Broadway Slip, Pluckley Road, Charing, Kent Design and Access Statement
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Outline Application Submission – Broadway Slip, Pluckley Road, Charing, Kent Design and Access Statement Introduction This document forms part of the outline application submission for the development of the land adjacent to The Old Corn Store, now otherwise known as Broadway Slip, to provide three new dwellings consisting of 2No. detached, three-bedroom chalet bungalows and 1No. two storey detached four-bedroom. The existing site is a dense tree lined strip of land positioned between The Old Corn Store and the Grade II listed Broadway Cottages. The vast majority of these trees are located outside of the site boundary and are believed to either be owned by the Local Authority or the land owners around the site. Existing Site The application site is located on Pluckley Road, Charing, approximately 0.5 miles from the centre of the village. The site is clearly defined with timber post and wire/mesh fencing to all four boundaries and measures approximately 2300 sqm in area. Site access for maintenance is via an existing temporary gate serviced by a drop kerb. The site boundary/gates in this location are set back approximately 4.9m from the edge of Pluckley Road. 1.0 Site Location Plan The application site, which was formerly part of the gardens to The Old Corn Store, has become scrub land in more recent years and is disused by the owners and can reasonably be defined as an infill site with clear definition of the residential curtilages of the adjacent properties continuing across the rear of the proposed development site. 1 Broadway cottages to the north-east of the site are a pair of Grade II listed late 18 th century – early 19 th century cottages, finished with timber weatherboarding and a hipped clay tile roof. However these are approximately 70m from the proposed site boundary and 87m away from the nearest proposed dwelling, therefore the impact on these cottages, especially when considering the density of the boundary trees to this boundary, would be considered minimal. Broadway House is positioned opposite the site and is Grade II listed red brick detached house of early 19 th century origins. The house is located approximately 25m from the development boundary and 34m from the nearest proposed dwelling. Again, the substantial number of trees adjacent to the development boundary would suggest that impact on the Listed Building would be considered minimal. A number of further detached dwellings have been constructed opposite the proposed site, these are largely mid 20 th century properties. Generally, these dwellings are positioned at least 30m for the development site boundary with a further 8m provided between the site boundary and the nearest proposed dwelling. The historic maps below show the early development of the area and gradual development of this area of Pluckley Road and the more recent influx of development from the mid 20th century onwards. 1.1 Map from 1871 – 1890 1.2 Map from 1907 – 1923 2 1.3 Map from 1929 - 1952 The site is located on the north-western side of Pluckley Road just south-west of Charing village. Pluckley Road is a quiet country road leading to the villages of Pluckley and Smarden. The village is well served with local amenities, with a train station and doctors surgery located off Station Road (which becomes Pluckley Road having crossed the railway line leading away from the Charing) with other services such as a primary school, shops, butchers, coffee shop and post office located in the village centre. A tarmac pedestrian footpath and controlled pedestrian crossings are provided between the development site entrace and all the village amenities. Planning Policies The planning policies that are relevant to the proposals, include: Ashford Borough Council - Core Strategy 2008 Tenterden and Rural Sites DPD 2012 National Planning Policy Framework 2012 (NPPF) There is also an emerging planning policy document that could be considered to carry some weight in considering the proposals: Ashford Borough Council Local Plan to 2030 (under review) Tenterden and Rural sites DPD includes policy TRS 1 which addresses minor residential development or in filling and states the following: Policy TRS1 - Minor residential development or infilling Minor development or infilling will be acceptable within the built-up confines of Tenterden and the following villages: Aldington, Appledore, Bethersden, Biddenden, Boughton Lees, Brabourne Lees, Challock, Charing , Chilham, Egerton, Great Chart, Hamstreet, High Halden, Hothfield, Kingsnorth, Mersham, Pluckley, Rolvenden, Shadoxhurst, Smarden, Wittersham, Woodchurch and Wye; providing that the following requirements are met: 3 a) the development can easily be integrated into the existing settlement without the need to substantially improve the infrastructure or other facilities; b) the proposal is of a layout, scale, design and appearance that is appropriate