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
2 July 2013
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 11 July 2013 at 6.00 pm when the following business will be transacted.
Members of the public who require further information are asked to contact Jemma Duffield on (01304) 872305 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 J A Cronk Councillor B Gardner Councillor P J Hawkins Councillor K E Morris Councillor R S Walkden
Councillor P M Wallace
AGENDA
1 APOLOGIES
To receive any apologies for absence.
2 APPOINTMENT OF SUBSTITUTE MEMBERS
To note appointments of Substitute Members.
1 3 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
To receive any declarations of interest from Members in respect of business to be transacted on the agenda.
Where a Member has a new or registered Disclosable Pecuniary Interest (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.
Where a Member is declaring an Other Significant Interest (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.
4 MINUTES
To confirm the Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 13 June 2013 (to follow).
5 ITEMS DEFERRED (Page 6)
To consider the attached report of the Head of Regeneration and Development.
ITEMS WHICH MAY BE SUBJECT TO PUBLIC SPEAKING (Pages 7 - 10)
6 APPLICATION NO DOV/13/0120 - AYLESHAM VILLAGE EXPANSION, AYLESHAM (Pages 11 - 46)
DOV/13/0120 – Variation of Conditions 1, 3, 5, 15, 16, 22, 24, 32, 34, 38, 45, 51, 52, 56, 68, 76 and 77 of Planning Permission DOV/07/01081 (Section 73 Application) and Modification to Legal Agreements for:
A (Full application for Residential Development for 191 dwellings of which 20% will be affordable; all associated works and infrastructure, together with new shops and apartments; alterations to existing shops and
2 apartments; landscaping to existing streets and public open spaces including Market Square; the formation of new public open spaces; upgrade of sports pitch and provision of changing facilities at Ratling Road; formation of squares and a strategic play area; traffic management schemes and new parking areas; other landscaping works; temporary works and access; construction compounds and off-site highway works: and
B (Outline application for a residential development of up to 1210 dwellings; associated infrastructure and works, including new and enhanced sports and leisure grounds and facilities; new shops and apartments with alterations to existing shops and apartments; temporary construction access and compound areas; an area of live/work units; new and altered roads; parking facilities and traffic management within and nearby to Aylesham Village.
To consider the attached report of the Head of Regeneration and Development.
7 APPLICATION NO DOV/13/00290 - ALTON LODGE, 153 KINGSDOWN ROAD, KINGSDOWN (Pages 47 - 53)
DOV/13/00290 – Erection of first and second floor extensions, together with an attached garage, alterations to elevations and creation of a vehicular access, Alton Lodge, 153 Kingsdown Road, Kingsdown
To consider the attached report of the Head of Regeneration and Development.
8 APPLICATION NO DOV/13/00039 - COLDBLOW SPORTS GROUND, FORMER MOD PLAYING FIELD, COLDBLOW, RIPPLE, DEAL (Pages 54 - 58)
DOV/13/00039 – Reinstatement and repair of existing boundary fence and gates, Coldblow Sports Ground, Former MOD Playing Field, Coldblow, Ripple, Deal
To consider the attached report of the Head of Regeneration and Development
9 APPLICATION NO DOV/12/00143 - LAND ADJOINING PINEHAM HOUSE, PINEHAM (Pages 59 - 65)
DOV/12/0143 – Retrospective application for the change of use of land for the construction of a hardstanding and domestic garage – Land adjoining Pineham House, Pineham.
To consider the attached report of the Head of Regeneration and Development.
10 APPLICATION NO DOV/13/00327 - LAND FRONTING 92A THE STREET, ASH (Pages 66 - 70)
3 DOV/13/00327 – Change of use and conversion to single residential dwelling, associated car parking and landscaping - Land fronting 92A The Street, Ash
To consider the attached report of the Head of Regeneration and Development.
11 APPLICATION NO DOV/12/00356 - SHOLDEN PETROL FILLING STATION, SANDWICH ROAD, HACKLINGE (Pages 71 - 77)
DOV/12/00356 - Retrospective application for a change of use to hand car wash and ancillary retail outlet - Sholden Petrol Filling Station, Sandwich Road, Hacklinge.
To consider the attached report of the Head of Regeneration and Development.
12 APPLICATION NO DOV/13/00119 - LAND ADJOINING 3 WARWICK ROAD, WALMER (Pages 78 - 87)
DOV/13/0119 – Renewal of planning permission DOV/08/00903 for erection of detached building incorporating 10 flats and associated parking and landscaping - Land Adjoining 3 Warwick Road, Walmer.
To consider the attached report of the Head of Regeneration and Development.
13 APPLICATION NO DOV/11/00273 - LAND AT BAY VIEW ROAD, KINGSDOWN (Pages 88 - 110)
DOV/11/0273 – Retrospective application for the erection of a barn for the storage of hay/straw and stabling of two horses and the use of the land for the keeping of two horses - Land at Bay View Road, Kingsdown
To consider the attached report of the Head of Regeneration and Development.
14 APPLICATION NO DOV/13/00332 - LAND AT MARSHBOROUGH FARM, OFF ASH ROAD, SANDWICH (Pages 111 - 119)
DOV/13/00332 - Ground based photovoltaic solar farm, access and associated works - Land at Marshborough Farm, off Ash Road, Sandwich.
To consider the attached report of the Head of Regeneration and Development.
ITEMS WHICH ARE NOT SUBJECT TO PUBLIC SPEAKING
15 APPLICATION NO DOV/13/0330 - CERTIFICATE OF LAWFULNESS (EXISTING) FOR CLAY PIGEON SHOOTING GROUND, INCLUDING TUITION IN CLAY PIGEON SHOOTING AND THE ANCILLARY SALE OF GUNS - LYDDEN, GUILDFORD ROAD, SANDWICH BAY (Pages 120 - 127)
To consider the attached report of the Head of Regeneration and Development.
16 APPEALS AND INFORMAL HEARINGS
To receive information relating to Appeals and Informal Hearings, and appoint Members as appropriate.
4 17 ACTION TAKEN IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ORDINARY DECISIONS (COUNCIL BUSINESS) URGENCY PROCEDURE
To raise any matters of concern in relation to decisions taken under the above procedure and reported on the Official Members' Weekly News.
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. 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. Basic translations of specific reports and the Minutes are available on request in 12 different languages.
• 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 Jemma Duffield, Democratic Support Officer, telephone: (01304) 872305 or email: [email protected] for details.
Large print copies of this agenda can be supplied on request.
5 Agenda Item No 5 Agenda Item No 5
DOVER DISTRICT COUNCIL
REPORT OF THE HEAD OF REGENERATION & DEVELOPMENT
PLANNING COMMITTEE – 11 JULY 2013
CONSIDERATION OF THE FOLLOWING ITEMS HAS BEEN DEFERRED AT PREVIOUS MEETINGS
Members of the Planning Committee are asked to note that the following application(s) have been deferred at previous meetings. Unless specified, these applications are not for determination at the meeting since the reason(s) for their deferral have not yet been resolved.
1. DOV/11/0273 Retrospective application for the erection of a barn for the storage of hay/straw and stabling of two horses and the use of the land for the keeping of two horses. Land at Bay View Road, Kingsdown (Item 16 21 February 2013).
Reported elsewhere on the agenda.
Background Papers :
Unless otherwise stated, the appropriate application file, the reference of which is stated.
MIKE EBBS Head of Regeneration and Development
The Officer to whom reference should be made concerning inspection of the background papers is Abi Robinson, Planning Technician, Planning Section, Council Offices, White Cliffs Business Park, Dover (Tel: 01304 872471).
6 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).
7 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
8 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
9 PUBLIC SPEAKING AT PLANNING COMMITTEE
1. The scheme for public speaking at Planning Committee only concerns matters relating to individual planning applications contained in the Planning Committee agenda and not to other matters including Tree Preservation Orders or Enforcement matters.
2. Any person wishing to speak at the Planning Committee should submit a written request using a form provided by the Council and indicating whether the speaker is in favour of, or opposed to, the planning application.
3. The period of notice shall be not later than two working days prior to the meeting of the Planning Committee.
4. Speaking opportunities shall be allocated on a first come, first served basis but with the applicant being given first chance of supporting the scheme. Applicants and third parties will be notified of any other requests to speak. The identified speaker may defer to another at the discretion of the Chairman of the Committee.
5. One person shall 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 and each person to speak once only when the application is first considered, even if an application is considered on more than one occasion. This does not affect a person’s right to speak at a site visit if the Committee decides one should be held.
6. The procedure to be followed when members of the public address the Committee shall be as follows:
(a) Chairman introduces item.
(b) Planning Officer updates as appropriate.
(c) Chairman invites members 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.
7. In addition to the arrangements outlined in 5 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 written notice of not less than two working days and of 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 allowed from the identified speaker, 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.
8. Agenda items will be taken in the order listed.
9. The Chairman may, in exceptional circumstances, alter or amend this procedure as deemed necessary.
10 Agenda Item No 6
(a) DOV/13/0120 – Variation of Conditions 1, 3, 5, 15, 16, 22, 24, 32, 34, 38, 45, 51, 52, 56, 68, 76 and 77 of Planning Permission DOV/07/01081 (Section 73 Application) and Modification to Legal Agreements for:
A (Full application for Residential Development for 191 dwellings of which 20% will be affordable; all associated works and infrastructure, together with new shops and apartments; alterations to existing shops and apartments; landscaping to existing streets and public open spaces including Market Square; the formation of new public open spaces; upgrade of sports pitch and provision of changing facilities at Ratling Road; formation of squares and a strategic play area; traffic management schemes and new parking areas; other landscaping works; temporary works and access; construction compounds and off- site highway works: and
B (Outline application for a residential development of up to 1210 dwellings; associated infrastructure and works, including new and enhanced sports and leisure grounds and facilities; new shops and apartments with alterations to existing shops and apartments; temporary construction access and compound areas; an area of live/work units; new and altered roads; parking facilities and traffic management within and nearby to Aylesham Village.
Location: Aylesham Village Expansion Aylesham, Canterbury
Reason for the report
In view of the importance of the development to the District b) Summary of Recommendation
Grant planning permission. c) Planning Policy and Guidance
National Planning Policy Framework
11 The NPPF was published on 27 March 2012 and replaces all the previous PPGs/PPS’s which formed national planning policies. The NPPF sets out the Government’s planning policies and how these are expected to be applied (para 1). The intention is to make the planning system less complex and more accessible, and to promote sustainable growth.
The NPPF has a presumption in favour of sustainable development, although this means that applications must be determined in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise (para 11.)
“Proposed development that accords with an up-to-date Local Plan should be approved” (para. 12)
Para 17 sets out 12 core planning principles
Section 4 provides details on promoting sustainable transport to enable a real choice for people about how they travel (para. 29). A Transport Statement or Transport Assessment should support developments that generate significant amounts of movement (para. 32). This should take account of whether
“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 transport grounds where the residual cumulative impact of development are severe”
“Where practical, particularly within large-scale developments, key facilities such as primary schools and local shops should be located within walking distance of most properties” (para. 38)
Section 7 sets out requirements for good design
Para 173 of the NPPF discussed viability and deliverability; however, this is in the context of plan-making rather than decision-making.
Paras 203 to 206 set out planning conditions and obligations - essentially saying they should be necessary, directly related, fair and reasonable scale etc).
Development Plan The Regional Spatial Strategy for the South East (the South East Plan) and the Dover District Local Plan (DDLP) were in force at the time of considering the original application. Since that time the Local Plan has been replaced by the Dover District Core Strategy, except in respect of those Local Plan policies that were saved. The Local Plan policies regarding Aylesham were all saved and the Core Strategy recognised that the development would continue to be promoted through those policies together with the Aylesham Masterplan SPG. This remains in force as it was adopted against the saved Local Plan policies.
The Dover District Core Strategy was adopted in February 2010. At the time of consideration of the original application, the draft Core Strategy was a material consideration. Since the previous application was considered the Code Level requirement has increased from Code Level 3 to Code Level 4
12 (from 1 April 2013), as set out in Core Strategy CP5 and this issue is addressed below.
The South East Plan partial revocation came into force on the 25 March 2013. The Order revokes the Regional Strategy for the South East except for policy NRM6 : Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area of the South East Plan. The development plan relevant to this application therefore now consists of the saved Local Plan policies regarding Aylesham and the Core Strategy.
POLICY AY2
An outline proposal for the strategic expansion of Aylesham should cover the whole development area and be accompanied by and based on a master plan. The Council will not permit proposals in the development area until it is confident that the following features of the development will be secured at appropriate stages of development to which they relate:-
i. on and off-site physical infrastructure;
ii. affordable housing;
iii. sports hall, additional primary school provision and health centre; iv. open space;
v. pedestrian and cycle routes and the dedication of public rights of way; vi. the protection of archaeological remains in accordance with policies HE6 and HE7; vii. landscaping, the provision of new native woodland and nature conservation; viii. contributing to environmental works within the existing settlement of Aylesham where directly related to the development; and ix.the appointment of a community development officer for a minimum of three years.
Core Strategy CP5
Sustainable Construction Standards New residential development permitted after the adoption of the Strategy should meet Code for Sustainable Homes level 3 (or any future national equivalent), at least Code level 4 from 1 April 2013
Core Strategy 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. In determining infrastructure requirements applicants and infrastructure providers should first consider if existing infrastructure can be used more efficiently, or whether demand can be reduced through promoting
13 behavioural change, before proposing increased capacity through extending or providing new infrastructure.
Additional policies relevant to this variation of condition application are set out in summary form in Appendix A to form the context for the Committee’s decision d) Relevant Planning History
DOV/07/1081 and DOV/08/1095 Hybrid application in two parts (a) an outline permission for a residential development of up to 1210 dwellings and associated works and (b) full permission for a residential development of up to 191 dwellings of which 20% will be affordable and associated works as set out in the description above – Granted together with a Planning Financial Contributions Agreement and accompanying Section 106 Agreement. e) Consultee and Third Party Responses
Adisham Parish Council – The majority of variations relate to matters dealing with the developments within Aylesham and therefore Adisham Parish Council has no comments to make on these. Refer to concerns stated on several previous occasions relating to increasing commuting traffic to Canterbury via the B2046 and Station Road, Adisham. The notional commitment to village traffic management schemes seems to provide mainly within the expanded Aylesham and attempts to alleviate the effects on neighbouring settlements appear to have been pushed out of sight.
The second concern is the effect on the skyline view from Adisham Village and the importance of confining development within the ancient hedgeline which would be reinforced. However, it is now proposed this work be carried out in stages and it could take many years to see the benefits. The cost is a minor consideration and this work should not be phased.
Affinity Water – Requests and informative requiring the development to agree all necessary works and charges associated with the provision of a potable water supply.
Aylesham Parish Council : - Concern over cost savings of the £7 million infrastructure – 1. (a) it is wrong to have Phase A enlarged to about 700 houses with most Section 106 contributions not being made until it is complete some should be paid earlier. (b) The savings on materials and labour do not sound realistic. (c) Putting off most landscape and other improvements including some to Market Square until first phase complete is unacceptable.
2. Section 106 should perhaps contain provision to help PC buy the youth club building when the lease runs out with KCC as leisure
14 centre cannot accommodate youth work.. Welcomes proposals to bring allotments forward.
3. Detailed comments about plans to put yellow lines in front of the Co- op on Market Square and remove the steps from the door to the road to the Co-op door – please leave it as it is but add a small traffic calming island in front of the steps to stop people parking.
4. Concern there has been no public consultation, formal meeting or an exhibition.
Building Control : Need to ensure design conforms to the guidance in approved document M.
Denton Parish Council : Reiterates previous comments about issues relating to the increased traffic and safety issues in the area e.g. congestion at the Barham flyover junction and increased traffic on the B2046 to Wingham. There will be an increased traffic flow on the A260 through Denton.
DDC Principal Ecologist: The original Environmental Statement was issued in 2007 and its age left open the question of whether there was any material change in environmental conditions since then. An Addendum to the ES was submitted in February 2013 which interrogated the original ES and concluded that there have been no material changes and that the original ES remains sound. I have reviewed this and agree with the findings of the Addendum. No further ES iterations are necessary.
The purpose of the northern hedgerow and the grassland buffer is multifunctional, providing landscape screening, wildlife habitat, recreation space and a mitigation reception site for translocated common reptiles from the development. It is considered essential that it comes forward at the outset, in order to a) provide a functioning receptor site and b) allow sufficient time for the establishment landscape screening function of new planting in the hedgerow.
DDC Strategic Housing Manager : discussed the changes with Southern some months ago and following their discussions with Wards they seem happy with what’s proposed. Mix of affordable unit types is acceptable. The grant funding for these units is from the HCA’s 2011-15 programme and they will be expecting homes to be built by April 2015.
Environment Agency : No comment.
Environmental Health Officer : No significant impact.
Highways Agency : (a) An initial holding objection requiring more evidence that raising the threshold in condition 14 from 25 to 50 dwellings would not adversely affect A2 slip roads. (b) Objection lifted in view of withdrawal of the request to vary condition 14 with the agreement that the developer will stay with the consented 25 number homes.
KCC Archaeology : No comment – notes two conditions (31 and 92) need to be retained.
15 KCC Development Contribution : Service providers have accepted the revised proposal subject to the introduction of wording to give greater flexibility to the use of payments for the purpose of mitigating the impact of the development. Consideration to be given to a mechanism to enable infrastructure delivery to return to the original triggers when economic viability improves.
KCC Highways and Transportation : More time initially requested, object to proposed wording of conditions 24, 32, 45 and 52 plus detailed comments on the Phase IA plans. Following meeting and discussions with developers, issues have been resolved and the objection is withdrawn. Detailed layout issues to be addressed at details submission stage.
Kent Wildlife Trust : No objection to the proposed changes however a little concerned that some of the natural habitat creating enhancement is to be delayed until latter phases of the development with increased pressure on existing natural habitats for recreation.
