Swale Borough Council Planning Services

SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL

PLANNING SERVICES

Planning Items to be submitted to the Planning Committee

17 JULY 2008

Standard Index to Contents

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

PART 2 Applications for which permission is recommended

PART 3 Applications for which refusal is recommended

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

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

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

ABBREVIATIONS: commonly used in this Agenda

CDA Crime and Disorder Act 1998

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

HRA Human Rights Act 1998

K&MSP Kent and Medway Structure Plan 2006

SBLP Swale Borough Local Plan 2008

INDEX OF ITEMS FOR PLANNING COMMITTEE – 17 JULY 2008

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

1.1 Planning Enforcement Report Pgs 1

1.2 Monitoring of Section 106 Agreements Pgs 2 - 12

2.1 DODDINGTON SW/08/0291 Swale View, Lady Margaret Pgs 1 – 6 Manor Road

2.2 BORDEN SW/08/0464 Hooks Hole Farm, Chestnut Pgs 7 – 12 Street

2.3 HERNHILL SW/08/0358 Duke of Kent Public House, Pgs 13 – 34 Thanet Way

2.4 FAVERSHAM SW/08/0507 22 Union Street Pgs 35 – 37

2.5 LYNSTED SW/08/0457 17 St Pauls Court Pgs 38 – 40

2.6 HERNHILL SW/08/0450 Chudley House, Plum Pudding Pgs 41 – 44 Lane, Dargate

2.7 DUNKIRK SW/08/0463 Land at Dunkirk Filling Station, Pgs 45 – 55 London Road

2.8 FAVERSHAM SW/07/1473 Faversham Foundry, Seager Road Pgs 56 – 84

2.9 & 2.10 FAVERSHAM SW/08/0583 & Davington Priory, Priory Road Pgs 85 – 92 SW/08/0584

2.11 WARDEN SW/08/0044 Thorn Hill Lodge, Thorn Hill Road Pgs 93 – 106

2.12 UPCHURCH SW/08/0422 Land of Small Profits Orchard, Pgs 107 – 112 Crozier Court

3.1 FAVERSHAM SW/08/0427 8 Preston Grove Pgs 1 – 4

4.1 QUEENBOROUGH SW/07/1184 Land to the corner of Rushenden Pgs 1 – 14 Road and First Avenue

4.2 LEYSDOWN SW/07/1271 Corner of Leysdown Road/ Pgs 15 – 27 Warden Bay Road

5.1 BORDEN ENF/07/023 Woodgate Oast, Woodgate Pgs 1 – 5 (C11412) Lane

5.2 SITTINGBOURNE ENF/07/022 34 Burley Road Pgs 6 – 9 (C22769)

5.3 SITTINGBOURNE SW/07/1272 43 Epps Road Pgs 10 – 12 (C14303)

5.4 STALISFIELD SW/07/1229 The Old Oast, Cherry Tree Pgs 13 – 15 (C14303) Farm, Stalisfield Rd

5.5 STALISFIELD SW/07/0898 Belvedere, Stalisfield Rd Pgs 16 – 18 (C08310)

5.6 LYNSTED ENF/07/028 Ashley, Cellar Hill, Pgs 19 – 27 (C08310)

5.7 BOUGHTON SW/07/0206 205 The Street Pgs 28 – 31 (C09230)

5.8 IWADE SW/07/1463 Land adjoining 50 Sheerstone Pgs 32 – 33

5.9 MINSTER ENF/07/039 Ripney Farm, Marian Avenue Pgs 34 – 37

5.10 RAINHAM C23022 8 Littlefield Road Pgs 38 – 39

PLANNING COMMITTEE – 17 JULY 2008 PART 1

Report of the Head of Development Services

PART 1

Any other reports to be considered in the public session

1.1 Planning Enforcement Report

The following details identify the enforcement cases dealt with and investigated during the period 1 January 2008 to 31 May 2008.

Enforcement Complaints received- 216 Enforcement Notices Issued - 61 Stop Notices Served - 2 Temporary Stop Notices Served - 0 Planning Contravention Notices - 1 Breach of Condition Notices - 0 Section 215 Notices - 3

The number of complaints resolved without requiring formal enforcement action over this period amounted to 87% of the total received.

Target enforcement response times are set at 90% for initial investigations (within 3 days of receipt of information for site inspection) and 5 days (for an initial response to the complainant). In respect of the initial response target 91.6% was achieved whereas 88.7% was achieved in respect of response to complainants.

Included at Part 6 of the Agenda is an Enforcement Schedule detailing the current situation on those cases where Members have authorised the issue of enforcement proceedings.

1 FAVERSHAM S106s JUNE 2008 * the Monitoring Officer is not responsible regarding any follow up on works that should be undertaken by spending bodies outside of SBC * Obligation discharged in RED S106 DATE Transfer Of PLAY AREA/POS PUBLIC TRANSPORT EDUCATION HIGHWAYS Affordable Recyclin VILLAGE HALL OTHER Number of CONTRIBUTIONS POS Housing g OBLIGATIONS Dwellings

Transfer POS Provide play area on or 9 AH units to Land at Preston 28.07.00 & Play area before occupation of final be built Not to Allotments after the 12 dwelling- commuted sum permit Canterbury Road month maintenance= occupation of maintenance £24,053.09 paid May 05 final dwelling period (receipt no:786786) until AH Land Crest Homes Provide POS on or has been before occupation of final transferred to dwelling- commuted sum RSL maintenance= £35,363.09 paid May 05 (receipt no 786787)

Former Preston B4 1st Occ –Play area Chalkpit Canterbury maintenance sum Road 16.02.04 payable+ index = £37,074.47 On site play equipment Crest Homes = £23,907 Provide sports pitch drainage = £15,600 paid Feb 05- inv 7220024296 Off site play equipment = £28,000 paid Feb 05 inv 7220024296 Play Equipment Upon commencement of £14,000 Lower Road 23.07.02 On maintenance the development received occupation of £19090.50 on the £1,794.50 per dwelling contribution Westbury Homes 20th dwelling occupation of 20th dwelling for provision £53,835.00 of AH in Faversham area Land at Former On or before Occup of no Bus Improvements-to CC Library Contrib to 289 Eurocentre Site 01.02.07 more than 50% of the contributions on or before 43 units low KCC Dwellings Whitstable Road dwellings shall pay commencement of dev. rent 1st payment Faversham Open Space Provision = £5000 43 units SO = £25,215.25 1st payment = £85,000 paid to SBC May 07 not to occupy 2nd payment 25% occup Pitch Surfaces & (receipt no:365486) > 65% of = £25,215.25 is due Fairview Homes Changing Pavillion paid to KCC –25th June 07 private Youth & approx Improvements= £80,000 dwellings until Community Mar/April Tennis Club Changing AH units have Facilities to KCC 08 Facilities = £40,000 been !st payment On or before Occup of no completed & = £70,686 more than 75% of the transf to RSL 2nd payment dwellings shall pay = £70,686 Open Space Provision SURE START 2nd payment = £85,000 Initiatives-to pay (total= £290,000) £75,000 on or b4 Occp of no more than 25% of private dwell Affordable Vigo Farm, 06.03.08 Housing Lynstead Lane Not to use the AH other than English Rural HA for AH & priority need Affordable Former East Street 10.03.06 Housing Garage Whitstable Road Not to occupy nor permit the Churchill Retirement occupation of Living Ltd more that 17 units unless a sum £112,000 + index to provide affordable housing in Faversham within 5 years of date of payment

£118,243.71 (received 2.6.08)

SITTINGBOURNE S106s JUNE 2008 * the Monitoring Officer is not responsible regarding any follow up on works that should be undertaken by spending bodies outside of SBC * Obligation discharged in RED S106 DATE Transfer PLAY AREA/POS PUBLIC TRANSPORT EDUCATION HIGHWAYS Affordable Recycling VILLAGE HALL OTHER Number of CONTRIBUTIONS Of POS Housing OBLIGATIONS Dwellings

Land at Kemsley 29.3.05 Before 51st On transfer of POS- Fields Occupancy Play equip & Sports £59,500 paid July 06 -NRR contrib- £4 East Hall Farm 16.7.04 Transfer 10% residential area laid Land at site offered to KCC million 20% of total Neighborhood Allotments- 112 pos each out as POS before 200 units -Accessibility Centre/ To replace 1 year Completed Trenport portion at 2 LEAPS @ 200 & 500th KCC have 6 months to Contribution = Community Hall – b4 work on Countryside completion unit accept £400,000 to provide services existing site 438 Properties of each 1 NEAP by 350 No dwells ocup until to the land b4 Wetland- remaining stage Sport Pitches £100000 to KCC 350 occup. To be managed to be built (550 Dwellings ) 350 & 550 units £200,000=b4 100 Medical Cntre- dwell To offer land for (Feb 08) £100000=by 200 sale to PCT b4 dwell – >350 dwel occ £105,371.67 (received Oct 06) Landscaping Fulston Manor 4.2.04 Before 75% Plant out & fence NEAP Provide bus (traffic) route £4987.28 per each 1st Not to occupy > 161 25% To provide Before the 230th (June 07) of the equipment b4 1st occup of through dev occupied dwelling dw of Total facilities b4 Occupation David Wilson dwellings 100th dwell b4 1st occup of 201st School site- reserve & set Or b4 end of planting the occup Advance No. of Homes/Barratt/Ward occupied in £160000 to SBC dwelling aside dev. area, submit season until all of 161st landscaping dwellings each phase b4 1st occup of 100th Provide bus stops in dev b4 plan b4 1st occup of 50th landscaping along dwelling Along east-side of increased (450 dwellings NEAP=b4 dwelling 1st occup of 75% dwell in dwelling Swanstree Ave by-pass, north to 561 outline pp) 100th dwell POS maintenance each phase KCC Received to date extension btw Bell from Staplehurst =£24886.92 (on transfer) £40000 to KCC b4 1st occ £2,743,004 Rd & Highstead Link 198 Community Orchard- of 50th dwell Road North side of completion Plant out & fence b4 1st £40000 per yr for 4 yr Not to occupy >200 Staplehurst Link occup of 100th dwelling dw until all from A249 – pedestrian/cycle roundabout facilities & traffic North side of calming btw Staplehurst Link Highstead Rd & from eastern point Swanstree Ave of local centre to No dwell occupied railway line until traffic calming & South side from signals have been roundabout to completed railway line Before the 460th Occupation; Advance landscaping from A249 to roundabout south of Staplehurst Link

Access Former Keycol 7.5.03 POS/Play Equipment Upon the commencement Improvements to AH = on To make provision Hospital before 30th dwell occup of the development Rook Lane/A2 on the occup for a Bus shelter Site £22,908.60 paid April 06 £114,180 + £16311.42 occupation of 1st of 30th (index) dwell dwelling Taylor Woodrow £5,000 £178,500 + £714.28 (index) paid Feb 06 On or b4 1st occ of dwelling The Meads (Area 8) 30.6.06 £34,832 AH = 30 Redrow Homes Library units On or b4 1st occ of dwelling £31,656 £76,783.00 PAID by Redrow to KCC 25.6.07 Keycol Hospital 3.3.05 Sinking Fund- Taylor Woodrow £5000 paid March 06 Before the 230th Occupation; Before the 460th Variation - Before the 230th 10% of The developer The Meads 20.1.98 Layout 10% of developable Occupation; Contribution £1,382 per Occupation; each give SBC one Feb 08 Redrow Homes area covered by those 230 Developer to pay specified dwelling- Crossing of Quinton dwellings months notice of Bovis Variation units as POS contribution of £25,000 All remaining dwellings Road rail bridge 800th dwelling 1009 David Wilson 24.9.01 Provide one LEAP towards bus service paid £2,488 per dwelling Traffic calming Transfer specified completed Barton Maintain POS for 12 from Redrow Homes to When last dwelling is measures additional land dwellings Wilmore/Wilcon months & transfer to SBC KCC March 2004 constructed or specified Before the 460th 50m x 20m for Alfred McAlpine POS maintenance sum and number occupied, submit to Occupation; Community Hall or £40,000 per leap KCC type of dwelling and Access to Quinton POS, levelled with Contribution of £2,500 contribution Road access paid March 04 towards Traffic calming on Pay £200,000 the study of the Light Rapid Vicarage/Grovehurst towards transit system /North St;Laxton Community Hall Plant woodland 4.8 Cycle route to Milton here or anywhere th hectares hatched green Before the 700 on Meads site Woodland – maintain for 12 Occupation; months and lease to SBC Cycle/footway works Before the 460th Traffic calming Occupation; Rest of community £23,000 paid to woodland (3.5 hectares KCC for Pedestrian cross hatched dark green Cycle/Equestrian on plan 1) Crossing (21.1.04) Lay out 10% of area covered by those additional £46,500 paid to 230 units as POS KCC for Single Provide one LEAP Traffic Signal Maintain POS for 12 Junction (21.1.04) months and transfer to SBC POS maintenance sum and £40,000 Before the 700th Occupation; Lay out 10% of area covered by those additional 240 (460-750) units as POS Maintain POS for 12 months and transfer to SBC With POS maintenance sum and £40,000 Provide one LEAP- Received: £394,840.73 Dec 06 Construction of a Land at Attlee Way 11.12.96 Play equipment £37,131 bridge over Higgs & Hill Homes Before interim occup date Kemsley Drain Maintenance POS £7,037 paid £60,874.79 paid May 01 May 01 Transferred Towards maintenance of Attlee Way 28.4.98 to SBC POS June 2003 £10,271.24 paid Apr 03

Panteney Lane, 30.3.99 Play eq- Installed by Wards Bapchild POS maintain-£93857.17 Ward homes paid Sept 03 Transferred Play equipment/POS by Community & Kemsley Fields 22.4.99 August 250th dwelling occupied Footpath Bridge - Abbey Homes 2006 £80,000 paid Aug 06 £95,736 paid Sept 06 Play Equipment- b4 1st occ Rochester Park 22.4.98 £26,105 paid Nov 03 POS maint- in 1 month of final occ. £18464.23 paid Nov 03 Play equipment- b4 occ of AH Land Brier Road 14.3.01 75th dwell- £45929.61 paid On occup of 50tth dwelling transfer to JS Bloor Mar 04 £110,000 RSL Mainten POS- £95087.89 paid Mar 04 Play eq/POS b4 occ 1st dwell £34,410 Apr 03 Towards bridge Grovehurst Road 28.10.97 POS maint - £44,316.13 over Kemsley David Wilson Homes Apr 03 Drain Installed £7,213 POS/Play Eq On 20th dwell Land at Dental 10.8.99 Transferred occup £.15,575 May 01 On occup 10th dwelling Farm Wises Lane Maintenance £28,371.64 £45,064 Wards May 01 Off-Site Land at Ridham Infrastructure &/or Dock 27.06.01 traffic regulation orders within 28 Miller Civil days of Engineering commencement of operation £10,000 Education Contribution Danaway Transfer on POS/Off-site open space -Upon commencement of 23 Maidstone Road 17.10.07 completion contribution within one the development dwellings month of 20th dwelling £54,218.59 to KCC Jamesland Homes being completed (Southern) Ltd £15,391.83 Library Contributions Open Space Maintenance -Upon commencement of £775.68 paid on transfer of the development open space land £4968 Transfer Easthall Farm Residential Completion of each POS Supplement 04.12.07 POS each transfer the commuted sum portion to (paid equally by all Countryside/ SBC at the developers) Trenport/Bovis/ completion £421,000 (plus index) Taylor Wimpey of each phase (of 2004 S106) Secondary Education AH units Community Hall Tele-Care 5 retail The Meads £2357.33 per house Contribution Facilities (from units (Local Centre & Res 23.08.07 £ 589.33 per flat 20% (from Barabon) on Barabon) 1 pub Dev) Library Contribution dwellings commencement of on commencemt 4 (1) bed 2 Phases £216 per dwelling constructed dev to notify SBC of dev- notify SBC flats (land 1 & 2) Adult Services of comm of dev £10,000 to SBC 16 (2) bed £1352.76 per dwelling £105,000 to SBC (apportioned plus flats Barabon/Marshgate (to be paid on (apportioned plus index) 7 (2) bed commencement of dev) index) dwellings

SHEPPEY S106s JUNE 2008 * the Monitoring Officer is not responsible regarding any follow up on works that should be undertaken by spending bodies outside of SBC * Obligation discharged in RED S106 DATE Transfer PLAY AREA/POS PUBLIC TRANSPORT EDUCATION HIGHWAYS Affordable Recycling VILLAGE HALL OTHER Number of CONTRIBUTIONS Of POS Housing OBLIGATIONS Dwellings

To plant and maintain for Following the first bus service Notification from KCC of Before the Provide 280 Construction – 1000 Thistle Hill 12.9.97 August a period of 12 months contract notice from KCC transfer of school site occupation of more Dwellings – before 500th Dwellings Minster 2006 prior to occupation of within 15 days do pay the between occupation of than 340 dwellings: Minimum 70 Dwelling or 12 Sheppey more than 200 Dwellings Operating Subsidy of 350th dwelling and the The A249 AH prior to months of Construction Transfer thereafter to the £25,533.00 occupation of 750th dwelling improvements and occupation of construction of completions Bovis Homes Community Woodland (Option Not taken up as at The Spine Road every 270th Retail as of June Grant (Jan 07 -Bovis have not Jan 07) have been 600th 750th Development 2007 To lay out parts of POS received from KCC bus constructed Dwellings and Thereafter to and maintain for 12 contract notice) Not to occupy any prior to transfer to SBC Phase 1- months prior to dwelling located at completion of or other 73 dwellings occupation of 340, 600 (access point A) until the 90 social and 800 Dwellings the Lower Road Development housing To provide play roundabout has provide min (completed) equipment/park furniture been completed 70 AH Phase 2 – or contribute plus Not to occupy any 105 dwellings Supplemental S106 dwelling located at 27 social (dated 31.5.00) for extra (access point B) until housing Play Area contributions the Scocles Road (completed) roundabout has further 8 Play Area + community been completed (1 completed) centre/football pitch = Phase 1 Phase 3a- £100,000 To pay KCC £20,000 27 social Play Area POS Site 1 = – within 28 days of housing £ 55,000 this agreement Phase 3b – Play Area POS Site 10 = To pay KCC £41,300 7 social £ 40,000 – towards Harps housing Play Area/Trim Trail POS Avenue traffic Phase 4a – Site 4 & Community calming scheme 23 affordable Woodland =£ 35,000 = Provide traffic light housing £230,000 control at Barton Hill Phase 5 – Woodland & POS Drive junction Lower 60 dwellings maintenance = Road paid Jan 07 Phase 6,7 & 8 £84,834.48 received Nov Phase 2 – started 2001 Not to occupy more Play Area than 500 dwellings Contribution/Public Open without; Space = £146,003.41 Safety audit received August 2006 approval at Access (receipt nos-199541 & Point C and Spine 199542) Road Not to occupy more than 600 TOTAL RECEIVED = Dwellings until £230,837.89 payment to KCC for; £51,070 towards Halfway/Queenboro and Minster road improvements £10,215 towards pedestrian refuges at Minster Road

S106 DATE Transfer PLAY AREA/POS PUBLIC TRANSPORT EDUCATION HIGHWAYS Affordable Recycling VILLAGE OTHER Number of CONTRIBUTIONS Of POS Housing HALL OBLIGATIONS Dwellings

Iwade On Occupation of 25th house Land for village 25.10.99 expiration or within 3 yrs- lay out hall- transfer to 32 completed East of The Street of 12 month open space & maintain Iwade PC on (May 07) (Phase 2) maintnce. for 12 months 25th occup or 3 £13850 yrs from date of Wards s106

Iwade Village Park play 25th Dwelling - £2500 50th Dwelling - £133,684 Within 28 Within 28 days Iwade Stream 20.04.00 contribution 50th Dwelling - £2500 100th Dwelling - £133,683 days occup of PP = £6300 Maintenance & 119 Pinks Corner = £41,535 75th Dwelling - £2500 of 1st dwell Install Trash completed POS maintenance 100th Dwelling - £4600 TOTAL = £267,367 £2420 Within 28 days Screen (May 07) Hillreed = £14,934 TOTAL = £12,100 of PP = £17,900 £10,000 paid Feb 01

Iwade Play contribution per Public Transport Transferring Contribution of dwelling + index = Contributions -£100 per Contribution for every of land for 7 £200 per 357 North West of 13.10.00 October 06 £509.32 dwelling Education House = affordable dwelling School Lane KCC received from Ward - £2764 housing units towards the (Phase 6) Total received £7,000 (20.5.03) + £7,000 for every 100 repair of existing = £173,882.13 (23.4.04) KCC received= £1,117,728 private hall/or KCC received from Hillreed Allocated to Westlands housing units replacement Village Park- percentage - £8,700 (25.4.04) occupied on £26,000 paid Hillreed Homes calculated per dwellings KCC received from Matthew affordable Ward Homes Hillreed=£30,920.75 Homes - £ 6962.15 (20.5.04) housing land Matthew Homes paid Jul 05 SBC sent KCC from Ward = £32,407.33 Matthew Homes £ 6,500 paid Aug 05 March 2006 Matthew Homes= £2778.54 paid Jul 05 £16,546.94 paid Jan 05

Total = £82,653.55 (over 3 devs)

Maintenance of Village on the occupation of the 25th On the occupation of the Transfer land Within 28 Within 28 days Landscape Village Iwade 12.01.01 park on the occupation of dwelling 50th dwelling for AH to HA days of the of the issue of park 68 completed October 06 the 65th dwelling on the occupation of the 50th On the occupation of the by Jan 2003 occupation permission Within 9 months of (May 07) Phase 4 Grovehurst Calculated with the dwelling 65th dwelling of the 1st £13,000 the Village Park Road Formula per dwelling or on the occupation of the 65th £ 115,000.00 dwelling transfer agreed btw parties dwelling £ 37,669.00 Wards £ 2,500 (1st instalment) Total = £152,669.00 Play equip= £29,510 £ 2,500 (2nd instalment) POS maint = £19,820.07 £ 1,500 (3rd instalment) Total = £6,500 Land at School Lane Maintaining Iwade 09.01.02 Balancing Pond Matthew Homes sinking fund for 2 years = £5,000 prior to any occ

S106 DATE Transfer PLAY AREA/POS PUBLIC TRANSPORT EDUCATION HIGHWAYS Affordable Recycling VILLAGE OTHER Number of CONTRIBUTIONS Of POS Housing HALL OBLIGATIONS Dwellings

Play Equipment on the £ 1,300 to SBC = on 1st On 13th dwelling occupied Within 28 days Iwade 13th dwelling occupied occupation or before 2.2.02 of permission 13 completed 27.03.01 £ 6,083.17 £33,000 £2,600 (May 07) Phase 3 & Village Park KCC received from Ward - The Street maintenance £1,300 (Church Mews) on the occupation of the 13th dwelling Calculated Wards with the Formula per dwelling or agreed btw parties Total= £32,407.33* for phase 3,4 & 6

To pay a contribution of Prior to the occupation of the The Developer to pay KCC within 28 days of the Not to occupy The Developer Iwade Village Iwade 03.02.05 Occupation £62,738.88 towards the 100th dwelling, the Developer £612,540.00 towards issue of the or permit the covenants to pay Centre. The 106 of 100th provision and covenants to erect a Bus educational provisions within Permission to pay to occupation of to the Iwade Developer shall completed Phase 5 dwelling or maintenance of the play Shelter on Grovehurst Road a 2 mile radius of Iwade – the County Council more than 82 Village Hall not occupy or (May 07) Grovehurst Road 3 years equipment to be installed 50% payable on the £33,000 towards the Private Committee as a permit the from date by the Council on this or £ 12,900 to Iwade PC= bus occupation of the 10th cost of implementing Housing Units contribution occupation of Wards of other open space within shelters 2 payments of £6,450 dwelling and 50% on the amendments sought until the towards the cost more than 65 agreement Iwade Village within 28 days 1st & 65th occupation of the 40th to the existing traffic disposal of the Village Dwellings before to pay to the Council a occupation dwelling calming measures of the AH Hall £20,400 the construction of commuted sum of and landscaping in Land or the payment in the Village Centre £59,355.20 for the PC Received £12,900 £306,270 (Jan 06) Iwade Village AH Units instalments half purpose of maintaining (feb 07) £264k to Iwade & £281k to within the within 28 days the public open space SCC & Westlands £ 33,000 to KCC period of 3 of the issue and a commuted sum of (4.3.05) years from the of the £5,000 for the purpose of date of this Permission; maintaining the surface Agreement or 65th Dwell water attenuation facility such other £10,200 located (or to be located) date as (March 05) on the POS agreed by the £10,200 paid Village Park Land- lay out Council and March 2008 to the VPL the Developer Iwade Village the AH Land Hall Committee 6 units of within 3 Pos maintenance social Land to the west of 22.01.97 months of £46,567.12 (Mar 04) housing- Otterham Quay Lane completed Play Equipment not to allow dev £45,000 (Oct 03) occup of > 50 Wimpey Homes dwellings b4 AH scheme been submitted to SBC Pos maintenance Land at Power 19.03.98 Within 10 £37,819.85 (Oct 03) Station Road days of the Play Equipment occup of £40,000 (Oct 03) 55th Temp Sales Car Park dwelling £5,832.56 from Wimpey - transaction date 18/4/07

S106 DATE Transfer PLAY AREA/POS PUBLIC TRANSPORT EDUCATION HIGHWAYS Affordable Recycling VILLAGE OTHER Number of CONTRIBUTIONS Of POS Housing HALL OBLIGATIONS Dwellings

Link Road Land at Contribution 13 Business Queenborough 15.09.05 Within one month of Units Business Park the 1st occupation of any unit, serve D A Phillips & Co written notice of that occupation Within 12 months of 1st occupation pay SBC £15,000 a contribution for the Rushenden Link Road Land at Former Garden of Dev/Owner to provide a Contribute For Education, To ensure all Not less than Off-Site Youth Sheppey General Rememberance voucher redeemable at Arriva Library & Youth & construction traffic 25% of total Facilities Hospital site 28.06.06 maintenance contribute or other bus company (who Community – arriving & leaving the dwellings £20,000 to SBC 116 £24,886.92 (plus index) provides local bus service) for £2,717.14 per dwelling paid site shall only use upon dwellings English Partnerships on completion of works & one adult or 2 children an to KCC upon the access situated commencement of & not to permit the occup of I.O.S urban ticket for 6 commencement of opposite 13 Wards development 1 parish > 50% of dwellings until months from the date of 1st development Hill Road Not to permit any office sum paid occupation £163,027 dwelling to be to provide play occupied until sum area/equipment sum of received £669.21 per dwelling prior Parish Office to the occupation of > Not to permit ocup 75%dwellings of any dwelling b4 PO has been transferred to PC Care-Call Facilities Pay SBC £15,000 (+ indexation) b4 occupation of > 50% of dwellings Education The total Upon commencement of number of AH 29 The Water Tower 23.10.06 the development, contribute units should Trinity Road £35,322.82 (+ indexation) not be less Sheerness = £36,323 than 30% of Libraries the total Upon commencement of number of the development, contribute dwellings £5,060.50 (+ indexation) Not to permit Youth & Community 1st occupation contributions Of > 50 % of commencement of the private development, contribute dwellings until £6,961.50 (+ indexation) owner has has disposed of AH units to a RSL

S106 DATE Transfer PLAY AREA/POS PUBLIC TRANSPORT EDUCATION HIGHWAYS Affordable Recycling VILLAGE OTHER Number of CONTRIBUTIONS Of POS Housing HALL OBLIGATIONS Dwellings

£21,000 paid Land at the rear of April 2005 7 Dwellings School Lane & Ferry 22.09.04 Improvement of Road, Iwade stormwater culvert under the Peak Developers current Ferry Road (culvert 3) £25,000 paid to KCC April 2005 towards the future maintenance of the watercourse known as Iwade Stream

PLANNING COMMITTEE – 17TH JULY 2008 PART 1

Report of the Head of Development Services

PART 1

Any other reports to be considered in the public session

1.2 Monitoring of Section 106 Agreements

1. Members may recall that the Council agreed some three years ago to use some of our Planning Delivery Grant to fund a new post to supplement our Enforcement Team and take responsibility for monitoring the delivery of Section 106 obligations. This has entailed considerable work and pursuing of relevant parties to ensure appropriate and timely delivery of monies, provision of facilities etc. in accordance with the previous report submitted to Members in respect of Section 106 monitoring.

2. I have attached as appendices to this report schedules, which set out the details of Section 106 Agreements (as at June 2008) relating to our Planning Area Teams for Faversham and the Thames Gateway (Sittingbourne, Sheppey and Swale West). The schedules identify the sites/developments, categorise the subjects addressed in the agreements, summarise the requirements and, where appropriate, record the financial sums that have been received (where highlighted in red).

3. Our monitoring shows that Agreements entered into since 1996 have resulted in the following sums of money being received for the provision and where appropriate subsequent maintenance of community infrastructure serving new developments in Swale.

Play Equipment/Public Open Space/ £1, 980,851.38 and Maintenance Highways £ 4,645,800 Public Transport £ 98,962.15 Education/library facilities etc £ 4,521,426.42 Village Halls £ 86,200 Other Obligations £ 175,986 Affordable Housing £ 310,743.71 TOTAL = £11,819,969.66

4. This report is submitted for Members information.

Responsible Officer: James Freeman

APPENDIX A ITEM 1.2

APPENDIX A ITEM 1.1

PLANNING COMMITTEE – 17 JULY 2008 PART 2

Report of the Head of Development Services

PART 2

Applications for which PERMISSION is recommended

2.1 SW/08/0291 (Case 22251) DODDINGTON

Location: Swale View, Lady Margaret Manor Road, Doddington, Faversham, Kent, ME9 0NT

Proposal: Replacement chalet bungalow and double garage.

Applicant/Agent: Mr D Aitcheson & Ms C Savill, c/o Jocelyn Cousins Interior and Architectural Design, 23-33 High Street, Wingham, Canterbury, Kent, CT3 1AB

Application Valid: 3rd June 2008 and as amended by plan received 30 June 2008.

Conditions

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

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

(2) No development shall take place until details of facing materials, facing bricks and roofing tiles to be used on the development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the District Planning Authority.

Grounds: In the interests of visual amenity and in pursuance of policies E1 & E19 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008 and policies EN1 & QL1 of the Kent & Medway Structure Plan.

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

- 1 - 2.1 (Contd) PART 2

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 policy T3 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008 & policy TP19 of the Kent & Medway Structure Plan

(4) Notwithstanding the provisions of Classes A or B of Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995, the dwelling hereby permitted shall not be enlarged.

Grounds: In the interests of the amenities of the area and in pursuance of policies E1 and E6 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008 and policy HP5 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan.

(5) The dwelling hereby approved shall achieve at least a Level 3 rating under The Code for Sustainable Homes, 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.

Grounds: In the interest of promoting energy efficiency and sustainable development, and in pursuance of policies U3 and E21 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008 and QL1 and NR3 of the Kent & Medway Structure Plan.

(6) The temporary access to the site shall cease to be used and the ground shall be reinstated and the area returned to its original condition prior to the occupation of the dwelling.

Grounds: In order to safeguard the visual amenities of the area and in pursuance of policies E1, E6 and E9 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008 and EN1 and EN4 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan.

(7) 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 features, planting schedules of plants, noting species, plant sizes and numbers where appropriate, means of enclosure, hard surfacing materials, and an implementation programme.

Continued . . .

