Public Document Pack
Democratic Services White Cliffs Business Park Dover Kent CT16 3PJ
Telephone: (01304) 821199 Fax: (01304) 872452 DX: 6312 Minicom: (01304) 820115 Website: www.dover.gov.uk e-mail: democraticservices @dover.gov.uk
3 November 2014
Dear Councillor
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT a meeting of the PLANNING COMMITTEE will be held in the Council Chamber at these Offices on Thursday 13 November 2014 at 6.00 pm when the following business will be transacted.
Members of the public who require further information are asked to contact Kate Batty-Smith on (01304) 872303 or by e-mail at [email protected] .
Yours sincerely
Chief Executive
Planning Committee Membership:
Councillor F J W Scales (Chairman) Councillor B W Butcher (Vice-Chairman) Councillor J S Back Councillor T A Bond Councillor P M Brivio Councillor J A Cronk Councillor B Gardner Councillor K E Morris Councillor R S Walkden
Councillor P M Wallace
AGENDA
1 APOLOGIES
To receive any apologies for absence.
2 APPOINTMENT OF SUBST ITUTE MEMBERS
To note appointments of Substitute Members.
1 3 DECLARATIONS OF INTE REST (Page 5)
To receive any declarations of interest from Members in respect of business to be transacted on the agenda.
4 MINUTES (Pages 6 - 12)
To confirm the attached Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 16 October 2014.
ITEMS WHICH MAY BE SUBJECT TO PUBLIC SPEAKING (Pages 13 - 16)
5 APP LICATION NO DOV/14/0 0832 - SITE ADJACENT TO GRE ENLEAVES, KINGSDOWN HILL, KINGSDOWN (Pages 17 - 22)
THE FELLING OF TEN TREES
To consider the attached report of the Head of Regeneration and Development.
6 APPLICATION NO DOV/1 4/00853 - PINE COTTAGE, MANOR A VENUE, DEAL (Pages 23 - 29)
RESERVED MATTERS FOR THE ERECTION OF A DETACHED CHALET BUNGALOW
To consider the attached report of the Head of Regeneration and Development.
7 APPLICATION NO DOV/1 4/00584 - CARDRONA, MIN NIS LANE, RIVER (Pages 30 - 37)
ERECTION OF A DETACHED DWELLING
To consider the attached report of the Head of Regeneration and Development.
8 APPLICATION NO DOV/1 4/00902 - 132 LOWER ROAD, RIVE R (Pages 38 - 44)
ERECTION OF SECOND -FLOOR EXTENSION INCLUDING BALCONY
To consider the attached report of the Head of Regeneration and Development.
9 APPLICATION NO DOV/1 4/00361 - LAND SOUTH OF STATIO N ROAD, WALMER (Pages 45 - 100)
ERECTION OF 223 DWELLINGS (INCLUDING 6 6 AFFORDABLE UNITS), TOGETHER WITH ASSOCIATED VEHICULAR ACCESS, CAR PARKING, LANDSCAPING, OPEN SPACE AND WORKS
To consider the attached report of the Head of Regeneration and Development.
ITEMS WHICH ARE NOT SUBJECT TO PUBLIC SPEAKING
2 10 TREE PRESERVATION OR DER (1/2014) - REAR GARDEN OF 9 PAR K STREET, DEAL (Pages 101 - 105)
CONFIRMATION OF ORDER RELATING TO 1 NO EUCALYPTUS TREE
To consider the attached report of the Head of Regeneration and Development.
11 APPLICATION NO DOV/1 3/00867 - LAND ADJACENT TO 10 DOVER ROAD, SANDWICH (Pages 106 - 150)
PROPOSED NEW FOODSTORE, DOCTORS’ SURGERY AND PHARMACY, TOGETHER WITH ASSOCIATED CAR PARKING, LANDSCAPING AND SERVICE YARD
To consider the attached report of the Head of Regeneration and Development.
12 FEES AND CHARGES 201 5/16 (Pages 151 - 167)
To note the attached report of the Head of Regeneration and Development.
13 APPEALS AND INFORMAL HEARINGS
To receive information relating to Appeals and Informal Hearings, and appoint Members as appropriate.
14 ACTION TAKEN IN ACCO RDANCE WITH THE ORDI NARY DECISIONS (COUNCIL BUSINESS) URGENCY PROCEDURE
Members of the Planning Committee are advised that the following decision has been taken and reported on the Official Members’ Weekly News:
The Chairman and Vice-Chairman of Planning Committee have approved the sealing of an Order for the diversion of footpath EE461 in Aylesham under Section 257 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. This diversion is required to secure effective land use and good planning layout in accordance with planning consent DOV/13/00120. The Order will now be advertised, providing an opportunity for representations to be made. Provided that there are no objections, the Order will be confirmed after advertisement for two weeks. These and all enquiries should be made to Dave Robinson, Planning Delivery Manager.
Access to Meetings and Information
• Members of the public are welcome to attend meetings of the Council, its Committees and Sub-Committees. You may remain present throughout them except during the consideration of exempt or confidential information.
• All meetings are held at the Council Offices, Whitfield unless otherwise indicated on the front page of the agenda. There is disabled access via the Council Chamber entrance and a disabled toilet is available in the foyer. In addition, there is a PA system and hearing loop within the Council Chamber.
• Agenda papers are published five clear working days before the meeting.
3 Alternatively, a limited supply of agendas will be available at the meeting, free of charge, and all agendas, reports and minutes can be viewed and downloaded from our website www.dover.gov.uk. Minutes are normally published within five working days of each meeting. All agenda papers and minutes are available for public inspection for a period of six years from the date of the meeting.
• If you require any further information about the contents of this agenda or your right to gain access to information held by the Council please contact Kate Batty-Smith, Democratic Support Officer, telephone: (01304) 872303 or email: kate.batty- [email protected] for details.
Large print copies of this agenda can be supplied on request.
4 Agenda Item No 3 Declarations of Interest
Disclosable Pecuniary Interest (DPI) Where a Member has a new or registered DPI in a matter under consideration they must disclose that they have an interest and, unless the Monitoring Officer has agreed in advance that the DPI is a 'Sensitive Interest', explain the nature of that interest at the meeting. The Member must withdraw from the meeting at the commencement of the consideration of any matter in which they have declared a DPI and must not participate in any discussion of, or vote taken on, the matter unless they have been granted a dispensation permitting them to do so. If during the consideration of any item a Member becomes aware that they have a DPI in the matter they should declare the interest immediately and, subject to any dispensations, withdraw from the meeting.
Other Significant Interest (OSI) Where a Member is declaring an OSI they must also disclose the interest and explain the nature of the interest at the meeting. The Member must withdraw from the meeting at the commencement of the consideration of any matter in which they have declared a OSI and must not participate in any discussion of, or vote taken on, the matter unless they have been granted a dispensation to do so or the meeting is one at which members of the public are permitted to speak for the purpose of making representations, answering questions or giving evidence relating to the matter. In the latter case, the Member may only participate on the same basis as a member of the public and cannot participate in any discussion of, or vote taken on, the matter and must withdraw from the meeting in accordance with the Council's procedure rules.
Voluntary Announcement of Other Interests (VAOI) Where a Member does not have either a DPI or OSI but is of the opinion that for transparency reasons alone s/he should make an announcement in respect of a matter under consideration, they can make a VAOI. A Member declaring a VAOI may still remain at the meeting and vote on the matter under consideration.
Note to the Code: Situations in which a Member may wish to make a VAOI include membership of outside bodies that have made representations on agenda items; where a Member knows a person involved, but does not have a close association with that person; or where an item would affect the well-being of a Member, relative, close associate, employer, etc. but not his/her financial position. It should be emphasised that an effect on the financial position of a Member, relative, close associate, employer, etc OR an application made by a Member, relative, close associate, employer, etc would both probably constitute either an OSI or in some cases a DPI.
5 Public Document Pack Agenda Item No 4
Minutes of the meeting of the PLANNING COMMITTEE held at the Council Offices, Whitfield on Thursday, 16 October 2014 at 6.00 pm.
Present:
Chairman: Councillor F J W Scales
Councillors: B W Butcher P M Beresford P M Brivio J A Cronk N S Kenton K E Morris R S Walkden P M Wallace
Officers: Principal Planner (Development Management) Senior Planner Planning Delivery Manager Principal Solicitor Democratic Support Officer
Application No For Against
DOV/14/00245 Mrs Christine Rogers ------DOV/14/0802 Mr Vic Hester Mr John Peall DOV/14/00579 Mr John Peall Councillor S C Manion DOV/13/01092 Mrs Lynette Wilkinson Councillor S C Manion Mr M Harris
54 APOLOGIES
It was noted that apologies for absence had been received from Councillors J S Back, T A Bond and B Gardner.
55 APPOINTMENT OF SUBSTITUTE MEMBERS
It was noted that, in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 4, Councillors N S Kenton and P M Beresford had been appointed as substitutes for Councillors J S Back and T A Bond respectively.
56 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
It was noted that there were no declarations of interest.
57 MINUTES
The Minutes of the meetings held on 2 and 18 September 2014 were approved as correct records and signed by the Chairman.
58 APPLICATION NO DOV/14/00245 - THE FOLLIES, DOWNS ROAD, EAST STUDDAL
The Committee viewed an aerial photograph, plan and drawings of the site. The Principal Planner (Development Management) advised that the proposal related to
6 the provision of an agricultural worker’s dwelling and three-bay agricultural building on a site which operated as a free-range pig farm.
Members were referred to paragraph 3.11 of the report and the advice from the Local Planning Authority’s agricultural adviser, Rural Planning Ltd (RPL), in respect of an earlier application that the business had reached a point where some form of temporary accommodation could be considered but that a permanent dwelling could not be supported. Permission for temporary residential accommodation had been granted in 2013 and was due to expire on 31 December 2015.
The Principal Planner advised that the siting, design and impact of the dwelling on the countryside were considered acceptable. The functional need for a permanent dwelling on or near the site was also now accepted. However, Government guidance (now cancelled) set out in Annex A of Planning Policy Statement 7 (PPS7) stated that the need for a permanent dwelling must be sustainable. Moreover, paragraph 55 of the National Planning Policy Framework stipulated that new agricultural homes in the countryside should be avoided unless there were special circumstances. With reference to paragraph 3.22 of the report, Members were advised that there was a risk in permitting dwellings that were unusually large in relation to the agricultural needs or financial income of the unit. Whilst the need for the dwelling was recognised, RPL had advised that its size and scale was not justified by the limited income generated by the business.
In response to Councillor J A Cronk, the Principal Planner clarified that PPS7 had been cancelled and Annex A now carried limited weight. Councillor Cronk emphasised the importance of encouraging employment in the countryside and his support for the proposal. The business had been operating since 2008 and it was the owner’s intention to expand it. In accordance with Core Strategy Policy DM1, the proposed dwelling was functionally required to develop the business and would be ancillary to the existing business. It was a matter for the farmer to decide what size of dwelling would be appropriate for the business and where the funding should come from. Furthermore, it was likely that the permanent dwelling would be less domineering in the countryside than the mobile home whose removal was to be welcomed.
The Chairman reiterated that, notwithstanding that PPS7 had been cancelled, the proposed development was outside settlement confines and granting permission would go against the Local Planning Authority’s main policies. PPS7 was there for guidance and would undoubtedly be replaced in due course. The Principal Planner emphasised concerns that funding for the development was not coming from the agricultural business. In the event that the current owner moved on, there were concerns that the business would be unable to sustain such a development.
Councillor K E Morris referred to temporary permission having already been granted and, given that the functional need was recognised, argued that it was a logical step for permanent accommodation to be approved. Councillor R S Walkden commented on the presence of a building on the site 26 years previously. In his opinion the granting of planning permission would help the business to achieve its potential, and it was only right that the owner should be able to live in permanent accommodation on site. Given the size of dwelling proposed, he suggested that a condition could be attached to restrict permitted development.
Councillor N S Kenton stated that, whilst the need for the dwelling was recognised, there were concerns surrounding the financial tests of PPS7 which, although now cancelled, nevertheless still carried some weight. These tests were designed to
7 ensure that there was a genuine farming need for the dwelling in order to ensure that the land with dwelling was not so expensive that it was beyond the reach of farmers should it come to be sold on. In response to Councillor B W Butcher who expressed concerns about the land being sold off as a private dwelling, the Chairman advised that an occupancy condition could be applied but a personal approval could not be given. He also explained that the purpose of the temporary permission given until 2015 had been to allow time for the business to grow since it was more likely that the expanded business would be able to sustain a permanent dwelling. It was encouraging that there had been no objections and 38 letters of support for the proposal.
Councillor P M Wallace stated that Members had to be certain that it was a viable business which required a dwelling of the size proposed. Councillor Kenton and the Chairman queried the methodology used to conclude that the size of house proposed was not sustainable and asked what size of house could be supported by the business. The Principal Planner referred Members to RPL’s advice set out at paragraph 3.23 of the report.
RESOLVED: (a) That, notwithstanding the Officer’s recommendation and subject to conditions, Application No DOV/14/00245 be APPROVED on the following grounds:
(i) The functional need has been proven;
(ii) The principle of development on the site has been agreed through the granting of temporary permission; and
(iii) Given the cancellation of Annex A of Planning Policy Statement 7, the Committee has attached less weight to financial tests and, in particular, the value of the dwelling in relation to the income generated by the business.
(b) That powers be delegated to the Head of Regeneration and Development to settle any necessary planning conditions in line with the issues set out in the report and as resolved by the Planning Committee (including restriction to agricultural use only and removal of mobile home).
59 APPLICATION NO DOV/14/0802 - RED RAMBLERS, DEAL ROAD, WORTH
The Committee viewed photographs and a plan of the site. The Senior Planner advised that the proposal was a retrospective application for the continued use of part of the property for the day-time care and night-time boarding of dogs. Unauthorised use of the site had been taking place since June 2007. Under environmental health regulations, the site was currently licensed for no more than 10 dogs during the day and 4 dogs at night. The revised application saw the number of dogs cared for during the day reduced from 10 to 6. The applicant had requested that a personal planning condition could be attached and had offered to submit a management plan.
Members were advised that the site was a two-storey dwelling situated on the east side of Deal Road beyond the rural and urban confines. To the north and south of the site were other residential properties and to the rear a working farm. On the opposite side of the road were agricultural fields. Deal Road was a busy road providing a transport link between Sandwich and Deal. A lay-by separated the
8 application site from Deal Road and was used to access private driveways and for on-street parking for visitors.
The Senior Planner reminded Members of the planning history of the site. In June 2012 a similar retrospective application had been refused by the Committee. The subsequent appeal had been dismissed by the Planning Inspector in September 2013. Another retrospective application had been refused by the Committee at its meeting held on 8 May 2014. An enforcement notice had been served on the applicant on 20 May 2014. An appeal had been lodged and was due to be heard on 10 December 2014.
The principal considerations of the application were functional requirement, sustainable travel, highway safety, residential amenity and whether a personal permission was suitable. Three letters had been received, including one from District Councillor Paul Carter which argued that the applicant provided an essential service and was making every effort to comply with regulations. Further comments had been received from the Council’s Licensing department which had received a report of barking in July. However, the Environmental Health department had not received any complaints since 2008.
Councillor Walkden indicated his support for the application which involved a site that was not out in the countryside but rather on a main road where the traffic impact was likely to be less than it would be if the business was located in a village. Because of its location, it was probable that customers would combine trips to the site with travel to and from work, etc. In his opinion the proposal was unlikely to generate more trips or lead to an increase in traffic.
Councillor P M Brivio commented that she would not want to live next door to the business, and understood that there had been other noise complaints to Licensing and Planning which were not mentioned in the report. Councillor Cronk stated that he did not believe that the proposal would increase travel demand. However, the site’s location in the countryside outside the urban and rural confines was a material consideration and the application should be refused.
Councillor Morris agreed that there would be no significant increase in traffic due to the site’s location. The dwelling did not have many close neighbours and was partially surrounded by fields which were positive factors in terms of its effect on residential amenity. Furthermore, there appeared to have been a lack of complaints to Environmental Health which indicated that barking noise was not a problem. The applicant offered an innovative service which was well supported.
Councillor Wallace expressed his sympathy for the applicant and acknowledged that there was a lot of support for the business. However, he could find no reason to justify going against Core Strategy Policy DM1. The business was outside settlement confines and did not functionally require this location. Moreover, he was mindful that approval might set a precedent. Councillor Kenton stated that, whilst he favoured the rural location of the business and agreed that it would not significantly increase travel demand, he had concerns about its impact on the amenity and quality of life of neighbouring residents.
The Chairman advised Members that, if they approved the current application, any subsequent application to increase the number of dogs would be difficult to refuse given that they had already gone against Policy DM1 in approving the original application.
9 RESOLVED: That Application No DOV/14/0802 be REFUSED on the following grounds:
(i) The proposed use, if permitted, would generate travel beyond any urban or village confines and, by way of its siting in a rural location, would constitute an unsustainable form of development by increasing travel demand, particularly by private modes of transport. In the absence of any overriding policy justification for the development, the proposal would be contrary to the policy objectives relating to sustainable development and would be contrary to Policies DM1, DM3 and DM11 of the Dover District Core Strategy 2006 and the National Planning Policy Framework.
(ii) The proposed development would introduce a new business outside any settlement confines and would constitute a new development within the countryside which is unacceptable in principle and for which there is no justification or overriding benefit that would outweigh the harm that would arise from the development. The proposal would be contrary to Policy DM1 of the Dover District Core Strategy.
60 APPLICATION NO DOV/14/00579 - 7 PENFOLD GARDENS, SHEPHERDSWELL, DOVER
The Committee viewed an aerial view and photographs of the application site. The Principal Planner advised that one further letter of support had been received since the report was written which argued that the proposal was in keeping with the street scene, made good use of the space and would reduce demand on greenbelt land.
The proposal involved the erection of a detached dwelling on a corner plot. Corner plots were regarded as spaces worth protecting because of their amenity value, and the proposed development would lead to the loss of this space. The proposed roof would be partly hipped and Officers considered that this would be overly prominent on a corner plot and appear incongruous in the existing street scene. Proposals to enclose the small garden of the development with a fence would be out of keeping with the open nature of other properties’ frontages. Furthermore, replacement parking arrangements would result in the loss of open visual space and were not considered acceptable by Kent Highways.
Councillor Butcher voiced his opposition to the application, stating that the proposed development would be very cramped on this site. The Chairman added that, whilst it was considered that there would be no detrimental impact on the residential amenity of 9 Penfold Gardens, there would be a detrimental impact on no. 7 due to the dwelling’s overbearing effect.
RESOLVED: That Application No DOV/14/00579 be REFUSED on the following grounds:
(i) The proposed development would, by reason of its design, appearance, scale and location constitute an overdevelopment of the site and inappropriate development that is harmful to the character and appearance of the area and harmful to the residential amenity of existing neighbouring properties and future residents, contrary to
10 policies CP1 of the Dover District Core Strategy 2010 and paragraphs 17, 56, 57 and 60 of the National Planning Policy Guidance.
(ii) The proposed development would not provide adequate replacement parking for no. 7 Penfold Gardens, contrary to Policy DM13 of Dover District Core Strategy 2010 and paragraphs 56. 57 and 60 of the National Planning Policy Guidance.
61 APPLICATION NO DOV/13/01092 - LAND ADJACENT TO SAGANA LODGE, GORE LANE, EASTRY
Members were shown photographs and a plan of the site. The Principal Planner advised that the proposal was an outline application for the erection of a detached dwelling and garage and construction of a vehicular access. The application site was within the village confines of Eastry, forming one of a row of spacious residential plots along Gore Lane. The lane was very leafy in nature and objections had been raised regarding the loss of trees. However, conditions could be imposed to require replacement trees, hedging and embankment in order to ensure that the leafy nature of the lane was preserved in the longer term.
Councillor Butcher recognised that the lane and surrounding roads were narrow with restricted visibility. However, this could be overcome with the inclusion of appropriate visibility splays at the front of the proposed dwelling. Councillor Kenton suggested that a carefully worded condition should be added to ensure that splays were effectively maintained by the applicant. Although there was restricted visibility in the lane and at the nearby junction, local residents were aware of this and most drove accordingly. Officers’ intentions to impose height restrictions on the new dwelling were welcomed. The Principal Planner clarified that Kent Highways had set out in detail their requirements regarding the visibility splays.
RESOLVED: (a) That Application No DOV/13/01092 be APPROVED, subject to the following conditions:
(i) Standard outline conditions;
(ii) Approved plans;
(iii) Highway conditions;
(iv) Landscaping conditions;
(v) Ecology conditions;
(vi) Code Level 4;
(vii) Ground levels;
(viii) Height restrictions;
(ix) Material samples;
(x) Archaeology watching brief;
11 (xi) Construction Management Plan;
(xii) Drainage and foul water disposal.
(b) That powers be delegated to the Head of Regeneration and Development to settle any necessary planning conditions in line with the issues set out in the recommendation and as resolved by the Planning Committee.
62 APPEALS AND INFORMAL HEARINGS
The Planning Delivery Manager circulated a one-page report and advised the Committee that, of the seventeen appeals received to date in 2014, only one had been upheld. This had been a decision delegated to Officers.
RESOLVED: That the report be noted.
63 ACTION TAKEN IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ORDINARY DECISIONS (COUNCIL BUSINESS) URGENCY PROCEDURE
The Committee noted that no action had been taken since the last meeting.
The meeting ended at 7.48 pm.
12 Agenda Annex
APPLICATIONS WHICH MAY BE SUBJECT TO PUBLIC SPEAKING
The Reports
The file reference number, a description of the proposal and its location are identified under a) of each separate item. The relevant planning policies and guidance and the previous planning history of the site are summarised at c) and d) respectively.
The views of third parties are set out at e); the details of the application and an appraisal of the proposal are set out at f) and each item concludes with a recommendation at g).
Additional information received prior to the meeting will be reported verbally. In some circumstances this may lead to a change in the recommendation.
Details of the abbreviated standard conditions, reasons for refusal and informatives may be obtained from the Planning Technician (telephone 01304 872471).
It should be noted, in respect of points raised by third parties in support of, or objecting to, applications that they are incorporated in this report only if they concern material planning considerations.
Each item is accompanied by a plan (for identification purposes only) showing the location of the site and the Ordnance Survey Map reference.
Site Visits
All requests for site visits will be considered on their merits having regard to the likely usefulness to the Committee in reaching a decision.
The following criteria will be used to determine usefulness:
• the matter can only be safely determined after information has been acquired directly from inspecting this site. • there is a need to further involve the public in the decision making process as a result of substantial local interest, based on material planning considerations, in the proposals. • the comments of the applicant or an objector cannot be adequately expressed in writing because of age, infirmity or illiteracy;
The reasons for holding a Committee site visit must be included in the minutes.
Background Papers
List of background papers: unless otherwise stated, the appropriate file in respect of each application, save any document which discloses exempt information within the meaning of the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985.
The Officer to whom reference should be made concerning inspection of the background papers is Abi Robinson, Planning Technician, Planning, Council Offices, White Cliffs Business Park, Dover (Telephone: 01304 - 872471).
13 IMPORTANT
The Committee should have regard to the following preamble During its consideration of all applications on this agenda
1. Section 70(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 requires that, in dealing with an application for planning permission, the local planning authority shall have regard to the provisions of the Development Plan, so far as material to the application, and to any other material considerations.
2. Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that "If regard is to be had to the development plan for the purposes of any determination to be made under the planning Acts the determination must be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise."
3. Planning applications which are in accordance with the relevant policies in the Development Plan should be allowed and applications which are not in accordance with those policies should not be allowed unless material considerations justify granting of planning permission. In deciding such applications, it should always be taken into account whether the proposed development would cause demonstrable harm to interests of acknowledged importance. In all cases where the Development Plan is relevant, it will be necessary to decide whether the proposal is in accordance with the Plan and then to take into account material considerations.
4. In effect, the following approach should be adopted in determining planning applications:-
(a) if the Development Plan contains material policies or proposals and there are no other material considerations, the application should be determined in accordance with the Development Plan; (b) where there are other material considerations, the Development Plan should be taken as the starting point and the other material considerations should be weighed in reaching a decision; (c) where there are no relevant policies in the Development Plan, the planning application should be determined on its merits in the light of all material considerations; and (d) exceptionally, a development proposal which departs from the Development Plan may be permitted because the contribution of that proposal to some material, local or national need or objective is so significant that it outweighs what the Development Plan says about it.
5. Section 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 states that, in considering planning applications for development affecting a listed building or its setting, special regard shall be had to the desirability of preserving the building, its setting or any special features which it possesses. Section 72 requires that special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of conservation areas when considering any applications affecting land or buildings within them. Section 16 requires that, when considering applications for listed building consent, special regard shall be had to the desirability of preserving the listed building, its setting, or features of special architectural or historic interest which it has.
6. Section 38(6) of the 2004 Act does not apply to the determination of applications for advertisement consent, listed building consent or conservation area consent. Applications for advertisement consent can be controlled only in the interests of amenity and public safety. However, regard must be had to policies in the Development Plan (as material considerations) when making such determinations.
The Development Plan
7. The Development Plan in Dover District is comprised of:
The South East Plan 2009 Dover District Core Strategy 2010 Dover District Local Plan 2002 (saved policies only) Kent Minerals Local Plan : Brickearth 1986 Kent Minerals Local Plan : Construction Aggregates 1993 Kent Minerals Local Plan : Chalk and Clay and Oil and Gas 1997 Kent Waste Local Plan 1997
14 Human Rights Act 1998
During the processing of all applications and other items and the subsequent preparation of reports and recommendations on this agenda, consideration has been given to the implications of the Human Rights Act 1998 in relation to both applicants and other parties and whether there would be any undue interference in the Convention rights of any person affected by the recommended decision.
The key articles are:-
Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
Article 1 of the First Protocol - Right of the individual to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.
Account may also be taken of:-
Article 6 - Right to a fair trial and public trial within a reasonable time.
Article 10 - Right to free expression.
Article 14 - Prohibition of discrimination.
The Committee needs to bear in mind that its decision may interfere with the rights of particular parties, particularly under Article 8 and Article 1 of the First Protocol. The decision should be a balanced one and taken in the wider public interest, as reflected also in planning policies and other material considerations.
(PTS/PLAN/GEN) HUMANRI
15 PUBLIC SPEAKING AT PLANNING COMMITTEE
1. The scheme for public speaking at Planning Committee only concerns matters relating to the determination of individual applications for planning permission contained in the Planning Committee agenda and not to other matters such as Tree Preservation Orders or Enforcement.
2. The scheme for public speaking will apply at each meeting where an individual application for planning permission is considered by the Planning Committee.
3. Any person wishing to speak at the Planning Committee should submit a written request using this form and indicate clearly whether the speaker is in favour of, or opposed to, the planning application.
4. The form must be returned to Democratic Support no later than two working days prior to the meeting of the Planning Committee.
5. Speaking opportunities will be allocated on a first come, first served basis but with the applicant being given first chance of supporting the scheme. Applicants or agents will be notified of requests to speak. Third parties who have applied to speak will be notified of other requests only when these directly affect their application to speak. The names, addresses and telephone numbers of people who wish to speak may be given to other people who share their views and have expressed a wish to address the Committee. The identified speaker may defer to another at the discretion of the Chairman of the Committee.
6. One person will be allowed to speak in favour of, and one person allowed to speak against, each application. The maximum time limit will be three minutes per speaker. This does not affect a person’s right to speak at a site visit if the Committee decides one should be held.
7. Public speakers will not be permitted to distribute photographs or written documents at the Committee meeting.
8. The procedure to be followed when members of the public address the Committee will be as follows:
(a) Chairman introduces item. (b) Planning Officer updates as appropriate. (c) Chairman invites the member of the public and Ward Councillor(s) to speak, with the applicant or supporter last. (d) Planning officer clarifies as appropriate. (e) Committee debates the application. (f) The vote is taken.
9. In addition to the arrangements outlined in paragraph 6 above, District Councillors who are not members of the Committee may be permitted to address the Planning Committee for three minutes in relation to planning applications in their Ward. This is subject to giving formal notice of not less than two working days and advising whether they are for or against the proposals. In the interests of balance, a further three minutes’ representation on the contrary point of view will be extended to the identified or an additional speaker. If other District Councillors wish to speak, having given similar notice and with the agreement of the Chairman, this opportunity will be further extended as appropriate.
10. Agenda items will be taken in the order listed.
11. The Chairman may, in exceptional circumstances, alter or amend this procedure as deemed necessary. 16 This plan has been produced for Planning Committee purposes only. No furtherAgenda copies Item may No be5 made. Elmina K IN G 37.1m S Romny D Cannon O Coddy W Lodge N H IL L
Radlyn
n The Dover Districtha Council Dover District Council h c g ua Anchorage u r o C Not to be reproduced Not to be reproduced Taynuilt n Yeji to ri e h C s u y ri le a m Mevagissey qu ra e A B dg Lo Dover District Council
d o The Spinney o e Not to be reproduced w g k d a o O L 22.9m Green Leaves Pineta Eastcote Dover District Council
e Ferncroft n Nott to be reproduced f t l e r e g fo e D d u s th a u r o e o o L w B H a t e g n g D u e ta A rt t o W o O T C R E te T o O c C th H u T e o R id S O s N e Dover Districtra Council Dover District Council B
L in ks vi Note w to be reproduced Not to be reproduced 22.4m
Northcote Not to scale Application: 00832 This map is reproduced from Ordnance Survey material Site Adjacent to Greenleaves with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Controlled of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office © Crown Kingsdown Hill copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Kingsdown
CT14 8EA Dover District Council Licence Number 100019780 published 14
TR 3761 4770 Note: This plan is provided for purposes of site identification only. 17 a) DOV/14/832- Fell 10 trees.
Site adjacent to Greenleaves, Kingsdown Hill, Kingsdown, Deal, CT14 8EA b) Summary of Recommendation
Grant consent to fell trees, T5, T9 and T11 c) Planning Policy and Guidance
Tree Preservation Orders: A guide to the law and good practice (DETR) gives advice and general guidance on tree matters, including the determination of applications relating to protected trees.
British Standards Publication BS 5837: 2012. Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction\ Recommendations.
Planning Practice Guidance – Trees preservation Orders and trees in conservation areas.
d) Relevant Planning History
DOV/12/0057 - Erection of 3 detached dwellings and construction of vehicular accesses (existing dwelling to be demolished) – Appeal dismissed
DOV/14/143 - Erection of a detached dwelling and construction of a vehicular access - Granted
e) Consultee and Third Party Responses
12 letters of objection have been received and 2 letters of support. Comments include:- • Trees have been neglected for many years. • Protected trees have value, particularly Horse Chestnut and Ash. • The ethics of such a development are questionable. • The woodland effect is what the TPO is trying to protect. • The trees, if looked after can recover and not pose a danger. • Felling of a protected tree has already occurred. • The group identified as G12 is not within the ownership of the developer. • There is some discrepancy to the number of trees involved. f) The Site and the Proposal
1.1 The application site is located at the lower end of Kingsdown Hill, within the village of Kingsdown. The site is located to the north west of a property called ‘Greenleaves’ and originally formed part of the garden, it is now divided and fenced off. Planning permission (DOV/14/143) was granted for the erection of a detached dwelling with integral garage on the severed side garden of Greenleaves.
1.2 The site is approximately 0.09 hectares in size, with a street frontage of approximately 16.2m to Kingsdown Hill, the rear of the site faces onto Hillcrest Road. Kingsdown Hill slopes to the south however, the topography within the site itself is relatively flat.
18
1.3 The site is within a residential area, surrounded by properties in Kingsdown Hill and Hillcrest Road. There is an eclectic style of housing interspersed with bungalows, all being individual in appearance.
1.4 To the southern end of Kingsdown Hill and beyond Greenleaves, the area has a more wooded appearance than the rest of the road and visually leads into a wooded section of countryside beyond the junction with Northcote Road.
1.5 There are three groups of trees, G1, G2 and G3 which are protected by a TPO no.2, 2011 which cover the garden area of Greenleaves and the severed side garden which is now a building plot. This application relates to tree works affecting trees within the G3 group, the proposed works were; originally to fell 14 trees on site and the adjacent site within the boundary of Greenleaves. However this has been amended as there was some confusion over which trees fell within the application site of the new dwelling. This has now been rectified and the amended proposal is now to Fell 10 trees on the site adjacent to Greenleaves. As such it affects some of the trees within the G3 group but not these within the curtilage of Greenleaves.
1.6 Plans will be on display
2. Main Issues
2.1 The main issues are as follows; • the reasons put forward in support of it; • the amenity value and viability of each tree; and • maintenance the woodland setting.
3. Assessment
3.1 Government guidance advises that when determining the application the Council should (1) assess the amenity value of the tree and the likely impact of the proposal on the amenity of the area, and (2) in the light of that assessment, consider whether or not the proposal is justified, having regard to the reasons put forward in support of it. It should also consider whether any loss or damage is likely to arise if consent is refused or granted subject to conditions.
3.2 Part 6 of The Town and Country Planning (Tree Preservation) (England) Regulations 2012 provides that compensation is payable for loss or damage in consequence of refusal of consent, grant of consent subject to conditions or refusal of any consent, agreement or approval required under such a condition. The provisions include that compensation shall be payable to a person for loss or damage which, having regard to the application and the documents and particulars accompanying it, was reasonably foreseeable when consent was refused or was granted subject to conditions.
Reasons put forward for works
3.3 T1 and T2 are Sycamore trees they are within 10m of the dwelling; the applicant considers that this is too close to the new building. T5 is an Ash tree and T6 is Sycamore tree they are permanently displaced to
19 the southwest and are considered to be unsafe. T9 is a Horse Chestnut and is significantly defective and T4 and T11 are Sycamore and are considered to be spindly and have no individual amenity value. No reasons were given to fell T3 and T10. T8 was not present in site during the site visit.