Public Rights of Way Officer : - Still no reference to footpath EE461 (Phase 1A). Please make applicant aware.
Southern Water : - No objections.
Sport England : - No further comment. Understand Sport and Welfare Club payments to be delayed and comments that any changes to the triggers would need to be clearly justified
Stagecoach : - Comments awaited following information supplied after meeting with developers and will be reported to your meeting..
Unknown Parish : - No objections but concern over traffic congestion if infrastructure does not keep pace with development. Note at the time of writing and despite viewing PC minutes for all consulted but who had not responded, it had not been possible to identify this Parish Council, a reply to their email having bounced back
Wingham Parish Council : - Dismayed over new proposals and none of the previous concerns have been addressed. B2406 North of the development has not been subject to new study and matters are as they were in 2008 when there was no study. Insufficient attention given to flows to North and pressure that bears on the junction of B2046 and A257 within Wingham Village. Disagree with traffic assignments in model. Note planned increase in bus services and wonders whether any buses would come through Wingham. Why is their community being ignored despite previous clear complaints? Object in strongest possible terms.
16 Public representations : Detailed comments have been received from one person arising from attendance at the exhibition in the village on 7 May. Notes no choice but to accept the planning proposal as it is too far down the line but critical of a lack of answers to questions at the exhibition e.g. around types and method of allocation of affordable housing units. States concern over the capacity of the B2046 with great difficulty in improving its junction at Wingham due to proximity of listed buildings nor can Adisham cope with increased traffic. Also states a need to improve the B2046/A260/A2 n junction arrangements. The developer has since been in correspondence with this person.
The above issues will be addressed within the analysis at appropriate points below. All representations will be available for inspection prior to your meeting.
f) 1. The Site and the Proposal
1.1 The Committee will be familiar with the site for which permission was granted under the reference DOV7/1081 as amended by DOV/08/1095. A copy of the comprehensive Committee report has been placed in the Members’ Room for ease of reference. The principle of the development was established through a considerable process involving Enquiry by Design and the issue of Supplementary Planning Guidance and confirmed subsequently in that planning permission. This was an extremely full planning application with a great deal of documentation which was recorded in Condition (1) of that permission
1.2 This application seeks to respond to changed circumstances which have resulted in a variation of the development agreement between the Council and the Developer in January 2012. It is an application under Section 73 of the Planning Act 1990 to vary a number of the relevant conditions, to substitute the revised Masterplan phasing programme and documents and plans listed and revised documents and to vary/modify triggers in the Planning Financial Contributions Agreement (PFCA)/S106.
1.3 The Committee will realise that this application does not necessitate reconsideration of the principle of the development. The issues before the Committee relate to whether it is content to grant planning permission to the planning application with those conditions varied and having reviewed the necessity and appropriateness of all others. If it should not be so, then the alternative would be to refuse the application on the basis that planning permission can only be granted under the terms already issued. It is important to understand that if permission is granted, there will in effect be two extant permissions – the original and the new “modified” permission, both of which are capable of implementation. In making your decision, Committee will need to focus attention on national and development plan policies and other material considerations which may have changed significantly since the original grant of permission.
1.4 The application is accompanied by a Planning Statement which includes a revised Transport Technical Note and an Environmental Statement Addendum. It also includes a revised schedule of the timing of payments to be set out in a Planning Financial Contributions Agreement and
17 subsequently the Section 106 Agreement which will come into play as interests in the land are transferred from the Council to the Developer. The Committee will note the list of conditions which it is proposed to vary and these are set out in full in Appendix B. To assist Committee, they will be grouped below in summary form and addressed in turn including the comments of third parties where appropriate. The Committee may find it helpful to know that none of the sums of money in the schedule of payments to be made has been reduced but there are some proposed variations in the identified triggers, generally extending the period. Information has been extracted into Appendices C and D to assist Committee.
1.5 The main proposed changes relating to phasing are as follows:
• A larger Phase I of approximately 18.6 hectares and consequential changes to other phases. Phase 1A remains as 191 units with detailed permission but Phase 1B is extended from 192- 446 units to 192- 770 units as part of the outline permission. • Public realm works beside Boulevard Courrieres are deferred to Phase 2 but the link to the west stays in Phase I and is shown on the Masterplan. • North boundary landscape works remain mostly in Phase I but where they adjoin later phases the work would take place during that phase. The works are otherwise unaltered. • Allotments now brought forward from Phase 2 into Phase 1B. • Removal of some off site junctions no longer justified owing to the cancellation of the redevelopment of Snowdown • Changes to affordable housing layout types in Phase 1A – o Increase the number of affordable homes by 15 bringing a proportion to 27% a total of 53 units with a corresponding reduction in Phase 1B – all affordable homes in Phase 1A will be for affordable rent. o House types to the north of the school square area will be substituted to reflect this change. o Affordable housing delivery after Phase 1A to be additionally subject to NPPF Policy. • The Schedule of Infrastructure Costs (SIC) requires adjustment and these will be summarised below and considered at the appropriate point.
1.6 The table below has been extracted from the Planning Statement and sets out the five categories of change
Condition No. Content Proposed Change/Reason
Changes to the phasing plans, schedules and documents
1 (Details Approved) To ensure newly dated documents are approved.
18 3 (Details Approved) No change to wording of condition, but formal substitution of amended documents, e.g. Masterplan, Phasing Programme, Accommodation Schedule, Design and Access Statement and the affordable layout/house types in Phase. 1A. All shown in the revision of Document ‘A0-Application Contents’.
Conditions that cross-refer to the approved Phasing Programme etc. do not then require any variation. Changes to remove junction improvements no longer required due to cancellation of Snowdown project 76 (Village Traffic Consequential change - amend to ensure the Management Scheme) larger phase 1 now proposed does not delay the operation of this condition. Insert ‘commencing after completion of the 447th unit (i.e. for phases 2,….’ etc. 77 (Junction Improvements) Amend the list of junctions to delete all but the landscape elements of 8 and 9, and to delete junction 11, thus leaving full junctions 3, 10 and 17 and the landscape elements of 8 and 9. Changes related to the A2 junction works
14 (Highway Matters – Amend to have an occupation trigger date later A2/A260 Junction than unit No 25 (unit No. 50 is proposed) and a Improvements) revised drawing number (reflecting an agreed change to A2/A260 junction specification). Add junction 19 to list, which appears to be an omission.
16 (Junction Improvements) Amend list of junctions to delete 7 and 15, leaving junctions 5 and 12 only. Affordable housing 68 (Affordable Housing) The outline element phases to reflect NPPF by adding “… and be subject to the provisions of the NPPF.” Marketplace North Shops and Affordable Units – change to allow an early start. Remove the need for it to await the prior approval of unrelated pre-commencement details. 5 (Public Realm Management Alter to read “No development shall take place, and Maintenance) except for the Marketplace North Shops and Affordable Units , the Ratling Road and Aylesham …” (changes in italics) 15 (Travel Plan) Amend as 5 above 16 (Junction Improvements) Amend as 5 above 22 (Access Road) Amend to read “Details of surface finish materials, highways furniture and features for each sub-phase shall be submitted to… …Development of that sub-phase shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans and details” 24 (Vehicle Sight Lines) Amend as 22 (final drafting to be agreed) 32, 34, 38 (Landscaping, Open Space, Amend as 5 above. Condition 32 to be further Play Space and Sports) amended to delete references to junctions 7 and 15 (see highway conditions above) and in 11 th bullet, prefix with ‘ phased proposed planting to the northern boundary hedgerow, buffer strip…’ 45 (Watercourse and Drainage) Amend as 5 above 51, 52 (Site Waste) Amend as 22 (final drafting to be agreed)
19 56 Noise Amend as 5 above
NB As shown the application originally sought to vary condition 14 but that has now been dropped
Planning Financial Contribution Agreement and Section 106 Agreement
1.7 This information is set out in the schedule of current and proposed contributions as indicated and the sums remain unaltered, it is the timing which is proposed to be varied. In consequence, if the Committee agrees these changes there will need to be changes to the Planning Financial Contributions Agreement and Section 106 to ensure consistency.
2. Main Issues
2.1 The decision before the Committee is whether it can safely grant permission to these variations without affecting the integrity of the permission sought to be varied. The nature of the decision has been explained above. When the original report was before Committee, it contained very extensive analysis of many policy issues and material considerations. These have been reviewed as required to establish whether there has been significant change since the original grant of permission which requires detailed consideration and might lead to a different conclusion.
2.2 In the current proposals, many changes have been prompted by changes in circumstance rather than in policy. It has been identified that it is not necessary to revisit many issues such as masterplan design principles, density and house types, detailed aspects of landscape and open space, or public realm maintenance. Taking all issues into account, it has been concluded that those which do need to be considered here, relate to aspects of affordable housing, biodiversity and ecology, viability, sustainable construction, sports provision, employment, off site highway provision and phasing. Consideration of these matters is incorporated into the assessment in section 3.
2.3 Consideration must therefore need to take account of the impacts arising from the variations in light of the following issues
• Changes in policy since making the original decision where relevant • Any changes in potential environmental impacts • Changes in economic circumstances and consequent impacts on viability • The detailed impacts of the proposed changes in relation to phasing, triggers etc • Consequent changes to the detailed proposals for Phase 1A • The need to review the attached planning conditions for appropriateness
20 • Any issues arising from consultees and third parties
3. Assessment
Policy background
3.1 As section c) above indicates, there has been change in planning legislation and in the policy framework since the original resolution to grant planning permission, not the least of these being the effective revocation of the South East Plan as it relates to this District. The NPPF is in place and actively encourages LPAs to promote sustainable development. The Core Strategy is adopted and recognises the Aylesham proposals set out in the saved Local Plan policies and elaborated in the Aylesham Masterplan SPG. Core Strategy Policy CP6 requiring a reliable mechanism to deliver infrastructure is particularly relevant. In general, the policy presumptions regarding the principle of development and the form it should take are as strong as at the time of the original decision.
Biodiversity and Ecology
3.2 The application was accompanied by an Addendum to the Environmental Statement. As noted above, examination shows that its conclusions remain sound and raise no direct concerns. However as identified, biodiversity and ecology need to be revisited. Under the precautionary principle approach of the Habitat Regulations the developer will now need to contribute to offset any in-combination recreational impacts on the Thanet Coast SAC/Ramsar site. Recognised impacts on European sites have been identified as being recreational pressure and air pollution. A Dover-wide potential recreational impact on the Thanet Coast and Sandwich Bay SPA and Ramsar site has been identified through combined housing growth. A mitigation strategy has been drawn up whereby residential development over 15 dwellings should contribute a financial payment (secured through a S.106) to the Thanet Coast and Sandwich Bay SPA Mitigation Strategy, to offset any potential in-combination recreational impacts on the SPA and Ramsar site interest. Sums range from £16.53 for a 1 bed dwelling uo to £49.59 for a 3 Bed dwelling. A similar approach on this development should enable in- combination impacts on the Thanet Coast SPA and Ramsar site to be screened out. The developer has accepted the need to meet this requirement and the PCFA and S106 will need amending accordingly.
Viability Issues
3.3 As indicated earlier the application has been prompted by the need to obtain consistency between the planning permission and the variations now agreed to the Development Agreement forced by changing economic circumstances and the need to progress.
3.4 The viability situation has been reassessed and the analysis has concluded “For the Initial Phase of 770 new homes the residential development value is broadly able to cover the proposed new S106
21 payments and phasing arrangements. There is a minor deficit, but this is not considered significant in the context of the overall costs and land values. The proposed new S106 payments and strategic infrastructure costs exceed the land value for Phases 2 to 5, however a relatively modest increase in sales values would enable this deficit to be funded. However, the assessment of construction costs has been based on achieving Code for Sustainable Homes (CSH) Level 3. In order to achieve CSH Level 4 additional costs would be incurred which would not be fundable whilst maintaining the current proposed level of S106 contributions and strategic infrastructure costs. Our assessment is that there is no financial headroom to bring forward the proposed landscaping works along the northern boundary from Phase 3 when they are currently programmed to take place, without deferring or omitting other works to compensate. This however is a matter to be agreed between the applicant and the planning authority. Overall, we conclude that the proposed changes to the S106 payments and the phasing arrangements are justified from a financial viability perspective. It is reasonable to assume that if additional costs were imposed on the development then the developer would not proceed if their margins were eroded or the landowner would decide not to proceed until such time as the market recovered to a level where residual land values would cover additional costs”
3.5 This supports the conclusions on which the Deed of Variation was agreed. Committee will be aware of the abandonment of the Snowdown Colliery redevelopment scheme and the need to ensure that this project remains deliverable. The financial climate has not improved since the granting of the original permission and the viability position leaves very little headroom but is workable if the proposed variations are put in place. Accordingly, the case for amending the conditions on viability grounds is accepted and will both allow development to proceed and take advantage of funding currently available from the Homes and Communities Agency (HCA) contributing towards the affordable housing.
Employment issues
3.6 The original report noted prospective employment provision at the former Snowdown Colliery site with a back up allocation of employment land in the identified Development Area. It is now clear that development will not proceed to Snowdown Colliery to the extent that the site is not identified in the Council’s Land Allocations Local Plan currently under preparation. Whilst this is a material change in policy circumstances, it is not considered to be of such weight to be significant in the determination of this application. Committee will be aware of the development which has taken place at Miner’s Way.
Sustainable Construction
3.7 As set out in section c), since the previous application was considered the CSH Level requirement has increased from Code Level 3 to Code Level 4 (from 1 April 2013), as set out in Core Strategy CP5. As indicated above in para 3.4, all viability work has proceeded on the basis of Code Level 3 costs, including the recent review. Should the policy led move to Code Level 4 be required, it is clear that the
22 development is most unlikely to proceed and indeed, such a requirement cannot easily be met in this part of Kent at present. Nor it is realistic to incur extra cost by making alternative provision as set out in policy CP5. Moreover, to insist would mean that the opportunity to take advantage of the HCA funding towards the affordable homes would be lost. Under such circumstances, it is recommended that setting aside this policy requirement would be fully justified.
Detailed Proposed Changes
3.8 The Planning Statement submitted with the application contains a summary of the impacts of the proposed changes including any environmental implications and for ease of reference that format is followed in this report with officer comments added underneath in italics.
Proposed Phasing Plan Changes
3.9 Larger Phase 1B
The Planning Statement notes that the terms of the development agreement require the District Council to release sufficient land to a value which will fund the relevant infrastructure. Accordingly as land values have fallen, so the need to release a larger area has arisen. Phase 1B is shown on the Masterplan to be amended to provide 770 dwellings as opposed to 446 within the planning permission. The site area increases in consequence. Where the planning permission trigger previously referred to commencement of Phase 2, it is now considered preferable to use a dwelling number rather than reference to phasing. The commencement accordingly will be later at 771.
District Council comment: - This is an important material consideration arising from the change in economic circumstances under which this development is being progressed. The Council has already accepted the revised viability conclusions in settling the variation to the Development Agreement on 18 January 2012 and the viability work has been revisited since that Council decision to confirm the conclusions hold good. Accepting this change would permit development to proceed and also take account of available finance from the HCA for affordable housing. In terms of Core Strategy Policy CP6 which requires a reliable mechanism for such provision, the combination of planning conditions and the revisions to the PFCA/Section 106 will provide that surety. This change is considered acceptable.
3.10 Proposed North Boundary Work
The Masterplan shows the timing of the northern boundary hedgerow reinforcement “in adjacent phase” rather than all in advance as part of the Phase 1A full permission. This means that of the length of approximately 1485 metres, 55% will occur before unit 770, a small part will be in Phase 2 and a further 32% in Phase 3 with the remainder in Phase 5. The works are essentially the same but will take place over a longer time. This has no direct environmental implications as identified in the ES. The applicants indicate that this is
23 compliant with Core Strategy Policy CP6 and points out that saved policy AY7 of the Local Plan refers to the reinforcement of the hedgeline and the need to agree a landscape phasing programme with the Council – this was reiterated in the SPG.
District Council Comment : - The proposals lead to the same overall effect but over a longer period of time with the reinforcement occurring as development proceeds rather than all of it at the start. The Committee will have noted the comments of Adisham Parish Council about the impact upon the long distance views from their village and the need for this reinforcement to take place sooner rather than later. The Council’s Principal Ecologist has also stressed the benefits and desirability of carrying out all of the reinforcement as per the current permission. Committee will have seen the conclusions of the viability review set out in para 3.4 that this will impact adversely on viability. The sum involved is commercially confidential but is well into six figures – not a minor consideration as Adisham Parish Council suggests. This matter is being investigated and an update report will be made to your meeting.
3.11 Proposals for Boulevard Courrieres
Under the proposed changes the road link element to Cooting Road remains in place but the public realm works beside Boulevard Courrieres defer to Phase 2 instead of in Phase 1A as approved. The applicants consider no environmental impacts arise from this and the delay to these public realm works is offset by early delivery of the nearby Market Place North shops improvement and affordable units. Core Strategy Policy CP6 is again considered to be satisfied.
District Council Comment: - The public realm works are important. They are part of the wider vision for Aylesham and will ultimately enhance the grand avenue which is a key part of the original structural concept for Aylesham. It is disappointing that they will be deferred for some time (although their provision is not in doubt) and the comments of Aylesham Parish Council will be noted. However, as the applicants point out, the centre of Aylesham will receive a substantial boost by the early delivery of the shops’ improvements and affordable housing. Such a development will have a much more direct and beneficial impact on the vitality of the area introducing life and activity. It is considered this satisfactorily mitigates any concerns over delay of the public realm works along Boulevard Courrieres. The retention of the link to Cooting Road is welcomed.
