SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL
PLANNING SERVICES
Planning Items to be submitted to the Planning Committee
4 FEBRUARY 2010
Standard Index to Contents
PART 1 Reports to be considered in public session not included elsewhere on this Agenda
PART 2 Applications for which permission is recommended
PART 3 Applications for which refusal is recommended
PART 4 Swale Borough Council’s own development; observation on County Council’s development; observations on development in other districts or by Statutory Undertakers and by Government Departments; and recommendations to the County Council on ‘County Matter’ applications.
PART 5 Decisions by County Council and the Secretary of State on appeal, reported for information
PART 6 Reports containing “Exempt Information” during the consideration of which it is anticipated that the press and public will be excluded
ABBREVIATIONS: commonly used in this Agenda
CDA Crime and Disorder Act 1998
GPDO The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995
HRA Human Rights Act 1998
K&MSP Kent and Medway Structure Plan 2006
SBLP Swale Borough Local Plan 2008
INDEX OF ITEMS FOR PLANNING COMMITTEE – 4 FEBRUARY 2010
• Minutes of last Planning Committee Meeting • Minutes of any Working Party Meetings
2.1 SITTINGBOURNE SW/07/1147 The Closed Churchyard, Holy Pg 1 – 3 Trinity Church, Green Porch Close, Kemsley
2.2 SITTINGBOURNE SW/09/1320 The Coniston Hotel, London Road Pg 4 – 9
2.3 OSPRINGE SW/09/1142 The Meads Farm, Elverland Lane Pg 10 - 34
2.4 LEYSDOWN SW/09/1103 Land South of Leysdown Road Pg 35 – 46
2.5 LEYSDOWN SW/09/1216 The Lookout, Shellness Hamlet Pg 47 – 52
2.6 SITTINGBOURNE SW/09/0958 D4 Trinity Trading Estate, Mill Way Pg 53 – 58
3.1 MINSTER SW/09/1169 Stonnes Family Centre, Halfway Pg 1 – 4 Road
3.2 FAVERSHAM SW/09/1119 Land at Bysingwood Road Pg 5 – 49
4.1 SITTINGBOURNE SW/09/1338 Cherry Tree, 1 Canterbury Road Pg 1 – 3
5.1 SITTINGBOURNE SW/09/0282 71 Whimbrel Close Pg 1 – 2
5.2 SITTINGBOURNE ENF/09/029 Plot 4F, Eurolink Business Park, Pg 3 – 5 Bingham Road
5.3 SITTINGBOURNE SW/09/0214 Former A2 Tyres Depot, Cowper Pg 6 – 12 Road
PLANNING COMMITTEE – 4 FEBRUARY 2010 PART 2
Report of the Head of Development Services
PART 2
Applications for which PERMISSION is recommended
2.1 SW/07/1147 (Case 22559) SITTINGBOURNE
Location: The Closed Churchyard, Holy Trinity Church, Green Porch Close, Kemsley, Sittingbourne, Kent,
Proposal: Replacement of a 1919 War Memorial
Applicant/Agent: The Milton Regis War Memorial Project Committee, c/o Cllr Gerry Lewin, 135 Oak Lane, Upchurch, Sittingbourne, Kent, ME9 7AY
Application Valid: 28 December 2007 and as amended by drawings and additional information received 9 November 2009
Conditions
(1) The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date on which the permission is granted.
Grounds: In pursuance of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
(2) No development shall take place until the applicant, or their agents or successors in title, has secured the implementation of a watching brief to be undertaken by an archaeologist approved by the District Planning Authority so that the excavation is observed and items of interest and finds are recorded. The watching brief shall be in accordance with a written specification and timetable which has been submitted to and approved in writing by the District Planning Authority.
Grounds: To ensure that features of archaeological interest are properly examined and recorded in pursuance of policies E1 and E16 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008
Continued . . .
1 2.1 (Contd) PART 2
Reason for Approval
Having taken all material considerations into account, it is considered that subject to compliance with the attached conditions, the proposal would be in accordance with the development plan and preserve the special architectural or historic interest of the listed building. In resolving to grant permission, particular regard has been had to the following policies: E1, E14, E16 & E19 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008;
Description of Proposal
Planning permission is sought for the reconstruction of the war memorial at Holy Trinity Church, Green Porch Close, Kemsley. The scheme as originally submitted showed a large monolith. The plans have been amended, and now show a hexagonal designed base with monolith and cross at the top (total height 5.385m.) Additional information in the form of a supporting statement detailing history of the memorial and the design process for the final proposal has been submitted.
Relevant Site History & Description
There is no relevant planning history.
The site is located within the built up area, and is located to the front of the churchyard, adjacent to the grade I listed church, and to Church Marshes Country Park.
Views of Consultees
English Heritage raise no objection.
The County Archaeological Officer raises no objection subject to the above condition.
Other Representations
2 representations have been received, one in support which also draws attention to need for trees on site to be pruned, and one raising no objection, subject to a replacement fence being provided for the adjacent car park.
Policies
The following Policies are relevant:
Continued . . .
2 2.1 (Contd) PART 2
Swale Borough Local Plan 2008
E1 General Development Criteria E14 Development Involving Listed Buildings E16 Scheduled Ancient Monuments and Archaeological sites E19 Achieving High Quality Design and Distinctiveness
Discussion
The scheme as originally proposed would in my opinion have been harmful to setting of this Grade I Listed Church. I consider that the design as amended is more refined and preserves the architectural and historic interest of the listed church and its setting. I do not envisage any harm to residential or visual amenities.
The comments of local residents are noted. These issues cannot be considered under this application.
Recommendation
The proposed war memorial is in my opinion acceptable, and I do not consider that it would cause visual harm, nor harm to residential amenity. I therefore recommend that planning permission is granted. ______
Responsible Officer: Rob Bailey (Area Planning Officer)
List of Backgrounds Documents
1. Application Papers for Application SW/07/1147
2. Correspondence Relating to Application SW/07/1147
3 PART 2 2.2 SW/09/1320 (Case 01180) SITTINGBOURNE
Location: The Coniston Hotel, London Road, Sittingbourne, Kent, ME10 1NT
Proposal: Erection of a fourth floor addition to the existing hotel to provide a roof top function room in association with the hotel use
Applicant/Agent: Coniston LLP, c/o Mr Duncan Berntsen, Deck Gateway, Bedfont House, Hollywell Lane, Upchurch, Sittingbourne, Kent, ME9 7HN
Application Valid: 23 December 2009
SUBJECT TO: Any additional comments received from local residents (consultation period expires 1 February) and Kent Highway Services
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) Prior to the commencement of development, a sample of the obscured glass as shown on drawing no. 31.61-1F shall be submitted to the District Planning Authority for approval in writing and shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details unless otherwise agreed in writing by the District Planning Authority.
Grounds: In the interests of the residential amenities of the neighbouring properties in pursuance of Policy E1 and E24 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.
(3) 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.
Continued . . .
4 2.2 (Contd) PART 2
Grounds: In the interests of residential amenity and in pursuance of policies E1 and E2 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.
(4) No dust or fume extraction or filtration equipment, or air conditioning, heating or ventilation equipment shall be installed until full details of its design, siting, discharge points and predicted acoustic performance have been submitted to and approved by the District Planning Authority.
Grounds: To safeguard the amenities of nearby residential properties in pursuance of Policies E1 and E2 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.
(5) Prior to the commencement of development, details of the external finishing materials to be used on the development hereby permitted shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the District Planning Authority and shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details.
Grounds: In the interest of visual amenity and in pursuance of Policies E1 and E19 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.
Reasons for Approval
Having taken all material considerations into account, it is considered that subject to compliance with the attached conditions, the proposal would be in accordance with the development plan and would not cause unacceptable harm to the amenities of the area or prejudice highway safety or convenience. In resolving to grant permission, particular regard has been had to the following policies: E1, E19, E24, B5 and T3 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.
Description of Proposal
This application seeks planning permission for an additional function room for use by customers of the hotel. The proposal would provide a fourth floor extension to the existing hotel. The new function space would provide seating for 25 people and would be accessed via a lift and staircase that would project above the existing roof of the hotel. The extension would be located almost central to the hotel building and would be mostly visible from Victoria Road. The hotel is currently under extensive redevelopment involving extensions to the north and west elevations. The proposed roof top extension would be built above part of the original hotel building.
An extract from the applicant’s Design and Access Statement explains how the function space would be used:
Continued . . .
5 2.2 (Contd) PART 2
‘The lantern function space was not conceived as part of the original planning application in 2007 as the demand for such space to support the conferencing function had not been established….
The ambition of the lantern function space is to service hotel patrons of the conferencing suite and provide a dedicated space for the dining of delegates in a more exclusive and private situation than could otherwise be achieved by the main hotel restaurant. As such, it is not intended that the lantern will be open to the public as a bookable dining area.
The lantern will be for the exclusive use of the existing hotel patrons and therefore does not increase the number of guests nor the number of traffic movements or car parking spaces required to service it.’
There is a small (10m2) external area accessible from the proposed function room. This is likely to function as a smoking area.
Relevant Site History and Description
The hotel has had a number of extensions over the years. The most recent applications were approved under SW/07/0427 and SW/09/0600. These were for the refurbishment of, and extension to the existing hotel, including restaurant and conference facilities and the provision of a new vehicular access to the hotel respectively. Both applications were approved and the redevelopment is due for completion later this year.
The 2007 application provides for a total of 77 bedrooms across the hotel, conference facilities, bar, ballroom, dining area, garden and a car park with 86 spaces. The 2009 application showed a re-configured car park with a total of 77 spaces.
There is a current planning application (SW/09/1292) under consideration for an extension to the ballroom to provide additional storage space and a stage area. The total additional floorspace proposed is 56m2.
The application site lies within the built-up area boundary of Sittingbourne. The hotel fronts onto London Road, the main highway between Sittingbourne town centre and the A249. It also fronts onto Victoria Road, a small residential street. A Petrol Filling Station lies almost opposite the application site on London Road.
Views of Consultees
The Head of Environmental Services raises no objections to the proposal subject to a condition to control the hours of construction.
Kent Highway Services are yet to comment. Members will be informed of their views at the meeting. Continued . . .
6 2.2 (Contd) PART 2
Other Representations
Four letters of representation have been received from the residents of Victoria Road. They are concerned that the proposed extension would add to an already extensively extended hotel. The extension would be too high and overbearing in their view. The residents of no. 14 Victoria Road are concerned that the proposed extension would reduce their privacy and impact on the outlook from their property. They are also of the view that the extension would compound an existing on-street parking problem along Victoria Road. The residents of no. 40 Victoria Road are concerned that the extension would overshadow their garden. The closing date for representations is 1 February. Any additional comments received will be reported to Members at the meeting.
Policies
Policy E1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008 (SBLP) gives general guidance regarding design and amenity, amongst others. Policy E19 (SBLP) aims to achieve high quality design on all developments in the Borough.
Policy E24 (SBLP) seeks to ensure that extensions and alterations to buildings are of a high quality of design, are of an appropriate scale, maintain the character of the street scene and protect residential amenity.
Policy T3 (SBLP) deals with traffic, and seeks to minimise the highway impacts of any new development through the provision of adequate parking, sightlines, turning space, etc.
Discussion
I consider the key issues to be the impact of the extension on the visual amenities of the surrounding area, the impact on the residential amenities of the neighbouring properties and the adequacy of the parking within the site.
Visual amenities
The proposed extension has been designed to reflect the form and finish of the existing building in my view. The part of the extension that would be most visible from public vantage points (Victoria Road) would be glazed. In my opinion, this glazing would have the effect of reducing the visual presence of the extension, in my view, the structure would appear as a natural extension to the main building and would not dominate the existing structure or have a significant presence within the street scene.
Continued . . .
7 2.2 (Contd) PART 2
In terms of the resulting height of the building, it would not exceed that of the hipped roof to the existing hotel building immediately to the south of the proposed extension. It would not therefore appear at odds with the hotel building as a whole. The proposed extension would fit in with the overall architectural concept of the redevelopment of the hotel and I therefore consider that the extension would not have a detrimental impact on the visual amenities of the surrounding area.
Residential amenities
The proposed extension would be designed so that the glazing fronting Victoria Road would be obscured. I have recommended a condition (no. 2) to ensure that that level of obscurity is agreed by the Council prior to the development commencing. By providing obscure glazing to the west elevation of the proposed extension, any potential overlooking of the rear gardens of the properties opposite the application site is negated.
There would be no obscure glazing to the north elevation of the proposed extension. However, it is my opinion that there would be no significant overlooking of the properties to the north, including no. 40 Victoria Road. The proposed extension would be over 40 metres from the rear garden of 40 Victoria Road. Also of consideration is the approved extension to the north of the hotel building. This structure would significantly limit the views to the north from the proposed extension. It is very unlikely, in my opinion, that there would be any view of the areas of important private amenity space immediately to the rear of the properties in Victoria Road.
The extension would be 28 metres from the closest neighbouring property, no. 68 London Road. I consider that this distance will ensure that there is no undue impact to the occupants of this property. It is my opinion that the proposed extension would have no overshadowing or overbearing impact over and above the existing hotel building, including the extensions currently under construction.
Any noise and activity would be mostly contained within the proposed extension. The outdoor area that would be accessible from the function room would be very limited in size. It is not therefore likely to function as an extension to the function room but rather as a smoking area. This outdoor space would be provided to the south and west of the function room, away from the closest residential properties. The function room extension itself would act as a barrier to any sound generated in the small external area.
As such, I am of the view that the proposed extension would have no significant detrimental impact on the residential amenities of the neighbouring properties.
Continued . . .
8 2.2 (Contd) PART 2
Highway Implications
I am awaiting the opinion of Kent Highway Services and will report these to Members at the meeting.
Recommendation
Having considered the relevant development plan policies and the comments from local residents and consultees, I am of the opinion that the proposed extension would be of a good design that complements the architecture of the main hotel as redeveloped. I am also of the view the design and position of the extension would ensure that there would be no undue impact on the residential amenities of the neighbouring properties. As this function room would provide space for existing patrons of the hotel, I do not consider that the proposed extension would increase the need for parking at the site and as such, I am therefore of the view that the proposed extension would not have any adverse highway safety implications.
Taking the above into account and subject to the receipt of the comments of Kent Highway Services and any other representations. I recommend that planning permission is granted. ______
Responsible Officer: Rob Bailey (Area Planning Officer)
List of Backgrounds Documents
1. Application papers for SW/09/1320. 2. Correspondence relating to SW/09/1320. 3. Application papers for SW/07/0427. 4. Correspondence relating to SW/07/0427. 5. Application papers for SW/09/0600. 6. Correspondence relating to SW/09/0600
9 PART 2
2.3 SW/09/1142 (Case 16033) OSPRINGE
Location: The Meads Farm, Elverland Lane, Ospringe, Faversham, Kent, ME13 0SP
Proposal: One caravan for traveller family
Applicant/Agent: Mr Eli Smith, The Meads Farm, Elverland Lane, Ospringe, Faversham, Kent, ME13 0SP
Application Valid: 20 November 2009
Conditions (1) The use hereby permitted shall cease and the caravan and portable toilet block shall be removed from the site on or before 1st March 2012
Grounds: In order that the position may be reviewed at the end of the period stated in pursuance of Policies E1, E6, E9 and H4 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.
(2) No more than one touring caravan shall be stationed on the site.
Grounds: In the interests of the amenities of the local area, and in pursuance of policies E1, E6, E9 and H4 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008
(3) The caravans shall only be occupied by persons of gypsy/traveller status (as defined in ODPM Circular 01/2006) and by no other person(s) whatsoever.
Grounds: To ensure that the site occupants are gypsies/travellers, in pursuance of policies H4 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.
(4) The caravan shall only be stationed in the position shown coloured yellow on the approved site plan
Grounds: In the interests of the amenities of the local area, and in pursuance of policies E1, E6, E9 and H4 the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008
(6) The site shall only be used for residential purposes, and it shall not be used for any business, industrial or commercial use. In this regard no open storage of plant, products or waste may take place on the land, and no vehicle over 3.5 tonnes shall be stationed, parked or stored on the land. Continued . . .
10 2.3 (Contd) PART 2
Grounds: In the interests of visual amenity and in pursuance of Policies E1 E6, E9 and H4 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.
Reason for Approval
Having taken all material considerations into account, it is considered that subject to compliance with the attached conditions, the proposal would strike an appropriate balance between protection of the countryside and the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and the need to deliver gypsy sites in the Borough and would not cause unacceptable harm to the amenities of the area or prejudice highway safety or convenience. In resolving to grant permission, particular regard has been had to the following policies: E1, E6, E9 and H4 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.
Description of Proposal
This retrospective application seeks planning permission for one caravan for the applicant and his son. Currently there is one double-axle touring caravan on the site and a separate portable toilet building. There are also a recently erected stable building approved in 2005 (SW/05/0387), a small barn and a very small garden-type shed previously used for packing free-range eggs.
The applicant has put forward details of his gypsy status, enclosing a copy of his birth certificate which shows that he was born in a caravan at Maidstone, and he states that he has lived in a caravan and has stopped by the side of the road in Kent most of his life, most recently at Stockbury. He now has a 14 year old son who has lived with him on the site for the past 3 years. The son attends a special school in Herne Bay, normally travelling by bus to Faversham and then onwards by train. Since living on the site the son is said to have improved his behaviour, and cannot now trouble people.
The applicant explains that since he bought the land in 2004 he has cleaned it up as it was littered with rubbish. He says the caravan cannot be seen from the road, but he does not wish to change the site’s appearance or build on the site.
One letter confirming the applicant’s gypsy life style has been submitted with the application. From meeting with the applicant I understand that the site has a mains water supply and a sealed cesspool for drainage.
Site Description and Relevant Planning History
This site is an open, steeply sloping site adjoining woodland within the Kent Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB).
Continued . . .
11 2.3 (Contd) PART 2
The site, which extends to 2.3ha, lies at the lower end of Elverland Lane. Until fairly recently it had no formal planning history, but when joined to the higher level to the east, it was occupied in 2002 by caravans. An Enforcement Notice was served in September of that year against the occupation. There was no gypsy connection then, and the site was vacated, although much scrap, rubbish and shanty buildings were left behind.