Amenity Value and Viability
3.4 T1 Sycamore: The tree was inspected and the observations of the consultant were agreed with. However there is no reason for the removal of the tree if appropriate measures were taken to rectify the issues of growth over the proposed rear elevation. It is recommended that this tree could be retained and pruned.
3.5 T2 Sycamore: Has no significant defects other than Low Vigour and it is recommended that this should be retained .
3.6 T3 Sycamore: It is recommended that this should be retained as it is in good condition and has no visible issues present.
3.7 T4 Sycamore: Is coupled with T3 and forms a significant section of the canopy for T3, also removing this would place a void in the canopy of T3 and would compromise the canopy balance, it is therefore recommended that this tree is retained.
3.8 T5 Ash: Has been permanently displaced and the problems associated with this issue will increase in later life, the tree is also not an outstanding contributor to the woodland setting. Therefore it is recommended that this tree can be felled subject to a replacement with Silver Birch will be set as one of the conditions of consent to fell.
3.9 T6 Sycamore: Had experienced major root heave and was significantly compromised. As the tree was immediately dangerous, under the provision of the Act deemed permission has been granted to fell this tree. The tree was removed on the 25th October. There is a requirement under the Act on the applicant to replace this tree and a suitable replacement species would be a Field maple. Local residents have raised concerns that the constriction traffic caused harm to the tree, however there is no evidence of this.
3.10 T8 Hawthorn: This tree has already been removed but without any explanation or justification from the applicant. It is recommended that a like for like replacement is provided.
3.11 T9 Horse Chestnut: the tree has a significant wound, potentially compromising the trees structural integrity. it is recommended that the tree is removed with the condition that an acceptable replacement planting is undertaken. It is suggested that replacement with Holm oak is planted as a condition of consent being granted.
3.12 T10 Sycamore: Has no significant defects and is sound. It is recommended that this tree is retained.
3.13 T11 Sycamore: This tree is located in close proximity to the newly installed boundary fence. At present the tree does not pose any
20 problems or risks but neither is it an outstanding contribution to the overall treescape. Due to the potential impact on neighbouring property and boundary structures as the tree matures it is recommended the removal of this tree and a replacement planting with a more suitable tree in a more appropriate position. It is suggested that as a replacement hazel would be a suitable substitute.
Woodland Setting
3.14 The tree preservation order was made in order to protect the collective visual amenity value of the trees. Collectively the trees create a soft woodland setting and the preservation of which is important in to help the transition from the residential area to the open countryside. It is considered that if only the works listed above is carried out and the replacement trees provided, then the integrity of this group of protected trees will be preserved and enhanced for future generations.
Conclusion
3.14 It is not considered acceptable or necessary for all ten trees to be felled. T6 has already been felled because it was dangerous and T8 removed without permission. It is recommended that T5, T9 and T11 can also be felled. However the five other trees should be retained and maintained. A further TPO application should be submitted to agree maintenance works to trees listed as T1, T2, T3, T4, and T10. g) Recommendation
I CONSENT BE Granted on the grounds: - That trees T5, T8, T9 and T11 are significantly defective and should be felled. Replacement trees should be provided for T5, T6, T9 and T11 are to be replaced with suitable native species.
1. The replacement tree(s) shall be as follows: T5 (Silver Birch), T6 (Field Maple), T8 (Hawthorn), T9 (Holm Oak) and T11 (Hazel), the size and siting of the replacement trees shall be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority within 1 month of the date of this permission. Reason: To maintain the visual amenities of the area. 2. Within 1 month of the date of this permission a timetable for the replacement planting shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local planning Authority. Reason: To maintain the visual amenities of the area.
3. Within 1 month of the first tree being felled the applicant shall inform the Local Planning Authority in writing that the work has/is being undertaken. Reason: To maintain the visual amenities of the area.
4. If, within a period of five years from the date of the planting of any tree that tree, or any tree planted in replacement for it, is removed, uprooted or destroyed or dies, (or becomes, in the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, seriously damaged or defective) another tree of the same species and size as that originally planted shall be planted at the same place, unless the Local Planning Authority gives its written consent to any variation. Reason: To ensure that adequate provision is made for the planting of trees and in the interests of maintaining and enhancing the quality and enjoyment of the environment.
21 Informative: An application should be submitted for further works to the TPO trees listed as T1, T2, T3, T4, and T10.
Case Officer
Ross Dryburgh
22 This plan has been produced for Planning Committee purposes only. No furtherAgenda copies Item may No be6 made.
H C R 1 U 0 H C 2 1 31 1 5 S
H
E 1 3 R 8 7 O 9 N 1 C
L 9 O S
E 7 3
A
B 3 B a E Y C L O 1
S 1
E
1
4
9 D
5 A
3 R 4 3 R
A 6 C O T T 2 0
C L O S
7.5m E
1
1
3
4 9 0 21 El Sub Sta D A 2
O 1
2 1
R 6 L 1 A 126 E D E L D ID M 6 21 128
130
M 164 IL E 2 S 2 T 0 O N Dov4 er District CouncilE Dover District Council 3 1 2 R O 170 7.5m A D 180
th a 2 P 2 3 8 h 186 rc 88 u 1 h C 4
2 3 2 6
8.0m
1 5
9 8
Not to be reproduced Not to be reproduced1 6 1
MS
0 190 24
0 1 9 8 1 198 210 Greenwood
8 20 1 5 2 22
220
9.6m 2 1 7 Manor Lodge The
ON ROAD 4
LOND 1 1 Heritage 9
Cottage
7 6 2
2 3 7
2 1 9 PH
Brooklyn
2 4 3 Dover District CouncilGrove Lodge 2 2
H A Martella Y
W
A
R
D
C
L
O
S
E
The Limes 2 1 9 7 1 Not to be reproduced
E U N E V Clevelands A 1 R 3 O N A M 0 The Brambles 2 Pine Cottage
6 3
6
1
3 5
S T 30
LE 3 O 1 N A R
Tayclif D 4 'S
R
O 2 Leyswood A 4
Banbury D
3 9
Kelowna
7
2 4 Balmaha
El Sub Sta
a
7 Bramhall 4 Dover District Council 3 The Trees L Twr The Wrenmar Anchorage Wychwood
4
Ashley Not to be reproducedCourt
Maycroft D Muskoka A M O A R N O 'S R D 4 A R V A E N N U O E E L T S
6 2 Gaunt's Meadow
LTwr 6 5
1 Green Gates Football Ground E S O L (Deal Town FC)
C LTwr 5 'S 7 T N U A G Charnwood
9.5m 8
4 6
Stand
5 Dover District Council Dov9 er District Council 1
3a 2
58 4
8
9 7
e
z e 3 e r B Not to be reproduced Not n to be reproduced o n n a h
S
3 b
42
18
5 6 Pandora
40 2 1 Not to scale Application: DOV 14 853 This map is reproduced from Ordnance Survey material Pine Cottage with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Controlled of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office © Crown Manor Avenue copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Deal
CT14 9PN Dover District Council Licence Number 100019780 published 2014
TR 3658 5194 Note: This plan is provided for purposes of site identification only. 23
a) DOV/14/00853 – Reserved matters for the erection of a detached chalet bungalow
Pine Cottage, Manor Avenue, Deal
b) Summary of Recommendation
Planning permission be granted
c) Planning Policy and Guidance
Dover District Local Plan (DDLP)
• ‘Saved’ Policy HS2 states that on unallocated sites within the urban confines, housing development will be permitted provided housing is the most suitable use.
Dover District Core Strategy (CS)
• Policy CP5 requires all new residential dwellings to be built to Code for Sustainable Homes level 4. • Policy DM13 states that provision for parking should be a design-led approach based upon the characteristics of the area, the nature of the development and design objectives.
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)
• The NPPF has 12 core principles, which amongst other things always seek to secure high quality design and a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants.
The Kent Design Guide (KDG)
The Kent Design Guide provides criteria and advice on providing well designed development. d) Relevant Planning History
DOV/13/0142 – Outline application (with all matters reserved) for the erection of a detached chalet bungalow. Pine Cottage, Manor Avenue - Granted
e) Consultee and Third Party Responses
Kent Highway Services: As this is on a private road we have no comments to make.
Southern Water: Comments awaited
1 letter supporting the proposal have been received, the comments are summarised as follows; • The proposed application has taken account of the outline permission;
24 • The house fits well onto the site; and • Will complement the road very well.
10 letters objecting to the application have been received, the comments are summarised as follows; • Not in keeping with the spatial character; • Close proximity to neighbouring properties; • It would set a precedent; • Inadequate car parking provision; • Would harm existing wildlife including bats; • There is already problems with the sewerage system; • Asbestos contamination is possible; • The plot is too small; • Over looking and a loss of privacy; • Loss of light; • Existing dwellings are individual in style; • Increasing the density would ruin the character of the area; • The building is too large and would look out of character; • Loss of car parking to the existing dwelling; • The proposal is significantly different to the outline proposal; • There is a restrictive covenant on the site; • The description as a chalet bungalow is inaccurate; • The picket fence is not in keeping; • Would harm the amenities of Leyswood and The Pines; f) 1. The Site and the Proposal
1.1 The site is situated within the urban confines of Deal within a wholly residential area. Manor Road is a private road and the site forms the severed side garden to a dwelling known as ‘Pine Cottage’.
1.2 Manor Road is characterised by an eclectic range of dwellings including detached bungalows and two storey buildings. All are unique in design and vary in age. Manor Road has a sylvan appearance which is created by the spacing between the dwellings, the soft landscaping to the front and side boundaries and the grass verge in front of the dwellings.
1.3 The application site would occupy the south western side garden of ‘Pine Cottage’. It would have a road frontage of approximately 12.5m and a depth of approximately 36m. It currently is a mature garden and accommodates a single garage. There are a number of mature trees surrounding the application site but not within it and a hedgerow along the street frontage.
1.4 ‘Pine Cottage’ is a bungalow with white render elevations under a slate roof with red ridge tiles. ‘Leyswood’ which is situated to the south of the application site is a two storey dwelling, it has red/brown brick elevations under a red clay tile hipped roof. It is located in close proximity to the site boundary, which is a low brick boundary wall.
1.5 Outline planning permission has been granted for the erection of a detached bungalow, all matters (access, appearance, landscaping,
25 layout and scale) were reserved for future consideration. Members considered the application at their meeting on the 16th May 2013 when it was resolved to hold a site meeting. At the subsequent committee meeting held 13th June 2013, Members granted outline planning permission on the proviso that the reserved matters application be reported back to the planning committee for a decision.
1.6 This application is now seeking the approval of the aforementioned reserved matters. The proposed plans show a one and half storey dwelling (accommodation within the roof space). At ground floor level there is a lounge, open planned kitchen/diner and an integral single garage. At first floor level there are three bedrooms one with en-suite and a bathroom. The footprint is slightly larger than suggested in the outline application (9m x 12m) at 10.3m x 13.2m, it would have a ridge height of approximately 6.8m. The site plan shows that the new dwelling would share the same front building line as ‘Pine Cottage’ and ‘Leyswood’. A street scene elevation has been submitted showing the dwelling sited between Pine Cottage and ‘Leyswood’.
1.7 Plans will be on display.
2. Main Issues
2.1 The main issues in the consideration of this application are:
• Impact on visual amenity; • Impact on residential amenity; and • Impact on highway safety
3. Assessment
3.1 The principle of the development has already been established by virtue of the outline permission (DOV/13/0142) and therefore cannot be considered further in this application.
Visual Amenity
3.2 A fundamental element of the character of the street scene and the wider area is the ample space between the buildings and the space between the front building line and the back edge of the public highway. The separation distances vary between the existing buildings by some 1m to 18m. The proposed dwelling as indicated has been set away from the flank elevation of ‘Leyswood’ by approximately 2.5m and from ‘Pine Cottage’ by approximately 3.5m. The rear elevation of the dwelling would also be approximately 16m from the eastern (rear) boundary.
3.3 A front garden of approximately 7.5m would be retained. The front gardens in the area are generally well vegetated and have a depth of approximately 8m. The proposed dwelling would share the same building line as the adjacent two dwellings. The spacing between the dwelling and the overall size of plot would be comparable to those at
26 ‘The Limes’, ‘Clevelands’ and ‘Pine Cottage’ and ‘The Trees’ and ‘Wychwood’ situated to the south of the site. It is therefore advised that the proposed siting of the development would respect the spatial layout and character of this road. Although, the development would increase the density of the area, the siting would retain the general openness of the site.
3.4 The design of the dwelling would reflect some of the characteristics of the adjacent dwellings, it would have a large front projecting gable end which would reflect the form of ‘Leyswood’ and would have a hip end to the main roof which is a characteristic of ‘The Pines’. The plan (no.03/20/2014) states that the roof would be Eternite slate and the elevations would be a Monocouche white render to the upper sections and the lower section would be a multi red facing brick. The windows would be white UPVC sliding sashes and the rain water goods would be black PVCu. The proposed materials are considered to be acceptable and would not harm the appearance of the street scene.
3.5 In addition the trees surrounding the site would be retained, in accordance with conditions imposed on the outline permission. The submitted plans indicate the provision of tree protection fencing around the tree on the public highway, the existing front boundary hedge and the cluster of mature trees in the rear garden.
3.6 An attractive front hedgerow located in front of ‘Pine Cottage’ is to be retained and new landscaping has been shown on plan (no. 05/20/2014). A 3m wide vehicle access will be provided, two car parking spaces are to be located within the front garden area and the landscaping plan shows that the area would be block paved.
3.7 The visual appearance of the front garden is considered to be acceptable and the retention of the existing mature landscaping will help to soften the visual impact of the new dwelling. Boundary treatment has also been shown on plan (no.02/20/2014). A 1.8m high close boarded fence has been proposed for the side and rear boundaries, which is considered to be an acceptable form and height of boundary treatment in a residential area. A 900mm picket fence has been proposed to the front boundary.
Residential Amenity
3.8 The floor plans show that there will be no windows in the ground floor side elevations and at first floor level there would be a dormer window in the side (north east) elevation. The dormer window would serve a bathroom and is considered to be acceptable if a condition is imposed to use obscure glass, otherwise condition 14 of the outline permission restricts further windows at first floor level without the permission of the Local Authority. Members are advised that the dwelling would not result in overlooking. The dwelling would be situated to the north of ‘Leyswood’ and to the south of ‘Pine Cottage’. The block plan shows that the dwelling would not project beyond the rear or front building line of these dwellings. As such it is not considered that the proposal would have a significant impact on the residential amenities of these properties in terms of loss of light, over shadowing or a sense of enclosure.
27
3.9 ‘Leyswood’ has side facing windows which overlook the site, the ground floor kitchen window directly faces the existing garage to be demolished. It is accepted that the dwelling would reduce the outlook from these windows but would not result in a significant loss of light. It has to be considered that the proposal is for a chalet bungalow and condition 13 of the outline permission restricts the ridge height to 7m.
3.10 To the rear (south east) of the proposed dwelling is the rear garden belonging to no. 44 St Leonards Road and ‘Leyswood’ which wraps around the rear boundary of the application site. Due to the separation distance, the length of the rear garden and the scale of the dwelling proposed, officers are satisfied that the dwelling would not have an adverse impact on the residential amenities of neighbouring occupiers.
Highway Safety
3.11 Local residents have raised concerns relating to the potential for the increase in on street car parking. Kent Highway services advised on the previous application that the development is unlikely to generate additional parking on the highway and that the access point onto the highway from Manor Avenue is acceptable to serve the additional dwelling. In accordance with condition 10 on the outline planning permission sight lines at the vehicle access have been demonstrated on plan (no. 02/20/2014). The provision of two off street car parking spaces is considered to be acceptable and in accordance with policy DM13. Members are advised that the development does not a pose a hazard to highway safety.
Other Matters
3.12 Condition 4 on the outline planning permission requires the dwelling to achieve Code for Sustainable Homes (CfSH) level 4 and condition 12 requires a pre-code assessment report to be submitted with the reserved matters application. However, since permission was granted, the implementation of policy CP5 has been reconsidered. This stems from a re-evaluation of the CfSH which occurred after the Core Strategy was adopted, resulting in the original level 4 being more akin to what is now level 3. For this reason, under Policy CP5, code level 3 rather than 4, is now generally sought for most residential schemes. A pre-code assessment has been submitted and the applicant has demonstrated that Code level 4 could be achieved.
3.13 A local resident has raised concerns relating to the presence of bats on the site. This was considered by Members at their last meeting and it was decided to impose a bat informative as follows ‘All bats and their roosts are given full protection under the 1981 Wildlife and Countryside Act (as amended) and the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010. Should any bats or evidence of any bats be found prior to or during works, works must stop immediately and Natural England contacted for further advice before works can proceed. This is a legal requirement and applies to whoever carries out the work. All contractors working on site should be made aware of it and provided with Natural England’s contact phone number 0845 600 3078 or email address [email protected]’
28 g) Recommendation
I Reserved matters be approved subject to the following conditions:- 1) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the submitted application and plans numbered 05/20/2014, 04/20/2014, 03/20/2014 and 02/20/2014 unless otherwise approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and to ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans and details. 2) Prior to the first occupation of the dwelling, the dormer window in the north east elevation shall be fitted with obscure glass impenetrable to sight and shall thereafter be maintained . Reason: To prevent overlooking and a subsequent loss of privacy.
The details and plans submitted as part of this application for conditions 1, 3, 7, 9, 11, imposed at the outline stage under reference DOV/13/00142 are acceptable and are hereby approved.
Conditions 4, 5, 6, of DOV/13/00142 require further information to be submitted and approved in writing.
Conditions 2, 8, 10, 13, 14, 15 of DOV/13/00142 do not require further information to be submitted for approval but remain force.
Case Officer
Rachel Humber
29 This plan has been produced for Planning Committee purposes only. No furtherAgenda copies Item may No be7 made.
L IL H X PO O C
E N A L
IS N 2 N 2 I M
14
1
3
4 7
16
4
9
5 3
34
2
5 5 8 5 3 m .2 39 Dover District26 Council Dover District Council 46
NS
DE
AR 6 G 3 L IL XH
CO
6
Not to be reproduced 56 Not to be5 reproduced 43.9m
6
7
3 7
62
6
9
7 5
74 2 Dover District Council 3
Karma 6 4
9 86
1
Cardrona 3
0 ME 1 AD Not to be reproduced WAY
Westlea 9
58.3m 1 9 3
8 9 Minnis Mount
61.6m
1
0
5
1 0 7
08
1
1
0
9
4 2
Foxdale
E N A L IS N IN M
Derwent El Sub Sta 8 3
Dover District7 Council Pendower
3 2
Nirvana
BADGERS RISE
8 1 7
Not1 to be reproduced
1
0
4 1
Castle View Dover District Council Dover District Council
Not to be reproduced The Common Not to be reproduced
3 4
3 4
Not to scale Application: DOV 14 584 This map is reproduced from Ordnance Survey material Cardrona with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Controlled of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office © Crown Minnis Lane copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. River
CT17 0PT Dover District Council Licence Number 100019780 published 2014
TR 2890 4323 Note: This plan is provided for purposes of site identification only. 30
a) DOV/14/00584 – Erection of a detached dwelling
Cardrona, Minnis Lane, River
Reason for report: The application has been called in by a Councillor b) Summary of Recommendation
Refuse planning permission
c) Planning Policy and Guidance
Core Strategy (CS) Policies
• DM13 relates to design-led parking provision.
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)
• The NPPF sets out a presumption in favour of sustainable development. There are three dimensions to sustainable development: economic, social and environmental.
• The NPPF sets out 12 core planning principles, which includes securing high quality design and a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants and conserving heritage assets in a manner appropriate to their significance, so that they can be enjoyed for their contribution to the quality of life of this and future generations.
Kent Design Guide
• Kent Design Guide provides design standards for development.
d) Relevant Planning History
DOV/12/00730 - Erection of a detached dwelling (adjacent to Cardrona) and a detached garage building – allowed at appeal
e) Consultee and Third Party Responses
Ecologist: The site is on chalk and this is likely to increase the root-plate spread of trees. It is difficult without more information to consider that the tree on the eastern boundary, which is a Copper Beech, will not be severely harmed by the development. The neighbouring trees are important in the wider landscape and they should not be jeopardised by the proposal. A full tree survey is necessary to include root protection areas.
The rear adjoining property has a badger’s sett within it. Due to the ground- works proposed and the proximity that any such sett would be to the development, I would draw attention to the Protection of Badgers Act 1992
31 and the guidance issued by Natural England. Given the nature of the proposal, a badger survey, undertaken by a competent person, is required to ensure that the proposed development does not result in a breach of the Protection of Badgers Act 1992.
Tree Officer: Views awaited.
County Highways: No objection. The access is suitable to accommodate the additional dwelling and adequate vehicle parking is provided, including a garage of suitable internal dimensions that it can be counted as providing a parking space. The provision of the vehicle and cycle parking should be secured by condition.
Kent Fire and Rescue Service: The access is inadequate. Domestic sprinklers would be an acceptable alternative.
Natural England: No objection in respect of impact on the Alkham, Lydden and Swingfield Woods SSSI. Refers the LPA to standing advice in relation to protected species.
Southern Water: Provides advice in relation to connection to the public foul sewer.
River Parish Council: Cannot support the application, as there are two properties already on the site and this application would result in over- development. It would also lead to a further increase in traffic using the driveway. The application appears to be in direct conflict with the 2010 government decision to withdraw the presumption in favour of back-land development – a form of development that this Parish Council has always objected to. In addition, the Parish Council has received unfavourable representations from local residents.
Local Representations: Ten letters have been received of which six raise the following planning objections:
• Insufficient parking; • No pedestrian walkway to the dwelling; • No room for delivery vehicles; • Building into the hillside is not suitable for this area; • This is not an ‘eco’ build, given the vast amount of soil that has and would be needed to be removed; • Lots of trees have been removed; • There are established badger setts and badgers occupy the stretch of woodland between Badger’s Rise and Minnis Lane; • The East Kent Badger Group has advised that a badger survey is carried out; • Overlooking into Westlea; • Overlooking into the adjacent bungalow and surrounding properties; • Disturbance from construction; • The excavation work has already resulted in tree roots being damaged and uncovered; • Piecemeal encroachment into the TPO area would be to the detriment of the amenity value of the village; • Concerns about subsistence and erosion;
32 • The proposed sedum roof is inappropriate, as it would be used by the badgers; • What makes the proposal eco-friendly? • A comprehensive ecological survey should be carried out; • Difficult for the fire services to enter the site; • Over-development; • The design and massing of the dwelling would not be in keeping with surrounding properties.
Four letters raising no objection have also been submitted.
f) 1. The Site and the Proposal
1.1 The application site relates to a plot of land to the rear of Cardrona, which fronts Minnis Lane in River. The site is within the settlement confines of Dover and is within a built up part of Minnis Lane – residential in character, with a mixture of detached houses, semi- detached houses and chalet bungalows, varying in age and design. Minnis Lane slopes up from east to west. The AONB lies further to the south-west. Most dwellings front Minnis Lane, with the exception of Minnis Mount and Foxdale, which are accessed via a track leading off the road, adjacent to Karma (the neighbouring dwelling to Cardrona).
1.2 The site itself rises up to an embankment, which it is understood was treed and covered by vegetation but has been cleared. There is a woodland to the rear of the site, which is covered by a Tree Preservation Order. This area of woodland contributes to the street scene by providing a softening and pleasant backdrop to the dwellings that front Minnis Lane.
1.3 The proposal seeks full planning permission for the erection of a detached dwelling in the rear garden of Cardrona. The dwelling is shown to be a contemporary designed building, which would be three storeys in height with a flat green roof. The dwelling would be built into the steep slope at the back of the site. At ground floor, there would be a garage, main access and a study, as well as an area for cycle and bin storage. The first floor would have an open-plan dining, kitchen and lounge area, which would open out onto a patio area to the side and front of the dwelling. Three bedrooms would be provided at second floor level. An underground rainwater harvesting unit is shown to be provided adjacent to the dwelling.
1.4 The existing driveway, used for Cardrona and the newly built dwelling, would also be used to serve this proposed dwelling.
2. Main Issues
2.1 The main issues relating to this application are:
• Principle of development; • Impact on street scene; • Impact on neighbours;
33 • Highways implications; • Badgers.
3. Assessment
Principle of development
3.1 The site is within the settlement confines of River and the principle of residential development is acceptable.
Design and layout
3.2 The dwellings along Minnis Lane typically comprise one or two storey, brick built dwellings with pitched roofs. Whilst new development would not be expected to mimic existing development, this proposal does not reflect any existing features or characteristics of existing development and is not considered to be an acceptable form of development in this location.
3.3 The proposal is for a large dwelling in a back-land location. Its scale and design are such that the dwelling would appear as a large, bulky and dominant building, which would be located on raised ground and as such would exceed the ridge height of the dwellings fronting Minnis Lane. Cross-section plans indicate its ridge height would be 7m above that of Karma, the neighbouring bungalow. It is shown to be three storeys in height with a flat roof and contemporary design, which would result in a dwelling that has a form and design that would be completely out of character with the existing development and would detract from its surroundings.
3.4 Moreover, the dwelling would be built into a steep embankment at the back of the plot, which currently provides a backdrop to the existing dwellings, with a woodland area at the top of the embankment. Kent Design Guide advises that natural site contours should be respected. It is likely that significant excavation of the site would be required to build the proposed dwelling into the bank, altering the topography of the site.
3.5 One of the clearest views of the dwelling is likely to be from Minnis Lane, from a north-eastern approach, when seen through the gaps between dwellings. The dwelling would be seen between the gaps in houses, particularly as it would be built into the steeply sloping bank, on raised ground and would appear as an incongruous and unsympathetic development within the street scene.
3.6 There is an existing woodland area to the rear of the site, covered by a Tree Protection Order. This woodland area is on raised ground and provides an important softening role in this residential area and enhances the street scene. The dwelling, due to its location and height, would obscure views of the woodland area, which would be detrimental to the visual quality and character of the area.
3.7 In addition, it is also important to ascertain what impact the erection of the dwelling and associated excavation would have on the integrity of
34 the trees covered by the Tree Preservation Order. The applicant was asked to submit a Tree Survey. An Aboricultural Impact Assessment has now been submitted at the same time as this report is going to print. The assessment indicates that some of the excavation works will be located within the root protection zones of surrounding trees, but it recommends that hand digging will be sufficient to protect the roots. A verbal report of the Tree Officer’s comments will be given at Planning Committee.
Impact on neighbours
3.8 Proposals for dwellings in back-land locations can introduce unacceptable loss of residential amenity for neighbouring occupants. There is concern that this proposal would result in an unneighbourly form of development for surrounding neighbours.
3.9 The neighbouring dwelling to the east is Karma – a detached bungalow, which is built close to the boundary with this site. It is considered that the proposed dwelling, on elevated ground and located close to the dividing boundary with Karma, would result in an unneighbourly form of development for the occupants of that property. The proposed dwelling is shown to have side and front facing windows, with a large front balcony. This would result in direct overlooking and the perception of overlooking of the adjacent property. It is not considered that boundary treatment along the side boundary would be able to ameliorate this to an acceptable degree, given the sloping landform and the height of the proposed dwelling. The proposal would have a detrimental impact on the occupants at Karma.
3.10 The neighbouring dwelling to the west is Westlea. The dwelling at Westlea is currently quite well screened by vegetation within the neighbouring occupants’ curtilage. However, in winter, when all the leaves are lost, or in the event that the vegetation is pruned or removed, there would be direct views from the dwelling into the garden of Westlea. It is considered that the location and design of the proposed dwelling, with the incorporation of a balcony area and the fenestration arrangement, would again result in an unneighbourly form of development for these occupants and would result in unacceptable loss of privacy, overlooking and the perception of overlooking for the occupants.
3.11 Minnis Mount is located to the west of the proposed dwelling. It is a large dwelling, with a substantial garden that shares a boundary with this site. The proposed dwelling has a number of large side windows facing Minnis Mount and this, together with the front balcony, would overlook the garden. Although the garden of Minnis Mount appears quite open in appearance and can be viewed from the vehicular access to Minnis Lane and Foxdale, (so does not have such a ‘private’ appearance of some residential gardens), the dwelling would nevertheless result in overlooking into this property.
3.12 Overall, the scale, height, design and location of the proposed dwelling are such that it is considered it would result in an unneighbourly form of development, which would have a detrimental
35 impact on neighbouring occupants. No detailed cross-sectional drawings have been provided to show how the land levels would alter around the dwelling and to accurately show the height of the windows compared to the boundary levels either side. The proposal is considered to result in a harmful impact on neighbours through loss of privacy.
Impact on badgers
3.13 Concerns have been raised by local residents about the presence of badgers in the vicinity, and the South East Badger Group has also advised that a badger survey should be carried out. The Council’s Ecologist has been consulted on this matter and has advised that there is a badger sett close to the site and that a badger survey, undertaken by a competent person, is required, to ensure that the proposed development does not result in a breach of the Protection of Badgers Act 1992. In the absence of survey information to indicate that the proposal would not result in harm to this protected species, the proposal is unacceptable on this ground.
Highways implications
3.14 County Highways has advised that there is sufficient parking proposed for the dwelling and that there would not be any highway safety concerns.
Conclusion
3.15 Prior to the submission of this application, the applicant had explored the possibility of a dwelling in this location through pre-application advice and on the basis of advice given, proceeded with the planning application. Although the applicant followed the pre-application advice, the recommendation is for refusal. Pre-application advice is a useful service that helps provide direction and flags up issues that may arise in a scheme. However, when a formal application is submitted, including a full set of detailed plans, issues can arise. Moreover, the advertisement and consultation period can also identify further matters. In this case, officers do not consider that the proposed application is acceptable, or that amendments could be made to the scheme to make it acceptable. The proposal is considered to result in a number of harmful impacts on residential and visual amenity and insufficient information has been submitted to ensure that it would not threaten badgers; a protected species. As such, the proposal is considered to fail to comply with the National Planning Policy Framework and the recommendation is for refusal.
g) Recommendation
I Subject to comments being received from the Tree Officer, PERMISSION BE REFUSED on the following grounds:-
(1) The proposed development, by virtue of its scale, form, design, height and elevated location, would result in an unduly prominent and intrusive form of development, which would fail to respect the character of its surroundings and
36 would restrict views of the woodland area that is protected by a Tree Protection Order. The proposed dwelling would appear unrelated to and out of keeping with surrounding properties and would have an adverse visual impact on the street scene. The proposal would thereby be contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework and Kent Design Guide;
(2) The proposal, by virtue of its location, design, fenestration arrangement and the incorporation of an external balcony, would result in the loss of privacy through unacceptable overlooking and the perception of overlooking into neighbouring properties. The proposal would result in an unneighbourly form of development, resulting in an unacceptable loss of residential amenity to neighbouring occupants contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework.
(3) A badger sett is present in the woodland on Minnis Mount, adjacent to the site. In the absence of a Badger Survey to demonstrate the contrary, the development may be harmful to a protected species and would therefore be contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework and Circular 06/2005: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation.
Case Officer Sarah Platts
37 This plan has been produced for Planning Committee purposes only. No furtherAgenda copies Item may No be8 made.
Cairn Ryan L
O 1
1 N 0 0 1 D 2 R D O N i
o v Presby R u e Church O A r r D R d IV E n 1 R 5 U 8
35.0m
CW 29.2m
1
to
1 2 5 1
6 49.7m
Beechwood SP Court 10 to 18 Play Area
1 to 9
MP 75.25
1
5
4
a
5
Leahurst Court 9
1 5
Dover District Council 2 Dover District Council
1
Cedar
of
Lebanon
D
A 1
5 O 0 SP R
R E Not to be reproducedW Not to be reproduced O L 31.8m 5
11 Abbey P AV ILI Glen ON M E AD OW Ab 1 Swiss b 4 The ey 4 Cottage Dover District BourneCouncilAnton FB La ke Kingswood
Green Tiles 1 36
1 Not to be reproduced32 1
1 26
Sl
Weir
7
1 24 9
CH IS NA LL RO AD
1
18
1
0 a Dover District Council 9 Applecroft Dublin Man of War (PH) R i ve a r t D S o g u 25.0m p r P
102 Not to24 be reproduced Sl
18
L 7 O 7 1 W Stone ER 1 RO 6 AD 1 4
S
A 7 1 N C
T
U 5
1 A
R
4 5
Y 6 1
1 1 2 E N A L 1 8 S C I L N N O I S M E R iver Cot
tage 3 1
9 Ri ver
Dou
9 r
a
1
1 1
Scout Hut 5
6
1 3 3
Dover District Council Dover District7 Council
1 3 5
El 2
Sub Sta 1 CHILTO N WAY 1a
1 St Peter's Hall
Not to be reproduced NotChurch to be reproduced 13
9 1
6
4 1
RI
2 VE
R S 2 2 T RE ET
C
HI LT 2
ON 9 W
AY
7
1 1
Not to scale Application: DOV 14 902 This map is reproduced from Ordnance Survey material 132 Lower Road with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Controlled of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office © Crown River copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. CT17 0RW
Dover District Council Licence Number 100019780 published 2014
TR 2901 4367 Note: This plan is provided for purposes of site identification only. 38 a) DOV/14/00902 Erection of second floor extension including balcony
132 Lower Road, River, Dover, CT17 0RW b) Summary of Recommendation
Planning Permission be granted subject to conditions c) Planning Policy and Guidance
Dover District Core Strategy (CS)
Policy DM1 seeks to encourage development to be carried out within the urban confines
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)
Core Principal Para 17 – seeks to secure high quality design and a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings.
Para 56 onwards – refers to the value of achieving design quality, visually attractive developments as a result of good architecture
Other relevant Guidance:
Kent Design Guide d) Relevant Planning History
DOV/14/00219 – Second floor extension including balcony – Refused e) Consultee and Third Party responses
Parish Council raise no objection
8 letters of objection have been received raising the following summarised issues:
• Out of keeping with other properties in the area • Very imposing to all neighbouring properties (domination) • Overlooking and loss of privacy • Proposal will block views from neighbours conservatory • Obscure glazing can be changed resulting in loss of privacy • Overshadowing • Loss of sunlight to neighbour’s solar panels f) The Site and Proposal
1 The Site:
1.1 The site comprises a two storey flat roofed dwelling situated on the north east side of Lower Road, River. The dwelling is of pre-war vintage with some
39 elements of art-deco design. It has a rather unfinished appearance and alterations over the years which may have detracted from the original quality of the building. The occupants are carrying out some refurbishment works to the building, which will include replacement windows.