3.12 Proposals regarding Allotments
The Planning Statement notes the allotment provision needs to be brought into Phase 1B as it was in Phase 2 but Phase 2 is now proposed to start at the 771th dwelling. There are no adverse environmental impacts. The intention behind this proposal is to make provision available by the completion of Phase 1B which involves a small delay but it will be brought forward at the earliest opportunity. Again CP6 can be satisfied by the proposed arrangements.
24 District Council Comment: - This is considered to be an acceptable proposal as it seeks to make provision as soon as practicably possible given the changed circumstances and is supported by Aylesham Parish Council.
3.13 Proposals regarding Market Place North, Shops and Affordable Housing
The Market Place North, Shops and Affordable Units and car parking works should start earlier so environmental improvements and new affordable homes may arrive sooner than previously approved. This affects the wording of 12 conditions which no longer have to be discharged in totality before this work can take place. All of those matters are not necessary in order to make a start and the variation should not therefore cause a problem. No adverse environmental impacts were identified and the Planning Statement points out that these proposals are part dependent on an HCA grant which could be under jeopardy if progress is not rapid – delivery is required before March 2015. Such delivery would be in line with a number of policies in the Core Strategy, particularly CP6 and the NPPF.
District Council Comment : - Since the original application, the District Council has further developed its policies regarding the provision of Affordable Housing. However, the provisions for Aylesham were treated originally as a special case and that has not changed. Bringing forward more affordable housing into Phase1A is a material change which increases provision in the early years but over the life of the development, the total stays the same. There are no objections to this revised timing and the beneficial effects of the proposals have already been noted above under the section relating to the Boulevard Courrieres and provide acceptable mitigation for the delaying of the public realm works. The Committee will have noted detailed comments by the Parish Council relating to the form which works should take adjacent to the existing shops in Market Place . Such detailed issues have been discussed with Highways colleagues and can be addressed when the detailed plans required by condition are submitted.
3.14 Proposed Triggers for Section 106 Financial Contributions to KCC
The Planning Statement notes that all of the KCC proposed Section 106 agreement payments will be delivered but there are changes to timing connected to the rephasing plan. This raises no environmental impact considerations and the proposals are necessary to deliver the overall scheme. Policy CP6 as a reliable mechanism remains in place.
District Council Comment : - These are material changes of some significance which require specific attention. The financial contributions relate to education, leisure needs, skate park, skate park funding, library contribution, health centre contributions, independent living contributions. For ease of reference this information has been extracted into Appendix C for Members’ consideration. Committee will note that the County Council is now content with the changes subject to a recommendation that the wording of the relevant legal
25 agreements be varied to allow more flexibility in the application of the funding for the benefit of the village (a form of wording is suggested). This is both helpful and sensible given that funding from other sources may arise during the period involved and enable the developer contribution resource to be deployed for the further benefit of the village without the need to vary the legal agreement. KCC also suggested that consideration should be given to a mechanism to enable infrastructure delivery to return to the original triggers when economic viability improves. The Deed of Variation does include provisions relating to changes in viability as the scheme proceeds.
3.15 Proposed Triggers for Section 106 Financial Contributions to Dover District Council
Relevant matters relate to Community Development Officer funding, leisure needs and contributions to sustainable transport. The proposal is to bring forward the Community Development Officer funding from all being paid by the approved completion of the 900th unit to before the completion of the 770th unit. The leisure needs contribution is to be deferred by approximately 297 units ie. from 474 to units 771 but the appraisal notes this is offset by the fact that since planning permission was granted the first phase of the enhanced Sports and Welfare Ground has been developed. The contribution itself is £720k towards the second phase improvement representing 40% of the cost with the balance to come from other sources. The contribution to sustainable transport concerns bus subsidy over five years and travel planning. There will be no change in the contribution with the intention to provide one monthly season ticket for new residents using existing service capacity. Then from the 300 th unit the next step would be to start financial contributions towards the cast of running more frequent bus services. New additional services will start with the next contribution. The overall providing of funding of more buses is in effect 108 units later than in terms of the permission. No environmental impacts have been identified. The CDO funding raises no policy concerns.
District Council Comment : - These are important variations and the information is set out in Appendix D so that the Committee can see how the timings are varied. The bringing forward of the CDO funding is welcomed as a beneficial change. Timing of sports provision was identified as a significant factor for consideration although the policy background has not changed significantly. On examination, the change in the timing of the leisure needs contribution is considered acceptable. In part this is justified (as the applicant notes) by the works which have already been taken place through local initiative to improve the facilities at the Sports and Welfare Ground. Discussions have been held with the relevant community leader in Aylesham who indicates that the proposed delay is unlikely to cause problems in terms of the leisure development programme given that other funding would also need to be won. The importance of securing the developer funding in a flexible way was stressed and this echoes the KCC wishes reported above. The developer is understood to be very comfortable with such an approach and the Committee is advised that this information allays any concerns arising from the reference to the delay as raised by Sport England. Sport England also commented
26 that delays would need to be clearly justified. The need to maintain viability has been set out above. Given this and the local view, the Committee can be content to accept the variation. Finally the policy emphasis on sustainable transport as part of sustainable development has been reinforced by the NPPF. Following detailed analysis, the proposed contributions to sustainable transport are considered to be broadly acceptable. Whilst the contribution of sustainable transport is deferred, it is designed to maintain a five year continuous bus service subsidy once started. In the interim period when a relatively low number of dwellings is in place customers will be encouraged through travel plan methods and detailed discussions have taken place to ensure the provided bus passes are flexible and serve householders well. Stagecoach is believed to find this approach acceptable but confirmation was still awaited at the time of going to print. An update will be given to your meeting.
3.16 Proposed reduced list of off-site junction improvements, transport technical note
As part of the preparation of these proposals the Traffic Technical Note identified that improvements which were previously necessary to facilitate the development of the Snowdon Colliery site are no longer required as the site has been removed from the Land Allocations Local Plan. In addition there has been a fall of traffic volumes of some 3.7% since 2008 on the B2046. This has prompted a list of changes which can be summarised as follows:
To be undertaken as previously proposed
• Junction 3 B2406 railway bridge • Junction 5, Dorman Avenue North/B2046 • Junction 10, Cooting Road/Spinney Lane • Junction 12, Spinney/B2046 • Junction 17,Woolage Village/B2046 • Junction 20, upgrade to A2 slip road. • Junction 21 A260/A2 Overbridge • Village traffic management
Amended Junctions
• Junction 8 Aylesham Road/ Spinney Lane: previously proposed to enforce the HGV route to Snowdown. Not related to capacity or safety issues and therefore not needed but the landscaping elements will be retained. • Junction 9, Spinney Lane Traffic Management: proposed traffic calming and increased screening from HGV route on Spinney Lane. Safety and capacity not an issue but landscaping will be retained.
Removed
• Junction 7, Cooting Road /B2046: previously required as Cooting Road was becoming the main HGV route to Snowdown, now not needed.
27 • Junction 11, traffic management on Aylesham Road: footway widening and traffic calming between Aylesham Village and Snowdown, again not now needed following removal of the Snowdown project. • Junction 15, Woolage Road/B2046: this had provided for a non HGV route to Snowdown/develppment site, now no longer needed as sufficient capacity exists and there are no safety issues.
The background to these changes has been explained and it will be noted that landscape improvements have been retained. No environmental impacts have been identified and the changes are considered to be compliant with policy CP6.
District Council Comment : - These proposed variations are also material to the Committee’s deliberations. It will be noted that many of the junctions will be improved as previously with two amended and three being removed altogether for the reasons set out which are acceptable. As identified above some conditions are proposed to be varied as a result of changed circumstances and this is the case here. It is not proposed to vary the village traffic management measures which will still come into effect after the completion of the 447 th unit. Committee will have seen that in particular Adisham, Denton and Wingham Parish Councils raise concerns relating to congestion and capacity on the network. The Committee will also note that the Highways Agency does not now wish to offer objection following the reversion to the provision of the necessary works after the 25 th unit and not the 50 th unit as this application had initially sought. In consequence and as explained earlier, it is no longer sought to vary condition 14. Despite the stated local concerns, it is considered that issues relating to the A2 and A260 have thus been addressed satisfactorily . With regard to the issue of the B2046, no variation is proposed from the current permitted measures as the revised wording simply relates implementation of village traffic management measures to a dwelling number, rather than the commencement of a particular Phase. This ensures that the issue of traffic impacts is addressed within the original timescale. However, indications from detailed work are that the traffic on the network has decreased by 3.7% since the original traffic modelling work was carried out. In addition, impacts are likely to be further mitigated by a drop in projected traffic levels as a result of the cessation of the Snowdown Colliery development project. The situation is thus now be seen as more favourable in terms of potential impacts on the area in general. Committee is advised that these issues have been discussed in depth with the KCC H and T officer who did not wish to raise objections to the proposed arrangements, as carried forward from the existing permission. Wingham PC has sought, through a recent meeting with Officers, to clarify the methodology for identifying traffic impacts on Wingham and the evidence used to set the trigger point for further traffic studies. KCC H and T have been asked to provide this information and if replies are not to hand by the time of the report going to print, a verbal update will be provided. The existing planning condition places a clear obligation on the developer to undertake traffic studies at dwelling no 447 and to provide and carry out an implementation plan to ensure impacts are mitigated. Nevertheless, as local concerns remain and
28 are important, discussions continue with the developers. It is anticipated that an update will be given to your meeting.
3.17 The following paragraphs do not set out developer submissions followed by District Council comment but revert directly to analysis by your officers to assist Committee.
Considerations arising from the changes to the detailed application for Phase 1A
3.18 Committee will have noted the proposal to bring forward the affordable housing units into Phase 1A whilst the overall number of dwellings remains at 191. Funding has been attracted from the HCA towards this and early delivery is essential. Both the RSL and the Council’s Strategic Housing Manager are content with these changes. In addition to the matters discussed at paragraph 3.9, Committee should be aware that the provision of 15 additional affordable housing units has required revisions to house types and the detailed layout. In particular, 3 locations are affected • Plots 130-134 currently affordable homes are to be replaced by a terrace of 4 private units. • A perimeter block has been reconfigured so it now contains 12 affordable homes – 7 x 3 bed terraced and 4 x 2 bed terraced properties and 1 x 2 bed flat over garages along with 3 private homes and • Plots 42-49 are now reallocated from private to affordable - 1 pair of semidetached 2 bed houses and 6 x 2 bed apartments - with one garage block replaced by open surface parking
The consequent changes to the overall layout are quite minor and the affordable units remain “pepper-potted” being in 6 locations within the overall layout. The proposals are considered to be acceptable, not least because they will facilitate provision of some affordable units earlier than previously.
Review of Conditions
3.19 Under the terms of the application, a number of conditions are proposed to be varied as set out the Table at paragraph 1.6. The implications of those changes and the reasons behind them have been discussed in the report and analysis has concluded that they can be recommended as acceptable. It will be necessary to look at detailed wording in some cases to ensure clarity and this work is ongoing. In addition, under S.73, it is necessary for the conditions on the current permission - there are 127 in all - to be reviewed to see if they remain appropriate. This has been carried out. The conditions have not been discharged and consequently can be carried forward onto the new permission with only possible minor technical drafting changes/additions to ensure consistency etc.
Issues arising from consultations and third parties
29 3.20 Committee will have noted the extensive summary of views set out in section e). Most of the issues raised have been addressed during the analysis in this report but some require further or specific attention. Aylesham Parish Council’s comments are plainly and understandably concerned to achieve the best outcome for their existing and new expanded community. Such an advocacy role is important but the District Council and Committee are faced with the need to balance the desirable with the achievable. Difficult decisions need to be made in light of available resources and the Committee will have noted the care which has been taken to understand viability and strike a balance to enable the development to progress. In consequence some S106 contributions have been delayed and thus work rescheduled although in some cases eg Library provision and Community Development Officer funding, payments have been advanced. It is not realistic to now seek provision to assist in buying the youth club building through this development. The Parish Council would need to seek alternative routes in which the District Council may be able to help through its community development work. The report explains how the detailed design issues near the Coop will be addressed and the Developers held an Exhibition in the village on 7 May to advise, inform and let people know how to comment. The public representation mentions questions around the affordable housing and how it will be allocated. The variations in the accommodations types have been described in this report and allocation will be through the RSL working with the District Council. Any other issues arising or updates will be reported to Committee as appropriate
Conclusions and Recommendation
3.21 In broad terms the principle of the development is not in doubt and the policy framework support remains strongly in favour. As identified, the planning proposals for Aylesham are largely the same save for a reduced list of off site junction improvements which are no longer needed and a substitution of house types to provide 15 extra affordable units within Phase 1A. The Table from the Planning Statement at paragraph 1.6 is very helpful in setting out the categories of change sought through the proposed variations to planning conditions. Viability has been reviewed and in order for the project to proceed, some variations are proposed which affect the phasing and consequently the timing of infrastructure delivery. The funding amounts remain the same but some timings have gone backwards in the order of delivery to match up with the agreed variation to the Development Agreement. Committee will also have noted that the viability situation does not permit the upgrading of dwellings to Sustainable Code for Homes Level 4 as anticipated by policy CP5 and officers recommend that requirement will need to be set aside in this instance.
3.22 The proposals have knock on effects on various planning conditions of which the majority relate to the Market Place North shops and affordable housing. Revised wording is needed to permit an early start. Others involve the substitution of planning and appraising documents or relate to the affordable housing and the NPPF.
3.23 Committee will have noted that KCC and DDC are both happy that the levels of financial contribution have not changed and are prepared to
30 accept the revised timings in order to bring forward the commencement of the development. These have been prompted by viability issues but the key point is that the main infrastructure providers are satisfied that provision can be made as needed. There are pressing reasons to proceed and realise HCA grant funding.
3.24 Sport England‘s concern that the appropriate mechanisms are in place to ensure timely delivery will be noted. As discussed the arrangements now proposed are acceptable in light of provision at the Sports Welfare Ground and because of the need to access other funding streams in line with local intentions.
3.25 There are clearly local concerns about traffic generation but neither the Highways Agency nor KCC Highways and Transportation wish permission to be withheld bearing in mind the existing permission and intervening changes which will reduce pressure on the network. The relevant measures for village traffic management are not proposed to be changed but reiterated so the developer must discharge the planning condition to address local concerns. However, Committee will have noted work in hand about Wingham’s issues in particular and an update will be given.
3.26 Committee will note that the developer has accepted the need to contribute to the Thanet Coast mitigation strategy, which will require amendments to the PFCA/S106, and the recommendation seeks authority to do that. At the time of writing the issue of the Northern hedgerow is still under discussion and a report will be made to your meeting.
3.27 As required, officers have reviewed the appropriateness of both the conditions as proposed to be varied and those remaining on the original permission. All are satisfactory although the recommendation seeks scope to allow for any detailed technical drafting which may become necessary.
3.28 The above and all other material planning considerations have been taken into account but do not outweigh the conclusion that planning permission can be recommended as set out below. As indicated earlier, this will in effect be a new and separate permission with many conditions reiterated from DOV/07/01081 but with others varied as requested and requiring consequent detailed technical drafting changes including to the accompanying PFCA with its attendant S106 agreement. To do so will meet the requirements of CP6 and bring certainty. Varying the proposed conditions and granting the permission is key to an early start on site, which will include affordable housing, attracting HCA grant and the recommendation is made accordingly. g) Recommendation
I Subject to the satisfactory resolution of all outstanding matters, GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION,
II Powers be delegated to the Head of Regeneration and Development to settle the detailed wording of conditions, informatives and of the Planning Financial Contributions Agreement and S 106 agreement in
31 accordance with the issues set out in the report and as resolved by Planning Committee
Case Officers
Mike Dawson/Lesley Jarvis
Appendix A Summary of relevant planning policies
Appendix B Extracted conditions which are proposed to be varied
Appendix C Summary sheet showing timings of S106 contributions to KCC as existing and proposed
Appendix D Summary sheet showing timings of S106 contributions to DDC as existing and proposed
32
APPENDIX A
DOV/13/00120
Relevant Development Plan Policies and Guidance
1. Core Strategy adopted February 2010
Aim: To transform Dover into a leading town in the region and regenerate the District so that economically and socially it equals or outperforms the region
Associated objectives include:
(3) To deliver sufficient additional housing to broaden the range and improve the quality and market perception of the District's housing offer and meet the changing needs of the population.
(4) To address more localised needs for employment, housing and community facilities in the rural areas.
(8) Improve ease of travel from and within the District for people and freight and encourage non-car travel.
(9) Maintain and enhance biodiversity, natural environment inheritance, open spaces, outdoor sports and recreational areas to create a coherent network of green infrastructure.
(11) Use natural resources more efficiently, especially for land for house building, water and energy.
(12) Mitigate and adapt to the forecast impacts of climate change in respect of water and bio-diversity.
(13) Ensure that required infrastructure is provided at the right time.
CP1 - Aylesham is identified as a rural service centre and the location and scale of development must comply with the settlement hierarchy.
CP2 − sets out the provision for jobs and homes between 2006 and 2026.
CP3 − sets out land allocations for housing required by CP1, including 7% of the District's housing at Aylesham.
CP4 − guidance regarding appropriate housing mix and density to be determined through the design process.
CP5 − see main report , dwellings built after the adoption of the Strategy should meet the Code for Sustainable Homes level 3, with levels 4 and 5 following from future dates, or must achieve commensurate savings elsewhere in the District.
33 CP6 − see main report , development only permitted if the necessary infrastructure is in place or there is a mechanism to ensure it is there when needed.
CP7 − protects integrity of green infrastructure and where harm arises, development will only be permitted if measures to avoid harm or mitigate its effect are incorporated.
DM1 − development only permitted outside settlement boundaries when justified by other Development Plan policies.
DM2 − protects employment land against other uses unless allocated in a DPD.
DM5 − affordable housing required of 30% on development of 15 or more dwellings and a financial contribution below that subject to viability.
