SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL
NOTICE OF MEETING, SUMMONS AND AGENDA
A Meeting of the Planning Committee will be held in the Council Chamber, Swale House, East Street, Sittingbourne on Thursday 30th March 2006 at 7:00pm.
Members: Councillor Barnicott (Chairman), Councillor Prescott (Vice-Chairman), Councillors Simon Clark, Adrian Crowther, Fentiman, Sandra Garside, Fiona Gowdy, Elvina Lowe, John Morris, Jennie Ronan, Stanford, Ben Stokes, Alan Willicombe and Woodland.
Quorum = 5
M E H RADFORD Director of Corporate Services, Governance and Scrutiny 20/03/2006
1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND CONFIRMATION OF SUBSTITUTES
2. MINUTES
To approve the Minutes of the Meeting held on 2nd March 2006 (Minute Nos. 776 - 783) as a correct record.
Any items shown in these Minutes as being deferred from that meeting may be considered at this meeting.
3. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Members who have an interest to declare must declare the existence and nature of it at the start of the meeting.
Members are reminded that even if an interest has been declared in the Members Interests Register, it should still be disclosed at each meeting. Members are encouraged to seek advice in advance of the meeting if in any doubt.
PART B DECISIONS TO BE TAKEN UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
4. PLANNING WORKING GROUP
Minutes of the Meeting held on 21st March 2006 (to follow).
5. REPORT OF THE HEAD OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
To consider the attached report (Sections 2, 3, 5 and 6).
The Council operates a scheme of public speaking at meetings of the Planning Committee. All applications on which the public have registered to speak will be considered first. A list of speakers will be tabled at the meeting.
6. LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ACCESS TO INFORMATION) ACT 1985
To decide whether to pass the resolution set out below in respect of the following items:- That under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the press and public be excluded from the meeting for the following items of business on the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraphs 5 and 7 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act.
PART B DECISIONS TO BE TAKEN UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
7. REPORT OF THE HEAD OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
To consider the attached report (Section 6).
SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL
PLANNING SERVICES
Planning Items to be submitted to the Planning Committee
30TH MARCH 2006
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
KSP Kent Structure Plan (adopted 1996)
SBLP Swale Borough Local Plan (2000)
Draft Local Plan (2005) Swale Borough Local Plan First Review Re-Deposit Draft 2005 INDEX OF ITEMS FOR PLANNING COMMITTEE - 30TH MARCH 2006
• Minutes of last Planning Committee Meeting • Minutes of any Working Party Meetings
2.1 NORTON SW/06/0011 Fuggles Cottage, Norton Lane Pg 1-6
2.2 SITTINGBOURNE SW/06/0175 Land adjoining 34 Lime Grove Pg 7-14 (Inc Appendix pg 14a-c)
2.3 LEYSDOWN SW/06/0042 Roxy, Eastern Road Pg 15-23
2.4 FAVERSHAM SW/05/1202 Land at Western Link Pg 24-37
2.5 BOBBING TN/06/00019 Key Street Lay-by, Key Street Pg 38-42
2.6 MILTON REGIS SW/06/0031 28 Colfe Way Pg 43-47
2.7 BOBBING SW/06/0147 9 Bobbing Hill Pg 48-53
2.8 FAVERSHAM SW/05/1593 Land adjacent to 28 Bayfields/5 Pg 54-62 Baybanks, Eastling Road, Painters Forstal
2.9 WARDEN SW/06/0181 1 St Clements Road Pg 63-65
2.10 NEWINGTON SW/06/0038 91 High Street Pg 66-70
2.11 LEYSDOWN SW/05/1644 Henbils & Anlin, Shurland Avenue Pg 71-73
2.12 SHEERNESS SW/06/0143 The Windmill R/O, 109 High Street Pg 74-86
2.13 SHEERNESS SW/06/0144 The Windmill R/O, 109 High Street Pg 78-86
2.14 TEYNHAM SW/06/0030 Garage Site R/O 21-33 Cherry Pg 87-93 Gardens
2.15 SHEERNESS SW/06/0021 Co-Steel Sports Ground, Pg 94-101 Queenborough Road, Halfway
2.16 MINSTER SW/05/0290 Scocles Road Pg 102-113
3.1 FAVERSHAM SW/05/1507 Davington Priory, Coach House, Pg 1-19 Priory Road
5.1 NEWINGTON SW/04/1566 Pond House, Keycol Hill Pg 1-4
5.2 FAVERSHAM SW/05/0922 70 Preston Street Pg 5-8
PLANNING COMMITTEE – 30TH MARCH 2006 PART 2
Report of the Head of Development Services
PART 2
Applications for which PERMISSION is recommended
2.1 SW/06/0011 (Case 1626) NORTON
Location: Fuggles Cottage, Norton Lane, Norton, Nr Sittingbourne, Kent
Proposal: Ground floor and first floor extension
Applicant/Agent: Ms N Jackson, c/o Ken Collingwood, Country View, The Street, Staple, Canterbury, Kent, CT3 1LL
Application Valid: 6 January 2006
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 (except for the slates) match those on the existing building in terms of type, colour and texture.
Grounds: To ensure that the appearance of the development is in harmony with the character of the existing building, as supported by Policy G1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan.
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: G1, E9 & H9 of The Swale Borough Local Plan; RS1, RS5 & ENV1 of the Kent Structure Plan Continued….
1 2.1 (continued) PART 2
Description of Proposal
The application is for pitched roof ground and first floor extensions. The conversion of a double garage to a studio room is also mentioned on the form, and shown on the drawings, but this does not require planning permission.
The first floor is to extend to the side of the main building over an existing flat roofed single storey extension and be 2.4m in depth, set down from the roof line and will be the full depth of the existing two storey element of the property. The small single storey side element is to measure 1.5m in width and be 6.6m in depth.
Relevant site history and site description
The property is a two storey semi detached cottage located in the defined countryside in a rural isolated position. It is one of a pair of cottages, both of which have been extended.
The property has been extended in the past namely:
SW/75/801 rear and side single storey extension APPROVED SW/77/9 double garage APPROVED SW/81/1307first floor extension APPROVED (not implemented)
All of the above proposals were granted to a previous owner.
Views of Consultees
The Parish Council comment that “In contrast to the other semi, which has also been extended, this extension is much larger and somewhat oversize in comparison and the visual impact will not suit the environs. It is however an improvement on the current flat roofed extension but feel that it should be scaled down. The Parish Council also note that there is a lack of information regarding the conversion of the garage to studio and ask what it will be used for and what amenities it will have. Members will note that this “conversion” does not require planning permission, and consequently that the matter need not be considered further.
Other Representations
No response from neighbours
Continued…..
2 2.1 (continued) PART 2
Policies
Kent Structure Plan Policies
The main considerations in determining this application are those of policies RS1, RS5 and ENV1 (protection of the countryside) of the Kent Structure Plan
Swale Borough Local Plan Policies
Policies E9 (protection of the countryside), H9 (extensions to dwellings within the countryside) and G1 (general development considerations) of the Swale Borough Local Plan.
The Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance on “Designing an Extension” is also relevant to this application.
Kent & Medway Structure Plan: Deposit Plan
Policies E1 and QL1
Discussion
The proposal will not impact upon the amenities of the neighbouring property and therefore the main points for discussion must be whether the proposed extension is modest in nature and whether it is of an appropriate design for the rural location.
With regard to these issues development plan policy states that the countryside should be protected for its own sake and that development should be restricted outside rural settlements in the interests of countryside conservation and sustainability. Policy does provide for some limited development outside settlements and the text accompanying Policy H9 suggests that modest can be defined as up to a 60% increase in floor space from original.
With the previous extensions to the property this proposal does slightly exceed this figure.
When permission SW/75/801 was granted for a rear and side single storey extension the property was approx 63sqm; this extension subsequently resulted in a 41% increase from the original. This scheme simply extended the earlier small flat roofed side extension, but in a way in which there was then more flat roofed than pitched roof. In 1981 (SW/81/1307), an almost identical first floor extension to that now proposed was approved and, had it been implemented, this would have resulted in a total 60% increase in size Continued….
3 2.1 (continued) PART 2
from the original dwelling. This current application proposes a first floor extension, at a similar size to that granted in 1981 but together with a small single storey side extension which will result in a total increase in size from the original property of 79%. I note the proposal would only result in a limited increase in the current footprint of the property to the side elevation.
The above must be considered in light of what currently exists on site, namely a rural cottage with a large flat roof side and rear extension which are highly visible and I consider that this proposal will result in a far more attractive dwelling and therefore is acceptable.
Whilst this might at first appear to be inconsistent with the strict application of numerically based rural extension guidelines, it is very much informed by an appeal decision at Little Kennaways, Stalisfield Road, Ospringe (see Appendix A) in which in very similar circumstances the Inspector (at paragraph 6) determined that despite an increase above the 60% modesty guideline “the appearance of the dwelling will be improved because . .. .the flat roof will disappear”. It is also informed by the fact that the proposal very much repeats the extension previously approved on this property in 1981, and that it will balance with that built on the attached cottages, so vastly improving the appearance of the pair.
The additional 1.5m wide single storey dining area shown on the side/north elevation is of a design and style to be appropriate to the location and is of a scale to be acceptable. I do not consider that this element is sufficient to render the proposal unacceptable.
I note the comments of the Parish Council, however I do not consider that the extension need be precisely identical to that of the adjoining semi. It does however have a similar profile of a two storey, set down side extension and single storey side extension. On balance, I feel that the result will be a worthwhile enhancement of the area.
Recommendation
I am very much aware that the issue of consistency in dealing with rural extensions was much discussed at the last meeting. I welcome that approach, and have had to consider this proposal very carefully, especially in the light of the Parish Council’s comments. However, I consider that this is a rare case where a combination of factors, not least a resultant far better overall appearance, lead me to recommend planning permission be granted.
List of Background Documents
1. Application Papers for Application SW/06/0011 2. Application papers for applications SW/75/801, SW/77/9 and SW81/1307. 3. Correspondence Relating to Application SW/06/0011 and Appeal Ref: T/APP/V2255/A/99/11018913/P8.
4
APPENDIX A ITEM 2.1 PART 2
5
APPENDIX A ITEM 2.1 PART 2
6
2.2 SW/06/0175 (Case 20541) SITTINGBOURNE
Location: Land adjoining 34 Lime Grove, Sittingbourne.
Proposal: Erection of two residential properties with associated parking and amenities
Applicant/Agent: Mr S Cole, c/o Richard L Baker, 31 Highsted Road, Sittingbourne, Kent, ME10 4PS
Application Valid: 9th February 2006.
SUBJECT TO: The receipt of amended drawings, any further representations (Closing date 20th March 2006) and the views of the Environment Agency.
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:
a) a site investigation has been carried out to determine the nature and extent of any contamination. b) a written report of the site investigation has been prepared by a competent person. The report shall include the investigation results and details of a remediation scheme to contain, treat or remove any contamination, as appropriate. The report shall be submitted to and approved by the District Planning Authority c) the approved remediation scheme has been fully implemented (either in relation to the development as a whole, or the appropriate phase, as agreed in writing; and d) a completion report has been provided to the District Planning Authority by a competent person stating that remediation has been carried out in accordance with the approved remediation scheme, and the site is suitable for the permitted end use.
Grounds: To ensure any contaminated land is adequately dealt with, in pursuance of policy E1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan. Continued…..
7 2.2 (continued) PART 2
(3) Details in the form of samples of materials to be used on external surfaces shall be submitted to and approved by the District Planning Authority before any development takes place.
Grounds: In the interests of visual amenity and in pursuance of policy G1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan.
(4) The commencement of the development shall not take place until a programme for the suppression of dust during the 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 construction unless any variation has been approved by the District Planning Authority.
Grounds: In the interests of residential amenity and in pursuance of policy G1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan.
(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.
(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.
Continued…..
8 2.2 (continued) PART 2
(8) No impact pile driving in connection with the construction of the development shall take place on the site on any Saturday, Sunday or Bank Holiday, nor on any other day except between the following times:- Monday to Friday 0900 - 1700 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 G1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan.
(9) No construction work in connection with the development shall take place on any Sunday or Bank Holiday, nor on any other day except between the following times :- Monday to Friday 0730 - 1900 hours, Saturdays 0730 - 1300 hours unless in association with an emergency or with the prior written approval of the District Planning Authority.
Grounds: In the interests of residential amenity and in pursuance of policy G1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan.
(10) The proposed access shall incorporate splays on both its sides to the rear of the existing footway based on co-ordinates of 2.0m x 2.0m and which shall be kept free of obstruction above a height of 600mm.
Grounds: In the interests of highway safety and convenience and in pursuance of policy G1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan.
(11) Before the dwellings hereby approved are first occupied, a properly consolidated and surfaced access (not loose stone or gravel) shall be constructed.
Grounds: In the interests of highway safety and in pursuance of policy G1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan.
(12) Upon completion, no further development, whether permitted by Classes A, B, C or D of Part 1 of Schedule 2 Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 or not, shall be carried out without the prior permission in writing of the District Planning Authority.
Grounds: In the interests of the amenities of the area and in pursuance of Policy G1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan.
Continued…..
9 2.2 (continued) PART 2
(13) The areas shown on plan 1865/2 allocated for the parking of cars shall be kept available for such use at all times and no permanent development, whether permitted by the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 or not, shall be carried out on the land so shown or in such a position as to preclude vehicular access thereto; such land and access thereto shall be provided prior to the occupation of the dwelling hereby permitted.
Grounds: Development without adequate provision for the parking or garaging of cars is likely to lead to car parking inconvenient to other road users and detrimental to amenity and in pursuance of Policies G1 and IN7 of the Swale Borough Local Plan.
(14) Details in the form of elevations at a scale of 1:50 of the proposed bin storage structure shall be submitted to and approved by the District Planning Authority before development is commenced. The development shall then proceed in accordance with the approved details and neither dwelling shall be first occupied until the bin stores have been provided.
Grounds: In the interests of visual amenity and in pursuance of Policy G1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan.
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: G1, H1, H4, E1, E5, E49 and IN7 of the Swale Borough Local Plan.
Description of Proposal
Planning permission is sought for the erection of two residential properties with associated parking and amenities space, on land adjoining Number 34 Lime Grove, an end-of-terrace house. Each property would have two bedrooms and bathroom on the first floor, above a lounge/diner, kitchen and toilet on the ground floor.
They would extend from the northern flank wall of the existing terrace by 7 metres, extending the terrace to within 2.8 metres of the side boundary, which lies adjacent to the footpath along St Michaels Road.
Continued…..
10 2.2 (continued) PART 2
The proposed dwellings would be of a similar scale, height and detailing to the existing adjoining property. They would be set back by 0.3 metres from the front building line of the existing terrace and would project 1.7 metres beyond the two-storey part of the adjoining Number 34.
Two car parking spaces and a refuse bin store are proposed to the front of the eastern property, adjacent to Lime Grove.
Relevant Site History & Description
The application site is situated on a prominent corner plot at the junction of Lime Grove with St Michaels Road. The row of two storey-terraced properties, which form part of a residential cul-de sac, was built in the 1960s.
The relevant planning history relates to one application last year (SW/05/1445). Planning permission was sought for the erection of two flats on this site. As the sleeping accommodation for one of the flats was on the ground floor, the Environment Agency objected to the proposal. Given that there were also questions over the ownership of the site, the applicant decided to withdraw the application.
Views of Consultees and Other Representations
Kent Highway Services have raised no objection to the proposal, subject to conditions protecting the parking area; to ensure a properly consolidated access; and in regard to visibility splays.
They have also confirmed the application site did form part of the Swale Transportation Strategy in 1987, which was subsequently abandoned in 1991. Kent County Council did not pursue any land purchase and therefore do not object to this scheme.
The Head of Environmental Services have raised no objection to the proposal subject to conditions in regard to contamination, impact pile driving, hours of construction, suppression of dust and to prevent burning of waste on the site. I have recommended all these conditions, as part of the planning approval, apart from the burning of waste. I consider that this latter issue should be covered by separate legislation.
The Environment Agency has objected to the proposal, as they require a flood risk assessment for the site. I have, however, been informed verbally that this objection will be withdrawn as they now note that all the sleeping accommodation will all be at first floor level. Any additional information received will be reported at the committee meeting.
A petition with 37 signatures has been received from residents of Lime Grove, objecting to the application for the following reasons: Continued…..
11
2.2 (continued) PART 2
• The property is on a dangerous bend, with poor visibility, • The property is out of keeping with the surrounding buildings. • A tree has been cut down on the site. • Lime Grove is prone to flooding. • There will be a loss of privacy to homes opposite. • Existing parking problems will be added to if residents of the flats have more than 1 car or visitors. • Applications for extensions and garages have been previously refused on the application site as the proposals would extend into amenity land. • They are concerned about the type of residents the properties will attract.
Eight individual letters of objection have been received from local residents, who are concerned, in addition to the above, as:
• There is a private sewer which was underneath the proposed development and the applicant does not have permission to use it. • No windows are located on any of the side elevations of the existing properties in Lime Grove. • Lime Grove has had too much development. • The drainage is not adequate to cater for more houses.
The closing date for representations is the 20th March 2006. Any further representations will be reported at the committee meeting.
Policies
The following policies of the Swale Borough Local Plan are relevant: G1 (General Development Criteria), H1 (Land for new housing development), H4 (housing - small sites), E1 (Land contamination), E5 (Air), E49 (Landscaping) and IN7 (parking and new development).
The Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance entitled: ’Designing an Extension: A Guide for Householders’ is also relevant.
Discussion
It should be noted that with this new application the agent has submitted details from Land Registry to show that the applicant owns the site. He has also shown all of the proposed sleeping accommodation on the first floor only, which addresses the concerns raised in respect of application SW/05/1445.
Continued……
12 2.2 (continued) PART 2
As the site is located within the built up area boundary and there is adequate space on the site to erect the dwellings, with parking spaces and adequately sized amenity areas, I consider in principle that it would be possible to erect two dwellings on the site. This is provided that the proposal will not be detrimental to visual amenity of the site itself and the surrounding area; or be detrimental to the residential amenity of the adjacent properties and also that it is acceptable in highway terms.
I will address each of these points in turn:
Visual Amenity
Although the proposed dwellings are located on a prominent corner plot, they would be set back from the side boundary of the property, and the built form follows the same scale, height and design as the existing dwellings. I do not consider that they will be prominent in the street scene or be out of keeping with the surrounding properties. This is because the site is set at a slightly lower level from St Michael’s Road and the properties would be appropriately designed and would be suitably located. The proposed dwellings would therefore be acceptable in my view in terms of their impact on the street scene.
In addition to this I also do not consider that the proposed dwellings would amount to an over development of the site. I have, however, recommended a condition removing ‘permitted development’ rights to ensure that this property could not be further extended.
Although all the parking is proposed to the front of the two dwellings, as the majority of properties in Lime Grove have paved areas to the front of their properties for parking, I do not consider that this proposal will be out of keeping with the surrounding area or detrimental to the street scene.
I am attempting to contact the agent to ensure that the 1.8m high fence shown to the front of the property is relocated or removed. Lime Grove is an open plan estate and the fencing will be out of keeping with the streetscene.
Residential Amenity
As the proposed dwelling would be located adjacent to 34 Lime Grove and the windows will be orientated to look onto their own amenity land or the public road, this proposal would not cause overlooking. Although the rear part of the proposed dwelling extends past the rear of 34 Lime Grove by 1.7 metres, the size of the rear projection is in keeping with the advice in the Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance: “Designing an Extension” which considers the impact on adjacent residents and I therefore consider it would be acceptable.
Continued….
13 2.2 (continued) PART 2
Whilst the local residents are concerned that the proposed dwellings would cause overlooking to properties opposite, these dwellings would be 20 metres apart and the new properties would look out onto the front of these dwellings, which can be easily viewed from a public viewpoint, so I do not consider that this proposal could be refused on the grounds of overlooking.
Highway Issues
It is my view that the provision of parking spaces would be adequate, as one space is provided per dwelling. Kent Highway Services have also raised no objection to the proposal. I therefore consider that the parking spaces would be appropriately located and that the proposed dwellings would not block visibility splays for the Lime Grove Estate. Provided that the parking areas are properly constructed and have adequate visibility splays, I do not consider that it would be reasonable to refuse the application on the grounds of highway safety.
I acknowledge the concerns raised by local residents regarding the tree on the site. Although I am aware that a tree has been removed, this was not covered by a Tree Preservation Order and therefore the consent of this Authority was not required for its removal.
Although local residents also state that a number of applications have been refused on the site, I can confirm that no planning applications have been submitted other than the one cited above. Comments from Kent Highway Services indicate that at one time the site was part of a Transportation Strategy, apparently to widen the A2. This may have prevented development, but it has now been abandoned. If development is prevented by a covenant across the land, then this is a private legal matter and not a material planning consideration. Whilst I sympathise with the surrounding residents, issues raised such as who would occupy the properties and the loss in value to their properties, are also not material planning considerations.
