060109/Eap001 - E1

EASTERN AREA PLANNING COMMITTEE Monday 9 January 2006 at 4.30 pm

Planning Applications likely to be considered

Members of the Eastern Area Planning Committee will decide the following applications. You may attend the Committee Meeting and put your views to the Councillors. A copy of "Your Right to Speak at Planning Meetings" is available on our website or from our Planning Reception.

PAGE APPLICATION DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION DECISION

TW/05/02608 (A) Removal of existing single storey extensions, and 1 – 5 erection of part single storey/part two storey extension. (B) Erection of replacement detached garage. (C) Replacement door canopy.

My Ladys Cottage, The Common, SISSINGHURST

TW/05/02609 (A) Listed Building Consent – Removal of existing single 6 – 8 storey extensions, and erection of part single storey/part two storey extension. (B) Internal alterations. (C) Replacement door canopy.

My Ladys Cottage, The Common, SISSINGHURST

TW/05/02977 Erection of a detached house. 9 – 14

Plot Adjoining, Steeple House, Rogers Rough Road, KILNDOWN

TW/05/02804 Two storey extension. 15 – 19

Cresslands Farm, Knoxbridge, FRITTENDEN

TW/05/2892 Extension to front elevation. 20 – 24

Twin Gables, Bedgebury Road, GOUDHURST

TW/05/02889 Two storey side extension, single storey alterations. 25 - 28

Red Cottage, Rye Road, HAWKHURST

060109/EAP001 - E1 -

EASTERN AREA PLANNING COMMITTEE

Monday 9 January 2006

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF PLANNING SERVICES

PLANNING APPLICATIONS FOR CONSIDERATION

APPLICANT REFERENCE LOCATION PROPOSAL CONTACT ADDRESS DATE VALID GRID REFERENCE DATE OF APPLICATION

MR & MRS N HAMPSHIRE TW/05/02608 My Ladys Cottage (A) Removal of existing (C J Andrews The Common single storey extensions, 3 March Cottages SISSINGHURST and erection of part Mill Lane SI single storey/part two Frittenden storey extension. Cranbrook (B) Erection of Kent replacement detached TN17 2DR) garage. (C) Replacement door canopy.

06/10/05 578992/138652 06/10/05

DESCRIPTION

The property is a Grade II listed detached house, located on the main A229 road between Cranbrook and Staplehurst.

In the garden there is the separate Grade II listed tomb of Lady Sanderson, erected circa 1817. Lady Sanderson was the wife of the non-conformist preacher Rev. William Huntington, who is associated with the Providence Chapel in Cranbrook.

The house was built in 1809 as a three bedroom simple plan form two storey dwelling with a regular two bay front. It is built predominantly in red and blue brick chequer with red brick dressings but with tile hanging at first floor to the rear.

Over the years a number of single storey extensions have been built at the rear including a lean-to cedar conservatory, a mono-pitched asbestos roofed garage and a single storey flat roofed extension. It is proposed that all these rear additions will be demolished. In addition a detached sectional pre-cast concrete garage in the rear garden will also be demolished.

The application is in three parts:

Part A

At the rear of the property the various single storey extensions will be demolished and a two storey extension will be built 4.5 metres from the house to provide a master bedroom with ensuite bathroom over a garden room. The footprint is 6.5 metres x 4 metres.

Between this extension and the main house a ground floor link extension will be provided for part dining room, part conservatory/breakfast room. This will all be in white timber weatherboard, with peg tile roof but the breakfast room/conservatory will be all double glazed glass.

060109/EAP001 - E2 -

Above this ground floor link extension will be a first floor link corridor to the master bedroom with a lantern feature in the peg tile roof. The present first floor wc will be used as a way through to the link and master bedroom.

The increase in volume would be:

Volume of existing house Volume of resulting house % Increase

570.6 m3 651 m3 14%

Part B

A new two bay garage constructed of brick and with a peg tile roof will be built on the site of the pre-cast concrete garage. The brick will be laid in Flemish bond to match the house.

The roof space will be used as a store, with access by an external staircase.

Part C

The attractive canopy over the front door needs repair and an identical lead roof canopy is proposed. Also it is intended to replace the composite plywood construction support brackets with a new welded lattice metal frame of an appropriate Georgian design.

This application (and the related listed building application TW/05/02609) is referred to Committee at the request of a Member.

RELEVANT HISTORY

WE/5/59/63 – One room addition – Approved.

TW/90/00113 – Conservatory – Approved.

TW/90/00114 – Listed Building Consent – Conservatory – Approved.