DM11 − developments increasing travel demand to be supported by an assessment of the type of travel likely to be generated and including measures to maximise walking, cycling and the use of public transport. Outside rural settlement boundaries development not permitted unless justified by the Development Plan and high levels of travel only permitted in areas that can be served by a range of means of transport.
DM12 − governs access to the road hierarchy and if there is a significant increase in the risk of crashes or delays, proposals have to include mitigation.
DM13 − parking provision should be design led and informed by the guidance set out in the Core Strategy.
DM15 − loss of countryside with adverse impact on the character is only permitted in accordance with land allocations unless with special justification.
DM16 − protects landscape character and requires avoidance or reduction of harm and/ or mitigation measures.
DM17 − protects ground water source protection zones.
DM20 − guidance concerning new shop fronts and alterations relating to the context of both the building and the street.
DM23 – permitted local shops and extensions to local shops consistent with Settlement Hierarchy
DM25 − criteria should development result in loss of open space.
3. Dover District Plan 2002 − Saved Policies in Force
Aim 1 − to move to a more sustainable pattern and form of development through objectives, which include protection of the countryside from non-essential development; habitat, species and landscape protection; identification of sufficient land to meet strategic housing need; development in rural settlements consistent with size and function; provision and support to make public transport, walking, cycling, safe and attractive alternatives to using the motor car.
Aim 2 − to help build a strong local economy through objectives, including employment sites to be protected and the re-use of redundant colliery sites.
34
Aim 3 − to give greater access and opportunity for all through objectives including forms of development accessible to everyone and a quality environment in terms of design and amenity.
4. Chapter 14 of the Local Plan
Chapter 14 of the Local Plan was specifically devoted to the expansion of Aylesham within which the following policies were set out.
AY1 − strategic expansion to comprise up to 1,000 dwellings, petrol filling station, formal playing fields, associated children's play, employment land, primary school and food retail etc.
AY2 − sets out in full in Section c) above and governs the form which outline proposals for the strategic expansion of Aylesham should take, including being accompanied by a masterplan.
AY3 − providing for an overall net density of not less than 30 dwellings per hectare with not less than 15% being for affordable housing, associated provision of children's play and design guidance.
AY4 − proposals for employment development at the former High School playing fields within Use Classes B1 and B2 with design guidance.
AY5 − planning permission will be granted for a food store at the Market Place, providing the existing Post Office facility is retained.
AY6 − petrol filling station will be permitted within the development area (not part of this application).
AY7 − criteria regarding structural landscaping on the eastern boundary with the railway line, together with reinforcing the hedgeline forming the northern boundary, at least 3.7 hectares of formal playing fields, a landscape phasing programme agreed with the Council and the long-term management of open space and structural landscaping.
AY8 − land allocated to meet additional primary school provision and developer funding sought for new facilities.
AY9 − land at Snowdown Colliery Welfare Ground allocated for an equipped sports hall (this is outside the application site but is regarded as essential community infrastructure and developer contributions will be sought).
AY10 − provision of a spinal footpath and cycle network within the development area.
AY11 − infrastructure related land being safeguarded for electricity substations, gas pressure reduction systems, an adequate water supply and wastewater disposal must be available.
TR9 - provision and protection of cycle routes.
OS2 − children's play space on developments of more than 15 dwellings and long term maintenance secured.
35
OS3 − long term arrangements to meet open space requirements for housing required for planning permission to be granted.
OS7 − proposals for outdoor sports and recreational facilities or their expansion permitted subject to associated design criteria.
ER6 − external lighting only to use cut off lanterns unless historic interest dictates otherwise.
CO8 − development adversely affecting a hedgerow will only be permitted if no practical alternatives exist, suitable native replacement planting is provided and future maintenance secured.
LE2 − within the development area land allocated B1 and B2 uses, 4.3 hectares (this land was identified in the SPG to the south of the Aylesham Community Project and is outside the application area).
36
APPENDIX B
DOV/13/0120 – Variation of Conditions 1, 3, 5, 15,22, 24, 32, 34, 38, 45, 51, 52, 56, 68, 76 and 77 of Planning Permission DOV/07/01081 (Section 73 Application) and Modification to Legal Agreements
Condition 1
The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved drawings and details set out and shown on the Drawing and Document Schedule entitled Application Contents, dated Jan 12 received 11 January 2012 and the amended Phasing Programme, received 12 January 2012 and accompanying documents. Reason: For the avoidance of doubt in accordance with the Development Plan and Aylesham SPG
Condition 3
Development shall only be carried out in accordance with the approved details contained in the Masterplan, Design and Access Statement, Design Code, Environmental Statement and timings identified in the approved Phasing Programme (as may be amended and agreed in writing with Local Planning Authority) and other approved documents and details unless otherwise first agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure the built quality of the development complies with the criteria set out in approved documents
Condition 5
No development shall take place, except for the provision of the Ratling Road and Aylesham Primary School pitches, the Ratling Road and Market Play Areas, and construction accesses, compounds and associated facilities and the loss of the Derwent Way sports pitch and play area, until a Public Realm Management and Maintenance Framework Plan and Strategy, which shall include a programme and timing for carrying out works, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Public Realm Management and Maintenance Framework Plan and Strategy, programmes and timetable shall be carried out as approved, unless otherwise first agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To provide for and safeguard the future of the Aylesham public realm spaces
Condition 15
Travel Plan
No development shall take place except for the provision of the Ratling Road and Aylesham Primary School pitches, the Ratling Road and Market Square Play Areas, construction accesses, compounds and associated facilities, within Phase 1A, until a detailed Travel Plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority following consultation with the Secretary of State for Transport and the Local Highway Authority in
37 respect of development within and generated by the construction of, occupation and use of development within phase 1A. The detailed Travel Plan shall include a timetable for the implementation of the measures contained within the Travel Plan. The agreed Travel Plan measures shall be carried out in accordance with the agreed implementation timetable . Reason: In order to minimize the use of the private car and to promote the use of sustainable modes of transport
Condition 16
Junction improvements
No development shall take place except for the provision of the Ratling Road and Aylesham Primary School pitches, the Ratling Road and Market Square Play Areas and Market Square shops and dwellings and construction accesses, compounds and associated facilities, until details of the improvements, upgrades and alterations to junctions 5, 7, 12 and 15 have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the Local Highway Authority (Kent Highway Services). The details shall include existing and proposed soft and hard landscaping, contours, land levels, bunding (if any), planting, surface finishes, materials and street furniture. Works shall be carried out and completed in accordance with the approved details and open to traffic prior to the first occupation of the residential units unless otherwise first agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.
Reason : In the interests of highway safety and efficiency and visual amenity
Condition 22
Details of surface finish, materials, highways furniture and features shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority and approved prior to commencement of development. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans and details. Reason: To ensure a satisfactory finish and appearance to the development.
Condition 24
Vehicle sight lines
Details of sight lines to all internal and external road junctions and driveways with the highway shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to commencement of the development except for the provision of the Ratling Road and Aylesham Primary school pitches and the Ratling Road and Market Square Play areas, construction compounds and construction access routes. No road junction nor driveway shall be used by vehicular traffic until the sight lines have been provided in accordance with the approved plans. No development, unless otherwise approved by this permission, tree height or planting exceeding 1.05m in height shall be carried out within the approved sightlines. Sight lines shall be provided in accordance with the approved details prior to the first use of or occupation of the development it serves, unless otherwise first agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority Reason: In the interests of highway and pedestrian safety
Condition 32
LANDSCAPING, OPEN SPACE, PLAY SPACE AND SPORTS
38 No development shall take place on the application site except for the provision of the Ratling Road and Aylesham Primary School pitches, the Ratling Road and Market Square Play Areas, construction accesses, compounds and associated facilities, until full details of both hard and soft landscaping works, and a programme and timetable for their implementation have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Those details shall include :
• proposed finished levels or contours and long and cross sections, including those for junctions 5,7,12,15
• hard surfacing materials for all areas, including public spaces and highways related works and landscaping to junctions 5, 7, 12 and 15.
• design, materials and details of all means of enclosures to residential and retail units and all public realm and semi private spaces including car parking courts, the play areas and the gate and enclosures to the forecourt and extended car park at the railway station
• details of swales, including long and cross sections
• car parking layouts;
• other vehicle and pedestrian roads, access and circulation areas;
• bus stops and design of and materials to be used in the construction of the bus shelters
• minor artefacts and structures including Street furniture, cycle stands, steps, play equipment, refuse or other storage units, signs including bus shelters and stops, lighting, cctv;
• proposed and existing functional services above and below ground (eg. drainage power, communications cables, pipelines etc. indicating lines, manholes, supports etc.);
Soft landscape works and details shall include
• planting plans;
• planting to the northern boundary hedgerow, buffer strip and Aylesham woodland and northern boundary and buffer strip protection measures
• written specifications (including cultivation and other operations associated with plant and grass establishment);
• schedules of plants, shrubs, hedgerows and ornamental hedging to public realm and semi-private areas, noting species, plant sizes and proposed numbers/densities where appropriate, to include species of native local provenance grass and wildflower mix and planting of swales;
• identification of areas to be left as rough grassland;
All hard and soft landscaping shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details timetable and programmes unless otherwise first agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority and maintained as such in accordance with the approved details
39 Reason: To ensure a high quality of design and in the interests of enhancing the quality and enjoyment of the environment and maintaining and enhancing biodiversity corridors and green infrastructure networks
Condition 34
No development shall take place, except for the provision of the Ratling Road and Aylesham Primary School pitches, the Ratling Road and Market Square Play Areas, construction accesses, compounds and associated facilities, until details of earthworks have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. These details shall include the proposed grading and mounding of land areas including the levels and contours and bunding to be formed, showing the relationship of proposed mounding to existing vegetation and surrounding landform. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details, unless otherwise first approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure a high quality of design and in the interests of enhancing the quality and enjoyment of the environment
Condition 38
No development shall take place except for the provision of the Ratling Road and Aylesham Primary School pitches, the Ratling Road and Market Square Play Areas, and construction accesses, compounds and associated facilities until measures for the protection and treatment of footpaths EE461 and EE286A and a timetable for carrying out those protection and treatment measures have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Protection and treatment measures shall be implemented and maintained in accordance with the approved details and timetable. Reason : To ensure adequate protection is given to the public footpath network
Condition 45
WATERCOURSE AND DRAINAGE
Surface Water Drainage
No development shall take place, except for the provision of the Ratling Road and Aylesham Primary School pitches, the Ratling Road and Market Square Play Areas, and construction accesses, compounds and associated facilities, until details of the proposed means of surface water drainage/disposal system including design and capacity for all new residential and retail units, roads and surfaces, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the Environment Agency. Drainage shall include the use of SuDS using infiltration techniques and swales, and porous and permeable surface materials (subject to detailed design and consultation with the adopting authorities) to avoid surface water being discharged to the existing combined sewers which has no spare capacity and details shall:
• demonstrate that there will be no additional runoff from the developed site compared to existing Greenfield runoff rates for the critical 100yr event with an allowance for climate change;
40 ii) include precise details of design and location of the SUDS and infiltration devices, demonstrating the connectivity of the swales proposed, and include details of the design and location of any culverts;
iii) provide information about the design storm period and intensity, the method employed to delay and control the surface water discharged from the site and the measures taken to prevent pollution of the receiving groundwater and/or surface waters;
iv) include a timetable for its implementation; and
v) provide a management and maintenance plan for the lifetime of the development which shall include the arrangements for adoption by any public authority or statutory undertaker and any other arrangements to secure the operation of the scheme throughout its lifetime.
Works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and the approved phasing programme, and shall take into account mitigation measures referred to in the submitted Environmental Statement, prior to the first occupation of any of the residential units hereby permitted.
Reason : To ensure adequate measures are in place to deal with surface water drainage
Condition 51
WASTE AND RECYCLING
Site Waste
No development shall take place except for the provision of the Ratling Road and Aylesham Primary School pitches, the Ratling Road and Market Square Play Areas, and construction accesses, compounds and associated facilities, until a Site Waste Management Plan (SWMP) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with Kent County Council (Strategic Waste). Operations and works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved SWMP unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. As a minimum the SWMP shall include the details set out in the Draft Site Waste Management Plan at Appendix P of the Environmental Statement, and include details of the scheme for recycling/disposing of waste resulting from construction/site clearance works.
Reason : To ensure proper provision is made for satisfactory disposal of site waste in accordance with the submitted ES
Condition 52
No development shall take place, except for the provision of the Ratling Road and Aylesham Primary School pitches, the Ratling Road and Market Square Play Areas, and construction accesses, compounds and associated facilities, until a Site Environmental Management Plan (SEMP) for the clearance of and construction on site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, in accordance with the details identified in Appendix Q of the Environmental Statement. The development shall be carried out accordance with the approved SEMP.
Reason: To ensure satisfactory management of site waste in accordance with the submitted ES
41 Condition 56
No development shall take place except for the provision of the Ratling Road and Aylesham Primary School pitches, the Ratling Road and Market Square Play Areas, and construction accesses, compounds and associated facilities, until a scheme of traffic noise mitigation identifying the measures to be implemented to reduce traffic noise to receptors that fall within Noise Exposure Category (NEC) B or above, or to reduce the propagation from source to receptor, in accordance with the Environmental Statement, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved measures shall be fully implemented in accordance with the approved mitigation measures, at the identified properties, prior to their first occupation.
Reason : To safeguard residential amenities
Condition 68
AFFORDABLE HOUSING
No development of a phase shall begin until a scheme for the provision of affordable housing as part of the development of that phase has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The affordable housing shall be provided in accordance with the approved scheme and shall meet the definition of affordable housing in the Councils Affordable Housing SPD or any future guidance that replaces it.
The scheme shall include:
1 The numbers, type, tenure and location on the site of the affordable housing provision to be made which shall consist of not less than 20% of housing units - in accordance with the approved affordable housing accommodation schedule contained in the approved outline Design and Access Statement and as shown on the approved Masterplan document.
2 The timing of the construction of the affordable housing and its phasing in relation to the occupancy of the market building.
3 The arrangements for the transfer of the affordable housing to an affordable housing provider.
4 The arrangements to ensure that such provision is affordable for both first and any subsequent occupiers of the affordable housing
5 The occupancy criteria to be used for determining the identity of occupiers of the affordable housing and the means by which such occupancy criteria shall be enforced.
Reason: To ensure the development makes satisfactory provision for affordable housing units in accordance with the Aylesham SPG and DDLP policy AY2
Condition 76
Village Traffic Management Scheme
As part of the reserved matters application for each subsequent phase or part phase commencing after phase 1B (i.e. for phases 2, 3, 4 & 5) as identified on the approved phasing programme a detailed Village Traffic Impact Assessment which shall identify the
42 traffic impact on the surrounding villages (namely Wingham, Adisham, Ratling Village, Nonington, Womenswold, Snowdown and Woolage Village as specified on pages 29/30 of the approved TA) arising from the cumulative occupation of the preceding phases, shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority and approved in writing in consultation with the Highways Agency and Kent Highways Services . The Village Traffic Impact Assessment shall include details of any necessary traffic mitigation measures, and an implementation programme for such measures to be carried out within that phase or part phase. The approved mitigation measures shall be carried out as approved, and in accordance with the agreed implementation programme.
Reason : To ensure the development is carried out in accordance with the Aylesham SPG and to monitor and mitigate where necessary traffic impacts generated by the development on the surrounding road and village network in accordance with the Aylesham SPG
Condition 77
Junction improvements and details / Other Highways matters
Details of improvements to junctions 3, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 17 as identified in the submitted Transport Assessment and phasing programme shall be submitted with the reserved matters application details in accordance with the approved Masterplan and phasing programme for phase 1B and 2 (or any other phase to which the improvements relate) and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with Kent Highway Services and shall include details of soft and hard landscaping works to those junctions, and an implementation programme. Works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and implementation programme and shall be completed and open to traffic, prior to commencement of any development of phase 2.
Reason : In the interests of highway safety and visual amenity
43 APPENDIX C 44 APPENDIX D 45
46 Agenda Item No 7
a) DOV/13/00290 – Erection of first and second floor extensions, together with an attached garage, alterations to elevations and creation of a vehicular access, Alton Lodge, 153 Kingsdown Road, Kingsdown
Reason for report: The number of third party representations. b) Summary of Recommendation
Planning permission be refused c) Planning Policy and Guidance
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)
• Seeks to secure high quality design and a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings. A core principle is to always seek to secure high quality design and a good standard of amenity.
• Decisions should aim to ensure that developments are visually attractive as a result of good architecture and appropriate landscaping.
The Kent Design Guide
• Provides guidance on design principles
Walmer Design Statement
WDS 1: Development should be consistent with the policies of the Dover District Local Plan (2002) and the principles and objectives of Kent Design (2000) and should acknowledge, preserve or enhance the built and natural heritage of the parish of Walmer. For the purposes of this and each of the following Design Principles, ‘development’ refers to both new development and alterations to existing buildings.
WDS 2: Any future development in the parish should respect the origins, and reflect strongly the character, appearance and design details of the Character Area (as delineated in Section 5) in which it is situated.
WDS 3: The scale, materials and boundary treatments used in development should be appropriate to their surroundings and the design details of the Character Area in which the development is proposed. Harmonious variety in design details within developments is encouraged to maintain the tradition of visually interesting streetscapes, which is a characteristic of Walmer.