Recommendation
This proposal is unlikely to be detrimental to the amenities of the surrounding area and is acceptable in highway terms. I therefore recommend that the application be approved subject to conditions, any further representations (closing date 20th March 2006), and subject to receipt of suitable amended plans.
List of Background Documents
1. Application Papers for Application SW/06/0175 2. Correspondence Relating to Application SW/06/0175 3. Application Papers and Correspondence for SW/05/1445.
14
APPENDIX A ITEM 2.2 PART 2
15
APPENDIX A ITEM 2.2 PART 2
16
APPENDIX A ITEM 2.2 PART 2
17
2.3 SW/06/0042 (Case 12009) LEYSDOWN
Location: Roxy, Eastern Road, Leysdown
Proposal: Outline application for demolition of existing bungalow and erection of eight single storey dwellings.
Applicant/Agent: E J N's Properties, c/o Artlab Architects Ltd, 15 London Road, Sittingbourne, Kent, ME10 1NQ
Application Valid: 11th January 2006
Conditions
(1) Details relating to the design and external appearance of the proposed buildings and the 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(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
(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(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
(4) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995, (or any Order revoking or re-enacting that Order with or without modification) no dormer window(s) or roof light(s) shall be inserted into the roof of the dwelling(s) hereby approved. Continued…..
18 2.3 (continued) PART 2
Grounds: In the interests of residential amenity and in pursuance of Policy G1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan.
(5) No development shall take place until:
(a) a site investigation has been carried out to determine the nature and extent of any contamination. (b) a written report of the site investigation has been prepared by a competent person. The person shall include the investigation results and details of a remediation scheme to contain, treat or remove any contamination as appropriate. The report shall be submitted to and approved by the District Planning Authority. (c) the approved remediation scheme has been fully implemented (either in relation to the development as a whole, or the appropriate phase, as agreed in writing) and (d) a completion report has been provided to the District Planning Authority by a competent person stating that remediation has been carried out in accordance with the approved remediation scheme, and the site is suitable for the permitted end use. (e) If during the work contamination is encountered which has not previously been identified then the additional contamination shall be fully assessed and appropriate remediation scheme agreed with the District Planning Authority.
Grounds: To ensure any contaminated land is adequately dealt with, in pursuance of Policy E1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan.
(6) No impact pile driving in connection with the construction of the development shall take place on the site on any Saturday, Sunday or Bank Holiday, nor on any other day except between the following times:- Monday to Friday 0900 – 1700 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 G1 and E2 of the Swale Borough Local Plan.
Continued….
19 2.3 (continued) PART 2
(7) No construction work in connection with the development shall take place on any Sunday or Bank Holiday, nor on any other day except between the following times:-
Monday to Friday 0730 – 1900 hours, Saturdays 0730 – 1300 hours unless in association with an emergency or with the prior written approval of the District Planning Authority.
Grounds: In the interests of the residential amenity and in pursuance of Policies G1 and E2 of the Swale Borough Local Plan.
(8) No dwelling hereby permitted shall be occupied until Eastern Road has been constructed to adoption standards, including footways, turning head, drainage and street lighting, and offered for adoption as a Publicly Maintainable Highway to the Highway Authority.
Grounds: To ensure that the development is accessed by a properly constructed and maintained road to ensure highway safety and in pursuance of Policy G1 of Swale Borough Local Plan.
(9) No development shall take place until measures for the protection/diversion of the mains sewer, which crosses the site, have been submitted to and agreed in writing by the District Planning Authority. These measures shall be completed prior to the occupation of the first dwelling.
Grounds: To protect the existing sewer/water main from potential damage and in pursuance of Policy E3 of the Swale Borough Local Plan.
(10) The commencement of the development shall not take place until a programme for the suppression of dust during the demolition of existing buildings and construction of the development has been submitted to and approved 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 residential amenity and in pursuance of Policy E5 of the Swale Borough Local Plan.
Grounds: In the interests of the visual amenities of the locality and in pursuance of Policies E49 and G1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan.
Continued….
20 2.3 (continued) PART 2
(11) No burning of waste or refuse shall take place on site during the construction of this development other than as may be agreed in writing by the District Planning Authority.
Grounds: To preserve the amenity of surrounding residents and preserve the character of the area and in pursuance of Policy G1 and E5 of the Swale Borough Local Plan.
(12) 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.
(13) 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.
(14) 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.
(15) The layout to be submitted shall make adequate provision for a temporary car park within the site to accommodate operatives and construction vehicles during the development of the site and shall indicate the eventual use of that area.
Grounds: To avoid obstruction of the adjoining highway and in pursuance of Policy IN7 of the Swale Borough Local Plan. Continued…..
21 2.3 (continued) PART 2
(16) No development approved by this permission shall be commenced until a scheme for the provision and implementation of foul and surface water drainage works has been approved in writing by the District Planning Authority, such scheme shall be implemented to the reasonable satisfaction of the District Planning Authority before the dwellings hereby permitted are occupied.
Grounds: To prevent the increased pollution of the water environment and in pursuance of Policy E3 of the Swale Borough Local Plan.
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: G1, H4, H5, E1, E3, E48, E24, E49, IN7 and H34 of the Swale Borough Local Plan; ENV15 and T7 of the Kent Structure Plan.
Description of Proposals
This proposal relates to a parcel of land approximately 0.3 hectare in size, and it is proposed to demolish the existing bungalow known as Roxy and to erect 8 bungalows. This is an outline application with all detailed matters reserved for future determination except siting and means of access.
Each of the dwellings would be provided with 2 parking spaces, most of which would be sited to the front of the dwellings. The development would be served by a new access road which would divide the site in half and would also have a “Y” shaped turning head, directly off of Eastern Road.
As part of the proposals it is also proposed to improve and make the whole of Eastern Road up to adoptable standards.
The layout plan shows that the bungalows would either be detached with those on the eastern side of the new access road having a rear garden of between 9 and 10 metres and those on the western side being over 10 metres in depth. All the dwellings would face onto the new access road and be at right angles to Eastern Road.
Continued…..
22 2.3 (continued) PART 2
Site Description and History
The application site is currently overgrown and comprises a derelict bungalow, located at the western end of Eastern Road. Eastern Road itself is an unmade road on the west side of The Promenade, Leysdown and currently serves 6 detached bungalows, 5 of which are on the south side of Eastern Road. It should be noted that Eastern Road also provides a public right of way through to the Eastern Holiday Camp to the west of the application site, 4 of whose chalets are located 2m from the western boundary of the application site.
To the south of the application site are the rear gardens of the properties which front Leysdown Road. These properties comprise mainly bungalows and chalet bungalows but there are one or two 2 storey buildings, and the notable 3 storey development of Thames Court on the south side of Leysdown Road.
Immediately to the north and east of the application site are the single storey bungalows of Cartref and No. 4 Eastern Road respectively.
Outline permission was granted in February 1989 for the erection of 5 dwellings on this site (ref: SW/88/1836). A full application for the demolition of the existing dwelling and erection of 11 new houses was withdrawn in October 2003 (ref: SW/03/1007).
More recently a full application for the erection of nine dwellings and demolition of the existing dwelling was withdrawn in January 2005 (ref SW/04/1072), whilst an outline application for ten single storey dwelling was refused planning permission in October last year for the following reason (Ref: SW/05/1093):-
"The proposed development, by virtue of the number and layout of dwellings envisaged and size of the application site, would result in an unacceptably intensive form of development, out of keeping with the prevailing density, streetscape and character of development in the vicinity. Harm to residential amenity would also result, particularly by virtue of the garden sizes to the proposed dwellings. The development would be contrary to Policies G1, E48, H3 and H34 of the Swale Borough Local Plan and Policies E1, E19 and H2 of the Re-Deposit Draft of the Swale Borough Local Plan First Review."
Views of Consultees
Leysdown Parish Council state “…. that residents of Eastern Road have no objection to the proposal but are still very concerned about the loss of their barrier and privacy/security if this is removed." Continued….
23
2.3 (continued) PART 2
Kent Highway Services raise no objection subject to the imposition of a condition to ensure that the road is made up to adoptable standards prior to the commencement on site of the development.
The Environment Agency raise no objection to the application and state that details of both foul and surface water sewerage should be submitted to and approved by the District Planning Authority prior to the development being completed.
Southern Water Services state that the existing sewerage system to serve the development does not have adequate capacity and therefore conditions should be imposed requiring details of foul and surface water disposal be submitted and approved by the District Planning Authority in consultation with Southern Water. They go on to comment that the mains sewer which runs along Eastern Road should be protected during the construction works for making up the road.
The Head of Environmental Services recommends conditions relating to potential of ground contamination, controlling hours of construction and any potential impact pile driving, programme of dust suppression and no burning of waste or refuse be imposed.
Other Representations
Seven letters of objection have been received raising the following issues:-
• Eight dwellings are still too many for this site due to potential traffic generation making the road hazardous • Loss of barrier at end of the road with the Promenade will make life unbearable for residents due to loss of security, parking problems 24 hours a day, congestion, increase in accidents and emergency vehicles will not be able to enter the road. • Lack of schools and work on Sheppey without more houses being built • A lot of disruption, noise and disturbance to existing residents during the construction of the road and the new dwellings • Proposal will create an unofficial car park with potential conflict with children and elderly visiting adjoining holiday camp
Continued…..
24 2.3 (continued) PART 2
Policies
The main policy considerations in determining this application are those of PPG3 (Housing); Policies ENV15 (built environment) and T17 (parking) of the Kent Structure Plan; and Policies H1 (land for new housing development), H3 (redevelopment), IN4 (new development) IN7 (Parking and new development), E24 (flooding), E48 (design considerations), E49 (Landscaping), E49 (landscaping), G1 (General Development Criteria) and H34 (housing Sites, Leysdown) of the Swale Borough Local Plan.
Discussion
The site lies within the built up area of Leysdown, in a predominantly residential area and is allocated in the adopted Swale Borough Local Plan as a site for residential development. The principle of residential development on this site is established. It is therefore a question of whether or not eight single storey dwellings on this site is acceptable given the proposed layout.
The layout of the development has been carefully considered in order that each property has a minimum 10m rear garden and that overlooking and loss of light to existing properties are kept to a minimum. The minimum separation distance between habitable windows of 21m to the properties in Leysdown Road would be met. The only exception to this is the holiday chalets to the west of the application site. However in this situation, it is normal Council practice that as these are not habitable properties they do not enjoy the same protection of amenities as the residents of a permanent dwellings would expect to enjoy, but in any event the new properties have no upper floor windows to overlook neighbours.
The development itself would meet the current parking standards of the Highway Authority. With respect to other highway issues such as making up the road to adoptable standards and the keeping or removing of the existing barrier at the eastern end of Eastern Road, I note that Kent Highway Services raise no objection to the development and request that appropriate conditions are imposed.
Whilst objections have been made to the removal of the existing gate at the end of Eastern Road with The Promenade, it should be recognised that the public have a right to pass and repass over this road and the installation of the current gate prevents this from occurring. The gate is considered by Kent Highway Services as an unauthorised barrier under the terms of the Highway Act and therefore should be removed.
Continued….
25 2.3 (continued) PART 2
Whilst the character of the surrounding area of Leysdown is mixed including single storey bungalows, chalets and some 2 storey houses, along Eastern Road itself, there is a very strong character of single storey only dwellings. There are 5 bungalows in a row on this side of Eastern Road.
I am therefore of the opinion that the proposal for single storey only dwellings would be in keeping with the existing streetscene along Eastern Road.
In terms of the impact of the development on the amenities of the adjoining bungalows in Eastern Road I am of the opinion that the proposed bungalows have been sited sufficiently far away and at an angle to the existing dwellings not to cause significant overlooking, overshadowing or loss of outlook. I note that No. 4 Eastern Road has several windows within its western side elevation facing the application site, only one of which serves a bedroom whilst the others either serve non-habitable rooms or are secondary windows to habitable rooms.
Summary and Recommendation
This is an outline application which proposes the erection of 10 single storey bungalows which would be well sited on this parcel of land. Furthermore due to being single storey only dwellings it is considered that they would not be out of keeping with the existing streetscene of Eastern Road.
I therefore consider that outline planning permission should be granted subject to conditions.
List of Background Documents
1. Application Papers for Application SW/06/0042
2. Correspondence Relating to Application SW/05/1093, SW/04/1072, SW/03/1007 and SW/88/1836.
26
2.4 SW/05/1202 (Case 418) FAVERSHAM
Location: Land at Western Link, Faversham, Kent
Proposal: Outline application for employment use including replacement brickworks for Cremer Whiting Ltd and new roundabout access from Western Link
Applicant/Agent: Cremer Whiting Ltd/WT Lamb Holdings Ltd, c/o Richard J Maile BSc FRICS, 72 Portland Road, Worthing, West Sussex, BN11 1OG
Application Valid: 13 October 2005 and as amended by letter and drawing 2231/04B received 27th February 2006
Conditions
(1) Details relating to the siting, design and external appearance of the proposed buildings, and the landscaping of the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing 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(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
(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….
27 2.4 (continued) PART 2
(4) Prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted: (a) A site investigation shall be carried out to determine the nature and extent of any contamination. (b) A written report of the site investigation shall be prepared by a competent person. The report shall include the investigation results and details of a remediation scheme to contain, treat or remove any contamination, as appropriate. The report shall be submitted to and approved by the District Planning Authority (c) The approved remediation scheme shall be fully implemented (either in relation to the development as a whole, or the relevant phase, as appropriate) (d) A completion report shall be provided to the District Planning Authority by a competent person stating that remediation has been carried out in accordance with the approved remediation scheme, and the site is suitable for the permitted end use (e) If during the works contamination is encountered which has not previously been identified then the additional contamination shall be fully assessed and appropriate remediation scheme agreed with the District Planning Authority.
Grounds: To ensure any contaminated land is adequately dealt with, and in pursuance of Policy E1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan
(5) No piling, soakaways, or infill materials shall be employed on the site unless details of their nature have first been submitted to and approved in writing by the District Planning Authority
Grounds: In order to safeguard controlled waters from contaminated material which may already be, or could be brought on to the site, and in pursuance on policies NR3 of the Kent Structure Plan and E4 of the Swale Borough Local Plan.
(6) 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. Continued…..
28
2.4 (continued) PART 2
Grounds: In the interests of residential amenity and in pursuance of polices G1 and E2 of the Swale Borough Local Plan.
(7) No development shall be begun until details of an acoustic barrier to be erected along the north east and south east boundaries of the development site, adjacent to residential properties, together with a timetable for its erection, has been submitted to the District Planning Authority for their approval. No such barrier shall be erected until approval has been obtained, and upon approval the barrier shall be erected in accordance with the approved specification, and in accordance with the approved timetable for its erection.
Grounds: In the interests of residential amenity and in pursuance of polices G1 and E2 of the Swale Borough Local Plan.
(8) 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 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, and in pursuance of policy E4 of the Swale Borough Local Plan
(9) No buildings hereby permitted shall be constructed until the new roundabout onto the Western Link as shown on the approved drawing 2231/04B has been completed, and the existing access to the site for Sumpter Way has been closed to motor vehicles in a manner which has been submitted to and approved by the District Planning Authority.
Grounds: In the interests of highway safety and convenience, and in pursuance of policies IN4 of the Swale Borough Local Plan
Continued….
29 2.4 (continued) PART 2
(10) The use of the premises hereby permitted shall, other than in respect of unattended storage, be restricted to the hours of 7 am to 7 pm on weekdays, 7 am to 12 noon on Saturdays, and shall not take place at any time on Sundays or Bank Holidays.
Grounds: In the interests of residential amenity and in pursuance of polices G1 and E2 of the Swale Borough Local Plan.
(11) Access doors and fire escape doors shall be kept closed at all times between the hours of 21.00 and 07.00 except for the explicit purpose of access to and egress from the premises.
Grounds: In the interests of residential amenity and in pursuance of polices G1 and E2 of the Swale Borough Local Plan.
(12) The use of audible reverse warning signals shall be prohibited between the hours of 21:00 and 07.00.
Grounds: In the interests of residential amenity and in pursuance of polices G1 and E2 of the Swale Borough Local Plan.
(13) Deliveries (with the exception of brick earth deliveries) to the replacement brickworks and the new employment industrial units shall be restricted to the following hours: - 0700 -1900 Mondays to Fridays and 0800 - 1900 on Saturdays, and at no time on Sundays and Bank Holidays.
Grounds: In the interests of residential amenity and in pursuance of polices G1 and E2 of the Swale Borough Local Plan.
(14) The details submitted pursuant to condition 1 above shall show adequate land reserved for the parking of vehicles and cycles (in accordance, where appropriate, with the currently adopted Kent County Council Vehicle parking standards) and for the loading and off- loading of commercial vehicles, and upon approval of the details no permanent development, whether permitted by The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 or not, shall be carried out on the land so shown or in such a position as to preclude vehicular or cycle access to these reserved areas; such land and access thereto shall be provided prior to the occupation of any premises hereby permitted and shall be used for or be available for use for the parking, loading and off-loading of vehicles and cycles at all times when the premises are in use.
Continued…..
30 2.4 (continued) PART 2
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 to encourage use of alternative means of transport, in pursuance of policies T17 of the Kent Structure Plan and IN7and IN8 of the Swale Borough Local Plan.
(15) 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
(16) 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 G1 and E2 of the Swale Borough Local Plan.
(17) The premises hereby permitted shall be used only for purposes including a brickworks, and for uses within classes B1 (Business), B2 (General Industrial) and B8 (Storage and Distribution) of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987, as amended.
Grounds: In the interests of visual amenity and the residential amenities of occupiers of nearby dwellings, in pursuance of polices G1 and E2 of the Swale Borough Local Plan.
(18) 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. Continued….
31
2.4 (continued) PART 2
(19) No impact pile driving in connection with the construction of the development shall take place on the site on any Saturday, Sunday or Bank Holiday, nor on any other day except between the following times :-
Monday to Friday 0900 - 1700 hours unless in association with an emergency or with the prior written approval of the District Planning Authority.
Grounds: In the interests of the amenities of the area and in pursuance of Policy E2 of the Swale Borough Local Plan
(20) 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
(21) The commencement of the development shall not take place until a programme for the suppression of dust during demolition of existing buildings 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
(22) No burning of waste or refuse shall take place on site during either demolition or construction works.
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
Continued….
32 2.4 (continued) PART 2
(24) The access to the site shall be securely gated during the hours outside the operating hours of the premises hereby permitted, in accordance with details which are first to be submitted to and approved by the District Planning Authority.
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 G1 and E2 of the Swale Borough Local 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: G1, B1, B2, E1, E2, E3, E4, E5, E6, IN7 and IN8 of the Swale Borough Local Plan; ED1 and T17 of The Kent Structure Plan
Description of Proposal
This is an outline application with all matters except site access reserved for future consideration. It proposes the complete redevelopment of the existing Cremer and Whiting brickworks site for new employment uses. The existing brickworks has an entrance on to the Western Link, but this is usually closed. Day to day access is from Lower Road and Sumpter Way, through a residential area, and it proposed that this entrance be closed to motor vehicles in favour of a new roundabout on the Western Link. This is the only part of the scheme which we can be certain of at this time.
Indicatively, the replacement brickworks would occupy the southern part of the site alongside the railway line, with other new buildings on the remainder of the site. Due to the submission of a more recent application for a new DIY store on part of the site, the indicative site layout drawing has recently been amended to show this can be accommodated within the redevelopment.
The application forms indicate that the existing brickworks has a site area of 4.1ha, but a built floorspace of just 2,270 square metres, reflecting the generally open nature of the site. In contrast, the proposal is to increase floorspace to some 7,500 square metres of B1(Business), B2 (General Industrial) and B8 (Storage and Distribution) employment uses, operating from 7.00 am to 5.00 pm on weekdays, and 7.00 am to 12 Noon on Saturdays.
Continued….
33 2.4 (continued) PART 2
The agent’s original supporting letter explains that the new brickworks will comply with forthcoming EU emissions regulations. It also explains that the new roundabout has been designed in agreement with the County Council. The letter emphasises that the proposal accords with the thrust of the emerging Local Plan which allocates the whole site as employment land, but with improved access, and the provision of additional employment facilities.