POLICIES

1. Kent Structure Plan 1996

- Policy ENV4 – Protection of High Weald Special Landscape Area. - Policy ENV19 – Listed Buildings. - Policy RS1 – Criteria for development at villages, rural settlements and countryside. - Policy RS5 – New development in rural Kent.

2. Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan Adopted 1996

- Policy LBD1 – Development outside the Limits to Built Development. - Policy EN1 – Development Control criteria. - Policy EN3 – Alteration to Buildings of Architectural and Historic Importance. - Policy EN23 – Landscape protection. - Policy H13 – Extensions to dwellings outside the Limits to Built Development.

3. Kent and Medway Structure Plan (as proposed to be amended) September 2004

- Policy E5 – Special Landscape Areas. - Policy QL1 – Quality of development and design. - Policy QL9 – Buildings of Architectural or Historic Importance. - Policy HP6 – Housing development in the countryside.

060109/EAP001 - E3 -

4. Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan Review – Proposed Modifications, October 2005

- Policy LBD1 – Development outside the Limits to Built Development. - Policy EN1 – Development Control criteria. - Policy EN3 – Alteration to Buildings of Architectural and Historic Importance. - Policy EN25 – Landscape Protection. - Policy EN27 – Special Landscape Areas. - Policy H11 – Extensions to dwellings outside the Limits to Built Development.

CONSULTATIONS AND BACKGROUND PAPERS

1. Cranbrook Parish Council

21/10/05 – Recommend approval.

2. KCC Archaeological Officer

13/10/05 – The application site lies adjacent to the line of the Roman road from Maidstone to Hastings. However, the level of impact from the proposed development is likely to be minor.

APPRAISAL

There is no objection to the demolition of the various elements at the rear of the building, which although part of the listed building, are not an important part of the original Georgian plan form. The proposed extension is also considered to be modest in terms of Adopted Local Plan Policy H13.

The main area of concern is the impact of the various parts of the proposal on the character and setting of the listed building.

Part A – The part single storey/part two storey extension

The existing modern extensions, although they are not particularly satisfactory additions, are single storey, ad-hoc and informal and do not dominate the original building.

It would enhance the listed building to remove the unfortunately designed cedar conservatory and the attached single garage in the garden.

However, although the new extensions are predominantly on the footprint of these demolished extensions, they will incorporate significant two storey elements, namely the new master bedroom and ensuite and the link at first floor level.

The height of these extensions would be below the ridge height of the main house but they are a substantial addition in terms of floor area and bulk and could not be said to be subordinate to the original building. In my view they will distort the original Georgian plan form and significantly harm the appearance of the rear part of the listed building.

The proposal would be a ‘formal’ extension taken along the same side building lines as existing, unlike the existing ad-hoc informal additions at the rear.

This extension and link is the major part of this application and in my view it will cause harm to the appearance of the listed building by virtue of its bulk, height and overall appearance. I do not consider it to be an appropriate addition to this listed building, not withstanding the benefit of removing the existing ad-hoc extensions at the rear.

Part B – Detached two bay garage

The replacement garage is some 12 metres from the main house and on the site of an existing garage. It has been reduced in size following pre application discussions and I now have no objection to it. It is of an appropriate size and is of a traditional design in keeping with the setting of this listed building.

060109/EAP001 - E4 -

Part C – Replacement front door canopy

There is no objection to the frame on either side porch canopy being reinstated and a new lead roof canopy being installed to match existing.

There is evidence from mortice housing left in the existing stone step that a light supporting structure existed originally to support the canopy on either side of the doorway and from evidence of an old paint line on the existing brickwork.

The proposed design and materials are appropriate.

CONCLUSION

In view of my serious concerns in regard to Part A of the proposal my recommendation is that the application cannot be supported. The new extension will tend to dominate the main building and compromise the listed building to an unacceptable degree.

RECOMMENDATION – REFUSE FOR THE FOLLOWING REASON:

(1) The proposed extension, by reason of its scale, form and massing, would be over-dominant, and as such would have a detrimental impact on the special character of the listed building. It would, therefore, be contrary to Policy ENV19 of the Kent Structure Plan 1996, Policy EN3 of the Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan Adopted 1996, Policy QL9 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan (as proposed to be amended) September 2004, and Policy EN3 of the Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan Review, Proposed Modifications, October 2005.

PLANS

The following plans are the subject of the recommendation above: Drawing Nos. 24-28-SK215, 24-28-01, 24-28-02, 24-28-03, 24-28-04, 24-28-05, 24-28-06, 24-28-07, 24-28-SK205, 24-28-SK206, 24-28-SK207, 24-28-SK208, 24-28- SK209, 24-28-SK210, 24-28-SK211, 24-28-SK212, 24-28-SK213A and 24-28-SK214.