- 2 - 2.1 (Contd) PART 2

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

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

(9) 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 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. In resolving to grant permission, particular regard has been had to the following policies: E1, E6, E9, E19, E21, T3 and RC4 of The Swale Borough Local Plan 2008 and QL1, EN1, EN4, NR3 & HP5 of the Kent & Medway Structure Plan

Description of Proposal

This application proposes to erect a chalet bungalow and an associated double garage as a replacement dwelling at Swale View, Lady Margaret Manor Road, Doddington.

The original dwelling had been extended over the years. The agent has provided evidence to show that prior to its demolition, the dwelling had a footprint of approximately 115 square metres.

The proposed dwelling would measure approximately 16 metres in width by 11.5 metres in length with a footprint of approximately 184 square metres. The dwelling would measure approximately 7 metres in height at the highest point.

Continued . . .

- 3 - 2.1 (Contd) PART 2

In terms of appearance the dwelling would be constructed of brick and plain render with a natural slate roof. It would be one and a half storeys with two bedrooms and a bathroom proposed in the roof space. Two sets of double roof lights are proposed on the front elevation. A glazed porch area is proposed on the front elevation and a large glazed area on the rear. The design includes a triple hipped roof arrangement to the rear.

A double garage is proposed as part of the development. It would be located to the side of the property and would be accessed via the existing vehicular access.

There are no neighbouring buildings immediately adjacent to any of the boundaries of the site. All windows would be a minimum distance of 16 metres from existing dwellings

Relevant Site History and Description

An outline planning application was submitted in 2007 under application reference SW/07/1046 for the demolition of the bungalow and the erection of a new dwelling. This application was approved under delegated powers, but based on information indicating that the original floorspace of the bungalow was just 80 square metres.

Views of Consultees

Doddington Parish Council have raised objection to the application. They state that the proposal is contrary to policy RC4 of the adopted Local Plan which limits the increase in size of dwellings in rural areas. They also refer to condition 6 of the approved outline application which removed 'permitted development rights' for extensions. Finally, they state that development has already commenced which is in breach of the previous permission as a new drive and access have been constructed.

Kent Highway Services have not raised objection, however, they have recommended a condition requiring the garage spaces to be retained as such in perpetuity.

Other Representations

One letter of objection and two letters of comments have been received from neighbouring residents. Their comments can be summarised as follows:

• Trying to despoil the area • If this application is allowed, more chaos will occur as speculators attempt the same route • Local materials are not glass sheets and dark tiles

Continued . . .

- 4 - 2.1 (Contd) PART 2

• Building will not blend in • Site has lost most of its trees • Approved building is more than 60% increase in floor compound to the existing • Will impact on this small community • Appears applicants will not live here • Disappointed that permission was granted for a dwelling when previously it was just a prefabricated building and mobile home – when I applied for a dwelling was turned down • I hope Swale permits me the same fair treatment should I consider developing my property

Planning Policies

The policies most relevant to this application are E1 (general development criteria), E6 (protection of the countryside), E9 (area of outstanding natural beauty), E19 (design), E21 (renewable energy), T3 (parking for new development) and RC4 (replacement dwellings in the countryside) of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008; and QL1 (general criteria), EN1 (countryside), EN4 (area of outstanding natural beauty), HP5 (dwellings in the countryside) NR1 and NR3 (renewable energy) of the Kent & Medway Structure Plan.

Discussion

The main considerations to focus upon in this case are whether the proposal constitutes a modest replacement of a dwelling in the countryside and whether the design is acceptable for the rural location.

Whilst the site is located outside of a built up area boundary, the principle of the proposal is considered to be acceptable as it is in accordance with policies RC4 of the SBLP 2008 and HP5 of the KMSP that allows for the replacement of dwellings in the countryside provided they are of modest and of an appropriate scale, mass and appearance. Members may note that a first floor is proposed in the loft space that did not exist within the original dwelling. Although this inevitably has an impact on the increase in floor space, in terms of bulk and appearance, I do not consider this addition results in an immodest proposal as the original bungalow had this potential.

The increase in footprint is just less than a 60% increase over that of the original dwelling. This is in line with the aims of the rural restraint policies and also conforms with the aim of the supplementary planning guidance relating to householder extensions. The bulk and scale of the proposed dwelling has been kept low and is in my opinion appropriate for the rural location.

Continued . . .

- 5 - 2.1 (Contd) PART 2

In addition, the proposed design and materials is of a high quality. The design pays regard to the character and appearance of the rural area in which it is situated, by largely using traditional materials, whilst incorporating a modern twist with large glazed areas to the rear.

In terms of any potential impact on neighbouring amenity, the dwelling would be located away from neighbouring boundaries and would be unlikely to cause any issues relating to overlooking or overshadowing.

Kent Highway Services have raised no objection to the application, which proposes to use the existing access to the site, not the newly constructed access that is of concern to neighbouring residents. This access is unauthorised and the Council has been advised that this access is a temporary development for access during construction due to the limited width of the existing access. I have recommended a condition ensuring the new access is removed and the site reinstated prior to the dwelling being occupied.

I note the comments from local residents regarding the application. Unfortunately a majority of the issues raised are not material planning considerations and cannot be taken into account in determining this application. The issue regarding the adjacent agricultural land is not relevant to this application and if an application for change of use came in it would be determined on its own merits. I have, however, received an amended site location plan to remove potential ambiguity.

Summary and Recommendation

This application seeks planning permission for the demolition of one dwelling and its replacement with a chalet bungalow and double garage. I do not consider that the proposal would cause significant harm to the countryside or would result in significant harm to highway safety. The proposal seeks to replicate recent permission SW/07/1046 but based on more accurate, but larger, original floorspace figures. To that extent I feel that the Parish Council’s concern is based on an incomplete understanding of the situation.

I recommend that planning permission is granted.

Responsible Officer: Graham Thomas (Area Planning Officer)

Background Papers

1. Application papers and correspondence relating to application SW/08/0291 and SW/07/1046

- 6 - PART 2

2.2 SW/08/0464 (Case 13698) BORDEN

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

Proposal: Change of use of part of agricultural building to commercial use (scaffold storage) with associated parking

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

Application Valid: 1 May 2008

SUBJECT TO: The further comments of the Environment Agency

Conditions

(1) The use hereby permitted shall cease on or before 1st August 2011

Grounds: In order that the position may be reviewed at the end of the period stated.

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

Grounds: In the interests of visual and residential amenity and in pursuance of Policies E1, E2, E6, E15 and E19 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008, and Policies E1, QL1 and QL6 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan.

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

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

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

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

7 2.2 (Contd) PART 2

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

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

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, E15, B1, RC1, T1 & T3 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008; EN1, QL1, QL6 & EP8 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan.

Description of Proposal This application seeks retrospective planning permission for the change of use of part of an agricultural building and yard at Hooks Hole Farm, Chestnut Street, Borden, from agricultural use to scaffold storage with associated parking.

The building in question is a modern hay storage barn, and approximately one quarter of the building (468 square metres of a total of 1800 square metres) is given over to the use proposed here. The building has been subdivided using temporary ‘Heras’ fencing. In addition, a parking/loading area immediately to the front of the building is proposed. The existing access to the site, taken from School Lane, would be used.

Relevant Site History & Description

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

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

When the building was originally approved, it was considered that there was a need for covered storage for hay, and that the building also presented opportunities to provide covered storage for farm equipment.

Continued . . .

8 2.2 (Contd) PART 2 Views of Consultees

The Environment Agency raises no objection, subject to conditions in respect of surface water drainage. I am unconvinced that such conditions are appropriate here, as the application is for change of use only, no hardstanding is proposed to be laid, and as the parking/loading area would make use of an existing yard at Hooks Hole Farm. I am awaiting the further comments of the Environment Agency regarding this matter, and will report further at the meeting.

Kent Highway Services raise no objection, subject to the above conditions requiring retention of the parking/loading area, and restricting the type of use permitted.

The Head of Environment and Amenities raises no objection, subject to the above condition in respect of hours of operation.

The Council’s Agricultural Advisor raises no objection. An extract from his comments reads as follows:

“The modern storage building that, in part, is the subject of the current application, was erected quite recently, under planning consent ref.SW/01/0190, for the storage of hay and straw which would otherwise have to be stacked outside, plus at times of the year for farm equipment, in the space made available after use of a proportion of the feed/bedding.

Mr Kemsley now advises, through his agent, that he now makes less hay, and more maize silage, which is stored outside (wrapped or clamped). Consequently space has been found within the new building to put to this alternative use (and which clearly provides some additional farm diversification income), without, it appears, any knock-on requirement for new replacement farm building space.”

The agricultural advisor also raises the possibility of further applications for agricultural buildings being made at the site due to the loss of storage space resulting from this proposal.

Borden Parish Council raise objection, and comment as follows:

“1. When planning permission was granted, not that long ago for this barn, it was to be specifically used for the storage of hay and straw and associated agricultural use. 2. We believe this to be an inappropriate site for commercial use- if a new planning application was to come before Swale for this, it would not meet the local plan criteria. 3. The lorries that are garaged there over night in the barn we believe this is not covered by the terms of the firms operator's license. 4. The specified hours of use are not before 7.30am and nearby residents have informed us that most days the lorries leave the site a long time before that.” Continued . . .

9 2.2 (Contd) PART 2

Other Representations

One letter of objection has been received from a local resident, the contents of which are summarised as follows:

• The use has already commenced and involves the overnight garaging of four flat-bed lorries; • No objection raised to farming use, but had the original application for the building been for commercial use, it would be an entirely different situation; • The area to the front of the building is occupied by two caravans; • The use currently starts at seven in the morning, and includes work on Saturdays; • The site is close to the Chestnut Street Conservation Area and is very visible; • The Council is investigating the felling of over 20 trees which screened the building from the conservation area.

Policies

Planning Policy Statement 7: Sustainable Development in Rural Areas is relevant here.

The following Policies of the Development Plan are relevant:

Kent Structure Plan

EN1 Protecting Kent’s countryside QL1 Quality of development and design QL6 Conservation Areas EP8 Farm diversification

Swale Borough Local Plan 2008

Strategic Policy V Rural Communities E1 General Development Criteria E2 Pollution E6 The Countryside RC1 Helping to Revitalise the Rural Economy T3 Vehicle Parking for New Development

Discussion

Whilst it is regrettable that the use has already commenced, this application must be determined on its own merits. Continued . . .

10 2.2 (Contd) PART 2 I note the objections raised, but would advise that HGV operating licences are not material planning considerations, and that there have never been any protected trees within this site. The existing mobile homes on the proposed parking area are occupied by seasonal farm workers and are due to be relocated in the near future.

As stated above, I am awaiting the further comments of the Environment Agency regarding drainage at the site, and will report these to Members at the meeting.

The key issues here are whether the development is acceptable as a matter of principle, and the impact of the development on residential and visual amenity.

Principle

Whilst the site is located in the countryside, Government policy (PPS7) and the Policies of the Development Plan broadly encourage farm diversification and alternative uses of agricultural buildings, as a means of revitalising the rural economy.

Although planning permission was granted for the building relatively recently on the basis that it would be used for agricultural purposes, I do not consider that the principle of the proposed use is unacceptable. Changes in the type and storage of animal feed at the farm have reduced the need for the covered storage provided by the building, and I do not envisage applications being made in the near future for further buildings at the farm on the basis that part of this building is no longer available for agriculture.

I do though recommend imposing condition (1) above, which requires the use to cease within 3 years. This would allow the Council to reassess the need for agricultural storage at the site if a further application were to be submitted for the scaffolding use.

Residential Amenity

The building and access are located a significant distance from dwellings – 1 & 2 Florence Cottages, Chestnut Street, are the closest, and are approximately 100 metres from the building. In addition, the site is located in the midst of a farm, and I do not consider that significant noise and disturbance, over and above that associated with the farm, is likely.

The existing (unauthorised) hours of operation as described by the Parish Council and objector are not in my opinion acceptable, and would give rise to harm to residential amenity. I recommend imposing condition (3) above, restricting the hours of operation of the use, including vehicle movements, to 0730 – 1730 hours, weekdays only. Subject to this condition, I do not envisage significant harm to residential amenity. Continued . . .

11 2.2 (Contd) PART 2

Visual Amenity

I recommend imposing condition (2) above, which would prevent any outside storage of scaffolding. This would minimise the visual impact of the scaffolding, and should also help to reduce any significant noise and disturbance arising from the site.

The key issue here is therefore whether the parking/loading area would give rise to harm to visual amenity.

The site is set well back from both School Lane and Chestnut Street, and the area to the front of the building is used by the farm as a yard for parking substantial agricultural vehicles. I do not consider that the use of part of this area for parking vehicles associated with a scaffolding firm would cause significant harm to the character and appearance of the area, and I envisage a neutral impact on the character and appearance of the Chestnut Street conservation area.

Summary and Recommendation

This application seeks retrospective planning permission for change of use of part of an agricultural building and yard at Hooks Hole Farm, Chestnut Street, Borden, for use by a scaffolding company. I consider the use to be acceptable in principle, and do not envisage harm to visual or residential amenity nor to the character and appearance of the Chestnut Street conservation area. Subject to the above conditions, and to the further views of the Environment Agency, I recommend approval.

Responsible Officer: Jim Wilson (Area Planning Officer)

List of Background Papers

1. Application Papers for Application SW/08/0464

2. Correspondence Relating to Application SW/08/0464

3. Application Papers and Correspondence for SW/01/0190

12 PART 2

2.3 SW/08/0358 (Case 4512) HERNHILL

Location: Duke of Kent Public House, Thanet Way, Hernhill, Faversham, Kent, ME13 9HY.

Proposal: Erection of care home, office and industrial units.

Applicant/Agent: Cedar Holdings UK Ltd, C/o Mr Teja Biring, Calford Seaden, 31 Bruton Place, London, W1J 6NN,

Application Valid: 23 April 2008

SUBJECT TO: Views of The Environment Agency and Southern Water and outstanding representations (closing date 23 July 2008) and to the 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 as amended by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

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

Grounds: To ensure that features of archaeological interest are properly examined and recorded in pursuance of policy E16 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008 and policy QL7 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan.

(3) The industrial units on the site labelled as Units 1 to 8 on the plan hereby approved shall be used only for purposes within Classes B1 (Business) and B8 (Storage or Distribution) of the Schedule to the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987, as amended.

Grounds: In recognition of the terms of the application and in order to safeguard residential amenity, in pursuance of policies E1 and E2 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008. Continued . . .

13 2.3 (Contd) PART 2 (4) The care home hereby permitted shall only be occupied by persons of 55 years of age or over, or other persons as may be agreed in writing by the District Planning Authority.

Grounds: In recognition of the terms of the application, and in view of the rural location of the site, where market housing would not normally be permitted, and in pursuance of policies EN1 and HP5 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan, and E6 and H2 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

(5) No development shall take place until details in the form of samples of materials and colours of finishes to be used on the external surfaces of all new buildings have been submitted to and approved in writing by the District Planning Authority.

Grounds: In the interests of preserving the character of the area and in pursuance of policies QL1 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan and E1 & E19 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

(6) 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 order to ensure sustainable development pursuant to policies QL1 and NR3 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan and policies E21 and U3 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

(7) 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 features, planting schedules of plants, noting species, plant sizes and numbers where appropriate, means of enclosure, surfacing materials, and an implementation programme.

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

(8) Any excavation beneath the canopies of the Walnut tree and Willow trees which are intended to remain or within one metre of any canopy edge shall be done by hand. Existing tree roots exceeding 2" in diameter shall be left bridging trenches and pipes and services shall be inserted under the roots. Any roots that may be accidentally severed shall be trimmed, cleaned and sealed with a bitumastic sealant. Continued . . .

14 2.3 (Contd) PART 2

Grounds: In order to protect existing trees which are considered to be worthy of retention and in pursuance of policies E1 and E10 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

(9) No development shall commence until a 1.2m high paling fence has been erected in accordance with BS5837 ‘A Guide to Trees in relation to Construction’ around the extremities of the crowns of the Walnut tree and Willow trees to be retained. All post holes shall be dug by hand, and the fence shall be retained throughout the period of construction. Under no circumstances shall any building material, spoil, or machinery connected with the development be stored or placed within the area beneath the extremities of the crowns of the trees so defined, nor shall any excavations be made, the ground levels altered, nor any fires lit, during the period of construction.

Grounds: As the trees are considered to add to the visual amenities of the area, and such activity beneath the trees is likely to harm the trees to their detriment and contrary to policy E10 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

(10) The industrial and storage units on the site labelled as Units 1 to 8 on the approved plan shall not be used (other than for unattended storage) outside of the hours of 0700 hours to 1900 hours on Monday to Fridays, and 0700 to 1300 hours on Saturdays, with no working on Sundays or Public Holidays.

Grounds: In the interests of the amenities of the area, with special reference to the amenities of residents of the area, and in pursuance of policies E1 and E2 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008

(11) No external working or storage of parts, equipment, raw materials or products shall take place within the site.

Grounds: In the interests of the amenities of the area, with special reference to the amenities of residents of the area, and in pursuance of policies E1 and E2 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008

(12) 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 visual amenity and the residential amenities of occupiers of nearby dwellings, in pursuance of polices E1 and E2 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

Continued . . .

15 2.3 (Contd) PART 2

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

Grounds: The development, without the provision of parking, loading and off-loading space, would be detrimental to amenity and likely to lead to inconvenience and danger to road users by virtue of vehicles parked on the public highway amenity and in pursuance of policies TP19 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan and T3 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

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

Grounds: In the interests of the amenities of the area, and in pursuance of policy U4 of the Swale Borough Local Plan.

(15) 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 policy E1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan.

(16) 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, in pursuance of policy E1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008. Continued . . .

16 2.3 (Contd) PART 2 (17) No construction work in connection with the development shall take place on any Sunday or Bank Holiday, nor on any other day except between the following times:-

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

Within these hours no impact pile driving shall take place other than within the hours of 0900 to 1700 on Monday to Fridays only.

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

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

Grounds: In the interests of highway safety and convenience

(19) The commencement of the development shall not take place until a programme for the suppression of dust during demolition of the existing building and during construction of the development has been submitted to and approved in writing by the District Planning Authority. The measures approved shall be employed throughout the period of demolition and construction unless any variation has been approved by the District planning Authority

Grounds: In the interests of the amenities of the area

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

Grounds: In the interests of highway safety and convenience

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: Strategic Policy 1, FAV1, E1, E2, E6, E10, E19, E21, B2, B20, T1, T3 and T4 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008, and policies of SP1, SS4, SS8, EN1, EP3, EP6, EP7, EP1, TP19, QL1, QL7 and NR3 of The Kent and Medway Structure Plan. Continued . . .

17 2.3 (Contd) PART 2

Description of Proposal

This application proposes the erection of a 90 bedroom residential care home for the elderly, a detached office building and a range of small B1 (business) or B8 (storage and distribution) units. The total proposed floorspace is approximately 7,500 square metres.

The care home is arranged over two storeys in a series of four linked blocks, with separate single storey kitchen and entrance blocks. The buildings would be faced in timber cladding over brickwork under a tiled roof. The designs include a roof form over the lifts which features steeply pitched elements reminiscent of oast kilns, topped by feature metal elements to reflect the local character of oast house cowls.

The office building is of 1030 square metre floorspace, and designed to match the care home buildings, and this too features the above oast kiln-like, features as well as a distinctive roof line with high level glazing to maximise passive solar gain to accommodation in the roof space of the two storey units.

The 8 smaller B1 and B8 units are simpler units with metal cladding and feature terracotta cladding elements on prominent corners to reflect the colours of the care home. These include partial mezzanine floors, and comprise units ranging in size from 200 to 300 square meters. These units are arranged in a courtyard format with all entrance doors facing away from the perimeter road, from the proposed care home and from existing cottages opposite the site.

The care home and offices are located alongside Thanet Way and present an appearance designed to be seen from outside the site. The lower industrial units occupy a less prominent and better screened part of the site. The fragmented nature of the care home allows for small garden areas to be provided away from the road between blocks.

The agent's Sustainability Statement notes that the buildings have been positioned to take advantage of available natural daylight, will utilise low energy lighting and heating systems, and incorporate rainwater harvesting, grey water recycling and a sustainable drainage system. There is no mains drainage to the site so an on-site treatment plan is proposed for foul sewerage.

The applicant has described the need for the scheme, why he is not retaining the existing building, and how its design has been considered to suit its location on a prominent site and reflecting rural Kentish character in his supporting letter, which I have attached as Appendix A to this item.

Continued . . .

18 2.3 (Contd) PART 2 Relevant Site History and Description

This site forms the site of the now vacant and semi-derelict Duke of Kent Public House and adjoining agricultural land now enclosed by the over-bridge built when Thanet Way was dualled some years ago. This area of agricultural land has been severed from the remainder of the original field since the bridge was built, and highway planting means that from the bridge approach the site is well screened.

The site has an established access, currently blocked, onto Staplestreet Road and is occupied by the former public house. Immediately to the rear of the building is a single Walnut tree which is protection by a Tree Preservation Order (TPO, No. 2 of 2002), whilst some prominent willow trees lie on the southern boundary of the public house's curtilage.

The site is not covered by any conservation area, wildlife or landscape designation, but lies outside any built-up area defined on the proposals map of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

The planning history of the site relates largely to alterations of the former Duke of Kent Public House, and this is of little relevance today. However, there have been a number of redevelopment proposals which are necessary to bear in mind.

As long ago as 1979 a proposal for the erection of 24 single storey motel units in four separate blocks to the side and rear of the public house was granted planning permission (SW/79/307). This proposal arose from falling trade at the site, with the aim of turning the site from one reliant upon passing trade to one operating as a destination in its own right. An alterative single two-storey motel block was approved in 1980 (SW/80/323). Neither scheme was built.

In 1987, outline planning permission was granted for a 28 motel unit development along with a fast food restaurant (SW/87/1358). This scheme anticipated the re-opening of the then closed road junction and the provision of the new over-bridge as part of the dualling of Thanet Way. This too was not proceeded with.

In 1990 the owners (Shepherd Neame) applied for outline planning permission to demolish the public house and construct a new hotel (SW/90/569). This was approved with indicative details showing a two and a half storey building occupying a considerable proportion of the site. A similar application (SW/93/1057) was approved in 1994.

In 2007 a full application by new owners of the site (SW/01/1170) proposed a 52 bedroom hotel requiring demolition of the public house. It was in response to this application that the Tree Preservation Order was served on the Walnut tree. The planning application was approved in January 2002. Continued . . .

19 2.3 (Contd) PART 2

In the July 2005 Re-Deposit Draft Swale Borough Local Plan the curtilage of the public house and the adjoining agricultural land – the current application site – were allocated for employment development under Policy B24.

The current applicant who then owned the former public house and its grounds, but not the adjoining agricultural land, applied in 2006 to demolish the public house and erect a care home. The layout was such that it would have made use of the remainder of the allocated land difficult, so frustrating full and efficient development of the site. In addition, the design approach was poor. The application (SW/06/1267) was refused on grounds that it would prejudice the full development of the site, and on design grounds.

The applicants have since purchased the agricultural land, so assembling the allocated site, and submitted this comprehensive scheme which covers the entire site.

Views of Consultees

Hernhill Parish Council report that the application was considered at a well attended public meeting where it was universally condemned, not because of the care home, but because of the "add-on" development also proposed. The Parish Council welcomed the 2006 proposals in principle, but are against development on agricultural land, as has been resisted elsewhere. The development is also felt to be out of character with the area. In addition, the Parish Council comment that whilst Thanet Way is a dual carriageway it is badly designed at places, including the slip road at Staplestreet Road. This location has resulted in a number of accidents due to sharp turnings leading to drivers colliding with traffic signs and bollards etc.

Lack of parking is a concern, with space needed for disabled drivers and ambulance/delivery vehicles, especially bearing in mind the limited public transport serving the site, the predominant use of private transport and the need for septic tank emptying vehicles.

In conclusion, the Parish Council say that the application has aroused very strong local feelings, and whilst accepting a care home in 2006, the industrial units and offices are not acceptable in a location with no built-up area boundary where development is not normally permitted. Finally, the Parish Council ask whether anything has changed since the 2000 Local Plan which they have not been informed of.

Graveney Parish Council have also chosen to write about the application (which is close to their boundary, and used to be within that Parish) to say that the site is a brownfield site, and needs development, but that they oppose the proposals because:-

Continued . . .

20 2.3 (Contd) PART 2

(i) The Thanet Way junction is a regular scene of accidents and near misses. By having industrial units as well as a care home this will add more danger.

(ii) Whilst the care home is well designed, the industrial units are poorly designed in a standardised way, and not sympathetic to the care home or the generally rural surroundings.

(iii) The mix of care home and industry is not conducive to the safety of either, and the development is over-intensive.

(iv) Strict controls would be needed on hours of operation, but this would be difficult to enforce.

(v) The Design Statement does not mention the Walnut tree which has a Tree Preservation Order on it.

(vi) Where will the quiet gardens for residents be?

(vii) There is a lack of public transport to the site.

Natural England comment that protected species may be using the site, and that if Council is aware of this, the site should be surveyed before a decision is taken on the application. They add that local authorities should ensure that species are protected and refuse planning permission where harm to species would result, unless the need for and benefits of the development outweigh that harm.

The County Archaeological Officer notes that the nearest known archaeological find is 170m from the site, so suggests a condition requiring a programme of works before development commences.

Kent Highway Services have concerns over the application, but have suggested ways to address them. These are;

1. They point to the likely increase in traffic to the site, and in particular an increase in use of the Thanet Way/Staplestreet Road junction. This has, as described by local residents, a short deceleration land and traffic incidents are known to occur when vehicles have not slowed down enough to negotiate the bend. Improvements to the junction are requested.

2. Improved pedestrian routes within the site.

3. Provision of cycle parking facilities for the industrial units.

I have not yet received any comments from the Environment Agency or Southern Water, but I hope to be able to report their views to the meeting.

Continued . . .

21 2.3 (Contd) PART 2

The Head of Environment and Amenities recommends the imposition of conditions regarding hours of construction and prevention of dust during demolition and construction works.

Other Representations

The Faversham Society has recommended that the application be refused because the care home is badly sited adjacent to a very busy road which is inappropriate for residential accommodation of this nature. They add that the proposed accommodation is very dense with large numbers of bedrooms of minimal size and poor communal facilities.

The society say that the design is a poor pastiche of oast house design which is inappropriate to the area, which has no connection with hop gardens. Finally, they say that the business park would be better located to the front of the site although here it will result in a loss of amenity for the cottages opposite. Their conclusion is that the proposal represents over-development of the site.

The Faversham and Swale East Branch Labour Party has written to express concern about the proposal to establish a care home at this location. They say that they are firmly in favour of care homes with good facilities and that more such places are needed in the Faversham area. However, they consider the site unsuitable as it is near road junctions and on an unpleasant environment for the residents being close to Thanet Way, the A2 and the M2, and lacking views.

They add that as the site is not close to the town centre it will not be possible for residents to walk or access the town centre, and it would be less convenient for friends and relatives to visit, as this would need a car.

Finally, they hope that a much better use can be found for this site, which is an eyesore, and they hope that the proposal will be turned down.

I have received four letters of objection from local residents, the comments of which are most well represented by those of one nearby resident which I have included as Appendix B to this item.

Other points raised by local residents are:-

(i) The application forms show a number of errors and omissions.

(ii) The site includes agricultural land and no change of use has been applied for. The development will be out of keeping with the rural area.

(iii) The site entrance will be narrowed even though it will be in greater use.

Continued . . .

22 2.3 (Contd) PART 2

(iv) The industrial units should be constructed of materials to complement the care home.

(v) Possible light pollution, out of keeping with a rural area.

(vi) No provision for care home residents to park or charge up mobility scooters.

(vii) Trees on the site should be retained.

(viii) The site is not designated for mixed use in the Local Plan.

(ix) This is a speculative development with no employment or traffic figures being given.

(x) The location adjacent to Thanet Way and next to industrial units is not conducive to a care home, nor is it a good site for business units as it is near houses. It is also remote from the local services.

(xi) The applicants may not own all the land and the proposals may conflict with restrictions in the deeds.

(xii) Will the care home simply be for the elderly, or could it be for those with social or emotional issues that might result in local problems?

(xiii) Additional noise and pollution, invasion of privacy, and pressure on local utilities.

(xiv) Design is not in keeping in scale and character with its rural surroundings, nor do the industrial units match the design of the care home. The development will be a blot on the landscape.

(xv) The site layout will cause problems of traffic between different users.

(xvi) There may not be sufficient car parking.

(xvii) Structure Plan and Local Plan policies aim to protect employment land, protect the countryside and achieve high quality design. This proposal is in conflict with these policies.

(xviii) Site specific policies show the site to be developed for employment use (classes B1, B2 and B8) with preference given to retention of the existing public house and with a high standard of design and landscaping. The proposals make no attempt to re—use the existing premises so does not meet the policy requirements. The care home is not within the classes of use proposed in the Local Plan.

Continued . . .

23 2.3 (Contd) PART 2

(xix) The Thanet Way junction is sub-standard and the site of frequent accidents, and is extremely busy.

(xx) Development of agricultural land would set a dangerous precedent.

(xxi) Surface water from the site will be a hazard, and there is no mains drainage.

Relevant Planning Policies

The Development Plan comprises Regional Planning Guidance 9: Regional Planning Guidance for the South East, the Kent and Medway Structure Plan, and the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

RPG9 aims to see the economy of the South East strengthened, whilst assets of importance are protected. It seeks to concentrate development at urban centres, avoiding development of greenfield land where possible. Wildlife and countryside assets are to be protected, but access to services, jobs, leisure and cultural facilities should be improved. Policy Q2 aims to raise the quality of the environment, whilst Policy Q3 aims to make better use of land. This chimes with Policy RE5 which seeks better use of existing employment land resources, with precedence given to the re-use of developed land over the release of new land, and whenever possible the intensification of use on existing sites.

The Structure Plan's strategic approach to Faversham is contained in Policy SW1: Swale. This states:

"At Faversham conservation of the historic environment remains the prime consideration. Peripheral growth of Faversham for residential development is not envisaged. Improvement of local employment opportunities will be pursued but should incorporate a review of the scale and location of previous commitments which remain unimplemented with a view to rationalisation, consideration of alternative site provision and husbanding of land in established employment uses. Within this framework full and effective use should be made of development capacity within the town providing for a balance of business, commercial and residential development with particular attention paid to meeting locally based needs for housing".

This is consistent with overall Structure Plan aims, as set out in Policy SP1 “Conserving and Enhancing Kent's Environment and Ensuring a Sustainable Pattern of Development” which include: • Reducing reliance on greenfield sites • Using and re-using land and buildings more efficiently • Protecting and enhancing features of importance in the natural and built environment • Fostering good accessibility to jobs and services for all sections of the community Continued . . .

24 2.3 (Contd) PART 2 Policy SS4 (SP) “Priority for Previously Developed Land and a Suggested Approach to the Location of Development” promotes a priority for re-use of previously developed land for housing, employment and other commercial uses.

Policy SS8 (SP) “Development in the Countryside”, states that non-residential development in the countryside should require a rural location, relate to the re- use, adaptation or redevelopment of an existing rural building or institution; provide a public facility for which a rural location is just justified or be business development relating to an existing rural business, or to farm diversification.

In the 2008 adopted Local Plan, the strategy for Faversham is provided by Policy FAV1 which reads as follows:

"Within the Faversham and Rest of Swale Planning Area, conservation of the historic and natural environment is the prime and overriding consideration. Within this context, the Borough Council will enhance the role of the market town to support its own local needs and those of its rural hinterland. This will be achieved by promoting development proposals that can retain and harness local skills to achieve a greater diversity in employment, housing and community life, in scale and character with Faversham and its surrounding countryside and communities. Within this planning area, within the identified Area Action Plans and elsewhere, the following priorities will be pursued:

1. to set scales of development that reflect local needs and environment character to achieve a better balance between the population and employment opportunities alongside a reduction in commuting to other areas.