1.2 Lower Road in this area is mainly fairly large detached or semi-detached dwellings of about the same vintage and of a common pre-war design with steeply pitched roofs.
1.3 The land slopes up steeply from Lower Road to the dwelling and its neighbours and continues to rise northeast to the rear to a row of bungalows on the south west side of Pavilion Meadow which results in these properties being on a higher level than the application site.
1.4 On the opposite side of Lower Road there is a wooded area that is part of the grounds of Kearsney Abbey. The site lies within the Dover urban boundary and the Parish of River.
2 The Proposal:
2.1 This proposal follows a refusal of planning permission for a roof extension over the whole of the property (DOV/14/00219). This previous application was refused on the ground of inappropriate design leading to a box like appearance and an incongruous and visually dominant feature in the street scene and, by virtue of its size and ill thought out balcony design, would result in a loss of residential amenity. Following this refusal advice was sought from the Planning Department resulting in this application which seeks to address all the concerns of the Local Planning Authority.
2.2 The revised design envisages a flat roofed second floor extension of about 48 sq. metres sitting on top of and within the existing flat roof comprising about 105 sq. metres. In terms of width the extension is seven metres wide on an existing flat roof width of about eleven metres. To the front of the extension is a balcony area with 1.9 metre high privacy walls to prevent overlooking. The existing chimney will be raised by about half a metre to clear the balcony and there are high level obscure glazed windows in side walls and the whole is surmounted by an overhang of about 300mm. The proposal envisages the replacement of existing fenestration with a design that complements the roof extension and reinforces the art-déco concept of the original building.
3 Main issues for consideration:
• Design issues including siting, scale and bulk and street scene
• Effect on living conditions
4 Assessment
40 4.1 Design issues including siting, scale and bulk and street scene
4.1.1 The proposed extension is designed with strong horizontal line to reflect the existing architectural style of the building. The overhanging eaves and door style in the proposed extension emphasises these strong horizontal lines as do the high level horizontal obscure glazed side windows. The replacement of the existing fenestration and door in the original building add to the quality of the art-deco context of the building.
4.1.2 The size and bulk of the proposed extension is subordinate to the original dwelling and does not in any way overwhelm it. The overall height of the resultant building will be slightly less that the dwelling to the south east and slightly higher than the dwelling to the north-west. The roofline therefore follows a natural line and the overall height of the property including the proposed extension is not excessive.
4.1.3 The quality and scale of the extension is considered to be a complementary form of development which is in keeping with the design and character of the street scene. It is considered to be appropriate to the buildings context and due to its siting and design the extension would not adversely affect the character and appearance of the street scene
4.1.4 A resident has objected to the development on the grounds that the proposal is out of context with other properties in the area. It is of course of a different design but this does not necessarily mean it is out of context with the area. The surrounding buildings along Lower Road were all built during the same inter-wars era albeit of different architectural styles but having features typical of the era.
4.1.5 Whilst it is important to respect the context of an area this building, unmodified, is part of the areas context and the extension to the building interprets the architectural form and strong horizontal characteristics of the existing building, which will also be emphasised by the replacement windows (replacement windows would be permitted development). Accordingly the proposals are considered to meet the design criteria set of in the NPPF.
4.2 Overlooking and Privacy:
4.2.1 Potential overlooking and loss of privacy issues which were of concern to the Council in the previous application have been resolved by the incorporation of privacy cheek walls to each side of the balcony in the extension and by the use of high level obscure glazed windows on all flanks, bar the front elevation. The imposition of conditions requiring these side windows to remain obscure glazed and non-opening below 1.7 metres, and a condition requiring no use of the roof outside of the extension will ensure that the previous privacy and overlooking issues are resolved.
41 4.2.2 The result of these features are that there will be no overlooking of private neighbouring rear garden areas to the east of west.
4.2.3 The neighbour to the west has commented that the balcony affords views into windows on side elevation of their house.
4.2.4 On the submitted plans the neighbours side windows were already behind (outside) the 45 degree forward looking view from the balcony. But to provide further comfort the applicant has extended the side cheek walls further forward thus achieving an even lesser field of view to the side from the balcony. Any potential for interlooking is further ameliorated by the setting back of the balcony balustrade a half metre from the front face of the application dwelling and conditions can be imposed to ensure that the remainder of the roof and the area forward of the balustrade remain unusable for other than maintenance purposes. It should also be noted that there is already some limited interlooking from the front facing windows of the existing dwelling at first floor level. It is considered the balcony due to its elevation, screening and set back balustrade would involve less interlooking than the existing first floor windows.
4.2.5 In summary as a result of the amended design there would be no undue additional interlooking into the neighbouring property.
4.3 Overshadowing :
4.3.1 The occupants of the dwelling to the northeast have raised the issue of potential overshadowing of their garden area, their patio and conservatory. Their conservatory is however to the north of their house and appears therefore to be shadowed from sunlight by their own house and/or the existing application property for most of the day. Their patio area and garden is to the east of the application property and thus is already overshadowed by the existing building especially in late afternoon and late in the year.
4.3.1 The proposed extension and overhang is set back from the existing roof and, following further negotiation, the applicant has reduced the overhanging eaves from 500 mm to 300mm. The result of this is that the extension would have no greater overshadowing effect than a ‘normal’ pitched and gabled roof.
4.3.2 In the case of the occupant to the east there is a gap of some seven metres between the properties. This gap plus the set back of the extension from the existing east wall of the application dwelling would not lead to a significant increase in overshadowing. In the case of loss of potential sunlight to solar panels the orientation of the proposed extension is such that it would not shade the neighbour’s solar panels at any time of year.
4.3.3 As a result it is not considered that any minor additional overshadowing is sufficient to cause significant harm to the amenity of this occupant.
42
4.4. Views and outlook :
4.4.1 The proposal will cause some minor interruption of the views of the residents from a small number of properties on Pavilion Meadow. This will be in an arc of vision of about six degrees vertically and fourteen degrees horizontally from the property most affected. There is of course no exclusive ‘right to a view’ although the development management process seeks to ensure that residential outlook is not unduly impinged. The proposed development would not appear higher that a normal two storey dwelling in the eye line of these occupants. The residents of Pavilion Meadow will thus still retain views of the tree line and the far distance and their outlook would remain pleasant.
5 Conclusion
5.1 It is considered that this revised design overcomes the concerns of the Local Planning Authority in their recent refusal of the previous scheme and that the proposal would not cause undue harm to quality of living condition of neighbouring occupants.
5.2 It is concluded that the proposal represents a sympathetic form of development which would not adversely affect the character and appearance of the existing building itself and would not result in harm to the character and appearance of the street scene in the wider area. g) RECOMMENDATION
I PLANNING PERMISSION BE GRANTED subject to conditions, to include: (1) DP08 – standard time condition; (2) DP04 - Drawings 2617- 01 to 2617-10 and associated documentation received by the LPA on 17th September 2014 as amended by email and amended Drawings 2617-06 Rev B, 2617- 07 Rev B and 2617-08 Rev B received 23rd October 2014; (3) The high level windows on the North East and South West Elevations (drawing 2617-08 Rev B and note 9) shall be obscure glazed to Pilkington Obscurity level grade three or above and shall be non-opening below 1.7 metres above floor level prior to the first use of the development and shall remain as such. Reason: In the interests of the privacy and amenity of local residents (4) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification) no further openings shall be formed or created in the north east, north west or south east elevation (including the cheek walls) of the development hereby permitted. Reason: In the interests of the privacy and amenity of local residents; (5) The Balustrade shown on Drawing 2617-06 Rev B, 2617- 07 Rev B and specified in Note 3 received 23rd October 2014 shall be installed before the development hereby approved is first used and shall remain as such. Reason: In the interests of the privacy and amenity of local; (6) The remainder of the roof of the existing dwelling (including the area forward of the balustrade) and not occupied by the development hereby approved shall not at any time be used as a terrace, balcony
43 or sitting out area and there shall be no access thereto other than for the repair or maintenance of the building. Reason: In the interests of the privacy and amenity of local residents
II Powers be delegated to the Head of Regeneration and Delivery to settle any necessary issues in line with the matters set out in the recommendation and as resolved by planning committee.
Case Officer Tony Jarvis
44 This plan has been produced for Planning Committee purposes only. No furtherAgenda copies Item may No be9 made.
Dover District Council Dover District Council Not to be reproduced Not to be reproduced
Dover District Council Not to be reproduced
Dover District Council Not to be reproduced
Dover District Council Dover District Council Not to be reproduced Not to be reproduced
Not to scale Application: DOV/14/00361 This map is reproduced from Ordnance Survey material Land off Station Road with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Controlled of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office © Crown Walmer copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. CT14 7RH
Dover District Council Licence Number 100019780 published 2014
TR36334994 Note: This plan is provided for purposes of site identification only. 45 a) DOV/14/00361 – Erection of 223 dwellings (including 66 affordable units), together with associated vehicular access, car parking, landscaping, open space and works
Land south of Station Road, Walmer
Reason for Report: Departure from the Development Plan, number of representations received and in the public interest b) Summary of Recommendation
Planning permission be GRANTED
c) Planning Policies and Guidance
The Development Plan for the purposes of s38 (6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act (2004) comprises the DDC Core Strategy 2010 and the Saved Policies from the Dover District Local Plan 2002. Decisions on planning applications must be made in accordance with the policies of the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
In addition to the policies of the development plan there are a number of other policies and standards which are material to the determination of planning applications including the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) together with emerging local planning documents and other local guidance.
A summary of relevant planning policy is set out below:
Development Plan
Core Strategy (CS) Policies
• Policy CP1 (Settlement Hierarchy) identifies a hierarchy of centers within Dover District. Dover is placed atop the settlement hierarchy (Secondary Regional Centre) and Deal (including Walmer) is identified as a District Centre which is to be ‘the secondary focus for development in the District; suitable for urban scale development’. Planning decisions should seek to maintain the settlement hierarchy. • Policy CP2 (Provision of Jobs & Homes) states that land will be identified for 6250 new homes (excluding existing strategic housing allocations) through the Site Allocations Document. This is a gross figure. The actual amount of housing to be allocated through the Site Allocations Document will be 6250 less the number of commitments (unimplemented planning permissions and saved Local Plan allocations) and completions achieved between 2006 and the time of preparing the Document. • Policy CP3 (Distribution of Housing Allocations) sets out the broad distribution of the housing requirement established by CS Policy CP2. Deal (including Walmer) has been identified to accommodate 10% of this allocation which equates to c.1600 new homes. The distribution of the housing has been guided by the objectives of the settlement hierarchy set by CS policy CP1.
46 • Policy CP4 (Housing Quality, Mix Density & Design) states that housing allocations in the Site Allocations Document and planning applications for residential development for 10 or more dwellings should create, reinforce or restore the local housing market in which they are located and develop and appropriate housing mix and design taking account of the Strategic Housing Market Assessment. Density will be determined through the design process at the maximum level consistent with design. Density should wherever possible exceed 40 dwellings per hectare (dph) and will be seldom justified at less than 30 dph. • Policy CP5 (Sustainable Construction Standards) states that new residential development permitted after the adoption of the CS should meet at least Code Level 4 and at least Code Level 5 from April 2016. • The spatial considerations of the CS are set out in section 3.63-3.70 and figure 3.4. This identifies in broad terms the amount and location of different types of development. For the Deal area three broad areas for urban expansion are shown; o At Walmer (represented by this application) – The CS identified particular issues that will need to be addressed. For Walmer these are identified as careful definition of the site boundary to minimize landscape impact, retention of a view corridor to the former windmill at Ripple and management of additional traffic to ensure that the effects are within acceptable terms. o Between Middle Deal and Sholden, and; o At Sholden (land adjacent to Sholden New Road) • Policy CP6 (Infrastructure) - Development that generates a demand for infrastructure will only be permitted if the necessary infrastructure to support it is either already in place, or there is a reliable mechanism to ensure that it will be provided at the time it is needed. • Policy CP7 (Green Infrastructure) Planning permission for development that would harm the network will only be granted if it can incorporate measures that avoid the harm arising or sufficiently mitigate its effects. Proposals that would introduce additional pressure on the existing and proposed Green Infrastructure Network will only be permitted if they incorporate quantitative and qualitative measures, as appropriate, sufficient to address that pressure. In addition, the Council will work with its partners to develop the Green Infrastructure Framework and implement proposed network improvements. • In order to help operate the settlement hierarchy through the development management process Policy DM1 (Settlement Boundaries) proposes settlement boundaries for planning purposes and sets out how these will be used to help judge the acceptability of individual development proposals. Development outside settlement confines will not be permitted, unless specifically justified by other development plan policies. • Policy DM5 (Affordable Housing) confirms that the Council will seek applications for residential developments of 15 or more dwellings to provide 30% of the total homes proposed as affordable homes, in home types that will address prioritized need. The exact amount of affordable housing to be delivered from any specific scheme will be determined by economic viability having regard to individual site and market conditions. • Policy DM11 (Location of Development & Travel Demand). Planning applications for development that would increase travel demand should be supported by a systematic assessment. Development that would generate travel demand outside
47 settlement confines will not be supported unless otherwise justified by other development plan policies. • Policy DM12 (Road Hierarchy) states that the access arrangements of development proposals will be assessed with regard to the Highway Network set out in the Local Transport Plan for Kent. Developments that would involve the construction of a new access onto a trunk or primary road will not be permitted if there would be a significant increase in the risk of accidents or traffic delays – unless appropriate mitigation can be provided. • Policy DM13 (Parking Provision) Determining parking solutions should be a design-led process based on the characteristics of the site, the locality, the nature of the proposed development and its design objectives. • Policy DM15 (Protection of the Countryside) Development that would result in the loss of, or adversely affect the character or appearance of the countryside will only be permitted if appropriate justification can be provided and/or it is made in accordance with allocations made in Development Plan Documents. • Policy DM16 (Landscape Character) Development that would harm the character of the landscape, as identified through the process of landscape character assessment, will only be permitted if it is in accordance with allocations made in Development Plan Documents and incorporates any necessary avoidance and mitigation measures or it can be sited to avoid or reduce the harm and/or incorporate design measures to mitigate the impacts to an acceptable level. • Policy DM25 (Open Space) seeks to resist development that would result in the loss of public open space unless a number of safeguarding criteria can be met and/or it is justified by other development plan policies.
Dover District Local Plan (DDLP) Saved Policies
• Policy OS2 (Children’s Play Space) Proposals for new family housing comprising 15 or more dwellings will not be permitted unless children's play space is provided in accordance with adopted standards and its long-term maintenance is secured. Where appropriate, as an alternative to on-site provision, developers may make a commuted payment to the Council for the improvement of a nearby children's play space equal to the cost of constructing the play space which would otherwise have been provided. • Policy OS3 (Open Space) Planning permission for housing will only be granted where developers have made long term arrangements to meet open space needs arising from their proposals. • Policy HS2 states that permission will only be granted for new large housing sites where the planned housing for the district would not be significantly exceeded. • Policy ER6 requires external lighting to use full cut-off lanterns.
Material Considerations
Land Allocations Local Plan (LALP)
The Pre-submission Land Allocations Local Plan (LALP) was published for consultation in December 2012 and proposes the allocation of a site for residential development within the broad location set out within the CS. The allocation for ‘land between 51 and 77 Station Road’ is made through policy LA12 which also includes criteria for assessing planning applications.
48 DDC submitted the Pre-Submission Land Allocations Local Plan (incorporating an Addendum) for independent Examination in October 2013. The Hearings took place in January/February 2014. At the Examination the Inspector, who was appointed to conduct the Examination, identified the need for Officers to prepare a number of Main Modifications (MMs) to the Plan in order to make it ‘sound’ and legally compliant.
The proposed Main Modifications include an additional criterion to policy LA12 – this policy including the proposed modification (highlighted) is reproduced in full below.
Policy LA 12
Land between 51 and 77 Station Road, Walmer, Deal
The site is allocated for residential development with an estimated capacity of 220 dwellings. Planning permission will be permitted provided that:
i. the south western and eastern edges of the development creates a landscaped boundary with the adjacent rural area, incorporating structural and open space landscaping features;
ii. the design incorporates frontage development along Station Road where it is not required for the access road;
iii. long views of Ripple Windmill and the wider countryside are retained and incorporated into the layout; iv. footways are preserved, enhanced and integrated into the development;
v. play space is provided in accordance the Council's Play Area Standards;
vi. the landscaping throughout the site would improve biodiversity value;
vii. a mitigation strategy to address any impact on the Thanet Coast and Sandwich Bay Ramsar and SPA sites and Sandwich Bay SAC site is developed. The strategy should consider a range of measures and initiatives;
viii. the main vehicular access is onto Station Road with an emergency vehicular access from Mayers Road; and
ix. measures are provided to mitigate against impacts on the wider road network. Dover District Council
LALP policy DM 27 (Provision of Open Space) requires residential developments of 5 or more dwellings to provide or contribute towards the provision of accessible green space, outdoor sports facilities, children’s equipped play space and community gardens in accordance with prescribed standards. Applications are also required to demonstrate a minimum of 15 years maintenance of facilities. Where it is impractical to provide a new area of open space by way of on-site provision, or there are existing facilities within the identified access distances, the Council will consider accepting a commuted payment for the purpose of funding qualitative or quantitative improvement to an existing publically
49 accessible open space. The commuted sums are expected to cover the cost of providing and maintaining the improvements.
A six week public consultation on the proposed MMs concluded on 25th September 2014. The Inspector’s Report will only be issued once the Inspector has had opportunity to consider the representations. The Inspector may at that stage in the process amend the draft modifications to the Plan. Two letters of representation were received in respect of Policy LA12 which are not considered to raise any significant fresh issues in respect of the proposed MMs. The LPA has recently sent copies of all representations received and a summary of them to the Inspector. At the end of the process the final version of the Plan, taking into account all of the MMs will go to full Council for adoption, anticipated to be either late 2014 or early 2015.
In summary, until the LALP is adopted, the application site is located outside of settlement confines but has been identified, although not specifically allocated, as an area for urban expansion within the Council’s Adopted Core Strategy. Given that the LALP is at an advanced stage, the allocation can be given considerable weight (in accordance with paragraph 216 of the NPPF), unless other material considerations indicate otherwise.
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) & National Planning Policy Guidance (NPPG)
At a national level, the NPPF sets out the Government’s planning policies for England and how these are expected to be applied. In the introduction, the Government sets out that the NPPF must be taken into account in the preparation of local and neighbourhood plans, and is a material consideration in planning applications. With its adoption in March 2012, it replaced all previous national planning policy statements with immediate effect. Therefore, it should have significant weight in the consideration of any planning application.
The NPPF articulates an overriding presumption in favor of sustainable development which should be seen as a ‘golden thread’ running through both plan-making and decision taking. There are three dimensions to sustainable development: economic, social and environmental. For decision making this means approving development that accords with the Development Plan without delay; and where the development plan is absent or silent or relevant policies are out-of-date granting planning permission, unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits or where specific policies in the NPPF indicate development should be restricted (para 14).
The NPPF (para 47) states that to boost significantly the supply of housing, local planning authorities should: • Use their evidence base to ensure that their Local Plan meets the full, objectively assessed needs for market and affordable housing in the housing market area, as far as is consistent with the policies set out in the Framework, including identifying key sites which are critical to the delivery of the housing strategy over the plan period; • Identify and update annually a supply of specific deliverable11 sites sufficient to provide five years worth of housing against their housing requirements with an additional buffer of 5% (moved forward from later in the plan period) to ensure
50 choice and competition in the market for land. Where there has been a record of persistent under delivery of housing, local planning authorities should increase the buffer to 20% (moved forward from later in the plan period) to provide a realistic prospect of achieving the planned supply and to ensure choice and competition in the market for land; • identify a supply of specific, developable12 sites or broad locations for growth, for years 6-10 and, where possible, for years 11-15; for market and affordable housing, illustrate the expected rate of housing delivery through a housing trajectory for the plan period and set out a housing implementation strategy for the full range of housing describing how they will maintain delivery of a five-year supply of housing land to meet their housing target; and • set out their own approach to housing density to reflect local circumstances.
The NPPF states that Housing applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up-to-date if the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites (para 49).
Paragraph 216 of the NPPF states that ‘from the day of publication, decision takes may also give weight (unless material considerations indicate otherwise) to relevant policies in emerging plans according to;
The stage of preparation of the emerging plan (The more advanced the preparation, the greater the weight that may be given); The extent to which there are unresolved objections to relevant policies (the less significant the unresolved objections, the greater the weight that may be given); and The degree of consistency of the relevant policies in the emerging plan to the policies within this (NPPF) framework (the closer the policies in the emerging plan to the policies in the framework, the greater the weight that may be given)’.
The National Planning Policy Guidance (NPPG, March 2014) supports and informs the NPPF and sets out the Government’s planning policies for England and how these are expected to be applied.
Together, the NPPF and the NPPG set out the Government’s national planning policies and guidance for new development. They aim to help create the homes and jobs that the country needs, while protecting and enhancing the natural and historic environments.
NPPF Chapter 1 – Building a Strong, Competitive Economy
The Government is committed to securing economic growth and supports the role that the planning system has in achieving this. It states that ‘Planning should operate to encourage and not act as an impediment to sustainable growth. Therefore significant weight should be placed on the need to support economic growth through the planning system (paras 18-19).
NPPF Chapter 4 Promoting Sustainable Transport
All developments that generate significant amounts of movement should be supported by a Transport Statement. Plans and decisions should take account of whether:
51 • The opportunities for sustainable transport modes have been taken up depending on the nature and location of the site, to reduce the need for major transport infrastructure; • Safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all people; and • Improvements can be undertaken within the transport network that cost effectively limit the significant impacts of the development. Development should only be prevented or refused on transportation grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of development are severe’ (para 32)
NPPF Chapter 6 Delivering a Wide Choice of High Quality Homes
Housing applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up to date if the Local Planning Authority cannot demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing sites (para 49).
Deliverable Sites are defined within the NPPF as sites that ‘are available now, offer a suitable location for development now, and be achievable with a realistic prospect that housing will be delivered on the site within five years and in particular that development of the site is viable’ (para 47).
The supply of new homes can sometimes be best achieved through planning for larger scale development such as new settlements or extensions to existing villages and towns … (para 52).
NPPF Chapter 7 – Requiring Good Design
The Government attaches great importance to the design of the built environment. Good design is a key aspect of sustainable development, is indivisible from good planning, and should contribute positively to making places better for people (para 56).
It is important to plan positively for the achievement of high quality and inclusive design for all development, including individual buildings, public and private spaces and wider area development schemes (para 57).
Planning policies and decisions should not attempt to impose architectural styles or particular tastes and they should not stifle innovation, originality or initiative through unsubstantiated requirements to conform to certain development forms or styles. It is however proper to seek to promote or reinforce local distinctiveness, (para 60).
Although visual appearance and architecture of individual buildings are very important factors, securing high quality and inclusive design does beyond aesthetic considerations. Therefore, planning policies and decisions should address connections between people and places and the integration of new development in to the natural, built and historic environment, (para 61).
Chapter 8 Promotion of Healthy Communities
The Planning System can play an important role in facilitating social interaction and creating healthy, inclusive communities (para 69).
52 Planning policies and decisions should; plan positively for the provision and use of shared space, community facilities and other local services; guard against the unnecessary loss of valued facilities and services; ensure an integrated approach to considering the location of housing, economic uses and community services and facilities, (para 70).
Access to high quality open spaces and opportunities for sport and recreation can make an important contribution to health and well-being of communities. Planning policies should be based on robust and up to date assessments of the needs for open space, sports and recreation facilities and opportunities for new provision (para 73).
Planning policies should protect and enhance public rights of way (PROW) and access and seek opportunities to provide better facilities for users for example by adding links to existing rights of way networks, (para 75).
NPPF Chapter 10 – Meeting the Challenge of Climate Change, Flooding & Coastal Change.
In determining planning applications, LPAs should expect new development to: comply with adopted Local Plan policies on local requirements for decentralized energy supply unless it can be demonstrated by the applicant, having regard to the type of development involved and its design, that it is not feasible or viable and; take account of landform, layout, building orientation, massing and landscaping to minimize energy consumption (para 96).
When determining planning applications, LPAs should ensure flood risk is not increased elsewhere (para 103).
NPPF Chapter 11 – Conserving & Enhancing the Natural Environment
The planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by; • Protecting and enhancing valued landscapes, geological conservation interests and soil; • Recognising the wider benefits of ecosystem services • Minimising impacts on biodiversity and providing net gains in biodiversity where possible • Preventing both new and existing development from contributing to or being put at unacceptable risk from, or being adversely affected by unacceptable levels of soil, air, water or noise pollution or land instability; and • Remediating and mitigating despoiled, degraded, derelict, contaminated and unstable land, where appropriate (para 109)
NPPF Chapter 12 – Conserving & Enhancing the Historic Environment
In determining planning applications, LPAs should require an applicant to describe the significance of any heritage assets affected, including any contribution made by their setting. Where a development site includes or has the potential to include heritage assets with archaeological interest, LPAs should require developers to submit an appropriate desk-based assessment and where necessary a field evaluation (para 128).
53 Other Material Considerations
• Kent Design Guide – sets out examples of good design across a broad spectrum of development types and identifies a number of guiding principles. • Walmer Design Guide – sets out a number of design principles to shape the future development of Walmer that are derived from a character appraisal of the Walmer area. • Manual for Streets (parts I & II) – provides guidance to help achieve well designed public streets and spaces. • Affordable Housing SPD – Outlines the Council’s requirements for affordable housing as part of new residential development. • Building for Life (2005) – sets out standards for sustainable construction of buildings.
a) Relevant Planning History
DOV/13/0805 – Environmental Impact Assessment Screening Opinion – EIA not required
b) Consultee and Third Party Responses
KCC Archaeology: The site has potential to contain archaeological remains, potentially of prehistoric, Romano-British and medieval date and that any such remains present would be affected by the proposals. Should planning permission be forthcoming, a condition requiring the implementation of a programme of archaeological work, should be imposed.
KCC PROW: No objection to the principle of the development subject to consideration of a number of detailed points. The inclusion of a payment towards the cost of producing the Public Rights of Way publications that will be included within the welcome packs for new residents is welcomed.
KCC Development Contributions: KCC have assessed the implications of this proposal in terms of the delivery of its community services and is of the opinion that it will have an additional impact on the delivery of its services, which will require mitigation either through direct provision of infrastructure or the payment of an appropriate financial contribution. KCC have identified a requirement for developer contributions towards primary education provision, libraries, youth services and adult social services (families and social care) equating to a total requested contribution amount of £644,857.91. KCC have confirmed that there is currently no identified need for a contribution towards Secondary Education.
In addition to the above contributions KCC have identified a need for the provision of three specifically designed Life Time Home Wheelchair Accessible units by the developer, at no extra cost to KCC, as part of the affordable home delivery, with KCC given nomination rights.
Kent Police: No objection to the principle of the development in regard to crime prevention subject to a condition requiring the incorporation of measures to minimise risk of crime. Kent Police have requested a developer contribution of
54 £27,818 towards the cost of providing additional policing resources as a result of this development.
Kent Fire & Rescue Service: The proposed means of access is considered to be satisfactory
Highways Agency: Planning permission should either be refused, or granted only subject to the following condition:
Prior to first occupation of any part of the development hereby permitted, a detailed Travel Plan to reduce dependency on the private car, which shall include clear and unambiguous objectives and modal split targets, together with a time- bound programme of implementation, monitoring and regular review and improvement; and be based on the particulars contained within the approved framework Travel Plan (as amended) produced in support of this application, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority (in consultation with the Highways Agency) and thereafter operated as approved.
Reason: To minimise traffic generated by the development and to ensure that the A2 trunk road continues to be an effective part of the national system of routes for through traffic in accordance with section 10 of the Highways Act 1980.
KCC Highways: KCC are satisfied that the developers have proposed to mitigate impacts on the highway network beyond those anticipated by the trips generated by the proposed development which would provide betterment to the road network in the area as a whole. The mitigation measures should be secured by the developer providing a contribution to KCC to cover the entire cost of the proposed mitigation works (bus stop/on-street parking/TROs) through the S106 Agreement or for the developer to directly carry out the agreed works in consultation with KCC Highways. The development itself would not have an adverse impact on the surrounding roads and will have the benefit of providing turning facilities for existing vehicles using Mayers Road. No objection subject to the attachment of safeguarding conditions and conditions requiring further detailed information.
In terms of the detailed layout of the development KCC Highways have raised a number of detailed issues regarding the visibility splays and sight lines shown. Additionally, there are issues regarding vehicle swept paths, and the limits of highway identified for adoption. However KCC Highways are satisfied that these issues can be covered by way of condition, and/or they will in any case need to be resolved at the later stage of securing a Section 38 Agreement.
Stagecoach: Stagecoach has been directly involved in discussions between the applicant and KCC Highways regarding the proposed off-site highway works and has raised no objection in principle.
DDC Agricultural Advisor: In this case, the 11.49 ha site is indicated on the Agricultural Land Classification (ALC) 1:250,000 map as lying within a general area of excellent quality agricultural land (Grade 1). Local Soil Survey data indicates that soils in this immediate area fall within the Hamble series, comprising silty or very fine sandy loam, and with a high land capability class.
55 Given the above, whilst a detailed soil survey of the site would be required to definitely confirm its ALC grade, it is suggested that the site can be assumed, as matters stand, to be very good or excellent quality, and in the "best and most versatile" category.
Natural England (NE): The application site is within close proximity to, and has the potential to indirectly affect European designated sites (Natura 2000 sites), and therefore has the potential to affect their interest features. The application site is in close proximity to the Thanet Coast Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and the Thanet Coast and Sandwich Bay Special Protection Area (SPA) which are European sites. The Thanet Coast and Sandwich Bay SPA is also listed as the Thanet Coast and Sandwich Bay Ramsar site. Collectively these are notified at the national level as the Sandwich Bay to Hacklinge Marshes Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI).
The proposal is not necessary for the management of the European Site and the proposal is unlikely to have a significant effect on any European site, and can therefore be screened out from any requirement for further assessment. The applicant has confirmed that they will contribute to the previously agreed, Dover wide Thanet Coast Special Protection Area Mitigation Strategy. No objection is therefore raised in terms of impact on designated sites.
NE standing advice is applicable in respect of protected species.
Environment Agency: No objection in principle to the development proposed subject to the attachment of safeguarding conditions relating to flood risk, ground water protection, contaminated land, drainage and fuel/oil/chemical storage.
Folkestone & Dover Water: No comments received
Southern Water: Following initial investigations there is currently inadequate capacity in the local network to provide foul sewerage disposal to service the proposed development. The proposed development would increase flows to the public sewerage system and existing properties and land may be subject to a greater risk of flooding as a result. Additional off-site sewers or improvements to existing sewers will be required to provide sufficient capacity to service the development. An informative is recommended to alert the developer to the need to enter into a formal agreement with Southern Water to provide the necessary infrastructure. A condition requiring details of foul and surface water disposal to be submitted and approved prior to the commencement of development is recommended.
There is also inadequate capacity in the local network to provide a water supply to service the proposed development. Additional off-site mains, or improvements to existing mains, will be required to provide sufficient capacity to service the development. An informative to alert the developer to the need to apply to requisition water infrastructure, and a condition requiring details of the proposed water infrastructure plans to be submitted and approved prior to the commencement of development are recommended.
UK Power Networks: No objection
56
EDF Energy: No comments received
Scotia Gas: No comments received
Transco: No comments received
Public Representation: A significant number of representations have been received in respect of this application, of which 116 object and 5 are in support.
Summary of Objections:
• The development would be detrimental to the character of Walmer by destroying the open countryside and wildlife habitat on the site. • The development, if permitted, will establish a precedent for the development of the remaining open space in the area. • The development will detract from the character of Station Road, turning it into a main through route rather than a residential street. • The existing fields with the public rights of way are a local asset and are regularly used. They form an important part of the setting of the adjacent conservation area. The development would destroy this local asset. • The development will result in the loss of valuable agricultural land. • Future housing should be located on brownfield sites where transport and job infrastructure is already in place rather than on greenfield sites such as this. • The stunning views across the fields from Mayers Road, Station Road and the caravan park will be destroyed. • The on-street parking along Mayers Road will restrict the use of this road as an emergency access for the development. Parking for existing residents in Mayers Road should be provided to ensure that Mayers Road is clear for emergency vehicles. The existing on street parking from residents in Mayers Road means that vehicles any bigger than a transit van struggle to pass. • There are no job opportunities for the increased population; • The suggestion in the application that the Highway Authority may wish to give consideration to parking restrictions along Mayers Road to control its contested as there is no alternative parking available for existing residents. • The proposed turning head at the end of Mayers Road is referenced repeatedly throughout the documents however it is not evident on the plans. • The vehicular access onto Station Road does not benefit from sufficient visibility and will increase the risk of accidents along this road. • There is insufficient parking provided to serve the development which will lead to an increase in on-street parking, to the detriment of existing residents. • The junction of Station Road and Dover Road (at the Londis junction) is a bottle neck and already very congested, especially at peak times and has poor visibility. Vehicles have to queue at this junction. Despite the conclusions of the Transport Assessment the development will exacerbate this problem. An alternative access to serve the development should be found. • The single access point into the site is not sufficient and will cause all traffic to use Station Road and the A258 junction. The potential for a second access should be explored. • The proposed highway works will not alleviate the existing highway problem which will be exacerbated by the additional population from the development.