Reference: CLC/TN

060109/EAP001 060109/EAP001 - E6 -

APPLICANT REFERENCE LOCATION PROPOSAL

CONTACT ADDRESS DATE VALID GRID REFERENCE DATE OF APPLICATION

MR & MRS N HAMPSHIRE TW/05/02609 My Ladys Cottage (A) Listed Building (C J Andrews The Common Consent – Removal of 3 March Cottages SISSINGHURST existing single storey Mill Lane SI extensions, and erection Frittenden of part single storey/part Cranbrook two storey extension. Kent (B) Internal alterations. TN17 2DR) (C) Replacement door canopy.

06/10/05 578992/138652 06/10/05

DESCRIPTION

The building is Grade II listed with a date of 1809 and the proposal is described in more detail in my previous report on application TW/05/02608.

The proposed internal alterations are to use the present first floor wc as the way through to the new first floor master bedroom.

No other alterations are proposed to the original Georgian house, but as noted in my report on application TW/05/02608 the main part of the proposal is the new part single storey/part two storey extension at the rear.

RELEVANT HISTORY

WE/5/59/63 – One room addition – Approved.

TW/90/00113/FUL – Conservatory – Approved.

TW/90/00114/LBC – Listed Building Consent – Conservatory – Approved.

POLICIES

1. Kent Structure Plan 1996

- Policy ENV19 – Listed Buildings.

2. Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan Adopted 1996

- Policy EN1 – Development Control criteria. - Policy EN3 – Alteration to Buildings of Architectural and Historic Importance.

3. Kent and Medway Structure Plan (as proposed to be amended) September 2004

- Policy QL9 – Buildings of Architectural or Historic Importance.

4. Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan Review – Proposed Modifications, October 2005

- Policy EN3 – Alteration to Buildings of Architectural and Historic Importance.

060109/EAP001 - E7 -

CONSULTATIONS AND BACKGROUND PAPERS

1. Cranbrook Parish Council

21/10/05 – Recommend approval.

2. KCC Archaeological Officer

13/10/05 – The application site lies adjacent to the line of the Roman road from Maidstone to Hastings. However, the level of impact from the proposed development is likely to be minor.

APPRAISAL

The conclusions reached in the previous report on the planning application TW/05/02608 set out my concerns for the impact of the proposed extension on the special character and setting of the listed building. There is however no objection to the internal alterations or to the replacement front door canopy.

RECOMMENDATION – REFUSE FOR THE FOLLOWING REASON:

(1) The proposed extension, by reason of its scale, form and massing, would be over-dominant, and as such would have a detrimental impact on the special character of the listed building. It would, therefore, be contrary to Policy ENV19 of the Kent Structure Plan 1996, Policies EN1 and EN3 of the Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan Adopted 1996, Policies QL1 and QL9 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan (as proposed to be amended) September 2004, and Policies EN1 and EN3 of the Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan Review, Proposed Modifications, October 2005.

PLANS

Reference: CLC/TN

060109/EAP001 060109/EAP001 - E9 -

APPLICANT REFERENCE LOCATION PROPOSAL CONTACT ADDRESS DATE VALID GRID REFERENCE DATE OF APPLICATION

TEAL CONSTRUCTION TW/05/02977 Plot Adjoining Erection of a detached DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED Steeple House house. (ASP Rogers Rough Road Old Bank Chambers KILNDOWN London Road GO Crowborough Sussex TN6 2TT) 14/11/05 570067/135248 14/11/05

DESCRIPTION

The application site is a triangular plot of undeveloped land in Kilndown village. It has a frontage of 21 metres to the highway, Rogers Rough Road, but narrows to 6 metres at the rear of the plot.

The land slopes up from the level of the highway, with the rear of the plot some 2 metres above road level.

The proposal is to build a three bedroom house, excavating the ground so that the house will be on a finished slab level 0.35 metres above the road level.

The design of the dwelling incorporates a tall central chimney, steeply pitched clay tile roof with three dormers on the front elevation, incorporating bargeboards. The elevations would be part brick, part tile hanging.

No garage is proposed, but there would be parking and an on-site turning area, behind a 1 metre high bank retained along the front boundary.

Vehicular access would be at the northwest corner of the site 3 metres from the northwest boundary with the property “Pondside Cottage”.

The application is accompanied by a Highway Engineers report, which points out that visibility standards are advisory and in this case a material consideration is:

- The slow speed of vehicles passing the site.

- The very low volumes of traffic using the rural lane.