Later the original occupants re-occupied the site and submitted a planning application (SW/04/0574) for stationing of 1 mobile home and 1 caravan where the current caravan stands today.
This application was refused in June 2004 on grounds relating to rural restraint policy, landscape impact and poor access.
The occupants then left the site, selling the upper parts which are now occupied by a gypsy caravan the subject of an undetermined planning application SW/04/0422, and the lower parts to the current applicant. Since buying the lower area, the applicant has sought and been granted planning permission for improvements to and retention of the site access and the erection of a small stable building (SW/05/0387) in May 2005.
He has sought to use the land for agricultural purposes with free range chickens and other livestock, but these attempts have been unsuccessful. He did submit a planning application in early 2008 (SW/08/0216) for siting a caravan on agricultural grounds, but it turned out that the financial figures would not have justified even a temporary permission, and the application was withdrawn.
However, it turned out that the applicant had stationed the caravan on the site and he says he has been living in it for the last three years, although some local residents dispute this and claim time involved is less.
The application has been submitted at my request to enable the circumstances to be fully considered.
The siting of the caravan is on a level area of land adjacent to the few small buildings on site, and is a long way (over 100m) from the road, against an area of woodland. The caravan can be seen (at distance) from the site entrance gates, but not from the road. I have walked nearby footpaths, but the caravan is not visible from them either. This is in marked contrast to the gypsy caravan on the upper part of the original site and now known as Horseshoe Farm (which is also very prominent from the M2 and an overbridge), and another site on the opposite side of Elverland Lane known as Tootsie Farm. Here a 3 year temporary gypsy site permission was granted on Appeal in November 2007 despite the Inspector commenting very adversely about the site’s landscape impact.
Continued . . .
12 2.3 (Contd) PART 2
The Tootsie Farm Decision
At Appendix A to the report I attach the Inspector’s decision letter regarding the site generally opposite this one. From it I draw the following main points:
1. The appellant was considered to be a gypsy; 2. A site within the AONB is not necessarily unacceptable; 3. The site is prominent, intrusive and difficult to landscape; 4. It is remote, but that alone would not warrant refusal of permission; 5. The access to that site was not safe in the long term; 6. At that time (October 2007) the gypsy site provision figures were newly published and the need for Swale was high; 7. The council did not at that time have a clear and modern policy for gypsy sites. 8. Personal circumstances weighed heavily in favour of a temporary permission.
I believe that many of these points can be applied to the current application site, except that the site is far less prominent, the access is approved, and the Council has now got a modern gypsy policy.
Views of Consultees
Ospringe Parish Council refer to the history of the site and of adjoining land, and consider that the application fails to meet the various policies and requirements that would be applicable to the proposed development. As such, they are opposed to the application.
Kent Highway Services have no objections to the proposal, noting that the site access and stables were approved and that the sightlines were deemed acceptable then. They ask that the sightlines again be conditioned. I do not consider this necessary as the sightlines are already conditioned by the 2005 permission.
Other Representations
The Swale Branch of the CPRE object to the application on the grounds that it contravenes policy H4 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008 as it is not close to local services and facilities, in the AONB, and does not have satisfactory water, sewerage or refuse collection facilities. They add that the applicant is from Maidstone and has no local connections, Local Plan policies are compromised, and the Inspector at Tootsie Farm said that that site was not acceptable as a permanent gypsy site.
Finally, they add that this application could be seen as part of a strategy to increase the number of caravans in the area, creating a site so large and permanent that it will be impossible to re-locate. Continued . . .
13 2.3 (Contd) PART 2 I have also received 5 letters of objection to the application from local residents on the following summarised grounds:
1. The site is within the AONB, on a greenfield site; 2. Elverland Lane is not a caravan site or potential building plot, and should be returned to open fields; 3. Swale has sufficient caravan parks not to allow erosion of the AONB; 4. The location is not sustainable, the land is agricultural and approval would set a precedent for the many nearby fields; 5. No need has been demonstrated, and a previous planning application on the site was refused; 6. The caravan was moved on in November 2007 or later, not as far back as the applicant claims. The applicant may visit but does not live on the site; 7. There is a retrospective application; 8. Previous permissions ruled out any caravans, and enforcement action should be taken on any caravans; 9. The Inspector at Tootsie Farm said that site was harmful to the landscape, dangerous and unacceptable as a permanent gypsy site. 10. A recent appeal for stables at Kennel’s Field nearby was rejected on the basis of protecting the Syndale Valley from development.
Relevant Planning Policies The Development Plan comprises the South East Plan (2009) (SEP), and the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008 (LP). LP Policy E6 seeks to protect the quality, character and amenity of the countryside, and states that development will not be permitted outside rural settlements in the interests of countryside conservation, unless related to an exceptional need for a rural location. Within the Kent Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty LP policy E9 gives protection to conservation and enhancement of natural beauty and landscape quality, with priority to this aim over other planning considerations. SEP Policy C3 gives ‘high priority’ to the conservation of natural beauty in the region’s AONBs, and whilst the social and economic well being of such areas is encouraged, this must not conflict with the wider aim. LP policy E1 sets out standards applicable to all development, saying that it should be well sited appropriate in scale, design and appearance with a high standard of landscaping, and have safe pedestrian and vehicular access whilst avoiding unacceptable consequences in highway terms. SEP Policy CC6 aims to provide local distinctiveness and high quality environments. In terms of policies directly related to the provision of gypsy sites, the South East Plan provides an ‘Interim Statement’ referring to the national aim of reducing current tensions through sustainable site provision and effective enforcement. It refers to the need for Council’s experiencing a clear and immediate need for sites to bring forward policy to deal with the issue. SEP Continued . . .
14 2.3 (Contd) PART 2
Policy H4 requires local authorities to plan for the full range of existing and future housing needs in their areas, including for gypsies and travellers, by identifying need and allocating sites accordingly. The Local Plan (in production prior to recent advice) does not assess the need for sites, or allocate any new sites, it does however, encourage gypsies to provide their own sites via Policy H4 as follows:
Policy H4 The Borough Council will only grant planning permission for the use of land for the stationing of homes for persons who can clearly demonstrate that they are gypsies or travelling showpersons with a genuine connection with the locality of the proposed site, in accordance with 1 and 2 below.
1. For proposals involving the establishment of public or privately owned residential gypsy or travelling showpersons sites:
a) there will be a proven need in the Borough for the site and for the size proposed; b) the site will be located close to local services and facilities; c) there will be no more than four caravans; d) the site will be located close to the primary or secondary road networks e) in the case of a greenfield site there is no suitable site available on previously developed land in the locality; f) the site is not designated for its wildlife, historic or landscape importance; g) the site should be served, or capable of being served, by mains water supply and a satisfactory means of sewage disposal and refuse collection; h) there is no conflict with pedestrian or highway safety; i) screening and landscaping will be provided to minimise adverse impacts; j) no industrial, retail, commercial, or storage activities will take place on the site. k) use of the site will not give rise to significant adverse impacts upon residential amenity, or agricultural or commercial use, of surrounding areas; and i) the land will not be in a designated flood risk area. Continued . . .
15 2.3 (Contd) PART 2 2. Additionally to 1, for proposals for short term stopping places: m) there will be a planning condition to ensure that the length of stay for each caravan will be no longer than 28 days with no return to the site within 3 months. At a national level, Circular 1/94 was for a long time the standard advice on gypsy sites, but this has been superseded by Circular 01/2006 which was published on 2nd February 2006, along with a raft of other guidance and draft advice relating to this field. It has changed the planning landscape in relation to the provision of gypsy sites, and bears full and careful consideration.
The circular recognises that the abolition of the duty to provide gypsy sites, and the encouragement of gypsies to find their own sites, has failed to result in adequate provision. It has resulted in conflict and controversy, and to anti- social behaviour. The new guidance aims to plan for gypsies, and at the same time to enable authorities to take more effective action against unlawful encampments where proper provision is being made. This provision is intended to be through development plan allocations, and if necessary, acquisition and development of necessary sites, based on needs assessments – in much the same way as local plans allocate for conventional housing.
The circular importantly introduces a new definition of gypsies and travellers as;
“Persons of nomadic habit of life whatever their race or origin, including such persons who on grounds only of their own or their family’s or dependent’s educational or health needs or old age have ceased to travel temporarily or permanently, but excluding members of an organised group of travelling show people or circus people travelling together as such.”
This definition now allows for those who have stopped travelling to still be defined as gypsies if they have stopped doing so for educational, health or old age reasons.
The new planning circular explains that traditional gypsy lifestyles involving scrap metal, laying tarmacadam, seasonal agricultural work, casual labouring and other employment are changing, and that the community has become more settled, and is now operating in trades which require less mobility. This is essentially leading to the need for more permanent sites, from which gypsies can travel, and this allows better access to education and health care. Continued . . .
16 2.3 (Contd) PART 2
To plan for this, the new circular proposes that the likely scale of gypsy site need is assessed regionally, with caravan pitch numbers incorporated into Regional Spatial Strategies, and then translated into needs for individual local authorities. These numbers would in turn be translated into local allocations in the new development plan documents, which will eventually supersede the current and emerging Local Plans. This is intended to provide greater certainty, even though it is recognised as being a more difficult process than using solely criteria based policies, as we do now.
This process began in Swale by our involvement in the joint commissioning of the North Kent Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment (GTAA). This was published in December 2007 and indicates that despite the Council’s good record of approving private gypsy sites, the Borough has a relatively high raw need of 62 pitches for the 2006-2011 period, one of the highest in Kent.
We are still awaiting the final Regional Guidance figures, and whilst this may be lower, this is not yet certain.
In the meantime, the circular advice about dealing with the current application is to use other means of assessing need. Aside from any early results from needs assessments, the circular recommends that authorities utilise the following information sources; a) continuous assessment of incidents of unauthorised encampments, both short and long term; these have been quite high in Swale but mostly relate to one particular small group of families, and have reduced recently b) the numbers and outcomes of planning applications and appeals; here temporary planning permissions have resulted from most recent gypsy site appeals, but the Council has granted a number of permanent and temporary permissions. c) levels of occupancy, plot turnover and waiting lists for public authorised sites; here we have high levels of site occupancy, low plot turnover and long waiting lists for public sites. d) the status of existing authorised sites, including those which are unoccupied and those subject to temporary or personal planning permission, one of which at Oak Lane, Upchurch only had temporary permission until early 2009. e) the twice-yearly Caravan Count undertaken on behalf of ODPM, which gives a picture of numbers and historic trends.
Continued . . .
17 2.3 (Contd) PART 2
The circular states that local authorities will be expected to demonstrate that they have considered this information, where relevant, before any decisions to refuse a planning application for a gypsy or traveller site, and to provide it as part of any appeal documentation.
The circular goes on to say that where there is an unmet need but there is a reasonable expectation that new sites are likely to become available at the end of that period in the area which will meet that need, local planning authorities should give consideration to granting a temporary planning permission. The advice suggests that this might be when site allocations are being prepared. However, such temporary permissions are not seen as setting a precedent for a full permission on any particular site, and should not involve substantial capital outlay.
With regard to the provision of sites in rural areas, the new guidance indicates that Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (where this site lies), conservation areas, scheduled Monuments and Registered Parks and Gardens should only be seen as appropriate for gypsy and traveller sites if it can be shown that the objectives of the area’s designation will not be compromised by the development.
Finally, in paragraph 43, the circular states that where there is a clear and immediate need such as here, as evidenced by the number of unauthorised encampments and the GTAA, local authorities should bring forward Development Plan Documents (DPDs) containing site allocations in advance of regional consideration of pitch numbers.
In January 2009 the Council published a consultation draft Gypsy and Traveller Corporate Policy to address the issue of gypsy site provision. This recognised that the Borough has traditionally had one of the largest gypsy and traveller populations within Kent and the South-East of England, often related to traditional farming activities. Since 8 July 2009, when the policy was agreed by the Council’s Executive, it has been adopted and I have had regard to the questionnaire based approach in the policy to aid assessment of the current application.
The policy is based on meeting the predicted site needs from the GTAA subject to the results of the regional consultations, and whilst the Circular advocates a site allocations policy, the Council’s policy explains that the combination of the wide range of pitch numbers potentially required, and the Council’s good record of approving small private sites, means that at this stage a site allocations approach is not the right way forward for Swale.
Continued . . .
18 2.3 (Contd) PART 2
Instead, it proposes to undertake a full survey of potential sites against a set of criteria in accordance with Government Guidance to be undertaken later in the year. This will include a review of current temporary permissions and an assessment of the potential of publicly owned land to meet the identified need. This, together with finding a solution for a persistent group of families at Sittingbourne (who are responsible for the vast majority of the unauthorised encampments in the Borough), is expected to see the Council making adequate provision to meet needs.
The Policy includes a questionnaire against which all potential sites are to be scored. I have had regard to this questionnaire in considering this application. The current application is secluded and although in the AONB scores well in environmental terms. It is a little remote from public services (although the Tootsie Farm Inspector did not rule that site out on that basis alone). It therefore appears to be within the likely range of possible sites to be allocated in the policy.
Discussion
I consider the main issue for determination is whether this site is suitable for use as a gypsy site, on either a permanent or temporary basis.
The current situation with regard to gypsy and traveller sites in Swale is that the GTAA and records of unauthorised encampments show a strong need for additional sites. Both public sites are full and there are no alternative sites yet identified.
The Council’s adopted Policy H4 is a criteria based policy, at odds with current advice, and whilst the Local Plan Inspector had no option but to retain it, he did require that in adopting the Plan it says that the Council is urgently reviewing the policy, and that in the meantime the circular will take precedence over the policy.
However, the Council has now adopted a Corporate Policy to assess and identify sites at least commensurate with the likely pitch numbers arising from regional policy. Notwithstanding this, the Council has granted permanent planning permission for three brand new sites, and a further 7 temporary permissions since the publication of Circular 01/2006. A further 1 permanent, 1 personal and 3 temporary permissions have been granted on appeal.
Continued . . .
19 2.3 (Contd) PART 2
Only four sites have been refused planning permission. Two of these are at Badlesmere and at Throwley Forstal, also within the Kent Downs AONB, currently at appeal, but both are far more prominent and harmful to the landscape of the AONB than this site is.
The Council’s current approach is new, and yet untested. However, it represents a pro-active and radical shift from the adopted Local Plan’s criteria based policy H4. Until the site provision process has been worked through I have commonly recommended the granting of temporary planning permissions on potentially suitable sites.
The question now on my mind is whether permanent or temporary planning permission should be granted in this instance, bearing in mind the relatively high pitch provision required across the Borough.
In 2007 the Inspector who dealt with the Tootsie Farm site had the benefit of the GTAA figures (62 pitches) but he had no indication of when or how the Council would be moving to ensure that adequate sites were made available. This resulted in a temporary planning permission being granted.
The position is quite different now. The pitch figure for Swale may be less than half the number first published, and the Council has an adopted policy to provide pitches. This leads me to the conclusion that the Council is working positively to be able to provide adequate pitches in environmentally acceptable areas.
In 2007 the Inspector found the Tootsie Farm site unacceptable for a permanent planning permission but did grant a temporary permission. I find the position on this site represents a far more powerful argument for a temporary permission. The site is secluded, against woodland, and the caravan has very little impact on the character of the landscape.
Highway safety is not at risk, and personal circumstances weigh in favour of allowing the applicant’s son to continue his education as consistently as possible.
I believe the site’s relative remoteness means that the case for a permanent permission is not yet made.
Continued . . .
20 2.3 (Contd) PART 2
Recommendation
I consider that the notion of approving gypsy sites in the AONB has to be considered most carefully. Nevertheless, on a very prominent and intrusive site opposite, a temporary planning permission was granted on Appeal. I believe that despite the Council’s progress towards a modern gypsy policy in the meantime the future picture is not yet certain.
All other factors point to this site being far less objectionable, and easily distinguishable both from Tootsie Farm and from Horseshoe Farm, as these are distinctly intrusive and harmful to the landscape in a way which this site is not.
The fact that the Council saw fit to approve a stable block here is evidence of its secluded nature. I do not yet think that a permanent permission is justified as I would hope that sufficient sites will come through the Council’s new policy, and I therefore recommend that a 2-year temporary permission be granted.
Responsible Officer – Graham Thomas (Area Planning Officer)
List of Background Documents
1. Application papers for SW/09/1142
2. Application papers and correspondence relating to SW/08/0216, SW/05/0387, SW/04/0422 and SW/04/0574
3. Appeal Decision APP/V2255/C/07/2040926 dated 15 November 2007
21
APPENDIX A ITEM 2. PART 2
22
PART 2
2.4 SW/09/1103 (Case 23656) LEYSDOWN
Location: Land South of Leysdown Road, Leysdown, Sheppey, Kent, ME12 4LH
Proposal: Change of use of land from agriculture to agriculture and boot fair on Sundays and bank holidays between 1st March and 31st October being the relocation of the car boot fair use permitted under SW/95/0858 (case no 5764) dated 7th November 1996.
Applicant/Agent: Mr Henry Cooper, c/o Mr P Sharpe, Paul Sharpe Associates, The Old Rectory, Burytown Lane, Broad Blunsdon, Swindon, Wilts, SN26 7DQ
Application Valid: 5 November 2009
Conditions
(1) The use of the land for boot fairs shall cease on or before 31st October 2012.
Grounds: In the interests of the amenities of the area, and to allow the situation to be reviewed at the end of the period, in pursuance of Policies E1 and E2 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.
(2) The boot fair use shall exist only for the benefit of H Cooper Esq, and for no other person or persons whatsoever, and shall be operated on Sundays and bank holidays between 1st March and 31st October only and not on any other days.
Grounds: In the interests of the amenities of the area and highway convenience and in pursuance of policies E1 & E2 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.
(3) The number of sales pitches (vehicles and stalls) on the site at any one time shall not exceed 200.
Grounds: In the interests of the amenities of the area and highway safety and convenience and in pursuance of policies E1, E2 & T1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008
Continued . . .
35 2.4 (Contd) PART 2
(4) The highway alterations as shown on drawing number H357/01 Revision A, including the insertion of the pedestrian crossing and new footway, and the inclusion of new dropped kerbs to both the proposed access into and exit from the site shall be completed prior to the use hereby permitted being commenced and shall be maintained until the use ceases.