57 The highway interventions should be trialled for a limited period to show the true impact – or the LPA should commission an independent assessment of the traffic impact modelled by the applicant. • The proposal to remove two parking spaces in Dover Road will have a detrimental impact on local businesses that depend on passing trade. Deletion of these spaces will cause drivers to park illegally along Dover Road impeding the free flow of traffic. • The development is contrary to Core Strategy policy DM12 which seeks to resist development that would involve construction of a new access or increased use of an existing access onto a trunk or primary road. • The area around the Court Road, Mayers Road, Station Road junction already has significant levels of on-street parking causing the flow of traffic to be restricted and makes turning into and out of driveways in this area difficult and dangerous. Parking restrictions should be introduced in this area to alleviate the problem as it will only be exacerbated by the new development. • As there are no additional employment opportunities in the area new residents will have to travel to work by car, increasing yet further the congestion on the local road network. • The development will put a strain on existing utilities. • The development will put a strain on existing local services such as dentists, doctors, hospitals etc. There are no local facilities for children and young adults. • Existing facilities and facilities with sufficient capacity for the additional population are not within easy access of the development. Many of the residents will drive to access these facilities making the development unsustainable. • There is no secondary school within 1km of the site (as it has recently closed) and the remaining school in in ‘special measures’ – therefore there is insufficient secondary school capacity to accommodate the increased local population resulting from this development. Pupils having to travel further afield will also increase traffic on the roads at peak times. • The existing PROW network will be degraded as a result of the development proposals. • The additional traffic congestion will lead to increased noise and air pollution for local residents and will make roads hazardous to drivers, pedestrians and cyclists. • Existing residents will suffer from noise and air pollution during the construction process. • There is a natural fall in the ground level from the site down to Mayers Road and Station Road, residents are concerned that the development will lead to increased surface water run-off. Surface water draining into both Mayers Road and Station Road from the field is already causes localised flooding. • The erection of 226 new dwellings is excessive and will severely impact upon local services. The recent closure of Walmer Secondary School, along with South Deal will have far reaching consequences. Deal police station is rarely manned and responses are usually via Dover, Folkestone or Thanet. Deal fire station is part time. • The development will have a detrimental impact on the residential amenities of existing neighbouring properties. • Units 005 to 008 are located in very close proximity to the boundary of the site shared with properties in John Tapping Close. There is insufficient landscaping provided to the site boundaries.
58 • A number of properties in John Tapping Close have long established private accesses from their rear gardens onto the development site. The proposed layout does not make provision for these rights of access; • Units 106/107/108 will overlook the private rear garden of 77 Station Road to the detriment of residential amenity. • The development does not take account of views of the site from the A258 near Mill Service Station; or from the Lord Nelson’s seat footpath area. • The development retains views of the windmill from within the development, however no effort has been made to retain other views of the mill e.g. from Station Road, Court Road, Menzies Avenue. Steep roof pitches and three-storey buildings further curtail these views. • Policy LA12 states that the development will only be permitted if it retaining long views of the windmill and of the wider countryside. This vista will not be preserved for existing residents of Station Road or the wider community. The application only refers to preserving the views for residents within the new development. This is an insufficient interpretation of policy LA12. • The development will ruin the view and peaceful environment that is currently enjoyed by occupants of the caravans sited at Clifford Park which is directly adjacent to the development. • The development is shown to be built in red brick with white window frames, this will contrast starkly with the brown bricks and brown window frames of the adjacent and surrounding development. It is important to ensure that the choice of materials is well considered as it has the potential to impact greatly on the landscape. • Parked cars along the southern edge of the development can be equally intrusive in terms of visual impact. Landscaping can soften the visual impact. • The development proposes shared surfaces throughout. The vast majority of pedestrians will be children and young people. The concern is that the development will cause a safety risk for pedestrians walking through the site to access the countryside. • The Design & Access Statement incorrectly refers to the development being located in Walmer town centre, and an urban or a suburban area. This is not an urban or a suburban area. The development is in Upper Walmer which is a small rural hamlet, separated from Walmer itself. This is not a town centre, there are only five small shops, a take-away and a public house. • The proposals represent overdevelopment of a greenfield site and would appear totally out of character with its surroundings. The inclusion of three-storey buildings is wholly inappropriate. • The application proposes that the on-going management and maintenance of all areas of open space within the development would be overseen by a management company. This should be established prior to the grant of any planning permission. • The proposed development will have a detrimental impact on the rural setting of the adjacent caravan park. Clifford Park. The proposed buffer zone will do little to compensate for the increased noise, visual impact of a large housing estate. The boundary hedge between the caravan site and housing development is only 1.5m high and the floor level of the caravans are elevated above the ground giving clear views to and from the adjacent caravans. • The development will have a negative impact on local tourism as a result of its detrimental impact on the adjacent caravan park.
59 A local ward Councillor has reported matters that have been raised by members of the public:
• Transport: Dover Road/Station Road cross roads - despite some minor changes to the bus stop and removal of two car parking spaces at this junction, none of the modelling that has been carried out has come up with a solution that could satisfy NPPG or LDF 3.179 requirements. A far more radical approach needs to be taken if these houses are to be granted planning permission and help to fulfil the LDF need. Single Exit to Station Road – presents safety problems. Mayers Road – to be used as an emergency access presents problems with road width and accessibility. • Water and Flooding – There is an existing problem of surface water run off from the fields on the site. The use of bore holes on site to mitigate against surface water runoff is questioned as they only have a lifespan of 15 years before they become clogged with silt and inefficient. Assurances should be sought to ensure that the proposed method is sustainable. • Open Space – this has been retained in the NE corner. This is essential for continuing biodiversity of the site and its wider context. The railway line is an important biodiversity corridor in and out of Walmer and Deal. It is suggested that this open space should be secured in perpetuity and incorporated into the Draft Parks and Amenity Space Strategy of the Land Allocations Plans of DDC.
Summary of Supporting Comments:
• The site is not a rural site, unlike the development sites at Sholden. The developer should be required to fund improvements to the road network and local services through S106 contributions. • The development will be of great benefit to the area with the construction of new homes for young and growing families. • The development will offer affordable housing to those key workers and individuals who struggle to get on the property ladder.
Walmer Parish Council: object to the proposal on the following grounds:
• The proposals for the proposed emergency access along Mayers Road rely on residents in the immediate vicinity policing the turning area. Residents and councillors have reservations regarding how this will be effective; • Station Road is already subject to flooding concerns especially from Court Road and Station Drive and the sewerage system in the immediate vicinity is already at capacity; • Vehicles using the A258 Dover Road at peak times, approaching the Jubilee roundabout, already creates heavy congestion. This will be compounded by the additional traffic generated from 223 new homes. The development would be contrary to CS policy DM12 which seeks to resist development if there would be a significant increase in the risk of traffic delays or crashes; • Residents in John Tapping Close are concerned at the proximity of proposed dwellings to the rear of existing to the detriment of privacy and outlook. The proposed amendments to the scheme do not go far enough to alleviate this concern; • Residents are concerned at the potential impact of construction vehicles using the local road network during the construction period;
60 • New properties on Station Road will overlook existing dwellings; • What measures will be put in place to ensure the protection and management of the green spaces within the development?
Sutton by Dover Parish Council: wish to register concern of the amount of traffic that would pass through the parish of Sutton as a result of this development. The Parish Council would give their support for an alternative access for these plant on to the Deal/Dover Road.
Langdon Parish Council: has serious concerns about the impact on the A258 by traffic generated from a development of this scale. An increase in traffic on the rural lanes by those seeking short cuts is also not acceptable. Any development should include a condition for the provision and enforcement of 20mph speed limits together with traffic calming measures to protect the rural environment.
Ripple Parish Council: raise ‘major concerns’ regarding the development proposals which principally relate to traffic movements in Station Road and at the junction with the A258. Concerns have also been raised that Ripple and other surrounding villages will be used as short cuts by the additional traffic that this development will generate. The development has not adequately provided for the additional traffic, or infrastructure with a lack of facilities in the area for schools, doctors, dentists etc. Concern has also been expressed that the development will establish a precedent for development on adjacent areas of open space.
At the time of writing this report and further to the most recent re-advertisement of this application, 32 additional letters of representation have been received, of which 31 object to the proposal. The following issues were raised:
• Deal has insufficient infrastructure to support the increased population including health care, education, parking, highway capacity, sewage disposal. • The development will increase flood risk in the surrounding area. • The additional parking in the area will add to the existing congestion within Mayers Road, and will impede access by emergency vehicles. • The development will have a detrimental impact on the quality of life of local residents in the area • Menzies Avenue is already used as a short cut between Station Road and Court Road. The development will exacerbate this problem to the detriment of highway safety. • The development will have a detrimental impact on the caravan business adjacent to the site. • This development will compound the detrimental impact on infrastructure that will be created by the other two large housing development sites in the area.
Walmer Parish Council maintains its objection to the proposal and has raised the following additional points:
• Residents have expressed deep concern as Station Road and Church Street is already subject to flooding. The existing sewage system was already at capacity 20 years ago;
61 • The traffic congestion that the development will cause along the Dover Road (A258) will lead to drivers using other minor roads as rat runs to avoid the congestion. • There are no consultee comments on the Highway Agency on the impact on the A258. • Moving the bus stop on Station Road would impede the access to an existing property. • Should this development proceed a condition should be imposed to limit hours of construction. • Concern is expressed at the future management and preservation of new trees to be planted within the development. • The 5-way junction at the end of Mayers Road onto Station Road leading from the development into the local town and schools will become congested as a result of this development leading to concerns of highway and pedestrian safety.
f) The Site and the Proposal
1.1 The application site (11.5ha) lies to the south west of Walmer, at the periphery of existing built development, approximately 3km from Deal town centre and c.250m walk south of Walmer railway station. The site has a road frontage to Station Road which connects with the A258 approximately 330m to the east.
1.2 The site has historically been used for agriculture and is currently an arable field. The land is indicated on the Agricultural Land Classification (ALC) map as lying within a general area of excellent quality (Grade I) agricultural land. Although a more detailed and reliable study of the eastern two-thirds of the site shows that area to be Grade 2 (very good quality).
1.3 The road frontage to Station Road is approximately 75m in width from where it extends southwards to give a depth of approximately 431m, and a maximum width of 390m along the southern boundary. The narrower part of the site fronting Station Road is framed on three sides by existing residential development; Station Road to the north and the cul-de-sacs of Mayers Road to the west and John Tapping Close to the east. The site then widens and is contained by the tree lined railway line and Cold Blow level crossing to the west and by the tree and hedge boundary of Clifford Park Caravan Park to the east. There is no physical boundary marking the southern perimeter of the site, however the alignment of public rights of way EE444 and EE443 coincides with the extent of the application site at its southern edge.
1.4 There are no marked topographical features on the site the land is gently undulating. Topographical information confirms that the site level falls from 36m (OHD) from the south west to 22m (OHD) to the east and north eastern boundaries. Land to the south of the application site extends out to open arable fields where the land gently rises up towards the Grade II Listed Ripple Mill.
1.5 The site is well connected to the existing network of public rights of way. Public Bridleway ED58 runs through the site from Mayer Road and Public Footpath ED36 runs diagonally through the site from Station Road to Cold Blow Crossing at the south-west corner of the site. Both routes connect to Public Footpaths
62 EE444 and EE 443 which run along the southern boundary of the application site and public footpath EE442 which extends to the south.
1.6 This detailed planning application was submitted by Taylor Wimpey UK Limited in April this year for the construction of 226 dwellings and associated work as described at the start of this report. The application was publicized and following negotiations with Officers and consideration of consultee and third party views, the scheme was revised and now proposes a total of 223 dwellings.
1.7 The planning application is supported by a set of detailed plans and range of other supporting documentation. A list of the main reports/studies received is set out below:
• Planning Statement • Design & Access Statement • Housing Schedule • Draft Section 106 & Schedule of Draft Heads of Terms • Landscape Overview • Archaeological Assessment • Flood Risk Assessment • Foul Drainage Strategy • Statement of Community Involvement • Geophysical Survey Report • Environmental Noise & Vibration Assessment • Air Quality Assessment • Ecological Appraisal with Protected Species Surveys • Reptile Mitigation Strategy • Transport Assessment
1.8 The applicant’s vision for the development is to propose ‘a sustainable extension to the historic settlement of Walmer to provide a range of family homes … the development will help to meet local housing need in a sustainable location’ (Design & Access Statement).
1.9 The application proposes a total of 223 dwellings served by a main pedestrian and vehicular access centrally positioned within the Station Road frontage, with an emergency access and turning head (also serving 6 new units) at the end of Mayers Road. The layout provides a mixture of detached, semi-detached and terrace properties built predominantly over two-storeys, together with three, three-storey apartment blocks. These offer a range of unit sizes (between 1 & 2 bed apartments to 4 bed dwellings) of which 66 (30%) are proposed as affordable housing. Parking is on-plot, on street and in parking courts and the majority of dwellings are also provided with on-plot garages.
1.10 With the exception of the apartment blocks, all units within the development are provided within their own private garden. In addition a series of publically accessible open spaces and green links are proposed throughout the development including a centrally located equipped children’s play area together with two areas of open space (pocket parks) within the development. The development also proposes a large area of accessible open space to the south of the proposed housing along the boundary with the public right of way and
63 agricultural fields to the south, which is shown to contain retained vegetation, new tree and shrub planting and wildflower meadows. This open space is multifunctional. It provides new and existing communities with easily accessible open space, it serves as a visual buffer to the development along the interface with the open fields and views from the south, and it provides a natural habitat for local wildlife.
1.11 Off-site highway works include modifications to the Station Road/A258 junction to the east of the proposed main site access including alterations to the arrangement of bus stop and car parking; the details of which are considered elsewhere within this report.
1.12 The application is supported by a commitment to pay all necessary developer contributions arising from demands placed on local infrastructure. These include payments to Kent County Council for social services, youth facilities, education, libraries, travel plan incentives and off-site highway works (if it is not to be provided directly by the developer – yet to be confirmed, see below); and; to DDC for mitigation of the Thanet Coast Special Protection Area (SPA) and local sports facilities.
2.0 Main Issues
2.1 The main issues in the consideration of this application are:
Policy Context and Principle of Development Transport & Highway Impact Housing: Housing Mix & Affordable Housing Design, Layout & Visual Amenity Residential Amenities & Adjacent Land Use Accessible Open Space, Children’s Play Space, Sports Facilities Natural Environment; including loss of agricultural land, impact on countryside, landscape, biodiversity and green infrastructure Environmental Protection Archaeology Flood Risk & Drainage Social Infrastructure & Public Services Phasing Sustainability Overview Summary: Heads of Terms for Section 106 Agreement
3.0 Assessment
Policy Context and Principle of Development
3.1 All decisions need to be taken in accordance with the Development Pan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The NPPF, which is a material consideration, states that relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up-to-date if a five year supply of deliverable housing sites cannot be demonstrated (para 49). Based upon information in the Council’s last published Annual Monitoring Report 2012/13, pending the adoption of the LALP, the Council falls significantly short in its provision of a five year housing land
64 supply. Hence, in accordance with the provisions of the NPPF paragraph 49, the following CS policies appear to fall under this category of being ‘out of date’:
• CP1 (settlement hierarchy) • CP3 (distribution of housing allocations) • DM1 (settlement boundaries) • DM4 (reuse or conversion of rural buildings) • DM5 (affordable housing) • DM15 (protection of the countryside) • DM16 (landscape character)
3.2 In addition to the above policies, NPPF paragraph 49 would also in theory apply to the areas identified for urban expansion within the CS. Owing to the fact that the Council does not currently have a 5 year housing land supply, the broad identification of this site for housing within the CS could be regarded as ‘out of date’. Such an interpretation would, though, run counter to the NPPF’s overall aim to boost significantly the supply of housing.
3.3 Notwithstanding this, the LALP is at an advanced stage in the plan making process and is progressing towards adoption. The NPPF makes provision in para 216 that due weight ‘may also be given (unless material considerations indicate otherwise) to relevant policies in emerging plans’. The LALP seeks to address the housing deficit and once adopted the Council should be able to demonstrate that they can meet the requirement for housing provision over the five year period (based on AMR figures 2012/2013). In which case, due weight can once again be given to the provisions of the CS as part of the prevailing Development Plan.
3.4 The policy context set out within the CS, as informed by the NPPF together with the emerging LALP policy, is therefore considered to be relevant to the assessment of the current proposal.
3.5 The application site is consistent with the proposed allocation in the LALP but until that Plan is adopted the site lies outside settlement confines as defined by the CS Proposals Map. In this location, CS policies presume against new development of the type and scale proposed by this application; policies DM1 & DM11 apply. For this reason the development is considered to be a departure from the Development Plan, and it has been advertised as such.
3.6.1 As well as safeguarding against inappropriate development the CS sets out a clear spatial strategy which identified where future development should be located in broad terms. These spatial considerations are set out in section 3.52- 3.82 of the CS. For the Deal area three broad areas for urban expansion are shown; Between Middle Deal and Sholden; Land at Sholden (land adjacent to Sholden New Road), and land at Walmer (represented by this application).
3.7 By way of background, the two other sites identified for housing development have already been the subject of planning applications.
Land at Sholden: Detailed planning permission was granted in November 2012 for the erection of 230 residential dwellings, formation of vehicular
65 access off A258 and emergency access of Sholden New Road, off-site pedestrian and cycle improvements, associated parking, landscaping and infrastructure: DOV/10/1065 – construction of this development is currently under way.
Land between Middle Deal/Sholden: Outline planning permission (with all matters reserved) was granted in April 2013 for residential development up to 230 dwellings and public open space, with access from Hancocks Field, Hunters Walk and Hyton Drive, including roads, cycle paths, footpaths, ancillary works incorporating landscaping, pond and alterations to public rights of way: DOV/10/1012.
3.8 In summary, the principle of residential development in this location has been established through the adopted Core Strategy. This has been taken forward through publication the Council’s emerging LALP which allocates a specific area for residential development and the planning application site is consistent with the proposed allocation.
3.9 As noted earlier, the LALP has now reached a very advanced stage in the process leading up to its formal adoption. The LALP containing draft policy LA12 has been subject to full public consultation, followed by examination in public wherein the Inspector identified a number of Main Modifications (MMs) to be made, which have now themselves been subject to a further round of public consultation. The Inspector is currently considering public representations that were made in respect of the MMs. It should be noted that the last round of public consultation sought views on the MMs and not on the principle of the policy allocation. One of the MMs was an additional criteria relating to SPA and SAC mitigation for this site.
3.10 Paragraph 216 of the NPPF enables weight to be given to emerging plan policies, and the weight attributable to an emerging policy increases the further it advances towards formal adoption. While in this case the LALP process remains incomplete, it is at a very advanced stage and hence it can and should be given considerable weight. Accordingly, the information contained within LALP policy LA12 regarding the site area and detailed policy provides a highly relevant and material consideration in the assessment of this application.
3.12 Policy LA12 allocates the site for residential development with an estimated capacity of 220 dwellings. The planning application proposes a total of 223 dwellings and is therefore broadly within the scope of the allocation. Figure 3.18 of the LALP identifies the site boundaries of the allocation conveyed by policy LA12. The area of built development proposed by this application sits within the allocated site. An area of approximately 3.61ha extends beyond the site allocation boundary and, with the exception of two dwellings and part of two further dwellings, this area is shown to be provided as open space.
3.13 It is considered that the proposed development is compliant with the spatial vision of the CS and with the more specific allocation of LALP policy LA12 in terms of number of units and site boundaries, and which in principle provide reasoned justification for a departure from CS policies DM1 and DM11 in respect of settlement confines and the location of development.
66
3.14 The nine policy criteria of LA12 address more site specific aspects of the development and its context, and these are considered in detail under relevant headings below.
Transport & Highway Impact
3.15 The NPPF (at para 32) states that ‘all developments that generate significant amounts of movement should be supported by a Transport Statement. Plans and decisions should take account of whether:
The opportunities for sustainable transport modes have been taken up depending on the nature and location of the site, to reduce the need for major transport infrastructure; Safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all people; and Improvements can be undertaken within the transport network that cost effectively limits the significant impacts of the development. Development should only be prevented or refused on transportation grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of development are severe’.
3.16 KCC Highways have commented that the applicant has adopted a robust approach to assessing the traffic impacts of the development including initial video surveillance of the junction of Dover Road (A258) and Station Road and the approach routes - to attain a full understanding of how traffic is moving on the network and establishing the typical extents of queuing and journeys times.
3.17 In addition to video surveillance, the applicant has built a VISSIM model which has allowed the adjustment of different parameters to reflect different scenarios as indicated by the video surveillance. The VISSIM is a micro-simulation traffic model capable of replicating day to day random variability by reflecting individual driver decisions such as speed selection, lane changing, driver route choice and bus and parked vehicle dwell times, as well as use of the pedestrian crossing on Dover Road.
3.18 The junction capacity was assessed using traditional PICARDY assessment tools and found to operate well within capacity during the peak periods both with and without the proposed development. The maximum Flow to Capacity Analysis result is 0.749 (with development - during the PM peak) (observed peak 0.63). The point at which a junction is subject to delay is when the capacity is exceeding approximately 0.85 (Practical Capacity Limit).
3.19 The developers were however mindful of the anecdotal evidence taken from the public responses to consultation and the view that the junction of Station Road and Dover Road suffers from congestion, giving rise to queuing at peak periods. The video footage was supplemented by further site visits to specifically observe the traffic patterns and interaction between vehicles at the junction. The review confirmed that some queuing did take place and that on occasion exceeded 10 vehicles in length, however this was over relatively short periods of time and dissipated quickly and was often followed by extended periods of limited or no demand on Station Road. Further investigation resolved that the sporadic nature of the surges of traffic queues at the junction was often a result of "exit blocking"
67 i.e. the inability of vehicles to leave Station Road due to stationary traffic on the road they are trying to turn into (Dover Road).
3.20 Whilst the pedestrian crossing attributed sometimes to the "exit blocking" the main reason is because during the AM peak the southbound bus stop on Dover Road is regularly used giving rise to stationary buses whilst passengers are boarding or alighting the bus. Due to the proximity of the on street parking bays, which were noted to be regularly occupied during the AM peak, Dover Road is effectively reduced to a single lane of traffic dominated by northbound movement which was noted to have general priority. Due to the comparably high southbound flow on Dover Road, queuing can quickly form behind the bus, extending back towards and across the junction with Station Road, preventing exit from Station Road. This situation is further compounded by use of the pedestrian crossing.
3.21 In addition to the above, the developer’s highway consultant noted that the buses (or other large vehicles) turning into Station Road needed to use most of the carriageway to make the turn, due to the existing lane widths. When vehicles are already queuing or waiting at the ‘Give-Way’ line in Station Road, buses are required to wait on Dover Road until the way ahead is clear to make the turn.
3.22 The development will increase movements on Station Road and therefore will give rise to a limited increase in the scale of the queues resulting from the exit blocking that has been identified. The additional development traffic is forecast to be at a level of approximately 1 vehicle per minute during the peaks.
3.23 To address the above, the developers have offered to fund a mitigation package that would comprise the following:
• Modification of the kerb radii to Station Road to increase the overall width of the carriageway and thus allow large vehicles (including buses) to turn unimpeded by cars waiting to exit.
• Creating a bus cage to ensure that the bus stops in exactly the right place.
• Northbound bus stop swapped with two on-street parking spaces (2 other spaces to be deleted) which would allow waiting restrictions to provide a protected run-in for the bus, whilst also placing the car parking in a slightly wider section of the carriageway.
• Waiting restrictions to extend behind relocated bus stop to end of 355 but to be a single yellow line (with 0700 - 1900) parking restriction allowing nearby residents overnight parking.
3.24 Although the proposed solution would remove two of the four effective on street parking spaces, it would allow traffic to flow in both directions freely when both bus stops are in use. It is not considered that the proposed off-site highways works would affect the setting of the adjoining Conservation Area.
3.25 It is considered that the work carried out by the developer has gone beyond that which could be reasonably required since the development impact at the junction
68 of Dover Road and Station Road was proven through the Transport Assessment to be acceptable in accordance with current guidance and certainly could not be considered severe in terms of a refusal under the NPPF (para 32).
3.26 The developers have identified the cause of the queues, which occur at the junction, and any blocking back occurring on Dover Road due to large vehicles not being able to turn into Station Road and have offered to mitigate these existing impacts as part of any consented scheme.
3.27 The distribution and assignment of the trips on the network suggest that very little traffic would choose to use Ellen's Road and that there are several routes from the development that could be utilised.
3.28 In view of the above, KCC Highways are satisfied that the developers have proposed to mitigate impacts beyond those anticipated by the trips generated by the proposed development which would provide betterment to the road network in the area as a whole. The development itself would not have an adverse impact on the surrounding roads and will have the additional benefit of providing turning facilities for existing vehicles using Mayers Road.
3.29 The applicant is currently in liaison with KCC Highways regarding the cost, safety audit and technical approval of the mitigation measures proposed and the intention is for the applicant to make a payment to KCC, equivalent to the cost of undertaking the work, prior to the commencement of development and for the off- site highway works to be complete, operational and available for use prior to first occupation of any unit on the site. Alternatively, it would fall to the applicant to directly carry out and complete the off-site highways works and to ensure they are operational and available for use prior to first occupation of any part of the development. Discussions between the applicant and KCC Highways are ongoing in this respect.
3.30 In addition to the proposed off-site highway works two other factors will further reduce the reliance of the development on use of the private car; the location of the site, and the development of and adherence to a robust Travel Plan.
3.31 The site occupies a sustainable location being within walking distance of both the train station and good bus routes to Walmer, Deal, Dover and Sandwich. The closest bus stops are on each side of the carriageway opposite proposed unit 001 on Station Road. The train station is a direct 250m walk from the Station Road frontage of the development along paved and level surfaces, and the proposed layout provides clear and easy access from within the development.
3.32 Additionally the site is well connected to an existing network of public rights of way and cycle links connecting the site to the wider area. Hence the development’s location gives the opportunity to encourage sustainable transport choices. This can be maximized through the requirement of a robust Travel Plan for the development.
3.33 As part of the Transport Assessment submitted in support of the planning application a Framework Travel Plan (FTP) was included. It sets out how the proposed development could support and encourage sustainable travel through
69 the mechanism of a Travel Plan. Through the consultation process KCC Highways identified a number of specific measures that should be included within the FTP and consequently included within the S106 Agreement.
3.34 An addendum to the FTP was submitted by the applicant’s agent, which sets out those additional commitments including incentives to encourage the use of buses and trains. Such incentives could include subsidized travel of bus and rail services, information packs promoting the use of rail, bus, walking and cycling opportunities, information on broadband connection in new homes, the provision of benches throughout the development to encourage walking, bus and rail travel. Benches will be placed on main routes to the bus stops and railway station within the boundary of the development. Additionally, KCC have published a series of walking and cycling guides for the Dover and Deal areas and these are to be included within the welcome packs for new residents. The applicant has committed to make a payment of £500 to KCC to cover the cost of reproducing and supplying the documents for the welcome packs.
3.35 The exact details of the incentives have yet to be concluded, however a standard approach is to require submission of a detailed Travel Plan for the site, prior to first occupation of any part of the development through the attachment of a suitably worded condition. The £500 payment to KCC for supply of the information documents for the welcome pack can be secured through the S106 – the recommendation set out below is made accordingly.
3.36 The requirement for a robust and detailed Travel Plan for the development also coincides with the requirement of the Highway Agency in terms of seeking to reduce potential traffic impact on the Duke of York Roundabout. Following the submission of further information from the applicant’s highway consultant, which demonstrated that there would be minimal impact arising from the development on the Duke of York roundabout, the HA have lifted their initial holding objection subject to a condition requiring the submission of a detailed Travel Plan showing practical ways of securing a modal shift to more sustainable transport systems, such as those outlined above.
3.37 In conclusion, it is considered that sufficient evidence has been provided by the applicant to demonstrate that the potential highway impact arising from the development will not have a detrimental impact on the functioning of the local road network. Furthermore, the proposed package of mitigation measures can further enhance the functioning of the existing road network through off-site improvements (A258/Station Road junction) and maximize opportunities presented by existing connections to public rights of way, and public transport networks to increase the overall sustainability of the site. In this respect the development is considered to comply with the policy framework of the NPPF, the CS and detailed criteria of LALP policy LA23 (viii & ix), subject to conditions and S106.
Housing Mix, Density & Affordable Housing
3.38 Policy CP4 requires housing allocations and planning applications for 10 or more dwellings to identify the purpose of the development in terms of creating, reinforcing or restoring the local housing market in which they are located and
70 development of an ‘appropriate’ housing mix and design taking account of the guidance in the Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA).
3.39 The SHMA identified the following broad split of demand for market housing based upon the profile of projected newly forming households in the District, and this split is set against the range of market housing proposed through this application in the table below.
Unit Size Proposed % of Proposed Overall Core Strategy Market Market Proposed Mix Proportion Housing Units Housing Units (including AH) 1 bed homes 0 0 6% 15% 2 bed homes 33 21% 29% 35% 3 bed homes 48 31% 29% 40% 4 bed homes 76 48% 36% 10% TOTAL 157
3.40 The CS confirms that the proportions sought should be used to inform decisions on the housing mix of development proposals seeking planning permission and that they will need to be adjusted by market information on the housing needs and preferences of people moving into/within the District. From the above, it is apparent that the proposal includes a greater proportion of 4 bed units than that anticipated by the SHMA.
3.41 The applicant has submitted a report setting out a reasoned justification for the variation from the SHMA proportions. The report is based upon search and sales data as well as anecdotal information gathered from a range of local estate agents active in the Walmer/Deal area. The research undertaken has found that:
3.42 ‘The market in Walmer and Deal is currently active for all property types, with good demand for first time buyers, second home owners, downsizers and investors. This mirrors recent activity in other areas of the County and demonstrates a significant return of confidence in the housing market. Locally the market is driven by investors and first time buyers who appear to be satisfied locally within the existing housing stock and for whom price is a key parameter in their buying decision. … research has found that there is a good level of interest in larger properties with 50% of all searches on Right Move based on 4 and 5 bedroom properties … it is clear that fewer searches for larger properties go on to make a purchase and this could indicate a lack of choice in the local supply … taking all the evidence into account … the proposed mix is broadly suitable for the location and local market and should prove to be an attractive development that will appeal to both local buyers and from those further afield’. The report also notes that the research has ‘utilized data based on recent, but historic transactions. Past activity does not always indicate future trends and given that this site is unlikely to come to market in the immediate future, it is important that where possible the development is planned and built in phases to allow changes in the market to the accommodated’.
3.43 A further consideration affecting the mix, which is acknowledged within the CS, is design and the need to ensure an appropriate character of development for its context. Design is discussed in more detail in a following section, however the
71 location of the site at the urban periphery is such that a looser urban grain and lower density, integrated with structural landscaping is required to provide a natural transition to the surrounding countryside. The grain of the development does gradually tighten towards the Station Road side of the site where it is framed by existing tighter grain development.
3.44 In terms of density, the CS seeks to contribute to the regional housing target by adopting the 40 dwellings per hectare (dph) target as the minimum average to be achieved across the District. Rather than set a blanket density standard, the Strategy’s approach is to encourage the achievement of higher density development (and more efficient use of land) through a design-led process giving careful consideration to the context of the development. The proposed development achieves a density of c.34dph, which is a reflection of the greater proportion of 4 bed units.
3.45 As a whole, the provision of smaller units (such as one and two bed units) would, in addition to increasing the density of the development, add to infrastructure needs such as a requirement for more parking to meet current standards. This would create a more urban character which would not be appropriate at the urban/rural transition. Conversely the introduction of a higher proportion of larger 3 and 4 bed units, in addition to lowering density, also helps create a more spacious and potentially sylvan character with opportunities for additional landscaping.
3.46 Overall, it is considered that the need for an appropriate design that responds to the particulars of the sites context, together with evidence from the applicant’s market research is sufficient to justify a variation from the CS proportions.
3.47 In accordance with the requirements of CS policy DM5 and DDCs Affordable Housing SPD, the application proposes 30% affordable housing, which in this case equates to 66units. These are proposed within phases 1, 2, 3 and 5 of the development (total of 6 phases – please refer to the ‘phasing’ sub heading for further details) which is considered to be a reasonable approach to secure the timely delivery of the affordable housing units, whilst being mindful of the economic interests of the developer. The units are grouped into eight clusters throughout the area of the development in a manner that aims to balance the objectives of integrating the units within the overall development and allowing efficient management by a Registered Provider. It is felt that this is successfully achieved by the proposed layout and unit distribution.
3.48 The proposed mix of affordable housing units is set out in the table below.
Unit Size No: of Units % of Affordable Housing (approx.) 1 bed flat 13 20% 2 bed flat 16* 24% 2 bed house 15 23% 3 bed house 18 27% 4 bed house 4 6% TOTAL 66
72 *Three units are proposed as (Lifetime Homes) wheel chair accessible in accordance with KCC requirements, see relevant section below.
3.49 In terms of tenure mix, the Council’s Affordable Housing SPD seeks a 70/30 rented/shared ownership tenure split which the applicant has confirmed as acceptable in relation to this development proposal.
3.50 The Housing Manager raises no objection to the proposed range of affordable unit types proposed or their distribution throughout the development. However eight of the two bed flats proposed are shown as 3 person units, which is not considered to offer sufficient flexibility to meet a range of housing needs and the smaller of these units could prove difficult to let. The Housing Manager comments that they are unlikely to be attractive to existing tenants needing to downsize (for bedroom tax reasons), and that it would be preferable for these units to be provided as 4 person units.
3.51 The applicant has responded to this point as follows, ‘(the application) has provided a range of apartment buildings across the site (including) 30 affordable apartments, of which 6 (20%) are 3 person units. This is a small percentage and adds to the mix of units available across the site … (and the applicant is) reluctant to make further changes to the proposal …’. Whilst the change of the 6 apartments from three person to four person units would be preferable for the aforementioned reasons, in light of meeting the full requirement of 30% affordable housing, together with the optimal tenure split, it is not considered that this remaining issue is of such significance to warrant the refusal of planning permission, and hence is not pursued further.