2. to retain and improve existing employment land and buildings that would otherwise exacerbate the population and employment imbalance if lost to housing development;

3. to safeguard and enhance the diversity of Faversham's small scale historic character and its maritime traditions, alongside that of its surrounding countryside, landscape and communities;

4. to enhance Faversham Creek and creekside so that it functions as a place of special interest and activity with strong associations with the water;

5. to raise the standard of the environment through high quality design, and the protection, enhancement and management of environmental resources, including the creation of a network of accessible open spaces (a green grid);

6. to support proposals that can meet as much of Faversham's development needs as possible from land and buildings within the existing urban area so as to minimise greenfield land development.

7. to provide for employment development, at a scale appropriate to the environment, on sites well related to the communication network, the existing urban framework and rural settlements; Continued . . .

25 2.3 (Contd) PART 2

8. to support and diversify the services and activities, including tourism, in Faversham town centre so as to enhance its economic health;

9. where appropriate, to promote rural sites and initiatives for employment and protect and improve rural services and facilities, to diversify the rural economy and support the role of the market town;

10. to effectively manage the risk of flooding; and

11. avoiding any significant advise environmental impacts, and where possible, enhancing the biodiversity interest of internationally designated sites for nature conservation."

This approach focuses on previously-developed land as the key to meeting Faversham's need for a better balanced future, including mixed use developments, taking what opportunities that arise to provide new employment on existing developed sites, with consequent environmental impacts.

Topic related policies of the Structure Plan (SP) and Local Plan (LP) include EN1 (SP) “Protecting Kent's Countryside”, and E6 (LP) “The Countryside”. These general policies aim to protect the countryside from development unless sites are allocated for development in the Local Plan.

The site features a small number of trees, one of which is protected by a Tree Preservation Order. Policy E10 (LP) “Trees and Hedges”, seeks to protect trees, and to impose Tree Preservation Orders where trees are threatened.

Policies QL1 (SP) “Quality of Development and Design” and E19 (LP) “Achieving High Quality Design and Distinctiveness”, seek to ensure that development responds positively to the character of the site and its surroundings, with high quality of design and materials, reinforcing local distinctiveness and strengthening the sense of place. They also seek the inclusion of sustainable design and construction techniques. The last part reflects the drive to more sustainable developments, as provided by policies NR1 (SP) “Development and the Prudent Use of National Resources”, NR3 (SP) “Renewable and Sustainable Energy Production” and E21 (LP) “Sustainable Design and Build”.

Economic development is promoted at Faversham, both by policies referred to above and by more general policies such as EP1 (SP) “Land, Workforce, Education and Skills”, EP2 (SP) “Employment Land Provision”, EP6 "Premises for Small Firms", and B2 (LP) “Providing for New Employment”, although in rural areas it is expected that employment development will be small scale. The care home element of the proposals is similar to that approved at the Eurocentre site in Whitstable Road, and here, although the draft Local Plan envisaged traditional B class employment development it was agreed that such a use would create substantial local employment, and it was accepted as a use which could legitimately contribute to enhancing local employment opportunities

Continued . . .

26 2.3 (Contd) PART 2

Policies TP12 (SP) “Development and Access to the Primary/Secondary Network” and Policy T1 (LP) “Providing Safe Access to New Development” require development proposals to have safe access, whilst policies TP19 (SP) “Vehicle Parking Standards” and T3 (LP) “Vehicle Parking for New Development” and T4 (LP) “Cyclists and Pedestrians”, seek adequate vehicular and cycle parking provision.

On a site specific level, the site is formally allocated in the adopted Swale Borough Local Plan (LP) under policy B20 (formerly B24) for employment development. This is preceded by an introduction which explains that the premises has been vacant for some time, and subject to neglect and vandalism. Planning permissions for hotels have expired without progress being made, and it is thought unlikely that this will now come forward, and re- use for employment purposes would be appropriate. The Plan states that whilst the site is detached from the built up area of Faversham, its location alongside Thanet Way, together with its previously developed status makes it suitable for a range of employment uses. The Plan envisages B1, B2 and B8 uses amounting to as much as 4,900 square metres of floorspace. It is hoped that existing public house premises can be retained, although appropriate replacement development is not ruled out. The actual policy states;

"The Borough Council will grant planning permission for the Duke of Kent site, as shown on the Proposals Map, for employment purposes comprising Use Classes B1, B2 and B8. Preference will be given to proposals that retain and re-use the former public house and its demolition will only be considered if it is demonstrated that to retain it would make development proposals for the whole site unviable. Any new build and landscaping will need to be of the highest design standard."

Discussion

This scheme aims to fulfil the Local Plan aspirations for this site. The fact that the site allocated in the Local Plan extends beyond the original curtilage of the public house appears to have resulted in some of the local concern, but the Local Plan Inspector records no objections to the policy allocation. The applicants have assembled the site since refusal of their previous application, and have designed a scheme to make efficient use of it.

The Council's decision to include agricultural land appears to recognise that the over-bridge has significantly reduced the agricultural value of that land and that this land is now very well screened by highway planting. The impact of development of this land on the character of the countryside in the light of previously approved plans for the redevelopment of the public house site will, in my view, be very limited. I do not see approval of the allocated site as any kind of precedent for further development of other greenfield sites.

Continued . . .

27 2.3 (Contd) PART 2

The proposals for the care home itself seem to have attracted little opposition, apart from concerns about its location and accessibility, and its suitability for residents. In the light of a number of permissions for hotel development, where similar considerations in terms of quality of sleep or amenity standards might apply, I do not find the site unsuitable. Furthermore, if as I understand it, the home is intended to be a nursing home the location away from the town centre will not be seriously disadvantageous for residents with limited mobility.

Ultimately, users will decide whether the location meets their needs, and I see no reason to suppose that this site is other than entirely suitable for a nursing home, or that it will fail to attract residents.

The use is not one envisaged by the Local Plan, but this tends to talk in general terms about conventional employment classes. The fact that the full range of B1, B2 and B8 uses are envisaged here indicates a flexible site which in the words of paragraph 4.26 of the adopted Local Plan "makes it suitable for a range of employment uses".

The fact that both care home and traditional employment uses are proposed together has raised local concern. I however, see no incompatibility between care home and office, light industrial or storage uses provided the hours of use of the industrial and storage uses are controlled to normal hours (as would be necessary anyway to safeguard local residents' amenities) to avoid heavy goods vehicle movements at anti-social hours.

The amount of development at 7,500 square metres exceeds the 4,900 square metres envisaged by the local Plan. However, this is the result of a scheme designed for the site; rather than a simple estimate of likely yield; and given the employment based strategy of the Local Plan, and the need to maximise the use of existing and previously developed sites, I welcome this uplift, especially if it enhances the viability and likely delivery of the scheme.

Residential amenity, as well as pressure on local infrastructure, are topics raised in local views, but I do not consider that these matters should be overriding issues if hours of operation are limited for the industrial and storage units, and lighting and landscaping conditions are imposed.

At a more detailed level, the layout plan does not currently show the positions of the Walnut tree and Willow trees, and I have asked the agents to show these. The applicant has not shown retention of the existing building, but I can quite understand how its configuration and condition do not lend themselves to the building's re-use. The fact that it has lain vacant for so long is also a clear factor to be borne in mind. I have also discussed enhancements to the design of the care home and offices, to improve the

Continued . . .

28 2.3 (Contd) PART 2

quality of the buildings which will be prominent. However, I welcome the distinctive design approach, utilising appropriate materials that reflect those used locally, and that the design takes the opportunity to recognise the Kentish character of oast houses for the lift over-runs without creating pastiche. I see the care home and office design is genuinely fit for the purpose, and likely to reinforce a Kentish sense of place.

I quite accept that, as submitted, the smaller units do not have the same attraction. I have however discussed with the agent a different external treatment for the units with timber cladding and a more rural based design approach. I expect to receive amended drawings before the meeting. In this way I expect that the scheme can be enhanced to complement its rural location.

Highway safety is an issue of concern locally. Members will note that Kent Highway Services share this concern and are aware of problems with the existing junction. They are seeking improvements to this, and other minor amendments to the scheme. The applicants are aware of the issues and I am hoping that amended drawings will resolve this issue. When the results of these changes are known I may need to recommend a further condition(s) to secure any agreed improvements.

Recommendation

This site as a whole is allocated for employment development in the adopted Local Plan. I believe that this proposal addresses the objectives of that allocation, and contributes to the overall employment lead strategy for the Faversham area.

The site has long been seen as appropriate for redevelopment, but proposals stretching back over almost 30 years have not come forward. I believe this is a very powerful factor to be borne in mind, and now that the current applicants have assembled the enlarged site as proposed in the Local Plan, it is appropriate to accept the principle of a mixed use employment development.

I am expecting amended drawings to improve various design and access details, and on that basis I believe that the scheme will be of a suitable calibre for the permanent site, and in keeping with its rural character.

Continued . . .

29 2.3 (Contd) PART 2

I believe that the site is suitable for the uses proposed, and that this scheme takes into account relevant policy guidance, the amenities of neighbours and the constraints of the site. Subject to receipt of outstanding views, and the receipt of revised drawings, I consider that this is a fair reflection of the Local Plan’s vision for the site, and that the scheme can be seen as an example of success in delivering the Local Plan’s strategy for Faversham.

I therefore recommend that planning permission is granted.

Responsible Officer: Graham Thomas (Area Planning Officer)

List of Background Documents

1. Application papers and correspondence for application SW/08/0358.

2. Application papers and correspondence for previous applications on the site as referred to in the report.

APPENDIX A ITEM 2.3 PART 2

APPENDIX A (Contd) ITEM 2.3 PART 2

APPENDIX B ITEM 2.3 PART 2

PART 2

2.4 SW/08/0507 (Case 23208) FAVERSHAM

Location: 22 Union Street, Faversham, Kent, ME13 8PJ.

Proposal: Single storey extension to rear of property.

Applicant/Agent: Mr J H Lewis, 22 Union Street, Faversham, Kent, ME13 8PJ.

Application Valid: 27 May 2008

SUBJECT 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 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 and E15 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008, and QL1 & QL6 of the Kent & Medway Structure Plan.

(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.

Grounds: In the interest of visual amenity and in pursuance of policies E1, E15, E19 & E24 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008, and QL1 & QL6 of the Kent & Medway Structure Plan.

Continued . . .

35 2.4 (Contd) PART 2

Reasons for Approval

Description of Proposal

The application is for a rear extension, to match the one on the adjoining property no 23 and is to measure 3.6m in depth with two rooflights proposed, again which match those on the adjoining property. Furthermore a replacement window is proposed in the front elevation. This is to be timber to match the existing windows in the property.

Relevant Site History and Site Description

The application is at 22 Union Street, a two storey terraced property, joined to the other properties in the terrace by a floating first floor from the adjoining property. The property is located within the Faversham conservation area and the rear faces a courtyard and parking area for a number of properties along Union Street.

The neighbouring property, no 23 has a similar single storey rear extension, but this was approved and built at 3.0m depth.

Views of Consultees

Faversham Town Council commented that "the proposed extension is too deep as is evidenced by the need to provide rooflights to provide daylight to the rear rooms of the existing dwelling".

No response from neighbours.

Policies

Swale Borough Local Plan Policies

Policies E1(General Development Criteria) E15 (Conservation Area) E19 (Good Design) and E24 (Extensions)

Kent & Medway Structure Plan

Policies QL1 (Design) and QL6 (Conservation Areas) Continued . . .

36 2.4 (Contd) PART 2

Discussion

The proposed single storey extension is shown to be 3.6m in depth but the applicant is sending amended drawings reducing this to 3.0m to match the adjacent extension, and accord with the Borough Council's Supplementary Guidance on rear extensions along common boundaries, I do not consider the amenity of this adjoining neighbour would be adversely affected by the proposal. Furthermore the rear of the property faces a courtyard/parking area for a number of properties on Union Street and as such is largely unseen. The design is appropriate and I do not consider the proposal would adversely affect the character and appearance of the conservation area.

| note the comments of the Town Council, but now that the extension is to be reduced in length I do not consider the extension to be too deep in this instance due to the existing extension on the adjoining property.

The proposed new window on the front elevation is an improvement on the current situation and as it is to be in keeping with the existing fenestration I consider it to be acceptable.

Recommendation

As I believe that this extension does not adversely affect the amenities of the neighbours, or the character of the conservation area I recommend that planning permission be granted.

Responsible Officer: Graham Thomas (Area Planning Officer)

Background Papers

1. Application Papers & Correspondence for application SW/08/0507.

37 PART 2

2.5 SW/08/0457 (Case 22696) LYNSTED

Location: 17 St Pauls Court, Lynsted, Nr Faversham, Kent, ME9 ORE

Proposal: Formation of room in roof space of garage with velux windows in rear roof slope

Applicant/Agent: Mr Andrew Brown, c/o Mr Peter Turner, APT Design, 43 Harrow Road, Warlingham, Surrey, CR6 9EY

Application Valid: 21 April 2008

SUBJECT 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 as amended by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

Reasons for Approval

Description of Proposal

The application is for the formation of rooms in the roofspace of an attached double garage and the insertion of rooflights on the rear roof slope. Following discussions with officers amended drawings are to be submitted showing the change to Conservation rooflights.

Continued . . .

38 2.5 (Contd) PART 2 Relevant Site History and Site Description

The application site is a large modern detached property set in a large plot. The site is located within the defined countryside. The development as a whole was granted permission in 2002 and permitted development rights were removed for this type of development mainly because a high standard of design was achieved, and it was desired to control future alterations. There will be no change to the height or arrangement of the roof of the garage apart from the insertion of the roof lights on the rear roof slope. This faces onto the garden of the property and would be largely unsighted from outside the site due to the arrangement of the neighbouring properties.

SW/07/0603 granted permission for a conservatory to the rear of the property

Views of Consultees

Lynsted with Kingsdown Parish Council object to the application “on the grounds of the velux windows. In that they are out of keeping with the estate and would set an unfortunate precedent.”

No response from neighbours

Policies

Swale Borough Local Plan Policies

Policies E1 (General Development Criteria), E19 (Good Design) and E24 (alterations and extensions).

Kent & Medway Structure Plan

Policies QL1 (Design)

Discussion

I consider the proposed conversion of the roof space is acceptable as it will not result in a change in the appearance of the roof over the garage. The main point for discussion is the suitability of the roof lights proposed for the rear roof slope. The roof lights are to be located on the rear roof slope which due to the arrangement of the neighbouring dwellings would mean they would not be visible by other properties. I do however note that any other roof lights visible on the development are of a conservation design and these proposed are the standard roof lights.

Following discussions with the agent amended drawings are to be submitted replacing the three roof lights with those of a conservation design, I consider these would be in keeping with the property and the others on the development. Continued . . .

39 2.5 (Contd) PART 2

I note the comments from the Parish Council but consider that the change to conservation roof lights is acceptable and would be in keeping with others on the development and furthermore as they are to be largely unsighted from outside the site the impact would be further reduced. I do not consider the insertion would set a precedent due to the particular circumstances of this site and the proposal.

Summary and Recommendation

Therefore based on the above, and subject to the receipt of satisfactory amended drawings, I recommend that planning permission be granted.

Responsible Officer: Graham Thomas (Area Planning Officer)

Background Papers

1. Application Papers for Application SW/08/0457

2. Correspondence Relating to Application SW/08/0457

3. Application Papers for SW/02/1143 & SW/07/0603

40 PART 2

2.6 SW/08/0450 (Case 15708) HERNHILL

Location: Chudley House, Plum Pudding Lane, Dargate, Faversham, Kent, ME13 9HB

Proposal: Removal of existing double garage and erection of new 4- bay garage, workshop and store

Applicant/Agent: Mr Anthony McCarthy, Chudley House, Plum Pudding Lane, Dargate, Faversham, Kent, ME13 9HB

Application Valid: 17 April 2008 and as clarified by additional information received on 17 June 2008

Conditions

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

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

(2) No development shall take place until details of roofing tiles to be used on the development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the District Planning Authority.

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

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

Grounds: In order to ensure that adequate provision is made for the parking of motor vehicles and in order to safeguard the amenities of the area, in pursuance of policy E1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

Continued . . .

41 2.6 (Contd) PART 2

Reasons for Approval

Having taken all material considerations into account, it is considered that subject to compliance with the attached conditions, the proposal would be in accordance with the development plan and would not cause unacceptable harm to the amenities of the area or prejudice highway safety or convenience. In resolving to grant permission, particular regard has been had to the following policies: E1, E6 & E19 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008 and QL1 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan

Description of Proposal

The application is for the construction of a 4 bay garage and workshop with a storage area above.

A double garage currently exists to the north of the site and is to be removed to make way for the proposed building. The building is to be L Shaped with the main garage block and 4 parking spaces along the northern boundary of the site facing the property, and is to measure 17.5m in width and 6m in depth. The storage area above creates a building 5.5m in height to the top of the ridge.

The workshop element of the proposal is sited to the east boundary and is to be 3m in depth and 8m in length and is to be a single storey element of 4.2m in height to the top of the ridge.

The applicant has provided the following comments to clarify the reason for the proposal;

”I am an engineer by training and am keen to preserve some of our nations motoring heritage. As an avid car and motorcycle enthusiast I have at present a 1963 Classic roadster and 5 other cars used by myself and members of my family on a daily basis. I also have started a collection of motorcycles that I am keen to add to. The Planning application is primarily to allow these older vehicles to be stored securely and undercover whilst providing an area for me to practice my other interest that of working with wood.”

Relevant Site History and Site Description

The property is located within the defined countryside.

The site is a modern detached house sited in a large plot. Planning permission was granted under reference SW/96/0053 for the change of use of the internal garage into a sitting room and the double garage located on site is to be removed to make way for the development. Continued . . .

42 2.6 (Contd) PART 2

The Dargate House Farm and Tudor Walk properties are located adjacent to the site and are of a similar size and proportion to Chudley House. Further houses are currently being built to the rear of the site at Belvedere Farm.

Views of Consultees & Other Representations

Hernhill Parish Council's Clerk has stated that “the Councillors without exception were opposed to it and that in comparison with the size of the living accommodation at Chudley House the new erection would be vastly out of proportion in this pleasant rural area. Councillors are aware that any application can only be debated in the here and now but several considered that such a huge complex could, in a few years time, be easily converted to living accommodation and bearing in mind the somewhat remote siting of both the house and garage few would be any the wiser for quite some time. I am asked to request that the proposals be rejected”

Kent Highway Services offered no objection to the proposal subject to a condition requiring the retention of the parking spaces.

No response from local residents

Policies

Swale Borough Local Plan 2008

E1 (General Development Criteria) & E6 (Protection of the Countryside)

Kent & Medway Structure Plan

Policy QL1 (Design) & EN1 (Development in the Countryside)

Discussion

This house is located some distance back from the lane and has a large wall surrounding the site. The garage is proposed in the rear corner of the site accessible via a private drive which also services two other properties. The location is essentially opposite the front door of the house. The building would be unseen from the highway and it will replace an existing double garage.

Justification of the proposal is provided by the applicant and the double garage that already exists on the site is being removed to allow for the proposed building. I also consider the garage is appropriately designed for the countryside location.

Continued . . .

43 2.6 (Contd) PART 2

I note the concerns of the Parish Council as to the size of the building. However the building would be largely unsighted from outside the site due to a high wall and additional vegetation to the rear of the site. Furthermore the arrangement of the three properties with additional house building to the rear of the site is somewhat divorced from the appearance of the surrounding rural area. Although a large building the property itself is a sizeable dwelling and only part of the garage building has proposed roof storage. I therefore do not consider the building would be intrusive to the property nor affect the rural character of the area.

The further concern of the Parish Council is that potential change of use to living accommodation. This would require a planning application in its own right and therefore is not a consideration. However a condition has been attached to require the building to be used for purposes ordinarily incidental to the enjoyment of the occupiers of the dwelling house.

Kent Highway Services do not consider the proposal would cause harm to highway safety and convenience.

Summary and Recommendation

The garage/workshop/store building is proposed to be located in the north east corner of the site and is screened from the neighbouring properties and from the highway by the high wall, Chudley House and extensive vegetation. A double garage already exists at the property and this is to be replaced with the new building. Despite a countryside location the garage is of a design to be in keeping with the character of the area and I do not consider it size would adversely affect the rural character of the surrounding area. I recommend that planning permission be granted.

Responsible Officer: Graham Thomas (Area Planning Officer)

Background Papers

1. Application Papers for Application SW/08/0450

2. Correspondence Relating to Application SW/08/0450

3. Application Papers for Application SW/96/0053

44 PART 2

2.7 SW/08/0463 (Case 02958) DUNKIRK

Location: Land at Dunkirk Filling Station, London Road, Dunkirk, Faversham, Kent, ME13 9LG.

Proposal: Construction of two industrial buildings for use as commercial vehicle workshop.

Applicant/Agent: South East Coachworks Ltd, The Old Coach Station, 38 Preston Street, Faversham, Kent, ME13 8PE.

Application Valid: 21 April 2008

SUBJECT TO: Receipt of amended drawings to show improved eaves details

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) Before any part or agreed phase of the development is occupied, all remediation works identified in the contaminated land assessment submitted with the application (Ref. RC/AF/2266/07) 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 contaminated land is adequately dealt with, in pursuance of policy E3 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

Continued . . .

45 2.7 (Contd) PART 2

(3) 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, in pursuance of policy E3 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

(4) Before any building works commence on the site, a noise survey shall be carried out to determine the background noise level frequency spectrum in accordance with a protocol, details of which shall be submitted to and approved by the District Planning Authority. The results of the survey together with details showing the siting of all plant machinery and equipment (including refrigeration and ventilation systems) to be used and a scheme providing for the insulation of the building(s) against the transmission of noise based upon the results of the survey shall be submitted to and approved by the District Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be implemented in full prior to the opening of the premises for business and shall be operated in accordance with the approved details, or such other details as may subsequently be approved by the District Planning Authority.

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

(5) No development approved by this permission shall be commenced until a scheme for the disposal of foul and surface waters has been submitted to and approved by the District Planning Authority. The scheme shall be implemented to ensure that it is in place prior to occupation of the buildings hereby permitted.

Grounds: To prevent pollution of the water environment, and in pursuance of Policy E4 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

(6) No development shall take place until full details including commercial specification of the nature and colours of external materials have been submitted to and approved in writing by the District Planning Authority.

Grounds: In the interests of residential amenity and in the interests of the visual amenity of the area in pursuance of Policy E1 and E6 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008 Continued . . .

46 2.7 (Contd) PART 2

Grounds: In the interests of the visual amenities of the area and in pursuance of policies E1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008, and QL1 of the Kent & Medway Structure Plan.

(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 policy E1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

(11) No dust or fume extraction or filtration equipment, or air conditioning, heating or ventilation equipment shall be installed until full details of its design, siting, discharge points and predicted acoustic performance have been submitted to and approved by the District Planning Authority. Continued . . .

47 2.7 (Contd) PART 2

Grounds: To safeguard the amenities of nearby residential properties in pursuance of policy E1 and E2 of the Swale Borough Local Plan.

(12) The premises shall not be used except between the hours of 07:00 – 18:00 Monday – Friday and 08:00 – 13:00 Saturdays and at no time on Sundays and Bank Holidays, without the express permission, in writing, of the Local Planning Authority. This includes traffic movements to and from the site.

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

(13) No paint spraying shall take place on the site.

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

(14) No activities involving machinery and hand tools including welding, panel beating, bodywork preparation, painting & joinery work shall take place anywhere on the application site, other than within the workshop buildings.

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

(15) Prior to the installation of any exterior lighting scheme to the site, the following details must be provided for approval by the District Planning Authority including a statement of why lighting is required, the proposed frequency of use, and the hours of illumination; a site plan showing the area to be lit, details of the number; location and height of the proposed lighting columns or other fixtures, the type, number, mounting height and alignment of the luminaries and beam angles for each light and an isolux diagram showing the predicted illuminance levels of critical locations on the boundary of the site and where the site abuts residential properties.

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

(16) The units hereby permitted may only be used for a commercial vehicle workshop or for any purpose within Classes B1, of the Schedule to the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 without the prior permission of the District Planning Authority.

Grounds: To define the permission and facilitate flexibility of occupation of the building. Continued . . .

48 2.7 (Contd) PART 2

Reasons for Approval

Having taken all material considerations into account, it is considered that subject to compliance with the attached conditions, the proposal would be in accordance with the development plan and would not cause unacceptable harm to the amenities of the area or prejudice highway safety or convenience. In resolving to grant permission, particular regard has been had to the following policies: E1, E2, E3, E6, E9, E12, B1, B2, RC1, IN4 and IN7 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008 QL1, EN1, EN3, EN5, EN6, EN7, EN8, EP6 and EP7 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan.

Description of Proposal

The application is for the construction of two industrial buildings for use as commercial vehicle workshops, principally the specialist business of high quality bus conversions. The application has been submitted by the owners of the site who currently occupy the Preston Street Bus garage and propose to relocate the business from the centre of Faversham to this larger site. This would allow the existing premises to be used as a centre of excellence and skills and apprenticeships.

Additional information has been supplied by the applicant, principally in response to issues raised by the Parish Council, see Appendix A.

The buildings are to be located in the northwest corner of the site, the larger one to measure 30m in width by 25m in depth, and would be 6m to the eaves and 8.43m to the ridge. The smaller building to the north to be 15m in depth and 20m in width and 6m in height to the eaves, and 7.45m to the ridge.

A small toilet block is also proposed to be 6m in depth and 3m in width and will be located to the south of the new buildings once an existing larger building has been removed from site.

Relevant Site History and Site Description

The site lies to the east of the core of Dunkirk on the old A2, but now in the countryside, within the Blean Woods Special Landscape Area, and close to the Church Woods, Blean SSSI and SNCI. It is, however, an historically developed site. It has for some time had a run down and unattractive appearance, and featured various car sales, vehicle repair and transport related uses.

The site lies outside the Local Plan’s defined built-up area boundary for Dunkirk, and it was largely for this reason that application SW/02/1271 for clearance of the site and erection of 15 houses was refused planning permission in January 2003.

Continued . . .

49 2.7 (Contd) PART 2 The site abuts open land to the north and west, and an established warehouse to the east. Three bungalows facing London Road back onto the site, and the new buildings are proposed to the rear of their gardens.

Views of Consultees and Other Representations

Dunkirk Parish Council strongly objects to the application and the main concerns are: • Visual impact • Noise nuisance • Smell of chemicals and pollution form paint fumes • Disturbance to wildlife

They also request further information relating to: • Pressure cleaning of vehicles • Waste storage and removal • Some of the land may be contaminated • Plan does not show the two radio masts • Location of the new toilet block

A letter to address these concerns have been received from the applicant, see Appendix A.

The Environment Agency has no objection to the proposal subject to conditions regarding contaminated land, drainage and pollution.

Natural England note that the proposal does not appear to have significant implications for the nearby SSSI and raises no objection subject to conditions to control drainage and lighting on the site.

Kent Highway Services’ comments are awaited and I hope to be able to report further at the meeting.

The Head of Environment and Amenities raises no objection subject to conditions addressing land contamination, hours of construction, noise and lighting.

Policies First and foremost the site lies in a rural area, and within the Blean Woods Special Landscape Area. As such Structure Plan (KMSP) Policies EN1, EN3 and EN5, and Local Plan (SBLP) Policies E6, E9 are relevant as protective policies. Having said that all the works proposed are within the existing developed site boundary, and no encroachment onto open countryside is involved.

Policies EN6, EN7 and EN8 of the KMSP and E28 and E29 of the SBLP seek to protect SSSIs and SNCIs, but there is no suggestion that any harm is likely to the adjacent woods from this proposal. Continued . . .

50 2.7 (Contd) PART 2 Policy E1 of the SBLP seeks to protect residential amenity, and E2 of SBLP safeguards against noise, water, air and light pollution. Policy E3 seeks to deal with contaminated land properly.

Policies IN7 of SBLP and TP18 of KMSP seek to require adequate car parking provision. Policy IN4 of SBLP and TP15 of KMSP encourage new development to be appropriately related to the strategic road network.

As business development in a rural area, and suitable for small businesses within the Faversham planning area, the following encouraging policies are supportive; KMSP policies EP1, EP2, EP6 and EP7, and SBLP policies B1 and B2.

Discussion The main points for discussion are the appropriateness of the location for the proposal and the impact of the proposal on the amenities of the occupants of the nearby dwellings.

The site is located within the countryside as defined in Swale Borough Local Plan, however it has a long history of development and permissions in the past have included car sales and a showroom, an agricultural merchant’s depot, office/storage/light assembly, change of use to garden centre and a warehouse and office extension. Over the recent past the site had become untidy, unkempt with activity occurring in existing buildings and in the open and has been an apparent dumping ground for variety of materials. The application is part of a process by the new owners to “tidy up “ the site. The applicants state that already “500 used tyres have been removed along with 3000 litres of used oil and fluids, 3 large skips of waste, 50 cars/motorbikes/engines and planting and borders have been created”,

The two units are for use by South East Coachworks and not for use on a speculative basis. The applicants have provided details of their intentions as Appendix B.

The movement of Southeast Coachworks from the centre of Faversham to the site ensures the retention of this highly skilled specialist business and employment to the area. The site is ideally located to take advantage of the local road network on the A2 and M2 for both product supply and movement of the buses and workers, furthermore it is located on a bus route. The proposal also retains land that has historically provided employment and will continue to do so. Therefore based on the above and due to the past history the building of such units for use as vehicle workshops would be acceptable.

The buildings are proposed to be of a standard construction. However I do consider that in this location a larger eaves overhang would be more appropriate and I hope to present amended drawings to the meeting to show this improvement in the design. The colours proposed for the buildings are appropriate in Moorland Green and Olive Green for the doors. Continued . . .

51 2.7 (Contd) PART 2

Therefore based on the above and due to the past history the building of such units for use as vehicle workshops would be acceptable.

The buildings are adjacent to the rear gardens of 3 properties and will lie approx 22m from the rear of the properties with intervening tall vegetation and gardens and are to be sited in the current position of the bus parking area. They are to be 6m in height to the eaves to accommodate the buses that will be renovated, refitted and/or repaired there.

The larger commercial vehicle workshop will be approximately 1m from the boundary with additional boundary treatment and vegetation proposed, while the extensive and tall vegetation that currently exists along the boundary is on the land owned and controlled by the properties.

I note the concerns of the Parish Council as to the distance of the buildings from these properties, however I consider that the change in the situation to all work being conducted within buildings would reduce the current noise and disturbance the occupiers experience, or have done in the past.

The buildings are sited in the proposed position due to the siting of a main sewage pipe across the site which must remain accessible.

Also the buildings are over 22m away from the properties and with current and additional boundary treatments and the replacement of the bus park with the buildings I do not consider the proposal would result in adverse impact on their amenity sufficient to warrant refusal of the application.

Recommendation

Considering the previous planning history of the site I welcome the submission of a proposal which will mitigate the impact of the development on the nearby properties, as well as and the measures already taken to ensure the site is clean and relates well to its environment. I recommend, subject to receipt of amended drawings to show a greater eaves overhang and to the attached conditions to protect the residential amenity of the occupiers of the nearby properties, that planning permission be granted.

Responsible Officer: Graham Thomas (Area Planning Officer)

List of Background Documents

1. Application Papers for Application SW/08/0463 2. Correspondence Relating to Application SW/08/0463 3. Application paper for application SW/02/1271

APPENDIX A ITEM 2.7 PART 2

APPENDIX A (Contd) ITEM 2.7 PART 2

APPENDIX B ITEM 2.7 PART 2

PART 2

2.8 SW/07/1473 (Case 23045 ) FAVERSHAM

Location: Faversham Foundry, Seager Road, Faversham, Kent, ME13 7TJ.