WDS 4: In accordance with Principle 6.6 of Kent Design (2000), a confused application of architectural styles or inappropriate historic imitation should be avoided.
d) Relevant Planning History
47 DOV/05/01141 - Erection of a two-storey rear extension (existing sunroom, garage and greenhouse to be demolished) and alterations to existing vehicular access - Granted
e) Consultee and Third Party Responses
Walmer Parish Council : Object for the following summarised reasons: • The height of the extensions constitutes an overbearing development to the neighbouring properties • The development would result in overlooking of adjacent properties, constituting a lack of privacy • Development footprint is larger and the height greater than any property in the immediate vicinity • Represents incongruous and dominant feature within the street scene • Development should respect the origins and the character, appearance and design details of the area • Scale, materials, design and boundary treatments used in development should be appropriate to their surroundings
Public Representations: Twenty One letters of objection have been received and their comments are summarised as follows: • Development is out of character with the village and the surrounding houses • The mass of the building would be overbearing, particularly for the neighbouring bungalows • The flat roof being used as a balcony would cause overlooking and loss of privacy • The addition of a second storey would result in overlooking into neighbouring properties • Design does not comply with the standards of the Walmer Design Statement and is out of keeping with the neighbouring properties and surrounding area • The footprint, height and scale would block light to the neighbouring properties • Not in keeping with the overall village environment • Height and design represent an overbearing form of development • Proposal would be visible from the road and immediate area but also from public land surrounding the site • Would contravene privacy and light issues (Section 7 National Planning Policy) • Any development should be sympathetic to the surrounding area • The dwelling to the north has solar panels and they may be affected by the proposal • Kingsdown has retained the cohesion and charm of a rural village • The development on Campbell’s Garage site is contained and stand alone, to allow this style to encroach into the village would be inappropriate Eleven letters of support have been received and the comments are summarised as follows:
• Plans state that the roof area will not be used as a roof terrace
48 • Kingsdown Road has recently seen the development of the dwellings on the Campbell’s Garage site • The plans make good use of the site • Kingsdown has an eclectic mix of development and this development compliments that • This type of development is better for the village than the properties being adorned with dormer windows and solar panels • There are plenty of modern red brick properties in the village, which do not compliment their neighbours • This development is modern but integrates with the diverse types of homes in Kingsdown • The property would aesthetically blend into its immediate surroundings • Many properties within Kingsdown Road are unique
f) 1. The Site and the Proposal
1.1 The application site lies within the village confines of Kingsdown. To the north of the site is an area of open coastal vegetated shingle, designated as a site of Nature Conservation Interest (SNCI). To the east, south and west there is residential development.
1.2 The properties to the west, on the opposite side of Kingsdown Road are bungalows, located within a cul-de-sac (Courtlands), where the land rises to the west.
1.3 The dwellings to the south are modest in size and the street has a rural/suburban appearance. The character of the surrounding dwelling type varies between 20 th Century bungalows and two-storey dwellings. There is some residential development beyond the site further to the north, where the Campbell’s garage site is currently being developed.
1.4 The dwellings to the east of the site face Wellington Parade, an unadopted road, which runs along the sea front more or less parallel to Kingsdown Road. Wellington Parade is characterised by linear development along its western side such that the dwellings face the sea with their gardens extending west inland. Some of the properties along Wellington Parade are substantial three storey dwellings, which due to their siting on an incline appear somewhat taller than the dwellings to the rear. The development along Wellington Parade is broken by occasional gaps, where as the development on Kingsdown Road and towards the village to the south is more condensed and has little separation between the sites, although the plot sizes remain relatively large.
1.5 The dwelling is set back from the back edge of the pavement by 6m and is set between a hipped roof bungalow to the north and a pair of two-storey hipped roof cottages to the south. The site is located within the built confines.
1.6 Planning permission is sought for the erection of first and second floor extensions, together with an attached garage, alterations to elevations and creation of a vehicular access. The existing dwelling would be remodelled to include a flat roof first and second floor extension
49 fronting Kingsdown Road with the existing two-storey rear extension being left as is. The dwelling would increase in height from approximately 6m to 8m. It is also proposed to create a second vehicular access into the site.
1.7 Plans will be on display
2. Main Issues
2.1 The main issues for consideration are; design and impact of the development on the street scene and the impact of the development on the neighbouring properties
2.2 Assessment
Design and Impact on the street scene
2.3 The proposed extensions would result in the dwelling increasing from single storey to 2½ storeys and would introduce features, such as prominent flat roof additions, which are not reflective of the immediate architectural form and character of the neighbouring properties and surrounding built form. The character of immediately neighbouring properties is somewhat traditional and modest in scale and form. It is considered that whilst development in this part of Kingsdown Road comprises a mixture of built form and types the proposed extensions would not reflect the prevailing size, scale and architectural character of the properties fronting Kingsdown Road. The Walmer Design Guide design statement for this character area (Walmer Seafront) states that properties are predominately two-storey and have pitched roofs, which are finished with tile or slate. WDS2 states that any future development in the parish should respect the origins and reflect strongly the character, appearance and design details of the character area in which it is situated. It is not considered that the proposed development complies with the requirements of this policy, as it does not represent the quite strong traditional appearance and detailing, form and character of surrounding development. Furthermore, WDS3 requires that the scale and materials used in development are appropriate to their surroundings and encourages harmonious variety in design within developments in order to maintain the tradition of visually interesting streetscapes. The proposed development will involve the loss of a traditionally hipped and pitched roof to this modest bungalow and introduce discordant flat roofed extensions and additions, which would not maintain the design tradition of this part of Kingsdown Road. It is appreciated that the Campbell’s Garage development includes some of the features reflected in this development however; the Campbell’s Garage development is a self- contained estate with its own individual character and is sufficiently removed from the application site so as not to exert design influence here. Accordingly, the design, scale and form of the development proposed does not reflect the characteristics of surrounding dwellings and is considered to be unacceptable.
3. Impact on neighbours
50 3.1 The property has two immediate neighbours, to the north (No. 151) and to the south (No. 155). The properties at present have a separation distance of approximately 4-5m between their boundaries. This separation would be maintained to the south with No. 155, however to the north the erection of the attached garage would result in the extended dwelling being set off the boundary line by 0.5m. Both neighbouring properties have windows in the side facing elevations at both ground and first floor level, which overlook into the application site. The proposed plans do not include the insertion of any additional windows into the north and south side facing elevations and as such it is not considered that the proposal would result in any side facing overlooking. Windows are proposed to the front and rear elevations at first and second floor. However, due to separation distances and boundary treatment screening and the oblique views that these additional first and second floor windows would achieve they would be unlikely to cause undue harm to neighbours amenities.
3.2 Concerns have been raised over the use of the flat roof as a terrace area, however the plans show the roof deck as not being used as a terrace area. If planning permission were to be granted, a condition could be imposed to prevent the use of the roof deck as a sitting out area.
3.3 It is appreciated that the extensions would be visible from neighbouring dwellings. However, the separation distances would ameliorate any overbearing or overshadowing/loss of sunlight effects.
4. New Access
4.1 The additional access, due to good visibility in both directions and the 30mph speed limit in place within the confines, would be unlikely to result in additional highway hazards here and is acceptable.
Conclusion
The National Planning Policy Framework identifies that good design is a key driver behind achieving high quality and inclusive design for all development. Development proposals are also expected to respond to local character, and reflect the identity of local surroundings and materials.
There is no doubt that the design of the extensions is of a high quality. However, the extensions would overwhelm and subsume the form and scale of the existing dwelling, they would not reflect the local characteristics of the existing adjacent built form and would as a result look out of place and incongruous. Planning permission should therefore be refused.
In respect of the Public Sector Equality Duty under the Equality Act, the recommendation is not considered to disproportionately affect any particular group.
g) Recommendation
51
I PERMISSION BE REFUSED for the following reason: i) The proposed extensions by virtue of their design, size, scale and form would introduce discordant flat roofed extensions and additions, out of keeping with the existing building and adjacent dwellings which would not maintain the design tradition of this part of Kingsdown Road and if permitted would result in an unsympathetic and incongruous form of development contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework and the provisions of the Walmer Design Statement
II) 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.
Case Officer
Kerri Bland
52 53 Agenda Item No 8
a) DOV/13/00039 – Reinstatement and repair of existing boundary fence and gates, Coldblow Sports Ground, Former MOD Playing Field, Coldblow, Ripple, Deal
Reason for report: The number of third party representations
b) Summary of Recommendation
Planning permission be granted
c) Planning Policy and Guidance
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)
• Decisions should aim to ensure that developments are visually attractive and enhance the natural environment through appropriate landscaping.
Dover District Core Strategy (CS)
• Policy DM1 states that development will not be permitted on land outside the urban boundaries and rural settlement confines shown on the proposals map unless specifically justified by other development plan policies, or it functionally requires such a location, or is ancillary to exiting development or uses.
• Policy DM15 seeks to protect the countryside. It identifies that development which would adversely affect the character and appearance of the countryside will only be permitted if measures are incorporated that as far as practicable reduce harmful effects.
d) Relevant Planning History
DOV/97/01280 – Repair existing fence, erect new fence, provide new vehicular access - Granted
DOV/98/01103 – Land raising in the form of raised boundary and verges to prevent unauthorised vehicular access, to a height not exceeding the existing fence dimension – Refused
DOV/00/00760 – Construction of ditch and bund – Withdrawn
DOV/03/01043 – Outline planning application for the erection of a detached dwelling – Refused
e) Consultee and Third Party Responses
Ecology Officer – No objections.
KCC Archaeology – No archaeological measures required.
KCC Footpaths – Public Footpath EE438 and Public Bridleway EE442 are directly affected by the proposal. No objection to the dangerous sections of fencing being repaired and replaced with existing materials, providing the
54 existing materials used are the chain link fence and the metal fence posts. Objections would be raised to the use of barbed wire to repair and replace the existing fence or if the new fencing encroached on the full existing width of either public right of way.
Ripple Parish Council – No objections
Trees and High Hedges Officer – No objections
Public Representations: 129 letters of objection have been received and their comments are summarised as follows: • Considerable damage has already been caused to the trees, some of which are protected by TPO • The application should not be determined until the Village Green application is decided • The fencing would cause harm to protected species • Some fencing has already been erected • Earth works have taken place creating bunds • The site has never had a 1.5m high fence • Object to the area being enclosed, as it has been open for use by the public for many years • Inaccuracies regarding the access to the site and the timescales • The Article 4(2) Direction placed on the land prohibits the erection of any fencing • The land is contaminated • The proposed fencing would not be in-keeping with the landscape of the wider area The plan is to develop the site in the future • There are adequate sports facilities in the town • The application contains inaccuracies • The Public Footpaths have been blocked • Traffic issues with any future development of the site • The fencing would result in the destruction of flora and fauna 28 letters of support have been received and the comments are summarised as follows:
• The proposal would protect and benefit the future of the land • The fence would enable the lands restoration to sports field status • It is not everyday that Greenfield sites become available for sporting activities • It is an opportunity for regeneration of the area • Field can only be protected by proper fencing and gates • There would remain good walking access along the Public Footpath • The trees are being made safe • The wooded area is to remain, therefore protecting the wildlife • The fence should be reinstated to protect the land f) 1. The Site and the Proposal
1.1 The application site is an area of open space, which is located outside of any settlement confines and is therefore considered to be within open countryside. The land known as Coldblow Woods was previously MOD training land and has an existing dilapidated fence around its
55 boundary. The fence is generally in a poor state of repair and is missing in some places.
1.2 The land is covered by an Article 4(2) Direction, as well as also having a blanket TPO. The Article 4(2) Direction sought to restrict, ‘The erection, construction, maintenance, improvement or alterations of a gate, fence, wall or other means of enclosure’ as well as ‘The formation, laying out and construction of a means of access to a highway which is not a trunk road or a classified road, where that access is required in connection with development permitted by any Class in this Schedule (other than by Class A of this part).’ The intention of the Article 4 was to restrict the owner from subdividing the land into smaller parcels. The fence requires planning permission because the land is subject to an Article 4 (2) direction, otherwise it could have been erected under permitted development rights.
1.3 The land subject to this application is privately owned and has public footpaths, which extend to the southwest and southeast boundaries of the site. The surrounding area is predominately rural with a few scattered dwellings.
1.4 The application seeks permission for the reinstatement, replacement and repair of the existing boundary fence and gates. Part of the existing fencing is older galvanised chain link material; some existing sections are green PVC covered chain link. The fence proposed is a 1.5m high green PVC coated chain link fence with metal chain link gates. The replacement gates are shown to be 2m high-galvanised steel angle section framed gates with green PVC chain link infill. Galvanised steel posts will support the fencing and gates.
1.5 It is noted that an application is currently being processed by Kent County Council to designate the land as a village green; however, this is not an issue that is relevant to the determination of this application and should not be given any weight when assessing the proposal.
1.6 The applicants have advised that the fencing is a like for like replacement. They have also advised that the Council has previously taken action against the landowner following flytipping/trespass complaints and wish to ensure that their site is secured.
1.7 Plans will be on display
2. Main Issues
2.1 The main issue to be considered in the determination of this application is the impact of the fencing and gates on the visual and rural amenity of the area.
3. Assessment
3.1 The character of the area is rural, with open countryside surrounding the application site on all sides. There is mature hedgerow cover to the road frontage and mature tree and hedgerow cover to the south west and south east boundaries. The north eastern boundary is rather more exposed.
56
3.2 Concerns have been raised by third parties over the proposed future use of the site as a sports ground, however, this application only relates to the repair, replacement and reinstatement of the existing fencing and gates and any future use is not pertinent to the consideration of this application.
3.3 As described in the site description the area is characterised by its open countryside, where low-key natural boundary treatments are traditional enclosure features. The applicant has said that the fencing is required to secure the land from unauthorised access and also to ensure that the dead and dangerous trees that are present on the site cannot cause harm to people.
3.4 The applicant has confirmed that the installation of the new sections of fencing will not harm the existing trees. The fencing would be cut and formed to allow the trees to grow uninterrupted. The applicants have further confirmed that no trees will be removed or lopped to enable the fence to be reinstated without the necessary consent from the Council. The natural vegetation and tree cover will be able to grow up and around the fence and will provide natural screening of it. The fence will eventually be lost within the natural cover – in particular along the south west, south east and roadside boundaries. The north east boundary has low key natural vegetation along part of it and due to the green chain link used, especially where there are long views across the site, will mean the fencing will again blend into the landscape.
3.5 It is considered that the repair, replacement and reinstatement of the fencing with chain link green PVC would, due to the finish and appearance of it, its siting and natural cover, not result in any undue harm to the appearance and character of the surrounding rural area. It is considered that the fencing would not look out of place and would enable security for this site. The development is therefore in accordance with policy aims and it is considered that planning permission can be granted.
3.6 The concerns of third parties have been noted and taken into consideration when assessing the application.
In respect of the Public Sector Equality Duty under the Equality Act, the recommendation is not considered to disproportionately affect any particular group. g) Recommendation
I) PERMISSION BE GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: - (i) Time Limit; (ii) Approved Drawings
II ) 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.
Case Officer Kerri Bland
57 58 Agenda Item No 9
DOVER DISTRICT COUNCIL
PLANNING COMMITTEE – 11 JULY 2013
REPORT OF THE HEAD OF REGENERATION AND DEVELOPMENT
a) DOV/12/0143 – Retrospective application for the change of use of land for the construction of a hardstanding and domestic garage.
Reasons For Report
There are 6 letters of public representation raising a contrary view.
b) Summary of Recommendation
Grant Planning Permission
c) Planning Policy and Guidance
Core Strategy Policy DM1 permits development outside settlement boundaries if it is ancillary to an existing use, or if it functionally requires such a location.
DM15 presumes against development which would adversely affect the countryside’s character or appearance.
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) Two of the core principles of the NPPF are that growth and sustainable economic development in rural areas should be supported to promote a strong rural economy, and that valued landscapes should be protected and enhanced.
The NPPF also sets out that applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
d) Relevant Planning History DOV/06/1394: Refusal of Planning Permission for the erection of a barn, on the field adjoining Pineham House, for storage of items associated with the maintenance of the field. Refused on the grounds of its size and visual impact.
DOV/07/672: Certificate of Grant of Lawful use of Pineham House and its associated forecourt for the display and sale of cars. Granted on the basis that no more than 3 cars are displayed for sale at the site at any one time, and that no vehicles for sale shall be delivered or despatched from the site after 5pm or before 9am on any day.
DOV/07/1299: Conditional grant of Planning Permission for a stable block, measuring 8m wide x 6.5m deep x 3.4m high, sited with doors
59 facing north east, to provide 2 stables and horsebox storage, at Pineham House and land adjoining. Conditions include amongst others: No commercial use; No other buildings, structures or jumps etc shall be erected without the prior written permission of the LPA.
e) Consultee and Third Party Responses
Whitfield Parish Council : The garage should be for personal use and not for business and commercial use.
Public representations: Six letters of public representation have been received, all objecting to the application on the following grounds: The property already has a double garage and large drive. Concern at the amount of cars, vans and limousines that are parked on this property, Concern that the building will be used for the storage of vehicles in relation to an existing commercial business, and that more vehicle movements would cause congestion and traffic problems on this single lane road.
Various other comments have been made, but they are not material planning considerations, and so are not included in this report. The assessment below will focus on the planning merits of the proposed development, in accordance with current planning policy. f) 1. The Site and the Proposal
1.1 The site relates to a detached dwelling, which has substantial curtilage to the front and rear of the dwelling house. The property has a spacious driveway that can accommodate a number of cars, as well as a double garage. The adjacent piece of agricultural land, on which the proposed garage is sited, has a previous lawful use of paddock for the keeping of horses, of approximately 1.5 acres. 1.2 The proposed garage and its forecourt sit in the south west corner of the adjoining land, and is accessible from the drive to the front of Pineham House, through a gate in the boundary fence between the Pineham House domestic curtilage, and the adjacent land. 1.3 The proposal retrospectively seeks permission for a triple bay garage, measuring 9.7m wide x 7m deep x 3.5m high, with shiplap weatherboarded elevations under a gently pitched, corrugated roof. 1.4 The site lies in open countryside, outside any defined settlement confines.