Grounds: In the interests of highway safety and convenience and in pursuance of policy T1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.
(5) Traders' vehicles shall not be permitted to arrive, be unloaded or loaded within the site before 7.00am or after 2.00pm and customers vehicles shall not be admitted to the site before 8.00am. All vehicles and stalls brought onto the site shall be removed by 3.00pm.
Grounds: In order to protect neighbouring amenity and in pursuance of policies E1 & E2 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.
(6) The areas shown on drawing 09.23.02C as an area of bootfair pitches and parking for visitors shall be reserved for these uses and shall be kept available for those purposes only at all times when the bootfair is open.
Grounds: In order to ensure that adequate provision is made for parking and stall holders and to ensure highway safety and convenience, in pursuance of policies E1, E2 & T3 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.
(7) Any loudspeaker, public address system or music used in connection with the bootfair/funfair shall not be audible beyond the boundary of the site.
Grounds: In order to protect neighbouring amenity and in pursuance of policies E1 & E2 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.
(8) Litter bins or containers shall be provided throughout the site for use by the public at a minimum ratio of one bin per six stalls. The application site, and all verges and footpaths within 50m of the site shall be cleared of all litter, debris etc resulting from the bootfair within 1 hour or its closure to the public.
Grounds: In the interests of the visual amenities of the area and in pursuance of policies E1 & E2 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.
Continued . . .
36 2.4 (Contd) PART 2
(9) Each stall shall be provided with a refuse container and all refuse sacks, containers and skips shall be removed from the site within one hour of the closure of the bootfair to the public.
Grounds: In the interests of the visual amenities of the area and in pursuance of policies E1 & E2 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.
(10) A mobile toilet block shall be kept available for use whenever the bootfair is in operation.
Grounds: In the interests of amenity and in pursuance of policy E1of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.
(11) The sight lines shown on drawing H357/01 Revision A shall be provided with no obstruction over 1.05 metres above carriageway level prior to the first bootfair use, and thereafter no such obstruction shall be placed within the sight lines once agreed.
Grounds: In the interests of highway and in pursuance of policy T1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.
(12) The eastern site access shall be used as an ingress only and a scheme of signage to ensure no exit by bootfair vendors or customers vehicles from this access shall be submitted to and approved by the District Planning Authority and maintained whenever the bootfair is operated.
Grounds: In the interests of highway and in pursuance of policy T1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.
(13) At all times when the bootfair is being operated, marshalls shall be employed to control traffic and to give effect to the above conditions relating to traffic entry and exit and litter collection etc.
Grounds: In the interests of the amenities of the area and highway safety and convenience and in pursuance of policies E1, E2 & T1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.
Reason for Approval Having taken all material considerations into account, it is considered that subject to compliance with the attached conditions, the proposal would be in accordance with the development plan and would not cause unacceptable harm to the amenities of the area or prejudice highway safety or convenience. In resolving to grant permission, particular regard has been had to the following policies: E1, E2, E6, E8, E11, RC1, RC2, B3, B4, T1 and T3 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.
Continued . . .
37 2.4 (Contd) PART 2
Description of Proposal
This application was reported to last month’s planning committee meeting and was deferred to allow Warden Parish Council further time to comment on the application.
This application proposes the change of use of a field from agriculture use to also include a bootfair use on Sundays and bank holidays between 1st March and 31st October at land South of Leysdown, Leysdown Road, Sheppey. The proposal is a relocation of an existing bootfair permission which was located on the other side of Leysdown Road which was permitted under planning reference SW/95/0858.
Members may recall that a similar application for the same site was refused by the Planning Committee in July 2009. This is a resubmission that seeks to specifically deal with the three reasons for refusal which related to highway concerns. The three reasons for refusal were as follows;
“(1) The proposed development is likely to generate an increase in pedestrian traffic on a highway lacking adequate footways and crossing facilities with consequent additional hazards to all users of the road. As such the proposal would be detrimental to highway safety and convenience, contrary to Policies E1 and T4 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.
(2) The traffic generated by the proposed development would be likely to increase the conflict of traffic movements close to an existing junction resulting in additional hazard and inconvenience to all users of the road. As such the proposal would be detrimental to highway safety and convenience, contrary to Policies E1 and T1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.
(3) The traffic generated by the proposal would be likely to lead to delays on the local highway network, and cause unnecessary inconvenience and additional hazards to all users of the highway. As such the proposal would be detrimental to highway safety and convenience, contrary to Policies E1 and T1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.”
This application is the same in all respects to the previous application except alterations have been proposed to meet the highway concerns, which include alterations to the proposed access/ egress, a new pedestrian crossing, a revised “in-out” arrangement and marshalling on boot fair days. In addition the applicant has requested a permanent permission due to the cost involved in carrying out the proposed alterations, such as the insertion of a pedestrian crossing and new footway.
Continued . . .
38 2.4 (Contd) PART 2
The application site abuts Leysdown Road and has two existing entrances, one opposite Warden Bay Road, which is the proposed exit, and the other opposite the telephone exchange, which is the proposed entrance. The site measures approximately 5.6 hectares and is relatively flat.
Portable chemical toilets would be provided on the site to serve the bootfair and two staff would be employed on a regular basis, with five others performing part time roles. Litter bins would be provided at the end of each aisle and two skips would be located on site, one for cardboards and one for general waste.
The proposed site layout for the bootfair includes a large area for car parking which covers just over half of the site and would be located at the western side of the site spanning from the road to the back of the site. The boot fair pitches would be located at the eastern side of the site, with a disabled parking area to the front of the pitches.
The agent has submitted an accompanying statement. An extract reads as follows; “Background Planning permission reference SW/95/0858 (Case No. 5764) for use of land to the north of Leysdown Road for Mr Cooper’s car boot fair was granted (on appeal) on 7th November 1996 and, being a permission personal to Mr Cooper, has operated successfully on Sundays and Bank Holidays since that time.
However, part of the above site has now been sold to Kent County Council for education purposes and the remainder has been ploughed up, such that it is not possible to stage a car boot fair on the permitted site. Mr Cooper neither owns the site on the north side of Leysdown Road nor has he any lease thereof and therefore is not able to implement his personal permission for a car boot fair on that site.
The current application therefore seeks simply to relocate a car boot fair that has operated successfully since at least 1995 from one side of Leysdown Road (north side) to the other (south side), to a site known as Caesar’s Field.
Proposed use Caesar’s Field is used generally for grazing purposes but has been the site of a visiting fun fair for the last 30 years. During the summer of 2009 a funfair was held on the site generally at the same time at the same time as the boot fair. In practice, the boot fair would finish by 2.00pm whereas the funfair tended to be an evening event. Nevertheless, in future the site will be used only for boot fair use and the funfair will find an alternative venue. This has been agreed with the owner of the boot fair site
As before the current proposal is simply to relocate Mr Cooper’s boot fair from the site of planning permission SW/95/0858 to Caesar’s Field, thus changing the use of the field from agriculture and fun fair use to “agriculture and car boot fair use” Continued . . .
39 2.4 (Contd) PART 2
The proposed car boot fair would continue to be operated by Mr Cooper and would operate on Sundays and Bank Holidays between 1st March and 31st October.
Generally, the boot fair would open at 6.00 am, litter bins having first been set up at the ends of each aisle together with temporary directional signage for car parking and disabled parking. Space exists for about 200 pitches, about 450 parking spaces and about 30 disabled parking spaces. Adequate space would also be available for cycle parking and a scheduled bus stop exists on the Leysdown Road frontage of the site.
The boot fair would provide employment for 2 people and 5 others on a part- time basis. Two skips would be located on-site, one for cardboard and one for general waste and they would be emptied as required. Three chemical toilets would also be provided.”
Highway Improvements Following the refusal of planning permission in July 09 informal discussions have taken place with Mr Alun Millard of Kent Highway Services who, without prejudice, has indicated that the associated highway issues are capable of resolution. Consequently PFA Consulting were commissioned to address the issues and a Transport Report together with drawing H357/01 Rev A detailing highway improvement works now accompanies the application.
The drawing shows revised arrangements for vehicular access/egress to/from the site and in particular improved arrangements for pedestrians to cross Leysdown Road especially those approaching from the Warden Bay Road direction. Not only would the proposed crossing point for pedestrians improve arrangements for visitors to the boot fair but pedestrian access to the bus stop to the south side of Leysdown Road would also be improved.
Dropped kerbs at the exit and entrance points together with an “in-out” arrangement and appropriate marshalling on boot fair days complete the application proposals appropriately addressing the highway concerns.
In summary, the proposed highway arrangements and works appropriately address the reasons for refusal previously cited by the Highway Authority. Adequate facilities would be provided for pedestrians crossing Leysdown Road; conflicting traffic movements would be minimised and delays on the network would be obviated. In addition improved access to a bus stop would be facilitated.”
Relevant Site History and Description The site is located in the countryside, outside of the built up area boundary of Leysdown.
As explained earlier in the report, planning permission was refused in July 2009 under planning reference SW/09/0408 for a similar proposal for change of use of the land to include a bootfair use on Sundays and bank holidays between 1st March and 31st October. Continued . . .
40 2.4 (Contd) PART 2
The previous site used by the applicant for the bootfair has a complex history. I will briefly outline the details.
SW/94/258 – change of use from grazing to grazing and Sunday boot fair between 1 March and 31 October each year. This application was approved on a temporary basis in May 1994 and allowed the bootfair to operate until the end of October of the same year. This permission also included a condition restricting the types of goods that could be sold at the bootfair ie not goods that you would normally find on a market stall or a retail shop.
Following this permission, the applicant applied to renew the permission later the same year under planning reference SW/94/1135. This was approved in April 1995 with similar conditions, although the temporary period had been increased to three years, and the condition (12) restricting the sale of certain goods had been altered to state “No stall or vehicle brought onto the site in association with the Sunday bootfair use hereby permitted shall be used primarily for the sale of new goods; a sign reading "No market Traders" shall be erected at both entrances and removed when the boot fair is not in operation. The grounds read “As unrestricted retail sales could be detrimental to the vitality and viability of the retail centre of Leysdown”.
In 1995 under planning reference SW/95/858 the applicant applied to remove conditions 1 and 12 of the previous approval (SW/94/1135) which in effect were the removal of the temporary time period and the restriction of the type of goods that could be sold. The application was reported to at Committee where it was resolved to refuse the application, although the application remained undetermined.
Following this the applicant appealed to the Planning Inspectorate who allowed the appeal on the basis that the conditions were unreasonable and unnecessary and failed to meet the tests set out in the circular relating to planning conditions. The Inspector concluded that a bootfair operating for just 5 hours a week would not represent significant competition with permanent premises in Leysdown.
Views of Consultees
Natural England have raised no objections to the application.
The Environment Agency have no comments to make.
Leysdown Parish Council objects to the application on all grounds previously submitted and feel that the information provided does not address those issues, in particular the points raised by Kent Highways. In addition:
Continued . . .
41 2.4 (Contd) PART 2
a) Leysdown Councillors would like to know what size the pitches will be - there is concern that without this information, the number of pitches could be increased above the 200 stated in the application, since the sizes could be reduced. Also, traders who attend the event may have 'one pitch' but actually take up the space of several pitches if the size is not clarified. b) Can you confirm why the event was allowed to continue in 2009 without enforcement action taking place? c) The Parish Council has no problem with car boot sales but objects to traders on the grounds that it affects local businesses, in terms of competition to traders in these very difficult economic circumstances at peak times of the trading year. It is acknowledged that the Boot Fair attracts people to Leysdown, but they do not then come into the Village to spend their money. d) It was noted that the boot fairs taking place towards the end of the 2009 season did not have traffic marshals and were using the sub- station entrance for both access and exiting of the site which Councillors find unacceptable, particularly when the owners of the Boot Fair are aware of the objections being raised regarding traffic. e) The Parish Council notes that there is no system of monitoring the cars entering the site in terms of registering of number plates to help trace or prevent the sale of stolen or counterfeit goods. This is a regular practice taking place across Kent at Boot Fairs of this size and the Parish Council feels that such a system would encourage buyer confidence. f) As stated previously, the Parish Council considers that this planning application must be treated as a completely new application. The permission to grant the Boot Fair on its original site was granted 10 years ago, and cannot be given the same consideration since times have changed considerably in Leysdown. The Parish Council and members of the public have already raised concern about the blocking of access into Leysdown caused by the heavy traffic which is more noticable when the Boot Fair takes place, whether at the old or the new location. This discourages people from visiting Leysdown's beaches, businesses and coastal parks during the peak season, and prevents residents of both Leysdown and Warden from using the local amenities on Sundays and Bank Holidays. It is simply not worth waiting in the traffic to go to Leysdown and this situation is renowned across Sheppey. Those residents who need to go to church, or those who would like visitors, or who need medical support (such as one resident in Leysdown Road who needs a Macmillan nurse) on Sundays and Bank Holidays have to plan around the terrible traffic situation. There is also the concern that emergency vehicles who have to use this main road to access Leysdown and Warden would struggle to get through the traffic.
Continued . . .
42 2.4 (Contd) PART 2
g) The Parish Council would like to know if the Boot Fair has permission from the owners of the electricity sub-station to use their land as an access for hundreds of cars and heavy vehicles, and if they have given permission, are the owners fully aware of the amount of heavy traffic using the access. (The Parish Council recognises that this is not grounds for objection, but would nevertheless like this point clarified please).
Although Warden bay Parish Council were written to on 17 November 2009, they have not yet commented on the application. Any comments received will be reported at the meeting.
Kent Highway Services have raised no objection to the application subject to conditions recommended above.
Other Representations
Two letters of objection have been received from neighbouring residents. Their comments can be summarised as follows;
• The bootfair causes severe disruption and contributes nothing to the economy • Jenkins Hill is a black spot and any increase in traffic could cause more problems – particularly for emergency vehicles • The only road into Warden Bay is blocked by traffic – local residents become prisoners • At numerous meetings with Borough Officers they admitted that there had been mistakes made in the handling of the application for the original bootfair, and that they would learn from these mistakes, obviously they haven't. • There is already a pedestrian island in the road further along, and the exit to the boot fair is already opposite Warden Bay Road. • More of a market than a bootfair and is in a very dangerous position on the road, bearing in mind the number of daytrippers and holidaymakers, and the problems of visitors not being able to get to residents due to extreme traffic delays.
Planning Policies
The policies most relevant to this application are E1 (general criteria), E2 (Pollution), E6 (Countryside), E8 (Development on agricultural land), E11 (Protecting the quality of the landscape), RC1 (Revitalising the rural economy), RC2 (Retaining rural services and facilities), B3 (Town Centres), B4 (New Retail Development), T1 (Providing safe access) & T3 (parking for new development) of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.
Continued . . .
43 2.4 (Contd) PART 2
Discussion The main considerations in this case have not altered since the previously refused application on highway grounds and the key considerations remain; • Whether the proposed use is acceptable in principle and essentially demands a rural location • What the implications are arising from the previous appeal decision • What the benefits could be to the local area • Impact on highway safety and convenience
The revised application has sought to deal with the highway concerns. All other aspects of the application remain unchanged.
With regards to the first consideration, I consider the proposed location in a rural field to be acceptable on the basis that it is a use that would usually only take place on one day in any week. The main use of the land would continue to be as an agricultural field. Of course the principle was carefully considered back in the mid 1990’s when the bootfair use was first granted at the previous site, which was also located in the countryside. I therefore do not consider that the proposed alternative use of the site would compromise the agricultural use of the site, which incidently remains in the ownership of a farmer. Although the use does not necessarily demand a rural location, it would be very difficult to locate a site of a suitable size to be able to accommodate such a use within a built up area. In addition, because of the occasional nature of the use (usually one day a week), I do not consider the proposal would have a significant impact on the character of the rural area or raise environmental concerns.
Concern has been raised previously by some neighbouring residents and Leysdown Parish Council regarding the type of goods that can/ should be sold at the bootfair and if this causes competition with the shops in Leysdown and whether the proposal should really be called a market rather than a bootfair. This is not a new issue, but is something that has been carefully considered during all of the previous planning applications for the bootfair (at both this site and the previous site). It is also an issue that Members of the Planning Committee previously raised concern about at the previous site and wished to control by way of a planning condition restricting the type of goods that could be sold. The aim of this was to try and prevent a loss of trade to businesses within Leysdown. However, the applicant successfully appealed against a non-determined application that sought to remove the condition that restricted the type of goods sold in 1995 (planning reference SW/95/0858) and the Inspector concluded that it was unreasonable to restrict the type of goods sold as the bootfair only operates for 5 hours a week, this would not impact greatly on the viability of Leysdown. Given this strong message from the Planning Inspector on such matters, I have not recommended a condition of this type be attached to this application should Members wish to permit the change of use.
Continued . . .
44 2.4 (Contd) PART 2
There is also a counter-argument that Members may wish to consider which is that the bootfair could actually help to support the retail trade in Leysdown rather than compete with it.
Some residents previously raised concern about issues such as litter and mud on the road. I have attempted to address such issues by way of planning conditions, however, as I am recommending a temporary permission, these issues can of course be monitored over the temporary period.
With regards to the likely impact on highway safety, this is an issue that previously was of great concern to the Parish Council, Kent Highway Services some local residents and the committee. In response to these concerns, the applicant commissioned PFA Consulting to undertake a transport report to attempt to resolve the concerns raised, specifically in respect of the reasons for refusal.
The revised proposal involves the creation of a new pedestrian crossing towards the western end of the site along Leysdown Road. A new footway link is also proposed to the southern side of Leysdown Road, linking the proposed crossing point, the existing bus stop facility and the application site. The application also proposes to widen the existing access and to provide a dedicated lane for vehicles turning into the site from the west and the east with signage and marshalling. The parking arrangements have been arranged to ensure that vehicles can park quickly without the need to queue back on the road.
I have considered the proposal very carefully, taking into account the new highway measures proposed by the applicant. I understand that the report commissioned based on discussions with Kent Highway Services who have advised what measures they consider would overcome their objections to the application. Although I have yet to receive formal comments from Kent Highway Services regarding the application, I do not expect them to raise objection to the application. I consider the measures proposed by the applicant would successfully deal with the previous reasons for refusal, and the new pedestrian crossing in particular would offer significant benefits to the whole community. I would also like to remind Members that the proposal would only operate for limited months of the year, and generally for just a few hours on only one day in any week (except for Bank Holidays). Therefore I consider the proposed highway measures would be effective in preventing highway safety and convenience issues at the site bearing in mind the limited days and hours of operation. However, to ensure this is the case, and despite the applicant’s request and the obvious costs of the proposed works, I believe that a temporary permission is appropriate to enable the Council to assess how effective these measures are on the ground.