Proposal: Demolition of existing buildings and construction of new commercial (37 units) and residential (111 units) development and associated highways, landscape and drainage.

Applicant/Agent: George Wilson Developments C/o Clague Architects, 62 Burgate, Canterbury, Kent, CT1 3BH.

Application Valid: 15 February 2008

SUBJECT TO: Receipt of satisfactorily amended drawings and additional information, to further views of the Town Council, and to the completion of a Section 106 Agreement to secure necessary contributions to local community facilities and the provision of affordable housing.

Conditions

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

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

(2) The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied and/or operated until a scheme submitted to and approved by the District Planning Authority has been completed which includes the following measures:

(i) A comprehensive site survey by a competent person to determine the existence, extent and concentrations of any landfill gas with potential to reach the application site, particularly within footprints of proposed buildings. A copy of the survey, including findings and recommendations, shall be submitted to the District Planning Authority prior to commencement of development. Continued . . .

56 2.8 (Contd) PART 2

(ii) The requirements within any recommendations shall be completed by a competent person and a Completion Report submitted detailing all measures taken to contain, manage and/or monitor any landfill gas with a potential to reach the application site, in particular, buildings. The scheme shall be agreed in writing with the District Planning Authority and implemented prior to commencement of the development or as part of the development process.

No deviation shall be made from this scheme without the written express agreement of the District Planning Authority.

Grounds: To ensure any potential landfill gas is adequately dealt with in pursuance of policy E3 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

(3) 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.

Grounds: To ensure any contaminated land is adequately dealt with, in pursuance of policy E3 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

Continued . . .

57 2.8 (Contd) PART 2 (4) 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 contaminated land is adequately dealt with, in pursuance of policy E3 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

(5) 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, in pursuance of policy E3 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

(6) No development shall be commenced until a scheme for the disposal of foul and surface waters has been approved by the District Planning Authority. This scheme shall show that no surface water from the site shall be discharged to the ground, that the scheme is designed to protect nearby European habitats from pollution, and that before being discharged into any watercourse, surface water sewer or soakaway system, all surface water from parking areas and hardstandings shall be passed through an oil interceptor designed and constructed to have capacity and details compatible with the area being drained. Such scheme as is approved shall thereafter be implemented at the appropriate time during the development to ensure that all premises and all hard surfaced areas are adequately drained before first use.

Grounds: To prevent pollution of the water environment, especially groundwater, and nearby habitats, and in pursuance of policy E4 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

(7) All materials used for landscaping, or as infill, shall be clean, uncontaminated, naturally occurring, non-putrescible and non-leachate forming. Continued . . .

58 2.8 (Contd) PART 2

Grounds: To prevent pollution of the water environment, especially groundwater, and in pursuance of policy E4 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

(8) Piling or other foundation designs using penetrative methods shall not be permitted other than with the express consent of the District Planning Authority.

Grounds: To prevent pollution of the water environment, especially groundwater, and in pursuance of policy E4 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

(9) The commencement of the development shall not take place until the developer has carried out a survey using an experienced and licensed ecologist in accordance with good practice guidelines to inform an appropriate bat mitigation strategy (where necessary). The survey and mitigation strategy are to be submitted to the District Planning Authority for approval in writing and works shall proceed in accordance with the mitigation strategy.

Grounds: To recognise the possibility of protected species on the site, and in pursuance of policies E12 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008 and EN8 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan

(10) The commencement of the development shall not take place until the developer has carried out a survey using an experienced and licensed ecologist in accordance with good practice guidelines to inform an appropriate reptile mitigation strategy (where necessary). The survey and mitigation strategy are to be submitted to the District Planning Authority for approval in writing and works shall proceed in accordance with the mitigation strategy.

Grounds: To recognise the possibility of protected species on the site, and in pursuance of policies E12 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008 and EN8 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan

(11) No development shall take place until details in the form of samples of facing materials and colours of finishes to be used on the external surfaces of all new buildings have been submitted to and approved in writing by the District Planning Authority.

Grounds: In the interests of the amenities of the area and in pursuance of policies QL1 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan and E1 and E19 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

Continued . . .

59 2.8 (Contd) PART 2

(12) The dwelling units hereby approved shall achieve at least a Level 3 rating under The Code for Sustainable Homes, 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.

Grounds: In the interest of promoting energy efficiency and sustainable development, and in pursuance of policies U3 and E21 of the Swale Borough Local Plan and QL1 and NR3 of the Kent & Medway Structure Plan.

(13) 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 commercial 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 QL1 and NR3 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan and policies E21 and U3 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

(14) Before their first use all parking courtyards shall be fitted with personnel activated task lighting in accordance with a scheme to be submitted to and approved by the District Planning Authority. This scheme shall indicate how the lighting will be maintained in the long term. Upon approval the approved lighting shall be installed and maintained in accordance with the approved scheme.

Grounds: In the interests of the safety and security of the areas, in pursuance of policies E1 and E20 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

(15) No development shall take place until full details of both hard and soft landscape works including the fencing between the site and the fishing lake, details of the acoustic fence between the residential and commercial parts of the site, and details of the close boarded fence to be constructed along the site boundary northwards to Oare Road, have Continued . . .

60 2.8 (Contd) PART 2

been submitted to and approved in writing by the District Planning Authority. These details shall include existing features, planting schedules of plants, noting species, plant sizes and numbers where appropriate, means of enclosure, surfacing materials, and an implementation programme.

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

(16) The proposed roads, including footpaths and turning spaces where applicable, shall be constructed in such a manner so as to ensure that each dwelling or commercial premises before it is occupied is served by a properly consolidated and surfaced footpath and carriageway to at least base course level between the premises and the public highway.

Grounds: To ensure adequate access, in pursuance of policy E1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

(17) The commercial units on the site labelled as Units 1 to 37 on the plan hereby approved shall be used only for purposes within Classes B1 (Business) and B8 (Storage or Distribution) of the Schedule to the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987, as amended.

Grounds: In recognition of the terms of the application, and in order to safeguard residential amenity, in pursuance on policies E1 and E2 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

(18) No dust or fume extraction or filtration equipment, or air conditioning, heating or ventilation equipment shall be installed on any commercial unit or block of flats until full details of its design, siting, discharge points and predicted acoustic performance have been submitted to and approved by the District Planning Authority.

Grounds: In the interests of the residential amenities of occupiers of nearby dwellings, in pursuance of polices E1 and E2 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

(19) The commercial units on the site labelled as Units 1 to 37 on the approved plan shall not be used (other than for unattended storage) outside of the hours of 0700 hours to 1900 hours on Monday to Fridays, and 0800 to 1300 hours on Saturdays, with no working on Sundays or Public Holidays.

Grounds: In the interests of the amenities of the area, with special reference to the amenities of residents of the area, and in pursuance of policies E1 and E2 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008 Continued . . .

61 2.8 (Contd) PART 2

(20) 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, Saturday 0730 - 1300 hours unless in association with an emergency or with the prior written approval of the District Planning Authority.

Within these hours no impact pile driving which may be permitted under the terms of condition (8) above shall take place other than within the hours of 0900 to 1700 on Monday to Fridays only.

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

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

Grounds: In the interests of highway safety and convenience

(22) The commencement of the development shall not take place until a programme for the suppression of dust during demolition of the existing building and during construction of the development has been submitted to and approved in writing by the District Planning Authority. The measures approved shall be employed throughout the period of demolition and construction unless any variation has been approved by the District Planning Authority

Grounds: In the interests of the amenities of the area

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

Grounds: In the interests of highway safety and convenience

(24) No external working or storage of parts, equipment, raw materials or products shall take place within the commercial part of the site.

62 2.8 (Contd) PART 2

(25) No floodlighting, security lighting or other external lighting shall be installed or operated on the commercial part of 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 visual amenity and the residential amenities of occupiers of nearby dwellings, in pursuance of polices E1 and E2 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

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

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

Grounds: In the interests of the amenities of the area, and in pursuance of policy U4 of the Swale Borough Local Plan.

(28) Public street lighting columns within the development shall be fitted with the wiring necessary to accommodate the “Hawkeye” surveillance system at the time of their installation, in locations agreed by the District Planning Authority.

Grounds: In the interests of public amenity and safety pursuant to Policies E20 and E1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

Continued . . .

63 2.8 (Contd) PART 2

(29) No dwelling hereby permitted shall be occupied until full details of the Local Area for Play (LAP) have been submitted to and approved by the District Planning Authority, and the LAP has been made available in accordance with the agreed details for use, unless an alternative timetable for the delivery of the LAP has been agreed by the District Planning Authority.

Grounds: In the interests of residential amenity pursuant to Policies C3 and E1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

(30) 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 policy E1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan.

(31) 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, in pursuance of policy E1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

Reasons for Approval

Having taken all material considerations into account, it is considered that subject to compliance with the attached conditions, the proposal would be in accordance with the development plan and would not cause unacceptable harm to the amenities of the area or prejudice highway safety or convenience. In resolving to grant permission, particular regard has been had to the following policies: Strategic Policy 1, FAV1, E1, E2, E19, E20, E21, B1, B2, H2, H3, U1, U3, U4, C2, C3, T1, T3 and T4 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008, and policies of SP1, SS4, SW1, EP1, EP3, EP6, EP7, HP1, HP2, HP3, HP4, HP7, TP19, QL1, QL5, QL12 and NR3 of The Kent and Medway Structure Plan.

Description

The application is for a comprehensive mixed use commercial and residential redevelopment and is supported by the following reports:

Continued . . .

64 2.8 (Contd) PART 2 • Planning Statement • Design and Access Statement • Transport Assessment and Road Safety Audit • Air Quality Assessment • Noise Assessment • Flood Risk Assessment • Drainage Strategy • Habitat Survey • Sustainability Report • Land Contamination Assessment • An addendum to the Design and Access Statement regarding crime prevention measures.

From these I draw the following points, although the full reports are available to Members at Swale House and will be at the meeting.

The existing foundry is said to have opened in 1961 and involved ferrous and non-ferrous casting. At its peak the site employed 80 people on two shifts from 0600 hours to 12 midnight. Before its closure, hours were reduced to 0600 to 1600 hours and despite various rescue attempts, employee numbers reduced to 20 at the time of closure in October 2006. The site’s operation resulted in many complaints from local residents about noise and pollution, and generated many HGV movements.

Overall, the site contains extensive hard surfaces and 5574 square metres (60,000 sq. ft) of floor space. It is heavily contaminated, with a decontamination cost estimated, at just over £1,000,000.

The foundry site was put on the market in July 2003 and details widely circulated. However, the buildings were not felt to be suitable for continued occupation, and redevelopment costs taking into account demolition and clean-up costs, including dealing with asbestos, meant that commercial redevelopment was not viable, and little interest was generated.

The applicant has a proven track record in local commercial development and he and his team of expert advisors, believe that the economics mean that only a mixed scheme of employment and housing will bring any future commercial future to the site, mainly due to the heavy contamination of the site.

Current demand is said to be turning away from large heavy industrial sites, to lighter industrial and commercial operations. The scheme is described as providing the appropriate kind of unit, and a total floor space, at 7215 square metres (77,700 sq ft) 30% greater than currently exists, in 37 small but flexible units for B1 (business) and B8 (storage or distribution) uses, which can be combined to create larger units, or allow for occupiers’ expansion. It is expected that employment on the site will greatly exceed even the peak figures of the past, perhaps between 114 and 190 people. Continued . . .

65 2.8 (Contd) PART 2

It is proposed that commercial traffic will use Seager Road, with residential traffic using a new road on the Lakeside Works site. A new mini-roundabout has been shown here, and speed reduction measures are proposed on Oare Road between the site and Davington School. Residential development would occupy half of the site, adjacent to the Oare fishing lake. Of the residential area, the majority of units would be apartments with 30% being affordable housing, and with car parking provision at 1.5 spaces per unit.

The proposals include a new pedestrian and cycleway along the lakeside boundary, with architecture taking cues from local wharf-side and waterside buildings, which are often quite tall. The aim has been to create a development with local character, but scaling down near to existing housing to avoid an overbearing impact.

Maximisation of sustainable design and construction techniques using recyclable materials, sustainable drainage, roof water recycling, solar panels on flat roofed areas, and on-site foul water treatment mean that the scheme will reach good sustainability levels.

The applicant recognises the local planning policy context for the encouragement of employment development rather than housing. However, he also notes the Local Plan Inspector's emphasis on the more efficient use of previously developed land, and on mixed use developments allowing people to live near job opportunities.

Overall, the applicant's assessment is that the proposals will remove an unattractive derelict bad neighbour premises, which is heavily contaminated. In its place it is proposed to create an attractive mix of commercial and residential uses (with a greater ratio of employment to housing than at Eurocentre), meeting local employment demand, and providing a significant amount of affordable housing. This would be in a form which is appropriate to the character of Faversham, and incorporates beneficial pedestrian and cycleways, off-site highway improvements and environmental improvements, and Code Level 3 sustainable construction techniques.

The proposed industrial units are low level, but with a distinctive high quality palette of materials. Landscaping will be maintained communally to provide continuity.

The residential development features gables, bays and balconies to reflect and take advantage of the lake view. Materials would be render, brick, boarding, glass and slate. Of the 111 units 82 would be apartments of 1, 2 and 3 bedrooms, whilst the 29 houses would be of 2, 3, 4 and 5 bedrooms. Residential site density would be 71 dwellings per hectare.

Continued . . .

66 2.8 (Contd) PART 2

Building heights range from 2.5 to 4.5 storeys, lower nearer the site boundaries, with much facing the lake, and of a scale found on Faversham Creek. A foot/cycleway fronts the lake, widening at points to create interest and amenity space, both formal and informal. Much of the car parking is provided under buildings, or out of sight to minimise impact.

The scheme will include passive and active sustainable construction techniques, and sustainable drainage, all of which will mean exceeding Building Regulation requirements and reducing flood risk.

The applicant’s air quality assessment, to examine issues agreed with the Head of Amenities, focuses mainly on the impact of traffic from the site, especially on the A2 at Ospringe. However, it is noted that the site has historically been the source of a dust nuisance, which should be reduced by the development. At Ospringe the likely increase in traffic is expected to be below the threshold for a noticeable effect on air quality, and a neutral impact is predicted. The principle effect on air quality is therefore temporary relating to demolition and construction, which will require mitigation measures to be put in place.

The applicant's noise assessment considers the likelihood of noise complaints from proposed industrial premises. It accepts that disruption could occur during demolition and construction, and that background noise levels are largely determined by nearby commercial premises, which operate on a 24 hour basis. It is not expected that existing or proposed dwellings will be subject to unacceptable levels of noise, especially with a close boarded fence separating the proposed commercial and residential areas.

The site is considered partly suitable for reptiles, and adjacent to suitable land, so a reptile survey is suggested. It is also recommended that a bat survey be undertaken although no evidence of bats roosting on the site has been found. However, no part of the site is subject to any wildlife designation, or is known to play host to potential species.

The site is not at risk to tidal flooding, and consideration of flood risk is confined to how run-off will be dealt with. It is proposed that this be dealt with by on-site storm water storage to prevent any risk of flooding to nearby property. Foul sewage would be treated by an on-site plant if flows to sewers are above capacity.

It is suggested that the proposed highway works including the new mini- roundabout and speed reducing features on Oare Road will bring forward significant highway safety benefits to road users. Re-surfacing of adjacent footpaths, and a new footpath/cycleway adjacent to the lake will offer sustainable travel options for site users, and others. It is further suggested that the site is well located to be accessible by a variety of means of travel, and to accord with current policies on the location of development. Continued . . .

67 2.8 (Contd) PART 2

A reduction of HGV movements, but an increase in car movements to the site compared to historic levels, is predicted, but these are split between north and south on Oare Road, and between east and west on the A2 at the Western Link roundabout, as observed in recent surveys. It is thought that all affected local road junctions would deal well with additional traffic, but that queues on West Street would be lengthened. No adverse road safety consequences are anticipated.

In response to the Town Council's question (see below) that the need for such a high number of residential units has not been demonstrated, the applicants have submitted additional information about costings which have been reviewed by the Council’s Economic Development Officer. This indicates that even as proposed the net profit on a scheme costing almost £20 million is just £1.2 million, or around 6 per cent, which is very low by normal standards. It also shows that reducing the housing numbers by 10 makes the scheme too financially unattractive to be contemplated.

The applicants have also responded to points raised by the Town Council and others. I have re-consulted the Town Council on this information and am hoping to hear from them again before the meeting.

Relevant Site History & Description

The development site comprises the combined boundaries of the former Oare Foundry and the smaller adjoining Lakeside Works. Both these sites are long established, heavy industrial sites involved in shaping metal. Both are occupied by ageing typical industrial buildings of no architectural merit, and appear run-down and unattractive.

The sites lie between the fishing lake north of Davington School and the large industrial area between Bysingwood Road, Oare Road and Western Link. To the south lies the established housing area of Churchill Way, in which Wreight Court is a small cul-de-sac of bungalows separated from the site by a public footpath which encircles the site and leads back to Oare Road via Seager Road.

The foundry site itself is currently vacant, and heavily contaminated from years of casting, but it is this site which lies closest to nearby residential properties. This close relationship has resulted in a history of complaints about noise and dust from the foundry. Access to the foundry site is from Seager Road, whilst the Lakeside Works has a relatively narrow frontage directly onto Oare Road.

In terms of planning history, both sites have been the subject of numerous proposals for extensions and alterations going back to 1975/76, relating to their on-going uses.

Continued . . .

68 2.8 (Contd) PART 2 Of more significance of proposals since 2000 on each site. On the foundry site application SW/02/123 proposed the erection of a new free-standing industrial building for a new business in the corner of the site adjacent to the Lakeside Works. This was approved in April 2002 but never built.

On the Lakeside Works three recent planning applications (SW/05/1488, SW/06/0309 and SW/06/0841) proposed loss of the existing premises and redevelopment for live/work premises. These applications were all refused principally because of loss of employment potential, potential impact on adjoining employment sites, and the poor relationship of new housing to the foundry site.

Views of Consultees

Faversham Town Council recommend refusal of the application for the following reasons:

1. The case for the quantity of residential development proposed has not been proven.

2. The height, scale and design of the proposed residential development is inappropriate to the location and will have an adverse effect on neighbouring residential areas.

3. The proposed development will result in significant traffic generation having an adverse effect on Oare Road and Ospringe Street as well as Davington School.

4. The proposed development will significantly reduce the separation between Faversham and Oare.

The Town Council go on to make three additional comments as follows, saying that they:

• Remain to be persuaded of the financial case for the scale of residential development proposed; • Take the view that the proximity of residential development to the proposed B1 uses may preclude some types of employment use, and • Consider that any development should be less assertive and intrusive in character

Natural England have been consulted on this application due to the fact that it lies within a consultation zone surrounding the Swale SSSI. They comment that although close to habitats which form part of the SSSI, the location, nature and scale of the proposals are such that it will not be likely to have a significant effect on the interest features of the SSSI, and that an Appropriate Assessment under the Habitats Regulations is not required. They therefore do not wish to comment on the application. Continued . . .

69 2.8 (Contd) PART 2

However, this conclusion is based on the inclusion of a condition on any planning permission requiring the scheme to have a drainage system which ensures that discharges to watercourses meet current UK standards and are approved by the Environment Agency.

With regard to protected species, Natural England note that the applicant’s habitat survey indicates the potential presence of protected species. They recommend that any planning permission including conditions requiring a survey for bats requiring the submission and approval of a bat mitigation strategy (where necessary), and a survey for reptiles to inform a reptile mitigation strategy.

Finally, Natural England note that the site may host breeding birds, which are protected by law, and that site clearance works should not take place during the March to August breeding season, unless such areas have previously been inspected.

The Environment Agency have commented on matters of flood risk, land contamination, waste management, storage of fuels/chemicals, and biodiversity.

On flood risk, they note that the applicant’s Drainage Strategy indicates no risk of flooding, but they query details leading to that conclusion, ask for clarification of the information, and on this basis object to the application pending this. This issue relates only to surface water drainage, as there is no indication of any risk of the site flooding.

In terms of land contamination, the Agency object to any water being discharged to the ground due to the high groundwater table and presence of contamination on the site. However, where permeable paving is proposed this is acceptable if these areas are fully lined and sealed. They recommend a planning condition preventing drainage to the ground. The Agency raise no objection to the proposed on site foul water treatment plant, but note that a separate consent to discharge from this will be required.

The Agency recommends planning conditions to ensure remediation of any land contamination, based on their agreement with the applicant’s proposals for site remediation. Further conditions are recommended to prevent pollution arising from spoil being retained on site, to ensure new infill material is uncontaminated, and to prevent piling releasing any contamination into ground water.

Finally, the Agency refer to regulations and guidance on appropriate foul/chemical storage practices, and raise no objection to the proposals in relation to matters relating to bio-diversity, preferring only to see opportunities to enhance wildlife, planting native species, and separating site drainage from existing water courses unless suitably managed. Continued . . .

70 2.8 (Contd) PART 2 Southern Water state that the proposal for a private waste water treatment works should be referred to the Environment Agency, but that it may be possible for flows from the site to be connected to the nearby public foul sewers, provided overall flows from the site do not exceed current levels, based on fuller information from the applicant. They request the imposition of planning conditions requiring details for foul and surface water drainage to be submitted to and approved by the Council.

Kent Police’s Crime Reduction and Architectural Liaison Officer has written at length regarding the proposals. She advocates the ACPO/Home Office Secured by Design (SBD) award scheme, or the adoption of similar principles, referring to the Council’s duty under Section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 to do all that it reasonably can to prevent crime and disorder in its area, including anti-social behaviour and substance abuse.

The Police note that crime prevention is not specifically referred to in the applicant’s Design and Access Statement, recommend that the statement be updated, and that they be invited to discussions. Beyond these points, they refer to areas of concern including; • Too much pedestrian permeability tends to increase the opportunity for crime. • The need to discourage casual intrusion by people who do not need to be there, requiring careful design of pedestrian routes. • The nature of boundary treatments • The need to avoid narrow paths behind properties, with sharp bends • Use of defensible space techniques • Limiting the height of planting • Good lighting • Secure cycle parking • The inclusion of CCTV on the commercial area, and hawkeye camera provision in streetlamps. • Avoiding recesses in buildings • Door entry control systems • Well supervised car parking, with no pedestrian routes through, but with gates to enhance security. • Further details of the proposed play area

The applicants' addendum to the Design and Access Statement has addressed these issues.

The County Council's Rights of Way Officer notes that Footpath ZF34 would be obstructed by the development, by commercial units 28 to 37, although the path is already obstructed by boundary fences, and by development on an adjacent site. KCC are aware of these obstructions and are planning to divert the path, but the timescale for this is not known. It is suggested that if planning permission is granted here, it would be prudent to divert the path under Town and Country Planning powers. Continued . . .

71 2.8 (Contd) PART 2

It appears that the definitive route of the path, actually crosses the existing foundry site, but more particularly the adjacent GIST distribution site. The route is essentially redundant as a well established path on a similar alignment runs around the perimeter of the site and is not affected by these proposals. I understand that the County Council is now proposing to resolve this issue themselves, and that it need not impede consideration of this application.

The County Archaeological Officer has not commented on the application.

Kent Highway Services have stated that the access provisions require amendments, both by deleting the proposed mini-roundabout on Oare Road in favour of a traffic light controlled junction, together with a number of detailed issues. They do not object to the principle of the scheme, or to its impact on the local highway network.

The Head of Environment and Amenities has recommended conditions be imposed regarding dealing with remediation of land contamination, hours of use, hours of construction works and piling, and on dust and noise control.

The Head of Housing Services has requested that 34 of the proposed residential units be affordable, split 60:40 between rented and shared ownership and has suggested which units would be suitable. He has also stated that these units should meet the Council’s Lifetime Homes Standard meet Level 3 in the Code for Sustainable Homes, with 25% being wheelchair adapted.

The Council's Economic Development Officer has commented as follows:-

"I have the following comments to make regarding the application of the above site. Over a period of many years Faversham has been unable to secure any substantial investment in new business premises, to support the growth of the local economy. The lack of modern, good quality premises has meant that Faversham has struggled to secure new companies or accommodate the needs of the indigenous business community. This has changed recently with GW Developments creating a mix of new business space at Whitstable Road. This scheme has proved very popular, attracting inward investment to the town and meeting the needs of growing local companies. It is anticipated that this scheme will be full, promptly after its completion, proving the market that exists for the right quality space in and around the town.

The proposed development for the above site would support continued delivery against the employment strategy for Faversham, in terms of providing appropriately scaled development to support the growth of the local employment base. The scheme specifically looks to deliver a size of unit which historically has proved to be something many local companies have

Continued . . .

72 2.8 (Contd) PART 2

sought and the limited supply of which is generally of poorer quality. The scheme offers a great opportunity for Faversham to build upon the momentum in the market that has been gained through the Whitstable Road scheme, and deliver substantial employment gains for the town."

Other Representations

Faversham Angling Club, who own the large lake adjacent to the site, and who are in contact with the applicant, originally wrote in some detail to comment on the proposals.

Their concerns focused on:

1. Potential impact on the privacy of anglers from the many high windows facing the lake.

2. Noise and disturbance to anglers’ quiet enjoyment of the lake, including during construction works, by day and by night. They ask for construction work to avoid weekends.

3. Potential pollution of the lake from site drainage, and implications for the Club’s existing toilet connection to sewers.

4. The height and proximity of the proposed development to the lake, and its impact on the enjoyment of the lake.

5. Queries over boundaries, permissions for drainage, nuisance during works, site security, scale of boundary treatments and planting belts, and lack of consultation by the applicant.

6. They suggest a reduction in the extent of commercial development, and spreading the residential element over a wider area, so allowing reduced height.

7. The impact of highway improvements on the Club’s land, and on roadside vegetation, and the safety of pedestrians arising from increased traffic on Oare Road.

However, the applicants have been in touch with the Club to discuss their concerns and I am now aware that they are prepared to withdraw their objection and support revised proposals for the site if amendments are agreed.

Agents for the County Council have pointed to likely impacts on community services and have requested developers contributions via a Section 106 Agreement of:

Continued . . .

73 2.8 (Contd) PART 2

• £216.00 per dwelling for library development • £165.50 per dwelling towards adult education, and • £1,352.76 per dwelling for adult social services

They note the likely extra demand for school places, but consider that this can be accommodated within local schools.

I have also received fourteen letters from residents near the site including a number from the Churchill Way/Wreight Court area, and one jointly signed by residents of all the properties in the Oare Windmill, Mill House, Mill Cottage and Windmill Lane cluster of dwellings. These letters raise the following summarised concerns:

1. The high rise 4-5 storey nature of the development is out of keeping with the nature of the area. It will appear intrusive, cutting off the currently open aspect of the area. Many neighbouring properties are bungalows, and the proposed buildings will tower over them more than the foundry does as they would be nearer.

2. There is no need for so many dwelling units, or for the buildings to be so tall. They will result in an invasion of privacy for nearby residents, as well as affecting daylight. There should be more potential for landscaping near existing housing, and lower buildings should be set towards the edge of the site.

3. The application form says no trees will be felled, but some have recently been removed, despite local concerns being raised at the time. These trees could have been incorporated into the development.

4. The developer suggests discharging treated water to “the stream”, but he must mean the fishing lake, which is a haven for wildlife.

5. The town’s infrastructure is inadequate for the level of housing planned to take place in the Faversham area. Additional houses are not needed.

6. The footpath links proposed will act as escape routes for those engaging in criminal and anti-social behaviour. Existing footpaths are dark, and lighting would be intrusive; perhaps the paths could be gated. However, new paths appear to be well landscaped, and there may be the opportunity to remove the footpath linking to Wells Way.

7. Trees around the fishing lake should be managed to preserve views across the lake from existing and proposed housing.

Continued . . .

74 2.8 (Contd) PART 2

8. The site is contaminated with metal and asbestos, and what effect will site clearance have on residents’ lives and health. This must be properly controlled, as the site is near homes and Davington School. Noise and disruption will occur during demolition and construction. There might be more noise from the development; what acoustic barrier will be put in place?

9. Additional traffic of an industrial nature, adding to recent increases. There will be traffic problems on Oare Road, and in Davington and Ospringe.

10. Planning permission was recently refused for housing on part of the site due to its potential impact on the continuation of employment uses nearby, contrary to Local Plan policies.

11. The site is in a rural area, and the density is too great, with no garaging and little amenity space.

12. No objections to the scheme in principle; it should enhance the area, which is much in need of improvement. The clearance of the foundry will greatly improve the area and give needed local employment.

Relevant Planning Policies

This is a significant proposal, which touches on a range of strategic, local and topic policies. The Development Plan comprises Regional Planning Guidance 9: Regional Planning Guidance for the South East, the Kent and Medway Structure Plan, and the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

The Structure Plan's strategic approach to Faversham is contained in Policy SW1: Swale. This states:

Continued . . .

75 2.8 (Contd) PART 2

“At Faversham conservation of the historic environment remains the prime consideration. Peripheral growth of Faversham for residential development is not envisaged. Improvement of local employment opportunities will be pursued but should incorporate a review of the scale and location of previous commitments which remain unimplemented with a view to rationalisation, consideration of alternative site provision and husbanding of land in established employment uses. Within this framework full and effective use should be made of development capacity within the town providing for a balance of business, commercial and residential development with particular attention paid to meeting locally based needs for housing.”

This is consistent with overall Structure Plan aims, as set out in Policy SP1 “Conserving and Enhancing Kent's Environment and Ensuring a Sustainable Pattern of Development” which include:

• Reducing reliance on greenfield sites • Using and re-using land and buildings more efficiently • Protecting and enhancing features of importance in the natural and built environment • Fostering good accessibility to jobs and services for all sections of the community

Policy SS4 (SP) “Priority for Previously Developed Land and a Suggested Approach to the Location of Development” promotes a priority for re-use of previously developed land for housing, employment and other commercial uses.

In the 2008 adopted Local Plan, the strategy for Faversham is provided by Policy FAV1 which reads as follows:

“Within the Faversham and Rest of Swale Planning Area, conservation of the historic and natural environment is the prime and overriding consideration. Within this context, the Borough Council will enhance the role of the market town to support its own local needs and those of its rural hinterland. This will be achieved by promoting development proposals that can retain and harness local skills to achieve a greater diversity in employment, housing and community life, in scale and character with Faversham and its surrounding countryside and communities. Within this planning area, within the identified Area Action Plans and elsewhere, the following priorities will be pursued:

2. to retain and improve existing employment land and buildings that would otherwise exacerbate the population and employment imbalance if lost to housing development;

Continued . . .

76 2.8 (Contd) PART 2

3. to safeguard and enhance the diversity of Faversham's small scale historic character and its maritime traditions, alongside that of its surrounding countryside, landscape and communities;

4. to enhance Faversham Creek and creekside so that it functions as a place of special interest and activity with strong associations with the water;

6. to support proposals that can meet as much of Faversham's development needs as possible from land and buildings within the existing urban area so as to minimise greenfield land development.

7. to provide for employment development, at a scale appropriate to the environment, on sites well related to the communication network, the existing urban framework and rural settlements;

8. to support and diversify the services and activities, including tourism, in Faversham town centre so as to enhance its economic health;

10. to effectively manage the risk of flooding; and

11. avoiding any significant advise environmental impacts, and where possible, enhancing the biodiversity interest of internationally designated sites for nature conservation.”