- The fact other plots in the vicinity have been granted planning permission with limited visibility.

The application is referred to Committee at the request of the Parish Council.

RELEVANT HISTORY

TW/77/00612 – Outline dwelling. Refused 27/09/77.

TW/00/01588 – Detached house and garage. Refused 18/10/00.

TW/01/02512 – Four bedroom dwelling. Refused 28/03/02.

TW/03/01692 – Detached dwelling. Refused 13/08/03.

TW/04/00094 – Detached dwelling. Refused 22/05/04. Appeal dismissed 12/01/05.

Inspector concluded:

060109/EAP001 - E10 -

- The drawings are wrong in that they show a level site and do not give me confidence the levels on site have been appreciated. As a result building will have a substantial and harmful impact on the Conservation Area and setting of listed buildings.

- The design is disrespectful of the special architectural or historic qualities of the Conservation Area.

- Will be a loss of open space which at present forms part of the view of two listed buildings. Whilst an acceptable development would affect the openness of the site, the width and siting of the proposal would almost entirely eradicate any sense of openness and would harm the setting of two important listed buildings.

- Whilst there could be some loss of privacy to neighbours this could be dealt with by condition.

- Proposal is considerably below Highway Authority’s acceptable standard for safe and suitable visibility at the access. Is no means shown which would achieve an acceptable visibility splay on the appellant’s land.

POLICIES

1. Kent Structure Plan 1996

- Policy ENV3 – Protection for Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. - Policy ENV4 – Protection for Special Landscape Area. - Policy ENV17 – Conservation Areas. - Policy ENV19 – Setting of listed buildings. - Policy RS1 – Criteria for development at villages, rural settlements and countryside. - Policy RS2 – Residential development at rural settlements. - Policy T17 – County parking standards.

2. Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan Adopted 1996

- Policy EN1 – Development control criteria. - Policy EN3 – Setting of listed buildings. - Policy EN5 – Development within, or affecting the character of, a Conservation Area. - Policy EN23 – Landscape protection. - Policy H9 – Housing within the Limits to Built Development. - Policy TP1 – Vehicle access. - Policy VP1 – Vehicle parking standards.

3. Kent and Medway Structure Plan (as proposed to be amended) September 2004

- Policy E4 – Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty and the Heritage Coast. - Policy E5 – Special Landscape Areas. - Policy QL1 – Quality of development and design. - Policy QL7 – Conservation Areas. - Policy QL9 – Setting of listed buildings. - Policy TP19 – Vehicle parking standards.

4. Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan Review – Proposed Modifications October 2005

- Policy EN1 – Development control criteria. - Policy EN3 – Setting of listed buildings. - Policy EN5 – Development within, or affecting the character of, a Conservation Area. - Policy EN26 – High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. - Policy H5 – Residential development within Limits to Built Development. - Policy TP4 – Access to the road network. - Policy TP5 – Vehicle parking standards.

5. Kilndown Conservation Area Appraisal Adopted July 2005

060109/EAP001 - E11 -

CONSULTATIONS AND BACKGROUND PAPERS

1. Kent Highway Services

23/11/05 – The drawings do not show the visibility splays. No details are given of gradients and although the Highway Consultant’s report suggests an access should be in the middle of the site, the submitted drawings show a proposed access at one side of the plot. Until proper information is submitted I cannot make a recommendation.

09/12/05 – The letter of 2 December from agent does not help. First I do not accept that the splays claimed in the Highway Consultant’s report can actually be achieved.

Secondly, it is for the applicant to show on a plan they can provide the visibility splays and this they have not done. In the absence of proper accurate information I recommend refusal on the grounds of highway safety being adversely affected, as per ground 3 of the previous application TW/04/00946.

2. Goudhurst Parish Council

04/12/05 – Recommend approval. The new scheme answers Goudhurst Parish Council’s reservations which previous plans on TW/04/00946 engendered.

The appeal inspector did not rule out development of this site.

This scheme answers criticisms of the scheme, which was refused on appeal, in terms of local context, respect for the Conservation Area and impact on listed buildings. In highway terms it is no worse than the recently approved Steeple House to the immediate southeast. Other issues can be controlled by conditions.

3. English Heritage

21/11/05 – Do not wish to offer any comments on this occasion.

4. Letter from owner of site

02/12/05 – From what I can see everything you have asked for has been addressed and permission should be granted.

Proposal will give area charm and tranquillity and compliment the church and old school.

Building has been lowered and will not impact on these listed buildings.

Access to road is perfectly safe – are good sight lines in either direction.