Continued . . .
45 2.4 (Contd) PART 2
Recommendation
This application seeks a change of use from agriculture to agriculture and bootfair on Sundays and Bank Holiday Mondays between 1st March and 31st October at land South of Leysdown, Leysdown Road, Sheppey.
The application seeks to address Members’ previous concerns on highway grounds and has proposed site specific measures to provide access to the site.
Members will note that despite the applicants request for a permanent permission I am recommending a temporary permission which I consider to be reasonable in this case as we are dealing with a new site with different highway implications and it would allow officers to monitor the situation, particularly with regards to the highway issues and to monitor whether the proposed measures have successfully alleviated the highway concerns.
I consider that subject to the above conditions, the proposal would not give rise to unacceptable harm to neighbouring amenity or highway safety issues.
Responsible Officer: Graham Thomas (Area Planning Officer)
List of Background Documents
1. Application Papers for Application SW/09/1103
2. Application Papers for Applications SW/09/0408, SW/94/0258, SW/94/1135 and SW/95/0858
46 PART 2
2.5 SW/09/1216 (Case 23877) LEYSDOWN
Location: The Lookout, Shellness Hamlet, Leysdown, Sheerness, Kent, ME12 4RP
Proposal: First floor bedroom extension
Applicant/Agent: Ms M Switters, c/o Mr R Baker, 31 Highsted Road, Sittingbourne, Kent, ME10 4PS.
Application Valid: 22 November 2009
SUBJECT TO: Further information from applicant regarding ownership
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) Samples of materials to be used on the exterior of the development hereby permitted shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the District Planning Authority before the development is commenced.
Grounds: In the interests of visual amenity and in pursuance of Policies E1 and E19 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.
(3) No materials, machinery or plant shall be stored or disposed of within the boundary of the Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and no machinery or plant shall be driven or operated within the boundary of the SSSI. All contractors working on site should be made aware of this advice and should be provided with plans showing the boundary of the SSSI in relation to the application site.
Grounds: In the interests of preserving the character of the SSSI, and in pursuance of Policies E1 and E13 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.
Continued . . .
47 2.5 (Contd) PART 2
Reason for Approval
Having taken all material considerations into account, it is considered that subject to compliance with the attached conditions, the proposal would enhance the appearance of the building and its surroundings, and would not cause unacceptable harm to the amenities of the area or prejudice highway safety or convenience. In resolving to grant permission, particular regard has been given to the following policies: E1, E6, E9, E13, E19 and E24 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.
Description of Proposal
This application is for a first floor extension to a single storey holiday home at ‘The Lookout’, Shellness Hamlet, Leysdown.
The proposal is to add a first floor in render to this single storey structure. This would measure 4.8 metres by 6.6 metres, with a further projecting balcony to the front with a projection of 1.5 metres. The total height of the building would be increased from 4 metres to 6.2 metres. The extension would provide a ‘loft’ bedroom to the property.
Relevant Site History and Description
The property is an original wartime coastal lookout building, situated adjacent to the beach at Shellness Hamlet, which is a small, private estate of holiday homes, situated at the end of the Leysdown/Shellness peninsula. The property is not connected to any essential services ( water, gas, electricity, etc).
The hamlet situated at the entrance eastern tip of the Isle of Sheppey outside any built-up area boundary, and is somewhat unique within the Borough, being very rural and remote in nature. The site originally held wartime barracks and other military buildings, hence the remaining Lookout. It should be noted that, due to the age and provenance of the buildings in the hamlet, although used as holiday homes, none are subject to seasonal occupancy restrictions. The hamlet is surrounded by the Swale site of special scientific interest (SSSI), and lies within a Special Landscape Area.
There is no planning history for this particular property.
Views of Consultees
I await the views of Leysdown Parish Council, which I will report to the Committee at the meeting.
Natural England have no objection, subject to the extension not altering the existing floor plan,and no materials being stored within the SSSI. Continued . . .
48 2.5 (Contd) PART 2
Other Representations
Sixteen letters and emails of objection have been received. Their contents may be summarised as follows:
• Inappropriate design for this most prominent building – principle acceptable if more sympathetic design is submitted • Inadequate drawings lacking dimensions and details of external finishes • Height of proposed building would be out-of-keeping and prominent from the beach • Building is very prominent and iconic; proposals would have negative effect on landscape and the hamlet as a whole • Balcony unacceptable – on land not owned by applicant and would encroach on and overlook beach • Upper floor would overlook adjacent swimming pool area, especially at the shallow end. • Historic interest of existing building which has remained unchanged for many years • Balcony would be unsafe in high winds • A number of properties have been/are being extended within the hamlet without the benefit of planning permission • The Shellness Board have been approving planning proposals that have not been submitted to SBC • Little architectural effort has been made to soften the impact of the proposed development • Why did SBC send letters to the individual properties surrounding the Lookout, without sending letters to the addresses where the owners normally live? • Not enough people consulted and not enough time to respond to consultation, due to Christmas and New Year period • Design of elevation facing the hamlet is particularly poor • Shellness Estate have final say, not SBC • “It will be essentially a 3-floor building” • Proposed design is an “eyesore” • Request for a redesign of the roofline facing west
Nine emails of support have also been received, and may be summarised as follows:
• The property is in desperate need of refurbishment, and does not even have a proper bedroom • Proposal would not in the least detract from the hamlet as a whole • No adverse affect on any other properties • Other owners have added similar extensions without the benefit of planning permission Continued . . .
49 2.5 (Contd) PART 2
• This extension is vital for the applicant • The applicant spoke to many local people before submitting her application • A pitched roof would look better
Planning Policies
The following policies of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008 are relevant:
E1 (General Criteria) E6 (Protecting the Countryside) E9 (Protecting the Borough’s Landscape) E13 (The Coastal Zone) E19 (Design Criteria) E24 (Extensions) RC4 (Extensions to Rural Dwellings)
Discussion
This application is for a first floor extension at The Lookout, Shellness Hamlet, Leysdown. The application has attracted a high level of local feeling, both in objection and in support. The subjects which appear to be issues of contention refer to design, the position and character of the existing building, whether or not SBC is the correct District Planning Authority, and the timescales and methods for consultation. I will deal with these issues in turn:
1. Design. Many of the objections make reference to the design of the proposed extension, and those comments range from being in favour of the design, to referring to the scheme as an ‘eyesore’. I consider the design to be acceptable, as it is low impact and has a distinctly nautical appearance, which I consider to be acceptable due to the location of the building directly adjacent to the sea. It should also be noted that the hamlet is a collection of eclectic building designs, with no uniform lines or designs.
Some say that a pitched roof design would be better. My view is that this would inevitably be taller, and that elsewhere in the hamlet a similar roof form exists, plus this type of design is very appropriate for a lookout building, re-inforcing its identity.
2. Position & Character of the existing building. Much has been made of the building’s prominence within the hamlet. I would fully acknowledge that the building stands alone, apart from other residences, but this also adds to the acceptability of the scheme, as it is less likely to adversely affect nearby buildings. With regard to issues of overlooking to the beach and swimming pool, there are already existing windows overlooking these areas, and I fail to see how the addition of a balcony Continued . . .
50 2.5 (Contd) PART 2
would make this situation worse. With reference to the character and historical interest of the existing building, it has neither the historical nor the architectural merit necessary to merit Listing, and the addition of the existing small rear extension has removed any such interest that the building may have had. I would note that issues of ownership of the land for the balcony are ones that I am exploring with the applicant.
3. Swale Borough Council as District Planning Authority. Swale Borough Council is the District planning Authority, not, as some objectors seem to suggest, the Shellness Estate Board. The terms of ownership may or may not require the extra approval of the Board (I have no evidence to either support or deny this), but to state that the Board should have sole control is incorrect. Reference has been made to the Board ‘approving’ planning applications which have not been submitted to SBC. My Officers made a detailed inspection of the entire hamlet when making their site visit, and noticed a number of unauthorised extensions. Officers will further investigate these extensions, and will take appropriate action, if necessary.
4. Timescales and methods of Consultation. Whilst it is unfortunate that the application was going through the consultation process over the Christmas and New Year period, the Council has no control over such deadlines, as they are laid down in statute. The Council fully acknowledges the fact that these properties are indeed usually used as holiday homes, although there is no limit on their occupancy. In view of this, SBC sent a letter to the gatehouse, as the Council was advised that such details if so sent would be forwarded to all the residents. Therefore, I would contend that the Council has gone above and beyond the necessary consultation process.
With regard to other aspects of the application, I would agree that the application is not strictly within the guidelines given within the SPG regarding extensions outside of the built-up area, as the extension, producing a new floor, would exceed 60% of the original floorspace. It also relates to a “dwelling” with a floorspace of less than 50 square metres, mainly because this site is the most remote in the Borough, lacking basic amenities, and ought not to be seen as affordable rural housing. However, I consider the circumstances of the original property merit an exception to this rule, as the property is so small, comprising only of a small living/bedroom, a tiny galley kitchen and even smaller shower room, the application is justified as the extension would render it to be a more ‘liveable’ holiday home, and greatly improve it’s appearance and standard of amenity.
I do not consider that this should set a precedent for any other proposals either at Shellness or elsewhere.
Continued . . .
51 2.5 (Contd) PART 2
Recommendation
This is an application for a first floor extension at The Lookout, Shellness Hamlet, Leysdown. As noted above, whilst noting the objections from local owners, I consider the proposal to be acceptable as an exception to normal policy.
I therefore recommend that retrospective permission be granted. ______
Responsible Officer: Graham Thomas (Area Planning Officer)
List of Backgrounds Documents
1. Application Papers and Correspondence for Application SW/09/1216
52 PART 2
2.6 SW/09/0958 (Case 01378) SITTINGBOURNE
Location: D4 Trinity Trading Estate, Mill Way, Sittingbourne, Kent, ME10 2PG
Proposal: Change of use of vacant warehouse (Use Class B8) to garage with MOT facility (Use Class B2)
Applicant/Agent: C1 (Holdings) Limited, 2 Priory Road, Strood, Kent, ME2 2EG
Application Valid: 2 November 2009
Conditions
(1) The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date on which the permission is granted.
Grounds: In pursuance of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
(2) The premises shall be used for the purpose of a garage with an MOT facility, and for no other purpose, including any other purpose in Class B2 of the Schedule to the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (as amended). Grounds: In the interests of the amenities of the area and pursuant to policy E1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008. (3) No external storage of parts, equipment, materials or products shall take place within the site. Grounds: In the interests of the visual amenities of the area and pursuant to policy E1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008. (4) The use of the premises hereby permitted shall be restricted to the hours of 08:00 hours to 17:30 hours on Monday to Saturday, with no opening on Sundays or Bank Holidays. Grounds: In the interests of the amenities of the area and pursuant to policy E1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.
Continued . . .
53 2.6 (Contd) PART 2
(5) The area shown on the submitted layout as vehicle parking space shall be retained for the use of the occupiers of, and visitors to, the premises, and no permanent development, whether or not permitted by the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order), shall be carried out on that area of land so shown or in such a position as to preclude vehicular access to this reserved parking space.
Grounds: Development without adequate provision for the parking of cars is likely to lead to car parking inconvenient to other road users and detrimental to amenity and in pursuance of policies E1 and T3 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.
(6) Any facilities for the storage of oils, fuels and chemicals shall be sited on impervious bases and surrounded by impervious bund walls. The volume of the bunded compound shall 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 must be located within the bund. The drainage system of the bund shall be sealed with no discharge to any water course, land or underground strata. Associated pipe work should be located above ground and protected from accidental damage. All filling points and tank overflow outlets should be detailed to be discharged downwards into the bund.
Grounds: In order to prevent the pollution of water supplies and in pursuance of policies E1, E2 and E3 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.
Reason for Approval
Having taken all material considerations into account, it is considered that subject to compliance with the attached conditions, the proposal would be in accordance with the development plan and would not cause unacceptable harm to the amenities of the area or prejudice highways safety or convenience. In resolving to grant permission, particular regard has been had to the following policies: E1, E2, E3, E4, B1 and T3 of The Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.
Description of Proposal
This planning application seeks planning permission for the change of use of Unit D4, Trinity Trading Estate, Mill Way, Sittingbourne from a vacant warehouse (use class B8) to a garage with an MOT facility (use class B2). No external changes have been made or will be made to the building; the application is for a change of use only. The proposal would create 4 full time jobs.
54
Relevant Site History & Description
The application site forms part of a row of industrial units with 6 parking spaces allocated to the front (adjacent to Mill Way), located opposite to the Asda Superstore. There are 53 unallocated parking spaces nearby. The application site is within the built up area of Sittingbourne and within a groundwater source protection zone and flood zones 2 and 3.
The proposal would form an extension to unit D3 next door, known as ‘Mr. Clutch’ which was granted planning permission for the change of use from use class B8 (warehouse) to use class B2 (garage) with a facility for MOT testing under planning application SW/07/0680. The conditions imposed on that permission are identical to those proposed above.
Planning permission was granted under reference SW/95/0521 for the change of use of the site to use class B8 warehousing.
Planning permission was refused, but subsequently allowed on appeal under reference SW/94/0417 for the change of use of part of the unit for retail sales of carpets, furniture and window furnishings.
Planning permission was granted under reference SW/77/1064 for the change of use of the site from warehouse to the manufacture of light engineering.
Views of Consultees
The Head of Environmental Services raises no objection subject to condition (4) above.
Kent Highway Services raise no objection subject to condition (5) above.
The County Archaeological Officer raises no objection.
The Environment Agency object to the proposal on the basis that the site may be contaminated & may present a risk to protected groundwater, and that this application presents an opportunity for remediation. They have requested a desk study be submitted detailing the likelihood of contamination being present at the site, and that standard contamination conditions be imposed on any permission granted. They have also requested a number of conditions relating to flood risk – specifically conditions requiring details of a flood prevention scheme for the building, a flood action and evacuation plan and details of a sustainable drainage scheme for the building.
Other Representations
None have been received.
Policies
55 Government guidance in the form of Planning Policy Statement 23 – Planning and Pollution Control, Planning Policy Statement 25 – Development and Flood Risk and Circular 11/95 – the use of planning conditions, are pertinent.
The following Development Plan Policies are relevant:
Swale Borough Local Plan 2008
Policy E1- General Development Criteria. Policy E2- Pollution. Policy E3- Land Contamination. Policy E4- Flooding and Drainage. Policy B1- Supporting and Retaining Existing Employment Land and Businesses. Policy T3- Vehicle Parking for New Development.
Discussion
The site is within an established industrial estate. In addition, the change of use proposed would not give rise to the loss of employment floorspace. I consider the proposal to be acceptable as a matter of principle.
The business would be contained within the building and therefore minimal harm is envisaged to the character and appearance of this industrial setting. Condition (3) is recommended in order to maintain the tidy appearance of the area.
Whilst there are no dwellings in the immediate vicinity of the site, the proposed use is likely to give rise to a degree of noise. I therefore recommend restricting the hours of operation to those detailed in condition (4) in order to protect the amenities of the area.
Condition (2) is recommended in order to safeguard the amenities of the area from the noise and disturbance of potential industrial uses future uses.
The conditions requested by the Environment Agency relating to flood risk and surface water drainage are noted. However – I do not consider the imposition of these conditions to be warranted here – the site shares its surface water drainage system with the wider industrial estate, and it is in my opinion unreasonable to require a separate system to be installed here for this single building. With regards flood protection measures and a flood evacuation plan, these are not directly related to the development proposed, which in my view is no more vulnerable to flooding than the existing use. It is notable that no such requirements are in place for the surrounding units.
The key issue is whether the contamination desk study as requested by the Environment Agency, together with standard conditions to remediate contamination are appropriate in this instance.
Continued . . .
56 2.6 (Contd) PART 2
In this instance, whilst the site might be contaminated, it is important to note that the proposal does not include any operational development – it is simply for the change of use of the unit, with no ground works or any other development proposed. It is therefore the case that that it is extremely unlikely that contamination will be encountered during the development. Members will note that the Head of Environmental Services does not raise objection nor suggest any conditions regarding potential contamination at the site.
Planning Policy Statement 23 (Planning and Pollution Control) is a material consideration in determining this application, and Members must have regard to it in reaching a decision here.
Annex 2 to PPS23 states that, amongst other things, the Local Planning Authority needs to be satisfied that the development proposed does not allow the continuation of unacceptable risk arising from the condition of the land.
PPS23 also states that the remediation of land affected by contamination through the grant of planning permission (with the attachment of the necessary conditions) should secure the removal of unacceptable risk and make the site suitable for its new use. As a minimum, after carrying out the development and the commencement of its use, the land should not be capable of being determined as contaminated under Part IIA of the EPA 1990.
The Environment Agency’s position is that the site may be historically contaminated, and that this existing contamination may well be impacting on the controlled groundwater in the vicinity. Whilst I recognise that this application presents an opportunity to investigate and address this, I have serious concerns as to whether such an approach is reasonable in this instance, given the particular circumstances of this site.
The application site is a comparatively modest existing industrial unit, in the centre of a row of similar units. Any remediation requirements here would almost certainly make the proposed use of the site unviable – they would be likely to require the breaking up of the floor of the building, potentially even the breaking up of the building itself, and possibly the use of some form of barrier in the ground (membrane etc) to prevent any contamination from the surrounding land re-contaminating the site. This would involve substantial costs. It has also to be borne in mind that the change of use proposed here is in itself not likely to cause any more contamination than the existing use.
Remediation of the site would be dealt with by standard planning conditions. I am mindful of the requirements of Circular 11/95 regarding the use of such conditions. This document, which is also a material planning consideration, sets out the requirement for any conditions imposed on planning permissions to comply with six tests, one of which is whether the imposition of any particular condition is reasonable. I have grave concerns that the remediation
Continued . . .