The application is also supported by a Transport Assessment, which is too lengthy to include here, but from which I draw the following points;
• The existing brickworks needs to be redeveloped to produce better emissions meeting new EU Regulations • The proposed floorspace will be 3,060 square metres for the new brickworks, and a further 6,645 square metres (5,250 of B1 and 1,395 of B2) of other floorspace. Members will note that these figures differ from those presented on the planning application forms. • Land to the north of the existing brickworks site has been allocated for employment use in various Local Plans since the early 1980s, but has failed to come forward. • The replacement brickworks is reliant on a new source of brickearth being identified. • The emerging Local Plan states that a range of employment uses would be suitable on the site, provided vehicular access is from the Western Link and that, subject to a Transport Assessment, additional highway works may be required on the A2 including at Ospringe Street. • The existing vehicular site entrance to Sumpter Way and Lower Road will be closed, leaving only pedestrian and cycle access. This will relieve heavy goods traffic from residential areas along Lower Road. • The development will be accessed from a new roundabout on the Western Link, in accordance with the site specific provisions of the Re- Deposit Draft Local Plan. • The methodology of the report was agreed with KCC before its preparation. • There is an existing access to the site from Western Link, which was constructed when the new road was built. • A footpath/bridleway runs across the northern boundary of the site, and crosses Western Link at a point where it is subject to the national speed limit, is lit, and has a pavement on the western side. • Local residents will be able to walk or cycle to the site. The national cycle route 1 lies 800m to the north. • The nearest bus stop on Lower Road is 250m away, the nearest on the A2, at Ospringe Street, is 1km away. These services run hourly at best. Continued…..
34 2.4 (continued) PART 2
• The site is 1.5km from the railway station, at the “preferred maximum” distance for a walking trip. This is at the high end of likely walking distance. • The roundabout will offer safe access to the site, slow traffic down on Western Link, and improve the safety of pedestrians crossing at this point. It has been designed to cater for traffic generated by the applicant’s other land north of Sumpter Way; an employment allocation in the Local Plan. • The existing traffic flows past the site on Western Link at peak periods are surveyed as approximately 300 movements per hour each way, with about half of these (ie 300 vehicles) coming or going via Ospringe Street. • Three accidents, including one fatality, have occurred on the Western Link or the Western Link/A2 roundabout in the last 3 years. This is considered to be a good safety record. • Traffic from the proposed development of the brickworks site as a whole, and from developing adjacent land to the north (shown for employment use in the Local Plan) is expected to be just less than 300 movements in the peak morning hour on weekdays. • It is expected that even if 90% of this new traffic went down to the A2 roundabout, this would cope well with the additional traffic. • With regard to Ospringe Street itself, the report notes that the main impact will be routing of HGVs away from residential areas, and approximately 6HGVs a day extra via Ospringe Street, although some of that might previously have used Ospringe Street to access the site.
Relevant Site History and Description
The Site is a largely open rectangular site between housing and the Western Link. It abuts the railway line to the south, and Sumpter Way to the north, at which point heavy scrub screens the site from residential property opposite.
Access is currently via a number of residential streets, which get increasingly narrow as they approach the site. At the site entrance lies a small ‘Manager’s’ bungalow, which is shown to be demolished. The site is largely flat but well-screened by banks and planting from the Western Link. Residential properties to the east are far less well-screened, and some sit very close to the site boundary.
Planning history is very limited, relating to various small works by the applicants, who have used the site as a brickworks for many years. Existing building are generally simple and low rise, but there are some distinctive chimneys which can be seen from outside the site. Continued….
35 2.4 (continued) PART 2
Views of Consultees
When this application was first submitted, a number of consultees requested further information. This has led to a delay in bringing the matter forward, and here I will deal with the responses by consultees in turn.
The Town Council have recommended approval of the application but have commented that they are not convinced of a need for a new roundabout junction on the Western Link, and say that they would prefer to see the applicants consider alternative junction layouts. This relates to the way in which a roundabout creates a ‘bulge’ in the otherwise straight edge to the town that the Western Link represents. This does of course take the development as a whole beyond the Local Plan’s built-up area boundary, and encroach into the countryside. The Town Council indicate concern that a roundabout will open up land to the west of Western Link to development.
I have asked the applicants about this, but their response is that the roundabout design was considered the most suitable junction to serve the proposed development and allocated employment land to the north. They consider that a full investigation of alternative junction layouts has been undertaken. They also reject the notion of development beyond the Western Link, saying that they have now withdrawn any such proposals from the Local Plan process.
The Town Council’s response is that they remain unconvinced of a need for a roundabout junction, and would like the applicants to consider alternatives.
The Town Council’s other concern, is that the future of the brickworks is dependent upon finding a new source of brick earth. They suggest that the applicants be asked to demonstrate that adequate supplies are available in a location which would not significantly increase goods vehicles on the local road network.
The County Planning Officer has gone into this matter in greater detail, and I will deal with this issue in relation to his comments below.
The Environment Agency has no objection to the application provided conditions to deal with possible land contamination are imposed on any planning permission.
The County Council’s Public Rights of Way Officer has noted that there is a public bridleway which is affected by the development, and he requests that dropped kerbs be installed on the Western Link and at the new roundabout spur. I believe such matters can be dealt with under highway agreement procedures. Continued…..
36 2.4 (continued) PART 2
The County Planning Officer’s initial response recognised that the site is allocated in the Re-Deposit Local Plan for employment uses, and that the Council will support redevelopment of the brickworks on its existing site should a supply of brickearth be identified in a location to enable manufacturing to continue here. He therefore raised no objection to the principle of employment uses at the site.
However, he raised concern about whether or not a new supply of brickearth would be available, as he believed the applicants had very low stocks arising only from last year’s excavations. Whilst the applicants are preparing a planning application for a new site locally, it is not certain of approval, and he considered that the replacement brickworks proposal should be considered in parallel to the question of a new source of brickearth, perhaps building any new works to the east of Faversham closer to the likely location of new supplies which are thought to be near Graveney.
Furthermore, he saw no indication of any area for storing new supplies on the layout plan, and no evidence to suggest that new EU emission or noise guidelines necessitated a replacement brickworks.
The County Planning Officer therefore formally objected to the application on the basis that there was insufficient information to consider the merits of the replacement brickworks element of the application, and that this should not be considered in isolation from mineral supply.
The applicant’s response to this objection was that they wished to replace their antiquated brickworks with a ‘state of the art’ craft brickworks, taking into account existing legislation. They stressed that their replacement brickworks proposal is in no way dependent upon finding a new source of brickearth, as they have far greater stocks of brickearth than realised by the County Planning Officer.
They admit that this is generally of lesser quality than they normally require, and that in the longer term a new source of supply will be required. In terms of EU emissions regulations, the applicants indicate that they have commissioned three new kilns, and having done so, realise that it is necessary to modernise the remainder of the works, so that they can improve quality and efficiency, together with realising cost and energy savings.
The applicants also indicated that they have space for storage of brickearth, and do need the outline permission before expending substantial further sums of money in designing the new works.
Continued…..
37 2.4 (continued) PART 2
I put these comments back to the County Planning Officer in December 2005, and in the meantime the applicants submitted an amended site layout plan showing an area for stock piling new brickearth supplies on the site.
The County Planning Officer’s response accepts that the applicants have short to medium term brickearth reserves, but points out that there is still no application for a fresh supply. He accepts that the existing reserves could be used to argue that a fully sustainable solution can be reached, but that this could equally be done by considering locations of new supply and new brickworks in tandem, especially if the ability to use lower quality supplies may mean newer new sources of brickearth may be available.
Overall, he maintained his view that the life of a replacement brickworks will almost certainly exceed the mineral supply currently available. He adds that the proposal may result in a new brickworks without a long-term supply of brickearth, and that the Borough Council needs to be satisfied that sufficient information is available to determine the application. To my mind this misses the point that the new brickworks will almost certainly outlive any new supply, and yet further reserves will have to be sought even further into the future. In any case, given that the applicants are only seeking to redevelop their existing site, and not a new greenfield site (as was the earlier draft Local Plan idea) it is largely a matter of their own risk and not one of wider concern. It is also worth remembering that, in the whole of Kent, worthwhile reserves of brickearth are only likely to be found along the A2 between Rainham and Canterbury, meaning that future reserves are going to be relatively local. This combined with the fact that excavations take place for only short periods, and that the site is adjacent to the urban area, and to employees, means that transport needs are likely to be minimised by retaining the brickworks on its present site.
Over and above these points, it seems to me that the applicants should not have to play a “chicken and egg game” regarding supply of brickearth and the location of their works. The existing site is well placed to be served by new sources of supply, and if they can plan with confidence, they will be able to locate and exploit new supplies with greater certainty.
Kent Highway Services raise no objections to the application provided conditions relating to the provision of the new roundabout, and improvements to public transport facilities are imposed. I cannot see how this scheme can realistically improve public transport facilities, and I have therefore not recommended a condition regarding this.
The Head of Environmental Services (HES) originally requested further information. In response the applicants volunteered a condition regarding noise mitigation measures, and on this basis the HES now raises no objection subject to a number of conditions. Continued…..
38 2.4 (continued) PART 2
Other Representations
I have received two letters from local residents and property owners raising the following summarised points:
1. More time may be required to submit comments. NOTE: The period for consultation initially closed on 23 November 2005, but any comments received after that date are referred to. 2. Sumpter Way is a quiet, dead-end, unmade road, with a public footpath, which is very peaceful. Do improvements to the brickworks need a major new roundabout and new roads which will damage the local environment and reduce quality of life for local people? 3. The proposed floor space is over three times what is there now, along with great new areas of road and roundabout. The works could be modernised without expansion and using the existing Western Link access. 4. The new roundabout will make it more difficult to cross the Western Link. 5. Dust and noise from the new works may well become a problem. 6. If the bungalow is demolished, it will no longer screen the works from residents, and there are no hedges and bushes at this end of Sumpter Way to screen the view.
Relevant Planning Policies
Policy B1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan provides for new employment development on sites as shown on the proposals map, or within the built-up area. Policy B2 seeks to retain employment land in such use. The proposal is consistent with both these policies.
Other relevant Local Plan policies are G1 (General Development Criteria), E1 (contaminated land), E2 (noise), E3 (water), E4 (emissions) and E6 (lighting). In terms of travel, policies IN4 (access) and IN7 (parking) are relevant.
In terms of Faversham itself, the Local Plan aims to provide 130,000 square metres of new employment floorspace at Faversham, in line with Structure Plan policy ED1. This development is in accordance with these areas, and the new roundabout is designed to serve other land allocated for employment development under Local Plan Policy B16.
In the Re-Deposit Draft Local Plan the adjoining land allocation is continued, but the actual application site is also included as an employment allocation; for the first time. Under Policy B18 the site is allocated for primarily B1 (Business) use provided there is;
Continued….
39 2.4 (continued) PART 2
• A single point of access from Western Link • Adequate access is made • Landscaping provision
The Transport Assessment indicates no need for off-site highway works beyond the access roundabout, and landscaping is a reserved matter. I conclude that the proposal accords with Policy B18.
Planning conditions can cover other Local Plan environmental concerns.
Discussion
Other than the County Planning Officer’s views, there is very little objection to this proposal, and I have discussed his comments above.
The Town Council do not favour the proposed roundabout due to its effect on the countryside, but Kent Highway Services have been involved in its design, and it is said to be the most appropriate form of junction.
Local residents object on grounds of increased activity, access provision and loss of amenity. I feel that the removal of access through a residential area, and the provision of a new up-to-date standard of brickworks will actually be of benefit. I also consider that a new site layout, and landscaping, informed by the location of adjacent housing, can address any current inadequacies.
I remain a little concerned about the close relationship between the bungalow ‘Hollybank’ and what is shown as a spur road to serve adjacent land to the north, and I am hoping to explore with the applicants whether that relationship can be eased. I hope to be able to report further at the meeting, along with clarification about proposed floorspace figures.
Recommendation
I consider that this is a very rare but welcome example of the proposed rejuvenation of an existing employment site, with significant potential for a boost to Faversham’s economy. I consider that this potential far outweighs any concern about the inevitably local location of future brickearth reserves. Such reserves will have to be found from time to time, and if the applicants feel able to provide a replacement brickworks on the current site I do not see any reason to prevent them.
I therefore recommend that outline planning permission is granted.
List of Background Documents 1. Application Papers for Application SW/05/1202 2. Correspondence Relating to Application SW/05/1202
40
2.5 TN/06/0019 (Case 16758) BOBBING
Location: Key Street Lay-by, Key Street, Bobbing, Nr Sittingbourne, Kent, ME10 1YS
Proposal: Telecommunications Notification for installation of a 9.7m high slimline monopole with 3 antennae contained within a glass reinforced plastic shroud, radio equipment housing and ancillary development.
Applicant/Agent: T-Mobile (UK) Limited, c/o Commpro Telecommunications, Unit 4, Wentworth Business Park, Maple Court, Tankersley, South Yorkshire, S75 3DP
Application Valid: 17th February 2006
SUBJECT TO: the receipt of any further representations (closing date 27th March 2006), and the views of the County Archaeological Officer, Bobbing Parish Council, Kent Highways Services and the Highways Agency.
Introduction
This is a notification to the Council of the applicants’ intention to exercise their permitted development rights to erect new telecommunications equipment. As the mast does not exceed 15m in height its erection does not require a planning application as it is to be erected by a licensed telecommunications operator. The regulations merely require the operator to submit to the Council a plan showing the proposed location and a written description of the mast and equipment. This procedure then allows the Council to ask for further information and to require that this be submitted to and agreed by the Council before the permitted right to erect the mast can be implemented. The limit for the Council’s decision is 56 days from submission failing which the applicant is free to proceed with the installation. In this case, the 56-day period expires on 13th April 2006.
In this case, as is now normal, the operator has gone well beyond their legal duty. They have submitted a comprehensive report, a fully detailed location and site layout plan and full plans of the intended mast and cabinets. They have also explained in some detail that they require a mast here, as there is currently an inadequate provision of the T-Mobile 2G service in this area, due to the lack of appropriate mobile radio base stations in the immediate area.
Continued….
41 2.5 (continued) PART 2
Description of proposal
This application envisages the erection of a 9.7-metre-high slim-line monopole with three antennae contained within a glass shroud at the Key Street lay-by on the northern side of the A2.
Two equipment cabinets are envisaged, the larger of which would measure 1.7 metres in height and have an area of 1.2 metres-square.
The supporting statement explains that the installation is required to fill a gap in existing second-generation coverage for the T-mobile mobile phone network in the vicinity. The statement also explains (and this indicated graphically on the maps enclosed) that the installation would provide improved phone reception for an area extending east to west along the A2 between the Keycol hospital site and Chalkwell Road and north-east to south- west along the A249 corridor between approximately Chestnut Street and the line of the London to Dover railway line.
The statement also explains that a number of alternative sites, either for new free-standing equipment or for antennae to be mounted on existing buildings or structures within the vicinity, have been considered and discounted, either because the coverage provided would have been inferior to the proposed location or due to failure to reach agreement with the land owner.
The application is also accompanied by a certificate stating that the development would be in accordance with the ICNIRP (International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection) guidelines on public exposure to radio frequency radiation.
Relevant site history and description
This site has no relevant planning history.
The site is located within the defined built-up area of Sittingbourne, immediately to the east of the A249 trunk road and on the pavement edge of a lay-by on Key Street (A2).
To the east, the area is characterised by ribbon development comprising a mix of residential and commercial uses.
The mast would be located eight metres to the east of the existing British telecom phone box.
Continued…..
42 2.5 (continued) PART 2
Views of consultees
I await the views of Bobbing Parish Council, the Highways Agency, Kent Highways Services and the County Archaeological Officer.
I hope to be able to up-date Members at the meeting.
Other representations
No other representations have been received. The closing date for comments is 27th March 2006. I will up-date Members at the meeting.
Planning policies
This notification is not an application for planning permission and the principle of the operator being able to erect a mast of this height is not for consideration. To that extent, planning policies relating to the granting of planning permission have to be read in the correct context.
The main policy considerations in determining this application will be those of Policies G1 and IN25 of the Swale Borough Local Plan. Policy G1 sets out the general development criteria while Policy IN25 specifies that any mast should be sited, designed and finished to minimise any adverse impact upon the appearance and amenity of the surroundings.
Government advice in PPG8 “Telecommunications” encourages the establishment of national networks of mobile telecommunications technology. It makes clear that, where an operator has certified that the proposal will operate within ICNIRP guidelines (as here), it should not be necessary for local planning authorities to consider further the health aspects and concerns about them.
In relation to prior notifications such as this one, the guidance indicates that the following are relevant considerations;
“Factors to be considered concerning the appearance of the mast and ancillary apparatus include materials, colour and design. The use of appropriate materials and colouration may allow a mast to blend more easily into its surroundings. Features of design which an authority may wish to consider include dimensions; overall shape; and whether the construction is solid or forms an open framework. They should also consider with the developer the availability of alternative designs which might be more suited to the local environment.
Continued…..
43 2.5 (continued) PART 2
Factors concerning siting may involve:
• the height of the site in relation to surrounding land; • the existence of topographical features and natural vegetation; • the effect on the skyline or horizon; • the site when observed from any side, including from outside the authority’s own area; • the site in relation to areas designated for their scenic or conservation value; • the site in relation to existing masts, structures or buildings including buildings of a historical or traditional character; • the site in relation to residential property; and • any other relevant considerations.
In considering the siting and appearance of a mast together with its associated development, the scope for landscaping and screening to reduce the impact of the development on its surroundings will be an important consideration.”
Discussion
Although I have not received objections to this proposal from the Parish Council or local residents, I am reporting this application to Members because the requirement to make a decision within the 56 day limit means that there is insufficient time to allow the application to be reported at a subsequent meeting should representations make that necessary.
In the context of the minimum information legally required of the applicants, the Council’s formal options in relation to this notification are to decide;
1. that its prior approval of the siting and appearance of the installation is not required 2. that prior approval is required and, after further consideration/receipt of details, is granted, or 3. that prior approval is required and, after further consideration/receipt of details, is refused, giving reasons
As the operator has already supplied full details of the proposed siting and appearance, the requirement to need the Council’s prior approval of details is unnecessary unless such prior approval is to be refused. Even this will not remove the operator’s right to erect the mast, but will only influence its siting and appearance.
Continued…..
44 2.5 (continued) PART 2
The proposed monopole would be erected in an area that is already characterised by street furniture including street lamps and other equipment poles associated with the public highways.
I note that the street-lamps are mounted of poles of approximately ten metres in height. The proposed installation, including the antennae, would extend to 9.7 metres.
I consider that the proposed monopole, which Members will note would be a slim structure, would be in keeping with the existing character of the area. No substantial visual harm to the character or appearance of the area would result, in my view.
I am mindful that residential properties are located in the vicinity, to the south and to the east of the proposed development. I do not consider that the presence of these dwellings amounts to a reason for prior approval to be refused. Members are very aware from their consideration of previous proposals, that health aspects are not matters for consideration by the Local Planning Authority, provided an appropriate certificate of ICNIRP compliance has been achieved.
Summary and recommendation
This proposal is seeking the Council’s decision regarding the need for prior approval of the siting and appearance of the installation of a small replacement telecommunication mast and associated equipment, which does not need a full planning application. I consider that the proposed siting and appearance of this telecommunications equipment is not likely to be an intrusive element and that this proposal would have a neutral impact upon the street-scene and the character and appearance of the wider area. I consider that it is appropriately sited and designed.
I therefore recommend, subject to the receipt of any representations (closing date 27th March 2006) and the views of the Kent Highways Services, Bobbing Parish Council, the Highways Agency and the County Archaeologist, that the applicant be informed that the Council’s Prior Approval is not required and that they may proceed with the installation.
List of Background Documents
1. Application Papers for Application TN/06/0019
45
2.6 SW/06/0031 (Case 12854) MILTON REGIS
Location: 28 Colfe Way, Milton Regis, Sittingbourne, Kent
Proposal: Second storey extension and garage conversion
Applicant/Agent: Mr Bowley, c/o CJS Design Services, 13 Doubleday Drive, Bapchild, Sittingbourne, Kent
Application Valid: 5 January 2006
Conditions
(1) The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date on which the permission is granted.
Grounds: In pursuance of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
(2) Details in the form of samples of materials to be used shall be submitted to and approved by the District Planning Authority before any development takes place.
Grounds: In the interests of visual amenity and in pursuance of policy G1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan.
(3) The areas shown on Drawing No BWL-0405-01 as car parking space shall be kept available for such use at all times and no permanent development, whether permitted by the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 or not, shall be carried out on the land so shown or in such a position as to preclude vehicular access thereto; such land and access thereto shall be provided prior to the occupation of the flats hereby permitted.
Grounds: Development without adequate provision for the parking or garaging of cars is likely to lead to car parking inconvenient to other road users and detrimental to amenity, in pursuance of policy G1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan.
(4) The window shown, on Drawing No BWL-0405-01, in the side elevation of the proposed extension, to serve the bedroom, shall be obscure glazed and fixed shut and be retained as such in perpetuity.
Grounds: In the interests of residential amenity and in pursuance of policy G1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan. Continued…..
46 2.6 (continued) PART 2
(5) The window shown at first floor level on the side (south) elevation of the development hereby approved shall feature an internal cill height of not less than 1.65 metres above finished floor level and shall be retained as such in perpetuity.