77 2.8 (Contd) PART 2

Policy B1 (LP) seeks to retain existing employment land in employment use unless it is;

• Inappropriately located for continued employment use • No longer suitable for continued employment use • Not in demand for continued employment use, or • Allocated for alternative use in the Local Plan

In the event that any of these apply the policy goes on the demand that a mixed use future for the site is explored before solely residential redevelopment.

In terms of housing policy, the Structure Plan sets out housing quantities for the Borough and the Local Plan allocates these geographically. For the Borough as a whole Policy HP1 (SP) “Housing Provision and Distribution 2001-2006” allocates 9,100 dwellings to Swale for 2001-2016. Policy HP2 (SP) “Housing Provision, Phasing, Assessment and Sequential Approach to Location” prioritises their provision on previously developed land at urban centres, where this has good access, adequate infrastructure and does not result in environmental harm, followed by sites at smaller settlements, before greenfield development. Policy HP3 (SP) “Contribution of Previously Developed Land and Previously Used Buildings to Housing Provision 2001- 2016” seeks the provision of 70% of new housing to be provided as previously developed land.

Policy HP6 (SP) “Range and Mix of Housing Provision” seeks a mix of dwelling sizes and type, including sheltered housing, supported and lifetime housing and student accommodation.

At a Local Plan level, the Structure Plan's housing allocation is distributed predominantly to the Thames Gateway part of the Borough (8,100) with just 1,000 allocated to the Faversham and Rest of Swale Area in which the site lies. At Faversham the existing completions, permissions and expected contributions from windfall sites already show a surplus of housing provision to 2016, so there is no need for additional housing at present.

Instead, the policy approach is to retain housing by Policy H1 (LP) “Retaining Existing Housing”, and to allow for new housing by Policy H2 (LP) “Providing for New Housing” on allocated sites, other sites within built-up areas, and only exceptionally outside built-up areas under countryside or rural needs reasons.

Continued . . .

78 2.8 (Contd) PART 2 Policy H3 (LP) seeks that on all new housing developments of 15 units or more 30% of the homes are provided as affordable housing, and that these will be secured by planning conditions or appropriate legal agreements.

Policies C2 (LP) and QL12 (SP) provide for new community services to be provided to cater for the impacts of the development, whilst policy C3 (LP) seeks that at least 10% of the net site area of a residential development site is provided and equipped as public open space.

The site has no site specific development policies in the Local Plan which provide for its future.

Discussion

This scheme needs to be considered against the Local Plan's overall aim for Faversham, which is to balance housing development and employment opportunities. This is intended to create a more sustainable community by making full and effective use of the development capacity of the town, and reducing historic levels of out-commuting. One way to achieve this is to retain existing employment land in employment use; another is to encourage employment development on existing and new sites; and the third is to generally restrain housing development at Faversham. The last of these issues is also important from the point of view of preventing peripheral expansion of the town. Such expansion would threaten wildlife, landscape and high quality agricultural land interests, as well as piling pressure on local infrastructure with potential seriously detrimental consequences for the historic character of the town.

This site is an established employment site. The first principle of the Local Plan is that it should be retained in employment use if possible. However, the majority of the site is only currently suitable for the sort of heavy industry that is not employment intensive, and which does not create a bright future for the site. Even maximum post employment figures across the whole site have not exceeded 100 jobs, and whilst a standard measure of employment creation is floorspace, I believe that employment generation is an equally valid measure.

The sites involved in this application have both been marketed without success for their current uses, but this has not created any interest. The highly contaminated nature of the foundry site, and the nature of condition of the buildings on both sites means that they are not suitable for or attractive to alternative uses. Continued . . .

79 2.8 (Contd) PART 2 This proposal seeks to develop purpose built modern, flexible employment units suitable for a range of up-to-date uses and small firms. A 30 per cent uplift in existing employment floorspace, and more than doubling the peak employment figures, indicate that far from being a loss of employment land, this proposal represents a significant boost for local employment prospects.

The high costs of decontaminating this site lead me to conclude that employment development on its own will not be able to finance the site's rejuvenation. The residential element is therefore promoted as a form of enabling development. Its employment needs will be more than met by the potential new employment, and this will result in a healthy net improvement in the housing/employment balance across the town.

The ratio of employment floorspace to housing here is significantly better than on the current Eurocentre scheme. There 15,000 square metres of employment floorspace is accompanied by almost 300 housing units, whereas here about half of that employment development is supported by just over one third of the number of residential units.

The proposal utilises previously developed land and avoids any peripheral expansion of the town onto areas cherished for their unspoilt qualities. It avoids areas of flood risk and offers resolution of the hitherto difficult relationship between the foundry site and housing. The Local Plan's housing target for Faversham to 2016 is already expected to be met without this proposal. That in itself is not a reason for refusal of this application, especially when the increased housing proposed avoids environmental harm and actually improves the housing/employment balance of the town.

Most importantly the proposal has directly addressed the tests of Local Plan Policy B1 and shown that there is no demand for it as an employment site in its current state. Moreover, it then proposes a truly mixed use scheme as demanded by the policy, and actually increases the employment floorspace and job numbers on the site. I do not therefore find that the proposal is in conflict with the overall aims of the Structure or Local Plans for Faversham.

The Town Council has queried the need for so many residential units. The applicants have responded to that query in some detail. Confidential figures, of which a summary has been sent to the Town Council, indicate that due to the high site de-contamination costs the applicant's profit margin is roughly half what could usually be expected, and that even a small reduction in housing numbers would make the project too risky to proceed.

This issue is exaggerated by the fact that the scheme is intended to provide the full 30% affordable housing contribution demanded by the Local Plan (and in the current economic conditions this could be higher), and Code 3 sustainability criteria. Such demands can challenge ordinary residential schemes, let alone ones that have a significant enabling role. I am satisfied that the number of residential units proposed is not excessive. Continued . . .

80 2.8 (Contd) PART 2

My conclusion on the principle of the scheme is that it generally meets the overall objectives of the Local Pan as it relates to Faversham, and is a far more realistic way of meeting those objectives than a full employment future for the site is. In my view insistence on only employment uses on the site will consign it to a future of vacancy and deterioration leading to dereliction.

It is also worth noting that a failure to see this site in productive use will give credence to the arguments of some, that new possibly greenfield sites should be released to provide the employment levels necessary to meet Local Plan objectives. This must be avoided.

The refusals of planning permission for live/work units on the Lakeside Works site may be seen by some as in conflict with acceptance of this proposal. I, however, see three key differences between that scheme and this. In the case of the Lakeside Works the amount of employment floorspace across the site was not significantly increased. The properties bordered adjacent on- going commercial sites in established potentially noisy uses, and the prospect of putting more housing close to the foundry seemed entirely wrong. This scheme increases the employment potential of the site, has a road between residential units and adjacent sites, and removes the issue of conflict between housing and the foundry. There is now far less potential for an enclave of housing to prejudice the long-term future of this significant industrial area, or for the housing to suffer adverse consequences from it.

Turning now to the details of the scheme, a number of issues have been raised.

Kent Highway Services have requested a revision to the residential access proposals. They have essentially said that it is not appropriate to build a new junction with a new mini-roundabout, and that there is not enough room for a conventional roundabout. As visibility from the junction is not adequate for the speed of traffic (even though the speed limit is 30 mph) they have agreed with the applicants that a traffic light signalled junction should be provided.

I am expecting revised drawings to show this change, although I somewhat regret that such an arrangement is necessary in such a semi-rural and lightly trafficked location. I have asked both Kent Highways and the applicants to explore the option of a more wide-ranging traffic calming arrangement, even involving a changed priority junction to reduce traffic speeds sufficiently. However, the applicants believe that this will be costly and very time consuming to achieve, affecting the viability and delivery of the scheme. Members may wish to consider their views of whether the method of ensuring highway safety that is to be proposed is appropriate, or whether an alternative, with perhaps more wide-ranging benefits along Oare Road, would be preferable.

Continued . . .

81 2.8 (Contd) PART 2 Kent Highway Services have also raised a number of detailed technical points which I am expecting the applicants to resolve on amended drawings.

The Environment Agency have raised a technical objection over surface water drainage capacities. The aim of the scheme is to attenuate rainfall and to control discharge to the watercourse across Oare Road, not onto the fishing lake, and I am hoping that the current query can be resolved before he meeting.

Similarly, the applicant's addendum to their Design and Access Statement addresses issues raised by the Police.

Local representations principally relate to the height and impact of the residential development, the amount of housing, the issue of the new footpath/cycleway on crime, health issues arising from demolition including release of asbestos, and traffic. There is also concern from the Angling Club about possible impacts on the lake and its users.

Some see the proposed height of buildings as inappropriate to the area, and likely to result in loss of light, outlook and privacy to nearby dwellings. The units alongside existing residential areas are all houses. The taller blocks of flats are more towards the centre of the site.

There is no real issue of overshadowing or loss of privacy due to the distances between buildings: all normal privacy standards are exceeded. Some have commented on a lack of screening between the proposed housing and existing homes. These are separated from each other by an existing public footpath, and I see no real reason to segregate different areas of housing from each other.

I do accept that the blocks of flats at three and four storeys high, and one with a further two flats in the roof space as a fifth level, are tall. The existing buildings on the foundry site are themselves tall by normal standards, and there are other high buildings nearby including the new GIST warehouse, and even Oare Windmill. Where the housing adjoins existing houses it is of a two-storey form, building up to four storeys only in the centre of the site. This building is far smaller in footprint than the existing foundry building, and will have a far less imposing presence. It is also over 100m away from the nearest existing house, so its impact on its amenities will be negligible.

In terms of existing development, these blocks will only be seen at considerable distances, and views to them across the lake will be extremely long, so reducing any impact. The applicants have responded to the local tradition of tall buildings fronting the creek by proposing gable ended buildings facing southwards towards the lake. The relationships between tall creekside buildings and nearest of neighbours is much more intimate than here, and I believe that the high standard of design proposed enables the buildings to sit comfortably in this expansive environment. Continued . . .

82 2.8 (Contd) PART 2

I am expecting amended drawings relating to minor design changes and clarification of the level of detail proposed on the residential units.

I have already touched on the number of housing units proposed, and on highway safety, and I see no need to add to those comments other than to say that I am still considering details of the site layout regarding public open space, garden sizes and scope for additional landscaping.

The scheme includes a new footpath and cycleway linking Oare Road to the Bysingwood Estate, where National Cycle Route 1 runs along Bysingwood Road. This can join the existing footpath that follows the perimeter of the site from Seagar Road, but will be more direct and more attractive. Unfortunately, the path does not lead directly into Churchill Way as the original developers there retain a very narrow ransom strip, presumably in case Churchill Way was ever to be extended.

The proposed footpath/cycleway cannot therefore join straight into Churchill Way, and users would still have to use a narrow alley behind 3 houses fronting Churchill Way. I have asked the applicants to establish whether this scheme could connect straight into Churchill Way, but the ransom strip issue has prevented this. The direct link would have the benefits of reducing the opportunities for crime by ensuring that the route is better overlooked. An alternative enhancement would be to repave and install lighting in the alleyway, and I hope that either funding for this, or a resolution of the direct link to Churchill Way and close of the alleyway could be incorporated into a Section 106 Agreement.

To control demolition I have recommended a condition requiring a scheme of works and dust suppression. The Head of Environment and Amenities has already been in touch with the applicants about minimising impacts of demolition, and there are special regulations relating to handling asbestos, which the Council does not control.

As far as the Angling Club is concerned, I note they were concerned over loss of privacy and disturbance to anglers. Clearly construction working hours can be controlled to some extent, but I do feel that on a lake of this scale, there is ample scope for peace and quiet and privacy around its shores. The most affected locations are in any case near the entrance to the site, not at its further reaches.

The applicants have met the Club and agreed to install higher railings on the site boundary to enhance their security, and I believe that they are also offering to build them a new toilet block, but I am hoping for this to be clarified. I do not believe that this development would be any worse a neighbour than the existing uses although the new footpath/cycleway would open up attractive views across the lake, which is currently rather hidden.

Continued . . .

83 2.8 (Contd) PART 2

I believe that with expected amendments the Angling Club's concerns will be addressed, although I note that they remain concerned about the height of the proposed buildings.

The proposal does come with requirements for community infrastructure, contributions for play equipment, a public rights of way creation order on the new footpath/cycleway, off site highway works, and affordable housing, as well as the matter of connection to Churchill Way referred to above. I believe that these can all be governed by a Section 106 Agreement, which should also govern phased minimum delivery of the employment floorspace against progress on housing provision, if Members are otherwise content with the scheme.

Recommendation

Subject to amended drawings regarding highway and design issues, and the resolution of the Environment Agency's concerns, I believe that the scheme will be acceptable. Members may wish to consider the appropriateness of a traffic light controlled junction at the residential access junction, or whether alternative traffic calming works would be preferable.

Members will also need to weigh in the balance the potentially harmful effects of additional housing (although the County Council do feel that existing schools can cope) set against the advantages of the re-use of this previously used site for new and welcome employment development. My analysis is the balance of advantage is heavily in favour of accepting this mix of development, as a signal that the Local Plan objectives can be delivered without the need for development beyond the town's boundaries.

I therefore recommend that planning permission is granted subject to the completion of a Section 106 Agreement to secure the necessary community facilities to deal with the impacts of the development.

Responsible Officer: Graham Thomas (Area Planning Officer)

List of Background Documents

1. Application papers and correspondence for application SW/07/1473. 2. Application papers for applications SW/02/123 3. Application papers for applications SW/05/1488 4. Application papers for applications SW/06/0309 5. Application papers for applications SW/06/0841

84 PART 2

2.9 SW/08/0583 (Case 16934) FAVERSHAM

Location: Davington Priory, Priory Road, Faversham, Kent, ME13 7EJ

Proposal: Non-compliance with condition 3 of SW/07/0570 so the parapet can exceed 2.5m in height from the bottom of the rear weatherboarding along the whole length of the building including the approved extension

Applicant/Agent: Bandol Holdings Ltd, c/o Jane Wade, Sell Wade Consultants, Lords, Sheldwich, Faversham, Kent, ME14 0NJ

Application Valid: 21 May 2008

SUBJECT TO: Receipt of amended drawings clarifying the overall height of the parapet

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.

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

Grounds: In the interests of preserving the special architectural interest of the listed building, the special character of the conservation area and in pursuance of policies QL1, QL6 and QL8 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan and E14, E15 and E19 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

(3) The top of the parapet hereby permitted shall not exceed 2.95m in height from the bottom of the weatherboarding on the North East (rear) elevation of the coach house for its entire length.

Grounds: To preserve the amenities of the adjoining property in pursuance of Policies E1, of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008

Continued . . .

85 2.9 (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 preserve the special architectural or historic interest of the listed building. In resolving to grant consent, particular regard has been had to the following policies: QL1, QL6 and QL8 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan and E14, E15, E19 and E24 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

2.10 SW/08/0584 (Case 16934) FAVERSHAM

Location: Davington Priory, Priory Road, Faversham, Kent, ME13 7EJ

Proposal: Non-compliance with condition 3 of SW/07/0511 so the parapet can exceed 2.5m in height from the bottom of the rear weatherboarding along the whole length of the building including the approved extension

Applicant/Agent: Bandol Holdings Ltd, c/o Jane Wade, Sell Wade Consultants, Lords, Sheldwich, Faversham, Kent, ME14 0NJ

Application Valid: 21 May 2008

SUBJECT TO: Receipt of amended drawings clarifying the overall height of the parapet.

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 and finishes to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the parapet hereby permitted shall match those on the existing building in terms of type, colour and texture.

86 2.9 & 2.10 (Contd) PART 2

(3) The top of the parapet hereby permitted shall not exceed 2.95m in height from the bottom of the weatherboarding on the North East (rear) elevation of the coach house for its entire length.

Grounds: To preserve the amenities of the adjoining property in pursuance of Policies 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, would preserve the special interest of the listed building 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: QL1, QL6 and QL8 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan and E14, E15, E19 and E24 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

Description of Proposal

These applications are for the variation and/or removal of conditions (3) attached to listed building consent SW/07/0570 and planning permission SW/07/0511 so that the parapet can exceed 2.5m in height from the bottom of the rear weatherboarding along the whole length of the building including the approved extension.

The applications follow the granting of permission and listed building consent for the removal of the existing overhanging eaves and its replacement with a parapet in November 2007.

At that time Members supported a request from the neighbour that a condition be imposed which stated that “the top of the parapet hereby permitted shall not exceed 2.5m in height from the bottom of the weatherboarding on the NE (rear) elevation of the Coach House for its entire length”. This did not conflict with the drawing submitted at that time.

The Agent now comments that:

“the drawing as submitted contained an inaccuracy in that the height of the bottom of the weatherboarding to the rear elevation was incorrect.

There is no intention to increase the overall height of the parapet wall or the height of the parapet from ground level.

The Agent requests the condition be varied to read “the top of the parapet shall not exceed 2.95m in height from the bottom of the weatherboarding on the rear elevation”.

Continued . . .

87 2.9 & 2.10 (Contd) PART 2

Relevant Site History and Site Description

The coach house is located directly on the northern boundary of Davington Priory grounds to the west of the main access into the site off Priory Road, and to the north west of the house/former priory itself.

Previous planning history includes:

SW/08/0121 & SW/08/0122 For Removal of the existing eaves and replacement with a parapet along the whole length of the building including the approved extension REFUSED in May 2008 SW/07/0511 & SW/07/0570 For removal of existing eaves and replacement with a parapet along the whole length of the building including the approved extension. APPROVED in November 2007 SW/05/1507 and SW/05/1652 Renewal of planning permission SW/00/0156 for a first floor side extension APPROVED in 2006 SW/00/0156 and SW/00/0157 first floor side extension APPROVED in 2001

Views of Consultees

Faversham Town Council recommends approval and comments:

“The Town Council would recommend approval of a condition which restricts the height of the parapet so that the top of the parapet above ground level is no more than that shown on the approved drawings.”

English Heritage do not offer comments and recommend that the application “should be determined in accordance with national and local policy guidance and on the basis of your specialist conservation advice”

One letter of objection has been received from the immediate neighbour who comments:

“Further to my email dated 2nd June 2008, I have now had an opportunity to examine these applications and have the further comments to make.

The Certificates, as I have already pointed out, are not valid and the correct notices and certificates should be served before these applications are considered.

NOTE: An e-mail dated 6 June 2008 accepts the notices are correct and in order.

Box 7 on the application forms have been completed to indicate that the proposed development is not visible from the public road. This is untrue and misleading. I have previously sent you photographs showing the view from the highway. This is another inaccuracy.

Continued . . .

88 2.9 & 2.10 (Contd) PART 2

It is interesting to note that the Agent now admits that the drawings are inaccurate. I have been pointing this out to the Council for the last eight and a half years, but unfortunately the Conservation Officer has not agreed, with the result that work inaccurately shown on drawings has been granted Listed Building Consent

If the Section to 1/10 scale is examined it is easy to scale, accurately, that the top of the proposed parapet is intended to be 550mm above the top of the wall plate supporting the rafters. It is also possible to establish that the top of the wall plate, in both the existing building and the partly built extension is 2280mm above the bottom of the weatherboarding. This dimension can be checked from the Priory. These two dimensions added together come to 2830mm so, according to the deposited drawings, the height of the parapet shown is 2830mm not 2950mm, above the bottom of the weatherboarding. Again an inaccurate drawing and dimension.

The NE elevation is not correct; as the eaves height on the NW elevation is about 1 metre lower than on the remainder of the building and the hip is therefore that much lower. Again an inaccurate drawing. For your reference I enclose an extract from the deposited drawing on which I have indicated these corrections

I notice that, on the submitted drawing, the depth of the weatherboarding has been increased and the amount of brickwork below decreased so that although the height of the parapet is increased by 450mm it is claimed to be the same height above the ground. This is simply not true. The parapet will be 450mm (1 foot 6 inches) higher than the Committee approved in November last year. The Committee decided that the height of the parapet should not be more than 2.5 metres above the bottom of the weatherboarding in order to preserve the amenities of the adjoining property in pursuance of Policy G1 of the Swale Borough Council Local Plan and E1 of the Re- Deposited Swale Borough Local Plan First Review.

I can find no explanation or reason in the application for increasing the height of the parapet, or indeed a rationale for fixing on any particular height. In order to establish what height the parapet needs to be it is necessary to draw a longitudinal section, to a large scale, through the length of the gutter showing the fall and steps necessary to form the lead work in accordance with good practice. I suggest that it is in the interests of good conservation that the gutter should be properly constructed so that it does not leak and the listed building is preserved. Without these details it is all guess work and will probably go horribly wrong when construction is started resulting in further hurried amendments. I suggest that the Council should require these details to be submitted before the applications can be dealt with. It is worthwhile remembering that the Council decided on a height for the parapet in order to protect the residential amenities of the neighbours and I hope that they will not now change their minds. It is always possible to reduce the rise required in the gutter and therefore the height of the parapet by introducing additional rainwater outlets in the gutter that could be internal, or external with my agreement. Continued . . .

89 2.9 & 2.10 (Contd) PART 2 I also notice that the lead work is not shown correctly, is not in accordance with normal building practice, and if constructed as drawn, without expansion joints and flashings, would tear and leak. The tiling is also incorrectly drawn without an eaves tile leaving a straight joint that will leak. Yet more errors. I have previously sent you extracts from books on building construction illustrating the correct construction, but these seem to have been ignored by your Conservation Officer.

It might be an idea to seek advice from a qualified surveyor from the South Thames Gateway Building Control Partnership who is currently dealing with breaches of the Building Regulations on the partly constructed building. Although building construction is not normally a planning matter it is a legitimate interest of listed building control where it is important that correct building techniques are employed to protect and preserve the listed building. Qualified experienced advice may be helpful.

The applicant has known and ignored, for over eight years, the fact that the eaves overhanging my land could not be built without my permission, but is now seeking to raise the height of the building by a significant amount in order to get out of the problems that he has created for himself. Over eighteen months ago, I discussed terms with him for allowing the eaves to overhang my land, which he has declined to accept. The applicant can construct the eaves for which he already has permission if he wishes. I therefore respectfully ask the Council to stick to its guns, safeguard our residential amenities, and refuse the applications. “

Policies

Kent & Medway Structure Plan

QL1, QL6 and QL8 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan

Swale Borough Local Plan Policies

E1, E14, E15, E19 and E24 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

Discussion

The application is for the removal of condition 3 attached to planning permission SW/07/0511 and listed building consent SW/07/0570 which states that:

“The top of the parapet hereby permitted shall not exceed 2.5m in height from the bottom of the weatherboarding on the North East (rear) elevation of the coach house for its entire length.”

The previous application sufficiently proved the previous existence of a parapet and therefore the principle of its construction was established. The main point for discussion is the condition attached to the permission which it now turns out effectively renders the construction of the parapet impossible. Continued . . .

90 2.9 & 2.10 (Contd) PART 2 The drawings attached to the 2007 application wrongly showed the height of the weatherboarding from the bottom to the top to be 2.4m with the parapet to be 550mm within this. The condition Committee agreed to gave an additional 100mm margin and the condition was attached to the permission. These figures, discussion and resultant condition implicitly assumed that the wall plate therefore was 1.85m above the bottom of the weatherboarding, and there was no evidence available to contradict this.

However my Officers have since measured the height of the wall plate on site and discovered it to be very nearly 2.3m above the bottom of the weather boarding. As such with only an additional 200mm available to build a 550mm high parapet it is evident that in complying with the condition the parapet is not able to be constructed.

With the height of the wall plate from the bottom of the weatherboarding confirmed at 2.3m and the additional 550mm for the parapet the total height of weatherboarding is to be 2.85m and with the 100mm margin, as applied by committee on the previous application, 2.95m would be an acceptable limit.

The inaccurate drawings on applications SW/07/0511 and SW/07/0570 led to an assumption about the depth of the weatherboarding, which was incorrect and hence resulted in the unworkable condition. Therefore the figure should have read 2.95m, not 2.5m, had the wall plate measurement been taken earlier.

The building of the parapet itself would not be any higher than shown on the previously approved scheme but the overall dimension of the weatherboarding is 450mm greater. The impact of this change on the amenity of the neighbour is therefore at issue now.

I note that the neighbour does agree broadly with the above dimensions as to the new total height of the weatherboarding. However they note that the parapet will in fact be higher than previously approved. What has not changed is the proposed height of the parapet itself. It is still the same height as previously approved by Members. However, by placing a condition relating to the height of the incorrectly drawn weatherboarding, the decisions make no sense. These applications offer the opportunity to correct that error, without injustice to the neighbour. This is because the parapet will not be higher than previously proposed from the building’s wall plate. The realistic net impact on the neighbour’s amenity is neutral.

Summary and Recommendation The previous applications and resultant conditions were examined, discussed and approved based on inaccurate drawings. As such the figure of 2.5m for the total height of the weatherboarding including the parapet was not accurate or relevant. Following measurement on site it has been established that to build the parapet of 550mm the maximum height to the bottom of the weatherboarding needs to be 2.95m (with a 100mm margin applied as previously). Continued . . .

91 2.9 & 2.10 (Contd) PART 2

Although this figure is higher than previously approved the real height of the parapet would not increase and hence having considered the objections of the neighbour I consider their amenity is maintained. I recommend that condition 3 be removed and replaced with a condition stating:

“The top of the parapet hereby permitted shall not exceed 2.95m in height from the bottom of the weatherboarding on the North East (rear) elevation of the coach house for its entire length.”

Responsible Officer: Graham Thomas (Area Planning Officer)

List of Background Papers

1. Application Papers for Application SW/08/0583 & SW/08/0584

2. Correspondence Relating to Application SW/08/0583 & SW/08/0584

3. Application papers and correspondence relating to applications SW/08/0121, SW/08/0122, SW/07/0511, SW/07/0570, SW/05/1507, SW/05/1652, SW/00/0156, SW/00/0157.

92 PART 2

2.11 SW/08/0044 (Case 5003) WARDEN

Location: Thorn Hill Lodge, Thorn Hill Road, Warden, Isle of Sheppey, Kent ME12 4PB

Proposal: Outline application for demolition of existing large bungalow, detached garages and enclosed swimming pool (plus housing) and replacement with four 3- bedroomed houses with integral garages.

Applicant/Agent: Mr T Linward, c/o Trevor Carrier, 104 Venner Road, Sydenham SE26 5HR.

Application Valid: 17 January 2008 and as amended by additional plans and information received on 2 June 2008.

SUBJECT TO: Receipt of amended plan excluding land to resolve question of ownership

Conditions

(1) Details relating to the layout, scale, appearance, access and landscaping of the site shall be submitted to and approved by the District Planning Authority before any development is commenced.

Grounds: No such details have been submitted.

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

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

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

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

Continued . . .

93 2.11 (Contd) PART 2

(4) Provision shall be made within the site for the disposal of surface water so as to prevent its discharge onto the highway, details of which shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the District Planning Authority.

Grounds: In the interests of highway safety and convenience, and in pursuance of policies E1 and T3 of the Swale Borough Local plan 2008; and QL1 and TP19 of the Kent & Medway Structure Plan.

(5) The details submitted in pursuance to condition (1) shall show adequate land reserved for parking or garaging in accordance with the approved County Parking Standards and, upon approval of the details this area shall be provided, surfaced and drained before any building is occupied and shall be retained for the use of the occupiers of, and visitors to, the premises. Thereafter, 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 the land so shown in such a position as to preclude vehicular access to the reserved vehicle parking area.

Grounds: Development without provision of adequate accommodation for the parking or garaging of vehicles is likely to lead to parking inconvenient to other road users and detrimental to highway safety and amenity, and in pursuance of policies E1 and T3 of the Swale Borough Local plan 2008; and QL1 and TP19 of the Kent & Medway Structure Plan.

(6) Before the dwellings hereby approved are first occupied, a properly consolidated and surfaced access shall be constructed, details of which shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Grounds: In the interest of highway safety and convenience, and in pursuance of policies E1 and T3 of the Swale Borough Local plan 2008; and QL1 and TP19 of the Kent & Medway Structure Plan.

(7) Pedestrian visibility splays measuring 2m x 2m, measured from a point 2m back from the rear edge of the pavement and on each side of each access, with no obstruction over 0.6m above the access footway level within such area shall be provided prior to the commencement of any other development in this application, and shall be subsequently maintained, clear of any such obstruction.

Grounds: In the interest of highway safety and in pursuance of policies E1 and T3 of the Swale Borough Local plan 2008; and QL1 and TP19 of the Kent & Medway Structure Plan. Continued . . .

94 2.11 (Contd) PART 2

(8) No work shall commence on the development until a footway has been provided across the frontage of the site in accordance with a design and specification to be approved in writing by the District Planning Authority.

Grounds: To ensure proper development of the site and in pursuance of policies E1 and T3 of the Swale Borough Local plan 2008; and QL1 and TP19 of the Kent & Medway Structure Plan.

(9) No development shall take place until details of the proposed means of surface water disposal have been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the District Planning Authority in consultation with Southern Water. The approved details shall be implemented in full prior to the first occupation of the dwellings hereby permitted.

Grounds: In the interest of local amenity and in pursuance of Policies E1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008 and QL1 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan.

(10) The new dwellings shall achieve at least a Level 3 rating under the Code for Sustainable Homes, and no development shall take place until details have been submitted to the District Planning Authority and approved in writing, which set out what measure will be taken to ensure that the development incorporates sustainable construction techniques such as rainwater harvesting, water conservation, energy efficiency and provisions for the production of renewable energy such as wind power, solar thermal or solar photovoltaic installations. Upon approval, the details shall be incorporated into the development as approved.

Grounds: In the interests of promoting energy production and conservation, and in order to ensure sustainable development pursuant to Polices E1 and E21 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008 and Polices QL1 and NR3 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan.

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: Strategic Policy I, E1, E19, E21, H1, H2 and T3 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008; and QL1, HP1 and TP19 of the Kent & Medway Structure Plan.

Continued . . .

95 2.11 (Contd) PART 2

Discussion

Members will recall that this application for outline permission was reported to the Planning Committee on 22 May 2008, and deferred pending a site visit, which was held on Monday 2 June 2008. A copy of my earlier report is attached as Appendix A.

The proposal was subsequently considered under the minutes at the June Committee meeting, where Members resolved to refuse the application. The relevant Committee minutes states:

“RESOLVED:

(1) That as the Planning Committee was minded to make a decision that would be contrary to Officer recommendation and contrary to planning policy and/or guidance, determination of the application be deferred to the next meeting of the Committee.”

In the text below I have reiterated the policy context under which this application should be judged:

I would remind Members that the application site is previously developed land that sits wholly within the built up area boundary, as defined by the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008. None of the application site is located in the countryside. Policy H2 of the Local Plan states that “permission for new residential development will be granted for sites…within the built-up areas, as shown on the Proposals Map, in accordance with the other policies of the Local Plan.”

Members should also note that in Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 3 “Housing”,, at paragraph 10 it states that the planning system should deliver a “flexible, responsive supply of land – managed in a way that makes efficient and effective use of land, including reuse of previously developed land.” PPS3 continues, at paragraph 40:

“The national annual target is that at least 60 per cent 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 the potential for re-development.”

The use of previously developed land reduces the pressure to permit developments on fresh sites outside of the built-up area boundaries, where polices E6 of the Local Plan and EN1 of the Kent & Medway Structure Plan aim to restrict development unless it is necessary for the purposes of agriculture, or has another special justification.

Continued . . .

96 2.11 (Contd) PART 2

Paragraph 47 of PPS3 states that planning authorities should be aiming to achieve a minimum of 30 dwellings per hectare (dph) on new developments. In regard to this, paragraph 21 of PPS1 notes:

“The broad aim should be to ensure that outputs are maximised whilst resources used are minimised (for example, by building housing at higher densities on previously developed land, rather than at lower densities on Greenfield sites).”