57 2.6 (Contd) PART 2
of the site would make the use proposed under this application unviable. This is a scenario specifically referred to in Circular 11/95 as amounting to unreasonableness. There is no point in granting planning permission if, by imposing conditions, the approved development is incapable of being implemented. This is in my opinion the scenario likely to occur here if the standard contamination conditions are imposed. Furthermore, I do not consider it appropriate to require such measures for what is only the change of use of the building.
Following on from the above, there is in my opinion no purpose in requiring the applicant to submit a desk study investigating the possibility of contamination at the site, if contamination conditions cannot be imposed on any permission.
I do not consider the requirements of the Environment Agency to be reasonable in this instance, and whilst I have sympathy with their views, I do not consider it pragmatic to require a desk study and remediation as the result of this application for a change of use of this industrial unit. I therefore recommend that the requirements of the Environment Agency are not complied with in this instance.
Recommendation
I consider that the proposed change of use would not, subject to the above conditions, give rise to unacceptable harm to visual or residential amenity, pollution or land contamination, nor to highway safety.
Whilst I note the representation of the Environment Agency, I do not consider it to be reasonable in this instance.
Taking the above into account I recommend that planning permission is granted.
Responsible Officer – Rob Bailey (Area Planning Officer
List of Background Documents
1. Application papers for SW/09/0958
2. Correspondence relating to SW/09/0958
58 PLANNING COMMITTEE – 4 FEBRUARY 2010 PART 3
Report of the Head of Development Services
PART 3
Applications for which REFUSAL is recommended
3.1 SW/09/1169 (Case 15155) MINSTER
Location: Stonnes Family Centre, Halfway Road, Minster, Sheerness, Kent, ME12 3AA.
Proposal: Retrospective application for the establishment of an on- site car hand wash and valeting service.
Applicant/Agent: Phiniel Ltd, c/o Mr Anthony Millard, D O Facilities, 348 Lordswood Lane, Chatham, Kent, ME5 8JT.
Application Valid: 19 November 2009
Reasons
(1) The use of this part of the garden centre for a vehicle washing facility is not a use which essentially demands a rural location, and the development represents unnecessary, undesirable and intrusive commercial development in the countryside, in an area south of Sheerness which retains its rural character. As such the proposal is contrary to Policies E1, E6, B2 and RC1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.
Description of Proposal
This is an application for retrospective planning permission for the establishment of an on-site car hand wash and valeting service at Stonnes Family Centre, Halfway Road, Minster.
The facility consists of a ‘container’ office and a parking bay and waste water holding sump, situated within the existing car park near to the western boundary of the site. The container office measures 2.4 metres by 4.8 metres.
One existing gazebo style canopy (to be re-positioned) and one additional canopy also are proposed.
Continued . . .
1 3.1 (Contd) PART 3
Relevant Site History and Description
The site lies within the garden centre set between Sheerness and Minster, outside any built-up area.
There is a long and varied history for this large site, but the most pertinent to the present application are those which have been submitted since the present owners bought the site; that history is as follows:
SW/08/0927 – Retrospective application for change of use of existing building from A1 (Shop) to A3 (Café), with retrospective application for the erection of adjoining conservatory – Approved.
SW/09/0349 – Retrospective change of use of bungalow from residential to A1 (retail-use) and erection of fence fronting highway (retrospective) – Approved.
SW/09/0519 – Retrospective application for the erection of a toilet block for customer use – Approved.
SW/09/0716 – Retrospective application for the erection of a temporary building for use as a small retail outlet – Approved.
SW/09/0944 – Retrospective application for change of use of building from Class B1 Business (Office) to Class A1 Shop (Beauty Salon) – withdrawn when Agent realised that the description of the proposal was inaccurate.
SW/09/1060 – Retrospective application for change of use of building from Class B1 Business (Office) to Class A1 Shop (Holistic Services & Products – Approved.
Views of Consultees
Minster Parish Council support the proposal, noting that “MPC supports all ventures that provide additional employment opportunities on the Island.”
The Environment Agency have not responded to our consultation.
The Head of Environmental Services raises no objection subject to a condition limiting hours of operation.
Other Representations
No other representations have been received.
Continued . . .
2 3.1 (Contd) PART 3 Planning Policies
The following policies of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008 are relevant: E1 (General Development Criteria) E6 (Countryside) E9 (Protecting the Borough’s Landscape) B2 (Employment) RC1 (Rural Economy)
PPS4 urges Local Planning Authorities to ensure that the countryside is protected for the sake of its intrinsic character and beauty, and should strictly control development away from existing settlements, or areas allocated for development. At the same time use of rural buildings, provision of local shops, farm diversification and equine development are encouraged.
Whilst planning applications for economic development should be treated positively and constructively, proposals should be scrutinised for carbon di- oxide emissions, accessibility, high quality design, regeneration potential and impact on local employment. In rural areas, re-use of buildings is preferred, and proposals should be assessed in terms of their ability to support the vitality and viability of market towns, and in villages or other remote locations, and the supply of local employment sites.
Discussion
The location of the car wash is close to the site entrance and along the site frontage. In my view the container, canopies and general activity associated with the use is intrusive and harmful to the character of the area.
In my opinion the proposal for change of use to a hand car washing facility is not suitable or acceptable in this countryside location. The site is located outside of the defined built-up areas of Halfway and Sheerness and employment uses in this location should be appropriate for the rural location. Policies E6 & RC1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008 deal with rural areas, and revitalising the rural economy, as does PPS4. They state that appropriate development, such as proposals which allow farmers to diversify or proposals which do not have a detrimental impact on the landscape character, or provide an essential rural service will be allowed in the countryside. Other proposals for development in the countryside will not be considered acceptable unless strong justification is put forward to demonstrate why an exception should be made to the development plan. The proposal does not meet the criteria set out within these policies, which have been designed to protect the countryside for its own sake, and no justification or planning statement has been submitted with the application to suggest a reason to deviate from the development plan, nor to suggest that the application site is unsuitable for other business uses which demand a rural location. Without such justification, I can see no reason as to why this proposal should be supported. Continued . . .
3 3.1 (Contd) PART 3
Recommendation
This is a retrospective application for a change of use of open land on a garden centre site to the hand washing and valeting of cars at Stonnes Family Centre, Halfway Road, Minster.
As noted above, the proposal would be intrusive and harmful to the rural character of the area, and clearly fails to meet the criteria set within the Local Plan and PPS4, and it is for this reason that I therefore recommend refusal of this application. ______
Responsible Officer: Graham Thomas (Area Planning Officer)
List of Backgrounds Documents
1. Application Papers and Correspondence for Application SW/09/1169. 2. Application Papers and Correspondence for Application SW/08/0927. 3. Application Papers and Correspondence for Application SW/09/0349. 4. Application Papers and Correspondence for Application SW/09/0319. 5. Application Papers and Correspondence for Application SW/09/0716. 6. Application Papers and Correspondence for Application SW/09/0944. 7. Application Papers and Correspondence for Application SW/09/1060.
4 PART 3
3.2 SW/09/1119 (Case 00266) FAVERSHAM
Location: Land at Bysingwood Road, Faversham, Kent, ME13 7RH
Proposal: Demolition of existing buildings and construction of a new Class A1 retail store together with associated car parking, new access arrangements, service yard and landscaping improvements
Applicant/Agent: Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Ltd, c/o Mr Kirill Malkin, WYG Planning & Design, 100 St John Street, London, EC1M 4EH
Application Valid: 19 November 2009 and as clarified by additional information received on 17 December 2009, 12 January 2010, 13 January 2010 and 14 January 2010 and 18 January 2010
SUBJECT TO: further technical information in support of the retail justification, the views of the Head of Environment and Amenities, the Economic Development Officer, Kent Highway Services and Faversham Town Council
Reasons
(1) The proposed supermarket and ancillary hard surfacing and landscaping, by virtue of the massing, architectural form, materials, minimal landscape planting, and location envisaged, would result in a development that would not meet the requirement for a high-quality scheme on this prominent site, and would detract from the character and appearance of the area, particularly on the western side, where the site faces open countryside and the Oare Gunpowder Works Country Park. The development is therefore contrary to the guidance in PPS1 and PPS4, Policies E1, E19 and FAV1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008, and the design guidance in the Kent Design Guide (2005).
Description of Proposal
Planning permission is sought for the development of a supermarket on land at the junction of Bysingwood Road and the Western Link (B2045), in Faversham.
Continued . . .
5 3.2 (Contd) PART 3
The application proposes a net sales area of 2,624 square metres (of which 2,099 square metres would be devoted to convenience goods (broadly food and other groceries) and 525 square metres to comparison goods which include (which include consumer durables such as DVDs, televisions, or garden furniture). Members will note that, as explained in the accompanying Planning and Retail Impact Statement the development will not have ‘post office, pharmacy, dry cleaners, customer café or photo processing services…’ It would though feature an ATM machine and customer WC facilities.
The gross floor area of the building would be 4, 698 square metres.
The building would be located towards the south-west corner of the site, facing Bysingwood Road and Wildish Road to the south and the Western Link (B2045) to the west. The building – to be faced with timber cladding - would be predominantly single-storey with a limited two-storey element facing the Western Link. The irregular-shaped footprint would have maximum dimensions of 73 metres (east to west) and 60 metres (north to south); the first-floor component (which would accommodate a plant room and ‘colleague domestic area’) would measure 35 metres (north to south) by a maximum of 18 metres (east to west).
The building would be generally flat-roofed, with a typical height on the east (car park) elevation of five metres; the two-storey component of the building would feature four mono-pitched roofs and would have a maximum height of 9.2 metres.
To the north and east of the building 244 car parking spaces (including 14 disabled car parking spaces and 9 parent and toddler spaces) are proposed; cycle parking consisting of 16 spaces for customers and 10 spaces for staff; and motorcycle parking space is also envisaged.
A new car access taken from a new mini-roundabout to be located towards the eastern end of the site, approximately 30 metres from the eastern site boundary and approximately 75 metres east of the existing mini-roundabout, is proposed; the development would be serviced from a separate access from the Western Link with a new central turning lane.
The yard area where HGVs would unload would be located immediately to the north (rear) of the building and adjacent to the Western Link frontage, measuring 52 metres between the north-western corner of the building and the northern site boundary. The biomass boiler and chip store, sprinkler tank and replacement electricity sub-station would also be accommodated in this area
Continued . . .
6 3.2 (Contd) PART 3 The BREEAM report provided suggests the development would achieve a ‘very good’ rating; Members will note that Policy E21 of the SBLP 2008 requires that developments such as this achieve the lower, ‘good’ rating. Members will also note that a biomass facility is proposed. This would satisfy the requirement of Policy NRM11 of the SEP (2009) that 10% of the energy requirement be met from on-site renewable energy.
An important feature of the development is the relationship between the building and its parking areas and the topography. The key characteristics are the westward descent of Bysingwood Road: at the eastern end of the building its roof would sit approximately 2.5 metres above the level of the road while at the western end the difference would be eight metres. Although the Western Link drops down gently to the north, there is no pronounced difference in the extent to which the building is visible from it at the southern and northern ends.
The car parking area is set down from the level of Bysingwood Road, typically by between two and 2.5 metres.
Members will note that some excavation of the site will be required to accommodate the development as proposed.
Members will also have noted the references above to supporting documents. The full list of reports is as follows:
• Planning and Retail Statement (and appendices) • Addendum Report (and appendices) – responding to initial comments on the Planning and Retail Statement and taking account of the publication of PPS4 • Design and Access Statement • Reptile Survey Report (18/10/2009) • Reptile Presence / Absence Report (September 2009) • Ecological Scoping / Phase 1 Habitat Survey Report (13/7/2009) • Travel Plan (January 2010, replacing initial version dated November 2009) – which sets out the measures that the development would incorporate to maximise the use of non-car modes of travel for journeys to and from the development • Transport Assessment and appendices (November 2009) • Letter dated December 2009 addressing lorry movements • Flood Risk Assessment (October 2009) • Energy Statement and Renewable Energy Assessment (October 2009) • BREEAM Report (November 2009), which concludes that a provisional rating of ‘very good’ (ie above 55%) would be achieved • Contamination Statement (October 2009) • Bat Emergency / Return Survey (October 2009) • Site Location Plan (red edge includes adjacent lengths of Bysingwood Road and Western Link) Continued . . .
7 3.2 (Contd) PART 3
• Report on Community Engagement (November 2009) • Air Quality Assessment (January 2010)
The full submission can be viewed online (at www.ukplanning.com/swale) and at Swale House.
Relevant Site History & Description
Members will re-call that planning permission (reference SW/09/0298) was granted in June 2009 for the re-development of the site to provide a mixed use retail and employment scheme, comprising Class A1 non-food retail floorspace (restricted to DIY and related products) and Class B1(c) (light industrial), B2 general industrial), and/or B8 (storage and distribution) units, associated car parking and new access arrangements. The application was made in outline with all matters reserved except access; therefore details of the appearance, landscaping, layout and scale were reserved for subsequent consideration. The application comprised 2,631 square metres of non-food retail floor space and 1700 square metres of industrial / storage and distribution floor space.
This development was identical to that approved by Members under reference SW/05/1491 in 2006.
Members may recall that a previous outline application (SW/05/0069) for a DIY store with no named occupier, and for additional non-food bulky goods retail units was submitted to the Council in 2005, and considered by the Planning Committee on 11th August 2005. That scheme proposed 4,620 square metres of retail floorspace covering a variety of DIY and other bulky goods. The application was refused by Members on grounds relating to the traffic flow implications, particularly in Ospringe Street and Bysingwood Road, disturbance to residential amenity and loss of expenditure in Faversham town centre.
The application site lies at the western edge of the built-up area of Faversham, and at the southern edge of a band of industrial and warehouse uses that face the Western Link. The site adjoins residential development on its eastern side and faces further residential development across Bysingwood Road to the south.
Immediately to the west of the site lies the Oare Gunpowder Works Country Park, some of which is designated as a Scheduled Ancient Monument (protected under Policy E16 of the SBLP 2008 and under separate legislation). Land here is also designated as a Special Landscape Area (protected under Policy E9 of the SBLP 2008) and on account of regionally or locally important flora and fauna (covered by Policy E12 of the SBLP 2008).
Continued . . .
8 3.2 (Contd) PART 3
The Swale Landscape Character Assessment and Guidelines (2005) identifies the countryside to the west of the site as the Doddington and Newnham Dry Valleys. It notes, among other things, that the area contains many important historic features including the ‘former gunpowder works…The landscape structure is strong…and this area is in very good condition…Overall the sensitivity of this landscape is high.’
The application site is currently vacant and was previously used for industrial purposes, accommodating approximately 4000 square metres of buildings.
Members will note that the site has an area of 1.57 hectares, and approximate dimensions as follows: depth –73m (at eastern end); 93m (at western end) and length 175m (at northern boundary).
Views of Consultees
Natural England raise no objection subject to conditions to safeguard water quality (in the form of a contamination mitigation strategy and a scheme for dealing with surface water runoff), and habitat for bats and widespread reptiles.
The Environment Agency raise no objection subject to conditions in respect of contamination and surface water issues.
Southern Water Services suggest that there is a lack of capacity for surface water to discharge to the public sewer system. The imposition of a condition requiring the agreement of details for foul and surface drainage before start of development is therefore suggested.
The County Archaeology officer raises no objection, though a condition (AR1) is requested, requiring the agreement and implementation of a programme of archaeological work.
Faversham Town Council have provided a holding response stating that they are awaiting an amended scheme before commenting substantively. I have also had verbal confirmation that they consider that the development should be approved. I expect to be able to update Members with their full comments at the meeting.
Although I am awaiting the views of Kent Highways Services (KHS), I am aware that a series of discussions have taken place between the applicant and them. An amended Travel Plan (TP) (dated January 2010) has recently been submitted in an attempt to satisfy the requirement to provide a full range of non-car modes of travel to serve the development.
Continued . . .
9 3.2 (Contd) PART 3 The TP sets the following targets:
• “A decrease in the percentage of colleagues travelling by single occupancy private car to and from the store; • An increase in the percentage of colleagues walking to and from the store; • An increase in the percentage of colleagues cycling to and from the store; • An increase in the percentage of colleagues travelling by bus to and from the store; • An increase in the percentage of colleagues travelling by rail to and from the store; • An increase in the percentage of colleagues car sharing to and from the store.”
And
“In addition, the following targets have been set prior to the construction of the new store and which will be reviewed following the opening of the store:
• Installation of 8 Sheffield stands (16 cycle parking spaces) close to the store entrance; • Provision of a designated motorcycle parking area in the store car park; • Provision of lockers and changing facilities for colleagues; • Appointment of a Travel Plan Coordinator at the store; • Setting up of a colleague Travel Plan notice board and customer travel information board (post construction of the store)”
Kent Highway Services have made interim comments on the proposal. These are set out in the ‘discussion’ section below.
I hope to have the final views of KHS on the application for Members at the meeting.
Kent Police have not responded to consultation about the application.
The Council’s Climate Change Officer raises no objection, and notes that the development aims for BREEAM very good and that other measures, including a biomass power station, are also proposed.
I am awaiting the views of the Head of Environment and Amenities, and will update Members at the meeting.
I am also awaiting the views of the Economic Development Officer, and will advise Members at the meeting.
Continued . . .
10 3.2 (Contd) PART 3 Other Representations
43 responses (12 in support and 31 raising objection or expressing concerns; the latter group includes representation from the Faversham Society and CPRE Protect Kent, which are summarised specifically below) have been received.
The 12 letters in support or raising no objection are summarised as follows:
• Regeneration of a prominent, derelict brown-field site • Landscaping and building design are ‘excellent’ • The creation of up to 300 jobs is welcomed • Improve retail choice for local shoppers, and competition between retailers • Development would assist Faversham to compete with Sittingbourne and Canterbury • This is an ‘ideal site’, well related to bus routes • Lorries could service the development, using the Western Link, without adding to town centre traffic congestion • Supermarket will draw-in custom from outside Faversham, rather than ‘damaging existing shops in the town’ • The product range would be different from town centre retailers, many of whom serve particular market niches • Traffic impact will be little more than for the approved DIY development of the site [see planning references SW/05/1491 and SW/09/0298] • No objection, but a DIY store is also required
Some of the letters raise no objection subject to the following provisos: free transport should be provided into the town centre, together with an information board ‘what’s on in Faversham’; locally sourced food should be stocked, local people employed, and part-time staff should receive holiday pay and sick pay, particular attention should be paid to the choice of facing materials and to road access arrangements to ensure that traffic flow is disrupted as little as possible.