Grounds: In the interests of residential amenity and in pursuance of Policy G1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan.
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: G1 and H8 of the Swale Borough Local Plan.
Description of Proposal
Planning permission is sought for the erection of a first floor side extension and for the conversion of the garage to a study at 28 Colfe Way, Sittingbourne.
The proposed first floor extension would be located above the existing kitchen and would extend from the side of the property by 2.4 metres. It would be 5.7 metres wide, would have a pitched roof design and would be no higher than the ridge height of the existing property. The extension would be set away from the side boundary of the property by 2.5 metres and would provide an additional bedroom with an en-suite at the property. One window is proposed in the side elevation of the extension. This will be set at a high cill height.
As part of the proposal a window will replace the existing garage door.
Relevant Site History & Description
The application site is located within the built up area of Sittingbourne and is part of a modern housing estate. The application site is located on a cul-de- sac, with the two adjacent properties sharing a private access off the highway. The property is a detached dwelling, with the integral garage attached to the detached garage at the adjacent property.
Relevant planning history reads as follows:
SW/05/0684 – Planning permission was refused for a second storey extension and garage conversion at the property as adequate space was not shown for parking on site and also as sleeping accommodation was shown on the ground floor which would increase risk to life in the event of a flood. Continued…..
47 2.6 (continued) PART 2
SW/90/923 – Planning permission was approved for the erection of a part two-storey and part single storey extension to the rear of the property.
SW/90/966 – planning permission approved for the erection of a fence.
Views of Consultees and Other Representations
Kent Highway Services have raised no objection to the proposal. This comment was made following a site meeting, where the officer noted that one of the parking spaces shown on the site plan was slightly undersized. As it would not prevent access to the other spaces, the reduction in size would be minimal and as all the other spaces would meet the requirements of the Kent Vehicle Parking Standards, the highways officer was satisfied that the parking on the site would be adequate and would not warrant refusing the application due to lack of parking. In addition to this, it was considered that there would be sufficient room within the curtilage of the application site to manoeuvre vehicles in and out of the site without driving over land under the ownership of the adjacent neighbours.
The Environment Agency has no objection to the proposal.
Three letters of objection have been received from local residents, who are concerned, as the development would:
• Be attached to the adjoining garage. • Affect their privacy. • Add to existing parking problems caused by lodgers staying at the application property. • Disturb local residents due to the movement of cars.
Following the site visit with Kent Highway Services, an additional letter was received from one of the local residents, which states that the owner of the property lets rooms, and that planning permission would be required to change the use of the premises from a dwelling house (C3) to a house in multiple occupation.
A letter was also sent to the Head of Operations at Kent Highway Services to question why they have not objected to the scheme as one of the parking spaces is “too small”.
Any further comments received in regard to this specific matter will be reported at the meeting.
Continued….
48 2.6 (continued) PART 2
Policies
The following policies of the Swale Borough Local Plan are relevant: G1 (General Development Criteria) and H8 (Extensions to dwellings in the built up area).
The Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance entitled: ‘Designing an Extension: A Guide for Householders’ is also relevant.
Discussion
As the site is located within the built up area boundary, in principle it is possible to extend the dwelling, provided that the proposal would not be detrimental to the visual amenity of the property, detrimental to the residential amenity of neighbouring properties and also that it is acceptable in highway terms.
The proposed side extension would be in keeping with the size and scale of the existing property. This is because it would extend no higher than the existing ridge height of the property, it would be set back from the front elevation of the dwelling and would be set away from the side boundary. It is my view suitably designed, and would not be prominent in the streetscene. It is therefore in accordance with advice in the Supplementary Planning Guidance: Designing an Extension and would also be acceptable in terms of visual amenity.
In terms of the loss of the garage space, the previous application was refused as the applicant had not shown that vehicles could be adequately parked on the site. The applicant has now submitted a site plan which now shows that it is possible to provide an adequate number of parking spaces to the west of the existing property, behind the building line. This is now an acceptable situation, where all the vehicles would not be parked to the front of the site and, the proposal would therefore not have a detrimental impact on the street scene. I therefore consider that the previous reason for refusal has been addressed.
As the proposed extension would be set away from the side boundary of the property and would be set back in the street scene I do not consider that the extension would over shadow adjacent properties. Although a window is proposed in the side elevation of the extension at first floor level, this would be positioned at a high cill height and a condition has been recommended to ensure that it will be obscure glazed. In addition to this, as the proposed window is smaller than the existing side windows at the property, I consider that the likelihood of overlooking has been overcome.
Continued…..
49 2.6 (continued) PART 2
In regard to the increase in vehicles visiting the site, the addition of one bedroom would not result in a significant increase in the amount of traffic visiting the site. As Kent Highway Services consider that vehicles can adequately park and turn on the site and there are an adequate number of parking spaces to cater for the increase in the number of bedrooms, I do not consider that the application should be refused on highway grounds.
Local residents have also raised concerns that a material change of use has occurred, as they claim that the property is being used as a house in multiple occupation. However, an initial site visit has indicated that this does not appear to be the case. The owner of the property allows lodgers to stay in rooms in the house. This is a separate issue and my officers are looking into this.
Summary and Recommendation
This proposal is unlikely to be detrimental to residential amenity of neighbouring properties, to the street scene or to highway safety. I therefore recommend that the application be approved subject to conditions.
List of Background Documents
1. Application Papers for Application SW/06/0031
2. Correspondence Relating to Application SW/06/0031
3. Application papers and correspondence for SW/05/0684
50
2.7 SW/06/0147 (Case 19774) BOBBING
Location: 9 Bobbing Hill, Bobbing, Sittingbourne
Proposal: Replacement dwelling and associated amenities
Applicant/ Agent: Mr & Mrs Woodcock/ Richard Baker, 31 Highsted Road, Sittingbourne, Kent
Application Valid: 3rd February 2006
SUBJECT TO: the views of Kent Highway Services and the receipt of satisfactory additional and amended plans plans showing retaining wall details and details of window cill heights.
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 E48 and G1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan.
(3) No construction work in connection with the development shall take place on site on any Saturday, Sunday or Bank Holiday, nor on any other day except between the following times: Monday to Friday 07:30- 19:00, Saturdays 07:30-13:00 hours unless in association with an emergency or with prior written approval from the District Planning Authority.
Grounds: In the interests of residential amenity and in pursuance of Policy G1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan.
Continued…..
51 2.7 (continued) PART 2
(4) The area shown on plan 1890/1 allocated for the parking of cars shall be kept available for such use at all times and no permanent development, whether permitted by the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 or not, shall be carried out on the land so shown (other than the erection of a private garage or garages) or in such a position as to preclude vehicular access there to; such land and access thereto shall be provided prior to the occupation of the dwelling hereby permitted.
Grounds: Development without adequate provision for the parking or garaging of cars is likely to lead to car parking inconvenient to other road users and detrimental to amenity and in pursuance of Policy IN7 of the Swale Borough Local Plan.
(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.
(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.
Continued….
52 2.7 (continued) PART 2
(8) No development shall be commenced on-site until cross sectional details and finished floor levels of the proposed development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the District Planning Authority. All works should be implemented in accordance with such details as approved.
Grounds: To ensure that the development as implemented is in accordance with the approved details in a satisfactory form of development, and in pursuance of Policy G1 and E48 of the Swale Borough Local Plan.
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: ENV1 and RS5 of the Kent Structure Plan and Policies G1, H9, E9, E48, E49 and IN7 of the Swale Borough Local Plan.
Description of Proposal
This application is for the erection of a replacement chalet bungalow at Number 9 Bobbing Hill, Bobbing. The dwelling would feature two bedrooms and parking for two cars situated to the front of the dwelling. The dwelling would be set back from the road by a minimum of 8.4 metres to allow parking to the front.
The dwelling would measure 12.2 metres in length by 7 metres in width. It would measure 6.2 metres in height to the top of the pitch. There would be a gap of approximately 0.4 metres to the neighbouring boundary with number 11 Bobbing Hill and 1.2 metres to the other side neighbouring boundary. The rear boundary would be situated approximately 24 metres away from the rear of the dwelling.
Currently on the site is a wooden bungalow set forward within the site and close to the highway. The existing dwelling measures 14 metres in length by 6 metres in width.
Relevant Site History and Description
The site is located outside of any built-up area boundary as defined within the Swale Borough Local Plan.
Continued….
53 2.7 (continued) PART 2
The site is located within a residential street mainly characterised by detached and semi detached houses and bungalows. Bobbing Hill is situated close to the A249.
There is no relevant planning history for the site.
Views of Consultees
Comments can be summarised as follows:
Bobbing Parish Council:
• The application is welcomed because of the unkempt nature of the site • The foundations (to be dealt with under Building Regulations) should be carefully developed as the site is in an awkward position. • Consideration should be given to the use of a retaining wall in order to prevent neighbouring properties being adversely affected.
Kent Highway Services have not commented on the application. Any comments received will be reported at the committee meeting.
Other representations
The resident of Number 11 Bobbing Hill is in general agreement with plans for the dwelling house provided that a retaining wall is built between Numbers 9 and 11 Bobbing Hill.
In addition, a letter has been received, signed by residents from 6 addresses in Keycol Hill [located to the south and south-west of the site]. This can be summarised as follows:
• No objection to a replacement dwelling on the site • Windows overlook their gardens • No objection to the windows being sited on the front and rear elevations rather than on the side elevations.
Planning Policies
Policies ENV1 and RS5 of the Kent Structure Plan which address the issues of Protection of Countryside and Development in Countryside are relevant.
Policies G1, H9, E9, E48, E49 and IN7 of the Swale Borough Local Plan, which addresses respectively General Development Criteria, Rebuilding of Dwellings in countryside, Protection of Countryside, Design, landscaping and parking on new developments, are relevant.
Continued…..
54 2.7 (continued) PART 2
Discussion
Whilst the site is located outside of a built up area of Sittingbourne, the principle of the proposal is considered to be acceptable as it is in accordance with Policy H9 that allows for the replacement of dwellings in the countryside provided they are of an appropriate scale. I consider the bulk and scale of the proposed dwelling to be modest and appropriate for the location. The ground floor area is slightly reduced compared to the existing ground floor area. However, a first floor has been created that did not exist within the original dwelling. As the proposed dwelling is a chalet bungalow as opposed to a house I consider the introduction of a first floor does not make the proposal unacceptably large.
The design of the dwelling is in my view acceptable. It pays regard to the character and appearance of the street scene and is an improvement on the design of the existing dwelling. The proposed siting would not lead to significant overlooking or overshadowing issues and provides space for the parking of vehicles. Whilst Kent Highway Services have yet to comment on the application, two parking spaces are proposed as part of the application which is in accordance with Kent County Council Parking Standards and therefore acceptable in my opinion. I therefore expect Kent Highway Services to have no objections to the proposal.
Members will note that the proposed car parking would be to the front of the dwelling. I note that a number of adjacent dwellings feature all of their car parking on the frontage, and consider that the proposed arrangement would complement this character.
I note the objections from local residents regarding siting and overlooking issues. I am in discussions with the agent regarding amending the windows on the south elevation to ensure that they have an internal cill height of not less than 1.65m to prevent any possibility of overlooking to the affected dwellings. The windows in question would, in any, case serve non-habitable rooms and the nearest dwellings that could be overlooked are more than 20 metres away.
With respect to the objection regarding the siting of the dwelling, the proposed position enables the proposal to provide essential car parking space whilst not compromising light to the neighbouring property, Number 11 Bobbing Hill.
The request from the neighbouring residents and Parish Council regarding a retaining wall is also being discussed with the agent and I have sought additional plans to address this issue.
Continued…..
55 2.7 (continued) PART 2
Summary and Recommendation
The development would not unduly impact upon the amenities of nearby residents, nor would it impact significantly upon the character of the area. Significant highway implications are not anticipated. For the above reasons, I conclude that the proposal is acceptable and that it complies with Development Plan policy. I therefore recommend, subject to the views of Kent Highways Services and amended plans, that planning permission be granted.
List of background documents
1. Application papers and correspondence relating to application SW/06/0147
56
2.8 SW/05/1593 (Case 21633) FAVERSHAM
Location: Land adjacent to 28 Bayfields/5 Baybanks, Eastling Road, Painters Forstal, Faversham, Kent
Proposal: Outline application for demolition of garages and redevelopment comprising of two 2 bed semi-detached dwellings and one 3 bed detached dwelling with associated off road parking provision.
Applicant/Agent: Swale Housing Association, c/o Cyma Architects Ltd, Crouchers Manor Barn, Westwell Lane, Westwell, Ashford, Kent, TN25 4JN
Application Valid: 22nd December 2005 and as amended by drawing AL(O)102B received on 28th February 2006
Conditions
(1) Details relating to the external appearance and design of the proposed buildings, and the landscaping of the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing 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(2) 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….
57 2.8 (continued) PART 2
(4) No development shall take place until:
a) a site investigation has been carried out to determine the nature and extent of any contamination. b) a written report of the site investigation has been prepared by a competent person. The report shall include the investigation results and details of a remediation scheme to contain, treat or remove any contamination, as appropriate. The report shall be submitted to and approved by the District Planning Authority c) the approved remediation scheme has been fully implemented (either in relation to the development as a whole, or the appropriate phase, as agreed in writing) and d) a completion report has been provided to the District Planning Authority by a competent person stating that remediation has been carried out in accordance with the approved remediation scheme, and the site is suitable for the permitted end use. e) 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, and in pursuance of Policy E1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan.
(5) The trees shown on the plans hereby approved as "existing trees to be retained" shall be retained and maintained throughout the development.
Grounds: In the interests of visual amenity and in pursuance of policies E48 and G1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan.
(6) The area(s) shown on the submitted plan as car parking space shall be kept available for such use at all times and no permanent development, whether permitted by the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 or not, shall be carried out on the land so shown (other than the erection of a private garage or garages) or in such a position as to preclude vehicular access thereto; such land and access thereto shall be provided prior to the occupation of the dwelling(s) hereby permitted.
Grounds: Development without adequate provision for the parking or garaging of cars is likely to lead to car parking inconvenient to other road users and detrimental to amenity and in pursuance of policies G1 and IN7 of the Swale Borough Local Plan.
Continued….
58 2.8 (continued) PART 2
(7) Before the dwellings hereby approved are first occupied, a properly consolidated and surfaced access (not loose stone or gravel) shall be constructed, details of which shall have been submitted to and approved by the District Planning Authority.
Grounds: In the interests of highway safety and convenience and in pursuance of policy 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 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 interest of residential amenity as supported by policy G1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan.
(9) No burning of waste or refuse shall take place on site during construction other than may be agreed in writing by the District Planning Authority.
Grounds: In the interests of residential amenity as supported by policy G1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan.
(10) The commencement of the development shall not take place until a programme for the suppression of dust during the construction of the development has been submitted to and approved in writing by the District Authority. The measures approved shall be employed throughout the period of construction unless any variation has been approved by the District Planning Authority.
Grounds: In the interests of residential amenity as supported by policy G1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan.
(11) No development shall take place until full details of the disposal of foul and surface waters have been submitted to and approved by the District Planning Authority. The approved details shall be implemented before the first use of the development hereby permitted.
Grounds: In order to prevent pollution of water supplies and in pursuance of Policy E4 of the Swale Borough Local Plan.
Continued…..
59 2.8 (continued) 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 or prejudice highway safety or convenience. In resolving to grant permission, particular regard has been had to the following policies: G1, H4, E13 & E14 of the Swale Borough Local Plan; ENV3, ENV4 and ENV15 of The Kent Structure Plan; and QL1 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan: Deposit Plan.
Description of Proposal
This is an outline application for the demolition of garages and redevelopment comprising of two 2 bed semi-detached dwellings and one 3 bed detached dwelling with associated off road parking provision on two nearby sites. Details of external appearance, landscaping and design are reserved for future consideration.
The applicants state that the sites comprise hard surfacing and garaging which they wish to put to alternative use for long term maintenance and security issues. They say that the garages, which have now been demolished, were in poor structural state and that the application provides replacement parking for 1-5 Bay Banks.
Relevant site history and site description
The proposal is split across both sides of Eastling Road on land adjacent to 5 Bay Banks, currently a hard surfaced area, and land adjacent to 28 Bayfield currently an unoccupied and fenced off former garage block site.
The sites are located such that the proposed houses, but not all the parking area, lies just within the built up area boundary of Painters Forstal and within a Special Landscape Area and The Kent Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The former garage block and access thereto previously stretched beyond the built-up area, and this is repeated here.
Planning history
SW/05/1250 Demolition of existing garages and re development comprising of 2 two bed semi detached dwellings with associated off road parking provision WITHDRAWN (This was adjacent to 28 Bayfield).
Continued…..
60 2.8 (continued) PART 2
SW/05/1251 Residential development for 1 detached 3 bed dwelling unit with associated off road parking WITHDRAWN (This was adjacent to 5 Bank Banks).
Views of Consultees
Ospringe Parish Council raised 9 points of concern namely:
1. The proposed development appears to fall outside the established village envelope, if not entirely, then in part.
2. There are inadequacies in the existing public sewerage system serving the village, resulting in the flooding of effluent at the bottom of Bay Hill and in nearby fields. Any further development which will increase the use of the public sewerage system should not be permitted until Southern Water can confirm that the existing system has capacity and will not continue to leak effluent. 3. The proposed position of the dwellings on Plots 1 and 2 is forward of the established building line on the northern side of Eastling Road - see, for example, 9 and 10 Bayfield. 4. The proposed position of the dwelling on Plot 3 is somewhat imbalanced in relation to the terrace of properties to the north east and would be better positioned more centrally on the plot. 5. The proposed access to the car parking spaces - although utilising an previous access which is no longer used as the garages have been demolished - is on the inside of a bend, where visibility is very poor, especially in relation to traffic approaching the village from the south west. This is an important safety issue and sight lines are wholly inadequate. 6. The proposed layout of the car parking is crude and insensitive in design and has the appearance of an urbanised rank of car parking. The design is aesthetically unattractive. 7. The location of the proposed car parking is relatively remote, being on the fringe of or outside the village envelope. As such, it is possible that it will be a target for crime and appears to be in breach of 'secure by design' guidelines. No crime alleviation measures appear to have been incorporated in the design or layout. 8. The proposed car parking spaces to serve 1 to 5 Baybank are less convenient than the existing car parking spaces serving these properties. They are therefore less likely to be used. This would lead to more on-street parking and possible obstruction of the main route to Eastling and villages beyond.
Continued….
61 2.8 (continued) PART 2
9. If the development of the two dwellings adjacent to 28 Bayfield is approved, we would request that a condition is imposed that the developers should be required to extend the public footpath which presently stops at the boundary of 28 Bayfield. This could be achieved by means of an S106 agreement or similar.
Kent Highway Services offered no objection to the proposal subject to conditions relating to the parking and turning area, a properly consolidated access and visibility splays.
Southern Water offer no objection.
Other Representation
4 letters of objection have been received by local residents and their comments are summarised below:
• Properties in Baybanks have been parking in the “communal car park” for over 20 years • Many houses in Baybanks have 2 or 3 cars • 1 additional space offered over the road from Baybanks is not enough • removal of “communal parking area” is not acceptable • communal parking is used by family and friends visiting all 5 houses in Baybanks • The parking spaces to the front of Baybanks are used by Baybanks residents and not by no 5 • Area of Special landscape Value and AONB and should be protected • No 5 Baybanks has a right to light and will exercise this right • Hardly anyone keeps to the speed limit at this part of the village and this corner will be lethal • Concern as to where private and commercial vehicles will park while development is taking place • Concern that village is being extended
In response, I have received a letter from Amicus who own the parcel of land at the end of the terrace referred to by residents as “the communal Parking area” stating that “having inspected the transfer documents and leases of No’s 1-5 we have been advised that only No 5 Bayfield has the right to park on this area, and they should be confined to the front (to the tarmac area). With this in mind I should hope that the parking provision we have included in our plans in Bayfield across the road would more than meet any displaced cars, particularly as we do not feel we have an obligation to cater for them.”
Continued….
62 2.8 (continued) PART 2
Painters Forstal with Ospringe Women’s Institute commented that “there is a specimen Ginkgo tree growing on the wide verge by the village name sign..donated by the Womens Institute.. we trust the tree will not be affected by the proposed development but if it should be we ask that this tree be relocated to an equivalent position at the entrance to the village or a replacement tree be planted.”
7 identical letters were submitted signed stating that “we do not want a house here or we will lose our parking”
Policies
Government advice in PPG3 draws attention to the importance of the re-use of previously-developed land, which, if good design and layout of new development can be achieved, the Government's objectives of making the best use of previously-developed land and improving the quality and attractiveness of residential areas can be met.