The current density of the site, with one large dwelling occupying the land, is 4.2 dph – which is significantly below the government’s target and clearly the land is not being efficiently used to its full potential. The current proposal for erection of four dwellings has a density of 17 dwellings per hectare. On this basis it is clearly possible, that the site could sustain more dwellings than currently proposed, and I would advise Members that this demonstrates that the proposal should not be considered as overdevelopment, as has been suggested.

I recognise that some Members raised concerns to this application regarding overlooking, overshadowing, loss of light and privacy to adjacent properties, however I would remind Members that this is an outline application with all detailed matters reserved for future consideration as part of a Reserved Matters Application. The principle of residential development for 4 detached dwellings on this site is what must be considered at this stage. The detailed amenity concerns raised by Members can only be considered at the Reserved Matters stage when details of scale, appearance, layout, access and landscaping will be considered.

Planning permission has previously been granted for the erection of additional detached dwellings on the site. In 1988 permission was granted under references SW/88/0326 and SW/88/1280 for the erection of two detached bungalows, one either side of the existing property. Outline planning permission was then granted in 1998, under reference SW/98/0023, for the erection of two detached bungalows, one either side of the existing property. Each of these previously approved schemes resulted in a total of three dwellings on the site, although neither have since been implemented.

I would also draw Members’ attention to the properties immediately to the north of the application site. Planning permission was granted in 1971, under reference NK/4/71/0366, for the erection of three detached dwellings of similar bulk and form as has been indicated for this application.

Concerns have been raised regarding the ownership of a small piece of land to the northeastern corner of the site, where the existing driveway access is situated. As noted to Members under the minutes of the Committee meeting on 19 June, it was only during the course of the application that the ownership of the land became apparent. Continued . . .

97 2.11 (Contd) PART 2 The applicant is in the process of acquiring the land, and the agent has been advised by Officers to submit a Certificate B form informing the Council of the present owner (it is believed to be held in Trust, as the owner is deceased). However, the applicant does not wish to submit this information as he considers that the land may be purchased by persons wishing to block the progress of this application. He has, therefore, decided to omit this small piece of land from the application site in order to resolve the matter and an appropriate amended plan is awaited. The agent has stressed that this should not interfere with the application, as the right of access over the land has been in place for in excess of 10 years, and there are no plans to develop on this area.

Concerns were raised at the site meeting and subsequently at the last Committee meeting in June, regarding drainage and rainwater runoff from the new properties. I discussed the matter with the STG’s Building Control Officers, who confirmed that they would require the installation of proper drainage and soakaways as part of the subsequent application building regulations approval.

Southern Water have commented that they can provide foul sewage disposal through the existing sewer system. They note, however, that there are no public surface water sewers in the area and request that a condition requiring details of means of surface water disposal, to be approved prior to development be attached to the planning permission. I have recommended this condition, above.

Recommendation I have considered points raised by Councillors.

I am still of the opinion, however, that the application meets the aims of current planning policy by providing units within the built up area at an appropriate density, and with good access to local services and the transport network. In conclusion I do not find that there are any grounds for Officers to recommend refusal as Officers consider that the grounds would not be appropriate or reasonable to defend in the circumstances. Taking the above into account I therefore recommend that this application be granted outline permission subject to conditions. _____

Responsible Officer: Andy Jeffers (Development Control Manager)

List of Background Documents

1. Application papers for SW/08/0044 2. Correspondence relating to SW/08/0044 3. Application papers and correspondence relating to applications SW/88/0320, SW/88/1280 and SW/98/0023. ______

98 APPENDIX A ITEM 2.11 PART 2

APPENDIX A (Contd) ITEM 2.11 PART 2

100

APPENDIX A (Contd) ITEM 2.11 PART 2

101

APPENDIX A (Contd) ITEM 2.11 PART 2

102

APPENDIX A (Contd) ITEM 2.11 PART 2

103

APPENDIX A (Contd) ITEM 2.11 PART 2

104

APPENDIX A (Contd) ITEM 2.11 PART 2

105

APPENDIX A (Contd) ITEM 2.11 PART 2

106

PART 2

2.12 SW/08/0422 (Case 1666) UPCHURCH

Location: Land of Small Profits Orchard, Crozier Court, Upchurch, Kent.

Proposal: The construction of an all weather ménage and associated works.

Applicant/Agent: Mr Kingsley C/o David Wood, Agriquestrian Consultants, 129 Reigate Road, Ewell, Epsom, KT17 3DE.

Application Valid: 21 April 2008 and as amended by additional information received on 19th June 2008 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 external lighting shall be provided on the site.

Grounds: In the interests of amenity and in pursuance of policies E1, E6, E19 and RC9 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008; and QL1 and EN1 of the Kent & Medway Structure Plan.

(3) The ménage hereby permitted shall be for the use of existing livery horses at Small Profits Orchard only, and for no commercial use, including riding lessons, or any events open to the public.

Grounds: In the interests of rural amenity and in pursuance of policies E1, E6, E19 and RC9 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008; and QL1 and EN1 of the Kent & Medway Structure Plan.

(4) With the exception of one trailer for the storage of manure, no external storage of materials or items of any kind including jumps, caravans, mobile homes, vehicles or trailers shall take place on the site without the express written approval of the District Planning Authority.

Grounds: In the interests of rural amenity and in pursuance of policies E1, E6, E19 and RC9 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008; and QL1 and EN1 of the Kent & Medway Structure Plan. Continued . . .

107 2.12 (Contd) PART 2

(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 E49 and G1 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 in writing with the District Planning Authority.

Grounds: In the interests of the visual amenities of the area and in pursuance of policies E49 and G1 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 in pursuance of Policies E49 and G1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan.

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

Monday to Friday 0730 – 1900 hrs, 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 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008 and QL1 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan.

Continued . . .

108 2.12 (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, E6, E19 and RC9 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008; and QL1 and EN1 of the Kent & Medway Structure Plan.

Description of Proposal

This application seeks permission to erect an all weather manage at land at Small Profits Orchard, Crozier Court, Upchurch.

The proposed menage would measure 40m x 30m and be sited 6 metres from the western boundary of the site with public footpath ZR9. The all weather menage will be enclosed by timber post and rail fencing, similar to other paddock fencing used on the holding. The riding surface of the menage will be constructed of equestrian sand topped with reclaimed rubber crumb, below which would be a geotextile membrane and limestone.

Relevant Site History and Description

The site comprises of a 2.85 ha. parcel of land to the west of the village of Upchurch and includes a long established livery business. An additional area of land, extending some 6.48 ha also owned by the applicant lies immediately adjacent to the application site.

The site is well screened to the west and the north by an existing and long established evergreen row of trees and hedgerows. To the east of the proposed ménage is the existing stable block beyond which is the residential area of Crozier Court.

An application was submitted under planning reference SW/75/864 for the erection of livery stables. This application was approved in August 1976. Further applications for a residential development at the site were refused in 1979.

Views of Consultees

Upchurch Parish Council has no objections in principal although it raises the following points:

"Neighbours views should be taken into account Any requests for lighting would be unacceptable No indication of increase or decrease of vehicle movements The menage should be for personal and private use of the applicant Any post and board fencing should be at least 3 ft away from the footpath" Continued . . .

109 2.12 (Contd) PART 2 Kent County Council's Public Rights of Way Officer confirmed that Public Footpath ZR9 lies adjacent to the proposed development. The Officer asks that the following matters be drawn to the attention of the applicant:-

"No furniture may be erected on or across public rights of way without express consent from the Highway Authority There must be no disturbance of the surface of the right of way, or obstruction of its use, either during or following any approved development There should be no close board fencing or similar structure over 1.2 meters erected which will block out views No hedging or shrubs should be planted within 0.5 meters of the edge of the public footpath Vehicular use of the public footpath during construction should give way to pedestrians The landowner of the access track/public footpath may be liable for any change done to the surface of the public right of way during the construction of the proposed development."

Kent Highway Services raise no objections to the proposal in respect of highway matters.

Other Representations

19 responses were received of which 13 were in support of the application, 5 raised no objection in principal but raised various detailed concerns and only one objection letter was received. In terms of the issues raised by neighbours these are summarised below:

Various residents are concerned regarding the use of the track by vehicles and the speeds they travel at. Furthermore, one resident was concerned regarding the access to the menage and if this would be from Walbridge Lane or Crozier Court. It appears from the proposal that access would be from Crozier Court.

Some residents were concerned that the additional area of land, extending some 6.48 ha also owned by the applicant immediately adjacent to the application site may be used for the keeping of horses. I would point out to Members that this land does not form part of the application and the use of the land is therefore not for consideration in this instance.

Residents also raised concerns regarding construction details of the ménage, number of horses at the site and the possible erection of floodlights.

Planning Policies

Polices E1 (general criteria), E6 (countryside), E19 (design) and RC9 (keeping of horses) of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008 and QL1 (general criteria) and EN1 (countryside) of the Kent & Medway Structure Plan are pertinent in the consideration of this application. Continued . . .

110 2.12 (Contd) PART 2

The Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance on ‘The Erection of Stables and Keeping of Horses’ is also relevant to this application.

Discussion

The principle of the keeping of horses on this is already established by the previous planning permission granted in 1976 for the erection of livery stables. I note that the surrounding fields are also used for the keeping of horses. The proposal would not intensify the current use on the site to any degree that would disturb nearby residents. The proposed development would in fact replace an existing exercise track on the site, albeit in a slightly different location.

The proposal does not include any additional stables and the existing stables on the site which can accommodate up to 12 horses, will remain in place. These stables were approved under planning reference SW/75/864 for the erection of livery stables.

The size of the proposed menage (40m x 30m) and its distance (6 metres) from the public footpath ZR9 would broadly be in line with the distances recommended within the Council's SPG on the keeping of horses.

With respect to some of the objectors' concerns the applicant advises that the construction of the menage would take 10 to 14 days to complete, whilst the construction materials would consist of 170 tonnes of equestrian sand and 200 tonnes of base aggregate. In order to reduce the impact of the construction of the ménage, I would recommend that the construction hours be restricted so that in particular the impact of construction vehicle movements on the village and especially residents of Crozier Court can be minimised.

With respect to concerns regarding access to the site, I note that the planning permission for the erection of livery stables in 1976 included access to the site via Walbridge Lane with associated parking in the southwestern corner of the site. I have noticed on site that the existing access appears to be from Crozier Court and is well established, with a parking area to the north west of the stables. I consider the existing established access and parking arrangement to be acceptable, as access to the site from Wallbridge Lane is very overgrown and access on to Wallbridge Lane has limited visibility. With respect to rights of way for the applicant over the access Public Footpath ZR9, raised as a concern by some residents, I would point out that this is not a planning consideration, but a private legal matter.

Continued . . .

111 2.12 (Contd) PART 2

The intended use of the menage will be by those horses kept at Small Profits. However, the applicant has also stated recently that the ménage may also be used by horses from the adjoining White Gates livery at Wallbridge Lane, also owned by the applicant. If this was to be the case I am of the opinion that this may create extra movement of vehicles and horses in Crozier Court and along the existing access road of Crozier Court which could be considered detrimental to the surrounding area. I therefore recommend that the use of the menage be conditioned for the use of existing livery horses only and no commercial use, including riding lessons, or events open to the public be permitted.

I recognise the concerns raised by local residents, most of which relate to traffic and visual amenity. The above condition prevents public/commercial use of the ménage and I therefore consider that traffic levels to the site should not significantly increase. I have also included a condition regarding the control of any external lighting to prevent disturbance to neighbours.

In terms of the visual impact of the ménage it would be bordered by post and rail fencing, which is in keeping with the surrounding rural area. Furthermore the existing screening combined with further landscaping will help to limit the impact of the ménage on the surrounding countryside. I therefore do not consider there will be any significant visual harm from this development on the surrounding area.

Summary and Recommendation

For the above reason, I am of the opinion that the proposed ménage will not have a significantly harmful impact on the character and appearance of the surrounding area or have significant highway safety implications.

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

Responsible Officer: Andy Jeffers (Development Control Manager)

List of background documents

1. Application papers for SW/08/0370

2. Correspondence relating to SW/08/0370

112 PLANNING COMMITTEE – 24 APRIL 2008 PART 3

Report of the Head of Development Services

PART 3

Applications for which REFUSAL is recommended

3.1 SW/08/0427 (Case 23004) FAVERSHAM

Location: 8 Preston Grove, Faversham, Kent, ME13 8JY

Proposal: Installation of replacement windows to bedrooms, landing and lounge

Applicant/Agent: Mr D Bass, 8 Preston Grove, Faversham, Kent, ME13 8JY

Application Valid: 10 April 2008

Reasons

(1) The insertion of upvc windows on the north and east facing elevations visible from Preston Grove, which is located in the Faversham Conservation Area, would demonstrate a poor quality of design, which would fail to preserve or enhance the special character and appearance of the Conservation Area and the building itself. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policies QL1 and QL6 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan and Policies E1, E15 and E19 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

Description of Proposal

This application seeks permission for the removal of timber framed windows located on the north, east and south elevations, some visible from Preston Grove, and their replacement with brown upvc windows.

8 windows in total would be replaced as part of this application. Three of the proposed replacement windows are visible from Preston Grove, the lounge window at ground floor, and two bedroom windows located on the east and north elevations.

The applicant has explained the application with the following summarised points:

• This application involves the same style of replacement windows as those recently installed at side and rear of property Continued . . .

- 1 - 3.1 (Contd) PART 3

• Visually very similar to timber framed windows to be replaced • Current windows are 20 years old with failed sealed double glazing and are not fully draught proof. • Only 2 of the windows can be seen from public viewpoints, and these do not directly face the cul-de-sac. • None of the windows overlook or are overlooked. • Would have no significant impact on character or appearance of the house or Conservation Area. • House is tucked away

Relevant Site History and Description

The building and cul-de-sac was constructed in the 1980s, under planning application reference SW/82/291. This permission removed permitted development rights for the properties within the cul-de-sac, including the right to change windows. Since then the site has also been included within the Article 4(2) Direction which restricts certain otherwise permitted development alterations, including replacing windows on elevations fronting a highway, waterway or public open space.

In 2007 an application was submitted under planning reference SW/07/1368 for replacement windows and doors – all of which were located on the side and rear elevations of the property. This application was approved on 21 January 2008 as it was considered that the locations of the proposed replacement windows were well hidden from public vantage points, and as a result would not have a negative impact on public perceptions of the character of the conservation area. This decision recognises that replacement upvc windows would be strongly discouraged on the front facing elevations of the property and, that the application was approved as following the spirit of the Article 4(2) controls.

Views of Consultees & Other Representations

Faversham Town Council recommend the application be approved.

Policies

Policies E1, E15 and E19 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008 address General Development Criteria, Conservation Areas and Design issues.

Policies QL1 and QL6 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan also discuss good quality design and conservation area issues.

The conservation policies of the development plan expect proposals to preserve or enhance the character of such areas, and the design policies state that development should respect the context of site and reinforce local distinctiveness. Continued . . .

- 2 - 3.1 (Contd) PART 3

Discussion

I consider the key issue in this case is whether the proposal meets the aims and objectives of the development plan in terms of preserving or enhancing the character of the conservation area.

The applicant argues that only two of the windows would be visible from public vantage points. Whilst I would argue that 3 windows would be visible, it is really only the visible windows that are of concern.

Having recently approved the replacement of the windows hidden from public view I do not believe that it would be reasonable to refuse to permit replacement of other hidden windows. However, the replacement of visible windows that would have an impact on the character of the conservation area would be regrettable.

8 Preston Grove was designed to complement the character of the conservation area by using traditional materials, including clay tiles, weatherboarding and timber windows on a building of traditional form.

Consequently the house is true to its concept and sits very comfortably in its sensitive surroundings. Permitted development rights for alterations were removed to prevent piecemeal changes to the approved design.

The proposed upvc windows, have a heavier frame and distinctly synthetic appearance which would conflict with the traditional materials which were considered to be the appropriate solution for this development when permission was originally granted.

Since the development was built, the Article 4(2) Direction has been introduced in the Faversham Conservation Area to encourage higher standards for this sort of alteration in the conservation area. Whilst the Direction has no additional effect in this case, it indicates the Council’s view that this sort of change does result in harm to the area. There are also environmental/sustainability considerations that I would urge the Committee to take into account in replacing timber windows with upvc.

The applicant, as mentioned earlier in the report, did seek pre-application advice. He was advised that whilst the proposed windows may be acceptable on the rear and sides of the property, they would not be acceptable where they would be visible from public vantage points, even though the property occupies a relatively secluded location.

I consider that the proposed windows, by virtue of their materials would have a negative impact on the character of the conservation area and the dwelling

Continued . . .

- 3 - 3.1 (Contd) PART 3

itself. In addition to this, it could set a precedent in the area, which would conflict with the aims of the Article 4(2) Direction. The house is visible from the public highway, as are many hidden corners of Faversham, and I believe such locations do have a real contribution to make in reinforcing the character of the area.

In conclusion, there appears to be no special justification for making an exception to our policies that protect against this type of development. Given these circumstances, I recommend the application as a whole be refused.

Recommendation

This application seeks permission to replace existing timber windows with upvc windows.

The proposal to replace windows visible from public locations with upvc alternatives would in my view result in an appearance which is less appropriate than the current windows, in a manner detrimental to the character of the conservation area and undermining the aims of removing permitted development rights for the property, and serving the recent Article 4(2) Direction.

I therefore believe that the proposal is unacceptable as a whole and recommend that planning permission be refused.

Responsible Officer: Graham Thomas (Area Planning Officer)

Background Papers

1. Application papers and correspondence for SW/08/0427.

2. Application papers and correspondence for SW/07/1368 and SW/82/291.

- 4 - PLANNING COMMITTEE – 17 JULY 2008 PART 4

Report of the Head of Development Services

PART 4

Swale Borough Council’s own development; observation on County Council’s development; observation of development by Statutory Undertakers and by Government Departments; and recommendations to the County Council on ‘County Matter’ applications.

4.1 SW/07/1184 (Case 18503) QUEENBOROUGH

Location: Land to the corner of Rushenden Road and First Avenue, Queenborough, Isle of Sheppey, Kent, ME11 5JE

Proposal: Application to Kent County Council for the construction of a single storey modular building for use as a community Children’s Centre, including the installation of two canopies, external storage units, fencing and hard surfacing

Applicant/Agent: KCC Education and Libraries, c/o KCC Planning Applications Group, First Floor, Invicta House, County Hall, Maidstone, Kent, ME14 1XX

Application Valid: 5th October 2007 and as amended by information and plans received on 19 June 2008

OBJECTION BE RAISED

Reason (1) The proposed building is incongruous and is located on a relatively attractive piece of open space adjacent to residential property. Without strong justification in support of the design approach chosen, the development is considered to be inappropriate and harmful to the amenities of the area, contrary to policies E1 and E19 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008 and QL1 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan.

Introduction

Members will recall that this application was first reported to the Committee meeting on 3 January 2008. At that meeting it was resolved that objection be raised to the application due to the design and siting of the building given its prominent location in this residential area. I attach both a copy of my earlier report and the minute as Appendix A. Continued . . .

1 4.1 (Contd) PART 4

Further Information

Since the meeting the applicant has amended the scheme to include the following:

• The location and number of windows has been modified due to the location of structural columns required for the units. • The standard sized fenestration has been changed to side opening with a fixed glazing panel. • The parking bays and local resident’s access driveway have been swapped over so that, the bays are next to the children’s centre unit.

The scheme now also includes the following information:

• Details of a Management Plan to be put in place in order to mitigate against the flood risk. • A draft copy of a Flood Risk Assessment proposed for the site.

Other Representations

One further resident has raised objection to the amended plans on the grounds that there will be restricted turning for his trailer due to the relocated parking area.

Discussion

As previously stated I fully support the objectives behind this project and the need for such a facility to serve Rushenden and Queenborough.

I believe also that Members at the earlier Committee Meeting whilst recognising the loss of this existing greenspace, the parking spaces adjacent to the fence of 1a First Avenue and the utilitarian appearance of the building, considered that this development is essential to meet the needs of the local community. Members welcomed in principle the erection of a building to bring together services for children and facilities with an emphasis on accessibility, affordability and quality.

I note the improvements to the scheme which should be recognised by everyone, in particular the alterations to the parking/access arrangements, several alterations to the elevations of the building and the submission of a Flood Risk Assessment. Clearly the views of the Environment Agency on the recently submitted Flood Risk Assessment will also be critical in the County Planning Authority’s assessment of this application.

Continued . . .

2 4.1 (Contd) PART 4

Nevertheless I am of the opinion tht the proposed accommodation ideally should be provided in the form of a well designed permanent building. However I recognise the various financial and time constraints the applicant is under and at the same time the many benefits that such a project will provide for the community. With these considerations in mind following the earlier Committee Meeting I and Kent County Council Planning Officers met the applicant and Agent to seek improvements to the designs of the proposed modular building.

Subsequently the designs have been partially amended with minor changes to the position and type of windows, but the majority of the suggested changes Officers were seeking have not been made and there is still no design rationale to the positioning of door and window openings. Regrettably I consider that this scheme remains a very poor scheme in design terms. Furthermore there are no details of the proposed boundary or soft/hard landscaping treatments which given the site’s prominence should be submitted as part of this application.

Recommendation

I fully understand and support the aims and objectives behind this proposal and would not wish to see it fail to be undertaken in Rushenden. Whilst I note the minor improvements to the designs of the building, I still believe that more significant improvements can be made to the designs. As the proposal stands I am of the opinion that the development will still have a detrimental impact on the visual amenities of the streetscene.

As the application stands, I therefore still maintain that this Council should raise a “holding” objection to the development. ______

Responsible Officer: Andy Jeffers (Development Control Manager)

List of Backgrounds Documents

1. Application Papers for Application SW/07/1184 2. Application Papers for Application SW/01/827

3 APPENDIX A ITEM 4.1 PART 4

APPENDIX A (Contd) ITEM 4.1 PART 4

PART 4

4.2 SW/07/1271 (Case 10213) LEYSDOWN

Location: Corner of Leysdown Road/Warden Bay Road, Leysdown, Sheppey, Kent.

Proposal: Application to Kent County Council for the construction of a single modular building for use as a community Children’s Centre, including the installation of a canopy, external storage units, fencing and hard surfacing.

Applicant/Agent: Kent County Council Children Families and Education c/o EC Harris LLP, ECHQ, Regent Quarter, 34 York Way, London, N1 9AB.

Application Valid: 26th October 2007 and as amended by information and plans received on 23 June 2008

OBJECTION BE RAISED

Reason

(1) The proposed building is poorly designed and by virtue of its prominent location it will have a detrimental impact on the appearance of the rural area. As such, this proposal would be contrary to Policies E1, E6 and E19 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008 and EN1 and QL1 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan.

Introduction

Members will recall that this application was first reported to the Committee Meeting on 31 January 2008. At that meeting it was resolved that objection be raised to the application due to the poor design of the building and by its prominent location it would have a detrimental impact on the appearance of the rural area. I attach a copy of my earlier report as Appendix A.

Further Information

Since the meeting the applicant has amended the scheme to include the following: • Parking facilities increased to provide a total of 12 parking bays plus the disabled bay. • A dropped kerb to allow access onto the grass for overflow parking • Setting the unit back from the road • An enhanced landscaping scheme • Reconfiguration of the vehicular entrance in response to comments from Kent Highway Services Continued . . .

15 4.2 (Contd) PART 4

• The location and number of windows has been modified due to the location of structural columns required for the construction of units. • The external elevations have been enhanced to provide a finish incorporating render and cedar cladding panels • The standard sized fenestration has been changed to side-opening casements with a fixed glazing panel.

Discussion

As previously stated I fully support the objectives behind this project and the need for such a facility in the Leysdown/Warden Bay area.

I believe also that Members at the earlier meeting whilst recognising the needs of protecting the countryside from development, considered that this development is essential to meet the needs of local community. Members welcomed in principle the erection of a building to bring together services for children and families with an emphasis on accessibility, affordability and quality.

I note that the applicant in amending the scheme has also submitted the following supporting statements:

“Parking:

A total of 13 parking spaces have been provided for the use of both staff and users of the Children’s Centre, including one disabled bay and three ‘drop-off’ bays immediately in front of the Children’s Centre unit. At times of maximum occupancy, (for example during meetings and seminars) there may occasionally be a need for additional parking capacity and for this reason a dropped kerb has been introduced onto the open grass area adjacent to the main entrance to allow overflow car parking for approximately 5-6 cars. Should concerns be highlighted re the suitability of the land for parking, we would propose to incorporate grass protection mesh within this area.

Elevations:

The units come with a factory finished through-coloured rough cast coating to the external walls coloured sand yellow. We are also proposing sections of 75mm wide close-boarded vertical cedar sections with a two part oiled finish. These timber cladding panels are proposed to oversail the roof line of the modular building by 450mm and will significantly add texture interest to the building.

The fenestration by necessity is linked to the internal room layout to suit the modular construction principles.

Continued . . .

16 4.2 (Contd) PART 4 Landscaping: A landscaping scheme is to be incorporated into the scheme which will greatly enhance the attractiveness of the Children’s Centre site, screening the building and car park from both the Leysdown Road and Warden Bay Road directions. This will include planting along the west site boundary to form a planted visual stop and to the view from the adjoining open area to maintain the rural aspect.”

Clearly the above amendments to the scheme should be recognised by everyone particularly the improvements to the highway layout, the resiting of the building towards the centre of the site and several alterations to the elevational treatment.

Nevertheless I am of the opinion that the proposed accommodation ideally should be provided in the form of a well designed permanent building. However I recognise the various financial and time constraints the applicant is under and at the same time the many benefits that such a project will provide for the community. With these considerations in mind following the earlier Committee Meeting, I and Kent County Council Planning Officers met the applicant and agent to seek improvements to the designs of the proposed modular building.

Subsequently the designs have been partially amended with minor changes to the position and type of windows as referred to above but the majority of the suggested changes Officers were seeking have not been made, and there is still no design rationale to the positioning of door and window openings. Regrettably I consider this scheme remains a very poor scheme in design terms.

Recommendation I fully understand and support the aims and objectives behind this proposal and would not wish to see it fail to be undertaken in the Leysdown/Warden Bay/Bay View area. Whilst however I recognise the resiting of the building and the landscaping to the site will help to reduce the impact of this building at this prominent site, I still believe that improvements can be made to the design of this building and that the proposal as amended will still have a detrimental impact on the appearance of the surrounding rural area.

As the application stands, I therefore still maintain that this Council should raise a “holding” objection to the development. ______

Responsible Officer: Andy Jeffers (Development Control Manager)

List of Backgrounds Documents

1. Application Papers for Application SW/07/1271 2. Correspondence relating to Application SW/07/1271

17 APPENDIX A ITEM 4.2 PART 4

APPENDIX A (Contd) ITEM 4.2 PART 4

PLANNING COMMITTEE – 17 JULY 2008 PART 5

Report of the Head of Development Services

PART 5

Decisions by County Council and Secretary of State, reported for information

5.1 ENF/07/023 (Case 11412) – Woodgate Oast, Woodgate Lane, Borden, Sittingbourne, Kent, ME9 7QB

APPEAL DISMISSED

The Inspector commented as follows:

“Appeal Ref: APP/V2255/C/07/2052212 Woodgate Oast, Woodgate Lane, Borden, Sittingbourne, ME9 7QB.

• 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 Mr R Knight against an enforcement notice issued by Swale Borough Council. • The Council's reference is ENF/07/023 (Case: 11412). • The notice was issued on 10 July 2007. • The breach of planning control as alleged in the notice is without planning permission, the change of use of the land from its authorised use as a farm building which has the benefit of planning permission for a change of use to an hotel granted by the local planning authority on 5 December 2002 under ref SW/02/688, a copy of which is attached hereto, to a mixed use including the authorised use and the use of the land for residential purposes. • The requirements of the notice are: Cease the residential use of the Land. • The period for compliance with the requirements is three months. • The appeal is proceeding on the grounds set out in section 174(2) (a) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended.

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

The appeal on ground (a)

Main Issue

1. The main issue is whether residential use of the site is acceptable having regard to development plan policies for protection of the countryside.

Continued . . .

1 5.1 (Contd) PART 5 Policies

2. Policies EN1, SS8, HP5, SP1 and QL1 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan Plan: Second Review, adopted in July 2006, deal with protection of, and development and housing in, the countryside, sustainable development and the quality of development. These Policies have been saved from 27 September 2007 in accordance with a direction from the Secretary of State.

3. Policies E1, E6, RC3, RC6 and B8 of the Swale Borough Local Plan, which was adopted in February 2008, address general development criteria, protection of the countryside, rural housing needs, the re-use of rural buildings for housing and holiday parks. This Plan, formerly known as the Swale Borough Local Plan First Review Re-Deposit Draft, supersedes the Swale Borough Local Plan 2000 which was also cited in the notice.

4. These policies are supported by Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG), The Conservation of Traditional Farm Buildings. As this was subject to public consultation prior to adoption I accord it substantial weight.

5. Government advice as set out in Planning Policy Statement 7: Sustainable Development in Rural Areas (PPS7) is also relevant to this case.

Reasons

6. The appeal site lies in a rural area on the east side of Woodgate Lane, near its junction with Oad Street. It comprises a former farm building which, in 2002, was granted planning permission for conversion to an hotel.

7. Previous applications for residential use were refused, including one appeal in 2005 (ref: APP/V2255/A/04/1160367), as the building was not of sufficient quality to merit the creation of a dwelling in the countryside contrary to rural protection policies. Light industrial use was also refused due to the degree of rebuilding required, the level of activity and the impact on neighbouring residents.

8. The approved hotel would have 10 bedrooms, a small dining room, a terrace and open lawns, and 15 parking spaces.

9. The appellant has changed the use of the site to include residential use in addition to the authorised use.

10. Development plan policies, at local and national level, seek to protect the countryside and preserve the very best of rural buildings. Conversion for commercial purposes is preferred as these bring benefits to the countryside, while architectural or historic interest is necessary for a building to be suitable for conversion to residential use. Continued . . .

2 5.1 (Contd) PART 5

11. From a discussion at the Hearing of the history of the building, as well as the submitted evidence amongst which there were some discrepancies, I consider that the building is most likely to have been constructed in about 1870 as an oast house, which is an agricultural building. From the 1880s to the 1920s it was in use as a jam factory, since when it fell into disuse, although there is some evidence that it reverted to agricultural use. By the 1980s it had lost the majority of its main roof, a large portion of a gable wall, and the roofs of the two existing kilns. The gable and main roof had been rebuilt by a previous owner prior to purchase by the appellant in 2000. Both parties agreed that at the time of the 2002 application the building had been formerly in agricultural use.

12. Since that time the appellant has completed the restoration of the exterior of the building and carried out internal work to enable residential occupation of part of the ground floor. I observed that there are some differences between the survey drawings, the hotel drawings (as presented at the Hearing) and the building as currently rebuilt with regard to the design and position of doors and windows as well as the internal layout.

13. Nevertheless the building appears to have been carefully rebuilt to a good standard consistent with the approved commercial use. I do not consider that the appearance of the building itself would be significantly different if it were to be used in whole or in part as residential rather than a hotel. However, outbuildings, washing lines and other domestic paraphernalia in the garden would adversely affect the character and appearance of the countryside unless controlled by conditions.