The 31 letters (one of which is on behalf of the seven households in Admiralty) that raise objection or express concerns are summarised as follows:
• This supermarket combined with the proposed extension of the Tesco supermarket, and the Morrisons store could “kill more Faversham shops (many of which are small, successful traders)” and damage its “cultural and economic future” with consequent loss of jobs • The development will not allow linked trips with the existing shops • The supermarket is not needed • The development would result in there being three poorly-performing supermarkets in Faversham, rather than two successful ones Continued . . .
11 3.2 (Contd) PART 3
• The job creation forecasts are questioned • There are ‘other possible sites’ • The Retail Impact Assessment is questioned, in particular in terms of the assessment of alternative sites and the analysis of the implications for existing retailers, it is considered to be ‘inconclusive and far-from- thorough’ • The proposed location would contrary to the aim of reducing the need to travel by car – which the Council should encourage - and contrary among other things, to Policy CC2 of the South East Plan • Traffic congestion in the town centre, on Bysingwood Road (already congested due to on-road car parking), through Oare , on the A2 and elsewhere in the vicinity would result • Air and noise pollution in Ospringe Street (the A2), Bysingwood Road and elsewhere, will be increased • New noise fencing/walling is required to the rear of properties in Admiralty Close, facing Bysingwood Road • Significant lorry movements would result • The new access from the Western Link would be contrary to the Swale Borough Local, paragraph 3.154 • Traffic implications on the A2 have not been surveyed • The road between Wildish Road and Hazebrouck Road should be completed • The cycle route – SUSTRANS 1 – which passes the site is not safe, and therefore unsuitable for extra users as a result of the proposed development • “Faversham is not short of part time, low paid work” of the type that the development will create • The development will add to existing high levels of lorry movements and further damage local roads • All vehicular access should be from the Western Link • Councillors are urged to oppose the application • The development is contrary to Government policies (including PPS6, now superseded by PPS4, and the conclusions of ‘The Impact of Large Food Stores on Market Towns and District Centres’, DETR ) and local planning policies • The supporting statements are “an exercise in obfuscation” and “tokenism” • Developer contributions required with this development would be similar to those for the approved DIY development • The approval of this development would be inconsistent with other planning decisions in the locality • The development lacks ‘architectural form, detail or quality’ – can we not have a scheme of the quality of the Canterbury store? • Wildlife habitats will be damaged • The development would exacerbate the existing ‘seagull infestation problem’, considered to be an environmental health issue Continued . . .
12 3.2 (Contd) PART 3 • The town needs a DIY/garden centre, rather than another supermarket • Approving this development would set a precedent for further similar retail developments in Faversham
A letter from the Faversham Society has also been received. Issues raised are as follows:
• Application should be refused • A significant increase in HGV traffic through Ospringe would result in harm to residential amenity • Customers would drive to the site along Bysingwood Road to detriment of residential amenity • Lack of staff car parking would result in extra parking on local residential roads • Development would harm existing retailers in the town centre • The RIA may have under-estimated the trade that the Morrison’s supermarket is doing
CPRE Kent have written a substantial representation about the application. The key points raised are as follows:
• The proposal is not in accordance with PPS4, in particular Policies EC13, EC14, EC15, EC16 and EC17 • The site is not justified in terms of a robust sequential assessment (required by Policy EC15) of possible alternative locations closer to the town centre • The need for the site has not been justified, and the KCC Retail Needs Survey suggests there was (at the time of publication in 2007) no need for additional convenience floor space in the Faversham area • The affect of Morrisons taking over the former Co-op site in West Street has not been factored into the applicant’s assessment of the need; it is argued that the change in operator at this site will help to meet need • Expenditure leakage from Faversham is exaggerated by virtue of the way that Primary Catchment Area is defined and the way in which population is forecast to grow (which is not consistent with the forecasts in the South East Plan) • The proposal is contrary to Policy B1of the SBLP 2008 and the draft employment land review (March 2009), which advocates the retention of employment land in employment uses and does not favour retail use of this site • The development will increase traffic, particularly on the A2 and there could be consequent harm to local air quality • The ‘run-down’ state of the site, in itself, should not weigh significantly in favour of the proposed re-development • The vibrant local food network [albeit un-quantified] in Faversham could be damaged by the proposal Continued . . .
13 3.2 (Contd) PART 3
• The condition imposed on SW/09/0298 preventing the general sale of comparison goods demonstrates that the Council is concerned about the potential impact on the town centre if comparison goods are sold from this site • Conditions are requested to limit the opening hours and the gating of the access when the supermarket is closed
All of the representations are available for inspection at Swale House, and those submitted via UK Planning can also be viewed online.
Policies
Government Planning Guidance:
Central Government policy is set out in Planning Policy Guidance Notes (PPGs), which are progressively being replaced by Planning Policy Statements (PPSs), as part of the overall review of the Planning system following the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. Of particular relevance to the consideration of this planning application are PPS1 and PPS4.
The guidance in PPS9 ‘Biodiversity and Geological Conservation’ (2005), PPG13 ‘Transport’ (2001), which gives general advice in respect, among other things, of the use and role of travel plans and transport assessment, and the application of sustainable transport modes; and PPS25 ‘Development and Flood Risk’ (2006) is also relevant.
PPS1 “Delivering Sustainable Development” reaffirms previous guidance that Local Planning Authorities must determine applications in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Delivering Sustainable Development is the cornerstone of PPS1, and the reduction of greenhouse gases by reducing the need to travel is strongly encouraged. The guidance promotes mixed-use developments to create more vibrant places. The re-use of previously developed land is promoted, particularly where that land is vacant or underused. PPS1 asserts that local planning authorities should plan positively for ‘high quality and inclusive design’.
The Department for Communities and Local Government published PPS4: ‘Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth’ on 29 December 2009. This is the key piece of Government planning guidance in this case, and replaces, among other documents, PPS6 ‘Planning for Town Centres (2005)’.
The key aspects of PPS4 that relate to the determination of this planning application are set out in the following policies:
Continued . . .
14 3.2 (Contd) PART 3 • EC10 – determining policies for economic development, which requires that applications be assessed against the following criteria -
(a) resilience of development to climate change (b) accessibility by non-car travel modes (c) high-quality and inclusive design (d) impact on economic and physical regeneration (e) impact on local employment
• EC14 – supporting evidence for planning applications for main town centre uses
• EC15 – the sequential assessment – essentially this requires that town centre and then edge-of-centre sites should be developed in preference to locations further from town centres, and that these more remote locations should only be developed for town centre uses where alternatives locations are not available
• EC16 – the impact assessment for planning applications for main town centre uses not in the town centre and not in accordance with an up-to- date development plan – the following factors should be evaluated:
(a) impact on public and private investment on centres in the catchment area (b) impact on vitality and viability of the town centre (c) impact on allocated sites (d) impact on town centre trade/turnover, and trade/turnover in the wider area (e) appropriate scale in relation to size of centre and its role in the hierarchy
• EC17 – the consideration of planning applications for development of main town centre uses not in a centre and not in accordance with an up-to-date development plan, which requires that development proposals be determined with regard to policies EC10, EC14, EC15 and EC16.
The DETR report ‘The Impact of Large Foodstores on Market Towns and District Centres’ (1998) is referred to in the responses to local consultation. It draws the following conclusions:
• Large food stores can have an adverse impact on market towns • The particular local circumstances will determine the level and consequences of the impact • Smaller centres which are dependent on convenience retailing to underpin their function are most vulnerable • A cautious approach should be taken to the development of large food stores in non-central locations Continued . . .
15 3.2 (Contd) PART 3
Members will note that the report is almost 12 years old, and that the newly- issued PPS4 rather than this document, sets out the Government policy on, among other things, the appropriate scale and location for new retail development. In any case, PPS4 requires the thorough assessment of the implications of proposals such as this for the vitality and viability of the town.
Development Plan Policies:
Policies CC1 (sustainable development), CC2 (climate change), CC4 (sustainable design and construction), EKA4 (urban renaissance of coastal towns including Faversham), BE4 (the role of small rural towns (‘market’ towns), and NRM11 (energy efficiency and renewable energy), of the South East Plan (SEP)(2009) are relevant
Policies SP1 (sustainable development), FAV1 (Faversham and rest of Swale Planning Area), AAP1 (Area Action Plan for Faversham Town Centre), AAP2 (Area Action plan for Faversham Creekside), E1 (general development criteria), E2 (pollution), E9 (protecting the Borough’s landscape), E12 (sites of biodiversity or geological conservation), E16 (scheduled ancient monuments and archaeology), B1 (retention of employment land), B2 (new employment), B4 (new retail), T1 (safe access to development) (and supporting paragraph 3.154), T3 (vehicle parking), T4 (cycle parking), T5 (public transport) and U3 (renewable energy) of the Swale Borough Local Plan (SBLP) 2008 are also relevant here.
Policy FAV1 sets out eleven planning priorities for the town and its hinterland. Among other things, various references are made to the provision of employment and employment land, matching the scale of development to local needs, and to ‘raising the standard of the environment through high quality design’.
The application site falls outside either of the defined Area Action Plan designations. However, their aspirations are relevant to the assessment of this application, particularly AAP1, which ‘seeks to promote a strong and diverse local economy’ and among six criteria states that planning permission will be granted where proposals will…’retain and enhance the lively, distinctive, wide-ranging and traditional mix of activities in the shopping streets’.
Members will also be aware that the Kent Design Guide (2005) has also been adopted by the Council as a Supplementary Planning Document. Among other things, it gives important guidance on urban design and architecture. It suggests that any new development needs to be based upon a good understanding of the local context
Continued . . .
16 3.2 (Contd) PART 3 I am also mindful that Kent County Council have produced (in December 2007) a Retail Need Assessment Study for Swale. With regard to Faversham the report identifies – at Table 1a on Page 10, that there will be a limited need for additional convenience and comparison floor space at 2011, increasing beyond that date. This application envisages a larger amount of floorspace. However, Members will appreciate that the current application is supported by a specific assessment which identifies a need for the amount of retail floorspace proposed and this conclusion is endorsed by the Council’s independent consultants.
The Employment Land Review (2009), which is currently in draft form, identifies the site as forming part of a wider site, known as the Oare Road Industrial Estate, which extends in total to approximately 18 hectares. The site contains an eclectic mix of buildings, some considered to be modern and in good condition, and some areas are vacant and have been so for some considerable period of time, including the application site. Despite this, the draft suggests that ‘reported interest for retail uses should therefore be resisted’.
Members will need to balance this latter suggestion against the specific planning history of the application site, where the principle of retail use rather than purely industrial or storage and distribution was established in 2006 (with the approval of the DIY and industrial / storage units, under reference SW/05/1491) and subsequently confirmed with the approval of an identical scheme in 2009 (under SW/09/0298).
Discussion The key issue here is the principle of the amount and type of retail floorspace that is proposed in this location on the edge of the Faversham built-up area, and its implications for the vitality and viability of the town centre
The Government planning guidance in PPS4, which I have introduced above, is of critical importance in establishing whether the development is acceptable in principle. Development Plan policy, particularly B4 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008 is also important.
The justification that the applicant has put forward – which is set out in the ‘Planning and Retail Statement’, the appendices to it, and the subsequent Addendum Report (January 2010), taking account of the newly-issued PPS4 – is evaluated below.
In addition to establishing whether the proposed supermarket is acceptable in terms of the retail implications, consideration is given to the acceptability of proposed use in terms of the loss of the site as a potential location for industrial or storage and distribution development, so called “employment” uses, which is generally protected under Policy B1 of the SBLP 2008, and underpinned by Policy B4 within the context of considering retail proposals at Faversham. Continued . . .
17 3.2 (Contd) PART 3
Having evaluated the principle of the development, the discussion considers other aspects of the proposal under the following headings:
• urban design and architectural treatment • residential amenity • highway, car parking and green travel implications • air quality • sustainable design and construction • developer contribution issues • other issues
Principle
It is important to stress at the outset that, as Members may re-call or will have noted above, the principle of some form of retail use on this site (albeit in conjunction with the provision of small business units) has already been established and indeed was confirmed last Summer, with the grant of SW/09/0298 in June for a DIY store and five small business units.
The current proposal differs in two key respects: firstly, the proposal is now largely convenience retail with a small element of comparison goods sales and, secondly, the proposal is now entirely retail. Accordingly, the applicant’s planning consultants have produced the detailed Planning and Retail Assessment and the Addendum Report. These reports address the key requirements set out in the central piece of Government planning guidance, PPS4, in particular the requirement to justify a development such as this in terms of its impact, or otherwise, on the viability and vitality of the town centre (and in so doing to demonstrate that a need for a development of the size proposed exists in the location proposed) and the requirement to demonstrate that there are no sequentially preferable alternative sites (ie. closer to the town centre or in the town centre itself).
A firm of planning consultants have undertaken a detailed, independent appraisal of the supporting statements submitted with the application on behalf of the Council. They have provided two reports: the first (included in full here as Appendix A) assesses the initial retail assessment made on behalf of the applicant, the second report (attached in full as Appendix B) responds to additional information (the Addendum report mentioned above) provided by the applicant to address gaps in the initial retail assessment. It is important that these appendices are viewed together, not least because the second report reflects the recent publication of PPS4 and, as noted above, responses to the answers provided for the applicant to the questions posed by the report in Appendix A.
Continued . . .
18 3.2 (Contd) PART 3
Impact on Vitality and Viability of Faversham Town Centre
In appendix A, paragraphs 3.35 to 3.40 (on Page 9 of the document) consider this important issue. Members will note that the consultants accept that “the overwhelming majority of the [new] store’s trade is likely to be drawn from existing large foodstores in Faversham and in the wider surrounding area [ie in other towns such as Sittingbourne and Ashford and the City of Canterbury]” and suggest that the impact on “existing convenience stores, independents and specialists would be relatively limited”. However, at paragraph 3.38 they criticise the assessment of the implications for the health and vitality of the town centre. This criticism is addressed in the Addendum report referred to above, where pages 7 to 10 are devoted to this important issue. Members will note that at paragraph 2.9.26, Sainsbury’s consultants assert “that a total of £0.05m [or £50,000] will be directed away from Faversham Town Centre to the proposed Sainsbury’s store. This represents an impact of just over 2% when taking into context the existing turnover of the centre.”
The conclusion is endorsed by the Council’s consultants at paragraph 2.19, on page 5 (of Appendix B), which reads as follows:
“Having reviewed this additional information, Chase & Partners are now able to conclude that the applicant has adequately demonstrated that Faversham is vital and viable based on recognised measures and that the proposal would not have an unacceptable impact on the vitality and viability of the town centre as whole, taking into account the potential cumulative effects of other proposals in the area”.
Members will also note their conclusion at paragraph 4.1 (fifth bullet point) on Page 9 of Appendix B. Part of which reads as follows:
“that, in the light of the additional information provided by WYG on the health and vitality of Faversham town centre, Chase and Partners agree that the centre remains strong, and that the proposal would not have a material impact on the vitality and viability of the town centre as a whole – even when taking into account the likely effect on the proposed extension to the existing Tesco store at Crescent Road.”
Sequential Approach
Members will recall that in the assessment of the previous applications for a mixed DIY and industrial use of this site (reference SW/09/0298 and SW/05/1491), it was accepted that there are no sequentially preferable (ie closer to, or in, the town centre) locations for a development of this scale. The Council’s consultants endorse this conclusion (at paragraph 4.1 (second bullet point) of Appendix A) in the context of the development currently proposed:
Continued . . .
19 3.2 (Contd) PART 3
“there are currently no sites capable of accommodating the proposed development in more central location and the application proposals are therefore in compliance with the principles of the sequential approach to site selection.”
Although I am mindful that CPRE and others have challenged the retail justification for this proposal, on the basis of the evidence currently before me from the applicant and the Council’s own retail consultants, at the time of writing this report I am mindful to accept that the development appears to accord with PPS4 and the Development Plan policies that guide the scale, nature and location of this type of scheme. The ‘Conclusions and Recommendation’ on Page 9 of Appendix B endorses this view.
However, there remain a number of outstanding matters relating to some of the technical evidence that underpins the applicant’s case for retain need and its potential impact upon the town centre. As the PPS4 town centre guide highlights the need for sensitivity when considering retail proposals at historic market towns, it is critical that there is certainty over the retail case, particularly where the quantative floorspace need may be relatively modest. As a result, I have raised these matters with the Council’s retail consultants and if they conclude that these questions amount to matters of substance, it will be my intention to raise them directly with the applicant in order that a response can be provided in time for the meeting.
Unless there is any change to my initial conclusions in the light of these final questions, having regard to the relevant planning benefits of the development, which PPS4 requires local planning authorities to evaluate when weighing-up the retail planning arguments - such as the regeneration of this brownfield site, local job creation of approximately 300 jobs, and the high quality of the scheme in terms of sustainable design and construction – I am firmly of the view that the development is in accordance with PPS4 and that the amount and type of retail space proposed is acceptable and appropriate in this instance.
With regard to the loss of this site as a potential location for industrial or storage/distribution uses and the conclusions of the Council’s draft Employment Land Review, in my judgement, provided that the retail need and sequential case remain sound, I am satisfied that there would be no other non-employment site upon which this store could be located, unless the Council were prepared to accept an out of town store; this being the next sequentially acceptable location. Given this, and the jobs that would be created by the store, I do not consider that a case for refusal on the loss of this site for employment could be made unless the retail case were flawed.
Continued . . .
20 3.2 (Contd) PART 3 Urban Design/Architectural Treatment
Members will note that PPS4 asserts that proposals such as this for economic development should secure ‘high quality and inclusive design that takes the opportunities available for improving the quality of the area and the way it functions.’ The Kent Design Guide (2005) also makes the case for insisting upon development that is architecturally rich and enhances the appearance of its area.