Kent Structure Plan Policies
Policies ENV3, ENV4 and ENV15
Swale Borough Local Plan Policies
Policies G1, H4, E13 & E14
Kent & Medway Structure Plan: Deposit Plan
Policy QL1
Discussion
As the application site essentially lies within the built up area, residential development is acceptable in principle, I therefore consider that the main issues in determining this application are the effect on the residential amenities of the occupiers of adjoining residential properties, the impact on the visual amenity and character of the area and highway safety and convenience issues.
One resident has expressed concern over a number of issues such as loss of views , right to light, potential damage to property and land rights, which cannot be dealt with through the planning system and cannot constitute reasons for refusing this application.
Continued….
63
2.8 (continued) PART 2
In relation to the siting of the development Plots 1 & 2 are located within the site so as to minimise its impact on the neighbouring properties in Bayfield and are of a siting, which I believe to be in-keeping with the layout of the houses in Bayfield.
Plot 3 is level with the building line for Baybanks and is of a similar size. It is located to the south west of the site some 6m from the nearest property no.5 Baybanks following objections received with the previous application which showed it being placed centrally within the plot.
I consider the impact on the visual amenity and character of the area of the development to be limited. The site adjacent to 28 Bayfield was previously a garage block and therefore previously developed land. I consider the siting of the semi detached properties to be appropriate, set back from Eastling Road with two trees being retained and a further relocated and furthermore with an open frontage as per the character of the other properties in Bayfield. Further landscaping details are to be considered at a later date. Plot 3 located at the end of the terrace is similar to the detached property located to the northern end of the terrace and is separated from 5 Baybanks by parking spaces and vegetation, therefore I do not consider it would result in harm to the character of the area.
With regard to highway matters a parking court is proposed to the west of Plots 1 & 2 adjacent to 28 Bayfield, this will provide 2 off street car parking spaces for both new properties and 5 extra spaces for the residents of Baybanks. Additional landscaping brick pier details have reduced the impact of this area and given it a more secure appearance, and I consider it to be acceptable. Kent Highway Services did not object to the location of this car parking court nor to the access arrangements for it. I note the concerns of the Parish Council however the inclusion of this parking area in the scheme arose following objections from the residents of Baybanks to the previous applications (subsequently withdrawn).
Over many years residents of Baybanks have come to park on the tarmaced area where Plot 3 is proposed and this has led to the area being described and referred to as “communal parking” I note the main concern from residents of Baybanks is the loss of this area however also note that Amicus (who own the land) state they have not granted any rights for the residents to park here. I note that Kent Highway Services have not objected to the proposal on parking grounds.
Continued….
64 2.8 (continued) PART 2
I note the Parish Council comments that “there are inadequacies in the existing public sewerage system serving the village, resulting in the flooding of effluent at the bottom of Bay Hill and in nearby fields. Any further development which will increase the use of the public sewerage system should not be permitted until Southern Water can confirm that the existing system has capacity and will not continue to leak effluent” in response Southern Water have commented “there are no recorded incidents of flooding, other than isolated blockages in the Painters Forstal Area. There is nothing recorded that would point to a lack of capacity in the sewerage system. Southern Water would not object to the proposed development”. I have though recommended a condition requiring drainage details to be submitted and approved.
I note the wish of the Parish Council that “ the developers should be required to extend the public footpath which presently stops at the boundary of 28 Bayfield”. In this respect amended plans received on 28th February do show this footpath being extended.
Recommendation
The sites are within the built up area of Painters Forstal therefore I consider this to be an acceptable scheme in principle and, despite concerns about loss of an existing parking area, I recommend that outline planning permission be granted.
List of Background Documents
1. Application Papers and correspondence for Application SW/05/1593.
2. Correspondence Relating to Application SW/05/1250 and SW/05/1251.
65
2.9 SW/06/0181 (Case 21851) WARDEN
Location: 1 St Clements Road, Warden, Sheppey, Kent, ME 12 4NE
Proposal: Proposed single storey rear extension and porch canopy extension to front and side elevations
Applicant/Agent: Mr & Mrs Jones c/o Nigel Sands & Associates, 15 Colson Drive, Iwade, Kent, ME9 8TT
Application Valid: 10th February 2006
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 E48 and G1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan.
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 G1 & H8 of The Swale Borough Local Plan; E1 & E24 of the Swale Borough Local Plan First Review Deposit Draft.
Continued…..
66 2.9 (continued) PART 2
Description of Proposal
Planning permission is sought for a single storey rear extension and porch canopy extension to the front and side elevations at 1 St Clements Road, Warden , Sheppey.
The proposed single storey rear extension would project 3m from the rear of the existing dwelling and would be 5.94m in width. The extension would have a sloped roof and be 3.5m high at its highest point.
The proposal also includes the extension of the existing front canopy over the garage across the full width of the front elevation and for 9m along the side elevation of the dwelling. The front door has been relocated to the side elevation of the property.
Relevant Site history & Description
The property is a semi-detached dwelling on the east side of St Clements Road at its junction with Beach approach. The adjoining house, No.3 St Clements Road has an existing rear conservatory.
In terms of relevant planning history a roof conversion including a rear dormer window has recently been constructed under permitted development rights.
Views of Consultees
No responses have been received from adjoining residents
Warden Parish Council raise objection, stating that
“ The property already has a roof extension which is unsightly. The front door has been moved to the side (without any planning application that I have seen) and if the proposed application is granted it will be completely out of character with the area. I would suggest a visual assessment before “rubber stamping” this application.”
Relevant development plan policies
Policies G1 (General Development Criteria) & H8 (Extension to, Replacement of Dwellings in the Built-Up Area) of the Swale Borough Local Plan are relevant.
Continued….
67 2.9 (continued) PART 2
Policies E1 (General Development Criteria) & E24 (Alterations & Extensions) of the Swale Borough Local Plan First Review Redeposit Draft are also relevant here.
Supplementary Planning Guidance entitled ‘Designing an Extension – A Guide for Householders’ should also be noted.
Discussion
The proposed rear extension would have a depth of 3m and would therefore accord with the Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance for extensions. The adjoining semi has an existing rear conservatory of similar dimensions to that of the proposed rear extension. I am of the opinion that little or not significant harm will be caused to the residential amenities of the adjoining semi-detached house.
The application site is located on corner plot and is adjacent to a variety of dwellings of different designs. As there are several properties with front canopies within the immediate area and as the dwelling is within a mixed streetscene, the proposed front and side canopies will not cause demonstrable harm to the character and appearance of the dwelling nor to the visual amenities of the existing streetscene.
Furthermore, in my view the addition of the proposed canopy, doors and windows to the side elevation would be a positive improvement, adding interest to a relatively bland flank wall elevation of this prominent dwelling in the existing streetscene.
Summary and recommendation
In my opinion the proposed rear extension and canopy additions would not detract from the character and appearance of the dwelling and be sympathetic to the character and appearance of the area. I therefore recommend that this application should be granted planning permission subject to conditions.
List of Background Documents
1. Application Papers for Application SW/06/0181
2. Correspondence Relating to Application SW/06/0181
68
2.10 SW/06/0038 (Case 12068) NEWINGTON
Location: 91 High Street, Newington, Sittingbourne, Kent ME9 7JJ
Proposal: Loft conversion to create two additional flats
Applicant/Agent: Mr Davis, c/o CJS Design Services, 13 Doubleday Drive, Bapchild, Sittingbourne, Kent
Application Valid: 27th January 2006
Conditions
(1) The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date on which the permission is granted.
Grounds: In pursuance of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
(2) Details in the form of samples of materials to be used shall be submitted to and approved by the District Planning Authority before any development takes place.
Grounds: In the interests of visual amenity and in pursuance of policy G1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan.
(3) The areas shown on plan GSS-0605-01 as car parking space shall be kept available for such use at all times and no permanent development, whether permitted by the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 or not, shall be carried out on the land so shown or in such a position as to preclude vehicular access thereto; such land and access thereto shall be provided prior to the occupation of the flats hereby permitted.
Grounds: Development without adequate provision for the parking or garaging of cars is likely to lead to car parking inconvenient to other road users and detrimental to amenity, in pursuance of Policy G1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan.
Continued…..
69 2.10 (continued) 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 or prejudice highway safety or convenience. In resolving to grant permission, particular regard has been had to the following policies: G1 and H7 of the Swale Borough Local Plan.
Description of Proposal
Planning permission is sought to create two additional one-bedroom flats in the roof space of Number 91 High Street, Newington. This proposal includes the installation of 5 dormer windows, two in the front roof slope and three in the rear.
The flats would be accessed via an internal staircase and would follow a similar layout to the existing four flats located at ground floor and first floor level, with the living areas overlooking the High Street and with bedrooms to the rear.
The proposed dormer windows to the front of the property would follow the size of the window openings below on the existing property, they would be set down from the ridgeline of the property by 1.2 metres and would have a square emphasis. The dormer windows to the rear of the property are slightly wider and larger, they follow the size of the window openings on the existing property and would be set down from the ridgeline by 1 metre. All the proposed dormer windows would have a pitched roof design.
Relevant Site History & Description
The application site is located within the built up area of Newington and faces onto the High Street (A2). The two-storey property, which contains four flats at the current time, is set back from the road by 12 metres and has a block paved parking area to the front. It has an amenity area to the rear measuring 12 by 12 metres. The property is surrounded by two storey residential properties.
The Planning history consists of the following:
Applications refused:
SW/90/1308 – Erection of 4 single bedroom flats. This was considered to be an over development of the site and the location of the building what overshadow adjacent properties.
Continued
70 2.10 (continued) PART 2
SW/05/790 – For a loft conversion into two flats. This was due to inadequate parking and due to the design of the dormer windows on the front elevation of the property.
SW/05/1275 – For a loft conversion into two flats. Whilst the design of the windows was no longer an issue, the plans did not allow for adequate parking on the site.
Applications approved:
SW/89/60 – Outline planning permission for redevelopment with one detached dwelling and garage.
SW/91/361 – Erection of 4 flats. This addressed the issues raised in the previous refusal.
Views of Consultees and Other Representations
Newington Parish Council object to the scheme, as there is “an existing problem with parking in this area”. People park on the footpath and make it impossible to safely walk past the parked cars.
Kent Highway Services have no objection to the proposal, subject to a condition to ensure that the parking and turning areas remain available for that use.
The Head of Environmental Services has raised no objection to the proposal, but has suggested a condition to limit the hours of construction.
Southern Water have no objection to the proposal as the size of the proposed development is such that it will not have a measurable effect upon the water distribution system. There are also no low pressure or distribution issues within the village.
One letter of objection have been received from a local resident, who is concerned:
• Due to the lack of privacy. • Due to the increase in noise and parking. • As the layout of the parking spaces does not allow for safety (i.e. opening of doors) and manoeuvrability. • As visitors would have to park on the pavement or the main road causing an obstruction to pedestrians and obscure the view of on coming traffic when pulling onto the A2. • As there is a water shortage in the area.
Continued…..
71
2.10 (continued) PART 2
Policies
The following policies of the Swale Borough Local Plan are relevant: G1 (General Development Criteria) and H7 (Conversion of properties to flats).
The Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance entitled: ‘Designing an Extension: A Guide for Householders’ and also the Conversion of Buildings into Flats are also relevant.
Discussion
In principle, the introduction of two additional flats in the roof space of the existing property is acceptable as the site is located within the built up area boundary, the existing property already consists of flats and is surrounded by other residential properties. The sizes of the flats proposed meet the requirements laid out in the Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance: The Conversion of Buildings into Flats. There is also an adequate amenity space for the flats to the rear of the property. I therefore consider that this proposal is in accordance with planning policies.
However the details of the scheme need to be considered. These include:
• Highway Issues • The design of the proposed works • The impact on the surrounding residential amenity
Highway Issues
The previous two schemes for the additional flats have been refused on highway grounds as the parking spaces shown did not meet the minimum dimensions required by the Kent County Council Vehicle Parking Standards and also as there was inadequate on site turning. The layout of the scheme has been amended to show 6 parking spaces, one for each flat, which are of an adequate size and which are laid out in a manner that is acceptable to Kent Highway Services, as it now allows adequate turning spaces on site.
Local residents and the Parish Council are concerned that there would be parking on the road and vehicles would not be able to park safely on the site. However, Kent Highway Services have no objection to the layout and in my view a reason for refusal on this basis could not be sustained.
Continued…..
72 2.10 (continued) PART 2
Design
As the proposed dormer windows would follow the size of the existing window openings in the property, would set down from the ridgeline and would be in proportion to the roof slope. I consider that they would be acceptable. Whilst the dormer windows to the rear would be quite large, it is important to note that they would not be seen from any public viewpoint.
In addition to this as the design of the dormer windows was not sited as a reason for refusal in the most recent application.
Residential Amenity
I do not consider that this proposal would be detrimental to the residential amenity of adjacent properties by way of overlooking. The proposed dormer windows would be orientated to look out onto the front of the site or the amenity of the flats themselves and would follow the orientation of existing windows at the property. In addition to this only two side windows are proposed and these are at a high cill height with one serving a bathroom, and is likely to be obscure glazed. The local resident objecting to the application also considers that this proposal might be detrimental to their amenity by way of noise and parking. I consider that the addition of two cars would not create a significant increase in noise sufficient to warrant refusing the application. I also consider, in relation to the amount of traffic using the High Street through Newington, that the noise generated by parking and turning of cars would be minimal. The Head of Environmental Services has no objection to the proposal. Whilst he does suggest a condition in regard to the hours of construction, I do not consider it necessary here.
Recommendation
This proposal would not be significantly detrimental to highway safety, visual amenity or the residential amenity of surrounding properties. I therefore recommend that the application be approved subject to conditions.
List of Background Documents
1. Application Papers for Application SW/06/0038
73
2.11 SW/05/1644 (Case 4212) LEYSDOWN
Location: Henbils & Anlin, Shurland Avenue, Leysdown, Kent, ME12 4QU
Proposal: Increase in ridge height for loft conversion and front extension
Applicant/Agent: Mr Pritchard & Mr B Giles, Henbils & Anlin, Shurland Avenue, Leysdown, Isle of Sheppey, Kent
Application Valid: 29th December 2005
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 E48 and G1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan.
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: G1, H9 & E48 of The Swale Borough Local Plan, E1, E19 & RC4 of the Swale Borough Local Plan First Review Redeposit Draft.
Description of Proposal
Planning permission is sought for the increase in ridge height and front extensions to both Henbils & Anlin, a pair of semi-detached bungalows at Shurland Avenue, Leysdown, Sheppey.
Continued….
74 2.11 (continued) PART 2
The proposal includes the raising of the ridgeline of both the dwellings from 4.7m to 5.5m in height and the insertion of rooflights into the front and rear roofslopes of both the dwellings. The proposal also includes front extensions at both dwellings, which would come in line with the existing front wall of the garage at ‘Henbils’. The proposed front extensions would measure 3.5 wide, 4.1m deep and be finished with 2.6m high sloping roofs.
Relevant Site History & Description
The application site is outside the built-up area of Leysdown. Shurland Avenue consists mainly of detached and semi-detached bungalows, however there is one two-storey dwelling (Shurland House), which is adjacent to the application site.
The conversion of the garage at ‘Anlin’ to a habitable room has already been undertaken and was granted planning permission (Ref: SW/05/1608).
SW/05/0769 - An application was refused on the 29th September 2005 for increase in ridge height for loft conversion (including front and rear dormers) due to the size and prominent location of the dormers would have a significant harmful impact on the streetscene and on the appearance of the dwellings.
Views of Consultees
Leysdown Parish Council requested a site visit, which took place on the 7th March 2006 and although they raised no objection, comment as follows
“Residents of Seaview Avenue have approached the Parish Council with their concern about this proposal which would cause them considerable problems. The proposed increase in ridge height would be very dominant and cause them loss of light and privacy.”
Kent Highway Services Manager raise no objection to the application.
Other Representations
One email and two letters of objection have been received from residents raising the following issues:
• The extension would block most of our light to our garden. • When we moved here it was understood that there would be no building above the height of the existing bungalows.
Policies
Policies G1 (General Development Criteria), H9 (Extension to, and Replacement of, Dwellings in the Countryside) and E48 (Design of New Development) of the Swale Borough Local Plan are relevant.
75 2.11 (Continued) PART 2
Policies E1 (General Development Criteria), E19 (High Quality Design) and RC4 (Extension to, and Replacement of, Dwellings in the rural area) of the Swale Borough Local Plan First Review Redeposit Draft are relevant.
Supplementary Planning Guidance entitled ‘Designing an Extension – A Guide for Householders’ is also pertinent here.
Discussion
This application varies from the previous refused scheme by the deletion of the dormer windows and the raising of the roof heights of both dwellings to a similar height.
I note that, No.7 Shurland Avenue and Fairways (adjacent property) both have higher roof heights than the application site and that Shurland House, adjoining the site is a two storey dwelling. I therefore consider that the proposed increase in height of only 0.8m will not cause significant harm on the character and appearance of the streetscene or the appearance of the dwellings.
I also note the objections raised by residents concerning overlooking and loss of sunlight. However, due to the separation distance of 23m between the rear windows of the application properties and Nos 39 and 41 Seaview Avenue, which exceeds the 21m distance set out in the Kent Design Guide I do not consider that any overlooking or loss of privacy will be significant enough to warrant a refusal. Furthermore, the application properties are sited to the north of the properties in Seaview Avenue and therefore I do not anticipate that a significant amount of loss of sunlight would occur to the properties in Seaview Avenue. I therefore do not foresee that the proposals would result in demonstrable harm caused to residential amenities of the adjoining properties sufficient to warrant refusal.
The front extensions are of a suitable scale and design and in my opinion would not cause significant harm to the appearance of the streetscene.
Summary and recommendation
I conclude that the proposals would not detract from the character and appearance of the dwelling or the visual amenities of the streetscene. I therefore recommend that the planning permission be granted.
List of Background Documents
1. Application Papers for Application SW/05/1644 and SW/05/0769 2. Correspondence Relating to Application SW/05/1644 and SW/05/0769 3. Background Papers for Application Papers SW/05/0769.
76
2.12 SW/06/0143 (Case 13109) SHEERNESS
Location: The Windmill R/O, 109 High Street, Sheerness, Kent, ME12 1UD
Proposal: Proposed alterations, renovation and extension to existing windmill structure to form 3 residential units
Applicant/Agent: Mr B Watson, C/O Woodtsock Associates, 53 Woodstock Road, Sittingbourne, Kent, ME10 4HJ
Application Valid: 20 January 2006
Subject to: The receipt of amended plans and additional information, the further views of the Environment Agency and Kent County Council Archaeological Unit Conditions
(1) The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date on which the permission is granted.
Grounds: In pursuance of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
(2) 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 by the Local Planning Authority.
Grounds: To ensure that features of archaeological interest are properly examined and recorded, and in pursuance of Policies ENV18 of the Kent Structure Plan and E43 of the Swale Borough Local Plan.
(3) No development shall take place until:
a) a site investigation has been carried out to determine the nature and extent of any contamination. b) a written report of the site investigation has been prepared by a competent person. The report shall include the investigation results and details of a remediation scheme to contain, teat or remove any contamination, as appropriate. The report shall be submitted to and approved by the District Planning Authority
Continued…..
77
2.12 (continued) PART 2
c) the approved remediation scheme has been fully implemented (either in relation to the development as a whole, or the appropriate phase, as agreed in writing) d) a completion report has been provided to the District Planning Authority by a competent person stating that remediation has been carried out in accordance with the approved remediation scheme, and the site is suitable for the permitted end use. e) if during the works contamination is encountered which has not previously been identified then the additional contamination shall be fully assessed and appropriate remediation scheme agreed with the District Planning Authority.
Grounds: To ensure any contaminated land is adequately dealt with, in pursuance of Policy E1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan.
(4) Full size joinery details of the windows and doors of the proposed building shall be submitted to and approved by the District Planning Authority before any development takes place.
Grounds: To preserve the character of the surrounding conservation area, and to maintain the integrity and character of the Listed Building as supported by policies E36 and E39 of the Swale Borough Local Plan and policies ENV17 and ENV19 of the Kent Structure Plan.
(5) No works shall take place until details for the eaves, ridge, verge and sections of the new building, to a scale of 1:5, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Council. The works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.
Grounds: To preserve the character of the surrounding conservation area, and to maintain the integrity and character of the Listed Building as supported by Policies E36 and E39 of the Swale Borough Local Plan and policies ENV17 and ENV19 of the Kent Structure Plan.
(6) No development shall be carried out on the land until samples of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the building hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the District Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out using the approved materials.
Continued…..
78 2.12 (continued) PART 2
Grounds: To preserve the character of the surrounding conservation area, and to maintain the integrity and character of the Listed Building as supported by Policies E36 and E39 of the Swale Borough Local Plan and policies ENV17 and ENV19 of the Kent 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 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.
(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 policies E49 and G1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan.
(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 policies E49 and G1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan.