5. E-mail from resident in Cheshire

25/11/05 – No objection. Is a pleasing building which takes into account all previous concerns of the Borough Council. The three joint owners of plot are all age 70 plus and have lived in village all of their lives and this infill building plot is their “pension pot” – the last remaining building plot in the village.

The objectors may all live adjoining the plot but their comments are in form of “nimbyism” and are “new” villagers.

6. Private

Four letters of objection from adjoining properties.

- Development of this small plot will be very prominent, this is a small open space which adds to character and appearance of Conservation Area by being open.

- Proposal is over intensive. Bulk of building too large. Will not enhance Conservation Area.

060109/EAP001 - E12 -

- Two storey house will overshadow their garden for much of day and windows will overlook.

- Plans do not show how safe sight lines can be provided. A wall, hedge and trees restricts views to south and north.

- Will take away last remaining view of Grade I church and Grade II old school.

- Excavations and lowering of ground levels will cause damage to neighbouring properties on the boundaries. Will also create problems as ground water levels will change. Proposal to excavate site to a depth of 4.5 feet is problematical – will need to be substantial retaining wall. Area already suffers from inadequate surface water drainage and these proposed further excavations will increase the problem.

APPRAISAL

The main issues are as identified in the previous Appeal Inspectors Report of 12 January 2005.

Impact on the Conservation Area and setting of listed buildings

An important consideration in determining this application is the character of the surrounding area, which is part of the designated Conservation Area. In particular, it should be noted the open character of the site allows views of the Grade II listed former 19th century village primary school building and the grade I listed parish church. This is described in the Conservation Area Appraisal as “the principal and defining building in the character area, a neo- gothic design by Anthony Salvin”.

The application site is the only public view point of these two buildings from Rogers Rough Road, described in the Conservation Area Appraisal as “an old track now flanked by large residential plots and now occupied by a mix of houses of different dates”.

The Appraisal describes the application site as “an area that has all the appearance of wasteland with development aspirations. Currently this detracts from the character of the village”.

I agree with the previous Inspector who said “this openness is an important part of the character of the Conservation Area and its loss almost in its entirety would be unacceptable. Furthermore even if the building were to be cut into the site, there would still be a very prominent mass of building in the street scene across much of the width of the site, and its effect would in consequence be similarly harmful”.

The views of the Parish Church and former Primary School are important and I consider that to build a three bedroom dwelling on the site would significantly harm this open character. This proposal does not overcome the concerns expressed in the previous appeal decision.

Design

The design would employ materials characteristic of the village and the development reflects the local architectural style of traditional houses in the village.

However, I consider that the two storey side extension, set back, creates an awkward appearance; particularly when viewed in the context of the tall flank end elevation on the other side of the building.

Highway Safety

The application is accompanied by a detailed Highway Engineering Consultant’s report, which following detailed surveys, concludes that little traffic uses this lane and that traffic speeds are low (below 25 mph).

The applicants suggest that splays of 53 metres to the northeast and 32 metres to the southwest are available.

However, the submitted drawings do not fully indicate exactly what visibility splays are achievable. The neighbours on either side of the plot have full boundary hedges to the highway edge. Members also need to note. There are no footways on either side of the road.

060109/EAP001 - E13 -

The conclusion of Kent Highways is that there are still concerns that it has not been shown an adequate safe access can be provided with adequate visibility splays in both directions.

Residential Amenity

I agree with the appeal Inspector that issues raised by neighbours as regards privacy and overlooking can be dealt with by condition and they are not grounds to refuse the application.

Other Maters

There are concerns that excavating the site will affect drainage patterns and may cause damage to adjacent properties.

I do not consider these are issues that give rise to any grounds to refuse the application. It is noted that a considerable amount of excavation of the site is proposed to enable the slab level of the house to be built near the level of the highway. This has sought to address one of the issues raised by the appeal Inspector’s report.

RECOMMENDATION – REFUSE FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS:

(1) The proposal would not preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Kilndown Conservation Area, and would have an adverse impact upon the setting of Listed Buildings contrary to Policies ENV17 and ENV19 of the Kent Structure Plan 1996, Policies EN3 and EN5 of the Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan Adopted 1996, Policies QL7 and QL9 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan – Deposit Plan September 2003 and Policies EN3 and EN5 of the Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan Review Proposed Modifications, October 2005.

(2) The proposal, by virtue of its size and siting does not respect the context of the site and will result in a development which would result in the loss of an open space important to the character of the area. As such, it is considered that this proposal is contrary to Policy RS1 of the Kent Structure Plan 1996 and to the criteria set out in Policy EN1 of the Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan Adopted 1996 and Policy EN1 of the Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan Review, October 2005.