3.52 On balance and overall, it is considered that the density of units, range of unit sizes, types and tenure of both affordable and open market housing are acceptable and comply with the NPPF, CS policy and requirements of the AH SPD.
Design, Layout & Visual Amenity
3.53 The Government attaches great importance to the design of the built environment. Good design is a key aspect of sustainable development, is indivisible from good planning, and should contribute positively to making places better for people. It is important to plan positively for the achievement of high quality and inclusive design for all development, including individual buildings, public and private spaces and wider area development schemes (paras 56-57, NPPF).
3.54 The Kent Design Guide (KDG) emphasises that design solutions should be appropriate to context and the character of the locality. In order to respect context the KDG sets out that development should achieve some or all of the following: reinforce positive design features of an area; include public areas that draw people together and create a sense of place; avoid a wide variety of building styles or mixtures of materials; and form a harmonious composition with surrounding buildings or landscape features.
3.55 In this instance, the assessment of whether the development is appropriate to context is inextricably bound to the identification of the site as an area for urban
73 extension within the Core Strategy, which is taken further by the emerging LALP allocation policy. It is inevitable that residential development, extending into the countryside would, to some extent, be out of context with the prevailing rural character. Given the policy support for the urban expansion, the question in this case is how well the development responds to the sensitivities of an urban fringe location. The manner in which the development does this is considered here, and should be read alongside the section below under the sub-heading ‘Natural Environment; including landscape impact, green infrastructure, biodiversity and loss of agricultural land’.
3.56 Responding to context also involves accommodating site specific constraints and wider planning policy objectives which include in this case: housing mix/density objectives; the protection of residential amenities of neighbouring properties; the enhancement of green infrastructure and accommodating on-site open space; provision of an equipped children’s play area; retention and incorporation of existing PROWs; the protection of residential amenity for future occupants of the site; the need to safeguard incorporate and retain long views of Ripple Windmill and the wider countryside; the need to provide frontage development to Station Road; compliance with highway and parking standards; biodiversity enhancements; the retention and attenuation of surface water drainage on site; and the need to provide a landscape buffer to the adjacent countryside and existing development. The objective is to balance these considerations in order to deliver a high quality development.
3.57 The application has been accompanied by a Design & Access Statement (DAS). This identifies that in addition to site specific factors, the evolution of the design and layout of the development has been informed by the principles set out within the Walmer Design Statement (WDS). The WDS identifies character areas within Walmer based upon the age, architectural style and layout of development. The application site lies adjacent to three of the identified character areas: ‘Upper Walmer Village’, ‘Walmer Station Area’ and ‘Modern Cul-de-sac’, the characteristics of which have influenced the design approach of this application.
3.58 The assessment of the scheme has also been informed by the Building for Life principles. This is a national standard for well-designed homes and neighbourhoods. The CS states that the Council will use the standard to help inform the assessment of how well proposals have responded to their design objectives.
3.59 The submitted DAS sets out the design philosophy for the overall development which is to:
• Promote pedestrian and vehicular links within the areas surrounding the site; • Maximise visual connections with the major new open space – the new green corridor; and • Create a recognizable hierarchy of streets, reinforced through distinct different architectural and landscape character areas to aid legibility, whilst creating an overall character for the neighbourhood.
3.60 The main site access is from Station Road which punctuates the proposed frontage development. The layout of the development is articulated by distinct
74 character areas and a clear road hierarchy which assists in creating a sense of place within different parts of the development. The DAS states that the character areas are defined by street type and open space design, and also by the scale, massing, roof treatment and architectural detailing of the new buildings. The main character areas are summarised as follows:
A ‘Village Green’ is located within the centre of the development and is characterized by an informal open space with equipped play area, general amenity space, seating and new tree planting. The space is enclosed by a series of large two-storey dwellings and a three storey apartment block, which frame the space and provide a high level of natural surveillance to this area. The issue of play facilities is addressed in more detail elsewhere in this report.
‘Boulevard Street’ is the principle route into the centre of the site from Station Road and leads directly to a central amenity space at the heart of the development (see Village Green) and beyond to the main landscape buffer to the south. The Boulevard is characterised by a wider road treatment with large street trees. Two storey housing is set back from the road allowing generous areas of street planting and landscaping to front gardens. The DAS describes Boulevard Street as providing a focus for the neighbourhood, linking Station Road with areas of open space and forming a spine running through the development.
On entering the site along Boulevard Street from Sandwich Road, a three- storey apartment block with foreground landscaped area provides an immediate focal point and aids legibility of the site. Houses are designed to provide a sense of continuous frontage, forming a robust edge to the space and helping give the street a strong sense of enclosure. The DAS notes that flank walls facing directly onto the side streets are carefully treated with additional windows to ensure the continuation of active frontages and overlooking at street junction.
Stemming from the main Boulevard Street are a series of ‘Back Streets’, ‘Lanes’ and ‘Mews’.
‘Back Streets’ run parallel to Boulevard Street and are characterized by a narrower road treatment with housing set close to the highway. The DAS describes them as designed with a single footpath with soft verge to its opposite side. It is linked to the main spine road by Lanes and Mews.
‘Lanes’ are secondary in nature and form the main lateral links from Boulevard Street to the Back Streets. Lanes are characterized by two-storey terraced housing, off-street parking and tree planting. These areas aim to provide safe and attractive places, with a pedestrian orientated streetscape with shared and calmed carriageways.
‘Mews’ are the narrowest streets within the development and the DAS describes them as having a small and intimate scale and character. These streets are generally short with houses of no more than two-storeys on either side, with street trees located where space allows. Due to the relatively small
75 number of houses fronting these streets, maintaining good levels of passive surveillance is critical to ensuring the Mews feel safe. All houses along the Mews are designed with entrances on the front facades to maximize street activity. Landscape treatments to back garden walls which flank the street are also critical to the success of these streets.
Other features of the proposed layout include:
Frontage development to Station Road consisting of detached two-storey dwellinghouses with on-plot parking accessed directly from Station Road. It is considered that the proposed development provides a positive interface with existing development along Station Road and is compliant with the requirements of emerging LALP policy LA12 (ii).
The ‘Park Edge’, development along the southern perimeter of the site is shown to face ‘outwards’ from the development. This provides a positive interface with the adjoining open space and landscape to the south and permits a good level of natural surveillance over these areas. The edge of built form is irregular, giving a soft and ‘natural’ perimeter to the development at this important transition area. The perimeter allows the green area to extend into the built form where this coincides with the alignment of key views from within the development towards Ripple windmill to the south.
Dwellings are limited to two-storeys set along an informal street interspersed with green margins and tree planting with limited areas of on street parking. Here the scale of the highway has been minimized so that it does not dominate the periphery of the development. The location of dwellings at the southern edge of the site has also informed the choice and spatial distribution of materials. With the exception of one white rendered unit, all are proposed in soft muted tones. The inclusion of a rendered property at the boundary of the site is considered appropriate to articulate the development and is a reflection of existing white rendered properties at the periphery of existing development, such as that at the end of Mayers Road.
The proposed treatment of this important ‘edge’ boundary is considered to be appropriate. It successfully meets the requirements of LALP policy LA12 (i and iii).
Existing PROWs; development fronting the existing PROWs that bisect the site have been sited and designed to provide as far as possible an active frontage to the PROW to enhance the environment of these routes and to provide natural surveillance. It is considered that the proposed development has been successful in incorporating the existing routes into the development, in accordance with LALP policy LA12(iv).
3.61 The application is supported by a Landscape Strategy which sets out the framework and rationale behind the proposed areas of accessible open space. The DAS describes the development as landscape-led based on Green Infrastructure (GI) principles, retaining, enhancing, linking and utilising the existing natural features of the site. In addition to the ‘Village Green’ and tree lined ‘green routes’ through the development, the key landscaped areas are:
76
The southern amenity space, which has been proposed as a multi-functional, semi-natural open space which also acts as a visual buffer in long views from the south. The Landscape Strategy describes this as an amenity grass area and a location for informal recreation, incorporating new tree planting and structured shrub planting to provide a robust edge to the development and softening views from the south. It is intended to create new informal mown grass footpaths throughout this area to increase connectivity with the existing footpath network;
Landscaped buffers and additional tree planting are proposed for the east and west boundaries of the site again to soften the appearance of the development within the wider landscape context, but also to contribute to the mitigation of potential impacts of the development on the residential amenities of neighbouring occupants, including the adjacent caravan park – Please note that the issue of impact on residential amenity is discussed in more detail below.
3.62 These two key areas of Green Infrastructure are sufficient to integrate the proposed urban expansion in to the wider landscape and hence comply with the policy framework of the NPPF, CS and in particular the requirement of LALP policy LA12 (i).
3.63 Additional landscape features include:
A Pocket Park adjacent to proposed residential units in the northern area of the site, to provide a small doorstep green as an area of open space with associated seating and planting.
A ‘soakage depression’ within the north west corner of the site. This feature is proposed to create a large predominantly dry shallow depression to provide additional overland drainage capacity in peak conditions, and forms part of the overall SUDs strategy for the development.
3.64 Conditions requiring the submission of details in respect of the landscaped areas and the management thereof are set out within the recommendation below (please also refer to the section titled ‘Open Space’ at paragraph 3.90).
3.65 Building heights are predominantly two-storey, interspersed with single storey elements (porches/garages) and with three, three-storey apartment buildings providing focal points within the development to give variation and aid legibility. It is considered that the proposed distribution of building heights is appropriate to the context of the site.
3.66 As noted above the site lies adjacent to three distinct character areas, as defined by the WDS. The applicant has analysed the existing townscape of both Walmer and Deal to determine the continuant components that make up the vernacular style of the area. The approach to architectural style for this development does not seek to directly replicate existing development, which comprises a variety of building styles and character. Instead, as described by the DAS, it seeks to create a high quality design with an individual identity that will sit comfortably
77 within the surrounding environment. It is considered that the overall approach to the design of the proposed development has successfully achieved this objective, and is acceptable.
3.67 The main external cladding to buildings is brick and the DAS describes the use of a complimentary mortar colour rather than contrast with the brick colours. The predominant brick work will be interspersed with render that will give variation and aid legibility. The DAS describes secondary focal elements of tile hanging and weather boarding. The overall colour pallet is intended to create a cohesive overall character to the development and one that compliments the surrounding context of existing development.
3.68 The proposed parking strategy for the site is provided in accordance with current requirements. The proposed layout incorporates a variety of parking arrangements including on-plot, on-street and a number of small parking courts. It is considered that this varied approach to parking is appropriate for this development as it gives variation and enables the layout to respond to the different character areas within.
3.69 In terms of the level of parking proposed and the operational function of the layout, KCC Highways are satisfied with the overall parameters of the layout. However KCC Highways have advised that the span of visibility splays and sight lines do not in all cases fall within the adoptable highway. Some are shown to fall over third party land within the development, placing the onus on the landowner to keep boundary fences and shrubs low in order for the sight line envelopes to be maintained. Notwithstanding this, KCC HIghways are satisfied that these detailed matters can be resolved through the submission of details pursuant to condition.
3.70 Similarly, the areas of highway identified for adoption and the proposed service margins within the development site are not entirely compatible with KCC Highways requirements. KCC Highways note that these issues are not strictly necessary for the planning permission, and that these matters will in any case require address through the later Section 38 Agreement process.
3.71 The proposed layout provides an emergency access at the south-west end of Mayers Road, in accordance with the requirements of LALP policy LA12(viii), together with a turning head to be made available for use by existing and future residents, to be provided as part of phase 3 of the development. In terms of the operation of the turning head KCC Highways have confirmed that it meets minimum dimensions to enable the turning of all vehicles up to and including a pantechnicon. A condition requiring the submission of details in respect of the turning head and emergency access has been included within the recommendation below and the S106 requires provision and availability of the agreed turning head and emergency access prior to the first occupation of any market housing within phase 3.
3.72 In addition to the emergency access, the proposed turning head and Mayers Road would provide vehicular access to six of the proposed units. KCC Highways are satisfied that Mayers Road, through the provision of a turning head, provides suitable access to these additional units. The required heads of
78 terms for the S106 makes provision for the completion and operation of the turning head prior to the first occupation of any unit within phase 3 of the development. Hence the additional units to be served from Mayers Road will not be occupied until the turning head and parking for these units are provided and made available for use.
3.73 Subject to the resolution of matters relating to the detailed highway layout which can be secured by way of condition, it is considered that the proposed layout and design of individual dwellings, apartment blocks and spaces strikes an appropriate balance between the design objectives of the NPPF, CS, emerging policy LA12, and other national, county and local design guides; the objective of using land efficiently and effectively and the need to tailor the development to reconcile the various opportunities and constraints presented by this site.
Residential Amenities & Adjacent Land Use
3.74 Representations have been received from a number of neighbouring residents, and owners of adjacent caravans, raising concerns over the impact of the development on residential amenity. It is without question that the development would fundamentally alter the character and appearance of the site and views that many of the existing adjacent residential properties currently enjoy across the existing open field. Protection of long views across adjacent land is not a material consideration. However it is nonetheless important to ensure that the direct outlook from the existing dwellings is not compromised by the development to an unacceptable level to the detriment of residential amenity. This consideration is in addition to other key factors when considering impact on amenity such as potential overlooking, overshadowing, sense of enclosure, and noise/disturbance
3.75 Existing residential properties that adjoin the site are located in Station Road, Mayers Road and John Tapping Close. Clifford Caravan Park (occupied by static holiday caravans) is located adjacent to the east site boundary. Through negotiations with the applicant’s agent the layout of units within the site has been adjusted in several places to enable a better relationship with existing neighbouring buildings and uses. The changes are minor in nature and provide for an overall improvement to the development in these terms. At the time of writing this report, minor revisions to the plans are currently the subject of public consultation, which is due to conclude prior to the committee meeting. Should any further representations be received which raise material issues not already covered by this report, they will be reported verbally to Members at the meeting.
3.76 Adjacent properties in Station Road comprise detached two-storey dwellings that flank either side of the new frontage development. Here, to the north of proposed unit 093 is an area of open land which intervenes between the development site and the adjacent property 77 Station Road, giving a side to side separation distance of c. 28metres. Proposed unit 093 is set c.8m off the site boundary. In view of the separation, and the presence of boundary trees, it is not considered that the development would have a detrimental impact on this neighbouring property. The development returns along the rear boundary of 77 Station Road where proposed units 107-109 (two-storey terrace with ground and first floor rear facing windows) are set c. 11m off the boundary giving a first floor back to back
79 separation distance of c. 37metres, and; the side elevation of proposed unit 096 is located c.16m off the boundary. It is considered that the degree of separation afforded by the proposed layout would mitigate the degree of overlooking between the existing and proposed properties to an acceptable level. Furthermore, details of the boundary treatment proposed for the perimeter of the development can be required by way of condition.
3.77 Where the development site extends back away from Station Road, the north- west site boundary is flanked by the rear gardens associated with properties in Mayers Road which largely comprise two-storey terrace properties, together with a U-shaped terrace of two/three storey properties. PROW E36 also runs parallel to the rear boundaries of properties towards the southern end of Mayers Road. The proposed housing is set off the shared boundary with Mayers Road properties by c.9-15m, and the depth of rear gardens of the Mayers Road properties give separation distances of c.26-53m between existing and proposed dwellings. It is considered that the proposed layout presents an acceptable relationship with neighbouring properties in this respect.
3.78 As noted above, the alignment of PROW ED36, running through the development, requires consideration in terms of layout and the need to ensure that the route benefits from natural surveillance. Where the PROW runs along the rear boundaries of properties in Mayers Road this gives rise to a tension between the need to ensure that the PROW has natural surveillance and the need to protect existing residents from overlooking. Through negotiations with the applicant’s agent, amendments have been made to remove a number of first floor habitable room windows from units flanking the PROW where this would have overlooked neighbouring properties. It is now considered that an acceptable compromise has been reached in this respect. Furthermore, the proposed landscaping for the development proposes to supplement existing tree planting along the shared boundary to soften the interface between existing and proposed development and to improve the environment of the PROW. Conditions requiring obscure glazing to non-habitable rooms and removal of permitted development rights for the insertion of further openings within the elevations of properties adjacent to the PROW are recommended.
3.79 Proposed unit 131 was initially shown to be located approximately 6m to the south of the side elevation of the end unit in Mayers Road (number 82). The existing property has four large windows within the side elevation facing towards the side elevation of unit 131. It has not been possible to ascertain what rooms these windows serve and so for the purposes of this assessment they are assumed to be main habitable room windows. Officers were concerned that the proximity of unit 131 to the existing property could have a detrimental impact in terms of loss of outlook from two of the four side windows, together with the creation of a sense of enclosure and overshadowing. Through negotiations with officers, the applicants have amended the layout to address this issue. The revised plan now gives a separation distance of c.10m between the side elevations of the existing and proposed properties, which has necessitated setting units 131/132 c.2m further back from the building line of Mayers Road to accommodate the alignment of the PROW. The amendments have the advantage of improving the outlook from the side windows of 82 Mayers Road, however being located to the south of the existing property some overshadowing
80 of the area between the units will be caused during the middle part of the day, particularly during the winter months. However, by reason of the 10m separation between existing and proposed properties, it is not considered that the extent of this impact would cause significant detriment to the residential amenities of the existing property, and on balance no objection is raised.
3.80 The side elevation of unit 131 facing Mayers Road does not contain any openings and hence will not overlook the adjacent property. A condition to prevent the erection of extensions and the insertion of openings within the north side elevation of unit 131 is recommended.
3.81 To the east of the proposed frontage development to Station Road, is a large detached two-storey dwellinghouse (number 51) that is at a slightly higher level and set back from Station Road by c.18m. The development site directly adjoins the side and rear boundaries of this property, divided by a mature hedge row and existing boundary trees. Adjacent proposed units flanking the rear garden of this property are sited c.13-15m from the side boundary. By reason of the proposed layout and orientation of development, the separation distances achieved, the existing hedge screening and the relative position of windows, it is not considered that it would give rise to an unacceptable impact in terms of overlooking, overshadowing, sense of enclosure or direct loss of outlook. A condition to require the retention, protection and maintenance of the boundary hedge and trees has been recommended.
3.82 Properties in John Tapping Close comprise detached and semi-detached two- storey dwellings arranged around a central cul-de-sac accessed from Station Road. Properties on the west side of the cul-de-sac (numbers 13-21 - odd) back onto the application site. The boundary is varied, comprising a mixture of hedge row, trees and fencing. Proposed units are set away from the shared boundary by between 11-17m giving back to back separation distances to the existing properties of between 26-35m. The ground level of the proposed units is shown to be c.1.8m lower than properties in John Tapping Close.
3.83 Negotiations with the applicant’s agent have led to the submission of amended plans that move units 006-009 further away from the boundary, increasing the separation distance between unit 009 and 17 John Tapping Close from c.24m to c.27m, together with boundary tree planting. The house type proposed for unit 010 has been substituted for an alternative with a shallower plan depth to enable a greater back to back separation distance with 15 John Tapping Close to be achieved (was c. 22m, now c.26m at first floor level). These amendments are considered to be improvements to the scheme in terms of the relationship between existing and proposed units.
3.84 It is considered that the ground level difference, together with the separation distances now provided are sufficient to adequately mitigate the impact of the development on the residential amenities of neighbouring properties in terms of overlooking, sense of enclosure and overshadowing. Furthermore the relationship between existing and proposed units can be further mitigated through supplementary planting along the shared boundaries. Whilst there will be a change to the aspect/views from the rear of existing properties in John Tapping Close, taking into account the mitigation measures employed and on balance, it
81 is not considered that the development would cause direct or significant harm to residential amenities.
3.85 Further to the south along the eastern boundary, the site is adjoined by Clifford Caravan Park, a private Caravan Park which is understood to open annually from 1st March to 31st October. The site accommodates a number of static caravans, a row of which are sited within 5-10m along the site boundary, and which currently enjoy open views out across the site. Here the boundary comprises a mature and continuous hedgerow (current height c. 1.5m) with sporadic tree planting.
3.86 The proposed layout of the development incorporates a linear green open space with structural landscaping along the majority of the boundary shared with the caravan site (to be provided as part of phase 2 of the development). This provides for separation distances of c.25-33m between the caravans and proposed dwellings. It is considered that this distance, together with the mitigation afforded by the intervening linear park would result in an acceptable relationship between the existing caravan site and proposed units. Provided as part of phase 2, landscaping within the linear open space will have some time to establish before the units within phase 5 (which make up the majority of units that are sited opposite the caravan park) are occupied.
3.87 At the northern end of the linear open space there are a number of proposed dwellings that are located in closer proximity to the caravan park boundary. Here units 014-017 are within 12m of the shared boundary however these are proposed at a lower ground level (c.1.5m) and are sited adjacent to an amenity/play area within the caravan park where no caravans are sited. There is also existing tree planting along this section of the shared boundary. Units 018- 019 are again at a slightly lower level and within 23m of the boundary. The existing hedge and trees along the boundary in this location are shown to be retained and supplemented with additional planting. Unit 021 would be sited within 15m of the shared boundary however there are no windows within the east side elevation.
3.88 Subject to the attachment of conditions to: prevent the insertion of side windows to unit 021; retain, safeguard and maintain the existing boundary trees and hedge, and; to secure the provision of the linear open space and structural landscaping as part of phase 2, it is considered that the proposed development has an acceptable relationship with the adjoining landuse. In a similar way to properties in John Tapping Close, whilst there will unquestionably be a change to the aspect/views from the caravan site, taking into account the mitigation measures employed and on balance, it is not considered that the development would cause direct or significant harm to the amenities or functioning of the caravan site.
3.89 Overall, and on balance it is considered that the proposed development, as amended, together with the mitigation measures identified, would sufficiently safeguard the living conditions of neighbouring residential occupiers and the amenity and functioning of the adjacent caravan park, in accordance with the aims of good design as required by both the Kent Design Guide and the NPPF.
82 Open Space, Sports Facilities & Children’s Play Space
3.90 Emerging DDC standards for determining the provision of open space for development proposals are set out within the Land Allocations Document and subjected to examination in public. The standards can therefore be given appropriate weight. Based on these standards the development gives rise to a need for 1.3ha of open space. The proposed layout provides for a total of 4.56ha of accessible open space of all types throughout the development and this is considered to be sufficient to accommodate the requirements for landscaping, amenity and ecology. The development is therefore considered to comply with emerging standards in respect of accessible open space provision.
3.91 In addition to the proposed standards, saved Local Plan policy OS2 requires new residential development to provide children’s play space in accordance with adopted standards either on-site, or where appropriate, through a commuted sum towards off-site provision at a level equivalent to the cost of providing the play area on site to meet the additional demand by increasing the capacity of existing facilities. In this case there are no facilities within a reasonable access distance from the proposed development (as identified in the Council’s adopted play area strategy - Review of Play Area Provision 2012-2028), therefore the proposed development includes the provision of an equipped children’s play space with associated green open space at the centre of the development site, to be provided as part of phase 2 of the development.
3.92 The play area and associated open space is located at the heart of the development and benefits from direct natural surveillance from surrounding properties. Through negotiations with the applicant team, the layout has been amended to reduce the dominance of roads and car parking surrounding the play area to reinforce the function pedestrian accessibility of this central amenity space. Details of the exact layout and equipment proposed for the play area have not been provided as part of the application, however officers are satisfied that the area indicated is sufficient to determine that play space requirements can be adequately met by this proposal. A condition requiring details of the layout, equipment and management of the play area is included within the recommendation set out below. The development is therefore considered to comply with the requirements of saved policy OS2, CS policy CP6 and emerging LALP policy LA12 (v).
3.93 In terms of implementation, saved Local Plan policy OS2 requires the provision of an equipped play area in developments of 50 dwellings or more. Based on the phasing strategy proposed by the applicant, the play area is shown to be provided as part of phase 2 of the development, i.e. after 84 units, which exceeds the policy trigger. However the proposed location of the play area means that it is impractical to construct it before the latter stages of phase 2 - for example there would be a high level of risk of vandalism if the play area is completed in isolation without any natural surveillance from adjacent occupied homes, together with logistical and safety issues of public access conflicting with construction traffic and processes. The proposed location is considered to be the best option for the development as a whole, and therefore the delayed provision of the play area is considered to be acceptable in this instance. The summary heads of terms set
83 out below provide for the completion and availability of the play space prior to the first occupation of phase 3 of the development.
3.94 The development proposed will have an impact on the demand for local sports facilities. Based on the application of the Outdoor Sports Facilities standard as proposed in the Land Allocations Document and the expected population of the development this development generates a need for 0.67ha of outdoor sports facilities. This area equates to approximately half the size of an adult football pitch, if run offs are included.
3.95 Rather than meet the need for additional sports facilities on site, the applicant has proposed to provide an off-site contribution to upgrade existing facilities and increase their capacity by the equivalent of half a pitch. The sum requested (£75,000) was based on Sport England standard costings, tailored to the particular conditions at Markewood. The heads of terms set out below provides for the phased payment of this sum in line with the progression of the development and the generation of demand. On this basis the proposed development is acceptable in terms of meeting local requirements for the provision of outdoor sports facilities and therefore satisfies CS policy CP6.
3.96 Walmer Parish Council has submitted a response to the Playing Pitch and Outdoor Sports Facilities Strategy highlighting the need for increased capacity at the rugby facilities in Drill Field. On this basis the contribution could be directed towards the upgrade of rugby pitches at Drill Field, as opposed to the football pitches at Markewood as originally identified. If a deliverable project at Drill Field is developed the sum could be transferred to the Parish Council, otherwise it will be used as originally envisaged. The S106 Agreement can be drafted to enable the contribution to be made to either of the two potential recipient projects. In either case it is considered that the proposed development, through the contribution towards improvements to off-site facilities, satisfies the requirements for additional capacity in outdoor sports facilities to meet the need arising.
3.97 Saved Local Plan policy OS3 indicates that permission for housing will only be granted where the developer has made long term arrangements to meet the open space needs arising. In this case, some 4.56 ha of assessable open space is proposed, the long term management of which would be essential to the quality of the scheme throughout the lifetime of the development. This is particularly important in respect of the open space buffer running along the southern perimeter of the site where it also has a strategic landscape function in mitigating the visual impact of the development on the surrounding landscape.
3.98 The application has not been accompanied by a proposed management plan for the areas of open space within the development. However the applicant has confirmed the intention to set up a management scheme to oversee this function. A fully detailed Landscape Management Plan (linked to an ecological management plan for the same) setting out the management/maintenance responsibilities of the management scheme would be sought by condition and this is reflected in the recommendation below. The management plan would be expected to include details of landscape maintenance and replacement (as necessary) to ensure the ongoing benefit of the landscaping measures; an inspection and repair regime for SUDs areas and street furniture including
84 seating, bins, lighting etc.; mowing, grass watering schedules; litter removal; tree care; hedge and shrub management; and weed control.
3.99 Subject to the requirement of a detailed Landscape and Ecological Management Plan for all areas of open space throughout the application site, it is considered that the proposal satisfactorily addresses the objectives of saved policy OS3, CS policy CP6 and LALP policy DM27, and should ensure that a high quality public realm and areas of open space are maintained during the lifetime of the development.
Natural Environment; including landscape impact, green infrastructure, biodiversity and loss of agricultural land
3.100 At a regional level, the Landscape of Kent (October 2004) published by KCC, identifies the area around Deal as falling into the East Kent Arable Belt Character Area. The key characteristics of this area are as follows:
• Open, rolling landform with large arable fields and well-wooded hilltops; • Simple pattern to the landscape; • Narrow winding lanes and dispersed settlements; • Parkland trees and 18th Century estate villages; • Pine trees on field boundaries; and; • Disused collieries and associated colliery villages.
3.101 The Dover District Landscape Assessment (January 2006) identifies the site as falling within ‘Eastry Arable and Woodland Clumps’ Landscape Character Area. This large character area covers the central band of the District from Deal in the east, to Wingham in the west. It is an undulating landscape generally lacking in enclosure with woodland belts and tree clumps adding to enclosure in places. Settlements tend to be located on higher ground. This part of the character area is described as a landscape of freely draining silty soils over chalk.
3.102 Neither the site nor the landscape adjoining it, are covered by any statutory landscape designations for character or quality. There are no listed buildings within the site, although there are several within the Deal Conservation Area, approximately 0.5km to the north east. Ripple Windmill is a Grade II Listed Building located c.0.7km from the southern boundary of the site.
3.103 There are Conservation Areas at the villages of Ringwould c.1.3km to the south west, and Sutton, c.2.5km to the southwest. There is no inter-visibility between any of these Conservation Areas and the site due to existing intervening development.
3.104 CS policies DM15 and DM16 apply in terms of protection of landscape character and countryside. These are summarized elsewhere within this report. LALP policy LA12 sets out a number of criteria that seek to ensure that the development of the allocated site is well integrated into the wider landscape setting. The main criteria relating to landscape is the requirement to incorporate a landscape boundary between the development and adjacent rural area, incorporating structural and open space landscaping features. This is to reduce
85 the visual impact in the wider landscape and help to create a new rural-urban transition (LALP para 3.187).
3.105 Public views of the site and its context are possible from the higher ground to the south of the site, principally along Ripple Road, the adjacent section of the A258 and the PROW network. From here the site is ‘framed’ and set against the background context of existing residential development within Walmer, and although a different kind of ‘development’ the Clifford Caravan site to the east. Notwithstanding the marginal encroachment of development beyond the LALP allocation boundary, it is considered that the proposed development, buffered by the proposed green open space with structural landscaping pockets, together with the undulating building line of development along the southern perimeter will appear as a natural extension of the urban area in this location.
3.106 Wider views of the site from the west are constrained by the tree lined railway line and from the east by intervening development. More immediate views of the development will be possible from the existing residential properties bordering the site and from within the existing caravan park to the east. The impact of the development on its immediate context in terms of residential amenity is addressed elsewhere within this report.
3.107 It is considered that the proposed development, together with the landscape mitigation proposed, satisfies the policy requirements of CS policies DM15 & DM16 and is in accordance with the emerging site allocation policy (LA12) set out within the LALP in terms of landscape impact.
3.108 In terms of Green Infrastructure, the Landscape Strategy (CSa/2062/117) has merit in providing substantial informal open space utilising the existing public footpaths ED36 and ED58, thus supporting the wider green infrastructure in Walmer, and it is considered to satisfy the requirements of CS policy CP7. The concept of a central open space and formal play area, providing a green heart to the development is also welcome The attempt at ‘greening’ the public footpath routes through the development have been reasonably successful in avoiding the creation of ‘hidden’ alleyways. Minor amendments to the Landscape Strategy (CSa/2062/117A) provide improvements in two locations by reducing the car parking/open space interface, although this is increased in one other area where a pocket park is proposed.
3.109 The proposed public open space to the southwest of the site will provide two complimentary types of open space – amenity grassland and meadow. The formal paths ED36 and ED58 are indicated as being wheelchair accessible and it would be advantageous if the maintenance of the mown paths was such that, at least, in dry conditions a circular route was created that was also wheelchair accessible.
3.110 The boundary treatments of landscape buffer and hedge planting are satisfactory in landscape terms.
3.111 In terms of ecology, biodiversity and habitats, the arable field margins within the site have been under Higher Level Stewardship (HLS) for farmland birds (Corn Bunting and Grey Partridge) as well as arable plants. A comprehensive
86 ecological appraisal of the site has been carried out including field surveys. While development will have some impact on the total area available for non-breeding farmland birds, the site is considered sub-optimal, due to the presence of people and dogs. However, habitat enhancements could favour other species. Similarly, there will be adverse impacts on invertebrates that utilise arable field margins, but development could favour those invertebrates that benefit from more structural vegetation, including meadows.
3.112 It is not anticipated that any mammal species would be adversely impacted, although a number of bat species utilise the site margins for commuting and foraging.
3.113 Low levels of common reptiles occur and the proposed open space treatment to the south of the site will provide more habitat. However, a mitigation strategy to protect the species during construction will be required.
3.114 The provision of the new informal open space including meadow and a soakage depression will benefit wildlife in general and further enhancement have been suggested including bat and bird boxes.
3.115 In order to ensure that the ecology of the site is not significantly diminished and that there are actual wildlife enhancements to accompany development, a detailed Landscape and Ecology Management Plan (construction & operational phases), to include a reptile mitigation strategy, is required prior to the commencement of the development and is included within the recommendation set out below. It is considered that the proposal complies with the requirements of the NPPF, CS and LALP policy LA12 (vi) in terms of biodiversity protection and enhancement.
3.116 The applicant has confirmed that they will contribute to the previously agreed, Dover wide Thanet Coast Special Protection Area Mitigation Strategy to off-set potential impacts arising from this development on the identified designated sites, this is reflected in the summary heads of terms and recommendation below. In this respect the development accords with the LALP policy LA12(vii) as proposed through the MMs.
3.117 The NPPF states that ‘by encouraging good design, planning policies and decisions should limit the impact of light pollution from artificial light on local amenity, intrinsically dark landscapes and nature conservation (para 125). External illumination of this periphery site on the fringe of the open countryside has the potential to impact upon the local nighttime landscape. A condition is therefore recommended to require details of a lighting strategy for the site to ensure that the development complies with saved Local Plan policy ER6.
3.118 As noted above, the site has historically been used for agriculture and is currently an arable field. It is regarded as ‘the best and most versatile’ agricultural land for the purposes of application of NPPF policy.
3.119 The principle of residential development in this location has been established through the Core Strategy and the issue of the loss of ‘the best and most versatile’ agricultural land was considered as part of that site selection process.
87 This has carried through to the site allocation within the Land Allocations Local Plan – see also ‘Sustainability Overview’ below.
3.120 A Sustainability Appraisal (SA) of the LALP has also been carried out and has been subject to public consultation concurrently with the MMs. Any representations made in respect of the SA have been sent to the Inspector for consideration.