My colleagues and I have worked with the developer’s team in an effort to achieve this outcome, and it is considered that the proposed position of the building on the site – at the prominent south-west corner with the car parking less visible, on the northern and eastern parts of the site and set well below the level of Bysingwood Road – is appropriate. In addition, the broad configuration, with the shopper entrance facing the car parking area, is also acceptable. However, my colleagues and I are firmly of the view that the architectural treatment of the building, particularly on the western (facing the Western Link) and southern (facing Bysingwood Road) is not of sufficient quality. In particular, the elevation to Bysingwood Road lacks the necessary architectural interest and the elevation to the Western Link would not relate well to the adjacent countryside and Oare Gunpowder Works, and lacks a green buffer to soften the visual impact. The lack of a design response to local distinctiveness and the substantial flat roof also detract from the proposed development. This issue amounts to a reason for refusal.
Residential Amenity
Members will appreciate that the principle of a mixed use consisting of a large retail unit and some small industrial / storage uses (planning reference SW/09/0298, discussed above) on this site has already been assessed in terms of the implications for residential amenity, and that in doing so it was considered that the development would not impact unacceptably on amenity.
I note the consideration of this issue in the Design and Access Statement. In particular, paragraphs 3.3 (i)(site context), which reads as follows:
“The most important consideration when locating the building on site is how this sits within the existing setting. The adjacent residential properties of Bysing Wood Road have been the main concern and the aim has been to locate the building, and in particular the service yard, well away from these houses. Considering this from the outset will help to avoid creating an overbearing building and any concerns which could affect residencies in close proximity to a service yard. In addition to this, the access points to both the car park and the service yard need to be considered to ensure that they will be appropriately located and able to comfortably tie into the existing road network.”
Members will also note the paragraph in the Summary to the same document on layout, which reads as follows: Continued . . .
21 3.2 (Contd) PART 3 “Due to the surrounding uses, the location of the store and car park were located to minimise the impact upon the neighbouring properties and maximise [the] potential of the site. This has resulted in the store being located to the west of the site, screening the service yard to the north from the eastern residential uses. The car park is to the east of the supermarket and is accessed via Bysing Wood Road. The customer car park would take up the eastern half of the site, with the store’s entrance facing towards this. The warehouse areas and service yard are accessed off Western Link.”
Members will note that amongst the representations received from local residents are concerns that traffic travelling to and from the development would detract from residential amenity for residents living along Bysingwood Road and, in particular, at Admiralty Close. Although this development is likely to result in increased traffic flows along this route, this is not expected to result in traffic increasing to such an extent that there would be material harm to residential amenity.
Although I await the views of the Head of Environment and Amenities, I consider that subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions (including those to limit the hours of use, delivery times, external lighting, and the hours of construction), this development would not detract significantly from residential amenity, either by virtue of noise or other disturbance or on account of the bulk of the building or the positions of windows on it. I will update Members regarding the views of the Head of Environment and Amenities at the meeting.
Highway, Car Parking Implications and Green Travel Implications
As noted above, this development envisages a new mini-roundabout on Bysingwood Road to provide vehicular access for car traffic (customers and staff). A separate access for delivery vehicles, including HGVs, would be provided from the Western Link.
I also explain above that the application is accompanied by a Transport Assessment and a Travel Plan (TP) (now in amended form to address initial feedback from Kent Highways Services). The targets from the TP are set out above.
The following statement from KHS is informative:
“I refer to the planning application reference SW/09/1119 concerning the proposed Sainsbury's supermarket, and would report that our current position with the proposals are as follows:
We have examined the Transport Impact Assessment that was submitted with the application, and which was prepared in accordance with the scoping agreed between the developer and Kent Highway Services prior its submission. Additional information has also been received, at the request of KHS, to substantiate some of the calculations used in the assessment,
Continued . . .
22 3.2 (Contd) PART 3
following meetings held after our initial examination of the document. The traffic figures have been accepted, and the subsequent modelling of the junctions on the highway network demonstrate that the development can be accommodated on the existing road system, as the analysis shows that the relevant junctions will still operate well within their capacities.
The assessment also compared the proposed development traffic flows to those that would be likely from the consented DIY & B1 scheme. These confirmed that there would be no or very little difference in the operation of the junctions beyond the immediate area outside the store, whilst the closest junctions would be busier, although well within capacity, as noted earlier.
Further clarification was sought in regards of the parking provision for the store, and the subsequent parking accumulation study has also shown that the number of spaces being proposed should be appropriate for the store. The calculations, based on the trip generation taken from the TRICS database and also from surveys of comparable stores, both demonstrate that the parking provision is likely to retain some spare capacity during the peak trading hours.
As part of our discussions with the developer, the sustainable transport options have been considered, and provision would be made to link the store to the National Cycle Route, and provide improved pedestrian crossing facilities of Bysing Wood Road. In addition, we have explored the enhancement of public transport provision, and are negotiating a contribution that would provide a more frequent running of the the existing bus services through the town. This would provide better public transport options for the wider public, rather than specifically taking trade to the proposed store.
The actual technical design of the proposed access roundabout is currently being assessed to ensure compliance with the appropriate geometric standards, and discussions are still ongoing with the developer to address specific design issues. However, the principle of the access has been agreed, and it is anticipated that an acceptable highway design can be provided.
Consequently, Kent Highway Services is generally in acceptance of the proposed store, subject to further consideration of the proposed roundabout design and Section 106 contributions.
I will update you further once our deliberations are complete.”
The applicant’s highway consultants have also provided information in regard to the anticipated lorry movements that would be generated by the development. They anticipate that nine deliveries by Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGV)(equating to 18 vehicle movements) would take place each day. Members should view these forecasts in the context of a site that has a lawful use for industrial purposes and an extant planning permission (reference SW/09/0298) for a mixed use of DIY retail store and industrial or storage and distribution units – see below for details).
Continued . . .
23 3.2 (Contd) PART 3
Although I await the final views of Kent Highways Services, I conclude that there are unlikely to be any significant adverse transport implications from this development. I will update Members at the meeting.
Sustainable Design and Construction
Members will have noted above that the development is to be built to achieve a BREEAM ‘very good’ rating. This is in excess of the ‘good’ rating required under Policy E21 of the SBLP 2008.
To achieve this rating, the development would incorporate sun pipes to allow natural light into the sales area and the colleague rest area and reduce the use of electric lights, rainwater harvesting, and a biomass boiler to burn ‘locally sourced (if possible) pellets’
The Design and Access Statement asserts that ‘overall 30% of the energy used would be obtained from renewable sources.’ This is well in excess of the 10% renewable energy requirement set out at Policy NRM10 of the South East Plan.
Air Quality
As Members may re-call, the approved DIY and industrial / storage units scheme for this site was not subject to a planning condition, or any other restriction, in respect to the air quality implications of the development, either in Ospringe Street, or elsewhere. And although this development is of a similar size and is likely to generate comparable numbers of traffic movements, the Head of Environment and Amenities has sought an Air Quality Assessment (AQA).
The AQA has recently been provided. It concludes that:
“The overall traffic increase associated with the development is not anticipated to be of an order, which is significant in terms of air quality. As a result of this and continued improvements in vehicle technology, it is anticipated that any residual impacts associated with the development will be local, permanent of negligible significance.”
It is being considered by the Head of Environment and Amenities. I will report their views on it at the meeting.
Developer Contributions
The applicant has indicated a willingness to enter into developer contributions as follows:
Continued . . .
24 3.2 (Contd) PART 3
“1. Contribution of £250,000 (KHS to confirm) to KHS towards improvements to the bus services serving West Faversham. These improvements should be equivalent to doubling the frequency of the existing 3X service, six days a week between 0930 and 1800 hours. This contribution is in line with the fourth paragraph of the Transport section at Table2 of the adopted Developer Contributions SPD, November 2009. 2. Contribution of £5,000 (Kent Sustainable Transport unit to confirm) to KHS as monitoring fee for the Travel Plan. 3. Provision of shelter and seating for two bus stops on Bysing Wood Road, with estimated cost of £10,000-15,000 per bus stop. 4. Contribution of £10,000 towards the Faversham Loyalty Card Reward Scheme, run by Faversham Enterprise Partnership 5. Contribution of £10,000 towards the running and maintenance of the Faversham.Org community website. 6. A lump sum contribution of £50,000 towards the running and proposed improvements to the West Faversham Community Centre as part of the Swale Youth and Community Services contribution aspirations set out in the Developer Contributions SPD. 7. Agreement on the routing of delivery vehicles to and from the site. 8. Requirement to install and maintain an information board within the store advertising town centre facilities. 9. Contribution of £5,000 match-funding for the Town Centre Retailing Support/Promotion Initiative to be undertaken by the Faversham Enterprise Partnership”
Other Issues
Natural England have, as noted above, responded to consultation, explaining that the development would not impact adversely on the Swale Special Protection Area, also designated as a SSSI; subject to planning conditions they are satisfied that water quality – in the form of runoff from the site - will be safeguarded. Similarly, the Environment Agency do not anticipate adverse implications for the quality of ground water.
Summary and Recommendation
The justification put forward on behalf of the applicant for this development in terms of the implications for the vitality and viability of Faversham Town Centre, the sequential assessment of the suitability of site, and the other requirements of PPS4 have been carefully assessed by my colleagues and I, and the independent planning consultants appointed by us. The conclusion has been reached thus far that the retail case for the development appears strong. Therefore, although mindful of the objections raised by third parties, it is my current view that this proposal should not be rejected on grounds of harm to the town centre nor is there an alternative location closer to, or in, the town centre. It is also considered that the applicant has appeared to demonstrate a need for the development. However, my view is predicated by the resolution of the outstanding matters raised in the report.
Continued . . .
25 3.2 (Contd) PART 3
With regard to the fact that this development would prevent the use of the site for either an industrial or storage and distribution use, Members will note that the principle of a predominantly retail use on the site has already been established, with the approval of SW/05/1491 in 2006, and subsequently re- stated with the grant of planning permission (under SW/09/0298) last June for the same scheme, combining a DIY superstore and five industrial / storage and distribution units. Although I note the part of the draft Employment Land Review that includes this site – which suggests that retail proposals should be resisted - and await the comments of the Economic Development Officer, I also note that this development will provide approximately 300 jobs and that it will have knock-on benefits for the local economy as well as regenerating this important site on one of the entrance points to Faversham. Given the sequential test for retail, there would be no alternative site currently available.
As discussed above, the development would not give rise to significant adverse implications for highway safety, residential amenity, or local air quality. In addition, the development is considered to be acceptable in terms of the use of sustainable design and construction techniques, and the proposal to generate approximately 30% of the energy requirement from renewable sources on site.
However, as described above, the architectural treatment is not considered to be of a sufficiently high standard, and is therefore contrary to the requirement of the Government guidance in PPS4, namely that new development should deliver ‘high quality and inclusive design that takes the opportunities available for improving the quality of the area and the way it functions.’ This objective is of particular importance on this prominent site, which will have a significant visual impact both from adjacent urban vantage points and from the neighbouring countryside, which includes the Oare Gunpowder Works Country Park.
I therefore recommend, subject to further technical information in support of the retail justification, the views of Faversham Town Council, the Head of Environment and Amenities, the Economic Development Officer and Kent Highways Services, that planning permission be refused. ______
Responsible Officer: Jim Wilson (Major Projects Officer)
List of Backgrounds Documents 1. Application papers and correspondence for SW/09/1119 2. Application papers and correspondence for SW/09/0298 3. Application papers and correspondence for SW/05/1491 4. Application papers and correspondence for SW/05/0069
26
APPENDIX A ITEM 2. PART 2
APPENDIX B ITEM 2. PART 2
27
PLANNING COMMITTEE – 4 FEBRUARY 2010 PART 4
Report of the Head of Development Services
PART 4
Swale Borough Council’s own development; observation on County Council’s development; observation of development by Statutory Undertakers and by Government Departments; and recommendations to the County Council on ‘County Matter’ applications.
4.1 SW/09/1338 (Case 11481) SITTINGBOURNE
Location: Cherry Tree, 1 Canterbury Road, Sittingbourne, Kent, ME10 4SG
Proposal: Installation of portable air quality monitoring equipment
Applicant/Agent: Mrs S Kennedy, Environmental Services, Swale Borough Council, Swale House, East Street, Sittingbourne, Kent, ME10 3HT
Application Valid: 23 December 2009
SUBJECT TO: Receipt of outstanding representations, (closing date 1 February 2010)
Conditions
(1) The cabinet hereby permitted, and all supporting structures or external fixtures, shall be removed from the site on or before 3 years from the date of permission being granted.
Grounds: In the interest of visual amenity and in pursuance of policies E1 and E19 of the Swale Borough Local plan 2008.
(2) This permission shall lapse, and no development shall take place until details of the colouring of the external surfaces of the cabinet hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the District Planning Authority.
Grounds: In the interest of visual amenity and in pursuance of policies E1 and E19 of the Swale Borough Local plan 2008.
Continued . . .
1 4.1 (Contd) PART 4
Reason for Approval Having taken all material considerations into account, it is considered that subject to compliance with the attached conditions, the proposal would be in accordance with the development plan and would not cause unacceptable harm to the amenities of the area. In resolving to grant permission, particular regard has been had to the following policies: E1, E2 and E19 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.
Description of Proposal This is an application by Swale Borough Council’s Environmental Services team, which seeks to gain planning permission for the siting of air quality monitoring equipment and its associated cabinet to the front of the Cherry Tree public house, situated on the main A2 Canterbury Road in Sittingbourne.
The cabinet will resemble a small electricity sub-station, measuring approximately 1.4 metres wide, 1.5 metres high and 740mm deep including a small canopy projecting above the front access panels. External colouring is to be agreed.
The equipment will enable the Council’s Environmental Services team to monitor and gather data regarding air quality along this part of the A2.
Relevant Site History and Description The Cherry Tree pub is a large detached building set within the built up area of Sittingbourne, along the main A2. The building faces away from the road, with the main entrance via the car park to the rear. As a result, the Canterbury Road elevation is very plain, with only a handful of windows and an emergency exit opening onto the pavement.
There is a narrow concrete access strip running between the pub and the rear edge of the public footpath, on which it is proposed to site the cabinet. There is an electricity substation situated on the opposite side of the road, whilst there are railings, traffic lights and other highway furniture situated within the immediate area.
There is no relevant planning history for the site.
Views of Consultees Kent Highway Services raise no objection.
Other Representations At the time of writing this report, no representations have yet been received. The closing date for representations is 1 February 2010, and I will update Members at the meeting.
Continued . . .
2 4.1 (Contd) PART 4
Policies
Policies E1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008 seeks to ensure that all development proposals are acceptable in general design, impact and amenity terms. Policy E19 specifically aims to achieve a high standard of design for all new developments.
Policy E2 seeks to minimise and mitigate the impacts of pollution within the Borough.
Discussion
The cabinet is not, in itself, a visually appealing structure. However, it is fairly small, is of a standard design and resembles a standard electricity sub- station, and will serve a valuable purpose. It is also noted that the structure will not be permanent, and will be removed from site once the required data has been collected.
Further to this, however, I have recommended the above conditions requiring the equipment to be removed from site after a maximum of 3 years. This will ensure the site is returned to its current condition once the monitoring equipment is no longer required.
The cabinet will be situated hard against the external wall of the pub, on private land, and therefore will not obstruct the public footpath or present a danger to highway safety.
Recommendation
In my view the proposal would have a limited and acceptable impact on highway safety and visual amenity.
Subject to the receipt of any further representations (closing date 1 February) I recommend that temporary planning permission be granted.
Responsible Officer – Rob Bailey (Area Planning Officer
List of Background Documents
1. Application papers for SW/09/1338. 2. Correspondence for SW/09/1338.
3 PLANNING COMMITTEE – 4 FEBRUARY 2010 PART 5
Report of the Head of Development Services
PART 5
Decisions by County Council and Secretary of State, reported for information
5.1 SW/09/0282 (Case 23605) – 2-storey side extension to 71 Whimbrel Close, Sittingbourne, Kent, ME10 2JL
APPEAL DISMISSED
The Inspector commented as follows:
“Decision
1. The appeal is dismissed.
Main issue
2. One main issue arises in the determination of the appeal. This is whether the development would result in serious harm to the character and appearance of the surroundings.
Reasons
3. The surroundings of the appeal site comprise part of a residential neighbourhood of mainly 2-storey dwellings. These buildings are in the form of pairs of semi-detached dwellings, a small terrace of 3 dwellings and several flatted developments, including at Nos 73/75 Whimbrel Close. As the Appellant rightly states, the site is in a moderately high density modern estate, but in my opinion the neighbourhood retains a good sense of openness owing mainly to the gaps between the buildings, and particularly at first floor level. I regard this feature as a key element in the pleasantness, character and appearance of the surroundings, and I have no doubt that it was part of the original design of the estate. It is well worth keeping.
4. The proposed development would take the Appellant’s dwelling almost up to the common boundary with Nos 73/75, leaving no more than a metre or so between these 2 buildings at both ground and first floor level. This closeness would substantially reduce the gap between the buildings and its contribution to the openness of the estate. Judgements on these matters are subjective, but I consider that the visual effect would be of an unfortunate terracing effect, seriously detrimental to the character and appearance of the surroundings. Owing to the arrangement of dwellings at this northern end of Whimbrel Close, the present gap between the 2 buildings cannot be appreciated when the observer stands opposite No 49 Whimbrel Close. Nevertheless, from this point it is clear from the view of the Continued . . .
1 5.1 (Contd) PART 5
flank wall of Nos 73/75 that there is a gap between it and No 71, and so I am not persuaded that this consideration outweighs the harm caused. The proposal contravenes the quoted policies, including Policies E1 and E24 in the adopted (February 2008) Swale Borough Local Plan which in essence promote schemes which are well sited and of a scale, design and appearance appropriate to the location. It also contravenes the Council’s adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance – Designing an Extension which normally requires a gap of 2 m between a first floor extension and a side boundary. This Guidance is especially apt in this case in the arrangement and density of development which obtains here.
5. The Council is concerned that the development would result in the provision of all the parking space at the site at the front of the dwelling. At the time of my inspection at around 11.00 hrs on a Tuesday morning, there were about 10 vehicles parked in front drives and/or on the public highway. Presumably there are usually more during evenings and at week-ends. I am not persuaded that a few more vehicles in this particular case, similarly parked, would result in the demonstrable harm which the Council alleges. I attach a good deal more weight to the matters outlined above.