(3) It has not been shown that a suitable and safely located access can be provided with adequate visibility splays in either direction on land within the control of the applicant. The proposal would therefore be detrimental to highway safety, contrary to Policies EN1 and TP1 of the Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan Adopted 1996 and Policies EN1 and TP4 of the Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan Review, Proposed Modifications October 2005.

PLANS

The following plans are the subject of the recommendation above: Two elevations drawings; 10R14; 11R14; 14R14; Levels Job Ref 5127 and Stirling Maynard Report.

Reference: AJB/TN

060109/EAP001 060109/EAP001 - E15 -

APPLICANT REFERENCE LOCATION PROPOSAL CONTACT ADDRESS DATE VALID GRID REFERENCE DATE OF APPLICATION

MR & MRS GILBERT TW/05/02804 Cresslands Farm Two storey extension. (Chris Saunders Associates) Knoxbridge First Floor Suite FRITTENDEN 49 High Street FR Cranbrook Kent TN17 3EE 26/10/05 579054/140266 26/10/05

DESCRIPTION

The property is a single storey three bedroom bungalow converted from a former store building. It is outside the Limits to Built Development in an area of sporadic housing development fronting the main A229 road to Maidstone. The bungalow is 25 metres from the main road, set down behind a tall hedge and is not visible from any position outside the site.

Access to the bungalow is at the rear through a yard and buildings in commercial use.

The proposal is to add a single storey extension with a floor area 5 metres x 8 metres for a new kitchen and to construct three bedrooms in the roof space. This will involve raising the ridge height by 1 metre and substantially altering the appearance of the roof as the new bedrooms will require the installation of dormer windows in the roof. A balcony is also proposed on the side elevation, overlooking the garden.

The increase in volume is as follows:

Volume of existing Volume of proposed Volume of extension % Increase house house

425m3 693m3 268m3 62%

The application is referred to Committee at the request of Frittenden Parish Council.

RELEVANT HISTORY

WE/5/73/00313 – Conversion of building to dwelling. Approved 12/02/74.

TW/05/00104/CEU – Certificate of Lawful Development (Existing) – Non compliance with agricultural occupancy condition. Granted 10/03/05.

TW/05/01830 – Replacement sewage treatment plant. Approved 18/08/05.

POLICIES

1. Kent Structure Plan 1996

- Policy ENV4 – Protection for Special Landscape Areas. - Policy RS1 – Criteria for development at villages, rural settlements and countryside. - Policy RS5 – New development in rural Kent.

2. Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan Adopted 1996

- Policy LBD1 – Development outside the Limits to Built Development.

060109/EAP001 - E16 -

- Policy EN1 – Development Control criteria. - Policy EN23 – Landscape protection. - Policy H13 – Extensions to dwellings outside the Limits to Built Development.

3. Kent and Medway Structure Plan (as proposed to be amended) September 2004

- Policy E5 – Special Landscape Areas. - Policy QL1 – Quality of development and design. - Policy HP6 – Housing development in the countryside.

4. Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan Review – Proposed Modifications, October 2005

- Policy LBD1 – Development outside the Limits to Built Development. - Policy EN1 – Development Control criteria. - Policy EN27 – Special Landscape Areas. - Policy H11 – Extensions to dwellings outside the Limits to Built Development.

CONSULTATIONS AND BACKGROUND PAPERS

1. Frittenden Parish Council

17/11/05 – Recommend refusal on the following grounds:

- Over intensification of the site.

- It completely changes the character of the building.

APPRAISAL

The main issues are:

- Is the scale/size of the proposal a modest extension and appropriate design in accordance with Local Plan Policy H13?

- Would there be a detrimental impact on the character of the surrounding High Weald Area Special Landscape Area.

Policy H13

I note the Parish Council view that by constructing three bedrooms in the roof space and raising its height and appearance it will completely change the character of the bungalow. Nevertheless I consider that the proposal is of an appropriate design and is similar to other cases where bungalows have had built bedroom extensions in the roof space.

The proposal has also been amended to incorporate a hipped roof to lessen the volume and impact of the extension of the roof space.

On balance, notwithstanding the fact that the increase in volume exceeds that which is normally acceptable, I consider that the proposal can be regarded as a modest extension in terms of Policy H13.

Landscape Impact

The property sits below the level of the road in a very well screened site. The proposal will have no impact on the rural character of the area. It also has to be noted that the adjoining land owned by the applicant contains a number of large buildings in commercial B1 Use and the area is not in an area of attractive open countryside. There will thus be no significant impact on the character of the wider rural landscape.