14. While I consider that the rebuilt and restored building has greater architectural interest than the derelict shell, the historic interest is somewhat diminished by reason of the extensive rebuilding necessary, notwithstanding the use of old or matching materials. In view of this lack of merit, the significant rebuilding that was required and the unsustainable location with respect to public transport, shops and local services, I consider that wholly residential use would be unacceptable in the countryside and contrary to development plan policy as well as national and local guidance.

15. The appellant objects to Condition 21 of the previous planning permission which prevents full time residential use of the building, as he states that this makes a hotel business unsustainable. While I acknowledge that there may be financial advantages in the owner or manager living on the premises, a full time presence could also be secured by staff working in shifts.

Continued . . .

3 5.1 (Contd) PART 5 16. The appellant states that insurance for the hotel business could not be obtained without a full time residential presence. While this may be so, the evidence presented in not conclusive in this respect. Neither do the commercial estate agents’ reports on the viability of the proposed business positively assert that the business would only be profitable with full time residential occupation by the owner or manager.

17. I consider therefore that insufficient evidence has been submitted for me to conclude that a full time residential occupation of the premises is necessary for the operation of the approved business and that, therefore, if the hotel use is acceptable in planning terms then Condition 21 was imposed unreasonably.

18. The existing residential space occupied by the appellant amounts to about one quarter of the floor area, significantly more than was previously sought in application ref: SW/05/1524, and significantly more than might reasonably be expected for a residential manager. Occupation of such a large proportion of the floor space can only raise further doubts as to the viability of the business.

19. Neither has any evidence been presented of efforts to find an alternative commercial use which could be acceptable in view of the authorised use. The Council presented at the Hearing a list of similar redundant agricultural buildings in the wider area that had been successfully converted to other commercial uses.

Other Matters

20. I have been made aware of another oast house for which planning permission for residential use has been granted. However, this was in another District among a group of Listed Buildings. Thus both the policies and the circumstances differ in this case. In any event I do not consider that one approved conversion necessarily justifies the construction of another contrary to current policies and guidance. I have considered the case before me on its own merits.

Conclusions on main issues

21. I conclude, therefore, that the change of use to wholly residential would be unacceptable in the countryside. It would be contrary to Structure Plan Policies EN1, SS8, HP5, SP1 and QL1, Local Plan Policies E1, E6, RC3, RC6 and B8, and the advice of SPG and PPS7. The appeal on ground (a) fails. In the absence of sufficient evidence in support of partial residential occupation, as would occur if the hotel employed a full-time resident manager, I have no reason to conclude otherwise with respect to this more limited form of occupation.

Conclusions

22. For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal should not succeed. I shall uphold the enforcement notice and refuse to grant planning permission on the deemed application. Continued . . .

4 5.1 (Contd) PART 5

Formal Decision

23. 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

An excellent decision. The Inspector fully supported the Council’s view that there was no justification for the unauthorized and unacceptable residential use of this former farm building. ______

Responsible Officer: Jim Wilson (Area Planning Officer)

List of Background Papers

1. Planning Inspectorate Appeal Decision reference: APP/V2255/C/07/2052212

2. Appeal Papers (statements and correspondence)

5 PART 5

5.2 ENF/07/022 (Case 22769) – 34 Burley Road, Sittingbourne, Kent, ME10 1JJ

APPEAL DISMISSED

The Inspector commented as follows:

“Appeal Ref: APP/V2255/C/07/2050492 34 Burley Road, Sittingbourne, Kent, ME10 1JJ • 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 Mr A J Ferreira against an enforcement notice issued by Swale Borough Council. • The Council's reference is RB/AH/ENF/07/022/C22769. • The notice was issued on 19 June 2007. • The breach of planning control as alleged in the notice is without planning permission, the construction of a flat-roofed box-style rear dormer window in the rear roof slope of the building. • The requirements of the notice are:- (i) remove the flat-roofed box-style rear dormer window in the rear roof slope of the building, making good where necessary and; (ii) remove from the Land all debris, bricks and other material occasioned by complying with Step (i) above. • The period for compliance with the requirements is 3 months. • The appeal was made on the grounds set out in section 174(2)(a), (c), (d) and (g) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended. The appeal on grounds (c) and (d) has been withdrawn, but a claim by the appellant, that the local planning authority was estopped from taking enforcement action against this development, is being pursued.

Decision

1. I direct that the enforcement notice be varied in paragraph 6, “TIME FOR COMPLIANCE”, by deleting “3 months” between the words “Within” and “from” and inserting the words “nine months” and by deleting the word “Notices” between the words “this” and “takes” and inserting the word “Notice”. Subject to these variations, 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.

The Claim of Estoppel

2. The appellant accepts that the public right of way to the rear of the appeal site is a highway. On that basis, the enlargement of a dwellinghouse consisting of an addition to its roof, otherwise permitted by Class B of Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995, requires express planning permission because of the terms of paragraph B1(b). Continued . . .

6 5.2 (Contd) PART 2

This states that development is not permitted by Class B if any part of the dwellinghouse would, as a result of the works, extend beyond the plane of any existing roof slope that fronts any highway. That is clearly the case in this instance, but this part of Sittingbourne, laid out in the late nineteenth century, is characterised by a network of back alleys, all of which similarly enjoy highway status. There are several examples of rear roof extensions that have been erected facing onto these highways that the local planning authority has erroneously, in the past, determined did not require planning permission. The appellant’s case on estoppel is that it is inequitable that the local planning authority has used its enforcement powers against this roof extension, when it has previously determined that planning permission is not required for almost identical development close by.

3. In the decision of the House of Lords in R v East Sussex CC ex p Reprotech (Pebsham) Ltd & another [2002] UKHL 8, Lord Hoffmann said at paragraph 33 of the judgement, “I think that it is unhelpful to introduce private law concepts of estoppel into planning law. As Lord Scarman pointed out in Newbury District Council v Secretary of State for the Environment [1981] AC 578, at page 616, estoppels bind individuals on the ground that it would be unconscionable for them to deny what they have represented or agreed. But these concepts of private law should not be extended into the public law of planning control, which binds everyone.”

4. Taking that powerful advice into account, it seems to me unacceptable that the local planning authority should compound its past errors by failing to take action against development that it considers objectionable, based upon its earlier erroneous interpretation of the law. If the local planning authority knows that there is development taking place that requires planning permission and that these operations fail, in its opinion, to satisfy policies set out in statutory development plans and Supplementary Planning Guidance, then the Council should not be fettered as a public body to use its discretionary enforcement powers, to bring about the removal of that development, simply because it had applied the relevant legislation wrongly in the past. To do so would fly in the face of Lord Hoffmann’s observations in Reprotech cited in the preceding paragraph. Consequently, the claim of estoppel should fail.

The Appeal on Ground (a) and the Deemed Application – Main Issue

5. I consider that the main issue in this appeal is the visual relationship between the rear roof extension and the original dwellinghouse and the impact of this upon the overall character and appearance of the locality.

Continued . . .

7 5.2 (Contd) PART 2

The Appeal on Ground (a) and the Deemed Application – Reasons

6. Policy QL1 of the Kent & Medway Structure Plan, adopted in July 2006, says that all new developments should be well designed and be of high quality. Developments, individually or taken together, should respond positively to the scale, layout, pattern and character of their surroundings. Development, which would be detrimental to the built environment, amenity, functioning and character of settlements or the countryside, will not be permitted.

7. The appeal premises consist of the end house of a terrace on the west side of Burley Road immediately to the north of a pair of semi- detached houses and a more modern bungalow facing onto a short side road leading off Burley Road. Therefore, even though this roof extension is in the rear elevation, it is prominently sited. The terrace houses on the west side of Burley Road are characterised by deep rear projections, constructed as part of the original dwellings and surmounted by monopitch roofs, whose ridges equate in height to that of the eaves of the main roof of the terrace at right angles to them (these join together at an apex, where the rear projection roofs are paired together for most houses in the terrace, but at the appeal property the rear projection roof is an isolated monopitch).

8. By removing most of the rear roof slope and replacing it with a flat-roofed boxstyle dormer, a particularly jarring juxtaposition results between the rear roof extension and the monopitch roof rear projection at right angles to it. Therefore, this unhappy junction between two dissimilar roof forms is exposed to a wide area, not just the rear public right-of-way but also to the rear of the properties fronting the side road to the south. In my professional judgement, this is completely at odds with adopted Structure Plan Policy QL1, which requires all new developments to be well designed, of high quality and to respond well to the character of their surroundings. I am firmly of the opinion that this development fails on all of these counts. Instead, I am convinced that it is harmful to the built environment (no others are to be found in this terrace) and on that basis, according to Structure Plan Policy QL1, the flat-roof box style rear dormer should not be permitted to remain. Accordingly, the appeal on ground (a) fails and planning permission will not be granted on the deemed application.

The Appeal on Ground (g)

9. I agree with the appellant’s agent that it would be unreasonable to expect the roof to be opened up to the elements to comply with the requirements of the notice, when the period for compliance coincides with what is normally the worst weather of the year. However, prolonging the period to twelve months means that the same arguments could be used towards the end of 2008, when the period of daylight for building work decreases. Therefore, the period for compliance with the requirements of the notice will be extended to Continued . . .

8 5.2 (Contd) PART 2

nine months and to that extent the appeal on ground (g) succeeds. This would also assist in giving adequate time to appoint builders to carry out the works within a reasonable timescale. The enforcement notice is varied accordingly. The opportunity is also taken to correct a slight grammatical error in paragraph 6 of the enforcement notice.

Conclusions

10. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should not succeed. I shall uphold the enforcement notice with variations and I refuse to grant planning permission on the deemed application.”

Observations

Full support for the Council’s action in respect of this unacceptable flat roof box dormer window. ______

Responsible Officer: Jim Wilson (Area Planning Officer)

List of Background Papers

1. Planning Inspectorate Appeal Decision reference: APP/V2255/C/07/2050492

2. Appeal Papers (statements and correspondence)

9 PART 5

5.3 SW/07/1272 (Case 14303) – Change of use from Orthopaedic Clinic to residential accommodation consisting of two flats and creation of a first floor extension - 43 Epps Road, Sittingbourne, Kent, ME10 1JD

APPEAL DISMISSED

The Inspector commented as follows:

“Appeal Ref: APP/V2255/A/08/2066534 43 Epps Road, Sittingbourne, Kent ME10 1JD

• The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Mr C A Georgiou against the decision of Swale Borough Council • .The application Ref SW/07/1272, dated 29 October 2007, was refused by notice dated 18 December 2007. • The development proposed is described in the application as change of use and first floor extension to two flats.

Decision

1. I dismiss the appeal.

Procedural matters

2. The Council have described the application as one for a change of use from Orthopedic Clinic (D1) to residential accommodation consisting of two flats and creation of first floor extension. This gives a slightly clearer description of what is proposed.

Main issues

3. From my inspection of the site and surroundings and from the written representations made, I consider that the main issues in this case are first the effect of the proposal on the street scene, secondly the implications for neighbours’ living conditions in relation to impact on outlook, overshadowing and overlooking, and thirdly whether the proposal would provide satisfactory living conditions for future residents by provision of amenity space.

Reasons

Street scene

4. The appeal site comprises a single storey building equipped for use as a clinic, with small open areas to its south and west. The site stands on the northern side of Epps Road close to its junction with Rock Road, in a residential part of the town. As the site is surrounded by other houses there is no objection to a residential use in principle. Continued . . .

- 10 - 5.3 (Contd) PART 5

5. However, in order to provide living accommodation at first floor level, it is intended to install 4 dormer windows on the front roof slope. In my opinion, the installation of this number of dormers at a fairly low level would appear stark and incongruous and upset the reasonably pleasant appearance of the street. I appreciate that there is a dormer on the front roof slope of the adjoining house at no. 44, but this is a single example at second floor level and so higher and less intrusive. By contrast the proposal would result in a discordant feature, readily visible from the eastern part of the street, even if the new house permitted alongside 101 Rock Road obstructed some views of it from the west.

6. I consider therefore that the proposal would harm the appearance of the street scene and so conflict with Structure Plan policy QL1 and Local Plan policy E1 where these promote good design, appropriate to location.

Impact on neighbours

7. The neighbours most likely to be affected are those at 101 Rock Road and I inspected the site from the back garden of that house. I note that the ridge of the roof of the existing building would be raised by 1.2m, and so the roof would have a steeper pitch. However, given the context set by the much higher building at no. 44 just beyond the end of the back garden I do not consider that the proposal would have an unduly harmful impact on outlook. There would be some increase in overshadowing of part of the back garden as the roof ridge was raised but as that building is south of the garden the sun is at its highest in that direction, and I doubt that any increase in overshadowing would be serious.

8. The proposed Velux-type windows proposed at first floor level on the rear roof slope would be glazed in opaque glass and this would prevent overlooking through them of the adjacent back garden. Three existing windows at ground floor level are already glazed in opaque glass and the retention of this (and provision of opaque glass at first floor level) could be required by condition. The lounge of the ground floor flat would have an alternative outlook at the front, and although this is not available to the rear bedroom, the existing window could be replaced by one having clear glass only at higher level. In all the circumstances I believe that any impact on neighbours’ living conditions would not be unduly harmful (subject to conditions), and so that part of policy E1 which protects residential amenity would not be infringed.

Amenity space

9. I appreciate that there is minimal outside amenity space (in front of the building) but this is perhaps just about sufficient for storage of bins and maybe a clothes line. It is not always possible in the case of small Continued . . .

- 11 - 5.3 (Contd) PART 5

plots in older residential areas to provide the degree of amenity space usually found in larger new build developments. I am also aware in this instance of public open space areas quite near the site, one of which includes children’s play equipment.

10. So although the provision here is not ideal, I am not convinced that it is so poor as to justify refusal of permission on its own. Although policy E1 requires compliance with Supplementary Planning Guidance, the Council’s guidance on “The Conversion of Buildings into Flats and Houses in Multiple Occupation” does not specify sizes of amenity areas required, so that there is no literal conflict with that policy.

Conclusions

11. Although I do not think that any impact on neighbours’ living conditions would be unduly harmful, or that the amenity space provided would justify refusal of permission, I consider that these matters are outweighed by the harm that would be caused to the appearance of the street scene. For the reasons given above and having regard to all other matters raised I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.”

Observations

The Inspector did not agree that the neighbours’ living conditions would be adversely affected by the proposal and concluded the lack of amenity space, although not ideal did not warrant refusal of permission in its own right.

However, in dismissing the appeal, he cited the harmful impact of the proposed new dormer windows on the appearance of the street.

A good decision which safeguarding the character and appearance of the existing streetscene. ______

Responsible Officer: Jim Wilson (Area Planning Officer)

List of Background Papers

1. Planning Inspectorate Appeal Decision reference: APP/V2255/A/08/2066534 2. Appeal Papers (statements and correspondence) APP/V2255/A/08/2066534 3. SBC Decision on Application SW/07/1272

- 12 - PART 5

5. 4 SW/07/1229 (Case 22958) – Restoration of disused oast house for use as a single family dwelling – The Old Oast, Cherry Tree Farm, Stalisfield Road, Stalisfield, Faversham, Kent, ME13 0HW

APPEAL DISMISSED

The Inspector commented as follows:

"Main Issues

2. The derelict former oast dates from the nineteenth Century but much of it is lost, including the entire first floor, roofs and large sections of wall. That left is in very poor structural condition. It lies in the countryside, outside any settlement boundary, within the Kent Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and the North Downs Special Landscape Area (SLA). From this, the written representations and my inspection of the site and surrounding area, the overriding main issue raised by the appeal is whether the proposed development would satisfy prevailing policies to protect the countryside.

Reasons for Decision

3. Several key principles underpin policies in Planning Policy Statement 7: Sustainable Development in Rural Areas (PPS7). These include strictly controlling new building in the countryside; the Government’s aim is to protect the countryside from urbanisation so that all may enjoy it. Moreover, planning decisions should be based on sustainable development principles. Proposals are limited to those that have an overriding need to be there. Generally, residential development will not be permitted other than for the essential needs of agriculture, minor development appropriate to a rural location, the rebuilding, conversion or modest extension of a dwelling or the re-use or adaptation of an existing rural building.

4. The oast would require a considerable amount of work to restore it to a building suitable to bring into beneficial use. From my observations, it seems likely that the remains would have to be completely replaced. Consequently the proposal would constitute the replacement of a non- residential building with residential development, which PPS7 advises should be treated as new housing development in accordance with PPS3: Housing.

5. In this context, although developed land is that occupied or previously occupied by a permanent structure, Brownfield land also excludes previously developed land where the remains of a permanent structure have all but blended into the landscape, in the process of time. In this case, the remains of the oast are clearly visible but it cannot be converted to residential use, without a complete rebuild. Moreover, it is not within a domestic curtilage. Consequently, the site is a Greenfield site, for which there is no presumption that it is suitable for housing purposes or that it should be developed. Continued . . .

- 13 - 5.4 (Contd) PART 5

6. The proposed development would satisfy none of the exceptions for residential development in the countryside. The scheme is, therefore, unacceptable in principle; the character and appearance of the countryside ought not to be compromised by the urbanising effect of a dwelling that has no overriding need to be erected there. Moreover, the site is remote from services and facilities and there is nothing that adds up to a compelling argument that such facilities as exist are accessible by public transport, sufficient to limit reliance on private cars. Future occupants would be overly dependant on the private car. That would be contrary to policies that seek to prevent unsustainable development.

7. The Government is committed to good design. Planning Policy Statement 1: Delivering Sustainable Development (PPS1) states that design, which is inappropriate in its context, should not be accepted. In this case, the chosen design seeks to replicate an oast but the architectural composition exhibits an overly domestic appearance at odds with the intrinsic character of an oast. The arrangement of windows and roof lights would be a clear breach of the character of an oast that the appellant wishes to replicate.

8. For these reasons, I conclude that the proposed development would be at odds with prevailing countryside policies. It would conflict with Planning Policy Statements that I have referred to as well as Policies EN1, EN4, EN5, QL1 and HP5 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan 2006. I neither have relevant policies of the Council’s recently adopted Swale Borough Council Local Plan 2008 nor it’s supplementary design guide that is referred to, and so, my decision is based solely on national guidance and structure plan policies.

9. I have considered all other matters bought to my attention but none is of such significance as to outweigh the considerations that led to my conclusions on the main issue and I further conclude that the appeal should not succeed."

Observations

The Inspector agreed with all the reasons for refusal raised by the Council.

As the derelict oast, much of which has been lost, its extensive rebuilding and change of use to a dwelling is wholly unsuitable in the sensitive rural location.

Continued . . .

- 14 - 5.4(Contd) PART 5

A very speedy decision which reiterates the Council’s rural protection policies.

______

Responsible Officer: Graham Thomas (Area Planning Officer)

List of Background Papers

1. Planning Inspectorate Appeal Decision reference: APP/V2255/A/08/2066003 dated 17 June 2008. 2. Appeal Papers (statements and correspondence) 3. SBC Decision on Application SW/07/1229

- 15 - PART 5

5.5 SW/07/0897 (Case 08310) – Alterations and re-roofing of existing dwelling to provide for accommodation at first floor level – Belvedere, Stalisfield Road, Stalisfield

APPEAL DISMISSED

The Inspector commented as follows:

"Main issues

2. The site is situated in the countryside within the Kent Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and a Special Landscape Area (SLA),where policies set out in the representations seek to limit development and give priority to protecting the rural character of the countryside and the landscape of the AONB/SLA. The policies do, however, allow “...the rebuilding, conversion, or modest extension of a dwelling currently in residential use…”. Policy RC4 of the newly adopted Swale Borough Local Plan 2008 in part supports rebuilding where a replacement is of similar size and proportion to the original, and states that decisions on what is a modest extension should take account of earlier extensions.

3. From my inspection of the site and area, and from consideration of the representations made, I have concluded that the main issues in this appeal are whether having regard to policy RC4 the proposal would adversely effect the rural landscape of this part of the AONB/SLA countryside, and whether any harm is outweighed by the improvement to the dwelling.

Reasons

4. The Council’s reason for refusal refers in part to the requirement for extensions to be modest. None of the adopted policies referred to including RC4 define what would be a modest extension. Supplementary planning guidance associated with a superseded local plan indicates that a 60% increase in floorspace has been considered to be the normal maximum in rural Swale. It is not disputed that the appeal bungalow has been extended by about 400% in floorspace since 1983. The appeal proposal would add an attic floor, and this would involve a further increase in floorspace, sufficient to provide two ensuite Appeal Decision APP/V2255/A/08/2064356 2 bedrooms. The Appellant has, however, pointed out that the bulk of the building has not been increased. This is because an increase in roof height and provision of rear dormer windows is stated to have been offset, in the main by the removal of rear facing gable ended roofs. The volumetric change is claimed to be about 28m3 each way. The Council has not disputed this, and I conclude that there would be no material change to the volume of the building. In these circumstances I do not consider that the proposal can be described as an extension, in the normal

Continued . . .

- 16 - 5.5 (Contd) PART 5

usage of the word, even though the alterations would make possible additional floorspace. I consider that the better description is that the roof of the dwelling is to be rebuilt/replaced. The relevant considerations indicated by policy RC4 are thus that the resulting building be of similar size and proportion to the original dwelling, a matter which within the AONB/SLA countryside must be considered in the light of the relevant landscape protection objectives.

5. The size of the building would not alter in volume, but it would be higher1. This would significantly alter the relative proportions of roof and ground floor. I have concluded that contrary to policy RC4 the replacement roof would involve significant changes to the perceived size, and to the proportions of the original dwelling. The Appellant considers that the changes would be beneficial, stating that the resulting larger lower pitched roof would be more characteristic of the countryside, and referring to the use of better roofing materials and tile hanging. In my experience traditional country buildings tend to have steeper rather than shallower pitched roofs, but whatever may be the case I consider that the resulting building would resemble a fairly standard chalet bungalow. Two rear dormers are wider than their height, contrary to Council guidelines favouring square proportions or a vertical emphasis, and confirm the impression of a standard urban bungalow. The use of tile hanging will not alter this, and I attach little weight to the claimed advantages of replacing existing rendered gables with tile hung ones, given the small scale and lower height of the gables that would be replaced. These changes would replace the small scale and distinctive form of the present bungalow, whose low and varied roof form and chimneys reflects its inter war origins and subsequent extensions. I consider that the overall effect would be of a more prominent building, and have concluded on the first issue that it would adversely affect the rural landscape of this part of the AONB/SLA countryside. Though the changes referred to would be mainly evident to views towards the rear and sides of the building, the increase in height and altered proportions would be seen from the front. A public footpath also affords views towards the south west elevation. I have concluded that the adverse effects of the changes would be material, and therefore turn to the second issue.

6. The supporting text to policy H9 of the superseded local plan suggests that an extension may be supported by a need to overcome inadequacies of the current building. It does not appear that this point is made in the 2008 plan, but I nevertheless consider that a serious inadequacy that could not be addressed by other means would indeed be a material consideration supporting a proposed extension. The present layout involves a bathroom and a lounge having to be accessed through the kitchen, but reorganising access to the former is not dependent upon the roof extension, and the new arrangements do not in fact alter the access to the lounge. I do not give great weight to a bedroom sharing a wall with the lounge which is not an uncommon layout for a bungalow, or to the small size of the present study. I have

Continued . . .

- 17 - 5.5 (Contd) PART 5

concluded that these and the other claimed inadequacies that would be addressed by the proposal are not such as to outweigh the harm to the AONB/SLA.

7. The building as extended would provide better and larger accommodation including adding a sizeable study, a guest bedroom, and a new roof built to current standards that could be expected to have improved energy efficiency. Both these and other improvements to an existing dwelling are consistent with national and other policies. It is however a feature of the planning process that some of the objectives being sought by the community may be in competition or even potentially in conflict. One purpose of Development Plans2 is to provide guidance as to which objectives should prevail in particular circumstances and areas. In the AONB/SLA countryside I consider it is clear that home improvement and energy conservation objectives are to be implemented in a manner consistent with the protection policies referred to, rather than to outweigh or qualify such policies. I have concluded generally on the second issue that the prospective improvement to the dwelling does not outweigh my conclusions on the first issue. In these circumstances the appeal will fail."

Observations

Full support for the Council’s decision, and very welcome support for refusal of a scheme which would have significantly increased the height and impact of this already much extended bungalow which lies in a very isolated and attractive location. ______

Responsible Officer: Graham Thomas (Area Planning Officer)

List of Background Papers

1. Appeal Decision Ref: APP/V2255/A/08/2064356/WF dated 16 June 2008

2. SBC decision on planning application SW/07/0897.

- 18 - PART 5

5.6 ENF/07/028 – Enforcement Notice Appeal regarding stationing of caravans on a private gypsy site – Ashley, Cellar Hill, Lynsted

APPEAL ALLOWED

The Inspector decided as follows:

“Appeal Refs: APP/V2255/C/07/2051962 & 2051964 Land at Ashley, Cellar Hill, Lynsted, Sittingbourne, Kent ME9 9QY

• The appeals are made under section 174 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by the Planning and Compensation Act 1991. • The appeals are made by Mr and Mrs R Wilson against an enforcement notice issued by Swale Borough Council. • The Council's reference is ENF/07/028(C14546). • The notice was issued on 13 July 2007. • The breach of planning control as alleged in the notice is without planning permission, the material change of use of the Land to one including the stationing of 2 caravans being used for residential purposes, and the construction of 2 small brick built structures used to assist and facilitate such use. • The requirements of the notice are to:

(1) cease using the Land or any part thereof as a caravan site and for the stationing of caravans/mobile homes used residentially; (2) remove from the Land all caravans/mobile homes; (3) remove from the Land the 2 small brick built structures used to assist and facilitate the unauthorised use; and (4) remove from the Land all rubbish or debris caused by or associated with the stationing of and subsequent removal of the caravans/mobile homes.

• The period for compliance with the requirements is 3 months. • The appeals are proceeding on the grounds set out in section 174(2) (a), (f) and (g) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended.

Summary of Decision: The appeals are allowed subject to the enforcement notice being corrected in the terms set out in the Formal Decision

Preliminary matters

1. At the inquiry the parties agreed that the alleged breach of planning control could be more accurately described. I was invited to correct the notice using an agreed form of words which it was said, could be done without prejudice to either party and also to vary the requirements so as to reflect the changes made to the allegation. I shall act accordingly. Continued . . .

- 19 - 5.6 (Contd) PART 5

The appeals on ground (a)

Background, planning policy and identification of the main issue

2. There is no dispute between the parties that the Appellants satisfy the definition of gypsies for planning purposes as set out in Circular 01/2006 Planning for Gypsy and Traveller Caravan Sites. I find no reason to disagree since there is evidence of a historic nomadic habit of life which has ceased because of the couple’s increasing years. In addition, there is agreement that the appeal site lies outside any defined built up area and is thus within the countryside for planning purposes.

3. National policy for the protection of the countryside is set out in Planning Policy Statement 7 Sustainable Development in Rural Areas and Circular 01/2006 sets out current national planning policy for gypsies and travellers. The Development Plan for the area includes the Kent and Medway Structure Plan 2006 and the recently adopted Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

4. The Circular acknowledges that the planning system has failed to deliver adequate sites for gypsies and travellers in many areas of England over the last 10 years. In recognition of the difficulty of identifying suitable sites and as an exception to restrictive policies aimed at focusing housing development in existing towns and identified service centres, it goes on to indicate that sites on the outskirts of built-up areas may be appropriate and that sites may also be found in rural and semi-rural settings. Structure Plan policy H9 is not dissimilar in that, whilst directing gypsy sites to major/principal urban areas or rural settlements in the first instance, in the absence of such sites locations with good accessibility to service centres and safe and easy access to main roads are sought. Local Plan policy H4 is a detailed criteria based policy for the assessment of proposals for gypsy sites. It does not preclude provision in the countryside but requires, amongst other things, the site to be well located in relation to services, facilities and the road network and to have minimal impact on the environment generally and on neighbours.

5. Having been provided with information about the Appellants’ gypsy status, the Council no longer wishes to pursue the second reason given for issue of the enforcement notice concerned with encroachment into the countryside. Notwithstanding the representations from local people in this respect, I consider the Council’s approach to be the right one given national and local policies for gypsy site provision set out above. Although the site lies within the countryside it comprises a plot of limited size with well defined boundaries and with a frontage to a small residential cul-de-sac. It is

Continued . . .

- 20 - 5.6 (Contd) PART 5

well related to surrounding built development and its physical intrusion into open countryside is minimal. It has the added advantage of being close to local facilities and services and to the main road network. During the course of the inquiry the Council fairly said that all the criteria of Local Plan policy H4, other than (h), could be satisfied by way of a conditional planning permission. 6. The Council remains concerned about the impact on highway safety and in this respect considers there to be conflict with Local Plan policy H4(h); with Structure Plan policy H9; and with the more general transport policies of the Development Plan. Against that background the main issue is the effect of the use on existing conditions of highway safety.

Consideration of the main issue – highway safety

7. The Council’s concerns with regard to highway safety lie in three main areas. These relate to the junctions of Cellar Hill with the A2 and of Cambridge Lane with Lynsted Lane and to the nature of the country lane to the south of the site.

8. At the inquiry it was agreed that, typically, a single gypsy pitch would be likely to generate between 7 and 9 traffic movements per day. In this case, however, the Appellants are a retired couple who are living on their own so that movements are likely to be lower than for a family with, for example, working adults and children at school. Having regard to the position of the appeal site in relation to the highway network and to the location of local services and facilities, it was further agreed that most traffic travelling to and from the site would be likely to pass through the Cellar Hill/A2 junction to the north.

9. In the opposite direction, Cellar Hill which leads into Cambridge Lane to the south of the appeal site becomes winding and narrow with limited passing places. To my mind it is typical of the sort of lane that one would expect to find in the countryside. It would not be suitable to accommodate any significant amount of traffic but, having accepted that most of the already small number of trips generated by the appeal site would use the northern route, the development would have no appreciable effect on traffic flows along this country lane. Similarly whilst visibility at the end of Cambridge Lane where it joins Lynsted Lane is severely restricted, the increase in use of this junction as a result of the appeal proposal would be very low indeed and insufficient, in itself, to result in any material change to existing conditions of safety at the junction.

10. As to the junction of Cellar Hill with the A2, applying guidance in the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB), the Council says that visibility at the access is substandard in both directions in that sight lines of 4.5m (the x distance) x 90m (the y distance), appropriate for the design speed of the A2, are not achieved. Whilst that is so, measurements taken and agreed during my visit indicated that sight

Continued . . .

- 21 - 5.6 (Contd) PART 5

lines of 2.4m x 90m were available in each direction so that a driver in a stationary car at the junction would be able to see and be seen by oncoming traffic for the required distance along the A2 (in a westerly direction the parties agreed to measure that distance from the middle of the road to take account of the prohibition on overtaking). DMRB does not rule out the reduction of the x distance to 2.4m in exceptionally difficult circumstances. The Appellants prefer the guidance given in the recently published Manual for Streets (MfS) where a stopping sight distance of only 56m is required. However, the nature of the A2 does not fall squarely within the types of roads which that publication is aimed at.

11. I saw that visibility is restricted at this junction, albeit that it might meet the relaxations allowed for in DMRB and the advice given in MfS. The safe functioning of an access does not, however, rely solely upon the availability of adequate sight lines based on design speed. In this case the junction is located within a short distance of the derestricted and relatively straight section of the A2 to the east so that a proportion of traffic entering the built up area from that direction might be expected to be travelling in excess of the speed limit; Cellar Hill narrows towards the junction and the footways come to an end so that in the mouth of the junction there is potential for conflict between opposing vehicles and between vehicles and pedestrians and, added to that, the alignment of Cellar Hill with the A2 is at an awkward angle and the road ascends to a crest within a short distance of the junction.