(10) Adequate provision shall be made for a temporary car park within the site to accommodate operatives and construction vehicles during the development of the site in a location and of a size to be agreed prior to any works commencing with the Local Planning Authority.
Grounds: To avoid obstruction of the adjoining highway and in pursuance of Policy IN4 of the Swale Borough Local Plan.
Continued….
79 2.12 (continued) PART 2
(11) The area allocated for parking and/or turning on the submitted plan shall be kept clear of obstruction and shall not be used other than for the parking of vehicles in connection with the development hereby permitted.
Grounds: In the interests of amenity and road safety and in pursuance of Policy IN4 of the Swale Borough Local Plan.
(12) No impact pile driving in connection with the construction of the development shall take place on the site on any Saturday, Sunday or Bank Holiday, nor on any other day except between the following times:-
Monday to Friday 0900 – 1700 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 E2 of the Swale Borough Local Plan.
(13) No construction work in connection with the development shall take place on any Sunday or Bank Holiday, nor on any other day except between the following times:-
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.
Grounds: In the interests of residential amenity and in pursuance of Policy E2 of the Swale Borough Local Plan.
(14) The commencement of the development shall not take place until a programme for the suppression of dust during the demolition of existing buildings and construction of the development has been submitted to and approved 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 residential amenity and in pursuance of Policy E4 of the Swale Borough Local Plan.
Continued….
80 2.12 (continued) PART 2
(15) No burning of waste or refuse shall take place on site other than may be agreed in writing by the District Planning Authority.
Grounds: In the interests of the amenities of the locality and in pursuance of Policy E4 of the Swale Borough Local Plan.
(16) The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out otherwise than in complete accordance with the approved plans and specifications.
Grounds: To preserve the character of the surrounding conservation area, and to maintain the integrity and character of the Listed Building as supported by Policies E36 and E39 of the Swale Borough Local Plan and policies ENV17 and ENV19 of the Kent Structure Plan.
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: H8, E36, E39, E48 and G1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan; ENV15, ENV17 and ENV19 of The Kent Structure Plan; and QL7 and QL9 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan: Deposit Plan.
2.13 SW/06/0144 (Case 13109) SHEERNESS
Location: The Windmill R/O, 109 High Street, Sheerness, Kent, ME12 1UD
Proposal: Listed Building Consent for proposed alterations, renovation and extension to existing windmill structure
Applicant/Agent: Mr B Watson, C/O Woodtsock Associates, 53 Woodstock Road, Sittingbourne, Kent, ME10 4HJ
Application Valid: 20 January 2006
Subject to: The receipt of amended plans and additional information. Continued….
81 2.12 & 2.13 (continued) PART 2
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 Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.
(2) Full size joinery details of the windows and doors of the building shall be submitted to and approved by the District Planning Authority before any development takes place.
Grounds: To preserve the character of the surrounding conservation area, and to maintain the integrity and character of the Listed Buildings as supported by Policies E36 and E39 of the Swale Borough Local Plan and policies ENV17 and ENV19 of the Kent Structure Plan.
(3) No works shall take place until constructional details of the dormer windows, eaves, verge and proposed gulley construction of the new building to a scale of 1:5, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Council. The works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.
Grounds: To preserve the character of the surrounding conservation area, and to maintain the integrity and character of the Listed Building as supported by Policies E36 and E39 of the Swale Borough Local Plan and Policies ENV17 and ENV19 of the Kent Structure Plan.
(4) No development shall be carried out on the land until samples of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the building hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the District Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out using the approved materials.
Grounds: To preserve the character of the surrounding conservation area, and to maintain the integrity and character of the Listed Building as supported by Policies E36 and E39 of the Swale Borough Local Plan and Policies ENV17 and ENV19 of the Kent Structure Plan.
Continued….
82 2.12 & 2.13 (continued) PART 2
(5) No works shall take place until manufacturer's details and size of roof lights have been submitted to and approved in writing by the District Planning Authority.
Grounds: To preserve the character of the surrounding conservation area, and to maintain the integrity and character of the Listed Building as supported by Policies E36 and E39 of the Swale Borough Local Plan and Policies ENV17 and ENV19 of the Kent Structure Plan.
(6) The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out otherwise than in complete accordance with the approved plans and specifications.
Grounds: To preserve the character of the surrounding conservation area, and to maintain the integrity and character of the Listed Building as supported by Policies E36 and E39 of the Swale Borough Local Plan and Policies ENV17 and ENV19 of the Kent Structure Plan.
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 character of the surrounding conservation area and the special architectural or historic interest of the listed building. In resolving to grant consent, particular regard has been had to the following policies: H8, E36, E39, E48 and G1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan; ENV15, ENV17 and ENV19 of the Kent Structure Plan; QL7 and QL9 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan: Deposit Plan.
Description of Proposals
Planning permission and Listed Building Consent are sought for proposed alterations, renovation and extension to the former "Rides" Windmill, a Grade II Listed Building to form three 2 bedroom residential units.
The windmill (currently 6.5m high) would be restored and extended to its original height of 19m, with a balcony at second floor level. The existing brickwork would be cleaned up and tar painted whilst the upper extension to the mill would be externally constructed of white feather edged boarding. A ground floor extension measuring 12.3m by 7.2m with accommodation in the roof space would be added to the southwest corner of the windmill. This extension would be constructed of black weatherboarding to the walls with natural slates for the roof. Continued….
83 2.12 & 2.13 (continued) PART 2
The development would also include 3 car spaces within the front courtyard with direct access of Sheerness High Street between nos. 109 and 111, whilst a small amenity space would be provided in the northwest corner of the site.
The application is accompanied by an Engineer's report on the existing foundations to the building, a Design and History Statement, which is attached as an Appendix to this report.
The agent states amongst other things in his Design Statement that:-
"The principle of rebuilding the mill is largely based upon known facts gleaned from photographic evidence, factual description and details from the sister mill at Cranbrook."
Relevant Site History and Description
To the former "Rides" Windmill, a Grade II Listed Building is located at the rear of 109 High Street, Sheerness and is within the Sheerness Mile Town Conservation Area.
To the north and west of the mill is a large mainly rectangular building known as Woody's Night Club, formerly a cinema and to the south are the 2 storey terraced houses located at right angles to the application site, known as Portland Terrace. Also to the south is the car park and service yard to the 2 storey terraced properties which front the High Street, whilst to the east are 2/3 storey high terraced properties fronting the High Street with ground floor commercial uses and some residential flats above.
There have been no relevant planning applications submitted for this site.
Views of Consultees
The Head of Environmental Services raises no objection and recommends conditions relating to any potential ground contamination, limiting the hours of construction work and hours of any potential impact pile driving, a programme of dust suppression and no burning of waste or refuse. Kent Highway Services raise no objection and recommend conditions relating to provision of temporary car park during construction and area of parking/turning for proposed development to be kept permanently clear of obstruction.
The Environment Agency raise objection to the application on the grounds that it is not accompanied by a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) as required by PG26.
Continued….
84 2.12 & 2.13 (continued) PART 2
The views of the Kent County Council Archaeological Unit are still awaited and I hope to be able to report them to Members at the meeting.
Other Representations
No other representations have been received.
Relevant Policies
Planning Policy Guidance Note (PPG)15 – Planning and the Historic Environment, Policies E35, E36 and E37 – (Conservation Areas) and E39 and E40 (Listed Buildings) of the Swale Borough Local Plan, are all relevant considerations in the determination of this application. The Council's Supplementary Planning Guidance Notes entitled "Conservation Areas" and "Listed Buildings – A Guide for Owners and Occupiers" should also be noted.
Policies G1 and E48 of the Swale Borough Local Plan also address design issues, whilst Policy IN4 (New development and Highway considerations) is also pertinent.
Discussion
Planning legislation and policy set a strong presumption in favour of the retention and the careful restoration of Listed Buildings which also contribute to the special architectural or historic character of the Sheerness Mile Town Conservation Area. Members should also be aware of the wording of Policies E39 and E40 of the Swale Borough Local Plan which state:-
"Policy E39
Proposals affecting a listed building, or its setting, will only be permitted if the character of the building and its setting are maintained and preserved and they:
(1) are of appropriate scale, and respect the character of the building, its setting, surrounding and historic integrity; (2) preserve those features which are of architectural or historic merit; (3) are of a high standard of design and use appropriate materials; and (4) satisfy appropriate criteria in Policy G1."
and
Continued…..
85 2.12 & 2.13 (continued) PART 2
"Policy E40
Proposals for a change of use of a listed building will be permitted where:
(1) the proposed new use is the use for which the building was originally constructed; or
(2) the proposed new use is not the original use and the original use is not practicable or is not appropriate.
In all cases it will be necessary to ensure that the character and setting of the building are not adversely affected, and any features of special architectural or historic interest which it posses are preserved, and that any alterations to the building associated with the change of use accord with Policy E39."
In general this proposal reflects pre application discussions with the architect and owner. It represents a creative reuse and reconstruction of an early 19th Century Listed windmill which will give meaning to the surviving fabric, bring it back into use and restore one of Sheerness' landmark buildings. The development would make a significant contribution to the character and appearance of the Sheerness Mile Town Conservation Area and would represent a landmark building within the townscape of Sheerness. Consequently, I support the principle of the proposal.
With respect to the addition of a ground floor extension to the mill, this would be designed to give the appearance of an attached "shed" which would be entirely characteristic of other Kent's windmills (as at Stelling, Sarre, Cranbrook) albeit not in its original position or orientation.
However, there are minor design details which require attention prior to determination. They are mainly concerning retention of industrial character; and ensuring that the existing openings are re-used in the new proposals, thereby limiting the need to create too many new openings.
The nearest properties are those in Portland Terrace which are at right angles to the development. The agent has tried to minimise the number of new openings and to site them in order to minimise overlooking of the adjoining properties.
Continued….
86 2.12 & 2.13 (continued) PART 2
With respect to the height of the building, the building will be significantly higher than the surrounding buildings. However, both the adjoining Woodies Night Club and nearby the Telephone Exchange buildings are 4 storey in height and some of those in the High Street are 3 storey. Furthermore, I am of the opinion that the restoration of the windmill to its former “glory” requires this building to be the suggested height, which in my view will add to the townscape of Sheerness. I do not therefore consider that an objection on this ground alone would be justified.
I acknowledge the Environment Agency objection to the application, due to the lack of a Flood Risk Assessment being submitted as required by PPG25. I understand however that the agent is addressing this matter and will be submitting the relevant information shortly. With the receipt of the relevant requested information, hopefully the Environment Agency will withdraw their objections to the application. I will report further on this issue at the meeting.
I am concerned that the external balcony to be constructed to the Windmill at second floor level may lead to opportunities for overlooking of the adjoining residential properties, particularly Portland Terrace. I therefore consider that the area of the balcony on the northeast elevation facing the High Street only should be available to the residents of the second floor unit via the lounge door and in order to avoid potential overlooking concerns that the vast majority of the balcony should be blocked off to residents. On a related point, I am also concerned that the proposed bedroom window in the end gable of the southeast elevation of the new attached "shed" may also create opportunities for overlooking. I therefore consider that this window could be replaced with one of the roof lights within the front roof slope of the addition.
I have therefore asked the agent to address these issues and I hope to have the amended plans shortly, for Members to consider at the meeting.
I note that the views of Kent County Council Archaeological Unit are still awaited and I hope to report these to Members at the meeting.
Recommendation
I am of the opinion that the proposals (subject to the receipt of amended plans and a flood risk assessment, the views of the Environment Agency and Kent County Council’s Archaeological Officer) will make a positive contribution to the character and appearance of this Grade II Listed Building and the surrounding Conservation Area.
Subject to this, and to any further representations as set out above, I recommend that both planning permission and Listed Building Consent be granted with conditions. ______List of Background Documents 1. Application Papers for Application SW/06/0143 and SW/06/0144
87
APPENDIX A ITEM 2.12 & 2.13 PART 2
88
APPENDIX A ITEM 2.12 & 2.13 PART 2
2.14 SW/06/0030 (Case 21781) TEYNHAM
Location: Garage Site R/O 21 – 33 Cherry Gardens, Teynham, Faversham
Proposal: Demolition of existing garage units and redevelopment of the site to provide three 3 bed terraced houses and one 3 bed (wheelchair accessible) bungalow with associated parking.
Applicant/Agent: Swale Housing Association, C/O Cyma Architects Ltd, Crouchers Manor Barn, Wesywell Lane, Wetwell, Ashford, Kent, TN25 4JN
Application Valid: 4th January 2006, and as amended by drawings received 16th March 2006.
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:
(a) A site investigation has been carried out to determine the nature and extent of any contamination.
(b) A written report of the site investigation has been prepared by a competent person. The report shall include the investigation results and details of a remediation scheme to contain, treat or remove any contamination, as appropriate. The report shall be submitted to and approved by the District Planning Authority.
(c) The approved remediation scheme has been fully implemented (either in relation to the development as a whole, or the appropriate phase, as agreed in writing).
Continued ….
89 2.14 (continued) PART 2
(d) A completion report has been provided to the District Planning Authority by a competent person stating that remediation has been carried out in accordance with the approved remediation scheme, and the site is suitable for the permitted end use.
(e) 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 E1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan.
(3) 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 E48 and G1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan.
(4) No development shall take place until full details of both hard and soft landscape works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the District Planning Authority. These details shall include existing 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.
(5) All hard and soft landscape works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. The works shall be carried out prior to the occupation of any part of the development or in accordance with the programme agreed in writing with the District Planning Authority.
Grounds: In the interests of the visual amenities of the area and in pursuance of policies E49 and G1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan.
(6) Upon completion of the approved landscaping scheme, any trees or shrubs removed, dying, being severely damaged or becoming seriously diseased within five years of planting shall be replaced with trees or shrubs of such size and species as may be agreed in writing with the District Planning Authority, and within whatever planting season is agreed.
90 2.14 (continued) PART 2
Grounds: In the interests of the visual amenities of the area in pursuance of policies E49 and G1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan.
(7) The areas shown on the submitted plan as car parking space shall be kept available for such use at all times and no permanent development, whether permitted by the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 or not, shall be carried out on the land so shown or in such a position as to preclude vehicular access thereto; such land and access thereto shall be provided prior to the occupation of the dwellings hereby permitted.
Grounds: Development without adequate provision for the parking or garaging of cars is likely to lead to car parking inconvenient to other road users and detrimental to amenity and in pursuance of policies T17 of the Kent Structure Plan and IN7 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 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 interest of residential amenity as supported by policy G1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan.
(9) No burning of waste or refuse shall take place on site during demolition or construction other than may be agreed in writing by the District Planning Authority.
Grounds: In the interests of residential amenity as supported by policy G1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan.
(10) The commencement of the development shall not take place until a programme for the suppression of dust during demolition and the construction of the development has been submitted to and approved in writing by the District 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 residential amenity as supported by policy G1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan
Continued….
91 2.14 (continued) PART 2
(11) No additional windows or other openings shall be inserted, placed or formed at any time in the east facing elevation of the property shown as Plot 2 hereby permitted unless agreed in writing with the District Planning Authority.
Grounds: To prevent the overlooking of adjoining properties and to safeguard the privacy of their occupiers and in pursuance of Policy G1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan.
(12) Regardless of the specified 1800mm high close boarded boundary fence detail shown on the permitted plan the boundary treatment adjacent to Donald Moor Avenue shall be a 1800mm brick boundary wall.
Grounds: In the interests of the visual amenities of the area and in pursuance of Policy G1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan.
(13) Upon completion, no extensions to the front wall or roof slope of the dwelling, whether permitted by Classes A, B or C of Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 or not, shall be carried out without the prior permission in writing of the District Planning Authority.
Grounds: In the interests of the amenities of the area, in pursuance of policy G1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan.
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: G1, H3, H4, E48 & E49 of the Swale Borough Local Plan; ENV15 & ENV16 of The Kent Structure Plan; and QL1 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan: Deposit Plan.
Description of Proposal
The application is for the erection of 3 three bed houses and 1 three bed fully disabled bungalow and associated parking. The properties are to be provided by Swale Housing Association.
27 lock up garages are currently located on the site. The agent has provided a supporting statement commenting
Continued….
92 2.14 (continued) PART 2
“the existing garages are at the end of their useful life and are becoming unlettable due to their poor structural state…. there are 27 lock up garages at the site of which only 6 are let at the present time. Because of the low rentable value that these garage units attract it is not economically viable for us to repair the existing units, due to their current age and structural state. Likewise it is not economically viable to replace the units with new. Because of the sites location, which is quite isolated, the site is now becoming a security issue for us, and consequently the residents in the surrounding area .For this reason, it is our preference to redevelop the site to provide high quality, affordable housing, for which we currently have a long waiting list in this vicinity ”
The applicants have since sent in a parking appraisal report which concludes that any resultant parking demand would be significantly less than could be accommodated on local streets.
Relevant site history and site description
The site is located to the rear of Cherry Tree Gardens, to the south of the village adjacent to the A2. It is within the built up area boundary of the village. The site is bordered by open fields to the west and residential properties to the north, south and east.
There is no previously recorded planning history for this site
Views of Consultees
Teynham Parish Council commented that it
“was a commendable scheme which would tidy up the area…would request that consideration is given to retaining the border brick wall to the rear of the three houses”
Kent Highway Services offer no objection subject to conditions regarding the retention of the parking and turning area, the construction of a properly consolidated and surfaced access.
Other Representation
3 identical letters of objection have been received from local residents the comments are summarised as follows:
• Understood the site was already a developed site and certainly never expected any redevelopment here • Houses would take all the privacy away with houses looking into our back gardens • Would expect a 1.8m retaining wall at the end of our garden Continued…..
93 2.14 (continued) PART
• Chaos for the family with lorries unloading and the noise of the JCB cement mixer • This is going to devalue property with no privacy at either back or front now
Policies
Government advice in PPG3 draws attention to the importance of the re-use of previously-developed land, which, if good design and layout of new development can be achieved, the Government's objectives of making the best use of previously-developed land and improving the quality and attractiveness of residential areas can be met. PPG3 also stresses the importance of making the best use of land and the importance of creating mixed communities (by size and type of dwelling), delivering affordable housing, greening the residential environment and designing for quality.
The main considerations in determining this application are those of policy ENV15 (development within the built up area) and ENV16 (urban environmental quality and best use of urban land) of the Kent Structure Plan and policies H1 (housing provision and residential development), H3 (use of urban sites/ opportunities), H4 (small site residential development), E48 (high standard of design in new developments), E49 (landscaping in connection with new development) and G1 (general development considerations) of the Swale Borough Local Plan.
Discussion
As the application site lies within the built up area, residential development is acceptable in principle, I therefore consider that the main issues in determining this application are the effect on the residential amenities of the occupiers of adjoining residential properties, the impact on the visual amenity and character of the area and highway safety and convenience issues.
3 identical letters of objection were received from local residents at nos 29, 31 and 33 Cherry Tree Gardens. I note a two storey house would be located at the rear of their gardens however with no windows shown on this side elevation, the distance of between 13m and 14m between the properties and the inclusion of a 1.8m high brick wall (as requested by the residents and Parish Council) along the boundary I do not consider that their privacy would be compromised by the scheme.
Policy E48 states that “the Borough Council will seek to ensure that all new development is of a high standard of design appropriate to its surrounding and reflecting local distinctiveness”. Following extensive discussions with and revisions from the agent I consider the amended scheme to be of an appropriate design to the location and consider that it will contribute positively to the appearance of the area.
94 2.14 (continued) PART 2
Teynham Parish Council offered support for the scheme though did request that the existing border brick wall to the rear of the houses, opposite 44 and 42 Donald Moor Avenue was retained. This has been included in the revised drawings.
Kent Highway Service offered no objection to the scheme as the scheme offers adequate parking for residents in accordance with Kent Highways parking standards. I note that there will be loss of potential car parking here, but that is little used. In any case I do not consider that planning permission can be refused simply because of a preference for the existing use.
Recommendation
This proposal seeks permission for the development of 3 three bed houses and 1 three bed fully disabled bungalow. The properties have adequate parking and amenity areas and are within the built up area boundary of the village so the principle of the development is acceptable. I therefore recommend that planning permission be approved subject to the receipt of satisfactorily amended drawings.
List of Background Documents
1. Application Papers for Application SW/06/0030.
95
2.15 SW/06/0021 (Case 13123) SHEERNESS
Location: Co-Steel Sports Ground, Queenborough Road, Halfway, Sheerness, Kent
Proposal: Eight 15 metre high floodlight poles to football pitch
Applicant/Agent: E Batten Esq., c/o D J Hobbs, 73 Marine Parade, Sheerness, Kent, ME12 2BE
Application Valid: 10 January 2006
SUBJECT TO: Further information/clarification from the agent, the views of the Head of Environmental Services (Closing date 30th March 2006)
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 floodlighting hereby permitted shall only be used between 0800 and 2100 hours Mondays to Fridays, 0900 to 2000 hours on Saturdays and 0900 to 1800 hours on Sundays and Bank Holidays, and shall be switched off outside these times.