SUMMARY

The following is a summary of the main reasons for the recommendation:

060109/EAP001 - E17 -

- The development would be a modest extension to the existing dwelling which would be satisfactory in this rural location.

- The scale and design of the development would not have any adverse impact on the character and appearance of the Special Landscape Area.

RECOMMENDATION – APPROVE SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:

(1) Standard detailed 3 years YZ04.

(2) Materials as specified D014.

PLANS

The following plans are the subject of the recommendation above: Drawing No. 0967/2A.

Reference: CLC/TN

060109/EAP001 060109/EAP001 060109/EAP001 - E20 -

APPLICANT REFERENCE LOCATION PROPOSAL CONTACT ADDRESS DATE VALID GRID REFERENCE DATE OF APPLICATION

MR & MRS TOLLIDAY TW/05/02892 Twin Gables Extension to front (Chris Saunders Associates Bedgebury Road elevation. First Floor Suite GOUDHURST 49 High Street GO Cranbrook Kent TN17 3EE) 03/11/05 572528/137162 03/11/05

DESCRIPTION

The property is a large detached house located outside the Limits to Built Development in a rural area south of Goudhurst. It is one of a group of four built in about 1989, as replacement dwellings on the site of former agricultural buildings. The proposal is for a part two storey/part single storey extension across the front elevation of the property. The extension would provide a playroom, snug and entrance/dining hall on the ground floor and two bedrooms with ensuite shower rooms on the first floor.

Volume of existing Volume of resulting Additional volume % Increase house house

788.4 m3 1177.4 m3 389 m3 49%

The application is referred to Committee at the request of Goudhurst Parish Council.

RELEVANT HISTORY

TW/01/00268/FUL – Two storey side extension and alterations – Approved 22/01/01. Not built.

TW/05/02140/FUL – Extension to front elevation, convert existing garage to gym and double garage – Refused 05/10/05.

POLICIES

1. Kent Structure Plan 1996

- Policy ENV3 – Protection for Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty. - Policy ENV4 – Protection for Special Landscape Areas. - Policy RS1 – Criteria for development at villages, rural settlements and countryside. - Policy RS5 – New development in rural Kent.

2. Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan Adopted 1996

- Policy LBD1 – Development outside the Limits to Built Development. - Policy EN1 – Development control criteria. - Policy EN23 – Landscape Protection. - Policy H13 – Extensions to dwellings outside the Limits to Built Development.

3. Kent and Medway Structure Plan (as proposed to be amended) September 2004

- Policy E4 – Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty and the Heritage Coast. - Policy E5 – Special Landscape Areas. - Policy QL1 – Quality of development and design.

060109/EAP001 - E21 -

- Policy HP6 – Housing development in the countryside.

4. Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan Review – Proposed Modifications, October 2005

- Policy LBD1 – Development outside the Limits to Built Development. - Policy EN1 – Development control criteria. - Policy EN25 – Landscape Protection. - Policy EN26 – High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. - Policy H11 – Extensions to dwellings outside the Limits to Built Development.

CONSULTATIONS AND BACKGROUND PAPERS

1. Goudhurst Parish Council

18/11/05 – Recommend refusal – Goudhurst Parish Council is pleased to note the deletion of the new garage building but remains concerned at the precedent which approval of this extension will set. Unlike the 2001 approved scheme this proposal will not be read as an extension but will increase considerably the size of an already large house.

2. Private

One letter of objection.

- Do not consider it overcomes reasons for refusal on previous application TW/05/02140.

- Extension will detract from character and appearance of the dwelling.

- Is not of an appropriate scale in High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, house already a substantial property.

APPRAISAL

The main issues are:

- Is the scale/size of the proposal a modest extension, in accordance with Local Plan Policy H13?

- Would there be a detrimental impact on the character of the surrounding High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty landscape?

It also has to be taken into account that permission was granted in 2001 to build a two storey side extension, and that this is an alternative to that permission.

Policy H13

This is already a large dwelling and there will be a significant increase in volume of some 389 m3, which exceeds the guideline maximum of 250 m3 referred to in the Local Plan. Nevertheless, the extension does not exceed 50% and is split into two wings on the front elevation thus reducing its impact. I do not consider they will adversely affect the character of the area nor will they dominate the existing dwelling.

Although these are large extensions, they are well related to the design of the original house and would not be over-dominant.

I thus conclude that the proposal can be said to comply with Policy H13 of the Local Plan.

060109/EAP001 - E22 -

Landscape Impact

The property sits within a large curtilage, and the large spaces between it and the neighbouring properties would be maintained. The site is well screened from the north, and so the extended property would not be an intrusive feature in the landscape. There is a detached two bay garage in the front of the dwelling, and this new proposal will not project forward of the garage block. It is considered, therefore that this proposal would not be harmful to the character of the locality.