2. Main Issues
2.1 The principle of ancillary domestic development beyond the curtilage in open countryside.
60
2.2 The visual impact of the building.
2.3 The impact on the highway safety of Pineham Lane.
3. Assessment
The Principle
3.1 DM1 states that development will not be permitted on land outside the urban boundaries unless specifically justified by other development plan policies.
3.2 Core Strategy policy DM1 permits development outside settlement boundaries if it is ancillary to an existing use or if it functionally requires such a location. Since the development is on agricultural land (which had permission for the keeping of horses), the proposal is not ancillary to the existing use of the land. The garaging of cars does not functionally require a location in the open countryside. The proposal is therefore contrary to DM1 in these respects.
3.3 The concerns of the Parish Council regarding the use of the building for commercial use are noted. However, the applicant has clearly stated in the Design and Access statement that the proposal has no bearing on that commercial activity (referring to the display of cars for sale, for which he has a Certificate of Lawful Development) and is only for the garaging of privately owned cars.
3.4 Amongst his privately owned cars, the applicant has his household cars and also limousines which it is understood are hired out for funerals. It is understood that the limousines are kept at the domestic property in the garage the subject of this application and used for off-site purposes.
3.5 Policy DM15 states that development which would result in the loss of, or adversely affect the character or appearance of, the countryside will only be permitted if it is justified by agriculture or the need to sustain a rural economy or it cannot be accommodated elsewhere and does not result in the loss of ecological habitats:
3.6 The development has been built on land that, to all intents and purposes, is agricultural land. Although there was previously a planning permission for the keeping of horses on the land and erection of stable block and hard standing, it appears this was never implemented. The proposal is therefore considered to result in the loss of countryside.
3.7 In assessing whether the development could be accommodated elsewhere, the applicant has been asked to justify the siting of the
61 hard surface and garage outside the domestic curtilage of the dwelling, however has not submitted such justification. A gap of approximately 6m exists between the flank wall of the existing double garage attached to the house, and the southeast domestic curtilage boundary. It appears that this gap could accommodate a double garage or provide access to a garage which could be located in the rear garden of the dwelling, without compromising the availability of private amenity space for the occupant.
3.8 As it would appear that the garage facility could be accommodated elsewhere within the domestic curtilage, the proposal is contrary to policy DM15.
Visual Impact of the Building on the character and appearance of the countryside
3.9 The appearance and timber finish to the building is typical of a building found in such a rural setting and has no detrimental impact on its surroundings. The building is close to Pineham Lane and is at right angles to it. It is not a dominant feature within the street scene or the wider rural scene by virtue of the mature hedgerow screening running along the southwest site boundary, between the road and the building. When viewed from Roman Road the building will appear to be clustered with the dwelling house, and will not stand out as a prominent isolated feature on the landscape. The principal of a building of a similar character and design has already been established by application ref 07/1299 for the stable block (although the stable building was justified by demanding a rural location). The hard surface constitutes a large area of concrete in front and to the side of the garage. However, as it is a low form of development, it is not obtrusive from outside the site, particularly in the summer months when the hedge screen in denser. Therefore the apron itself is considered not to have a significant visual impact on the appearance of the countryside. Due consideration must, however, be given to the fact that use of the apron for the parking of cars could result in visual harm to the countryside.
3.10 The use of the proposed hardstanding as ancillary domestic land for the parking and manoeuvring of cars would introduce a domestic element that would not be consistent with the character of its rural location. The keeping of horses on the land (the previously approved use of the land for the stable block) might have resulted in horse related paraphernalia on the hardstanding, and it would not appear discordant with the rural setting, but the likely outdoor paraphernalia associated with a domestic garage could constitute a domestic sprawl into the open countryside. Although the hardstanding is screened by the hedgerow on the boundary with Pineham Lane, there is potential for outdoor storage on the hardstanding to be unsightly in the future, if not controlled. It is considered that, subject to a condition controlling
62 outdoor storage on the hardstanding, the visual impact of the building, its forecourt and its use would not adversely affect the character and appearance of the wider countryside.
Impact on Highway Safety
3.11 The concerns of third parties regarding potential increased traffic movements, and concern for highway safety is noted. However, with the exception of the section of lane from the property to Archer’s Court Road, the site is well linked to the urban area and the major road network. Kent Highways Development Planner has commented that the short section of the lane between the property and Archers Court Road is either wide enough for 2 cars, or has passing places available. As such, even if the garage was to generate a small additional number of associated vehicle movements, these are unlikely to have a significant impact on highway safety, and would not justify refusal of the application on these grounds.
3.12 In Part 4 of the NPPF, Promoting Sustainable Transport, paragraph 32 states that ‘Development should only be prevented or refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of development are severe.’ A small, if any, increase in traffic movements (this application is for the garaging of 3 cars) associated with this application is highly unlikely to have a ‘severe’ impact on highway safety.
3.13 Policy DM13 requires a large house in a rural location to have 2 independently accessible parking spaces, excluding garages. The existing parking within the curtilage exceeds these requirements, so the development cannot be justified by the need to provide parking.
Conclusion
3.14 The Planning Act sets out that applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Whilst it is acknowledged that the proposal is contrary to DM1 and contrary to parts of DM15 by virtue the fact that it results in the loss of the countryside, yet could be accommodated elsewhere, it is also acknowledged that the proposal does not cause visual harm or threaten highway safety to an unacceptable degree.
3.15 Although it appears that the garage and parking of cars at Pineham House could be accommodated within the domestic curtilage of the property, so as not to encroach development on to the open countryside, it must also be borne in mind that there is very little visual harm to the landscape character arising from the development. The design, scale, appearance and finish of the
63 building is acceptable in this rural location. The proposal is contrary to policy DM1 and parts of DM15, in that it does result in a loss of countryside and might be able to be located within the domestic curtilage. However, due to the acceptable design, the screening of the site, and the resultant limited harm caused in terms of visual and rural amenity, and highway impact, it is considered that planning permission can be granted.
3.16 If planning permission were to be refused then the expediency of taking enforcement action would need to be considered. The planning merits or otherwise of the scheme would then need to be taken into account and these considerations are as set out above.
g) Recommendation
I PERMISSION BE Granted, subject to the following condition: The hardstanding hereby approved shall not be used for any outdoor storage at any time.
Case Officer Maxine Hall
64 65 Agenda Item No 10
DOVER DISTRICT COUNCIL
PLANNING COMMITTEE – 11 JULY 2013
REPORT OF THE REGENERATION AND DEVELOPMENT MANAGER a) DOV/ 13/00327 – Change of use and conversion to single residential dwelling, associated car parking and landscaping, land fronting 92A The Street, Ash
Reason for report: The number of third party contrary views.
b) Summary of Recommendation
Grant planning permission. c) Planning Policy and Guidance
Core Strategy (CS)
• Policy DM13 states that parking provision should be a design-led process, based upon the characteristics of the site, the locality, the nature of the development and its design objectives.
Dover District Local Plan (saved policies)
• Policy HS2 states that residential development will be permitted within the settlement confines, provided that it is the most suitable land use.
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)
The NPPF states that at its heart is a presumption in favour of sustainable development. It sets out three dimensions to sustainable development: economic, social and environmental and provides twelve principles that should undertake decision-taking.
d) Relevant Planning History
None. e) Consultee and Third Party Responses
County Highways: No objections, subject to conditions. The existing access is acceptable to serve an additional dwelling and adequate parking would be provided.
County Archaeology: No archaeological measures necessary.
Town Council: Comments awaited.
Third Party Representations: Six letters of objections have been received, raising the following material planning considerations:
66
• Inaccuracies in the submission; • The site can be seen from the street; • There is planting where the access is shown; • The numbering of properties is incorrect; • Overlooking into the garden of no. 90; • The garden would be very small; • Increased traffic on the driveway; • The Street is already congested; • The proposal would add to traffic pressures; • Construction would cause disturbance for neighbours; • The first floor windows would cause a loss of privacy, looking straight into an en-suite bathroom window of no. 94 The Street; • Vehicles using the shared driveway should not exceed 30 hundred weight laden; • Alterations would have to be made to the access; • There are mature trees close to the building; and • Concerns about bats.
f) 1. The Site and the Proposal
1.1 The application site relates to a plot of land located within the settlement confines of Ash and within the Conservation Area. The building is accessed via a track that provides access to a few residential properties, off The Street. It is sited to the rear of a listed building, no. 90 The Street.
1.2 It is understood that the building was originally located in Eastry, but re-erected in this location in the 1950s. It was originally used for the manufacture of coffins, but more recently has been used for storage and is now empty. The building is in poor condition.
1.3 The proposal seeks full planning permission for the change of use of the existing barn into a residential dwelling. The dwelling would have three bedrooms. The ground floor would be opened up to provide a car port. A further parking space would be provided to the north of the building. The existing single-storey lean-to extension would be removed, to enable the creation of an enclosed garden area.
1.4 The existing brick plinth would be restored and the existing cladding would be replaced with dark-stained feather-edge boarding. The roof would be replaced and finished in natural slate. All windows would be replaced, using timber frames.
1.5 Plans will be on display.
2. Main Issues
2.1 The main issues are:
• Principle; • Visual impact;
67 • Residential amenity; • Highways implications.
3. Assessment
Principle
3.1 The site is within the settlement confines of Ash and is a previously- developed site. As such, the principle of residential development in this location is supported by local policy and the National Planning Policy Framework.
Visual impact
3.2 The barn is currently in a state of disrepair. The proposal would bring the building back into use and improve its appearance by replacing the weather-boarding and incorporating a slate roof. The removal of the existing extension is considered acceptable and would enable the provision of a private garden area.
3.3 The building is set back from the main road and is to the rear of no. 90, although is visible from within the street-scene. The proposed development would not have a significant or detrimental impact on the visual quality of the street scene or the special character and appearance of the Conservation Area. It is not considered that it would adversely affect the setting of the listed buildings 88, 90 and 94. The proposal does not involve any extensions and the application confirms that no trees would be affected by the development. The parking space to be created to the north of the site would be under the crown of a tree and a condition can be attached to require that it be carried out in accordance with British Standards for tree protection measures.
Residential amenity
3.4 The dwelling would not have any openings to the north or south elevations, so it is not considered that there would be any unacceptable overlooking into no’s 88, 90, 92 and 92a.
3.5 The openings to the rear of the property would overlook the commercial property at no. 82, which is acceptable (and in any case the windows would be obscure glazed).
3.6 The openings to the front elevation would face towards the access road leading to no. 92a and the access road leading to no. 92 and the side of no. 94. There is considered to be sufficient distance between the two properties to prevent an unacceptable level of overlooking and loss of privacy for the occupants of no. 94.
3.7 It is not considered that disturbance associated with the construction of a single dwelling would be likely to result in harm to residential amenity that would be at a level to justify a recommendation of refusal.
68 3.8 The removal of the single storey extension would enable a private garden space for future occupants, which is considered to be of an appropriate size.
Highways implications
3.9 County Highways raises no objections to the proposal and the parking proposed within the site is considered to be acceptable. The parking arrangement complies with CS Policy DM13.
3.10 Concerns have been raised in relation to the increased use of the driveway. It is understood that the building previously had an employment use and the erection of a dwelling would be unlikely to generate more traffic than what would be associated with an employment use of the building. It is not considered that the addition of one further dwelling would have any significant impact on the amount of traffic along the road and the principle of development in this location is acceptable.
Conclusion and other matters
3.11 Third party comments have been taken into account, but do not outweigh the policy support for the proposal.
3.12 A Bat Survey has been submitted and shows that there is no bat presence. The Council’s Ecologist raises no objections.
3.13 The proposal is considered to comply with policy and Government guidance and there are no implications under the Equality Act that would alter this conclusion.
g) Recommendation
I PERMISSION BE GRANTED, subject to the following conditions:- (1) Standard time limit; (2) Approved plans; (3) Material samples; (4) Parking provision; (5) Obscure glazed windows; (6) Joinery details; (7) Removal of PD rights for out-buildings and extensions; (8) Bin and bike store; (9) Construction Method Statement; (10) tree protection measures.
II Powers be delegated to the Regeneration and Development Manager to settle any necessary planning conditions in accordance with issues set out in the report and as resolved by the Planning Committee.
Case Officer
Sarah Platts
69 70 Agenda Item No 11
DOVER DISTRICT COUNCIL
PLANNING COMMITTEE – 11 JULY 2013
REPORT OF THE HEAD OF REGENERATION AND DEVELOPMENT a) DOV/12/00 356 - Retrospective application for a change of use to hand car wash and ancillary retail outlet - Sholden petrol filling station, Sandwich Road, Hacklinge.
Reason for report: The number of third party contrary views. b) Summary of Recommendation
Planning permission be granted. c) Planning Policy and Guidance
Dover District Core Strategy (CS)
• Policy DM1 states that development will not be permitted outside the confines unless specifically justified by other plan policies, or it functionally requires such a location, or it is ancillary to existing development or uses.
• Policy DM3 states that permission for new commercial development in the rural area will be given provided that; it is located at a rural service centre ore a local centre; it is consistent with the scale and setting of the settlement; or it is at a village and would it would not generate significant travel demand; it should be within rural settlements unless it can be demonstrated that no suitable site exists.
• Policy DM11 does not permit development that would generate a need to travel outside the urban boundaries
• Policy DM15 states that development which would result in the loss of or adversely affect the character or appearance of the countryside will only be permitted if it is; i) in accordance with development plan documents; ii) justified by the needs of agricultural; iii) justified by the need to sustain a rural economy or community; iv) it cannot be accommodated elsewhere; and v) it does not result in the loss of ecological habitats. Measures should be incorporated to reduce as far as practicable any harmful effects on countryside character.
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and Technical Guide
• The NPPF states that at its heart is a presumption in favour of sustainable development. It sets out three dimensions to sustainable development: economic, social and environmental and provides twelve core principles that should undertake decision-taking.
• It supports the sustainable growth and expansion of all types of business and enterprise in rural areas, both through conversion of existing buildings and well designed new buildings.
71
The Kent Design Guide (KDG) Advises on the importance of good design and offers design advice. d) Relevant Planning History DOV/91/0815 - Use of the rear of the site for sale of vehicles and replacement of existing building with new cashier and showroom, including associated landscaping – Refused.
DOV/92/0428 - Use of compound at rear of the site for sale of vehicles and replacement of existing building with new cashier and showroom together with landscape treatment – Appeal dismissed.
DOV/05/0965 - Change of use to assembly and retail sales of fencing products (involving the removal of existing pumps and canopy) erection of security fencing, refurbishment and alterations to existing kiosk building and erection of workshop building – Refused.
DOV/07/0843 - Change of use from filling station to car sales – Refused. e) Consultee and Third Party Responses
Environmental Health: No objection, subject to condition KCC Highway Services : Further information required KCC Archaeology: No measures required Southern Water: No objection, subject to details foul sewage disposal Environment Agency: No objection, subject to condition Internal Drainage Board: Comments awaited Natural England: Comments awaited Sholden Parish Council: Objects, for the following reasons- highway safety, contamination of the stream and impact on the SSSI and RAMSAR Public Representation: Seven letters of objection have been received. The comments are summarised as follows: • Contamination of the stream; • Near accidents with horses; • Noise disturbance; • The business opened in March 2012 without permission; • Flood zone; • Surrounded by SSSI and RAMSAR; • Drainage gullys are permanently blocked; • The road is already dangerous; • Car sales would increase the danger; • Car sales and its compound would create an eyesore; • The pathway for wheelchair users has on occasions be blocked; • No marked areas for car parking.
f) 1. The Site and the Proposal
72
1.1 The site is located beyond the village and urban confines and is within an area at risk of flooding. Land surrounding the site is designated as a SSSI and RAMSAR.
1.2 The site is accessed via the A258 to the west. With the exception of this busy road, the Adelaide Café to the south and a few sporadic residential dwellings, the area is wholly rural in character.
1.3 The application site is 0.2ha and is larger covered in hard standing, together with a small building which previously a petrol filling station. The site is now being occupied by a hand car wash business and has been operating since early 2012 without the benefit of planning permission.
1.4 Retrospective planning permission is now being sought for the use of the site for a hand car wash business, together with an ancillary retail unit. The application as originally submitted included car sales, however the applicant has now deleted this from the proposal because it was considered to be unacceptable.
1.5 Plans will be on display.
2. Main Issues
2.1 The main issues in the consideration of this application are:
• The principle of development; • Impact on visual amenity; • Impact on highway safety; • Other matters.
3. Assessment
Principle
3.1 The site was originally used as a petrol filling station, but had been disused for many years prior to the commencement of this current use.
3.2 The site constitutes previously developed land within the countryside. The NPPF encourages the effective use of land by re-using land that has been previously developed (brownfield land).
3.3 Policy DM3 of the CS supports new commercial development in rural areas, when in or adjacent to settlement confines. Although not within a rural settlement, the site is adjacent to a main route to a rural service centre (Sandwich) and the use is consistent with the scale and setting of the previous use on this site. Due to the historic use of the site, the proposed use is considered to be acceptable and the proposal in accordance with policy DM3.
3.4 Policy DM1 advises that development outside the confines will be acceptable if other development plan policies support it. In this case, the proposal complies with policy DM3. It could also be argued that
73 the original use of the site supports the functional use of what is now being proposed.
3.5 The hand car wash is a low key use. The car sales element originally proposed would have been an intensified the use with no justification. In light of an application for car sales that was refused in 2007, the car sales use has been deleted from this application.
3.6 The ancillary retail unit is considered to be acceptable and would have existed when the petrol filling station was in operation.
Visual Amenity
3.7 The site is located within the countryside and planning policy requires development to be refused if it would adversely affect the character and the appearance. Prior to the commencement of the use, the site was rundown and in a poor state of repair. At present, the existing users have done little to improve the visual appearance of the site. Once permission is granted, the small kiosk building will be refurbished to accommodate the small retail unit. It is considered that by permitting this retrospective application it would not have a greater adverse impact on the countryside than the previous use and therefore complies with policy DM15.