to the character and density of its surrounding area; c) it does not result in the displacement of other active uses such as employment, leisure or community uses in the area; and, d) the proposal would not result in the loss of public or private open spaces or gaps that are important characteristics of the settlement. The proposed development at Broadway slip would clearly meet the criteria described above and provide sympathetic use to an otherwise disused piece of land. A new Local Plan is currently being prepared by Ashford Borough Council to address the accommodation of new homes and jobs within the borough up to 2030. A Regulation 19 version of the emerging Local Plan was published in June 2016 and is currently subject to consultation on the ‘main changes’, which are due to close at the end of August 2017. Whilst it is to be acknowledged that these policies are yet to be adopted, some limited weight can be afforded as a material consideration, as it indicates the councils anticipated direction of travel in the period leading towards 2030. The two relevant polices in the document are provided below and as can be seen, the list of settlements in Policy HOU 4 has been expanded to include Charing Heath. Policy HOU3 - Residential development in Ashford urban area Windfall residential development is acceptable within the built-up confines of Ashford providing that it can be easily integrated into the existing urban area and the development: a) Is of a scale, layout, design and appearance that is appropriate to and is compatible with the character and density of the surrounding area; b) Does not create an adverse significant impact on the amenity of residents; c) Would not result in harm to or the loss of public or private open spaces that contribute positively to the local character of the area (including residential gardens); d) Would not result in significant harm to the surrounding landscape; nearby heritage assets or important biodiversity networks.; e) Is capable of having safe lighting and pedestrian access provided without significant impact on neighbours or on the integrity of the street-scene. Policy HOU4 - Residential Development in the rural settlements Minor residential development and infilling of a scale that can be easily integrated into the existing settlement will be acceptable within the confines of the following settlements, Aldington, Appledore, Appledore Heath, Bethersden, Biddenden, Bilsington, Boughton Lees/Eastwell, Brabourne Lees/Smeeth, Brook, Challock, Charing , Charing Heath, Chilham, Crundale, Egerton, Egerton Forstal, Godmersham, Great Chart, Hamstreet, Hastingleigh, High Halden, Hothfield, Kenardington, Little Chart, Mersham, Molash, Newenden, Old Wives Lees, Pluckley, Pluckley Thorne, Pluckley Station, Rolvenden, Rolvenden Layne, Ruckinge, Shadoxhurst, Shottenden, Smarden, Stone in Oxney, Tenterden (including St Michaels) Warehorne, Westwell, Wittersham, Woodchurch and Wye. providing that the following requirements are met: The proposal adheres to the requirements (a) – (e) of policy HOU3 above; 4 The proposal is able to be safely accessible from the local road network and the traffic generated can be accommodated on the wider road network, The proposal does not need substantial infrastructure or other facilities to support it; The proposal would not displace an active use such as employment, leisure or community facility. The NPPF and Five-Year Housing Land Supply Paragraph 49 of the NPPF states: “Housing applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up-to-date if the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites.” Therefore, where a local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five-year land supply, as has been accepted by Ashford as being the present case, Policy TRS1, in so far as it relates to housing, can be considered to be out of date. In accordance with paragraph 14 of the NPPF the presumption in favour of sustainable development makes clear that where relevant policies in the development plan are out of date, planning permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework as a whole and unless specific policies in the Framework indicate development should be restricted. The emphasis of that statement is clear, and where a plan is out of date means that instead of assessing the simple balance between positive and negative factors, it is only proposals that have adverse effects which significantly outweigh the benefits overall, and which would constitute development that is unsustainable, which should not be granted. The proposal site does not lie within a designated planning area such as an AONB or Green Belt where development is restricted. It is not subject to any nature designations, such as being within an SSSI, and does not contain, and is not in proximity to, any physical constraint such as areas at risk of flooding. As such there are no specific policies within the NPPF which indicate that the development of the site should be restricted.