SUMMARY

The following is a summary of the main reasons for the recommendation:

- The development would be a modest extension to the existing dwelling which would be satisfactory in this rural location.

- The scale, location and design of the development would preserve the character and appearance of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and Kent Special Landscape Area.

RECOMMENDATION – APPROVE SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:

(1) Standard detailed 3 years YZ04.

(2) Materials to match existing D002.

(3) Duplication G001 .

PLANS

The following plans are the subject of the recommendation above: Drawing Nos. 0935/1, 0935/2 and 0935/3.

Reference: CLC/TN

060109/EAP001 060109/EAP001 060109/EAP001 - E25 -

APPLICANT REFERENCE LOCATION PROPOSAL CONTACT ADDRESS DATE VALID GRID REFERENCE DATE OF APPLICATION

MRS CROUCH TW/05/02889 Red Cottage Two storey side (John Bullock Design Rye Road extension, single storey 11-13 High Street HAWKHURST alterations. Tunbridge Wells HA Kent TN1 1UL) 14/11/05 576276/130488 07/11/05

DESCRIPTION

The property is a detached house located within the Limits to Built Development in central Hawkhurst in a row of detached houses. There are three elements to the proposal:

- The demolition of the existing attached single garage and the erection of a two-storey side extension to provide an enlarged sitting room and a breakfast room on the ground floor and a bedroom and en-suite bathroom on the first floor.

- The erection of a single storey rear extension to provide a utility room, wc and conservatory, with the addition of a new roof on an existing single storey extension.

- The erection of a single storey front extension to provide a wc and a covered porch.

The application is referred to Committee at the request of Hawkhurst Parish Council.

RELEVANT HISTORY

None

POLICIES

1. Kent Structure Plan 1996

2. Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan Adopted 1996

- Policy EN1 – Development Control criteria. - Policy EN23 – Landscape protection.

3. Kent and Medway Structure Plan (as proposed to be amended) September 2004

- Policy E4 – Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty and the Heritage Coast. - Policy E5 – Special Landscape Areas. - Policy QL1 – Quality of development and design.

4. Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan Review – Proposed Modifications, October 2005

- Policy EN1 – Development Control criteria. - Policy EN25 – Development control criteria for all development proposals affecting the rural landscape. - Policy EN26 – High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

060109/EAP001 - E26 -

CONSULTATIONS AND BACKGROUND PAPERS

1. Hawkhurst Parish Council

06/12/05 – Recommendation: Against. Members were concerned regarding the overall size which could result in loss of privacy to the adjacent property. The proximity of the extension could have an effect introducing a terrace like appearance with the adjacent property.

2. Private

One letter of objection.

- A two-storey extension on the boundary line would be visually overbearing.

- The extension would fill in the gap and create a terraced appearance.

- Loss of daylight/sunlight to bedroom and reception room.

- Loss of privacy to rear garden.

APPRAISAL

The main issue is the impact of the proposal on the amenities of the locality, in particular the amenities of the neighbouring property.

I do not consider that the side extension would create a terrace effect as the property is on a generous plot. There will be a gap of 0.5m to the boundary, and the neighbouring property is only single storey next to the boundary with the application site. Moreover the properties are set well back, by some 35 metres, from the Rye Road frontage.

Although there are two windows in the side elevation of the two storey extension on the boundary, they will be obscure glazed and fixed shut. In addition, I do not consider that there will be a significant loss of daylight or sunlight to the neighbouring properties as both rooms mentioned are also served by windows in other elevations.

SUMMARY

The following is a summary of the main reasons for the recommendation:

- The development would respect the context of the site and would not be harmful to the street scene.

- The development would not be harmful to the residential amenities of nearby dwellings.

RECOMMENDATION – APPROVE SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:

(1) Standard Detailed 3 years YZ04.

(2) Materials to match existing D002.

(3) No windows to be inserted in elevation D016 .

(4) Obscure glass R003 .

(5) The off-road parking spaces shall hereafter be used for no other purpose than the parking of vehicles, and shall be retained for the use of the occupiers of, and visitors to, the premises.

Reason: Development without provision of adequate accommodation for the parking of vehicles is likely to lead to parking inconvenient to other road users and detrimental to amenity in accordance with Policy VP1 of the Local Plan.

060109/EAP001 - E27 -

PLANS

The following plans are the subject of the recommendation above: Existing Floor Plans and Elevations, Proposed Floor Plans and Elevations.

Reference: CLC/TN

060109/EAP001 060109/EAP001