Residential Amenity
3.8 Local residents have raised concerns relating to noise being omitted from the cleaning equipment. Environmental Health has been consulted and advises that if the vacuum cleaners are concealed in sound proofed boxes then there would be no objection to the proposal. It is understood that the applicant has now carried out this work and a safeguarding condition is suggested, which requires the sound proofing to be maintained at a certain level.
3.9 With due consideration given to the previous use of the site, it is unlikely that this new use would have a greater impact on residential amenity.
3.10 A planning condition should be imposed to restrict the operation days and hours. The applicant has suggested 8am to 6pm Monday to Saturdays and 9am to 5pm Sundays and Bank holidays.
Highway Safety 3.11 The Highways Engineer has requested a detailed plan to be submitted to show clearly marked car parking spaces and vehicle manoeuvring areas within the site. This is required to ensure that cars will not be queuing on the public highway and causing hazard. At the time of writing this report, the amended plan had not been received. Members will be verbally up-dated at the meeting.
3.12 As the site has been in operation for over a year and no complaints have been received by the Highway Authority; a good indication that this proposal if approved, is unlikely to lead to harm in terms of highway safety.
74 3.13 Based on the lawful use of the site, it is not considered that this hand car wash business would generate a greater travel demand on the rural roads and thus would not conflict with the aims of policy DM11.
Other matters 3.14 Local residents and the Environment Agency have raised concerns that contaminated surface water from the site has been running off and polluting the adjacent water course. Since the commencement of the use, the applicant has been working in direct contact with the Environment Agency to establish a drainage solution.
3.15 The applicant has confirmed that there is a large water tank under the site for waste water and a full length gully drain across the access of the site has been provided.
3.16 The Environment Agency has provided confirmation that they are now satisfied with the arrangements on the site and do not raise an objection to the proposal.
3.17 Also of concern to local residents was the impact on wildlife due to the proximity of RAMSAR sites and SSSI. Natural England has been consulted and its comments are awaited and they will be reported verbally at the meeting. However, as the site is not within these designations, it does not directly abut them and as it is a replacement low key use, it is unlikely that the hand car wash business would have a harmful impact.
Conclusion
3.18 The proposal is for the re-use of an existing building and brownfield site in a rural area and the NPPF supports the principle of this form of development. It is considered that, subject to planning conditions, there would be no adverse harm on the environment and there would be a social and an economic benefit, meeting the overall aims of sustainable development.
3.19 Consideration has been given to all other materials matters raised by third parties, but none outweigh the conclusion to grant planning permission.
3.20 In respect of the Public Sector Equality Duty under the Equality Act, the recommendation is not considered to disproportionately affect any particular group. g) Recommendation
I Subject to the receipt of a satisfactory car parking plan being submitted and no objection being raised by Natural England, PERMISSION BE GRANTED, subject to the following conditions:- 1) Approved plans; 2) No external lighting; 3) Provision and implementation of car parking and manoeuvring layout; 4) Hours and days of operation; 5) Sound proofing; 6) Monitoring of land contamination.
75 II Powers be delegated to the Regeneration and Delivery Manager to settle any necessary planning conditions in line with the issues set out in the recommendation and as resolved by the Planning Committee.
Case Officer Rachel Humber
76 77 Agenda Item No 12
DOVER DISTRICT COUNCIL
PLANNING COMMITTEE – 11 JULY 2013
REPORT OF THE HEAD OF REGENERATION AND DEVELOPMENT
a) DOV/13/0119 – Renewal of planning permission DOV/08/00903 for erection of detached building incorporating 10 flats and associated parking and landscaping. Land adjoining, 3 Warwick Road, Walmer.
Reason for report: The number of third party contrary views. b) Summary of Recommendation
Planning permission be renewed. 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 DM5 advises that affordable housing should be provided on the application site except in relation to developments of 5 to 14 dwellings which may provide either on-site affordable housing or a broadly equivalent financial contribution, or a combination of both.
• 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.
Affordable Housing – Supplementary Planning Document • Affordable Housing Supplementary Planning Document aims to alert developers and landowners as early as possible to the scale of local needs for affordable housing and the fact that planning obligations will be sought and conditions imposed on relevant planning permissions in order to achieve affordable housing as part of residential developments. The Council is keen that negotiations relating to affordable housing should be started early in the development process so that the cost of providing affordable housing can be readily anticipated within land purchase price and overall development costs.
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)
78 • 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.
Walmer Design Statement (WDS) The site falls within the Mid-Dover Road Area. Gradually rising land between the military barracks and the original village on Drum Hill. The varying scale and architectural design of the properties combined with the green open spaces, front gardens and significant protected trees define its character. d) Relevant Planning History
DOV/08/0903 – Erection of a detached building incorporating 10 flats, associated parking, access and landscaping. Land adjoining 3 Warwick Road, Walmer. e) Consultee and Third Party Responses
Environmental Health : No objection, subject to the same conditions from DOV/08/00903 being imposed.
KCC Highway Services: No objection, subject to the same conditions from DOV/08/00903 being imposed.
Mouchel on behalf of KCC: A financial contribution of £8734.81 is being sought towards the provision of education, libraries and adult social services.
Southern Water: No objections, comments from 2008 remain the same.
Walmer Parish Council: Objects for the following reasons; • Contrary to the NPPF; • A loss of garden land; • Over looking and a loss of privacy; • Out of scale with surrounding buildings; • Out of character with the street scene; • Contrary to the WDS; • Exacerbate existing highway hazards; • Removal of trees along the boundary, a TPO should be made.
Public Representation : Fifteen letters of objection have been received raising the following material concerns, summarized as follows; • An obtrusive development; • Too high an large; • Visually harmful; • Would adversely change the character; • Would overshadow adjacent properties; • Would over look and result in a loss of privacy;
79 • There is already a problem with on street car parking; • Garden land is no longer classified as brownfield; • The access is not safe, it is close to a junction where major accidents occur; • Would result in the loss of an important open space; • Would detract from the open character; • There isn’t a need; • There are rare species on the site; • Would harm the setting of the conservation area; • Pressure on schools and services; f) 1. The Site and the Proposal
1.1 The site is situated within the urban confines of Walmer within a wholly residential area. Approximately 30m to the north east of the site is the boundary to the Walmer Conservation Area.
1.2 The site falls within the ‘Mid-Dover Road Area’ as defined in the Walmer Design Statement, the general character is aptly described as, ‘Individually designed detached and semi-detached houses and bungalows occupy large plots. Many have interesting architectural features and some have high brick walls giving a feeling of seclusion. Those on Warwick Road enjoy a feeling of remoteness from traffic. There remain examples of the distinctive 19 th century properties on Dover Road near Walmer Village. They include two and three storey terraces and detached properties with distinctive decorative features – turrets, balconies, iron railings and grand door cases. Dwellings on Dover Road vary in scale and reflect the changing social needs and architectural designs that were evident throughout the 20 th Century. They are linked harmoniously by the use of common materials and similar design details, the majority have cultivated front gardens bounded by low brick walls’.
1.3 The application site is a corner plot and sits at the junction of Dover Road and Warwick Road. The site would form the severed side garden of no. 3 Warwick Road. The site is level and consists of a large grassed area, on the north west boundary fronting Dover Road and the south west boundary fronting Warwick Road the site is enclosed by an attractive 2m high brick wall. Behind the boundary wall there is a line of mature lime trees which have been heavily pollarded.
1.4 Planning permission is being sought to renew a planning application granted under reference DOV/08/0903 for the erection of a block of 10 flats, over three storeys with accommodation in the roof space. The building has been designed to reflect the character of the adjacent dwellings (no.114 – 116). The main principle elevation would front the Dover Road. The site would have a vehicle access from Warwick Road together with a pedestrian access from the Dover Road. In total 15 car parking spaces and 10 cycle spaces have been proposed together with a secure bin store located adjacent to the vehicle access. Private amenity space would be provided at the rear of the building adjacent to no.3 Warwick Road.
1.5 Plans will be on display.
80
2. Main Issues
2.1 Extensions to the time limits for implementing existing planning permissions were brought into force on 1 October 2009 via an amendment to the Planning Act. The ‘Greater Flexibility for Planning Permissions’ paper prepared by the Communities and Local Government (CLG) advises that ‘This measure has been introduced in order to make it easier for developers and local planning authorities (LPA) to keep planning permissions alive for longer during the economic downturn so that they can more quickly be implemented when economic conditions improve. This procedure allows applicants to apply for a new planning permission to replace an existing permission which is in danger of lapsing, in order to obtain a longer period in which to begin the development.
2.2 If permission is granted it will result in an extension of time for the implementation of a planning permission by grant of a new permission.
2.3 The CLG advise that LPA should take a positive and constructive approach towards applications which improve the prospect of sustainable development being taken forward quickly. The development proposed in an application for extension will by definition have been judged to be acceptable in principle at an earlier date.
2.4 This application should, be determined in accordance with the Planning Act and attention should be focused on development plan policies which may have changed significantly since the original grant of permission.
2.5 The application DOV/08/0903 was originally referred to the Planning Committee on the 12 th February 2009 where Members resolved to grant permission subject to a section 106 agreement to secure a financial contribution. The planning permission was formally granted 22 nd April 2010. This current application was submitted 15 th February 2013.
2.6 The main issues in the consideration of this application are:
• The status of DOV/08/0903; • The principle of development; • Change in local planning policy; and • Other matters
3. Assessment
Status of DOV/08/0903 3.1 The applicant has provided evidence that work has commenced on the development as approved under DOV/08/0903 by way of on site excavations. A letter from Building Control dated 3 rd April 2013 advises on the acceptance of the initial works. In addition the all of the pre- commencement planning conditions have been discharged.
3.2 Your officers are satisfied that a material start has been made on permission DOV/08/0903 and that the applicant can now carry out this development in full.
81 3.3 In light of the commencement of DOV/08/0903, the applicant has been advised that it is not necessary to proceed with this current application and that it should be withdrawn. However, the applicant wishes for it to be determined, to bring added certainty to the development.
Principle 3.4 The residential development would be located within the confines of Walmer, saved local plan policy HS2 allows residential development within the confines where it is the most compatible form of land use.
3.5 The NPPF acknowledges that garden land is not previously developed land and as such there is not a presumption in favour of the development of sites such as these. It should be noted that PPS3 (Housing) originally considered garden land to be brown field and as such there was a strong presumption in favour of development. However the NPPF does make it clear that all decisions should be made in accordance with the development plan. Thus, because the site is located within the confines and within a residential area, the proposal would be in accordance with policy HS2 of the DDLP. It therefore has to be accepted that the principle of development is acceptable.
Change in local plan policies
3.6 There are two significant changes in local policy; firstly the provision of affordable housing. The previous policy required affordable housing to be provided where the number of residential units would be 25 or more. The new CS policy DM5 has significantly reduced this threshold and requires developments of 5 to 14 dwellings to provide either on- site affordable housing or a broadly equivalent financial contribution, or a combination of both. If members are minded to grant permission it is recommended that officers should be given delegated powers to negotiate with the applicant the provision of affordable housing on this site. 3.7 The second change in policy is the requirement for all new dwellings to be built in accordance with the Code for Sustainable Homes. Policy CP5 requires this building to be constructed to Code level 4. As development has now commenced without compliance with the code it is unlikely that code level 4 could now be achieved. It maybe possible still for a lower code level to be achieved or for the applicant to provide compensatory measures. If Members are minded to grant permission, it is recommended that delegated powers be given to officers to carry out further negotiations.
Other Matters
3.8 The application has not changed nor have the characteristics of the site and the surrounding area therefore the Impact on the character and appearance of the street scene, residential amenity and highway safety remain the same. However the impacts are summarised below.
Visual Amenity
3.9 A fundamental element of the character of the street scene and the wider area is the ample space between the buildings and the space
82 between the front building line and the back edge of the public highway. The separation distances vary between the existing buildings by some 2m -10m. The proposed building has been set away from the flank elevation of no. 116 by 4.6m. The building would also be set approximately 13.8m away from the south west boundary with Warwick Road. As described in the WDS, the front gardens generally in the area are well vegetated and have a depth of approximately 8m. The proposed building would share the same building line as no.116. It is the opinion of the Conservation Officer that this site is a very important site and forms a transition between the historic part of Walmer and the 20 th century extension to the built up area. It is advised that the proposed siting of the development would respect the spatial layout and character of this transition area. The siting also ensures that the general openness of the site would be retained by virtue of the gap between the building and Warwick Road. There is a row of pollarded trees adjacent to Dover Road, these trees are protected by a preservation order and it is considered that they are an important landscape feature within this part of Dover Road. In addition the attractive boundary wall would be retained albeit with a few openings.
3.10 The retention of the boundary brick wall would ensure that the car park is screened from public views, thus there would be no detrimental visual impact.
3.11 In 2008 the Conservation Officer advises that the scheme is sympathetic to the character of the area and the transition between the two character areas (19 th and 20 th century) referred to in the WDS. The proposed building reflects the character of the adjacent dwellings by replicating the roof form and the projecting bay windows. The Conservation Officer also draws attention to the importance of the building materials stating, that it can be influential in the success or otherwise of the scheme. The applicant has confirmed in a letter dated 23 rd December 2008 that all doors and windows would be timber and not UPVC. A condition was imposed to secure this and details of the doors have been submitted and approved pursuant to condition. The Conservation Officer has requested that other conditions be imposed requesting that all windows should be set in a 100mm reveal and details of meter boxes, flues and vents should also be agreed.
3.12 Some local residents have stated that the proposed building is actually four storeys and is too tall, however the maximum ridge height of the building is no greater than the adjacent dwelling no.116 with an overall height of 11m with the ‘wings’ of the building step down to a height of 9m. The building may appear taller than the adjacent dwelling because the internal floor to ceiling heights are shorter thus enabling more floors to be accommodated within the building.
3.13 Subject to conditions the layout, siting and design of the building is considered to be acceptable and not harmful to the character and appearance of the street scene or the nearby conservation area.
Residential Amenity
83 3.14 The north east elevation of the building faces onto no.116 Dover Road, this entire elevation would be blank with 3 roof lights in the roof slope, provided to allow natural light into the living area of a second floor flat. The side windows in the front bay would have an oblique view across the front garden of no.116, this is considered to be acceptable and would not lead to a loss of privacy.
3.15 Windows are proposed in the south west elevation to serve lounge and kitchens areas to three flats. Some of the lounge windows would be fitted with balconnettes, for decorative purposes. This elevation would be in excess of 30m away from the flank elevation of no. 130 Dover Road, so there would be no significant detrimental levels of over-looking.
3.16 The south east, rear elevation, is only 12m from the common boundary with no. 3 Warwick Road and windows are proposed in all floors including 2 dormer windows. The ground floor windows are considered to be acceptable as they would be screened from over - looking by the boundary treatment. The windows in the first and second floor would serve bathrooms, kitchens and bedrooms. In order to reduce the amount of over-looking a condition could be imposed to ensure that the bathroom and kitchen windows are fitted with obscure glass. The two dormer windows in the roof space would serve the lounge. It would create an unpleasant living environment if these windows were obscured, so amended plans have been received which show that these two dormers have been reduced in size. The applicant has acknowledged that there could be over-looking and a subsequent loss of privacy to 3 Warwick Road and has therefore identified on the plan a substantial landscape screen.
3.17 The north west, front elevation, would be in excess of 20m from the dwellings on the opposite side of the street, it is not considered that over-looking would occur, due to the distance and lime tree screen. In addition the fronts of dwellings are not considered to be private as they front onto the public highway.
3.18 The building would be sited some 4.6 m away from no. 116. The closest part of the building would extend only some 2m past the rear building line, the deepest part of the building would extend 7m past the rear building line but would be 11.6m away from the flank elevation. The proposed building would not impinge the 45 degree line and thus would not be a dominant and oppressive structure. It is considered that the building would retain to an acceptable level a sense op openness.
3.19 It is however, considered that no. 116 may loose some natural light in the afternoon due to the orientation and the height of the building. The loss would not be significant and would not justify refusing this application.
3.20 The impact on no.3 in terms of out-look and natural light would be noticeable but it would be minimal and not significant to support a reason for refusing planning permission.
84 3.21 No other residential dwellings are in close enough proximity to be harmed by this proposal.
3.22 The accommodation to be provided is of an acceptable standard in terms of room sizes, overall unit sizes, out look, privacy and natural light. A private communal garden area with a pond has been indicated on the plans, creating an area for outdoor amenity. A secure, external, bicycle and bin store have been identified on the plan. They have been sited in a location where it would be practical for use by the residents and for refuse collection. Elevation details of the bike and bin store have not been provided, if planning permission is granted a condition should be imposed requiring these details.
Highway Safety 3.23 Local residents have raised concerns relating to traffic at the busy junction of Warwick Road and Dover Road, the potential for the increase in on street car parking and difficult access for emergency vehicles. As with most planning applications Kent Highway Services have been consulted on the application. The Highway Engineer has not raised an objection to the proposal, subject to the same planning conditions being imposed.
Biodiversity 3.24 Local residents have stated that there maybe Great Crested Newts present within the site. As these are protected species and the development involves the removal of a pond, in 2008 the applicant carried out an assessment. The assessment advised that it was unlikely that any Great Crested Newts would be at this site, but advised that the common frog or smooth newt may be encountered. The report recommended that should these species be found during development then they are carefully moved somewhere within the site to safety and if the pond can not be retained a similar new pond is created as mitigation. The plan demonstrates a new pond in the corner of the site.
3.25 A tree survey has also been carried out, although the trees are not protected or within a conservation area. The aboriculturist recommends that as long as the tree protection plan is carried out diligently no long term impact on the trees should be observed. The applicant has already implemented tree protection measures on site.