Environmental Protection
3.121 The application was accompanied by an AQ Assessment. The assessment criteria were agreed with DDC Environmental Protection Officers and the results of the modelling demonstrates that for both the construction and operational phase of the development there is no breach of either UK or European Air Quality objectives. No mitigation is therefore required.
3.122 In terms of potential for an increase in dust levels during the construction phase, the assessment concluded that the site is classed as a medium risk site. In view of dust problems experienced at other large construction sites, and in the interests of protecting residential amenity, it is recommended that a suitable condition be attached to any forthcoming planning permission to require the submission of a Dust Management Plan (DMP) as part of an overall Construction Management Plan, to be submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA and to remain in force for the duration of the construction phase.
3.123 The Construction Management Plan will be required to address all matters relating to the construction operation including construction noise attenuation, construction hours, contamination controls, construction traffic management, construction parking, deliveries, wheel washing facilities etc. It is considered that a condition requiring submission of a CMP will enable measures to be adopted to minimise impact on existing neighbouring residential properties during construction.
3.124 The originally submitted noise and vibration report recommended standard glazing for the whole of the site. This met the ‘reasonable’ standard of BS8233, but following advice from DDC Environmental Protection Officers the ‘good’ standard should be achieved by this development. A revised Environmental Noise & Vibration Assessment was submitted by the applicant and sets out the achievement of ‘good’ standard of BS8233, which will safeguard future residents from potential noise disturbance from adjacent noise sources. A condition requiring the construction of the residential units in accordance with the details set out within the revised report has been included within the recommendation below.
3.125 With reference to contaminated land a phase I and II Geo-Environmental Assessment was submitted in support of this application. The report recommends specific action to supplement investigation works already carried out which are supported by DDC Environmental Protection officers. A number of conditions relating to contaminated land have been suggested which are reflected within the recommendation set out below.
88 Archaeology
3.126 KCC has confirmed that the proposed development site lies in an area that is very rich in archaeological remains. There are extensive and complex crop and soil marks in the fields immediately to the south. These crop-marks include features that appear to project into the site in question. Intrusive investigations nearby have shown evidence for Neolithic, Bronze Age, Iron Age and Romano- British activity, including a possible Neolithic working floor to the west, Iron Age burials to the east at the rear of properties on Dover Road and a possible villa site also to the east at Downlands.
3.127 The archaeological potential of the area is summarized in a desk-based assessment prepared by CgMs which has been submitted in support of the planning application. The assessment provides a reasonable account of the archaeology of the area and concludes that the site is considered to have potential for prehistoric, Romano-British and medieval remains. Further to the desk based assessment the applicant has undertaken a geophysical survey of the site. This has not identified any archaeological remains, but this does not mean that such remains are not present as the results can be affected by a number of factors.
3.128 The site therefore has potential to contain archaeological remains and that any remains present would be affected by the proposals. Provision should therefore be made for a program of archaeological work. A condition to secure this is included within the recommendation set out below.
Flood Risk, Drainage & Water Supply
3.129 The NPPF makes it clear that Local Planning Authorities should adopt proactive strategies to mitigate and adapt to climate change taking full account of flood risk, coastal change and water supply and demand considerations (para 94).
3.130 The application was accompanied by a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) on which the views of Southern Water and the Environment Agency have been obtained. The responses are summarized elsewhere within this report.
3.131 The development site lies within Flood Zone 1 (Low probability of flooding) which categorizes land that has less than 1 in 1,000 annual probability of river or sea flooding. Residential development is classified as a ‘more vulnerable’ land use in terms of flooding. Applying the ‘Flood Risk Vulnerability Classification’ set out within the NPPG, the proposed development in this location is ‘appropriate’ in terms of flood risk.
3.132 The NPPF requires that at all stages of planning a ‘Sequential Test’ is applied with the aim of steering new development to areas of the lowest probability of flooding. A Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) was prepared as part of the evidence base for the Core Strategy, and this informed the identification of this area for urban expansion. However the SFRA is not site specific. The specific characteristics of the site and its risk to flooding have been considered through the submitted FRA. As the residential development is to be located within Flood Risk Zone 1, the site is considered to have satisfied the Sequential Test, and the
89 Exception Test is not applicable in this case. The Environment Agency has raised no objection in principle to the residential development of this site.
3.133 Whilst the residential development of this site is considered to be appropriate in terms of its risk to flooding, it must also be demonstrated that the site will not increase risk of flooding elsewhere through increased or diverted surface water drainage. It is noted that several local residents have raised the issue of localised flooding from surface water draining from the existing field.
3.134 Due to its geology the FRA confirms that the site is conducive to utilising Sustainable Urban Drainage (SUDs) techniques and this approach to surface water drainage on the site has been put forward as part of the development. The Environment Agency welcomes the inclusion of sustainable drainage measures and has offered advice regarding the design of SUDs for this site.
3.135 The proposed Landscape Strategy for the site proposes a ‘soakage depression’ at the north-west corner of the site within the belt of open space that surrounds the periphery of the development site. This is described as ‘a large predominantly dry, shallow depression to provide additional overland drainage capacity in peak conditions … planted with isolated parkland trees and wetland style woodland/thicket to provide shade and interest, utilizing species tolerant of potentially seasonally wet conditions’. It is noted that above ground SUDs measures cannot only help to control and reduce surface water rates and volumes, they can also help to treat surface water prior to discharge and provide wildlife habitats.
3.136 The EA have raised no objection to the proposed approach to surface water drainage subject to the attachment of safeguarding conditions requiring a detailed scheme, including management plan, to be submitted to the LPA for approval prior to the commencement of development, this is reflected in the recommendation set out below. It is further recommended that the consultation response from the Environment Agency is appended to the planning permission (if approved) by way of informative.
3.137 With regard to water supply and foul and surface drainage, Southern Water has advised that there is currently inadequate capacity in the local networks to provide foul sewerage disposal and water supply to service the proposed development. Southern Water is seeking to ensure that the developer provides the necessary on and off-site infrastructure.
3.138 Conditions requiring details of on and off-site foul and surface water sewerage disposal and details of the proposed on and off-site water infrastructure strategy for the development have been recommended by Southern Water and these are also reflected in the recommendation set out below. It is further recommended that the consultation response from the Southern Water is appended to the planning permission (if approved) by way of informative.
Social Infrastructure & Public Services
3.139 KCC has assessed the implications of this proposal in terms of the delivery of its community services and is of the opinion that it will have an additional impact on
90 the delivery of its services, which will require mitigation either through the direct provision of infrastructure or the payment of an appropriate financial contribution.
3.140 Planning Obligations, in the form of agreements under Section 106 of the Planning Acts (s106 Agreements) are normally signed by both the developer and those in receipt of a contribution. They must meet certain tests in order to be acceptable.
3.141 The Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) regulations 2010 came into force on 6th April 2010 and gave these tests legal force. Part of CIL Regulation 122 states that a planning obligation may only constitute a reason for granting planning permission for development if the obligation is:
• Necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms; • Directly related to the development; and • Fairly and reasonably related in scale and king to the development.
3.142 KCC has confirmed that in applying these tests in the context of this planning application, it gives rise to the following specific requirements (for which supporting evidence has been submitted):
A primary school contribution of £471,011.52 (total) based on the size and number of units proposed by this development, to be directed towards locally in the Deal area. The impact of this development in Deal substantially increases an existing deficit of local primary school places, and in accordance with NPPF is require to mitigate this impact.
KCC have confirmed that there is currently no requirement in respect of secondary school places.
A financial contribution towards the provision of Deal Library book-stock (£13,024.79 total) and youth facilities in Deal (£109,836 total). KCC have confirmed that the development will generate additional youth attendees and that they are currently working with DDC to deliver a new youth centre in Deal at a cost of £998,000. The project is beginning now, and is expected to be completed by January 2015. Using the required youth contribution, KCC have confirmed that they will mitigate the impact arising from this development as part of the new youth centre facility in Deal.
A financial contribution towards adult social services (£50,985.60 total), plus the provision of 3 (Lifetime Homes) wheel chair accessible affordable housing units on site. KCC have confirmed that the development will increase demand on existing facilities and a contribution is sought to mitigate this impact. The contribution will be directed to a number of local projects as part of KCCs community strategy.
3.143 The applicant has confirmed that all of KCC’s requirements can be met by this development, and provision for the payment of the contributions is made within the draft heads of terms, which are addressed in more detail below, including the phased payment of contributions linked to the proposed phasing of the overall development.
91
3.144 Please note that the figures quoted above are based on the initial figures set out by KCC in their consultation response dated 8th May 2014. It will be necessary to review the exact sums required prior to completion of the Section 106 Agreement to ensure that they are up to date and in line with any changes in district council housing trajectories, on-going planning applications, changes in capacities and forecast rolls and build costs.
Phasing of Development
3.145 The application is supported by a phasing plan which divides the development of the site into six main phases. The configuration of the phasing plan seeks to ensure that the development progresses in a logical manner that is appropriate to the sites context and to ensure that appropriate infrastructure mitigation (such as affordable housing, sports facilities, community infrastructure etc.) is delivered at the right time and in the right place (where provided on site).
Phase 1 – (54 units or 24% of overall housing) is the area adjacent to Station Road. This phase contains 14 affordable housing units and a small pocket park.
Phase 2 – (30 units or 13% of overall housing) is an area adjoining phase 1 and includes the central area of green space, children’s play area and the landscape buffer (linear open space) along the eastern boundary with the caravan park. It provides a total of 14 affordable housing units.
Phase 3 – (46 units or 21% of overall housing) adjoins phases 1 and 2 and includes provision of the turning head to Mayers Road and emergency access, together with 16 affordable housing units.
Phase 4 – (23 units or 10% of overall housing) adjoins phase 3 and incorporates part of the southern open space and landscape buffer. This phase provides 2 affordable housing units.
Phase 5 – (54 units or 24% of overall housing) adjoins phase 2 and runs parallel to the remaining stretch of the adjacent caravan park. This phase provides 20 affordable housing units.
Phase 6 – (16 units or 8% of overall housing) is the final phase of the development and includes delivery of the remaining section of the southern open space and landscape buffer. There is no affordable housing within this phase.
3.146 The section below ‘Summary of Heads of Terms’ sets out the proposed mitigation strategy for off-site infrastructure which is linked to the sequence of the proposed phasing plan.
3.147 Overall it is considered that the proposed phasing strategy ensures an appropriate sequence of development in terms of both layout and the provision of on-site and off-site infrastructure. It is recommended that a clause is incorporated into the proposed S106 to ensure compliance with the agreed phasing plan.
92 Sustainability Overview
3.148 The NPPF identifies three dimensions to sustainable development: economic, social and environmental. (Para 7) These dimensions give rise to the need for the planning system to perform a number of roles which are identified as:
• An economic role – contributing to building a strong, responsive and competitive economy, by ensuring that sufficient land of the right type is available in the right places and at the right time to support growth and innovation; and by identifying and coordinating development requirements, including the provision of infrastructure; • A social role – supporting strong, vibrant and healthy communities, by providing the supply of housing required to meet the needs of present and future generations; and by creating a high quality built environment, with accessible local services that reflect the community’s needs and support its health, social and cultural well-being; and • An environmental role – contributing to protecting and enhancing our natural, built and historic environment; and, as part of this, helping to improve biodiversity, use natural resources prudently, minimise waste and pollution, and mitigate and adapt to climate change including moving to a low carbon economy.
3.149 It is inevitable that circumstances arise where two or more sustainability objectives appear to conflict. The NPPF states that to achieve sustainable development, economic, social and environmental gains should be sought jointly and simultaneously through the planning system and that the planning system should play an active role in guiding development to sustainable solutions (para 8).
3.150 The land the subject of the current application has been identified in the CS as an area of urban expansion, which has been carried forward to an advanced stage within the LALP. The provision of more housing land through the CS is identified as necessary to maintain existing local population levels over the Plan period (to 2026). This in turn is necessary to support local services and the overall social and economic well-being of the community. As with the other two areas identified for urban expansion through the CS, the identification of this greenfield site for urban expansion followed analysis of other site options including the capacity of brownfield options. The loss of the green field site and its ‘best and most versatile’ agricultural land to housing would support the social and economic dimensions of sustainable development, but it would undermine the objective of environmental sustainability to some degree.
3.151 This conflict was fully considered when the CS was assessed through Examination in Public. The approval of the urban expansion was, in effect, an acknowledgement that the wider sustainability objectives embraced by the CS, outweighed the harm arising from developing on greenfield land. As the site in question was preferable to other options, the proposal was and is considered to be compliant with the overall sustainability objectives of Government planning policy.
93 3.152 Further to the principle of sustainable development, it remains to consider whether the proposal has taken all reasonable steps to ensure that is delivers a sustainable form of development. As considered elsewhere within this report, the design/layout of the development has achieved an appropriate balance of delivering the level of housing anticipated by the LALP and safeguarding the landscape character of the wider setting, and should in itself provide a good quality living environment. Sustainable urban drainage solutions are proposed for the development to manage surface water drainage; residents would have access to local services, and the wider countryside by foot, cycle and public transport; and the development can deliver the full range of infrastructure requirements identified in the Development Plan, LALP and by statutory consultees.
3.153 In terms of sustainable construction, CS policy CP5 requires new residential development permitted after the adoption of the CS should meet Code for Sustainable Homes (CfSH) level 4. The applicant has confirmed that the development will meet these requirements and a condition has been included within the recommendation set out below. The condition will require the construction of the development to meet CfSH Level 4 or any future national equivalent applicable at the time of construction of the development, unless evidence can be submitted to show that this Code Level is no longer achievable.
3.154 At the heart of the National Planning Policy Framework is a presumption in favour of sustainable development, which should be seen as a ‘golden thread’ running through both plan-making and decision-taking. In sustainability terms, based on the policy reasoning for the identification of this site for urban expansion and on site specific factors, which serve to maximise the sustainability of the development itself, it is considered that this application represents a sustainable form of development. It is therefore considered to be compliant with the overarching sustainability objectives of the NPPF and Development Plan.
Other Matters
3.155 Several neighbouring occupants in John Tapping Close whose properties border the site have noted that they have historically used pedestrian gates within their rear boundaries to access the land to the rear (now the application site). Where these have been identified, the proposed layout has sought to accommodate these access points. However, the legal right of access from these properties over the application site is a private matter to be resolved between the applicant and neighbouring landowners.
3.156 Kent Police have calculated that through the plan period of the CS a total of £2,139,831 will be required to cover various additional expenses arising from planned developments within the district, including items such as recruitment costs for additional staff and unspecified ‘furniture, fixtures and fittings’. This overall costing is used to request a contribution of £27,818 from the Station Road development, which is described as ‘pooled’.
3.157 It is not considered that that Kent Police’s request meets the requirements of the three tests set out in Community Infrastructure Regulations 122 and 123;
94
Necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms: The letter from Kent Police cites CP6 of the CS, but the accompanying table does not specify any required infrastructure relevant to this request. In addition, no standards of provision are specified against which the request could be judged.
Directly related to the development: The request discusses general needs across the district, rather than the way this request relates to the application in question. This approach may be compared with requests that DDC supports, e.g. provision of additional primary school places in a location that will meet the needs of families that move into the new housing.
Fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development: The request does not include information about specific, deliverable projects that would meet the need arising from this proposed development.
3.158 In summary, this request does not meet the regulatory tests and therefore has not been pursued further.
Summary of Heads of Terms for Section 106 Agreement
3.159 Various matters relating to a potential agreement under S.106 of the Town & Country Planning Act have been referred to throughout this report. The heads of terms to be covered by way of S106 Agreement are summarized below, all of which are considered to meet the aforementioned CIL Regulations tests and are accepted by the applicant. The required heads of terms have been set in sequence of the proposed phasing plan and are considered to be acceptable:
Affordable housing definition and tenure (70% rented; 30% shared equity)
Adherence to the approved phasing plan to ensure compliance with the agreed sequence of development and triggers for the delivery of infrastructure mitigation.
All agreed off-site highway works to be completed and operational prior to first occupation of any part of the development
Prior to commencement of development:
Payment of a sum (100%) to KCC for the completion of all off-site highway works (sum and technical specification to be agreed in liaison with KCC Highways), or direct provision and completion of the approved off-site highway works by the applicant (yet to be determined in liaison with KCC Highways).
Payment of a contribution (100%) of £500 to KCC for the supply of local walking/cycling guides to be included within welcome packs for all new residents
Payment of a contribution (100%) towards the Thanet Coast SPA mitigation.
95
Prior to first occupation of any open market housing within phase 1:
Completion and availability of 14 affordable units (c.21% of total AH) – including 1 x (Lifetime Homes) wheel chair accessible affordable unit
Payment of 50% library contribution
Payment of 50% youth centre contribution
Payment of 50% adult social services
Payment of 50% primary education contribution
Prior to first occupation of any open market housing within phase 2:
Completion and availability of 14 affordable units (c.21% of total AH) – including 1 x (Lifetime Homes) wheel chair accessible affordable unit
Completion and availability of the open space within phase 1
Payment of 50% sports facility contribution
Completion and availability of the open space and landscaping along the east boundary within phase 2
Prior to first occupation of any open market housing within phase 3:
Completion and availability of 16 affordable units (c. 24% of total AH)
Payment of 50% library contribution
Payment of 50% youth centre contribution
Payment of 50% adult social services
Payment of 50% primary education contribution
Provision and availability of the on-site equipped children’s play area within phase 2
Provision and availability of vehicular turning head and emergency access from Mayers Road
Prior to first occupation of any open market housing within phase 4:
Completion and availability of 2 affordable units (c.3% of total AH)
Payment of 50% sports facility contribution
96
Completion and availability of the green open space and associated landscaping to the south of the development within phase 4
Prior to first occupation of any open market housing within phase 5:
Completion and availability of 20 affordable units (c.30% of total AH) – including 1 x (Lifetime Homes) wheel chair accessible affordable unit
Prior to first occupation of any housing within phase 6:
Completion and availability of the green open space and associated landscaping to the south of the development within phase 6
Overall Conclusion
3.160 The principle of residential development has been established by the Council’s adopted development plan. The intention for residential development on this site has been taken forward by the LALP which is at an advanced stage in the adoption process. It is therefore considered that considerable weight can be attributed to the LALP policy, and that together with the NPPF & CS, it represents the relevant context for the consideration of the application.
3.161 It is considered that the proposed development complies with the site specific criteria set out within LALP policy LA12. The views of local residents in respect of the potential highway impact of this development are fully acknowledged, however the applicant has demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Highway Agency, KCC Highways and officers that, subject to the mitigation measures identified and to the attachment of safeguarding conditions, the proposal is acceptable in terms of highway capacity and road safety.
3.162 Furthermore, subject to the attachment of safeguarding conditions and to the completion of a S106 Agreement to address the aforementioned issues, the development is considered to be acceptable in terms of sustainability, layout, design, housing mix, infrastructure, parking, environmental protection, archaeology, flood risk, drainage, utilities, phasing, and; residential amenity; and is compliant with the provisions of the development plan (as advanced by the LALP) and NPPF.
3.163 There are no implications under the Equality Act that would alter this conclusion.
g) Recommendation
I Subject to: no additional material matters being raised during the re-consultation period (see paragraph 3.75); the determination of responsibility for the implementation of the off-site highway works (see paragraph 3.29); the completion of a Section 106 Legal Agreement to address the identified Heads of Terms (see paragraph 3.160), and; to the attachment of conditions and informatives relating to the key issues identified below,
97 delegated powers be granted to the Head of Regeneration and Development to GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION:-
II Summary of terms for conditions, to include:
(i) Standard 3 year time limit for commencement (ii) Schedule of amended plans (iii) The development shall be constructed in accordance with the approved layout plan drawing number 2254-315 rev G (iv) Contaminated land investigation and safeguards (v) Program of archaeological work (vi) Construction Method Statement & Management Plan, including Dust suppression, construction vehicle loading/unloading & turning facilities, parking facilities for site personnel & visitors, wheel washing, safeguarding of protected species during construction (vii) Development to be carried out in accordance with the recommendations of the revised Environmental Noise & Vibration Assessment, dated 08/07/14 (viii) Code for Sustainable Homes – Code Level 4 (or future national equivalent) (ix) On and off-site foul and surface water sewerage disposal infrastructure strategy, including SUDS principles, timetable of provision and management strategy, which shall include measures to prevent the discharge of surface water onto the highway (x) On and off-site water infrastructure strategy including timetable of provision and management (xi) All telephone, electricity and communal television services to be contained within underground ducts (xii) Details of existing and proposed ground levels and contours (xiii) Removal of permitted development rights (extensions, outbuildings and insertion of additional windows) from selected properties adjacent to sensitive boundaries i.e. units 001, 003-019, 021, 093, 096, 107-109, 131, 130, 126, 124, 112-115. (xiv) Travel Plan (as directed by the HA) (xv) Provision and maintenance of visibility splays to Station Road access (xvi) The proposed roads, footways, verges, junctions, street lighting, sewers, drains, retaining walls, service routes, surface water outfall, vehicle overhanging margins, embankments, visibility splays, accesses, carriageway gradients, car parking and street furniture to be laid out and constructed in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA; (xvii) Completion of the following between a dwelling and the adopted highway prior to first occupation of that dwelling: footways & carriageways (with the exception of the wearing course but including turning facility, highway drainage, visibility splays, street lighting, street name plates and highway structures (if any), (xviii) Provision, retention and maintenance of parking prior to first occupation of each dwelling (xix) Provision, retention and maintenance of pedestrian and vehicular access and access roads prior to first occupation of each dwelling (xx) Details, provision and permanent retention of vehicle loading/unloading and turning facilities (xxi) No part of the built development shall overhang, open outwards or encroach upon the public highway
98 (xxii) Details of surface finish materials (which shall include bound surface for the first 5 metres of the access from the highway, highways furniture and features. (xxiii) Details, permanent provision and retention of cycle parking facilities (xxiv) Details, permanent provision and retention of sight lines & visibility splays (pedestrian and vehicular) throughout the development (xxv) Protection of PROW within and adjacent to the site (construction and occupation phases) (xxvi) Detailed layout of turning head and emergency access at Mayers Road, to include surface treatment, detailed layout, bollards and other highway structures (xxvii) Turning head and emergency access to be permanently retained and maintained free from obstruction (xxviii) Schedule of external surface materials and submission of material samples (xxix) Detailed (hard and soft) landscaping scheme – adhering to the principles set out at 5.1 of the submitted landscape strategy and including all boundary treatments and means of enclosure, boundary planting to south, east and west boundaries, and timetable of implementation, prior to first occupation of any part of the development (xxx) Detailed Ecological and Landscape Management Plan (construction and operational phases) to include the recommendations set out within section 5.0 & 6.0 of the Ecological Appraisal with Protected Species Surveys, including management and maintenance details (xxxi) Tree and hedgerow retention, protection and maintenance which shall include the existing site boundary trees, and in particular the existing trees to the rear of Mayers Road properties, tree/hedge boundaries to 51 Station Road and west boundary of Clifford Caravan Park (xxxii) Details of play area layout, boundary treatment, ground levels, equipment, materials, including management/maintenance plan (xxxiii) External lighting scheme; (xxxiv) Submission of a crime prevention strategy (xxxv) All other conditions to be delegated to the Head of Regeneration & Development
III Informatives: (i) Consultation response from the Environment Agency; (ii) Consultation response from Southern Water; (iii) Natural England Standing Advice; (iv) It is the responsibility of the applicant to ensure, before the development hereby approved is commenced, that all necessary highway approvals and consents (where required) are obtained, and that the limits of the highway boundary are clearly established in order to avoid any enforcement action being taken by the Highway Authority. The applicant must also ensure that the details shown on the approved plans agree in every aspect with those approved under such legislation and common law. It is therefore important for the applicant to contact KCC Highways and Transportation to progress this aspect of the work prior to the commencement of development.
IV Powers be delegated to the Head of Regeneration and Development to settle any necessary planning conditions and informatives, in line with the issues set out within the recommendation and as resolved by Planning Committee.
99
Case Officer
Nicola Coles
100 This plan has been produced for Planning Committee purposes only. No furtherAgenda copies Item may No be10 made.
7
4
Sorting Office t
W o
7
E
8
S
T 4.9m Astor
S
5
T 8 1
R Theatre
E Garage 1 8
E
3
8
T 2 0
7 1
2 8 D
Car Park OA
1 9 R 7
1 7 PE 7 HO PCs N 7
TA 0
S 5
7
7 3
2 2
3 1 6
6 32
1 1 0
Dover District Council Dover District Council7 Bank
6 5 8 ge 1 an 3 R 1 8 ifle 3 R 9a e 6 6 tur y 0 le 6
4 nia Al
i e 9 3 5 g
1 M r o 6 Not to42 be reproduced NotG eto be reproduced e
ttag 7 o 6 d C Ol 6 The 4
all 5.3m C 5 t 6 h e D e n t e R 6 r a e e l 2
t f
4 i
r o
5 4 e r 3
1 d 6 Custom House La
2
Dover District Council 3.9m 9
4 5
2 5 2
6 7
Not to be reproduced 5 Garage T E l
E E 5
R 4.7m S T 5 S u RK b A P S 10 t a S
u 5 2 r 3 0 g 9
e 4 r y
4
15 4 2 6
8
6 7
18 4
4
4
20 5
4 TCBs 3 Dover District Council 4
TCB H
I
G
DEAL H
S 1
T 4
R North Blac
Not to be reproduced E
E
T
3
6
5.4m 9
3 Black Hors
3
4
5 3
3 PH
Dover District Council Dover District Council3
3
Bank 1
0 3 Not to be reproduced Not to be 6reproduced4 Cinema 8 3.2m 10 and 12 Club 14
2 2
6
8 3 0 2
to 2
22 16 1
a 1 Not to scale Application: TPO, No 1 2014 This map is reproduced from Ordnance Survey material 9 Park Street with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Controlled of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office © Crown Deal copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings.
Dover District Council Licence Number 100019780 published 2014
TR37585271 Note: This plan is provided for purposes of site identification only. 101 a) TPO No1 2014: Confirmation of order relating to 1 No Eucalyptus tree
Situated in the rear garden of 9 Park Street, Deal b) Summary of Recommendation
To Confirm Tree Preservation Order c) Planning Policy and Guidance
Tree Preservation Orders: A guide to the law and good practice (DETR) gives advice and general guidance on tree matters, including the determination of applications relating to protected trees.
Planning Practice Guidance – Trees Preservation Orders and trees in conservation area d) Relevant Planning History
TC/14/00096 –notification of intention to fell 1 No. Eucalyptus tree.
TPO No1: 2014 – served 6th October 2014 e) Consultee and Third Party Responses
Deal Town Council: Views awaited
Public representations:
Eleven letters of objection received. It should be noted that of the ten properties situated closest to the tree eight have submitted comments objecting to the confirmation of the order • The tree is a quick growing non-native species planted too close to neighbouring buildings. • The tree has the potential to rapidly reach a height of 30m or more, which means that not only will the scale of the tree be out of balance with adjacent trees but also that the potential for the tree to damage property and neighbouring buildings increases significantly. • One of the features of Eucalyptus trees is that they are more likely to drop branches than most native species. There have already been two or three occasions in the last four years when falling branches have damaged property at No. 33 Stanhope Road and more instances where branches have dropped without causing damage. One of the main stems projects towards No 33 and is of particular concern. • The coastal location increases the exposure of the tree to high winds, which again increases the risk of dropped branches and even complete failure of the tree, although the Council’s trees and Horticulture officer could find no evidence of the root plate lifting currently. • The tree is alleged to have damaged the adjacent brick boundary wall. There is certainly a significant crack from top to bottom of the wall in the vicinity of the tree although it is not certain that the tree is the cause. It is however not beyond the realms of possibility that the wall has been restraining the root plate movement and this has been the cause of the damage.
102 • The owner has real concerns that he will not be able to maintain and manage the tree. The consequence of that would be that the tree could grow significantly, thereby increasing the risk of branches dropping from greater heights and complete failure of the tree, which is likely to cause considerable damage to property. f) 1. The Site and the Proposal
On 26th August 2014 a notice was received from Matt McKay Tree Surgery to fell a eucalyptus tree. The eucalyptus, situated in the rear garden of No.9 Park Street, is a mature tree of good form, a somewhat unusual characteristic for this species. The tree is situated between Stanhope Road and Park Street, both roads of terraced houses, which means that the eucalyptus cannot be seen from the public realm on either street. However the tree can be seen from the car park of the 'Deal Centre for the Retired', a semi-public space and more significantly from West Street. There are a number of trees, which provide a welcome green focus between the two streets the main value of the tree is its visual amenity. Not only is it a dominant feature when viewed from both the car park and, more importantly, West Street but also it is situated in an area of Deal where trees of any kind are rare. Hence a tree of any significant size is an asset. The size of the tree, and its good form, add weight to the argument that it is worth conserving.
There are a number of smaller trees of varying species, in close proximity to the eucalyptus and if this tree is removed a precedent would be set for the removal of the remaining trees. There is support for retention of the eucalyptus from a number of neighbours who value both the views of the trees and the screening that they give to the rear elevations of their properties. One neighbour has already formally requested that a TPO is placed on the tree.
Whilst there is no right to a view, the local support for retention suggests that the visual amenity of the tree is valued by local residents.
The Council’s Trees and Horticultural Officer visited the site and assessed the merits of the tree including its visual amenity.
A Tree Preservation Order, TPO No1 2014 was duly served on 6th October 2014.
The statement of reason, associated with the serving of Tree Preservation Order No.1. 2014 reads:
“The tree, which is approaching maturity has good form, is the dominant member of a group of trees providing significant visual amenity in relation to the public realm of a section of West Street. The amenity is of more value because of the scarcity of trees in this part of Deal.”
2. Main Issues
The central issue is whether the visual amenity provided by the eucalyptus tree, situated immediately adjacent the boundary of the conservation area, is of sufficient weight to merit the confirmation of the order, given the substantiated concerns about health and safety and potential to damage neighbouring buildings.
103
According to the Planning Practice Guidance, when assessing the amenity value of the tree, the following needs to be considered:
1. Visibility. As mentioned earlier in site and proposal section. The tree is situated between Stanhope Road and Park Street, both roads of terraced houses, which means that the eucalyptus cannot be seen from the public realm on either street. However the tree can be seen from the car park of the 'Deal Centre for the Retired', a semi-public space and more significantly from West Street. 2. Individual, collective and wider impact. (Size and Form) The individual value of the tree itself owes to its size and form, both of which are noteworthy. The tree stands at approx. 40ft with a crown spread of 18-20ft. The tree is of good form and shows no indication of distress or disease. (Future potential as an amenity) Also as mentioned earlier if the tree is allow to grow without any restriction and maintenance, then in future it will develop issues, however if the tree is appropriately maintained, it has the potential to increase its amenity value as it grows and develops a denser canopy. (Rarity, Cultural and Historic value) In general that particular species is not rare nor does it poses and cultural or historic value. (Contribution to and relationship with the landscape) There are a number of smaller trees of varying species, in close proximity to the eucalyptus and if this tree is removed a precedent would be set for the removal of the remaining trees. There is support for retention of the eucalyptus from a number of neighbours who value both the views of the trees and the screening that they give to the rear elevations of their properties. If removed the remaining treescape will be open to the high winds mentioned by one of the objectors, also adjacent to the Eucalyptus is an unbalanced Leyland Cypress, which in general have little amenity value. (Other factors) The present concerns regarding safety were recognized by officers during the process of serving the order and the owner, Mr Scarfe, was told that the Council would be sympathetic to an application to:- • Reduce the height of the crown by 25-30% • Remove the limb projecting towards No.33 Stanhope Road to lessen the danger to Neighbours on Stanhope Road.
However the rapid growth rate of the tree and the concern about whether close management of the tree is viable, both to maintain the balance and mitigate against the risk of branch drop or failure of the tree, conspire to raise doubt about the safety and amenity value in
104 future. Without the close management the tree will pose increasing safety risks at the same time as diminishing visual amenity. The key question to answer is therefore whether the visual amenity warrants the imposition not only of the tree preservation order but also the cost and effort of the close management of the tree necessary to maintain the safety and amenity value of the tree.
3. Assessment
3.1 The consultation process has revealed that there is considerable opposition to the Tree Preservation Order. The key concern is the potential for the tree to damage property and harm anyone who may be in the back gardens of a number of properties. This concern is heightened by the recent history of dropped branches causing damage, although fortunately no harm to anyone.
The decision to serve TPO No.1 2014 essentially rested on the visual amenity of the tree in relation to the public realm on West Street. The merits of the tree and its visual amenity were not compelling but on balance officers felt the serving of the order was merited. g) Recommendation
To Confirm Tree Preservation Order
Case Officers
Ross Dryburgh/Martin Leggatt
105 This plan has been produced for Planning Committee purposes only. No furtherAgenda copies Item may No be11 made.
F
3 S 1 ID E 11
Signal 12 8 6 Level Box Crossing
7 3.8m 6 7 9 S T
5 0 G
M 5 E P O Gas Governor 86 R .5m G E E C 'S
A
R
L 1 P 0 O E A H 1 1 D T Y
H 8
Stone
0 1 6
4 S T 5.0m A N D R 2 FO Mallards Sandwich E 5 RDW SL W
ICH 'S Station 1 P LA C
E
LE 2
3 ES 6 2 TCB
5 FB
2.7m 2 7
5 Dover13 District Council Dover District Council El Sub Sta
D OA R 1 Nursery St Andrews
'S 0 RT BA
ST Catholic Church
5 2 12 8 Little Bartlemas D El
A
O Sub Sta
R
7
R
E
Not to be reproducedV Not to be reproduced
O
D
LB Wayfarers
1 14 6 Outfall
Pump FB (dis) Dover District Council St Bartholomew's 1 Chapel 2
3
5 10 Not to be reproduced St Bartholomew's Hospital
Nursing Home
6 8
1 2
FB 3
D A O Dover District Council R
F R
E 2 O V 8 S O T D E R ' S 29 C O U R T
4.4m
31 3
8 Not to be reproduced 6 2 5
8
4 8
2.7m Stone
Triangle
olme DoverDenh District Council Dover District Council L u ttage n r Co d onde e W n w ic rage ncho The A
Tel Ex
h Not toRyars be reproduced Not to be reproduced
Nursery House aven The H
T h e hview Sout Delf Nursery D e lf
erald 2.7m The H
Not to scale Application: DOV/13/00867 This map is reproduced from Ordnance Survey material Land Adjacent to with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Controlled of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office © Crown 10 Dover Road copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Sandwich
CT13 0BN Dover District Council Licence Number 100019780 published 2013
TR33175747 Note: This plan is provided for purposes of site identification only. 106 DOV/13/0867 – Proposed new foodstore, doctors’ surgery and pharmacy together with associated car parking, landscaping and service yard
Land adjacent to 10 Dover Road, Sandwich
Reason for Report
Further to the Planning Committee meeting held on 2nd September 2014, Members resolved for the draft conditions and informatives for the above application to be reported back to Planning Committee for its consideration.
