February 2009. In the interests of brevity, however, I do not repeat its Conditions 1-4 and 6-11 attached to it or the grounds for them. Nevertheless, they still apply.

10. I have taken into account all the other points raised, but they do not outweigh those planning considerations which have led to my decision.”

Observations

This appeal followed an application to vary a condition that was imposed at Members’ request when approving an application for the change of use of former poultry rearing buildings to small light industrial and storage units. The Inspector did not agree with Members that it was reasonable to limit the use to exclude any storage use, or be as restrictive as to require the details of potential occupants to be agreed in writing by the Council prior to them occupying any unit. The Inspector concluded that it was not practicable to monitor and considered it to be overly onerous, taking away too much of the

Continued . . .

23 5.8 (Contd) PART 5

benefit of the permission and as such should not have been used as it was not reasonable, as required by the conditions circular. The Inspector varied the condition to simply restrict the potential uses and not the occupiers, very much in line with the original recommendation.

Responsible Officer: Graham Thomas (Area Planning Officer)

List of Background Papers

1. Planning Inspectorate Appeal Decision ref: APP/V2255/A/09/2109315/NWF

2. Appeal Papers (statements and correspondence)

3. SBC Decisions on Applications SW/09/0317 & SW/08/0635