Grounds: In order to protect the amenities of the locality and in pursuance of Policy G1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan and policy ENV20 of the Kent Structure Plan .
(3) The floodlighting hereby permitted shall be installed, set up and maintained as detailed in the application and before it is first brought into use it shall be checked by an independent lighting engineer, and should it be deemed necessary the applicant shall adjust the set up of the floodlighting and/or amend the set up, with no deviation from these details without the prior written approval of the District Planning Authority.
Grounds: In order to protect the amenities of the locality and pursuant to policy G1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan and ENV20 of the Kent Structure Plan. Continued……
96 2.15 (continued) 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 or prejudice highway safety or convenience. In resolving to grant permission, particular regard has been had to the following policies: E9, G1, C1, C4, R3 and E6 of the Swale Borough Local Plan; ENV1, ENV20, RS1 and RS5 of The Kent Structure Plan.
Description of Proposal
This application is for the erection of eight 15m. high floodlights, which include 3 floodlights per pole, to illuminate a football pitch at the Co-Steel Sports Ground.
The pitch is located 70m away from the western boundary and 65m from the southern boundary of the site.
The application details show the extent of light spill at ground level on the layout plans and lighting design by ‘Philips Lighting Solutions’. The lighting design details state that:-
“The asymmetric distribution of the ‘Philips ‘Opti Vision’ also allows for a lower tilt angle from the horizontal, hiding the lamp therefore reducing glare to not only players and spectators but surrounding residents, motorists and wildlife such as birds.
For this design proposal, the maximum elevation for any one floodlight is a minimal 6o from the horizontal plant; the requirement for external louvre/shield attachments is therefore unnecessary.”
The applicant states in support of the application that:
“Following our meeting in late 2004 regarding the provision of a football academy for the Islands youth at the above premises, my client has after protracted negotiations, finally secured ownership of the existing sports ground.
The initial plan is to provide floodlighting to a principal pitch which is positioned at the greatest distance that is practical from nearby housing, as shown in the accompanying planning application. I have indicated the extent of light spill on the plans and also enclosing manufacturer’s details of the floodlights, including light pollution calculations.”
Continued….
97 2.15 (continued) PART 2
An additional supporting letter from the agent is attached as an appendix to this report.
Relevant History and Site Description
Access to the Sports Ground is via a track off Queenborough Road, which leads to a farmhouse to the north and also gives access to the sports ground on the opposite side of the track from the application site.
To the south of the site are the residential properties fronting Queenborough Road, to the west are the houses in Sunnyfields Drive and Fieldview Close whilst to the north is open countryside.
In terms of planning history, permission was granted in May 1996 for the erection of a beer store to existing social club (Ref: SW/96/0236). In October 1992 planning permission was granted for the erection of two storey clubhouse and changing rooms Ref: SW/92/0844).
Most notably, in September 1990 outline planning permission was refused for alterations/rebuild dressing rooms and stand, build two low level stands and erect lighting around pitch (Ref: SW/90/1013). This application was refused for the following reasons:
“(i) The increased use of the existing sub-standard access will interfere with the free and safe movement of other traffic on Queenborough Road (A250) and increase the risk of accidents.
(ii) The development if permitted is in the Council’s opinion likely to result in a substantially increased level of activity on the site which together with the associated level of noise and floodlighting would be severely detrimental to the amenities of the neighbouring residential properties.”
Views of Consultees
Kent Highway Services raise no objection to the proposals.
The views of the Head of Environmental Services are awaited and I hope to report them to Members at the meeting. I have also requested the comments of the Sports Development Officer.
Other Representations
Letters of objection have been received from residents raising the following issues: - Harmful/impact on quality of life and amenities. - Noise and disturbance especially late at night - Excessive and inappropriate light shining into homes and back gardens Continued…..
98 2.15 (continued) PART 2
- Damage to property - Insufficient car parking will lead to congestion on our access track and Queenborough Road during matches - Increasing use of dangerous access onto Queenborough Road - In the future will lead to proposals to erecting buildings on the site - Start of massive development if this application is passed, including stands, clubhouse, then full-scale stadium with all the nuisance and problems which come with this.
In addition three letters of support have been received raising the following issues: - Proposed improved facilities will benefit the Island - Proposals will be very positive for younger generation as there are few facilities for them on the Island - Help security for adjoining properties - Opportunity for youngsters to play football in a safe environment can only benefit them
I have also received a petition of 29 signatures objecting to this excessive light which will intrude into adjoining residential properties and create an environmental nuisance. The signatories are also of the opinion that this development should be taken to Barton’s Point where such a use can be accommodated.
Policies
The site lies outside of the built-up area boundary of Minster and in the countryside in the Swale Borough Local Plan (SBLP).
Policies ENV1 (protection of the countryside), RS1 (design of development in the countryside), RS5 (rural restraint) of the Kent Structure Plan, Policies SS7 (development in the countryside), E1 (protecting Kent’s countryside) of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan Deposit Plan and Policy E9 (protection of the countryside) of the Swale Borough Local Plan are all relevant development plan policies to be taken into account in the consideration of this application.
Policies C1 and C4 of the Swale Borough Local Plan support appropriately located social and community facilities.
Policy R3 seeks to protect space used for recreation use.
Policy G1 states that (amongst other things) all development proposals will be expected to have regard to the characteristics and features of the locality, be well sited and of an appropriate design and appearance and cause no demonstrable harm to residential amenity.
Policy E6 seeks to minimise light pollution and glare spillage, particularly in open or remote landscape, residential and commercial areas. Continued….
99 2.15 (continued) PART 2
Discussion
It is important to emphasise at the outset that the only development requiring planning permission at this time is the erection and use of the floodlighting. The height, appearance, location of the columns, and the level of illumination and hours of operation, are the matters for consideration here.
It is clear that the proposal is intended to facilitate the use of the site for the community at large. Members will note the supporting statement attached as an appendix. Members will also be aware that Local Plan policies are generally encouraging toward sports uses and dual use of playing fields (policy C1, C4, R2 in particular). Furthermore similar proposals for floodlights have been approved in recent years at Minster College, Borden Grammar School and Sittingbourne Community College.
I have some sympathy with the view expressed by residents, that the hours of use of the sports pitch have the potential to possibly impact on the amenities of the local area. I also acknowledge that there could be difficulties of on- street parking in the evenings in the future. Although I note that Kent Highway Services raise no objection to the application.
However, the sports pitches could be used more intensively at the present time, without a material change of use taking place, and without any restriction on the numbers of visitors (car borne or otherwise). The floodlighting will allow matches to take place later in the evening, and on Winter’s afternoons, and this is a material consideration to be taken into account, but it would be difficult to justify refusal in order to prevent a wider use of the site which did not, in itself require planning permission.
I also note that the proposed floodlights would be located some 65m from the southern boundary with the residential properties in Queenborough Road and 70m from the western boundary of the application site with the properties in Sunnyfields Drive. The extent of the proposed light spillage from the floodlights around the pitch is shown to be well within the application site and has been designed to minimise the impact of the floodlights on the amenities of the surrounding residential properties.
The applicant’s supporting statement and consultant’s details will be noted. It is argued that eight 15m posts are the minimum required to meet the needs of the facility. This lighting will, in my opinion, inevitably result in some loss of local amenity because of the number and height of the posts. I have sought clarification on this from the agent and details on the hours during which the lighting would operate, and will report further at the meeting, but have put forward what I consider to be appropriate conditions above. Continued….
100 2.15 (continued) PART 2
Summary and Recommendation
Although I sympathise with the concerns of residents regarding the impact of the proposals on residential amenities, I believe the benefits of the development to the wider community to be significant. I have recommended conditions which, in my view, overcome the primary concerns.
Subject to the additional information and confirmation sought above, and the above conditions, I recommend that the development be granted planning permission.
List of Background Documents
1. Application Papers for Application SW/06/0021
2. Background papers relating to Applications SW/96/0236, SW/92/0844 and SW/90/1013
101
APPENDIX A ITEM 2.15 PART 2
102
APPENDIX A ITEM 2.15 PART 2
103
2.16 SW/05/0290 (Case 21173) MINSTER
Location: Scocles Road, Minster
Proposal: Application for approval of reserved matters for the erection of new access road together with 29 dwellings and associated works pursuant to outline planning permission SW/95/102.
Applicant/Agent: Jones Homes (Southern) Limited, c/o Britch and Associates Limited, 31 The Crescent, Salford, Manchester M5 4PF.
Application Valid: 31 May 2005 and as amended by letter and plans received on 24th January 2006 and 13th February 2006.
SUBJECT TO: The further views of Kent Highway Services.
Conditions
(1) 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 E48 and G1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan.
(2) No gate, fence, wall or other means of enclosure shall be erected forward of any wall of a house which fronts a highway (including a footpath) or open space, otherwise than in accordance with the details submitted in the application particulars.
Grounds: In the interests of visual amenities of the locality and in pursuance of Policy E50 of the Swale Borough Local Plan.
(3) Adequate underground ducts shall be installed to the satisfaction of the District Planning Authority before any of the buildings hereby permitted are occupied to enable telephone and television 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 notwithstanding the provision 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.
Continued…..
104 2.16 (continued) PART 2
Grounds: In the interest of the visual amenities of the area and in pursuance of Policy E50 of the Swale Borough Local Plan.
(4) The proposed roads, including footpaths and turning spaces where applicable, shall be constructed in such a manner as to ensure that each dwelling before it is occupied shall be served by a properly consolidated and surfaced footpath and carriageway to at least base course level between the dwelling and highway.
Grounds: To ensure that the development is served by an adequate means of access and in pursuance of Policy IN7 of the Swale Borough Local Plan.
(5) During construction, any facilities for the storage of oils, fuels or chemicals shall be sited on impervious bases and surrounded by impervious bund walls. The volume of the bunded compound should be at least equivalent to the capacity of the tank plus 10%. If there is multiple tankage, the compound should be at least equivalent to the capacity of the largest tank, or the combined capacity of interconnected tanks, plus 10%. All filling points, vents, gauges and sight glasses shall be located within the bund. The drainage system of the bund shall be sealed with no discharge to any watercourse, land or underground strata. Associated pipework should be located above ground and protected from accidental damage. All filling points and tank overflow pipe outlets should be detailed to discharge downwards into the bund.
Grounds: In order to prevent pollution of underground water sources and in pursuance of Policy E4 of the Swale Borough Local Plan.
(6) There shall be no discharge or foul or contaminated drainage from the site into either groundwater or any surface waters, whether direct or via soakaways.
Grounds: In order to prevent pollution of underground water sources and in pursuance of Policy E4 of the Swale Borough Local Plan.
(7) Any other condition recommended by consultees.
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
Continued…..
105 2.16 (continued) PART 2
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: H1, H48, G1, E50, E51, E52, IN21, H2, H10, IN7, IN18, IN15, IN17, S16, H25 and H26 of the Swale Borough Local Plan.
Description of proposal
This application proposes matters of detail for 29 houses, as part of the Thistle Hill development which was granted outline planning permission as one of the Swale Gateway applications in September 1997.
The agent states in a supporting Planning Statement that:-
“The development as shown on drawing 3050/2.08 D now comprises a mix of 15 three bedroomed units, 10 four bedroomed units and 4 five bedroomed units comprising six different designs. These produce 8 terraced units, 12 semi-detached units, 6 link detached units and 3 individually detached units. The scheme, demonstrably, has moved from one of 29 individually detached dwellings of four house types to a significantly more mixed development both in terms of accommodation, height, style and layout. The requirements of the Kent Design Guide, as emerging, have been fully taken into account in arriving at the final set of submitted plans.”
The application is accompanied by a design statement, (the conclusions of which are attached as an Appendix to this report) a development statement, a Planning Statement and a site assessment report. An extract from the design statement states that:-
"The existing hedges need to be retained and enhanced to form an improved interface between the site and adjoining existing properties.
The access points from Thistle Hill Way and then into the application site have been determined by legal agreement between the applicant and the previous landowner. This will become an important link road as it forms the access to further parcels of development land.
The surrounding houses of this site are two and three storeys. The existing cottages adjacent to the site are two storeys and it is felt therefore that two storey buildings would be more appropriate in terms of mass and scale.
Traditionally the external facing materials used in this part of Kent, the Greater Thames Estuary, are red brick, yellow brick, render, weatherboarding and tile hanging. These materials will be used in the building designs. The roofscape will be varied in height using single and double storey link buildings. Continued…..
106 2.16 (continued) PART 2
The size and shape of the site constrains the design of a permeable scheme for vehicles. However it does afford the opportunity to create a layout which encloses the available space with a series of short lengths.
The scheme should ensure that the layout is not dominated by cars and priority is given to pedestrians. Linkages are required from the site in all directions.
The design should provide a continuous frontage with properties overlooking the public domain. Private areas should be provided to the rear of the properties. The site is not large enough to include any meaningful open space. The public area will be provided by the highway which will vary in width and the public/private boundary formed by a picket fence."
Relevant Site History and Description
This application relates to an L-shaped parcel of land, comprising of approximately 1.05ha of open grassland on the north side of Thistle Hill Way and to the west of Scocles Road. The site borders Nos. 1 to 4 Scocles Cottages to the south east, with open grassland to the north and west, beyond which is Lapwing Close and the existing built-up areas of Minster.
Most significant in terms of planning history is the granting of outline planning permission SW/95/0102 in September 1997. This approved the residential and other development of the site and contains numerous conditions relating to access and infrastructure provision, phasing, archaeology, affordable housing, community woodland and significantly, the requirement for the submission and approval of an overall development brief for the site. The brief was prepared and submitted. It shows the disposition of roads, footpaths and cycleway, housing, community facilities, woodland and public open space and was considered and approved by the Planning Sub-Committee in October 1997.
The outline planning permission Ref: SW/95/0102 phases the entire development of housing at Thistle Hill, and it is important to note that condition (4) specifically prevents the construction and occupation of more than 340 dwellings before the A249 Iwade to Queenborough Improvement Scheme (including the new bridge to the Isle of Sheppey) is open to traffic.
However an application was refused permission but subsequently allowed on appeal in January 2004 for the non-compliance with condition (4) of SW/95/0102. This application included various improvements to the junction at Cowstead Corner and allowed for an additional 200 dwellings (540 in total) could be constructed prior to the completion of the A249 Improvement Scheme. (Ref: SW/02/1018). Continued…..
107 2.16 (continued) PART 2
Since then planning permission was granted in September 2005 for non- compliance with condition (4) of SW/95/0102 to allow an additional 150 dwellings (above the previous 340 limit) to be constructed prior to the opening of the A249 Road Improvements (Ref: SW/04/1059). Thus far detailed approval for 425 dwellings has been granted and some 312 have been built or under construction up to November 2005. This application still falls under this limit, if approved.
Views of consultees
Minster Parish Council raise no objection to this application.
Environment Agency raise no objection and request the imposition of conditions relating to pollution prevention.
Southern Water Services raise no objection and recommend imposition of condition requiring details of proposed means of foul and surface water disposal be submitted and approved prior to any works commencing.
Lower Medway Internal Drainage Board state that the developer requires the Board's written consent for any alterations to the Scrapsgate drain and any outfall into it. Any surface water drainage from the site discharging to a local watercourse must be attenuated for the 1:100 year return storm with a limited discharge of 7 litres/second/hectare or the equivalent run off from the Greenfield site for the 1:2 year storm.
CPRE Kent raise objection as the proposal “brings forward development in advance of appropriate infrastructure being in place on Sheppey. There are also virtually no jobs available on the Island, with the result that further building on this scale is clearly unsustainable.”
The Head of Environmental Services recommends conditions relating to any potential ground contamination, limit to hours of construction and any potential impact pile driving, a programme for the suppression of dust and no burning of waste or refuse. Mouchelparkman state that as this is a reserved matters application no request for contributions to education facilities are required.
Kent Highway Services raise objection to minor details which could be overcome by amended plans as they would prefer that 2 ramps on the main access road be combined to form a junction table, some additional casual parking spaces should be provided, the service strips be continued around the end of the road and a minimum of 6 metres be provided between the garage door and back edge of footway for 4 of the plots.
Continued…..
108 2.16 (continued) PART 2
Other representations
I have received no other comments on this application.
Planning policies
The development plan for the area includes the Kent Structure Plan 1996 and the Swale Borough Local Plan 2000. Policy S5 of the Structure Plan states that in the Thames Gateway in Kent it is a strategic policy to upgrade the quality of the environment. Policy ENV15 says that the character, quality and functioning of Kent’s built environment will be conserved and enhanced. It further states that development should be well designed and respect its setting.
Strategic Policy 1 of the Local Plan seeks to provide for the development needs of the Borough while ensuring the protection and enhancement of the environment. Policy G1 says that all development proposals will be expected to, amongst other things, have regard to the characteristics and features of the site and locality; be well sited and of a scale, design and appearance appropriate to the location; cause no demonstrable harm to residential amenity; provide safe and convenient pedestrian and vehicular access; and provide parking and servicing facilities sufficient for the traffic likely to be generated. Policy E47 states that the Council will seek and promote initiatives that will enhance the appearance of strategic routes within the Borough. Policy E48 seeks to ensure that new development is of a high standard of design appropriate to its surroundings and reflecting local distinctiveness. Policy E49 requires the submission of landscaping details.
The site is shown as a site with planning permission for residential development by Policy H26 of the Swale Borough Local Plan. The provision of affordable housing on the development, as required by Policy H10 of the Local Plan, is tied into the original approval of the development and the accompanying Section 106 Agreement.
With regard to the details of the application the Council has adopted Kent Design as Supplementary Planning Guidance. The applicants state that they have planned this phase to accord with the objectives of Kent Design, whilst also having regard to the approved Development Brief for the site.
In terms of the emerging Swale Borough Local Plan Policy H2 states that:
“All proposals for new residential development including renewal and reserved matters applications, will be expected to make the most efficient use of land and provide a range of house types and sizes appropriate to the location and nature of the site and reflecting the identified need in the area. In designing new residential development the objective should be to create more sustainable forms of development in accordance with the other policies in the Local Plan.”
Continued….
109 2.16 (continued) PART 2
Discussion
This is a reserved matters application for the erection of 29 residential units on 1.04 hectares of land at Thistle Hill. Outline approval, with conditions was granted in September 1997 (SW/95/102) subject to a Section 106 Agreement. A Development Brief was also agreed. The Brief calls for a range of house types, sizes, styles and densities across the whole site.
This proposal is in accordance with the terms of the outline planning permission and approved Development Brief for this important site. Members have previously agreed that to meet Local Plan housing requirements this land should be developed. They have also agreed the precise boundaries of the development and agreed to the broad layout of housing, woodland, open space and community facilities. This application seeks to put flesh on these bones without changing the previous principles which have been agreed.
The details as originally submitted with this application were, in my opinion, unacceptable and I have therefore sought to negotiate with the applicant to provide a residential development for this part of Thistle Hill which would respond to the demands of the Local Plan, PPG3 and Kent Design.
The details now submitted are, in my opinion, a great improvement on the earlier ones. The original proposals showed that the highway infrastructure dominated the scheme. However the scheme has been amended to give more priority to pedestrians and cyclists by designing a road layout that constrains the car (by using short lengths, tight radii and narrow widths) and by giving greater dominance to buildings and landscaping. I note that the Highway Authority raise objection to the scheme but this is in relation to minor details, which can easily be overcome by amended plans being submitted. These details in my opinion do not amount to a reason for refusing the application.
Furthermore, in line with Kent Design and the development brief for Thistle Hill the amended layout shows a variety of routes that allow movement easily through the site and link to other adjoining areas, including the proposed nearby local centre and school site, particularly by foot and cycle.
Members are of course aware that PPG3 requires that a development should maximise the sites potential. In this instance, the proposed scheme for 29 units on 1.05 hectares of land would result in a housing scheme with a density of under slightly 30 dwellings per hectare, which is contrary to the guidance contained in PPG3 as referred to above. However the agent states that:-
“The total site area is marginally over 1 hectare, if the distributor road is included within the site area, but is 0.96 of a hectare net of the road area which gives a density of 30 dwellings per hectare.”
Continued…..
110 2.16 (continued) PART 2
The fact that the Development Brief for Thistle Hill stipulates densities should vary from 25 to 37 dwellings per hectare, and the site is located adjoining existing houses and on the edge of the built-up area. I am of the opinion that such a density level can be considered acceptable in this instance.
Members will be aware that earlier phases of housing at Thistle Hill are well underway. The scheme comprises a mixture of housing types, and is intended to continue the style and form of the earlier Bovis developments to the south west of the application site.