Summary of Recommendation
Conditions and informatives be approved
Introduction
A detailed report which considered the above planning application was presented to Members of the Planning Committee on Tuesday 2nd September 2014 (agenda report A). Although for a separate and standalone development proposal, in view of a number of interrelated issues, the application was considered alongside an outline planning application for a foodstore and associated development to be sited at Discovery Park Enterprise Zone, Ramsgate Road, Sandwich (ref: DOV/13/0783, agenda report B). The minutes from this meeting are appended to this report for information and reference.
At the meeting Members determined that they were minded to grant planning permission for both applications subject to the attachment of safeguarding conditions and informatives (and in the case of the Discovery Park application, completion of a Section 106 Agreement). As part of the resolution, Members required the draft conditions for each application to be brought back before the Committee for its consideration.
The recommended conditions and informatives for the Dover Road application are set out below for Members consideration, together with explanatory comments where necessary.
Secretary of State Referral
The Town & Country Planning (Consultation) (England) Direction 2009 applies to both planning applications and requires that where a Local Planning Authority does not propose to refuse an application to which the Direction applies, the authority shall consult the Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government (SoS) prior to the issue of the decision. Hence part of the resolution made at the 2nd September Planning Committee Meeting was for both applications to be referred to the SoS to enable him to determine whether to call –in one or both of the applications.
Both applications have since been referred to the SoS, and on 17th October 2014 DDC received written confirmation from the SoS that he is content for the applications to be determined by the Local Planning Authority, i.e. neither application has been ‘called-in’. A copy of the letter from
107 the Department for Communities & Local Government has been appended to this report for information.
In view of the SoS decision, it now falls to the Local Planning Authority to determine the applications and issue the decision notices accordingly.
Planning Policy & Guidance
The development plan for the purposes of s38 (6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act (2004) comprises the Dover District Council Core Strategy 2010 and the Saved Policies from the Dover District Local Plan 2002. Decisions on planning applications must be made in accordance with the policies of the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
In addition to the policies of the development plan there are a number of other policies and standards which are material to the determination of planning applications including the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) together with emerging local planning documents and other local guidance.
A summary of relevant planning policy is set out below:
Core Strategy (CS) Policies:
• Policy CP1 (Settlement Hierarchy) identifies a hierarchy of centres within Dover District. Dover is placed atop the settlement hierarchy (Secondary Regional Centre) and Sandwich is identified as a Rural Service Centre which is to be ‘the main focus for development in the rural area; suitable for a scale of development that would reinforce its role as a provider of services to a wider rural area. It should provide primary health and social care, education facilities (at least primary school), emergency services, organised sport and recreational facilities, food and other shopping facilities, including a Post Office, and be accessible by frequent (hourly) bus and train services’. Deal is between Dover and Sandwich in the hierarchy and is designated as a District Centre with a secondary focus (after Dover) for development in the District, being suitable for urban scale development.
• For new retail provision, Policy CP2 advises that in addition to strategic allocations for retail development made in the Core Strategy, there is a balance of 19,000 sqm gross of retail floorspace which will be allocated through the Site Allocation Document (formerly the Site Allocation Document). Footnote 1 to Policy CP2 advises that the majority of this balance of retail floorspace is in the Deal/Sandwich trade area and that; ‘if it could be accommodated it would improve the functioning of these centres and could improve retention of spending power. Both centres are, however, constrained by a tight urban grain and historic environment and it may not be possible to accommodate this level of new floorspace’.
Paragraph 3.21 of the CS explains that the floorspace estimates are based upon a Retail Need Assessment undertaken in 2008 using 2007 market shares and is modelled upon population growth based upon delivery of 10,100 new homes. Table 3.2 of the CS (extract below) shows a growing need for both convenience and comparison goods shopping floorspace to serve the Deal and Sandwich area up to 2026.
108
The retail need figures were produced in 2008 and are now some 6 years out of date. The Council have since commissioned an updated Retail Update (RU) and this was published in 2012. The findings of the updated Retail Study underpin the emerging retail policies set out within the Land Allocations Local Plan which are discussed elsewhere within this report.
• CS (Annex 1) paragraph 1.73 states that ‘….Sandwich town centre is showing signs of stress and decreasing vibrancy. Shopping provision is essentially secondary in nature and the approach of defining primary and secondary frontages is not appropriate. The Council considers that there is a need to provide a measure of control over changes of use to the ground floor of premises in the centre's core on par with the secondary frontages at Dover and Deal. This, allied to the community initiative to enhance Sandwich, should help to strengthen Sandwich's centre.’
• Policy CP5 (Sustainable Construction Standards) Non-residential development proposed with a gross floor space of more than 1000sqm will need to meet the BREEAM ‘very good’ standard or any future national equivalent.
• In order to help operate the Hierarchy through the development management process Policy DM1 (Settlement Boundaries) proposes settlement boundaries for planning purposes and sets out how these will be used to help judge the acceptability of individual development proposals. Development outside settlement confines will not be permitted, unless specifically justified by other development plan policies.
• Policy DM11 (Location of Development & Travel Demand). Planning applications for development that would increase travel demand should be supported by a systematic assessment. Development that would generate travel demand outside settlement confines will not be supported unless otherwise justified by other development plan policies.
• Policy DM12 (Road Hierarchy) states that access arrangements of development proposals will be assessed with regard to the Highway Network set out in the Local Transport Plan for Kent. Developments that would involve the construction of a new access onto a trunk or primary road will not be permitted if there would be a significant increase in the risk of accidents or traffic delays – unless appropriate mitigation can be provided.
109 • Policy DM13 (Parking Provision) Determining parking solutions should be a design-led process based on the characteristics of the site, the locality, the nature of the proposed development and its design objectives.
• Policy DM15 (Protection of the Countryside) Development that would result in the loss of, or adversely affect the character or appearance of the countryside will only be permitted if appropriate justification can be provided and/or it is made in accordance with allocations made in Development Plan Documents.
Dover District Local Plan (DDLP) Saved Policies:
There are no saved policies relevant to the consideration of this application.
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) & National Planning Policy Guidance (NPPG)
At a national level, the NPPF sets out the Government’s planning policies for England and how these are expected to be applied. In the introduction to the NPPF, the Government sets out that the NPPF must be taken into account in the preparation of local and neighbourhood plans, and is a material consideration in planning applications. With its adoption in March 2012, it replaced all previous national planning policy statements with immediate effect. Therefore, it should have significant weight in the consideration of any planning application.
The NPPF articulates an overriding presumption in favour of sustainable development which should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan-making and decision taking. There are three dimensions to sustainable development: economic, social and environmental. These dimensions should not be considered in isolation, as they are mutually dependent on each other. Economic, social and environmental gains should be sought jointly and simultaneously (NPPF pares 7 & 8)
Planning law requires that applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The NPPF does not change the status of the Development Plan.
For decision making this means approving development that accords with the Development Plan without delay; and where the development plan is absent or silent or relevant policies are out-of-date granting planning permission, unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits or where specific policies in the NPPF indicate development should be restricted (NPPF Para 14).
‘The government is committed to ensuring that the planning system does everything it can to support sustainable economic growth. Planning should operate to encourage and not act as an impediment to sustainable growth. Therefore significant weight should be placed on the need to support economic growth through the planning system’ (NPPF Para 19).
The newly published National Planning Policy Guidance (NPPG, March 2014) supports and informs the NPPF and sets out the Government’s planning policies for England and how these are expected to be applied.
Together, the NPPF and the NPPG set out the Government’s national planning policies and guidance for new development. They aim to help create the homes and jobs that the country needs, while protecting and enhancing the natural and historic environments.
110
NPPF Chapter 1 – Building a Strong, Competitive Economy
The Government is committed to ensuring that the planning system does everything it can to support sustainable economic growth. Planning should operate to encourage and not act as an impediment to sustainable growth. Therefore significant weight should be placed on the need to support economic growth through the planning system (NPPF Para 19)
Local Planning Authorities (LPA) should plan proactively to meet the development needs of business and should set out a clear economic vision strategy for their area which positively and proactively encourages sustainable economic growth, (NPPF Paras 20-21).
NPPF Chapter 2 – Ensuring the Vitality of Town Centres
Planning policy on retail and commercial land uses and town centres is covered in paragraphs 23 to 27 of the NPPF. The NPPF requires that proposals which are not within a town centre and not in accordance with the development plan should be subject to the sequential test and provide an impact assessment.
Para 24 states that ‘Local Planning Authorities should apply a sequential test to planning applications for main town centre uses that are not in an existing centre and are not in accordance with an up-to-date Local Plan. They should require applications for main town centre uses to be located in town centres, then in edge of centre locations and only if suitable sites are not available should out of centre sites be considered. When considering edge of centre and out of centre proposals, preference should be given to accessible sites that are well connected to the town centre. Applicants and LPAs should demonstrate flexibility on issues such as format and scale’. Further guidance on the operation of the sequential test is also provided in the NPPG (published March 2014) under the section ‘Ensuring the Vitality of Town Centres’.
When assessing applications for retail development outside of town centres, which are not in accordance with an up-to-date Local Plan, LPAs should require an impact assessment where the proposals are over a default threshold of 2500sqm (unless there is a locally set threshold).
With regard to the requirement for an impact assessment, the NPPF sets out two assessment criteria:
• The impact of the proposal on existing, committed and planned public and private investment in a centre or centres in the catchment area of the proposal, and; • The impact of the proposal on town centre vitality and viability, including local consumer choice and trade in the town centre and wider area, up to five years from the time the application is made. For major schemes where the full impact will not be realized in five years, the impact should also be assessed up to ten years from the time the application is made.
The NPPF confirms that where an application fails to satisfy the sequential test or is likely to have significant adverse impact on town centre vitality and viability, it should be refused (NPPF Paras 26-27).
The NPPG states that ’it may not be possible to accommodate all forecast needs in a town centre: there may be physical or other constraints which make it inappropriate to do so. In those
111 circumstances, planning authorities should plan positively to identify the most appropriate alternative strategy for meeting the need for these main town centre uses, having regard to the sequential and impact tests. This should ensure that any proposed main town centre uses which are not in an existing town centre are in the best locations to support the vitality and vibrancy of town centres, and that no likely significant adverse impacts on existing town centres arise, as set out in paragraph 26 of the National Planning Policy Framework’.
Whilst not a development control requirement within the NPPF, the need or capacity for retail floorspace is relevant to plan making (NPPF para 23).
NPPF Chapter 4 Promoting Sustainable Transport
Paragraph 32 states that all developments that generate significant amounts of movement should be supported by a Transport Statement. Plans and decisions should take account of whether: • The opportunities for sustainable transport modes have been taken up depending on the nature and location of the site, to reduce the need for major transport infrastructure; • Safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all people; and • Improvements can be undertaken within the transport network that cost effectively limits the significant impacts of the development. Development should only be prevented or refused on transportation grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of development are severe’
NPPF Chapter 7 – Requiring Good Design
Paragraph 56 states that the Government attaches great importance to the design of the built environment. Good design is a key aspect of sustainable development, is indivisible from good planning, and should contribute positively to making places better for people.
NPPF Chapter 10 – Meeting the Challenge of Climate Change, Flooding & Coastal Change.
Paragraph 96 states that ‘in determining planning applications, LPAs should expect new development to: comply with adopted Local Plan policies on local requirements for decentralized energy supply unless it can be demonstrated by the applicant, having regard to the type of development involved and its design, that it is not feasible for viable and; take account of landform, layout, building orientation, massing and landscaping to minimize energy consumption’.
When determining planning applications, LPAs should ensure flood risk is not increased elsewhere (Para 103).
NPPF Chapter 11 – Conserving & Enhancing the Natural Environment
The planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by; • Protecting and enhancing valued landscapes, geological conservation interests and soil; • Recognising the wider benefits of ecosystem services • Minimising impacts on biodiversity and providing net gains in biodiversity where possible • Preventing both new and existing development from contributing to or being put at unacceptable risk from, or being adversely affected by unacceptable levels of soil, air, water or noise pollution or land instability; and
112 • Remediating and mitigating despoiled, degraded, derelict, contaminated and unstable land, where appropriate (para 109)
NPPF Chapter 12 – Conserving & Enhancing the Historic Environment
In determining planning applications, LPAs should require an applicant to describe the significance of any heritage assets affected, including any contribution made by their setting. Where a development site includes or has the potential to include heritage assets with archaeological interest, LPAs should require developers to submit an appropriate desk-based assessment and where necessary a field evaluation (para 128).
LPAs should identify and assess the particular significance of any heritage asset that may be affected by the proposal, including by development affecting the setting or a heritage asset, taking account of the available evidence and any necessary expertise, (para 129).
When considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. The more important the asset, the greater the weight should be. Significance can be harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of the heritage asset or development within its setting. As heritage assets are irreplaceable, any harm or loss should require clear and convincing justification, (para 132).
Where a proposed development will lead to a substantial harm to or total loss of significance of a designated heritage asset, LPAs should refuse permission, unless it can be demonstrated that the substantial harm or loss is necessary to achieve substantial public benefits that outweigh that harm or loss (para 133). Where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposals (para 134). The effect of an application on the significance of a non-designated heritage asset should be taken into account in determining the application. In weighing applications that affect directly or indirectly non designated heritage assets, a balanced judgment will be required having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the heritage asset (para 135).
NPPF Annex 1: Implementation
Paragraph 216 states that from the day of publication, decision-takers may also give weight to relevant policies in emerging plans according to:
• the stage of preparation of the emerging plan (the more advanced the preparation, the greater the weight that may be given); • the extent to which there are unresolved objections to relevant policies (the less significant the unresolved objections, the greater the weight that may be given); and; • The degree of consistency of the relevant policies in the emerging plan to the policies in this Framework (the closer the policies in the emerging plan to the policies in the Framework, the greater the weight that may be given).
113 Other Material Considerations
Land Allocations Local Plan (LALP)
DDC published their Pre-submission Land Allocations Local Plan (LALP) for consultation in December 2012. With regard to town centres and retailing, the LALP recognised the retail evidence base was out of date and introduced new retail floorspace need estimates based upon the 2012 Retail Update (RU). For Plan-making purposes, the LALP, at paragraphs 2.10 to 2.18 identifies that having taken into account existing retail commitments and the substantial level of Core Strategy strategic allocations at Dover, the need for additional retail floorspace arises within the District needs to be revised. In the Deal/Sandwich Trade Area and Sandwich the most potential for additional convenience floorspace can be ascribed to Sandwich where it would help to raise the retention rate of expenditure. The table below extracted from the LALP shows the revised retail need figures from the 2012 Retail Update.
The Council’s approach towards where the additional convenience provision in Sandwich could be accommodated has altered since the LALP was published in December 2012. This is fully documented in the GL Hearn Report (appended). In summary this Report outlines that the Council did have a site specific allocation (Policy LA17 – the Guildhall car park) that was allocated for new retail goods provision. In May 2013 Policy LA17 was replaced in the Addendum to the LALP with a criteria based policy (that is not site specific) as the Guildhall car park site was not deliverable. This policy approach is fully in accordance with Paragraph 23 of the NPPF.
The 2012 LALP identified a ‘Town Centre Area’ for Sandwich which effectively encompasses the defined ‘Secondary Shopping Frontages’. However neither of these Frontage or Area designations complies with the nomenclature in the NPPF Annex Glossary of Terms and this leads to a degree of ambiguity as to what is inside or outside the town centre for retail purposes and operation of the Sequential Test.
DDC submitted their Pre-Submission Land Allocations Local Plan (incorporating the Addendum) for independent Examination in October 2013. The Hearings took place in January/February 2014. At the Examination the Inspector, who was appointed to conduct the Examination, identified the need for Officers to prepare a number of Main Modifications (MMs) to the Plan in order to make it ‘sound’ and legally compliant. A six week public consultation on the MMs concluded on 25th September 2014. The Inspector’s Report will only be issued once the
114 Inspector has had opportunity to consider the representations. At the end of the process the final version of the Plan, taking into account all of the MMs will go to full Council for adoption.
The MMs that are subject to the public consultation, include a new policy for Sandwich town centre; amendments to supporting text including a new paragraph setting out a floorspace threshold requiring impact assessment; and amendments to the Policies Map to identify the proposed Sandwich Town Centre Boundary/Primary Shopping Area and reference to the Government’s Planning Practice Guidance in Policy LA17.
These modifications are set out fully below. New text has been highlighted and text that is to be deleted has been crossed through.
Changes to paragraphs 3.235-3.237
The 2002 Local Plan did not designate a town centre boundary or primary shopping frontage for Sandwich. It was considered inappropriate at that time due to the relatively dispersed nature of the centre and the wide variety of uses. A 'Secondary Shopping Frontage' in the town was, however, designated through Policy DM22 in the Core Strategy to allow for a greater flexibility in the mix of uses encouraged in the area.
In recent years, however, this situation has led to ambiguity in respect of whether proposed development sites are defined as “in”, “edge” or “out” of centre for the purposes of the sequential assessment. Following recommendations in the Retail Update (2012), the District Council has designated a town centre area and Primary Shopping Area in Sandwich to protect the vitality and viability of the town centre and to provide clarity for any sequential assessments. This is in addition to the secondary shopping frontages, which will remain.
The area designated as the town centre and the Primary Shopping Area reflects the street pattern of the secondary shopping frontages and includes the length of King Street, turning into Delf Street and branching out into Market Street, to the north, The Butchery, Potter Street and Cattle Market, to the south. The designation also includes St Peter’s Church off Market Street, the Guild Hall in Cattle Market, and the supermarket off Moat Sole. Figure 3.11 illustrates the area covered.
The Council will require applications for retail, office and leisure development which are located outside of the town centre that have a gross floor area that exceeds 500 sqm to be accompanied by an Impact Assessment.
New Policy
Sandwich Town Centre
Planning permission will only be given for A1, A2, A3, A4 and A5 uses within the ground floor premises in the designated Sandwich Primary Shopping Frontage.
Elsewhere in the Sandwich Town Centre and the designated Primary Shopping Area planning permission will only be given for the conversion of ground floor premises from Main Town Centre and A2 uses if it has been adequately demonstrated that the use is no longer commercially viable and genuine and
115 adequate attempts to market the premises for retail purposes, main town centre and A2 uses have failed.
Reason: The change was a result of objections raised at the Examination. The amended text seeks to ensure that the vitality of the town centre is not diluted by changes of use away from main town centre uses (as defined by the NPPF) and A2 uses and provides a measure of control through the new policy. It was agreed at the Examination that for the purposes of Sandwich, the Primary Shopping Area and the Town Centre Boundary should cover the same area. By defining a town centre boundary in Sandwich it will be consistent with the NPPF in terms of applying the sequential test for main town centre uses.
Amend Adopted Policies Map – See Appendix A: The Policies Map will be amended to identify the proposed Sandwich Town Centre Boundary/Primary Shopping Area.
Reason: To reflect the changes in the new Sandwich Town Centre Policy.
Amend Policy LA17 as follows:
Planning permission for new convenience provision in Sandwich will be permitted provided that proposals:
i. follow the sequential approach for main town centre uses as set out in the National Planning Policy Framework and National Planning Practice Guidance;
ii. include an assessment of the impact of the proposed development on Sandwich town centre and any other relevant town centres, relating to the scale and the type of development proposed in compliance with the National Planning Policy Framework and National Planning Practice Guidance;
iii. demonstrate that the site is in an accessible location and well connected to the town centre that would encourage people to walk, cycle and use public transport, in order to maximise the benefits of linked trips;
iv. respond to the local character, identity, the historic assets and setting of Sandwich;
v. the visual impact of any car parking is reduced by a combination of its location and appropriate landscaping; and
vi. demonstrate the access arrangements and the service yard are located in a position that protects the residential amenity.
Reason: The NPPG has been included in Policy LA17 as it usefully provides additional information on the both the sequential and impact tests and replaces the potential uneasy relationship that previously existed between the NPPF and the Practice Guidance to PPS4 (which has now been cancelled)
116 The MMs have clarified the ambiguity that existed over Sandwich’s Primary Shopping Area and town centre boundary for the purpose of applying the NPPF sequential test. The Town Centre Area and the Primary Shopping Area for Sandwich are the same and the area has been extended to include The Butchery and Potter Street. The Plan below shows the extent of the Town Centre Area/Primary Shopping Area. This now includes the existing Co-Op store at Moat Sole as being within Sandwich’s Primary Shopping Area/Town Centre Area.
The map extract below shows the extent of the Sandwich Primary Shopping Area/Town Centre Area.
In conclusion on relevant retail and town centre policies, the proposal site is out of centre and is not allocated for retail development within either the Council’s Adopted Core Strategy or the emerging LALP. Accordingly for retail purposes, the application site should be considered against the Sequential and Impact Tests set out in paragraphs 24 and 27 of the NPPF and given the advanced status of the LALP, Policy LA17 as amended. The LALP modifications are at an advanced stage and can therefore be given considerable weight (in accordance with para 216 of the NPPF)
Kent Design Guide
Provides guidance on design principles
Dover District Council Heritage Strategy 2013
In collaboration with English Heritage, DDC commissioned KCC’s Heritage Conservation Team to prepare the strategy. It is one of the first such strategies in the country to be created since the Government published its heritage policies in the NPPF. There Heritage Strategy seeks to identify and understand the many historic assets in the Dover district and how their special
117 character could contribute to the future of the area, and key objectives in the District Local Plan. The strategy provides advice and guidance for the management of historic assets, and will help to support funding bids that may arise in the future.
Legislation & Guidance – Relating to Planning Conditions
The NPPG advises that ‘when used properly, conditions can enhance the quality of development and enable development proposals to proceed where it would otherwise have been necessary to refuse planning permission, by mitigating the adverse effects of the development. The objectives of planning are best served when the power to attach conditions to a planning permission is exercised in a way that is clearly seen to be fair, reasonable and practicable. It is important to ensure that conditions are tailored to tackle specific problems, rather than standardised or used to impose broad unnecessary controls’.
The main powers relating to Local Planning Authority use of conditions are in Sections 70, 72, 73, 73A, and Schedule 5 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Section 70(1) (a) of the Act enables the LPA in granting planning permission to impose “such conditions as they think fit”. This power must be interpreted in light of material factors such as the National Planning Policy Framework, the NPPG on the use of conditions, the Development Plan and relevant case law.
Paragraph 203 of the NPPF states “Local planning authorities should consider whether otherwise unacceptable development could be made acceptable through the use of conditions”, and paragraph 206 states “Planning conditions should only be imposed where they meet ‘the six tests’ - which are:
1. Necessary
2. Relevant to planning
3. Relevant to the development to be permitted
4. Enforceable
5. Precise and;
6. Reasonable in all other respects
The six tests must all be satisfied each time a decision to grant planning permission subject to conditions is made. Any proposed condition that fails to meet any of the six tests should not be used.
118 Recommended Conditions
Time Limit
1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of 3 years from the date of this permission.
Reason: In accordance with Section 91 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990
Approved Plans
2. The development shall be carried out in complete accordance with the submitted planning application as amended by drawings and documents listed on the approved drawing schedule 113-391 received 09/10/14, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and to ensure that the development is carried out as approved.
Construction Management Plan
3. No development shall take place, until a Construction Management Plan (CMP) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority which shall include the following details:
a) A Construction Method Statement (CMS); b) Construction site contact details; c) Measures to control the emission of dust, dirt and other pollutants during construction; d) Likely vibration impacts resulting from construction works and vehicles and procedures for monitoring impacts and proposed mitigation strategy; e) Measures to minimise noise disturbance during construction, including hours of construction, hours of delivery of plant, machinery and material, construction techniques and plant and equipment to be used; f) All mechanical plant used on site to be maintained, serviced and operated so as to minimise noise emissions; g) Measures to control potential light disturbance; h) Measures to prevent the formation of potential pathways for the migration of any contamination from the site to the underlying groundwater environment; i) A Construction Traffic Management Plan which shall show designation, layout and design of construction access points, on and off-site routes for all construction traffic, including details of traffic flows, number of daily and peak hour HGV and site personnel vehicle movements, directional signage (on and off site); j) Provision for emergency vehicles k) Temporary Parking arrangements for site personnel, construction vehicles, contractors and visitors; l) Arrangements for the delivery, loading, unloading and removal of materials from site, including hours of deliveries;
119 m) Locations of site compounds, boundary hoarding, surfacing, drainage and any temporary structures and facilities for public viewing (where appropriate); n) Arrangements for the storage of plant, machinery and materials used in construction of the development, including the erection and maintenance of security hoarding, and location of stock piles; o) A scheme for the provision of wheel washing facilities for construction vehicles leaving the site; p) Details of the safe storage of fuels, oils and other potentially hazardous materials on site; q) Timing for and measures for remediation of the land on removal of the construction compound, parking and storage areas.
The approved CMP, including remediation, mitigation and management measures shall be adhered to throughout the duration of the construction period, and the approved measures shall be retained for the duration of the construction works, unless otherwise first agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reasons: To ensure the amenity of any neighbouring premises is protected from construction disturbance. In order that the proposed construction operations do not prejudice highway safety nor cause inconvenience to other highway users. To ensure that construction traffic is directed along routes which are satisfactory and which minimise the impact of construction on others.
Use
4. The use of the foodstore building hereby permitted shall be limited to the sale of convenience goods only with a maximum net retail sales area of 1515sqm, of which not more than 295sqm shall be used for the ancillary sale of comparison goods.
Reason: To control the size and use of the retail store in the interests of protecting the vitality and viability of the existing town centre.
5. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town & Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking and re-enacting the order with or without modification) no internal alterations shall be carried out which would result in i) an increase in the net sales area of the building or; ii) the subdivision of the unit.
Reason: To control the size of the retail store in the interests of protecting the vitality and viability of the existing town centre.
6. No more than 140sqm of the internal floor space created by this development shall be used for café purposes which shall at all times remain ancillary to the main retail use of the foodstore. At no time shall it be operated independently from the main foodstore retail use.
Reason: To control the use of the development in the interests of protecting the vitality and viability of the existing town centre.
120 7. The Doctors Surgery and Dispensing Pharmacy building hereby permitted shall be used as such, to include community health use, physiotherapy and clinics, in accordance with the approved details, and for no other purpose, including any other purpose within Class D1 of the schedule to the Town & Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (as amended), or in any provision equivalent to that Class in any statutory instrument revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modifications.
Reason: To ensure the proper development of the area and in the interests of safeguarding the residential amenities of neighbouring properties.
8. The foodstore hereby permitted shall not be open to customers outside the hours of 07:00- 23:00 Monday to Saturday and Bank Holidays and 10:00 to 17:00 on Sundays, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: In the interests of safeguarding the residential amenities of neighbouring properties.
9. The Doctors Surgery hereby permitted shall not be open to customers outside the hours of 08:00 to 20:00, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: In the interests of safeguarding the residential amenities of neighbouring properties.
10. The Pharmacy hereby permitted shall not be open to customers outside the hours of 08:00 to 18:00, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: In the interests of safeguarding the residential amenities of neighbouring properties.
11. With the exception of horticultural sales to be undertaken in accordance with the approved site layout plan (113-391-P02.d), no part of the land outside the foodstore building hereby permitted shall be used for the deposit, storage or display of goods or other materials unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and landscape character.
Phasing
12. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted a phasing strategy and phasing plan for the construction of the foodstore, doctors surgery, pharmacy, accesses (vehicular and pedestrian), car park, landscaping and all associated development shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be constructed in accordance with the approved details, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To ensure that timely provision of all elements of the development in the interest of visual and residential amenity.
13. The foodstore hereby permitted shall not be open for trade until the doctors’ surgery and pharmacy building has been substantially completed.
121 Reason: In the interest of visual amenity and to safeguard the character and setting of the adjacent Conservation Area and Listed Buildings.
Members will note from the minutes of the Planning Committee meeting (2nd September 2014) that Members recommended a condition setting out that the foodstore should not open for trade until the doctors’ surgery had been substantially completed and operational. It is understood that Members sought to secure the public benefit of a new doctors’ surgery prior to the opening for trade of the foodstore.
The justification for granting planning permission for the foodstore was not only that it would deliver the doctors surgery, but also that it was justifiable in policy terms, on its own merits. It is not an enabling form of development. When assessing this potential conditional requirement against ‘the six tests’ noted above, it is not considered that the requirement for the surgery to be operational before the store commences trading is necessary, relevant to the development or reasonable.
The planning system should not be used to stifle or delay unnecessarily development. To do so would be unreasonable and contrary to the objectives of the NPPF and NPPG. Conditions which place unjustifiable and disproportionate financial burdens on an applicant will fail the test of reasonableness. Similarly, conditions requiring a development to be carried out in its entirety will fail the test of necessity by requiring more than is needed to deal with the problem they are designed to solve (in accordance with Government guidance set out in the NPPG ‘Use of Planning Conditions’).
The condition set out above seeks to secure the substantial completion of the doctors’ surgery and pharmacy building to ensure that it is available for use and as it is integral to the design solution for the site. This approach would satisfy all necessary tests and achieve the desired outcome.
Plant/Noise
14 Prior to the commencement of use of the foodstore hereby permitted, details of all plant (including ventilation, refrigeration and air conditioning) or ducting system to be installed or used on site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. When in operation, the design and installation of new items of fixed plant shall be such that the cumulative noise level LAeq Tr arising from the proposed plant, measured or predicted at 1 metre from the facade of the nearest noise sensitive premises, shall be a rating level 5dB (A) below the background noise level LAf90 Tbg. The measurement and/or prediction of the noise should be carried out in accordance with BS4142:1997. The development shall be installed and carried out in accordance with the approved details. The equipment shall be operated and maintained in accordance with the manufacturers recommendations. Any new or replacement plant or ducting system shall be installed and / or operated in accordance within the agreed levels set out above at all times unless the Local Planning Authority first agree otherwise in writing.
122 Reason: To safeguard the residential amenities of neighbouring occupants.
15 The development hereby permitted shall not be brought into use until details of the appearance and finish, and means of enclosure of the external waste and refuse storage space/areas have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority and have been provided in accordance with the approved details. The space set aside for waste and refuse storage shall be retained for such purpose at all times thereafter and waste and refuse shall not be stored or kept on or in any other area of the site at any time
Reason : In the interests of visual amenity and health and safety
Details
16 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town & Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (as amended) (or any Order revoking or re-enacting that Order with or without modification) no trolley store shall be erected or otherwise provided within the curtilage of the site unless otherwise first agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: In the interest of visual amenity and to safeguard the character and setting of the adjacent Conservation Area and Listed Buildings.
17 Prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted, and notwithstanding the details submitted, full details of the ATM, trolley stores and cycle racks shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details prior to first use of the development and shall be kept available for such use at all times thereafter.
Reason: To ensure adequate provision of cycle storage facilities and in the interest of visual amenity.
18 Prior to the commencement of use of the foodstore hereby permitted, details of the proposed boundary treatment and entrance gates to the service yard shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the agreed details and completed prior to the commencement of use of the foodstore, and thereafter retained and maintained in accordance with the agreed details.
Reason: To safeguard the visual amenities of the area and to mitigate potential noise disturbance from the operation of the service yard.
19 Prior to the commencement of development full details of an External Lighting Scheme (including times of illumination) for the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, which shall accord with approved drawing number P169-549-LED-R2. Details shall include the position and type of illumination for all security lighting, which shall be sited so as to avoid undue disturbance to adjacent residential occupants. The external lighting shall be installed in accordance with the approved details prior to the commencement of use of any part of the development and thereafter retained and managed as such.
123 Reason: To safeguard against the potential for light pollution in the interests of protecting landscape character and the setting and character of the adjacent Conservation Area and Listed Buildings.
20 Prior to the commencement of use of the foodstore hereby permitted, details of an interpretation/direction/information scheme to direct customers to and inform customers of the shops and facilities within Sandwich town centre, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such details shall include the location and appearance of any information boards and/or signage and responsibilities for the on-going management and maintenance of the scheme. The information scheme shall be carried out, managed and maintained in accordance with the agreed details.
Reason: In the interest of enabling and encouraging linked trips to the existing town centre in the interest of safeguarding its vitality and viability.
21 Prior to the commencement of the development a specification of crime prevention and safety measures for the operation of the foodstore, ATM, doctors surgery and pharmacy shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such details shall include a timetable for the implementation of such measures and details of responsibilities for their on-going management and maintenance. The agreed measures shall be implemented and thereafter managed in accordance with the approved timetable and details.
Reason: In the interest of crime prevention and the safety and security of the site.
22 All external doors indicated on the submitted plans as fire escapes shall be maintained closed and only used in cases of emergency and shall at no time be used as a general means of access to or egress from the building.
Reason: In the interest of safeguarding the residential amenities of neighbouring occupants.
Materials
23 Prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted, a one meter square free standing panel of brick and flint work showing the type of brick and flint to be used in the construction of the front boundary wall hereby permitted, shall be constructed on site and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. All new brick and flint work shall match that of the approved panel in terms of materials used, the method of bonding, mortar mix, mortar colour and pointing style, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The sample panel so constructed shall be retained on the site until the front boundary wall hereby approved is completed.