6. I have taken account of all the other points raised. These include the proposed development at No 22 Whimbrel Close on open land previously used for parking, the inclusion of a mono-pitch roof to the proposed front elevation and the additional accommodation which would be created. They do not, however, outweigh those considerations which lead to my decision. The quoted policies should prevail.”
Observations
An excellent decision which supports the Council’s stance in relation to the potential terracing effect and the importance of protecting the character and appearance of the streetscene.
Responsible Officer: Rob Bailey (Area Planning Officer)
List of Background Papers
1. Planning Inspectorate Appeal Decision ref: APP/V2255/A/09/2109771/NWF
2. Appeal Papers (statements and correspondence)
3. SBC Decision on Application SW/09/0282
2 PART 5
5.2 ENF/09/029 (Case 22228) – Unauthorised perimeter fence at Plot 4F, Eurolink Business Park, Bingham Road, Sittingbourne, Kent
APPEAL DISMISSED AND ENFORCEMENT NOTICE UPHELD
The Inspector commented as follows:
“Summary of Decision: The appeal is dismissed and the enforcement notice upheld subject to a correction and a variation.
The notice 1. Notwithstanding the description of the alleged breach of planning control set out in the enforcement notice, it would be more accurately described as ‘the erection of a front perimeter security fence approximately two metres in height’. I will correct the notice accordingly at section 3.
2. In the interests of consistency with the allegation and to accord precisely with the permitted development tolerance set out in Class A of Part 2 of Schedule 2 to the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 as amended, the requirement of the notice should read: ‘Remove the fence (the approximate position of which is highlighted on the attached plan in blue) from the Land or reduce it in height to no more than one metre above ground level’. I will vary the notice accordingly at section 5. There is no injustice to any party in making these changes.
Main issue 3. The main issue in determining the appeal is the effect of the fence on the character and appearance of the area.
Reasoning 4. The appeal site comprises warehousing premises occupied by Dovetail Ltd. The property lies within a relatively new phase of the Eurolink Business Park located on the edge of Sittingbourne. I found that, unlike some of the older parts of the Business Park, this phase is characterised by a particularly high standard of design and layout. Many plot frontages are open to the highway and, where fencing has been provided parallel to the road, it is generally set back behind belts of landscaping.
5. These soften the visual impact of buildings and security measures and help to create an attractive street scene and working environment. The resulting development is distinctive and very much in accordance with the objectives of the East Hall Farm Development Brief, adopted by the Council as Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) in May 2003. An expectation that development on this phase of the Business Park will proceed in accordance with the SPG is incorporated into the Development Plan by Policy B12 of the adopted Swale Borough Local Plan 2008 (LP).
Continued . . .
3 5.2 (Contd) PART 5
6. The fence is very prominent by reason of its considerable height and forward position and, in the context of its surroundings, is particularly incongruous. Its welded mesh construction is more pleasing to the eye than some boundary treatments found in less obtrusive positions nearby or on the older parts of the Business Park. Nonetheless, it abuts the back edge of the pavement, such that there is no room for screen planting in front and, consequently, creates a strong sense of enclosure in public views over long distances.
7. This is markedly at odds with the open and sensitively landscaped frontages that otherwise prevail in the locality. Existing panting immediately behind the fence helps to mask it from within for the benefit of those working on the premises. However, whilst visible through the mesh from outside the site, it Is far from effective in mitigating the harsh impact of the structure on the street scene. I conclude that the fence causes unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the area and is therefore contrary to LP Policies E1, E19 and B12 and the Council’s SPG.
Other matters
8. I have considered all the other matters raised. I note that the area has been subject to security breaches and vandalism. However, such problems are readily resolved by less visually obtrusive means. Indeed, the Council has indicated that setting the existing fence away from the highway would temper its concerns. 9. I give little credence to the suggestion that soft landscaping that is not itself secured behind fencing might be stolen or damaged. I have seen no cogent evidence of this happening elsewhere and, should it occur at all, I see no reason why it should become a persistent or recurring problem at these particular premises. Therefore, neither these nor any other matters raised are of such significance as to outweigh the considerations that have led to my conclusion on the main issue.
Conclusion
10. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should not succeed. I will uphold the enforcement notice subject to a correction and a variation and refuse to grant planning permission on the deemed application.
Formal decision
11. I direct that the enforcement notice be:
(i) corrected by the deletion of the wording of section 3 in its entirety and the substitution of the words ‘Without planning permission, the erection of a front perimeter security fence approximately two metres in height, the approximate position of which is highlighted on the attached plan in blue.’;
Continued . . .
4 5.2 (Contd) PART 5
and
(ii) varied by the deletion of the wording of section 5 in its entirety and the substitution of the words ‘Remove the fence (the approximate position of which is highlighted on the attached plan in blue) from the Land or reduce it in height to no more than one metre above ground level’.
12. Subject to the above correction and variation, I dismiss the appeal and uphold the enforcement notice. I refuse to grant planning permission on the application deemed to have been made under section 177(5) of the 1990 Act as amended.
Observations
An excellent decision where the Inspector fully supports the high standard of design and layout required by the Council on this modern industrial estate.
Responsible Officer: Rob Bailey (Area Planning Officer)
List of Background Papers
1. Planning Inspectorate Appeal Decision ref: APP/V2255/A/09/2106634
2. Appeal Papers (statements and correspondence)
3. SBC Enforcement Notice Reference: ENF/09/029
5 PART 5
5.3 SW/09/0214 – 3 storey residential development at Former A2 Tyres Depot, Cowper Road, Sittingbourne, Kent, ME10 3AL
APPEAL DISMISSED
The Inspector commented as follows:
“Application for costs
1. At the Hearing an application for costs was made by Brownfield Land Assembly Company against Swale Borough Council. This application is the subject of a separate Decision.
Decision
2. I dismiss the appeal.
Preliminary Matter
3. The policies within the Kent & Medway Structure Plan have been superseded by those within ‘The South East Plan Regional Spatial Strategy for the South East of England’ (2009) and ceased to have effect in July 2009.
Main issues
4. I consider the main issues to be:
• The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the surrounding area; • The living conditions of surrounding residents with particular reference to privacy, visual prominence and overshadowing; • Whether the proposal would provide satisfactory living conditions for future residents with particular reference to amenity space and privacy; and • The effect of the proposal on highway safety.
Reasons
5. The appeal site was previously occupied by a tyre fitting business. The buildings have been removed and the site is currently vacant. Policy B1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan (2008) seeks to retain land and buildings currently in employment use. Exceptions include land that is inappropriately located for or has an unacceptable environmental impact on the area. Although both the Council and local residents advise that the previous did not give rise to significant nuisance, the surrounding streets are very narrow and subject to considerable on-street parking. Due to the difficulties with accessibility, I consider the site to be unsuited to continued commercial use, and the residential use of the site would be consistent with Local Plan policy B9. Continued . . .
6 5.3 (Contd) PART 5 6. The site is located within walking distance of the town centre and is accessible to a range of shops, services, and public transport. I consider this to be a sustainable location where Local Plan policy H2 and Planning Policy Statement 3: Housing (PPS3) encourage the full and effective use of land, provided that it would respect local character and that the local environment would not be compromised.
Character and Appearance 7. The appeal site occupies a prominent location at the junction of Cowper Road and Thomas Street. Although the surrounding area is characterised by relatively small two storey terraced houses, the appeal site is adjoined by Thomas Court, a three storey block of flats to the east and a group of larger terraced dwellings at 51-55 Cowper Road.
8. Local Plan policies E1 and E19 require new development to be appropriate to its location in terms of scale, design and appearance. They also seek a high standard of landscaping, and require proposals to reflect the positive features, and distinctive character of the site and locality.
9. The proposal is for a distinctive three storey, ‘L-shaped’ building and would enclose both frontages of the site. It would be well proportioned and detailed, and would add interest to this prominent corner location. Notwithstanding this, it would fail to respect the scale or character of the neighbouring buildings.
10. The buildings within Cowper Road step up the hill reflecting the local topography. Although the proposal would continue this trend, the ground floor and first floor windows would be considerably lower than the corresponding windows at 55 Cowper Road, and would be at variance with the established pattern of development. Due to the noticeably higher eaves line, and the dissimilar proportions, the proposal would appear altogether larger in scale than the neighbouring dwellings in Cowper Road, and would not reflect the distinctive character of the locality.
11. The proposed parking spaces would occupy almost the entire Thomas Street frontage. Due to the proximity of the parking area to the proposed building and the boundaries of the site, there would be little opportunity to provide sufficient landscaping to integrate the parking with the proposed building. I appreciate that the car parking at Thomas Court is arranged in a similar manner, but this is not characteristic of the area, and in my view, should not set a precedent for other development within the locality. The proposed car parking would unacceptably dominate the Thomas Street frontage, and viewed together with the car park at Thomas Court, would detract from the character and appearance of the surrounding area. Overall, the proposal would conflict with PPS3 which promotes a design led approach to car parking and stresses the importance of good design, particularly where proposals involve an intensification of the existing urban fabric. Continued . . .
7 5.3 (Contd) PART 5
12. I therefore conclude that the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the surrounding area and would fail to comply with policies E1 and E19 of the Local Plan and the guidance in PPS3.
Living conditions –surrounding residents
13. The proposed building would be located immediately adjacent to the boundary with Thomas Court, and extend over four metres beyond the rear elevation Owing to the height, bulk and proximity of the proposed flats, they would have an overbearing effect on the outlook of occupants of Thomas Court. They would also result in considerable overshadowing to the rear of Thomas Court.
14. The proposed flats would be separated from the two storey dwellings on the opposite side of Thomas Road by about 17 metres. This distance is typical of the locality and many other urban areas. Whilst the outlook from the dwellings opposite would change, I do not consider that the proposal would have an overbearing effect on the occupants of these dwellings, or give rise to any undue loss of privacy.
15. I therefore conclude that the proposal would harm the living conditions of the occupants of Thomas Court and would fail to comply with Local Plan policy E1 which amongst other matters seeks to safeguard residential amenity.
Living Conditions – Future Residents
16. The amenity area at the rear of the proposed flats would be separated from the ground floor windows of flats 1 and 2 by an area of landscaping. Although the Council does not have any formal guidance in relation to the provision of amenity space, PPS3 requires good access to amenity and outdoor recreational space including private outdoor space such as residential gardens and patios. It is possible that young children may be resident within the two bedroom flats, and therefore there should be sufficient outdoor space for them to play. Taking account of the number and size of the proposed flats, I consider the proposal would not provide adequate amenity space for future residents. Although there is a large area of public open space at Albany Park, this is on the other side of a busy main road and does not meet the same need as private amenity space. Moreover, there would be no direct access from the two bedroom ground floor flat facing onto Cowper Road to the amenity area.
17. The parking space at the front would be separated from the ground floor front bedroom and living room windows of Flat 2 by a 500mm wide strip of landscaping. In my view this distance would be insufficient to safeguard the privacy of future occupants. Although the windows to Flat 2 would be double glazed, due to the proximity of the parking spaces to Flat 2, there would inevitably be a degree of noise and disturbance from the cars using these spaces particularly late at night. Continued . . .
8 5.3 (Contd) PART 5
18. I therefore conclude that the proposal would fail to provide satisfactory living conditions for future residents and would not comply with Local Plan policy E1 or the guidance in PPS3.
Highway Safety
19. The proposal would provide with 6 parking spaces for 8 flats and comply with the Council’s adopted parking standards, namely those within the ‘Kent Design Guide Review: Interim Guidance Note 3: Residential Parking’ (2008). Residents suggested that the proposal should comply with the parking standards within the Kent & Medway Structure Plan, however, these were superseded by the adopted standards.
20. I appreciate that the surrounding streets are subject to heavy on-street parking. Notwithstanding this, in terms of public transport this is an accessible site, within walking distance of the town centre and its use need not be dependent on the use of the private car. Therefore on the basis of the submitted evidence I consider the proposed level of parking provision to be adequate.
21. The Highway Authority did not raise any concerns in relation to highway safety, and the appellant confirmed that there had been no parking related accidents within the past five years. The Council suggest that due to the increased demand for on-street parking motorists would be more likely to park in less safe locations such as close to road junctions. Taking account of all of the submitted evidence and my observations at the time of my site visit, I conclude that the proposal would not have a harmful effect on highway safety and would comply with Local Plan policies E1 and T3.
Other Matters
22. I am required to consider the proposal in the relation to the relevant development plan policies and all other material considerations. The fact that the proposal was a negotiated scheme and supported by officers does not outweigh my conclusions above.
Conclusion
23. Although I have found that the proposal would not be prejudicial to highway safety, the harm to the character and appearance of the surrounding area and the living conditions of surrounding and future residents to be compelling and over-riding objections to the proposal.
24. For the reasons given above, and taking account of all material considerations, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.”
Continued . . .
9 5.3 (Contd) PART 5
“Costs application in relation to Appeal Ref: APP/V2255/A/09/2109858 Former A2 Tyres Depot, Cowper Road, Sittingbourne, ME10 3AL • The application is made under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, sections 78, 322 and Schedule 6, and the Local Government Act 1972, section 250(5) • .The application is made by Brownfield Land Assembly Company for a partial award of costs against Swale Borough Council. • The hearing was in connection with an appeal against the refusal of the Council to grant subject to conditions planning permission for a new three storey residential scheme providing 8 apartments and 6 parking spaces.
Award of Partial Costs against Swale Borough Council
Summary of Decision
The Submissions for the Appellant
1. The application is for a partial award of costs in respect of the fourth reason for refusal, namely the parking issue. Reference is made to paragraphs B22, B23 and B24 of the Circular.
2. The proposal was supported by the Highway Authority as confirmed in their comments dated 4 June 2009. This was confirmed by the committee report and minutes of the committee. The Council’s evidence in respect of the appeal does not include any report or statement from the highway witness, nor were they present at the Hearing.
The Response by the Council
3. The Council provided evidence in relation to parking pressure in the vicinity and explained why a higher level of parking provision was required. The committee gave careful consideration to this matter and are not bound to accept the view of their officers. The minutes were very clear that the parking proposed was inadequate in regard to local circumstances.
4. The Council articulated and substantiated its concerns with highway matters and did not rely on objections from third parties. Other than in cases of unreasonable behaviour the parties are expected to bear their own costs. The Council has not behaved unreasonably and an award of costs is not justified.
Conclusions
5. I have considered this application for costs in the light of Circular 8/93 and all the relevant circumstances. This advises that, irrespective of the outcome of the appeal, costs may only be awarded against a party who has behaved unreasonably and thereby caused another party to incur or waste expense unnecessarily. Continued . . .
10 5.3 (Contd) PART 5 6. Paragraph B22 of the Circular advises that planning authorities are at a risk of an award of costs where they rely almost exclusively on local opposition from third parties, through representations and attendance at a hearing to support the decision. Paragraph B23 requires planning authorities to give thorough consideration to the relevant advice from consultees such as the highway authority. Where they reject such advice they should clearly understand the basis for doing so, and should provide, where necessary, a clear and rational explanation of the position taken.
7. The reason for refusal refers to the impact of the proposal on highway safety and the convenience of all users of the highway. Kent Highway Services was clear that despite local concerns, the level of parking provision was considered to be adequate and comply with the adopted standards.
8. At the Hearing, the Council suggested that the proposal would increase the demand for on-street parking, and as a result, drivers may park closer to road junctions and thereby harm highway safety. They produced no evidence to support this view.
9. In my view the Council disregarded the clear advice from Kent Highway Services, and advice within the Kent Design Review. Moreover, they submitted no clear evidence as to the harm to highway safety that would arise from the proposal. In my opinion the Council submitted insufficient evidence to support their fourth reason for refusal.
10. I conclude that unreasonable behaviour resulting in unnecessary expense, as described in Circular 8/93, has been demonstrated, and a full award of costs is justified.
Formal Decision and Costs Order 11. In exercise of my powers under section 250(5) of the Local Government Act 1972 and Schedule 6 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended, and all other powers enabling me in that behalf, I HEREBY ORDER that Swale Borough Council shall pay to Brownfield Land Assembly Company, the costs of the appeal proceedings limited to those costs incurred in respect of the fourth reason for refusal, such costs to be assessed in the Supreme Court Costs Office if not agreed. The proceedings concerned an appeal under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended against the refusal of planning permission for a new three storey residential scheme providing 8 apartments and 6 parking spaces on land at the Former A2 Tyres Depot, Cowper Road, Sittingbourne, ME10 3AL.
12. The applicant is now invited to submit to Swale Borough Council, to whom a copy of this decision has been sent, details of those costs with a view to reaching agreement as to the amount. In the event that the parties cannot agree on the amount, a copy of the guidance note on how to apply for a detailed assessment by the Supreme Court Costs Office is enclosed. Continued . . .
11 5.3 (Contd) PART 5
Observations
A mixed decision. The Inspector supported the Council’s stance on the impact of the development on the character and appearance of the streetscene, the provision of amenity space and on the impact of the development on the amenities of the occupiers of Thomas Court, the adjacent block of flats.
She did not though support the Council’s position regarding the impact on the occupiers of dwellings across the street from the site, considering this to be a comparatively normal relationship which should be expected in a suburban area such as this.
Furthermore, she did not consider that the parking provision proposed would be substandard. She took into account the very clear advice provided by Kent Highway Services, who raised no objection regarding the number of off street parking spaces proposed, and also gave significant weight to the sustainable location of the application site.
Members will note that costs have been awarded against the Council relating to the highway reason for refusal, as no compelling evidence could be produced to support it, other than the evidence of local residents.
Members should afford considerable weight to the expert advice of Kent Highway Services and the Planning Officers involved. Where, Members are unable to agree with Officer advice, unless there is a substantive reason and/or evidence base to support such a position, it is suggested that the application be deferred to the next Committee meeting.
This will enable Officers to consider whether an evidence base can be gathered to support such a position and to advise the Committee on the potential implications of defending the case at appeal and the potential for ‘award of costs’ against the Council.
Responsible Officer: Rob Bailey (Area Planning Officer)
List of Background Papers
1. Planning Inspectorate Appeal Decision ref: APP/V2255/A/09/2109858/NWF
2. Appeal Papers (statements and correspondence)
3. SBC Decision on Application SW/09/0214
12