12. Notwithstanding measures which have been put in place to facilitate the safer use of the junction, such as the right hand turn lane from the A2, the above factors combine to create a junction which is less than ideal and thus an increase in traffic movements through the junction would increase the hazard. I can therefore understand the Council’s constant and continued resistance to development which would either individually or cumulatively result in a material increase in the use of this junction. This is a view that has been supported on appeal, albeit not in exactly the same circumstances as in this proposal. However, the junction already serves some 35 houses along Cellar Hill/Cambridge Lane and the impact of this proposal in isolation would not be great. In view of the planning history associated with the junction it is appropriate to consider the range of other material circumstances that arise in these appeals in addition to the actual level of traffic generation.

Other matters – need for gypsy sites and personal circumstances

13. The widely accepted need for more gypsy sites both nationally and locally is a fundamental material consideration. Circular 01/2006 was introduced with the specific intention of significantly increasing the number of sites in order to address under-provision within 3-5 years. The Council fairly accepts that its recently adopted criteria based

Continued . . .

- 22 - 5.6 (Contd) PART 5

policy H4 does not meet national policy in the Circular which requires a proper assessment of need, an identification of pitch numbers for each authority and specific site allocations as part of the Local Development Framework. Whilst the application of policy H4 and its similar predecessor has enabled some gypsy sites to be approved both by the Council and on appeal, that is no indicator that the need is being satisfactorily addressed.

14. Indeed a recent assessment of need which has been undertaken (the GTAA) indicates a substantial need for additional pitches in the Borough; that is a raw need of 62 pitches over 5 years. The base date for that assessment was August 2006 and since that time only 6 additional pitches have been permitted on a temporary or personal basis. Added to that all public sites in Kent are full and have waiting lists and no allowance is made for in-migration. That there is an on- going need in the Borough is backed up by the latest bi-annual gypsy count. I am aware that a number of options have been put to the Regional Authority so that the numerical requirement ultimately fixed for additional pitches in the Borough could be lower but that does not mean that there is not currently a substantial and pressing need.

15. The Council at the inquiry was unable to provide any information as to what positive steps are being taken to meet the need other than to say that work is going on; nor was it able to give any indication whatsoever of the likely timescale for the production of a Development Plan Document (DPD). This, despite the advice in paragraph 43 of the Circular that DPDs containing site allocations should be brought forward where there is clear and immediate need. There was no indication that the Council has even begun to think of identifying suitable sites for future pitches which does not bode well for gypsies with a real and immediate need. I attach substantial weight to the identified need in a situation with no solution emerging in the near future other than continued reliance on a criteria based policy.

16. Turning then to the personal circumstances in this case, the Appellants are retired gypsies and Mr Wilson has some health problems. They lived on a site in Sevenoaks District, the Old Piggery, which had a temporary planning permission for that purpose which expired last year. I note that the Appellants chose to vacate that site rather than to enquire whether a further temporary permission might have been forthcoming. However, a further temporary permission would simply serve to maintain the Appellants’ on-going need for a permanent base and it does not seem to me to be unreasonable for them to seek a site now upon which they might settle permanently, especially in circumstances where there is no apparent positive progress towards site allocations in the area as envisaged by the Circular.

17. It was suggested that the Appellants might go and stay with their daughter in the building which she occupies at the Old Piggery, but it

Continued . . .

- 23 - 5.6 (Contd) PART 5 was made clear in evidence that this was of very limited size and that they had only done so in the past because of the force of circumstances. More importantly the Appellants have made clear that they are not comfortable living in conventional ‘bricks and mortar’. To suggest that they might do so now, and for an indefinite period since there is no indication or timescale as to how the gypsy need is to be addressed, is directly contrary to national policy which intends that gypsies’ traditional way of life should be recognised, protected and facilitated.

The balance of considerations and conclusion on ground (a)

18. The appeal site is acknowledged by both parties as being suitable for occupation by gypsies other than in relation to the effect on highway safety. I have concluded that traffic generation would be low and, were the use to be permitted on a personal basis, lower than might be anticipated from a normal gypsy site. The Appellants’ personal circumstances described above coupled with the national and local shortage of gypsy sites and thus the alternatives available to them weigh heavily in the balance. The only alternative suggested by the Council for the short term is overcrowded conditions, sharing their daughter’s small dwelling, in accommodation alien to their traditional way of life.

19. I am alive to the previous appeal decisions where highway safety has been an issue but those cases related to permanent dwellings and to a gypsy site with more than one pitch. None of the previous applications or appeals exhibits the particular mix of circumstances that arise here. Taking all these factors into account I conclude that the very small increment in vehicle movements at the junction that would be likely to arise were a personal permission to be given would not cause unacceptable conflict with Local Plan policy H4(h), Structure Plan policy H9 or with the more general transport policies of the Development Plan. It is thus the individual circumstances of this case which warrant the grant of permission in this instance which should not affect the Council’s ability to resist other proposals on highway grounds where appropriate

Conditions

20. In addition to the condition which I have already found to be necessary restricting occupation of the site to the Appellants only, a restriction on the number of caravans on the site is also needed. Although the Council suggested that the restriction should specify two touring caravans I disagree. In my experience it is normal for a single pitch gypsy site to be restricted to two caravans of which no more than one should be a static caravan or a mobile home. The site is considered to be suitable for gypsy occupation by the Council in all respects other than in highway matters and I find nothing remarkable about the site which would justify precluding the Appellants from utilising a static caravan or mobile home should they so wish. However, my highway

Continued . . .

- 24 - 5.6 (Contd) PART 5

assessment is based on a purely residential use of the site and thus it is necessary to prevent any commercial activity.

21. I find no need for a condition requiring landscaping as the site boundaries are well defined and there is a strong visual containment so that the development is not visible other than from close quarters from immediately adjoining land. However it is important that the Council retains control over external lighting in the interests of the amenity of the area and arrangements for foul water drainage are required since none has been provided.

Overall conclusion

22. For the reasons given above and having regard to all other matters raised I conclude that the appeals should succeed on ground (a). I intend to correct the alleged breach of planning control in the enforcement notice in the manner suggested and agreed by the parties in order to clarify the terms of the deemed application under section 177(5) of the 1990 Act as amended. I will then grant planning permission in accordance with the application deemed to have been made which will now relate to the corrected allegation. In these circumstances, the appeals on grounds (f) and (g) do not need to be considered and neither do I need to vary the requirements of the notice as it is to be quashed.

Formal Decision

23. I direct that the enforcement notice be corrected by the deletion of the content of paragraph 3 and the substitution therefor of the following: “Without planning permission, the material change of use of the Land to one for the stationing of 2 caravans used for residential purposes, and the construction of one timber shed and one block built, rendered wash house used to assist and facilitate such use.”

24. Subject to this correction I allow the appeals, and direct that the enforcement notice be quashed. I grant planning permission, on the application deemed to have been made under section 177(5) of the 1990 Act as amended, for the development already carried out, namely the material change of use of the Land to one for the stationing of 2 caravans used for residential purposes, and the construction of one timber shed and one block built, rendered wash house used to assist and facilitate such use on land at Ashley, Cellar Hill, Lynsted, Sittingbourne, Kent ME9 9QY subject to the following conditions:

1) The use as a residential caravan site shall be restricted to occupation by Mr and Mrs R Wilson only and by no other person and shall be for a limited period being the period during which the site is occupied by either or both of them. Within a period of three months from the date when neither Mr nor Mrs

Continued . . .

- 25 - 5.6 (Contd) PART 5

Wilson occupy the land, the use hereby permitted shall cease and all caravans, structures, fences, materials and equipment brought on to the land in connection with the use, including the shed and wash house hereby approved, shall be removed and the land restored to its previous condition before the development took place.

2) The residential use hereby permitted shall be restricted to the stationing of no more than two caravans at any time (of which no more than one shall be a static caravan or mobile home).

3) The site shall not be used for any business, industrial or commercial activity nor shall any open storage of plant, products or waste in connection with such activities take place on the land. No vehicle over 3.5 tonnes shall be stationed, parked or stored on the land.

4) No floodlighting, security lighting or any other external lighting shall be installed or operated at the site.

5) The use hereby permitted shall cease and all caravans, structures, equipment and materials brought onto the land for the purposes of such use shall be removed within 28 days of the date of failure to meet any one of the requirements set out in (i) to (iv) below:

i) within 3 months of the date of this decision a scheme for the means of foul water drainage of the site (hereafter referred to as the drainage scheme) shall have been submitted for the written approval of the local planning authority and the said scheme shall include a timetable for its implementation. ii) within 11 months of the date of this decision the drainage scheme shall have been approved by the local planning authority or, if the local planning authority refuse to approve the scheme, or fail to give a decision within the prescribed period, an appeal shall have been made to, and accepted as validly made by, the Secretary of State. iii) if an appeal is made in pursuance of (ii) above, that appeal shall have been finally determined and the submitted site development scheme shall have been approved by the Secretary of State. iv) the approved drainage scheme shall have been carried out and completed in accordance with the approved timetable.” Continued . . .

- 26 - 5.6 (Contd) PART 5

Observations

Cellar Hill and Cambridge Lane are narrow lanes with bad junctions either end. There is a long history of refusals of planning permission on highway safety grounds here; even for a single house on this appeal site.

However, the appellant’s gypsy status, the high need for gypsy sites, the lack of progress by the Council on a new gypsy site policy, and the appellants’ retired status have been seen to override these very long-standing concerns and a personal planning permission has been granted.

I would expect this site not to be allocated for long-term use by others, but the decision once again reinforces the need for the Council to develop an up-to- date policy on the provision of gypsy sites as soon as possible. ______

Responsible Officer: Graham Thomas (Area Planning Officer)

List of Background Papers

1. Appeal Decision Ref: APP/V2255/C/07/2051962 dated 5 June 2008 2. SBC Enforcement Notice dated 13 July 2007

- 27 - PART 5

5.7 SW/07/0206 (Case 09230) – New single dwelling house on land to rear of 205 The Street, comprising ‘semi-underground’ arrangement with car parking on reinforced concrete (flat) roof – 205 The Street, Boughton under Blean, Faversham, Kent, ME13 9BL

APPEAL DISMISSED

The Inspector commented as follows:

"Main issues

3. The site of the proposed dwelling is within the built-up area of the settlement as defined in the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008 (LP). The Council therefore raises no objection to the principle of the development and I see no reason to disagree. Planning permission was granted in November 2006 for the extension of a garage immediately adjoining the appeal site and its conversion to a holiday cottage (Ref SW/03/0027 – the approved scheme). This planning permission remains extant and is therefore relevant to my decision on this appeal. I consider that the main issues are:

• the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the Boughton Street Conservation Area, including any effect on the setting of Style House (205 The Street) which is a listed building, and • the effects of the proposal, in combination with a separate proposal to extend and convert the adjoining garage, on the character and appearance of the area and the living conditions of future occupiers.

Reasons

Character and appearance

4. The conservation area is characterised by the linear form of the settlement with the main buildings forming a more-or-less continuous frontage to The Street. The conservation area includes gardens and other open areas to the rear of the frontage properties which are important in that they form the predominantly open setting of the village core. There are also some examples of development set back from The Street, such as the cottages at Gas Lane to the east of the appeal site.

5. No 205, also known as Style House, is a timber framed house fronting The Street. It is a Grade II* listed building. To the rear there is an enclosed garden which is separated by a boundary wall and planting from a shared driveway. Further to the rear there is a double garage, with a tiled pitched roof, adjacent to which is a parking area. The natural fall of the land is from front to back and this part of the site has

Continued . . .

- 28 - 5.7 (Contd) PART 5

been built up behind a retaining structure to create a level area for parking. The remainder of the garden, beyond the retaining structure, is at a lower level. A public footpath runs from The Street along the western side of the site towards a footbridge over the A2 dual- carriageway road and out into the countryside.

6. The proposed semi-underground house would replace the retaining structure. The main accommodation would be at the level of the lower garden with only two small built elements at the level of the parking area. The parking area would be reinstated above the rear of the house and would be bounded by a garden wall and pergola running across the site. The main part of the house would not be seen in views from The Street or from within Style House. The garden wall, pergola and entrance structures would be visible but these would be minor structures which would be seen in the context of the existing parking area and garage. To my mind these structures would be in-keeping and would not significantly alter these views.

7. The proposal would divide Style House from the lower part of the garden. However, in visual terms the lower garden already appears quite separate from the listed building due to the presence of the double garage, retaining structure, parking area and the boundary treatment to the upper garden.

8. The new house would be seen in views towards Style House from the footpath, although these views would be filtered by trees and other vegetation. In these views the listed building is partially obscured by the double garage and only part of the upper floor is visible. I consider that the appeal scheme would make little, if any, difference to the visibility of the listed building from this direction because the proposed garden wall would be of similar height to existing boundary treatments and garden structures. The proposed house would be at a lower level than the listed building and would not be unduly prominent due to its limited height, its setting against the bank and the use of cedar cladding. In my view the innovative design approach would be sympathetic to the historic context and would not detract from the setting of the listed building.

9. The house would be seen in the context of other structures including the double garage and nearby cottages in Gas Lane. Consequently, it would not have the effect of spreading the built form of the settlement significantly further into the more open area which forms the setting of the village core. The Council is concerned about the impact of the development on the footpath. I consider that the house itself would have only a limited effect due to its mainly single storey design. I agree that if the whole of the frontage to the footpath were to be enclosed with a solid timber fence this would detract from the rural character of the footpath. However, in my view the required degree of privacy could be achieved with a more sympathetic combination of

Continued . . .

- 29 - 5.7 (Contd) PART 5

fencing and planting. This matter could be covered by a condition, notwithstanding the details shown on the plans.

10. The Council suggests that the proposal would lead to a more intensive use of the lower garden area. However, the area in question is already part of a domestic garden. Given suitable boundary treatment and landscaping, which could be secured by a condition, I do not consider that this factor amounts to a compelling objection to the scheme. I note that English Heritage, whilst not objecting to the proposal, comments that the future economic viability of the listed building might be compromised by the subdivision of the plot. However, there is no evidence that the economic viability of the listed building is under threat and, from my own observations, I see no reason to think that it would be threatened by the appeal scheme.

11. I conclude that the proposal would not be harmful to the setting of the listed building or to the character or the appearance of the conservation area. The setting of the listed building and the character and appearance of the conservation area would therefore be preserved. The proposal would accord with Kent and Medway Structure Plan 2006 (SP) Policy QL8 and LP Policy E14 which seek to protect the setting of listed buildings and also with SP Policy QL6 and LP Policy E15 which seek to protect the character and appearance of conservation areas.

Effects in combination

12. The appeal site overlaps with that of the approved scheme. If the appeal proposal were to be implemented it appears that the approved scheme could, subsequently, also be implemented. This would entail demolition of a relatively small part of the appeal scheme, (an escape stair), and building the permitted extension to the garage over part of the underground section of the house. I appreciate that there may be practical difficulties to overcome but, on the basis of the information before me, I do not consider that this scenario can be discounted.

13. If both schemes were to be implemented 2 dwellings would be created in very close proximity, neither of which appears to have been designed with this in mind. This would result in an unduly cramped effect. Furthermore, the driveway and parking area would have insufficient capacity and would be likely to become congested with vehicles. The effect of the 2 schemes in combination would therefore be harmful to the setting of the listed building and to the character and appearance of the conservation area. The setting of the listed building and the character and appearance of the conservation area would not be preserved or enhanced.

14. I consider that the implementation of the 2 schemes in combination would result in poor living conditions for future occupiers due to noise and disturbance from vehicles manoeuvring and parking in what would

Continued . . .

- 30 - 5.7 (Contd) PART 5

be a confined space. Moreover, the shared circulation area would result in overlooking of main windows of the converted garage and the terrace to the converted garage would afford views into the skylights of the underground part of the new house. Even allowing for the fact that the garage conversion is intended for holiday accommodation, I regard this as an unacceptable situation.

15. I conclude that the combined effect of implementing both schemes would be harmful to the setting of the listed building, the character and appearance of the conservation area and the living conditions of future occupiers. There is no mechanism in place to prevent this outcome and, in my view, this is not a matter that could be controlled by a condition. The appeal should therefore fail, notwithstanding my conclusion in relation to the appeal scheme when considered in isolation.”

Observations

The Inspector disagreed with our reasons for returning the application but still dismissed the appeal.

However, the Inspector cited the combination of this application with the previously approved scheme (SW/03/0027) for the extension of the adjoining garage and its conversion to a holiday cottage as the reason for refusal.

This effectively leaves the door open for a new application and the recinding of the extant permission. ______

Responsible Officer: Graham Thomas (Area Planning Officer)

List of Background Papers

1. Planning Inspectorate Appeal Decision reference: APP/V2255/A/08/2064916 dated 9 May 2008.

2. Appeal Papers (statements and correspondence)

3. SBC Decision on Application SW/07/0206

- 31 - PART 5

5.8 SW/07/1463 (Case 14217) – Land adjoining 50 Sheerstone, Iwade, Kent ME9 8RP

APPEAL DISMISSED

The Inspector commented as follows:

"Appeal Ref: APP/V2255/A/08/2069183 Land adjoining 50 Sheerstone, Iwade, Sittingbourne, Kent, ME9 8RP

• The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Mr & Mrs T Brookman against the decision of Swale Borough Council. • The application (Ref:- SW/07/1463), dated 13 December 2007, was refused by notice dated 7 February 2008. • The development proposed is detached bungalow.

Decision 1. I dismiss the appeal.

Main Issue 2. I consider that the main issue in this appeal is whether the erection of the proposed bungalow on side garden land constitutes overdevelopment of this site giving rise to cramped development out of character with its surroundings.

Reasons 3. The appeal site is the side garden of 50 Sheerstone. It contains a sizeable timber outbuilding and faces onto the south-east side of Springvale to the south-west side of its junction with a public footpath running north from the turning area of the cul-de-sac known as Sheerstone. 50 Sheerstone is the northern half of a pair of two-storey semi-detached houses facing onto the west side of the footpath. Most of the dwellings in Sheerstone and Springvale are two-storey in height with pitched roofs; those in Sheerstone are semidetached while Springvale is a mixture of detached and semi-detached houses. However, there is a terrace of three brick bungalows with pitched roofs facing onto the north-east side of the footpath, opposite the appeal site, with the flank wall of the most north-westerly of these facing towards Springvale.

4. The Swale Borough Local Plan First Review Redeposit Draft of July 2005 was finally adopted as the Swale Borough Local Plan during 2008. Policy E1 requires that, amongst other things, all development proposals avoid an unacceptable impact on natural and built environments and be both well-sited and of a scale, design and appearance that is appropriate to the location.

Continued . . .

32 5.8 (Contd) PART 5

5. As described in paragraph 3, although forming the side garden of a house facing onto another street, the appeal site is in a prominent location in Springvale. It may be surrounded by a timber fence some 2m high, but I am firmly of the opinion that, even in its fenced form, this essentially undeveloped land maintains the sense of openness to be found in the rest of Springvale, where houses are well set back from the highway behind generous front gardens.

6. On the other hand, although the forwardmost part of the proposed bungalow would align with the front of 50 Sheerstone’s rear garage facing onto Springvale, it would be considerably closer to the back edge of the highway than the front wall of any of the houses in that road or the north-western flank wall of the terrace of three bungalows on the opposite side of the footpath. I do not necessarily agree with the Council that the relationship between the proposal and 50 Sheerstone is in itself cramped. However, I concur that inadequate patches of garden would be retained by the proposed bungalow between it and the realigned northern flank boundary of 50 Sheerstone. This contrasts markedly with the situation at 48A to 48C Sheerstone where the three bungalows all benefit from the presence of reasonably usable areas of amenity space to front and rear, despite being developed to a density similar to that of the appeal proposal.

7. All of this points to the proposal constituting overdevelopment of a restricted site, giving rise to the erection of a bungalow well forward of its neighbours and thereby appearing out of keeping with the open character of the street scene. This is clearly contrary to the provisions of Policy E1 of the recently adopted Local Plan, cited in paragraph 4 above, and, as a consequence, the section 78 appeal fails.

Conclusions

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

Observations

A clear decision from the Inspector in which he agreed with the Council that the erection of the proposed bungalow would constitute overdevelopment of the site, and give rise to cramped development that will be out of character with its surroundings.

Responsible Officer: Andrew Jeffers (Development Control Manager) ______

33 PART 5 5.9 ENF/07/039 (Case 8679) – Ripney Farm, Marian Avenue, Minster, Kent

ENFORCEMENT NOTICE APPEAL ALLOWED

The Inspector commented as follows:

“Appeal Ref: APP/V2255/C/08/2061883 Land and buildings at Ripney Farm, Marian Avenue, Minister on Sea, Sheerness, Kent ME12 2EG • 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 Mr A Whelan against an enforcement notice issued by Swale Borough Council. • The Council's reference is MIN 25:07. • The notice was issued on 12 November 2007. • The breach of planning control as alleged in the notice is Without planning permission, the material change of use of a building formally identified as a barn and subsequently granted planning permission under reference SW/03/1240 for a change of use to an indoor riding school, shown hatched blue on the plan to a building used for the storage of commercial refrigerated display cabinets. • The requirements of the notice are (i) Cease using the Land or any building thereon for the storage of commercial refrigerated display cabinets. (ii) Remove from the Land and building all commercial refrigerated display cabinets. (iii) Remove from the Land all rubbish or debris caused by or associated with the stationing of and subsequent removal of the items referred to in (ii) above. • The period for compliance with the requirements is three months. • The appeal is proceeding on the grounds set out in section 174(2)[a] and [g] of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended.

Summary of Decision: The notice is corrected, the appeal succeeds and a temporary planning permission is granted subject to conditions as set out in the Formal Decision.

Correction of the Allegation 1. At the site inspection it became apparent that the unlawful change of use occupied only part of the appeal building. The eastern two of its nine bays are partitioned off from the other seven, and used for equestrian purposes, evidently in accordance with an earlier planning permission. The enforcement notice is thus wrong in alleging a breach affecting the whole building.

2. I gave the parties the opportunity to comment upon this, and have taken into account the subsequent exchange of correspondence. The Appellant seeks that the notice be amended to exclude the area where the breach of control has not, as a matter of fact, taken place. This is in effect an appeal on ground (b) in relation to the eastern two bays. The Council resists this in part on the basis that it has been raised too late in the day. I do not agree, however, that a relevant matter can be ignored for that reason alone. Continued . . .

34 5.9 (Contd) PART 5

3. The Council also argues that the barn is a single planning unit and that if the notice were altered to exclude the two eastern bays this could result in the unauthorised storage being moved into them, thus making it necessary to take new enforcement action. There is, however, no evidence that use of only two bays would be either viable or likely. Nor may I assume that a use reduced from 7/9ths to 2/9ths of the building would warrant enforcement action. I have concluded that the Council’s points do not outweigh the need to ensure that a breach of control is accurately described. The appeal on ground (b) succeeds and I shall correct the notice allegation accordingly.

The appeal on ground (a)

4. The appeal building is a large modern agricultural/commercial building situated in the countryside. Vehicular access is only available off the residential cul-de-sac Marian Avenue, by way of a drive that also serves two dwellings and other buildings and equestrian uses at Ripney Farm. The concerns of the Council and residents who live along the Avenue focus upon loss of residential amenity by reason of the passage of heavy goods vehicles (HGV) over residential roads, and residents express wider concerns at highway safety.

5. Both matters are relevant planning considerations in the light of policies of the Swale Borough Local Plan and the Kent and Medway Structure Plan set out in the representations. Policies supporting the re-use of agricultural buildings in the countryside and fostering business are conditional upon avoiding these and other harms. From my inspection of the site and area, and from consideration of the representations made I have concluded that the main issue in this case is the effect of the appeal use upon highway safety and residential amenity.

6. A relevant question is whether the increase in use of Marian Avenue and Scrapsgate Road by HGV is material. The Appellant states that there are on average 10 deliveries, and 10 collections a week. Assuming deliveries and collections are not paired, this implies 40 vehicle movements a week. The Council has not disputed these figures, or addressed the Appellant’s reference to HGV and other traffic that might be expected if the part building were to revert to its lawful use. Nor is there evidence from either side as to existing levels of use of Marian Avenue for lawful purposes. In these circumstances I consider that there must be doubt as to whether any increase in HGV use over what might in any event be expected is indeed material.

7. The Appellant has stated some of the complaints made by residents relate to when the building was in other ownership. Claims that HGV using the site necessarily pass nearby primary schools and traffic calming measures are denied by the Appellant, who refers to the relative positions of schools, the occupier Bond Retail Service’s depot, and the appeal site to suggest that use of the appeal site rather than the depot involves fewer such movements. I was driven along part of Continued . . .

35 5.9 (Contd) PART 5 the route stated to be used. The Council has not disputed these matters. As to highway safety in particular I also give considerable weight to the fact that there is no expert evidence against the proposal for or on behalf of the highway authority. Nor is there evidence of speed limits being exceeded, or of actual rather than anticipated minor damage to parked cars. I have concluded that on the evidence before me highway safety considerations in themselves do not warrant withholding permission.

8. Nevertheless it is clear that Marian Avenue in particular is a residential street and that its use by heavy goods vehicles is likely to involve at least some disturbance to residents, in particular where this has happened out of normal working hours. Whether or not this is mainly due to the poor surface of the road does not affect the likelihood of such disturbance. I have thus concluded that there are on the one hand indications of disturbance to residents in Marian Avenue, and on the other doubt as to whether the change in vehicle movements and thus any consequential effect upon amenity are material in relation to present or prospective traffic levels serving lawful uses.

9. I consider that these circumstances suggest a temporary permission during which these matters and the effect of controlling conditions can be more fully considered and monitored. A period of two years is suggested by the Appellant, but I consider a substantially lesser period would be sufficient for the necessary information to be gathered and considered, and shall allow a year. I do not consider a proffered condition defining parking and turning areas necessary for a temporary permission, given the space available within the site. A condition restricting vehicle use would limit any disturbance to normal working hours. A condition limiting the use to Bond Retail Services is justified at this juncture by all the evidence as to the amount and pattern of vehicle use being related to their particular mode of operation. The appeal on ground (a) succeeds subject to these conditions.

10. As the notice is to be quashed the appeal on ground (g) is no longer before me for decision. I have noted the concerns of residents that vibration from passing HGV have caused cracks in their homes, but in the absence of firmer evidence cannot conclude that these are or are likely to be the result of HGV rather than some other cause. For the avoidance of doubt my decision does not imply any view upon as to whether a renewal of planning permission at the expiry of the one year period would be appropriate.

FORMAL DECISION

11. I direct that the enforcement notice be corrected by deleting all the words in paragraph 3 after THE BREACH OF PLANNING CONTROL ALLEGED and replacing them with the words Without planning permission, the material change of use of the Western 7 bays of the building shown hatched blue on the plan to use for the storage of commercial refrigerated display cabinets. Continued . . .

36 5.9 (Contd) PART 5

12. Subject to this correction I uphold the appeal, quash the enforcement notice, and grant planning permission on the application deemed to have been made under section 177(5) of the Act as amended for the development already carried out, namely the use of the Western 7 bays of the appeal building for the storage of commercial refrigerated display cabinets, on land at Ripney Farm, Marian Avenue, Minster, Sheppey, Kent, subject to the conditions:

(1) The use hereby permitted shall be discontinued and all commercial refrigerated display cabinets removed from the building and the whole of the land bounded in red on the plan attached to the enforcement notice on or before one year from the date of this decision.

(2) The use hereby permitted shall be discontinued and all commercial refrigerated display cabinets removed from the building and the whole of the land bounded in red on the plan attached to the enforcement notice if the Western 7 bays of the building cease to be occupied by Bond Retail Services.

(3) The delivery and collection of commercial refrigerated display cabinets to and from the building and the land bounded in red on the plan attached to the enforcement notice shall take place only between the hours of 0800 – 1700 Mondays to Fridays, and not at all on weekends, or on Bank or Public Holidays.”

Observations

A clear, but disappointing decision, in which the Inspector disagreed with the Council that the use of the site for storage of commercial refrigeration units, and the accompanying HGV movements, is detrimental to local residential amenity. The Enforcement Notice has been quashed and temporary permission granted for a period of one year during which both the applicant and the Council can assess the impact of the use on the surrounding area.

Responsible Officer: Andy Jeffers (Development Control Manager) ______

List of Background Documents

1. Planning Inspectorate Appeal Decision reference: APP/V2255/C/08/2061883

2. Appeal Papers (statements and correspondence)

37 PART 5

5.10 Case 23022 – 8 Littlefield Road, Rainham, Kent

APPEAL DISMISSED

The Inspector commented as follows:

“Appeal Refs: APP/V2255/C/07/2062256 and 2062260 8 Littlefield Road, Rainham, Kent, ME8 8SE

• The appeals are made under section 174 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by the Planning and Compensation Act 1991. • The appeals are made by Mr K Whittaker and Mrs M Statham respectively, against an enforcement notice issued by Swale Borough Council. • The Council's reference is ENF/07/040/C23022/JB. • The notice was issued on 21 November 2007. • The breach of planning control as alleged in the notice is the construction of wooden fencing to the front of the property. • The requirements of the notice are remove the wooden fencing from the front of the property, making good where necessary. • The period for compliance with the requirements is three months. • The appeals are both proceeding on the ground set out in section 174(2)[a] of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended.

Decisions

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

Main issue

2. From my inspection of the site and area, and from consideration of the representations made I have concluded that the main issue in this case is whether the fence would harm the appearance and character of the streetscene.

Reasons

3. The housing estate within which No.8 is situated was built under a 1997 permission that removed permitted development rights to construct gates, fences, walls or other means of enclosure on frontages to the highway. Littlefield Road and the other parts of the estate thus have an “open plan” layout. I consider that the estate has a pleasant residential character to which the open front gardens contribute.

Continued . . .

38 5.10 (Contd) PART 5

4. The Appellants refer to similar breaches of planning control in the streets accessed off Littlefield Road, but from my inspection I do not consider that the process of unlawful front garden enclosure has gone so far as to significantly weaken the established open plan character.

5. The appeal fencing is of normal domestic appearance, which would not be out of keeping in a residential street where front gardens were not open plan. In the context of its open plan surroundings, however, I have concluded on the main issue in this case that the fence is incongruous and harms the appearance and character of the streetscene. Littlefield Road provides vehicular access to this part of the estate and No.8 is therefore necessarily passed by vehicles entering and leaving it.

6. The Appellants consider that they have been victimised because enforcement action has been taken against them but not the other properties to which they have drawn attention. In my experience local planning authorities do not have the resources to survey all parts of their area regularly and so normally only become aware of a breach of control when someone tells them about it. It follows that taking action against one breach of control and not another does not in itself imply victimisation. None of the examples mentioned by the Appellants are in Littlefield Road itself, and so need not have been seen by a Council officer investigating the breach at No.8.

7. In any event, despite the failure of the Council to take the opportunity afforded by this appeal to refer to their conclusions on the alleged breaches of control, there is no evidence to suggest that they will fail to consider and come to an appropriate conclusion on these matters.

8. Having regard to my conclusion on the main issue in this case I have concluded that the appeal should be dismissed.”

Observations

A good decision, where the Inspector acknowledged the harm caused by the fence to the visual amenity of the area. I am pleased to report that no further action need be taken, as a recent inspection has confirmed that the fence has already been removed from the site, immediately following the issue of the Appeal Decision.

Responsible Officer: Andy Jeffers (Development Control Manager) ______

List of Background Documents 1. Planning Inspectorate Appeal Decision reference: APP/V2255/C/07/2062256 and 2062260 2. Appeal Papers (statements and correspondence) 3. SBC Enforcement papers and Notice relating to Case 23022.