Reason: In the interest of visual amenity and to safeguard the character and setting of the adjacent heritage assets.
24 Prior to the commencement of development, details and samples of all external materials to be used in the construction of the development (including cladding materials for the existing and proposed bridge crossings) hereby permitted, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by
124 the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be constructed in accordance with the agreed materials and finishes.
Reason: In the interest of visual amenity and to safeguard the character and setting of the adjacent heritage assets.
Highways
25 Prior to the commencement of development, full details of all highway works, which shall accord the indicative details shown on drawings numbers TR8130382-05, -SK01 rev G, -SP04 rev A and –SP06 rev B, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The agreed highway works shall be completed and made available for use, prior to the commencement of use of any part of the development hereby permitted.
Reason: In the interest of highway safety and to ensure that adequate access is provided for the site.
26 Prior to the commencement of use of any part of the development hereby permitted, works to provide the vehicular and pedestrian accesses to the site from Dover Road, as shown on the approved plans (including works, external alterations and cladding of the existing and proposed bridge crossings) shall be completed in accordance with the approved details and made available for use, and thereafter maintained in perpetuity.
Reason: To ensure that adequate access is provided for the site in the interests of highway safety and to safeguard the character and setting of the adjacent Conservation Area and Listed Buildings.
27 Prior to commencement of the development hereby permitted, a detailed schedule of repairs to the surfacing of PROW ES6, including a timetable for implementation of the improvements shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the agreed details and timetable.
Reason: To encourage pedestrian access to the site in the interest of sustainable transport objectives.
28 Prior to the commencement of development, full details (including location and proposed materials) of a bus shelter to be constructed on the north-bound side of Dover Road adjacent to the existing bus stop, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The bus shelter shall be constructed in accordance with the approved details and completed and made available for use prior to the commencement of use of any part of the development hereby permitted, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To encourage access to the site by public transport in the interest of sustainable transport objectives.
29 Prior to the commencement of use of the new vehicular access hereby permitted, the existing means of vehicular access (field access) to the site from Dover Road shall be closed
125 off to vehicular traffic and the footpath and verge reinstated all in accordance with a scheme for which details and a timetable for works shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: In the interest of highway safety and pedestrian amenity.
30 The area shown on the approved plan for the loading/unloading, parking and manoeuvring of vehicles, including service and delivery vehicles and bicycle and motor cycle parking, shall be fully laid out, clearly delineated and provided in accordance with agreed details and shall be available for use prior to any part of the development hereby permitted being brought into use, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. These areas shall subsequently be thereafter maintained for their identified purpose.
Reason: To ensure the provision of adequate parking and manoeuvring facilities for the development and in the interest of highway and pedestrian safety.
31 Within the external area of the development, the vehicle and pedestrian accesses and circulation systems and the access and manoeuvring space for delivery and service vehicles shown on the approved layout plan (113-391-P02.D) during the hours of operation of the development shall be maintained free from obstruction whether by permanent, temporary or moveable objects or other such forms of chattel, to allow proper use and the efficient functioning of these areas.
Reason: To ensure the availability of adequate access and manoeuvring space within the development, and in the interest of highway and pedestrian safety.
32 Prior to the commencement of use of any part of the development hereby permitted, a Delivery & Servicing Management Plan (DSMP) for the operation of the development shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such details shall include how delivery vehicles and servicing will be managed at the site; how deliveries will be controlled to ensure the development does not adversely affect the highway or pedestrian/cycle safety; statement of the controls on the types and sizes of vehicles accessing the site to ensure they are appropriate to the local area and environmentally acceptable in terms of exhaust and noise emissions. The development shall thereafter be operated in accordance with the agreed DSMP.
Reason: In the interest of both on and off-site highway safety.
33 All heavy goods vehicles (HGVs) delivering to, collecting from or servicing the site shall be routed to/from Dover Road from the A256/A258 to the south west. No HGVs shall be routed through Sandwich town centre.
Reason: In the interest of highway safety and residential amenity
34 There shall be no maintenance or servicing of the development hereby permitted including waste and refuse removal and no goods shall be dispatched or delivered and no vehicles shall arrive depart, be loaded or unloaded within the application site outside the hours of 0700 to
126 2200 Monday to Friday; 0800 to 1800 on Saturdays and bank holidays and 0900 to 1600on Sundays, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to safeguard the residential amenities of neighbouring occupants from noise and disturbance.
35 Prior to the commencement of use of any part of the development hereby permitted a Parking Management Plan (PMP) for staff, customer and service/delivery vehicles shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The PMP shall provide for the enforcement of a maximum permitted duration of stay (free parking) of 3 hours within the development car park, and include; details of enforcement strategies, hours of available parking, details of any parking permits, details of enforcement/management responsibilities, and; a timetable and methodology for the monitoring and review of the PMP performance, including the permitted duration of stay, to be undertaken at 6, 12 and 18 months after commencement of use of the development. The results of the 6 monthly monitoring/review periods, including any necessary amendments to the approved PMP to mitigate any problems identified, shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval within 1 month of the end of each review period. The development site shall thereafter be operated in accordance with the agreed PMP as may be amended with the written agreement of the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: In the interest of highway safety and to enable customers to undertake linked trips with Sandwich town centre.
36 The occupant(s) of the foodstore shall give written notification of commencement of trading to the Local Planning Authority at least 1 week prior to the foodstore being first open for trade to the public.
Reason: To enable effective monitoring of development of the site.
37 Prior to first use of any part of the development hereby permitted, a Travel Plan to encourage reduced use of the private car for both staff and customers, which shall include modal split targets, together with a time-bound programme of implementation, monitoring and regular review and improvement, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall thereafter be operated in accordance with the agreed Travel Plan.
Reason: To minimise traffic generated by the development and in the interest of sustainable development objectives.
38 Prior to the commencement of development, details of measures to prevent the discharge of surface water on to the highway shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be completed in accordance with the approved details prior to first use or occupation of the development hereby permitted and shall thereafter be maintained as such.
Reason: To prevent the discharge of water onto the highway, in the interests of highway safety.
127 39 The gates across the main vehicular access to the site shall open away from the highway with a minimum set back of 16m from the carriageway.
Reason: In the interest of highway safety.
Sustainable Construction
40 The development shall achieve, as a minimum, BREEAM ‘very good’ standard unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: In the interest of the prudent use of natural resources and the wider objective of achieving sustainable development.
Landscaping
41 No development shall take place until full details of both hard and soft landscape works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the works shall be carried out as approved. Such details shall accord with the approved Landscape Masterplan (drawing number 2696_DR_001) and shall include:
a) Details of new trees and shrubs, hedges and grassed areas to be planted, which shall provide for the like for like replacement of trees identified for removal, together with details of the species and method of planting to be adopted. b) Measures to be taken to protect new and existing landscape work which shall, in the case of all trees and boundary hedges identified for retention, means adequate staking and guarding. c) Details of ground preparation, including details of proposed weed control. d) Details of the surface treatment proposed for all hard surfaced areas beyond the limits of the adopted highway. e) Details of proposed and existing functional services, above and below ground (e.g. drainage, power, communications, cables, pipelines) f) Details of all walls, fences, other means of enclosure proposed, together with details of materials and construction. Such details shall provide for the planting of a native hedgerow and close-boarded fence along the northern boundary of the site; g) Details of other minor artefacts and structures (e.g. external furniture, benches, refuse or other storage units etc.) h) An implementation and completion timetable for the approved landscaping details Reason: In the interest of visual and residential amenity and to adequately integrate the development into the environment.
42 Prior to the commencement of use of any part of the development hereby permitted, the full span of the front boundary wall hereby permitted shall be built to a finished height of 1.4m agl, and thereafter retained and maintained in accordance with the agreed details and materials.
Reason: In the interest of visual amenity and to safeguard the character and setting of the adjacent heritage assets.
128 43 The existing hedge running along the full extent of the south-eastern boundary of the site shall be protected in accordance with a scheme which shall be approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to construction of the development, including any ground clearance. Protection measures shall be put in place in accordance with the approved details prior to commencement of development, including ground clearance and retained as such during the construction phase. The hedge shall be retained and maintained at all times to a minimum height of 4m above natural ground level, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: In the interest of visual amenities and landscape impact and to adequately integrate the development into the environment.
44 All hard and soft landscape works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and timetable. The works shall be carried out and completed prior to commencement of use of the foodstore or in accordance with a programme of works to be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. Any trees or plants which within a period of 5 years from the completion of the development die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased, shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of a similar size and like for like species, unless the Local Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation.
Reason: In the interest of visual amenities and landscape impact and to adequately integrate the development into the environment.
45 Prior to the commencement of use of the foodstore, a Landscape Management Plan, including long term design objectives, management responsibilities, maintenance schedules and timetable of works, for all external areas within the site, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The site shall be managed and maintained in accordance with the agreed Landscape Management Plan, unless the Local Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation.
Reason: To ensure the long-term management and maintenance of the site’s landscape character
46 No development shall take place until details of the existing ground levels of the site, the proposed finished levels of the ground, the ground floor slab level of the building, the finished levels of any access road, showing their relationship with the existing levels of the immediately adjoining land and buildings have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and shall thereafter be retained.
Reason: To safeguard residential amenities and in the interest of visual amenity
Archaeology
47 No development shall take place until the applicant, or their agent or successor in title, has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written specification and timetable which has first been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
129 Reason: To ensure that features of archaeological interest are properly examined and recorded.
Foul and Surface Water Disposal
48 No development shall take place until full details of a surface water drainage scheme for the site has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be based on sustainable drainage principles and an assessment of the hydrological and hydrogeological context of the development, and also include;
a) A specification outlining the responsibilities for the implementation of the Sustainable Urban Drainage System;
b) An implementation timetable,
c) A management and maintenance plan for the lifetime of the development.
Such details as are agreed shall be implemented and thereafter managed and maintained in accordance with the agreed details and timetable, unless the Local Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation.
Reason: To prevent an increased risk of flooding off-site.
49 No development shall take place until full details of the proposed means of foul and surface water sewerage disposal including a timetable for their provisionhas been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such details as are agreed shall be implemented and thereafter managed and maintained in accordance with the agreed details and timetable, unless the Local Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation.
Reason: To prevent pollution of the water environment.
50 The rainwater harvesting system referred to in the application, for wc flushing purposes, shall be installed in accordance with the approved details prior to the development hereby permitted being brought into use or first occupied and shall be maintained as such thereafter unless the Local Planning Authority agree otherwise in writing
Reason : In the interests of sustainability and to protect public water supplies
Recommended Informatives:
a. All protected species and their habitats are given full protection under the 1981 Wildlife and Countryside Act (as amended) and the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010. Should any protected species or evidence of any protected species be found prior to or during works, works must stop immediately and Natural England contacted for further advice before works can proceed. This is a legal requirement and applies to whoever carries out the work. All contractors working on site should be made aware of it and provided with Natural England’s contact phone number 0845 600 3078 or email address [email protected]
130
b. Further to condition 47 above, the Environment Agency (EA) has advised that the required details should either show how the surface water can be managed through infiltration, or outline how the developer will be assisting with the refurbishment of the faulty downstream sluice structure. The EA request that a scheme is devised that does not rely on electric pumps to successfully operate and that the maintenance schedule for any scheme is submitted for review. c. Consultation letter from Environment Agency dated 06/11/13 is attached to the decision for information. d. A formal application for connection to the public sewerage system is required in order to service this development. To initiate a sewer capacity check to identify the appropriate connection point for the development, please contact Southern Water, Southern House Sparrowgrove, Otterbourne, Hampshire SO21 2 SW (Tel: 0330 303 0119) or www.southerwater.co.uk e. A formal application for connection to the water supply is required in order to service this development. To initiate a Water Capacity Check, please contact Southern Water, Southern House Sparrowgrove, Otterbourne, Hampshire SO21 2 SW (Tel: 0330 303 0119) or www.southerwater.co.uk f. Southern Water’s current sewerage records do not show any public sewers to be crossing the site. However, due to changes in legislation that came into force on 1st October 2011 regarding the future ownership of sewers it is possible that a sewer now deemed to be public could be crossing the site. Should any sewer be found during construction works, an investigation of the sewer will be required to ascertain its condition, the number of properties served, and potential means of access before any further works commence on site. The applicant is advised to discuss the matter further with Southern Water, Southern House Sparrowgrove, Otterbourne, Hampshire SO21 2 SW (Tel: 0330 303 0119) or www.southerwater.co.uk
g. Consultation letter from Southern Water dated 06/11/13 is attached to the decision for information.
h. It is the responsibility of the applicant to ensure, before the development hereby approved is commenced, that all necessary highway approvals and consents where required are obtained and that the limits of highway boundary are clearly established in order to avoid any enforcement action being taken by the Highway Authority. The applicant must also ensure that the details shown on the approved plans agree in every aspect with those approved under such legislation and common law. It is therefore important for the applicant to contact KCC Highways and Transportation to progress this aspect of the works prior to commencement on site.
131 Recommendation
I Conditions and informatives be approved as set out above.
II Powers be delegated to the Head of Regeneration and Development to settle and resolve any matters arising from consideration of the recommendation and as resolved by Planning Committee.
Case Officer
Nicola Coles
132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 Agenda Item No 12
Subject: FEES AND CHARGES 2015/16
Meeting and Date: Planning Committee (for information) − 13 November 2014 Cabinet – 5 January 2015 (part of larger report)
Report of: Nadeem Aziz, Chief Executive
Portfolio Holder: Councillor N Kenton, Portfolio Holder for Environment, Waste and Planning
Decision Type: Key
Classification: Unrestricted
Purpose of the report: This report has been prepared in order to bring the levels of fees and charges (F&Cs) for the financial year 2015/16 to Members attention. These revised F&Cs will be included in the budget estimates for 2015/16.
Recommendation: Planning Committee
That Members note the Council’s fees and charges set out in Appendices 5.1 and 5.3 and note the national planning fees set out in Appendix 5.2
Cabinet
That Members approve the Council’s fees and charges set out in Appendices 5.1 and 5.3 and note the national planning fees set out in Appendix 5.2
Minor adjustments to the local fees and charges to be delegated to the Head of Regeneration and Development in consultation with the Director of Finance, Housing and Community.
1. Summary
The constitution specifies that the Council’s F&Cs shall be reviewed annually. In order to meet this requirement all Directors have been asked to review the F&Cs within their areas of responsibility and to produce recommended levels for 2015/16. The fees and charges for planning are included in Appendices 5.1 and 5.3 for members to note. Members will also note the national fees for planning included in Appendix 5.2, these were introduced in November 2012 and include a 15% increase on fees prior to this date.
2. Introduction and Background
2.1 The Council’s constitution specifies that F&Cs shall be reviewed annually.
2.2 The level of Member approval required is dependent upon the types of F&Cs raised and therefore reports have to be submitted to: • Licensing Committee
Dover District Council 151 • Regulatory Committee • Planning Committee • Cabinet
2.3 In order to meet this requirement the following reports are produced for setting the Planning fees:
• Planning Committee − Report to the meeting on 13 November 2014 of all F&Cs relevant to the Planning Committee.
• Cabinet − Report to the meeting on 5 January 2015 of all F&Cs, but seeking specific approval of those F&Cs set by Cabinet.
2.4 Members are reminded that a framework of broad guidelines to be considered in formulating proposals for F&Cs is in place. This includes a checklist which has been circulated to all Service Directors and to all officers considering F&Cs so that a rigorous and consistent approach is taken. A copy is attached at Appendix 1.
2.5 As in previous years, in order to assist Members, the data on F&Cs has been tabulated into a standard format that has been used for Appendix 5.1
Detail and Narrative (Columns 2 & 3)
These give a brief summary of the type of service being provided.
Set by Government (Column 4)
This indicates whether a charge is statutory or not. If a charge is statutory then it is effectively set by Government and although formal Member approval is still sought, there is little or no scope to make changes.
2014/15 Charge Inc VAT (Column 5)
The charge has been provided inclusive of VAT for two reasons. First, it shows what the customer will actually pay and is therefore more meaningful.
Second, charges for some services, especially those such as car parking, which are not simply a direct recovery of costs, are set at a level, inclusive of VAT, based on the appropriate market level. The VAT is therefore a deduction from the amount of charge retained by DDC and is not a key factor in determining the appropriate charge. Members are asked to approve this approach.
2014/15 Total Expected Income ex VAT (Column 8)
This gives a broad indication as to how much income DDC is expecting to receive and has been included to provide Members with a sense of the relative importance of individual charges.
2015/16 Proposed Charge Inc VAT (Column 9)
This is the recommended charge for 2015/16 and will, subject to Members’ approval, be included in the 2015/16 budget.
2015/16 Total Expected Income ex VAT (Column 10)
This gives a broad indication as to how much income DDC is expected to receive and has been included to provide Members with a sense of the relative importance of 152 individual charges or group of similar charges. The more significant income streams (generating over £3k) have been highlighted in bold type.
In some cases, the level of use is very low, or infrequent, or the service has only recently been introduced and so no level of income has been included.
Reason for the Change in Charges (Column 12)
This provides Members with a brief explanation for the change. This will often be due to inflation or “catch up” inflation if the increase has been previously deferred until it can be made to a sensible rounded figure.
In some instances guidance is still awaited from Government as to the basis upon which F&Cs should be set. In these cases it has not always been possible to set a fee level, Member’s approval is sought to enable officers to adopt such fees at or close to government directed levels without a further report.
Service Manager and Portfolio Holder (Column 13 and 14)
These show the responsibilities for specific F&Cs.
3. Basis for Setting of Fees
3.1 Members should take into account the following matters referred when noting the fees and charges included in Appendices 5.1-5.3:
• The statutory basis for levying the charges.
• All relevant legal requirements and government guidance.
• The cost of providing the service.
• The need to maximise income at a time of grant cuts and council tax capping so as to ensure that in so far as possible, and taken year on year, the fees and charges are sufficient to meet the costs of providing the services.
• Comparable charges at neighbouring authorities.
• What the market can bear.
• The matters referred to in the checklist of issues to consider (at Appendix 1)
4. Resource Implications
See Appendices.
5. Corporate Implications
5.1 Comment from the Director of Finance, Housing and Community (linked to the MTFP): Finance have been involved in the production of this report and have no further comment to make. (CB)
5.2 Comment from the Solicitor to the Council: The Senior Solicitor has been consulted in the preparation of this report and has no further comment to make”.
153 5.3 Comment from the Equalities Officer: This report does not specifically highlight any equalities implications however, in discharging their responsibilities members are required to comply with the public sector equality duty as set out in section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15.
6. Appendices Appendix 1 – Fees and Charges checklist
6.1 Appendix 5.1 – Schedule of recommended F&Cs Appendix 5.2 - A Guide to National Fees for Planning Applications in England Appendix 5.3 – Pre-application Planning Fees
Contact Officer: Mike Ebbs, Head of Regeneration and Development.
154 Fees and Charges Checklist
Corporate and Service Objectives Are links made between charges and our corporate and service objectives and are we able to use charges to help deliver these objectives?
Users of the Service Is there sufficient understanding of our service users and their needs and wishes?
Have we considered different pricing to specific target groups and has the potential impact of charges or the changes to existing charges been assessed?
Ensure that you consider the potential diversity and equality issues and where necessary consider and document any issues and mitigation.
Comparison with other providers Is there a complete picture of competition and providers of similar services – including other Local Authorities?
Consultation Has the relevant Portfolio holder been consulted and do charges meet with their aspirations and requirements?
Is wider community consultation appropriate for any of your charges? Has it been undertaken?
Performance Management Are the principles for charges clearly defined and are clear targets set and monitored. Do we have a clear picture of what is a success?
Financial Considerations Is the charge at a level to fully recover all costs or if is subsidised - why?
Have we considered all services for which we can / should charge a fee?
Are there any fees that we charge, that have not been included in the schedule?
Are we being radical in our approach to charging and are our charges cost effective?
Corporate Income Policy Please ensure you adhere to the main principals of the Corporate Income Policy when setting your fees and charges.
Legal Considerations and Other Guidance Does the Council have the power to levy the charges. Is there any ministerial or other guidance that should be taken into account?
Customer Access Review Consider whether the CAR for your service includes any issues for specific fees.
Cabinet 155 Appendix 1 Nadeem Aziz
2014/15 2014/15 2014/15 2015/16 2015/16 2015/16
Total Total Proposed Set by Charges inc Units / Vatable? Expected Units / Expected Reasons for Change in Service Portfolio Service Detail Narrative Charges inc % change Government? Y/N VAT Comments Y/N Income ex Comments Income ex Charges and/or income Manager Holder VAT VAT VAT
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 6a 10 11 12 13 14 Section 52 Agreements, Section 106 Agreements, Tree Preservation Orders Planning General Y £5.00 Y £5.00 0% M Ebbs Cllr Kenton and Article 4 Directions and Enforcement Notices Plans submitted with planning applications or accompanying other Planning General N £0.10 A4 N £0.10 A4 0% M Ebbs Cllr Kenton planning documents and other miscellaneous photocopying Plans submitted with planning applications or accompanying other £750 £750 Planning General N £0.20 A3 N £0.20 A3 0% M Ebbs Cllr Kenton planning documents and other miscellaneous photocopying Plans submitted with planning applications or accompanying other Planning General N £5.00 Over A3 N £5.00 over A3 0% M Ebbs Cllr Kenton planning documents and other miscellaneous photocopying Research on Planning Histories, 156 Planning General Permitted Development Rights and N £35.00 per request Y £35.00 per request 0% M Ebbs Cllr Kenton Use classes
Planning Application Fees ( see Appendix 5.2 - A Guide to the Planning General Y N £455,000 £455,000 M Ebbs Cllr Kenton Fees for Planning Applications in England )
Pre-application advice New pre-application Planning General N Y £30,000 £67,500 M Ebbs Cllr Kenton ( see Appendix 5.3 ) service introduced Planning General Details pursuant to conditions Y £25.00 householder Y £25.00 householder M Ebbs Cllr Kenton 0% Planning General Details pursuant to conditions Y £85.00 per request Y £85.00 per request M Ebbs Cllr Kenton Advice on compliance of conditions £15,000 Planning General Y £25.00 householder Y £25.00 householder £15,000 M Ebbs Cllr Kenton information 0% Advice on compliance of conditions Planning General Y £85.00 per request Y £85.00 per request M Ebbs Cllr Kenton information
Cabinet Appendix 5.1 A Guide to the Fees for Planning Applications in England
These fees apply from 31 July 2014 onwards.
This document is based upon ‘The Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications, Deemed Applications, Requests and Site Visits) (England) Regulations 2012’
The fee should be paid at the time the application is submitted. If you are unsure of the fee applicable, please contact your Local Planning Authority.
All Outline Applications £385 per 0.1 hectare for sites up to Not more than £385 per 0.1 hectare and including 2.5 hectares 2.5 hectares £9,527 + £115 for each 0.1 in excess More than 2.5 £9,527 + £115 per of 2.5 hectares to a maximum of hectares 0.1 hectare £125,000
Householder Applications Alterations/extensions to a single Single dwelling £172 dwelling, including works within boundary
Full Applications (and First Submissions of Reserved Matters) Alterations/extensions to two or Two or more £339 more dwellings, including works dwellings (or two within boundaries or more flats) New dwellings (up to and including New dwellings £385 per dwelling 50) (not more than 50) New dwellings (for more than 50) New dwellings £19,049 + £115 per £19,049 + £115 per additional (more than 50) additional dwelling dwelling in excess of 50 up to a maximum fee of £250,000
Continued on next page…
Planning Portal – Application Fees – England July 2014 – V4.0
157 Appendix 5.2 Full Applications (and First Submissions of Reserved Matters) continued… Erection of buildings (not dwellings, agricultural, glasshouses, plant nor machinery): Gross floor space to be created by the No increase in £195 development gross floor space or no more than 40 sq m Gross floor space to be created by the More than 40 sq £385 development m but no more than 75 sq m Gross floor space to be created by the More than 75 sq £385 for each 75sq m development m but no more or part thereof than 3,750 sq m Gross floor space to be created by the More than 3,750 £19,049 + £115 for development sq m each additional 75 sq m in excess of 3750 sq m to a maximum of £250,000 The erection of buildings (on land used for agriculture for agricultural purposes) Gross floor space to be created by the Not more than £80 development 465 sq m Gross floor space to be created by the More than 465 sq £385 development m but not more than 540 sq m Gross floor space to be created by the More than 540 sq £385 for first 540 sq development m but not more m + £385 for each 75 than 4,215 sq m sq m (or part thereof) in excess of 540 sq m Gross floor space to be created by the More than 4,215 £19,049 + £115 for development sq m each 75 sq m (or part thereof) in excess of 4,215 sq m up to a maximum of £250,000
Continued on next page…
Planning Portal – Application Fees – England July 2014 – V4.0
158 Appendix 5.2 Full Applications (and First Submissions of Reserved Matters) continued… Erection of glasshouses (on land used for the purposes of agriculture) Gross floor space to be created by the Not more than £80 development 465 sq m Gross floor space to be created by the More than 465 sq £2,150 development m Erection/alterations/replacement of plant and machinery Site area Not more than 5 £385 for each 0.1 hectares hectare (or part thereof) Site area More than 5 £19,049 + additional hectares £115 for each 0.1 hectare (or part thereof) in excess of 5 hectares to a maximum of £250,000
Applications other than Building Works Car parks, service roads or other For existing uses £195 accesses Waste (Use of land for disposal of refuse or waste materials or deposit of material remaining after extraction or storage of minerals) Site area Not more than £195 for each 0.1 15 hectares hectare (or part thereof) Site area More than 15 £29,112 + £115 for hectares each 0.1 hectare (or part thereof) in excess of 15 hectares up to a maximum of £65,000 Operations connected with exploratory drilling for oil or natural gas Site area Not more than £423 for each 0.1 7.5 hectares hectare (or part thereof) Site area More than 7.5 £31,725 + additional hectares £126 for each 0.1 hectare (or part thereof) in excess of 7.5 hectares up to a maximum of £250,000
Continued on next page…
Planning Portal – Application Fees – England July 2014 – V4.0
159 Appendix 5.2 Operations (other than exploratory drilling) for the winning and working of oil or natural gas Site area Not more than £214 for each 0.1 15 hectares hectare (or part thereof) Site area More than 15 £32,100 + additional hectares £126 for each 0.1 in excess of 15 hectare up to a maximum of £65,000 Other operations (winning and working of minerals) excluding oil and natural gas Site area Not more than £195 for each 0.1 15 hectares hectare (or part thereof) Site area More than 15 £29,112 + additional hectares £115 for each 0.1 in excess of 15 hectare up to a maximum of £65,000 Other operations (not coming within any of the above categories) Site area Any site area £195 for each 0.1 hectare (or part thereof) up to a maximum of £1,690
Lawful Development Certificate LDC – Existing Use - in breach of a Same as Full planning condition LDC – Existing Use LDC - lawful not to £195 comply with a particular condition LDC – Proposed Use Half the normal planning fee.
Continued on next page…
Planning Portal – Application Fees – England July 2014 – V4.0
160 Appendix 5.2 Prior Approval Agricultural and Forestry buildings & £80 operations or demolition of buildings Telecommunications Code Systems £385 Operators Proposed Change of Use to State £80 Funded School or Registered Nursery Proposed Change of Use of £80 Agricultural Building to a State-Funded School or Registered Nursery Proposed Change of Use of £80 Agricultural Building to a flexible use within Shops, Financial and Professional services, Restaurants and Cafes, Business, Storage or Distribution, Hotels, or Assembly or Leisure Proposed Change of Use of a building £80 from Office (Use Class B1) Use to a use falling within Use Class C3 (Dwellinghouse) Proposed Change of Use of £80 Agricultural Building to a Dwellinghouse (Use Class C3), where there are no Associated Building Operations Proposed Change of Use of £172 Agricultural Building to a Dwellinghouse (Use Class C3), and Associated Building Operations Proposed Change of Use of a building £80 from a Retail (Use Class A1 or A2) Use or a Mixed Retail and Residential Use to a use falling within Use Class C3 (Dwellinghouse), where there are no Associated Building Proposed Chang e of Use of a building £172 from a Retail (Use Class A1 or A2) Use or a Mixed Retail and Residential Use to a use falling within Use Class C3 (Dwellinghouse), and Associated Building Operations
Continued on next page…
Planning Portal – Application Fees – England July 2014 – V4.0
161 Appendix 5.2 Reserved Matters Application for approval of reserved Full fee due or if full matters following outline approval fee already paid then £385 due
Approval/Variation/discharge of condition Application for removal or variation of £195 a condition following grant of planning permission Request for confirmation that one or £28 per request for more planning conditions have been Householder complied with otherwise £97 per request
Change of Use of a building to use as one or more separate dwellinghouses, or other cases Number of dwellings Not more than 50 £385 for each dwellings Number of dwellings More than 50 £19,049 + £115 for dwellings each in excess of 50 up to a maximum of £250,000 Other Changes of Use of a building £385 or land
Advertising Relating to the business on the premises £110
Advance signs which are not situated on or visible from £110 the site, directing the public to a business Other advertisements £385
Application for a New Planning Permission to replace an Extant Planning Permission Applications in respect of major developments £575
Applications in respect of householder developments £57
Applications in respect of other developments £195
Continued on next page…
Planning Portal – Application Fees – England July 2014 – V4.0
162 Appendix 5.2 Application for a Non-material Amendment Following a Grant of Planning Permission Applications in respect of householder developments £28 Applications in respect of other developments £195
Continued on next page…
Planning Portal – Application Fees – England July 2014 – V4.0
163 Appendix 5.2 CONCESSIONS EXEMPTIONS FROM PAYMENT For alterations, extensions, etc. to a dwelling house for the benefit of a registered disabled person An application solely for the carrying out of the operations for the purpose of providing a means of access for disabled persons to or within a building or premises to which members of the public are admitted Listed Building Consent Planning permission for relevant demolition in a Conservation Area Works to Trees covered by a Tree Preservation Order or in a Conservation Area Hedgerow Removal If the proposal is the first revision of an application for development of the same character or description on the same site by the same applicant within 12 months of making the earlier application if withdrawn or the date of decision if granted or refused (including signs only if withdrawn or refused) and NOT a duplicate application made by the same applicant within 28 days If the proposal relates to works that require planning permission only by virtue of an Article 4 Direction of the Town & Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995. I.e. where the application is required only because of a direction or planning condition removing permitted development rights. If the application is for a lawful development certificate, for existing use, where an application for planning permission for the same development would be exempt from the need to pay a planning fee under any other planning fee regulation If the application is for consent to display an advertisement following either a withdrawal of an earlier application (before notice of decision was issued) or where the application is made following refusal of consent for display of an advertisement, and where the application is made by or on behalf of the same person If the application is for consent to display an advertisement which results from a direction under Regulation 7 of the 2007 Regulations, dis-applying deemed consent under Regulation 6 to the advertisement in question If the application is for alternate proposals for the same site by the same applicant, in order to benefit from the permitted development right in Schedule 2 Part 3 Class E of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 If the application relates to a condition or conditions on an application for Listed Building Consent or planning permission for relevant demolition in a Conservation Area If the application is for a Certificate of Lawfulness of Proposed Works to a listed building Prior Approval for a Proposed Larger Home Extension
Continued on next page…
Planning Portal – Application Fees – England July 2014 – V4.0
164 Appendix 5.2 CONCESSIONS continued… REDUCTIONS TO PAYMENTS If the application is being made on behalf of a non-profit making sports club for works for playing fields not involving buildings then the fee is £385 If the application is being made on behalf of a parish or community council then the fee is 50% If the application is an alternative proposal being submitted on the same site by the same applicant on the same day, where this application is of lesser cost then the fee is 50% In respect of reserved matters you must pay a sum equal to or greater than what would be payable at current rates for approval of all the reserved matters. If this amount has already been paid then the fee is £385 If the application is for a Lawful Development Certificate for a Proposed use or development, then the fee is 50% If two or more applications are submitted for different proposals on the same day and relating to the same site then you must pay the fee for the highest fee plus half sum of the others Where an application relates to development which is within more than one fee category, the correct fee is simply the highest of the fees payable (if not including residential) Where an application consists of the erection of dwellings and the erection of other types of buildings (categories 1-4) the fees are added together and maximum can be exceeded Where an application crosses one or more local or district planning authorities then the fee is 150% and goes to the authority that contains the larger part of the application site or a sum of the fees if it is less than 150%
ENDS
Planning Portal – Application Fees – England July 2014 – V4.0
165 Appendix 5.2 Pre-Application Fees
Small scale developments of up to 5 dwellings, general advice on land-use and small commercial developments of up to 500sq metres of commercial space
Pre-application advice is chargeable at £60.00 per hour with a minimum charge of 1 hour and then at £30 per 30 minutes or part thereof. This includes travel time to site visits if required.
The Planning Officer will advise you at the outset of the estimated cost and will not exceed this without your agreement.
You can minimise costs by providing as much information about your scheme as possible in advance, but there is no requirement to do this.
All other applications
Fee • £500 or 1.5% of the appropriate fee under the Application Fees Regulations, whichever is the greater, for up to an hour long meeting and written response • If the Planning Officer recommends further time is spent on your proposal we will provide you with an estimate and obtain your agreement.
You will also need to provide the following information
• Written details of the address and proposal • Description of the nature and scale of the development proposed and the uses to which land and buildings are to be put • Site location plan with the site clearly marked (to a recognised scale, north point etc) • Sketch drawings providing details of the proposal (to a recognised scale) • Photographs of the site and surrounding area, with particular regard to any nearby houses or other development which might be affected by your proposal • Contact details including phone number and email address • An initial design and access statement • Access and parking arrangements • This may also need to be accompanied by ecological, landscape, contamination, flood and transport assessments depending upon the location, nature and complexity of the development.
What the costs cover These fees cover administration costs and the time spent in research, assessment, a meeting as necessary, and in making a written response.
166 Appendix 5.3
167 Appendix 5.3