With respect of the conditions raised by Southern Water Services, Lower Medway Internal Drainage Board, and Environmental Services it should be noted that this is a reserved matters application pursuant to an outline planning permission and the matters raised by the consultees are covered by the conditions attached to the outline planning permission for Thistle Hill development.
In the light of Members concerns at the last meeting regarding developers at Thistle Hill using water efficiently in their new developments, I have sought further information from the developer on how this will be addressed on this application. I hope to report further on this at the meeting.
The further comments of the Kent Highway Services are still awaited and I hope to be able to report them to Members at the Meeting.
I am satisfied that all the issues regarding the wider Thistle Hill site are now satisfactorily addressed by this scheme.
Summary and Recommendation
This is an acceptable scheme in accordance with the Local Plan and the Development Brief for the site. Subject to, the further views of Kent Highway Services, and the above conditions, I recommend that approval of reserved matters be granted.
List of background documents
1. Application papers for Application SW/05/0290 2. Correspondence relating to Application SW/05/0290 3. Application papers on SW/95/0102, SW/04/1059 and SW/02/1018
111
APPENDIX A ITEM 2.16 PART 2
112
APPENDIX A ITEM 2.16 PART 2
113
APPENDIX A ITEM 2.16 PART 2
114
APPENDIX A ITEM 2.16 PART 2
115 PLANNING COMMITTEE – 30TH MARCH 2006 PART 3
Report of the Head of Development Services
PART 3
Applications for which REFUSAL is recommended
3.1 SW/05/1507 (Case 16934) FAVERSHAM
Location: Davington Priory, Coach House, Priory Road, Faversham, Kent, ME13 7EJ
Proposal: Renewal of planning permission SW/00/0156 for a first floor side extension.
Applicant/Agent: Bob Geldof, c/o Sell Wade Consultants, Lords, Sheldwich, Faversham, Kent ME13 ONJ
Application Valid: 18th November 2005
Reasons
(1) By reason of its height, size and location the extension would overshadow the gardens of adjoining dwellings and would result in a loss of light and outlook and create an overbearing and oppressive presence, detrimental to residential amenity and contrary to Policy ENV15 of the Kent Structure Plan and Policy G1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan.
Description of Proposal
This application is for the renewal of planning permission SW/00/0156 for a replacement first floor side extension on the north west end of the coach house to re-create its original form.
Since submission of the application both the agent and applicant have written to explain the application. I have included these letters as Appendices A and B to this report.
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. Continued….
1 3.1 (continued) PART 3
The coach house is part single storey, part two storeys in height, is constructed from brick and weatherboard, and has a pitched roof with a ridge running parallel to the northern boundary. The roof is gable ended to the south east and hip ended to the north west. It is here that the building originally continued at two-storey height, but the upper timber framed part was burnt down many years ago. The building also has two gables facing south west. It is probably dates from the mid to late 19th century and is curtilage listed: being within the curtilage of the Priory, which is a listed grade II *. The entire site falls within the Faversham Conservation Area.
To the north and west are located the rear gardens and rear elevations of more recent two storey houses fronting Priory Road. The property directly to the north has the majority of its rear boundary delineated by the two storey rear wall of the coach house; the remainder being occupied by the single storey rear elevation. To the north east is the former gate house to the Priory grounds: now in separate ownership.
In February 2001 planning permission and listed building consent were granted to re-build part of the coachhouse, and this application seeks to renew that permission. The granting of this permission was against my recommendation, and followed a site meeting.
Views of Consultees
English Heritage do not wish to offer any comments on this application.
Faversham Town Council comments have not been received yet but I do expect to be able to report them to the meeting.
The County Archaeological Officer commented that in view of the limited ground works involved he advises no archaeological measures to be necessary.
Other Representation
Two letters of objection have been received, one with enclosures from one objector using photographs and drawings to show the impact of the proposal and proposing an alternative form of development. These letters are attached as Appendices C and D. In the former letter alternative plans showing a single storey extension of the coach house are referred to. These are not part of the proposal, and are not included here. The point they make is that it is possible to extend the coach house at ground floor level only. This is not in dispute.
Continued….
2 3.1 (continued) PART 3
Policies
Kent Structure Plan Policies
Policies ENV15 and ENV16 seek to balance the need to make at the best use of land in built up areas against maintaining the character, quality and functioning of the built environment and to avoid town cramming.
Policies ENV17 and ENV19 seek to ensure that development affecting conservation Areas and listed buildings pay special attention to the preservation and enhancement of their special character and appearance their setting and integrity.
Swale Borough Local Plan Policies
Policies E36 and E39 re iterate the advice contained in ENV17 and ENV19 Policies G1 of the Swale Local Plan stipulates that development proposals should not result in harm to residential amenity.
Discussion
The case has been presented by the applicant and their agent (See Appendices A, B and E) that circumstances are now more pressing for the development than before. However these are countered by objections from both adjoining properties (See Appendix C & D). I consider that the determining issues still remain the same as those from the original application. These are the impact on the special character of this curtilage listed building and the setting of the listed Priory, and the impact of the extension and alterations on the amenities of occupiers of the houses to the north. The impact on the character and appearance of the conservation area also needs to be carefully considered.
The rebuilding of the end of the coach house, which is a well designed and detailed building and is of architectural merit in its own right, has the potential to restore its symmetry and recreate its original scale. I consider that the principle of the extension, in a listed building context is acceptable and indeed desirable. I also consider that the proposal would at least preserve and may actually enhance the character and appearance of the conservation area.
The case has been presented by the applicant and their agent that circumstances are now more pressing for the development, but these are countered by objections from both adjoining properties. I consider the determining issues still remain the same as those from the original application, that is that the benefits of the scheme must be weighed against the impact of the extension on the residential amenities of the adjoining occupiers. Continued….
3 3.1 (continued) PART 3
The houses to the north have roughly south facing gardens and aspects although no 3, the worst affected has most of its rear boundary occupied by the two storey part of the building and the remainder by the high wall to the remaining single storey part. The extension proposal will undoubtedly result in a loss of outlook and openness to no. 3 and 5 Priory Road and will result in a further portion of their gardens being overshadowed during certain times of the day. The levels of ambient daylight and sunlight to the properties might also be reduced by the extension. This is exacerbated by permission SW/02/1009 at No.5 Priory Road which permitted a 4.5m single story rear extension with an outlook across the garden and hence further habitable rooms affected by the overshadowing and loss of daylight.
However, the issue is not whether an impact will occur but whether the degree of impact is sufficient to warrant refusal of the application for planning permission. Both properties have gardens in excess of 14m in depth, a distance that exceeds the usually accepted minimum separation distance of 11metres However this 11m distance relates to the separation between main habitable room windows of a two storey dwelling and the flank wall of another two storey house perpendicular to it.
The extension proposed would infill the remaining single storey part of the rear boundary of no 3 resulting in a total two-storey length of 16.2m facing the rear of the property. This distance is significantly greater than the “average” flank wall which the 11m guideline refers and the wall concerned is actually the rear wall of the building. I considered in 2000, and still consider that the extension would be oppressive and will result in unacceptable overshadowing to the garden of no.3 and a material loss of light and outlook to the dwelling itself. Based on the above I conclude that the relationship between the extension and the adjoining properties remains unacceptable and that the benefits of the scheme do not outweigh this harm.
When the original application was determined Members did not share this view and considered the relationship between the dwellings and the extension to be acceptable and resolved the applications “ be delegated to the Planning Services Manager to approve subject to the second storey window shown on the plans being amended from 5 lights to 3 lights, the receipt of satisfactory amended drawings, appropriate conditions and application SW/00/157 (LBC) being referred to GOSE” These drawings were subsequently received and permission granted.
Continued….
4 3.1 (continued) PART 3
Recommendation
Whilst the proposal to restore the scale and appearance of the original coach house is, in listed building terms, an acceptable one, on balance I consider that the impact of the extension on the amenities of the adjoining residential properties, and particularly no. 3 Priory Road would be unacceptable. Accordingly I recommend that planning permission be refused.
Bearing in mind my recommendation above I have not prepared a report on the accompanying application to renew the original listed building consent (SW/05/1562) pending Members’ determination of the planning permission.
If however Members decide to grant planning permission I recommend that Members delegate authority for me to issue a renewal of listed building consent as previously granted, provided GOSE do not require the application to be determined by the Secretary of State.
List of Background Documents
1. Application Papers for Application SW/05/1507
2. Correspondence Relating to Application SW/05/1507
3. Application papers and correspondence on application SW/00/156 and SW/00/157.
5
APPENDIX A ITEM 3.1 PART 3
6
APPENDIX B ITEM 3.1 PART 3
7
APPENDIX B ITEM 3.1 PART 3
8
APPENDIX C ITEM 3.1 PART 3
9
APPENDIX C ITEM 3.1 PART 3
10
APPENDIX C ITEM 3.1 PART 3
11
APPENDIX C ITEM 3.1 PART 3
12
APPENDIX C ITEM 3.1 PART 3
13
APPENDIX C ITEM 3.1 PART 3
14
APPENDIX C ITEM 3.1 PART 3
15
APPENDIX D ITEM 3.1 PART 3
16
APPENDIX D ITEM 3.1 PART 3
17
APPENDIX E ITEM 3.1 PART 3
18
APPENDIX E ITEM 3.1 PART 3
19 PLANNING COMMITTEE – 30 MARCH 2006 PART 5
Report of the Head of Development Services
PART 5
Decisions by County Council and Secretary of State, reported for information
5.1 SW/04/1566 (Case 21021) – Pond House, Keycol Hill, Newington, Nr Sittingbourne
APPEAL DISMISSED AND ENFORCEMENT NOTICE UPHELD
The Inspector commented as follows:
“Appeal Ref. APP/V2255/C/05/2003089 Pond House, Keycol Hill Newington, ME9 7LE
• 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 S Baker against an enforcement notice issued by Swale Borough Council. • The Council's reference is 21021. • The notice was issued on 15 June 2005. • The breach of planning control as alleged in the notice is the erection of entrance gates, brick built piers and walls in excess of one metre tall adjacent to a highway. • The requirements of the notice are to remove from the land the wall, piers and gates or reduce the same in height to a height not exceeding one metre; and to remove from the land any rubble or debris caused by complying with that requirement. • The period for compliance with the requirements is two calendar months. • The appeal is proceeding on the grounds set out in section 174(2)(a) and (c) 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 (c)
1. I do not accept the appellant's contention that Class A of Part 2 to Schedule 2 of the General Permitted Development Order 1995 grants permitted development rights to this development. The judgment in Nicholson v FSS and S Gloucestershire DC [2005] EWHC 378 (Admin) also reported in summary at [2006] JPL 106, is of no assistance to the appellant in this case. It may well be that the underlying purpose of the exclusion provided by A. 1 (a) of Class A is highway safety but that is very far from concluding that whether A1(a) Continued . . .
1 5.1 (Contd) PART 5 applies to any particular wall is to be judged in terms of whether that wall harms highway safety. That is certainly a material consideration in considering the merits of the development but the tests provided by A. 1 (a) are, firstly whether the wall is adjacent to a highway used by vehicular traffic and, secondly, whether it exceeds one metre above ground level.
2. In this case the site is on the A2 and at the back of the narrow pavement where there is a longstanding low wall (well under one metre in height) which curves into the shared entrance with Sorrento. There is a similar wall in front of Sorrento. On the appeal site new brick work has been added so that this wall steps up to a pier with a metal pedestrian gate followed by a further, and slightly taller pier with double metal gates and the final pier beyond. From that point the means of enclosure continues at right angles to the road in the form of a close-boarded fence. From a point 1.25m in from the highway edge the new works - wall, piers and gates - exceed 1m in height; the wall quickly steps up to the first pier which is some 1.94m high. The alleged works have been carried out as one piece of development as a continuation of the existing wall and although they start at less than 1m high, taken as a whole they exceed 1m. The gates face the road at an oblique angle but the point at which the works exceed 1m in height is part of the curve of the entrance and, given that it is part of the access arrangements and the very short distance from the highway, I conclude the works are, as a matter of fact and degree, adjacent to the highway. The appellant does not argue that simply by virtue of orientation the structure is not adjacent to a highway. It comes within the terms of A. 1 (a) and is not permitted development. Since the works require planning permission and none has been given the matters alleged constitute a breach of planning control and the appeal on ground (c) fails.
The appeal on ground (a)
3. It is common ground that the works alleged have not given rise to highway safety concerns associated with the use of the access from the A2. That the removal of permitted development rights for walls which exceed 1m adjacent to a highway used by vehicular traffic may well have an underlying highway safety reason does not limit the material considerations to highway safety issues when considering the planning merits. That there is no harm to highway safety is a material consideration but having been brought within planning control the development falls to be considered, as any other development, in terms of the development plan and any other material consideration.
4. I consider the main issue is the impact of the development on the character and appearance of the street scene in the vicinity. The A2 on Keycol Hill is characterised by a ribbon of mainly residential development on either side of the road. The style of houses, front gardens, front boundary and access treatment is varied. In the main, however, front boundary walls are in the order of a metre or less high, Continued . . .
2 5.1 (Contd) PART 5
much as at the appeal site and its neighbouring property, with gate piers that rise to 1.2 or 1.5m high and, where they exist, with gates in proportion. In that context the walls and gates at the appeal site contrast markedly. It is not that the materials or workmanship are of a poor quality but that at about high the piers and gates appear incongruous, especially when juxtaposed with the low wall at the front. Moreover, the previous arrangement had a pleasing symmetry with low matching walls curving in to a central shared access with an open aspect giving views over the front garden and pond beyond to the two houses on either side. That symmetry at the front has been lost largely due to the appeal development. I appreciate that there is a high hedge on part of the appeal site boundary but the central entrance is clearly visible from both pavements and the road, particularly to the west. I do not agree that the works are not intrusive into the street scene.
5. There are a number of development plan policies that seek to protect the character and appearance of the street scene and to encourage a high standard of design in new development which is appropriate to its surroundings. It is also a sound general planning principle that new development should be sensitive to its situation and be harmonious in its setting. The appeal development does not achieve this for the reasons I have given and conflicts with the development plan.
6. It is always possible to find situations where walls and gates well in excess of 1m have been erected adjacent to a highway. In some case permission might have been appropriate, in others they may be unlawful or have become lawful through the passage of time. The council have commented on some of the appellant's examples but none of them set a precedent to be followed or indicate inconsistent decision making. Indeed, I note that the nearest example on Boyces Hill is recognised by them as being unauthorised development.
Conclusions
7. For the reasons given above and having regard to all other matters raised, including third party representation both in support and against the development, I conclude that the appeal should not succeed. I shall uphold the enforcement notice and refuse to grant planning permission on the deemed application.
Formal Decision
8. 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.”
Continued . . .
3 5.1 (Contd) PART 5
Observations
A clear decision from the Inspector who agreed that the erection of this wall, piers and gates, which are over 1m in height and adjacent to the A2, were contrary to development plan policies which seek to protect the character and appearance of the streetscene and to encourage a high standard of design in new development which is appropriate to its surroundings.
List of Background Documents
1. Planning Inspectorate Appeal Decision reference: APP/V2255/C/05/2003089 2. Appeal Papers (statements and correspondence) for APP/V2255/C/05/2003089 3. Papers and Correspondence for SW/04/1566
4
5.2 SW/05/0922 (Case 18867) – Change of Use of vacant shop to Class A2 Betting Office, 70 Preston Street, Faversham
APPEAL DISMISSED
The Inspector commented as follows:
“Main Issue
1. I consider that the main issue is the effect that the proposal would have on the vitality and viability of the Core Shopping Area, having regard also to the location of the proposal in the Faversham Conservation Area.
Planning Policy
2. The Development Plan includes the adopted Kent Structure Plan 1996 (SP) and the adopted Swale Borough Local Plan (LP). SP Policy S8 seeks to encourage the viability and vitality of town centres. SP Policy ENV17 and LP Policy E36 aim to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of conservation areas, and they reflect the statutory duty in section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. LP Policy S2 seeks to promote, primarily, retail uses within Core Shopping Areas, and states that proposals for non-retail use which detract from the traditional and local shopping character of the area will not be permitted. LP Policy S14 states that proposals which will promote and enhance the traditional and local shopping character of Faversham town centre will be permitted, and that development within the centre which would damage its character and/or viability will not be permitted.
3. In determining this appeal I shall also take into account relevant Government advice which is contained in Planning Policy Statement 6: Planning for Town Centres (PPS6) and Planning Policy Guidance: Planning and the Historic Environment (PPG15).
Reasons
4. The appeal site is within the Core Shopping Area of Faversham, as defined in the Development Plan, which is characterised by mainly traditional and local shopping activity. It is also within the Faversham Conservation Area which, in the vicinity of the appeal site, derives much of its special character from that shopping activity.
Continued…..
5
5.2 (continued) PART 5
5. Because the proposal would cause the loss of a retail unit, albeit a vacant one, it would be in principle contrary to LP Policy S2 as it would not be for a retail use. At 68 Preston Street, 2 doors away, there is already a Class A2 betting office, which is also within the Faversham Core Shopping Area. The presence of a further Class A2 betting office so close within the Core Shopping Area adds to the unacceptability of the proposal in policy terms. In addition there is another betting office on the opposite side of the road, only a short distance away, albeit within the Secondary Shopping Area, and therefore in compliance with policy. Moreover, there are already a number of other non-retail uses nearby and the loss of another retail unit would make this part of the Core Shopping Area less attractive to shoppers, which would be harmful. In consequence, the proposal would adversely affect the vitality and viability of the Core Shopping Area. Whilst I agree that some shoppers may wish to place a bet, their needs are already provided for very close by, in 2 existing locations.
6. The appellant states that, due to space limitations and steps inside the building at 68, modern betting office facilities for customers and staff, including the disabled, cannot easily be provided. The fact that they could be provided at 70 cannot warrant allowing a harmful development contrary to policy. Because the proposal would be situated between 2 existing retail uses, it would not only cause the loss of a retail unit, but it would also break up the existing retail frontage within the Core Shopping Area, which would add to the harm.
7. The appellant adds that the situation has changed since my colleague's decision to dismiss a similar proposal in July 2003, because the premises at 70 have remained vacant, and because no suitable alternative sites for the betting office have been found. No factual evidence, such as advertisements, particulars, and correspondence, has been put to me to support the view that active marketing of the appeal premises has taken place since they became vacant. I cannot therefore attach any significant weight to this assertion. The fact that the property has remained unoccupied for some while cannot justify an unacceptable proposal. Moreover, I am aware that the Council's officers have helped the appellant to find premises which have been refurbished and sign-written for the appellant's use, at 104 West Street, only a short walk from the appeal premises, within the Secondary Shopping Area and, therefore, in accordance with policy.
Continued…..
6 5.2 (continued) PART 5
8. The appellant says that LP Policy S6 states that proposals for non-retail uses in town centres will be permitted if they contribute to providing a mix of uses appropriate for the particular area, and that they will maintain and enhance the vitality and viability of the area. I note that this is not a concern of the Council in their Reasons for Refusal, and I agree with their view. Furthermore, the proposal would not accord with Policy S2 as it is not primarily a retail use, and it would disrupt the existing shopping frontage with a non-retail use. Moreover, the non-retail use proposed would detract from the traditional and local shopping character, and would damage its vitality and viability as a retail area.
9. In addition, the loss of local shopping character to a non-retail use would neither preserve nor enhance the character of the Conservation Area, which has, without doubt, a traditional and local shopping character. Whilst a wide variety of uses in a town centre can add to its vitality and provide choice for residents and visitors, the health of a town centre needs vigorous retail activity. Bearing in mind that there are already a number of non-retail uses in the immediate area, the loss of the existing retail unit that the proposal would cause would not support this aim.
10. I therefore consider that the proposal would harm the vitality and viability of this part of the Core Shopping Area, and it would neither preserve nor enhance the character of the Faversham Conservation Area. It would be contrary to SP Policies S8 and ENV17, and LP Policies S2, S14 and E36, as well as the advice in PPS6 and PPG15.
Other Matters
11. I am aware that in May 2005 planning permission was granted on appeal for the change of use of the appeal premises to a Class A3 use. That particular case turned on its own facts at the time which are not before me, nor do they relate to the appeal with which I am dealing, and it was granted as an exception to Development Plan policy. I do not find it to be very helpful to me, therefore, in my determination of this appeal, which I have, in any case, dealt with on its merits.
Conclusions
12. For the reasons given above and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.
Continued…..
7 5.2 (continued) PART 5
Formal Decision
13. I dismiss the appeal.”
Observations
A good decision where the Inspector found that the loss of a retail unit within the Core Shopping Area and the resultant effect not only on the viability of the Core Shopping Area but also on the appearance of the existing retail frontage was contrary to development plan policies.
List of Background Documents
1. Planning Inspectorate Appeal Decision reference: APP/V2255/A/05/191258
2. Appeal Decision 6th February 2006
3. SBC Decision on Application SW/05/0922
8