Community Facilities 3.26 Mouchel on behalf of KCC have requested a financial contribution of £8734.81 towards the provision of education, libraries and adult social services. During the course of the last application a contribution of £14,280 was sought and secured by way of a legal agreement, this payment is obviously now significantly less than that being sought.
Conclusion
3.27 The principle of the development is considered to be acceptable and in accordance with the objectives of the NPPF and saved Policy HS2 of the Local Plan. It has previously been agreed that the design of the building and its siting would not harm the overall appearance and character of the area or residential amenities of the surrounding
85 occupiers. The Highway Engineer has confirmed that it would not harm highway safety.
3.28 It is advised that Members give officers delegated powers to negotiate on the outstanding matters relating to affordable housing and the code for sustainable homes.
3.29 Consideration has been given to all other materials matters raised but none outweigh the conclusion to grant planning permission.
3.30 In respect of the Public Sector Equality Duty under the Equality Act, the recommendation is not considered to disproportionately affect any particular group.
g) Recommendation
I Subject to a section 106 agreement to secure a financial payment for community facilities and the provision of affordable housing, and the resolution of the code for sustainable homes, PERMISSION BE GRANTED subject to the following conditions: 1) standard time limit; 2) in accordance with approved plans; 3) material samples; 4) 100mm window reveals 5) Noise Insulation 6) Land contaminations 7) Surface water drainage 8) Boundary details 9) Hard and soft landscaping 10) layout and retention of car parking spaces and manoeuvring area 11) Provision and retention of bin and cycle store 12) Details of metre boxes, flues and vents 13) Bike and Bin store details 14) Confirmation of development in accordance with the tree protection plan.
II Powers be delegated to the Regeneration and Delivery Manager to settle any necessary planning conditions in line with the issues set out in the recommendation and as resolved by the Planning Committee.
Case Officer
Rachel Humber
86 87 Agenda Item No 13
DOVER DISTRICT COUNCIL
PLANNING COMMITTEE – 11 JULY 2013
REPORT OF THE HEAD OF REGENERATION AND DEVELOPMENT a) DOV/11/0273 – Retrospective application for the erection of a barn for the storage of hay/straw and stabling of two horses and the use of the land for the keeping of two horses - Land at Bay View Road, Kingsdown
Reason for Report: Deferred from committee meeting held on 21 February 2013 in order to establish the intended use of the barn. b) Summary of Recommendation Planning permission be granted c) Planning Policy and Guidance
Dover District local Plan (DDLP) ‘Saved Policies’
• Dover District Local Plan (DDLP) Policy CO5 states that development will only be permitted on the undeveloped or Heritage Coast if it complies with the listed four criteria and if the development will not adversely affects the scenic beauty, heritage or nature conservation value.
• Policy DD21 supports horse related development provided that it meets certain specified criteria, including suitable accommodation for horses and land for grazing and exercising; ease of access to suitable riding country can be provided; buildings are of a high standard of design and construction and do not adversely affect the character or appearance of the countryside; where possible, existing buildings should be converted in preference to the construction of new buildings; and the amenities of nearby residents are not adversely affected.
Core Strategy (CS)
• Core Strategy (CS) Policy DM 1 states that development beyond the confines will not be permitted unless it is ancillary development or it functionally requires such a location.
• CS Policy DM11 advises that applications for development that would generate travel will not be permitted outside the urban area unless justified by development plan policies.
• CS Policy DM15 states that development which result in the loss of or adversely affect the character or appearance of the countryside will only be permitted if it complies with one of the listed criteria, inter alias, it is required by the needs of agriculture; justified by the need to sustain the rural economy or community; it cannot be accommodated elsewhere; and does not result in the loss of ecological habitats.
88 National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)
• The NPPF states that at its heart is a presumption in favour of sustainable development. It sets out three dimensions to sustainable development: economic, social and environmental and provides twelve core principles that should undertake decision-taking.
Kent Design Guide
• The Kent Design Guide provides criteria and advice on providing well designed development.
Managing Land for Horses • A guide to good practice in the Kent Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty d) Relevant Planning History
The site has a long planning history including previous enforcement investigations. However the most relevant applications are as follows:-
DOV/08/00549 – Retention of septic tank and soak away – appeal dismissed
DOV/03/1074 – Outline application for the erection of a dwelling – refused
DOV/91/00777 – Menage, pole barn/field shelter and hay/straw barn – granted e) Consultee and Third Party Responses The Committee should note that the representations received in relation to the advertisement of the original application are set out in the report to Committee on 21st February 2013, are appended to this report. The below comments are in relation to the re-advertised application.
Natural England: No comment as the development is unlikely to have an impact on the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), Special Area of conservation (SAC) and Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI).
KCC Public Rights of Way (PRoW): No comments to make
Rural Planning Limited (RPL): Keeping horses and hay on the site would amount to more than just grazing and would be a non-agriculture use. The barn is large and it is estimated that only half would be needed. Therefore it is advised that a building of this size is not necessary for that limited purpose.
Kent Downs AONB Unit: No objection subject to standard conditions
Kingsdown Parish Council: Object for the following reasons;
89 • The barn on site is significantly larger than the one approved • The proposed use is now significantly different to that originally proposed in 1991 • The extant permission should be given less weight • The Parish Council has been informed that the site has not been used for 20 years for the grazing of horses • It is feared that he applicant will build a house on the site • There is no evidence that the septic tank has been removed
Public Representations :
A further 11 representations objecting to the proposal have been received since the application was re-advertised. The comments are summarized as follows;
• The Council does not hold accurate plans of the barn approved in 1991 • The applicant had no intention of building the approved 1991 plans • The proposed use is now significantly different to the 1991 permission and that originally applied for • The land has not been used on and off for grazing for the last 20 years • The Planning inspector in 2009 advised that there was no evidence of horse grazing • Local residents have concerns that the barn will become a house • The size of the barn for two horses and hay is excessive • It does nothing to enhance the AONB • It is questionable as to whether the barn is extant • The only access is via Northcote Road so this will increase traffic on that road • The site has a long enforcement history • The area is rich in biodiversity; bats, reptiles; badgers; orchids • It is not the re-use or an adaptation of an existing rural building or ancillary to existing residential dwelling • New fencing forced the public footpath to be re-routed • The site is outside the confines, there is no demonstrable local, countrywide or nationwide need to develop the AONB, the proposal should be refused • It would generate traffic beyond the rural confines • Condition 2 of the 1991 permission states that the permission shall enure solely for the benefit of Mr and Mrs Stageman, and was directly referring to Kelf Farm. This should make the permission null and void • The proposal is not economical or practical for the applicant • The applicant does not live nearby and the horses should be located closer to the applicant’s home. f) 1. The Site and the proposal
1.1 The application site lies outside the settlement confines of Kingsdown, within a designated Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The area is partly wooded, rolling countryside, where there are a number of isolated dwellings, outbuildings and a riding school.
90 1.2 The site is an ‘L’ shaped parcel of land, with over-grown boundaries, the central area of the site has been cleared and there is now no evidence of where hardcore had once been laid. There appears to be no existing use for the site, but is clear that the land is now being mowed on a regular basis.
1.3 The application site was once part of the adjacent riding school and formed part of the planning unit when planning permission (DOV/91/777 refers) was granted on the 15 October 1991. It allowed the erection of a ménage, pole barn and hay barn which were considered necessary to the essential running of the riding school. From the planning file notes it transpires that the pole barn/field shelter had already been built prior to this 1991 planning application being determined. Since that time the planning unit has been sub- divided and the application site has became detached from the riding school.
1.4 Retrospective planning permission is sought for the retention of a barn that has been erected in the south eastern part of the site. The barn is clad in olive green steel paneling and commencement of works took place around March 2010, which is when complaints were first received. The building has been built differently to the approved drawings granted by the 1991 permission because a mistake arose as a result of the architect dying and the wrong drawings being followed. Local residents dispute this fact. Precise measurements of the barn were taken on site by your officers and confirmed by the applicant as follows; 13.7m wide x 9.2m deep x 5.85m (ridge height), the lowest eaves height is 3.6m.
1.5 A legal view has been received regarding whether there has been a material commencement of the 1991 planning permission. Also, of consideration is condition 2 of the 1991 permission which states that ‘this permission shall enure solely for the benefit of Mr.& Mrs.B.Stageman’. The Council’s Solicitors advice is that the planning permission runs with the land and it makes no difference if the site is now within two ownerships. Thus the conclusive advice is that by virtue of part implementation of the 1991 permission with the creation of the pole barn, the 1991 permission remains extant and the hay barn approved under that permission can be implemented. The reason condition 2 was imposed on the 1991 permission was so that the Council can have further control over the use of the site. By reason of this application to be determined by the Planning Committee, demonstrates that the Council does have some control over this part of the site.
1.6 Members will recall hearing this application at the meeting on the 21 st February 2013 (agenda item 16). Following the public speaking Members decided to defer making a decision until further information from the applicant had been received regarding the proposed use of the site. (minute 489, 21st February 2013).
1.7 In an email received 12 th March 2013 from the applicant it was advised that ‘I can confirm that the intended usage of the barn is for the storage of hay/straw. The land has been used on and off for horse grazing for the last 20+ years so neither of these options
91 represent a change of use. In relation to concerns by third parties I can confirm the following, I have no desire to open a riding school or offer riding to the public, or any other commercial enterprises. I do not wish to use the barn for any other usage apart from stated and your enforcement officers are welcome to check on this when they wish. I do not require any internal modifications to the barn or any other construction apart from completing the final 10% of unfinished work cladding / guttering etc. The only visitors to the field would be my family so no extra traffic would be created or required. I urge you now after two years and much deliberation and legal enquiries on your part to make your decision please so this matter can be concluded’.
1.8 The following amended description for this planning application was agreed with the applicant ‘Retrospective application for the erection of a barn for the storage of hay and stabling of two horses and the use of the land for grazing of two horses’. This application has also been re-advertised for the statutory period of 21 days.
1.9 Based on the advice from RPL, the application would be better described as ‘…the use of the land for the keeping of two horses’. There is a fine difference at this level between grazing and the keeping of horses and ultimately does not change the considerations of this application.
1.10 The drawings will be on display
2. Main Issues
2.1 The main issues in this case are; • Principle of the development; • Impact on the character and appearance of the countryside and the AONB; • Impact on highway safety; • Biodiversity; and • Archaeology.
3. Assessment
3.1 The principle of this retrospective development has already been approved as a result of the 1991 planning permission having been granted for erection of a ménage, pole barn and hay/straw barn. This development was materially commenced by virtue of the building of a pole barn. The hay/straw barn as erected however is different to the approved drawings associated with the 1991 permission by reason of its orientation and the erection of doors (previously it was open sided).
Principle
3.2 Policies DM1 and DM15 of the Core Strategy have similar aims in that they seek to protect the countryside from unjustified and harmful development. Policy DM1 advises that development will only be permitted if it functionally requires such a location. In this instance, the proposed use for the stabling and for the keeping of horses requires a
92 rural location such as this. It can be concluded that the proposal is in accordance with policy DM1 of the CS.
3.3 Saved policy DD21 from the adopted Local Plan supports horse related development provided it meets the 5 listed criteria.
3.4 RPL has advised that the barn is large for the intended use. However, it is still considered to be suitable to provide accommodation for two horses. On balance although larger than what would be required for the identified need there is no visual impact. The proposal is of an acceptable size, accessible to suitable riding country and is considered to be of acceptable construction and no harm is caused to residential amenity. Therefore it is advised that the proposal complies with policy DD21.
Impact on Surrounding Countryside
3.5 The building as erected is clad in steel sheets and is olive in colour. The design, size and materials are not traditional characteristics of a rural building but more akin to a modern agricultural building.
3.6 The building is visible from a number of public vantage points including footpaths and cycle paths and the adjacent golf course. Natural England has confirmed that the barn does not harm the integrity of the AONB. The Kent Downs AONB Unit and the KCC PRoW officer have also not raised any concerns, thus confirming no visual impact on the public footpaths or the surrounding countryside. Your officers visited the site again on the 19 th June 2013 primarily to take measurements and they concluded that the unauthorized development did not appear as stark in the landscape due in part to weathering and because the natural vegetation around the site boundaries have matured and have helped to soften the visual impact from the immediate vicinity. Whilst, Members were originally advised that the barn is harmful to the character and appearance of the countryside and the AONB, it is considered on balance and given the subsequent advice from the AONB unit and the weathering effects of the materials, that the proposal does not result in visual harm to the surrounding landscapes at a level that would justify a recommendation of refusal.
3.7 Members are advised that the difference in size between the extant barn and the built barn is not significant especially when the views of the barn are long distance. In any event the application has to be decided on what is now being applied for and that is the barn which is in-situ
Impact on Highway Safety
3.8 Policy DM11 states that development that would generate a need to travel will not be permitted outside the rural settlement confines unless justified by other policies.
3.9 The applicant has explained that the site will only be visited by his family and will not form a commercial enterprise. Therefore the volume of traffic to and from the site would not be significantly different from
93 the existing situation. If Members are minded to grant permission a condition should be imposed which restricts the number of horses and use of the site from being used commercially thereby controlling traffic flow. It is therefore considered that this development complies with policy DM11.
Biodiversity
3.10 It is likely that this site has a high biodiversity interest, including badgers and reptiles. Furthermore, local residents have stated that they have seen protected species on the site.
3.11 The application has not been accompanied by a biodiversity statement and there is no evidence to demonstrate that the applicant has fulfilled his duties under the Countryside and Wildlife Act. Policy DM15 requires all developments not to result in the loss of ecological habitats.
3.12 If Members are minded to grant permission biodiversity enhancement measures could be implemented on the site and required by way of a planning condition.
Archaeology
3.13 The area is rich in archaeological potential. However, due to the retrospective nature of this application, it has not been possible to carry out investigations, recordings or implement mitigation measures contrary to policy requirements to protect, conserve and where appropriate enhance the historic environment (which archaeological sites are considered to be part of).
3.14 The 1991 permission did not require any archaeological works to be carried out and as such had the barn been completed in accordance with the permission. Conditions relating to archaeology could not be retrospectively imposed. Therefore no greater harm has occurred.
Conclusion
3.15 Planning policies DM1 of the CS and DD21 of the DDLP are considered to support the principle of this development. Professional responses from the statutory consultees have confirmed that the barn does not result in an adverse visual impact on the countryside and AONB. The applicant has now provided sufficient information relating to the use of the barn which has satisfactorily addressed concerns relating to traffic. The use can be controlled by way of planning conditions and any harm caused to biodiversity can be mitigated against by the provision of biodiversity enhancement measures.
3.16 Members are advised that the principle of such development is in accordance with local and national planning policy. The fall back position of the extant 1991 planning permission is a material consideration and carries significant weight.
3.17 Due to the level of public concern relating to the perceived fear that the barn may be converted to a residential dwelling and for other
94 reasons a condition should be imposed restricting the use of the barn for the stabling of horses and incidental storage of straw and hay, so that any other use would require planning permission. In addition it is recommended that the Planning Enforcement Team carries out unannounced site visits in order to ensure that the future use remains as that recommended for approval. The applicant has confirmed that he is in agreement with this approach.
3.18 In respect of the Public Sector Equality Duty under the Equality Act, the recommendation is not considered to disproportionately affect any particular group.
g) Recommendation
That planning permission is granted subject to the following conditions:
1) in accordance with the approved drawings; 2) biodiversity enhancement measures; 3) No more than 2 horses or ponies shall be present in connection with the use of land; 4) The barn hereby permitted shall be used solely for the stabling of two horses or ponies kept for private purposes and for the storage of hay and straw shall not be used in connection with any form of business or commercial activity; 5) There shall be no burning on the premises of bedding or waste associated with the stables; 6) No building or temporary structure or equipment, field shelters or further subdivision of the land by fencing, tape or any other means of enclosure shall be erected, placed or kept on the land; 7) No lighting shall be erected upon the site.
Powers be delegated to the Regeneration and Delivery Manager to settle any necessary planning conditions in line with the issues set out in the recommendation and as resolved by the Planning Committee.
Case Officer Rachel Humber
Background paper: Committee report from 21 February 2013
95 BACKGROUND REPORT
DOVER DISTRICT COUNCIL
PLANNING COMMITTEE – 21 st February 2013
REPORT OF THE REGENERATION AND DEVELOPMENT MANAGER
a) DOV/11/0273 – Retrospective application for the erection of a barn. Land
at Bay View Road, Kingsdown
Reason for Report: The number of third part y objections.
a) Summary of Recommendation
Planning permission be granted
c) Planning Policy and Guidance
Dover District local Plan (DDLP) ‘Saved Policies’
• Dover District Local Plan (DDLP) Policy CO5 states that development
will only be permitted on the undeveloped or Heritage Coast if it
complies with the listed four criteria and if the development will not
adversely affects the scenic beauty, heritage or nature conservation
value.
Core Strategy (CS)
• Core Strategy (CS) Policy DM 1 states that development beyond the
confines will not be permitted unless it is ancillary development or it
functionally requires such a location.
96
• CS Policy DM11 advises that applications for development that would
generate travel will not be permitted outside the urban area unless
justified by development plan policies.
• CS Policy DM15 states that development which result in the loss of or
adversely affect the character or appearance of the countryside will
only be permitted if it complies with one of the listed criteria.
South East Plan (SEP
• South East Plan (SEP) Policy C3 advises that high priority will be
given to conservation and enhancement of the natural beauty in the
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB)
• SEP Policy BE6 seeks to ensure that proposals protect, conserve and
where appropriate, enhance the historic environment and the
contribution it makes to local and regional distinctiveness and sense of
place.
• SEP Policy NRM5 advises that a net loss of biodiversity shall be
avoided and actively pursue opportunities to achieve a net gain across
the region.
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)
• The NPPF states that at its heart is a presumption in favour of
sustainable development. It sets out three dimensions to sustainable
97 development: economic, social and environmental and provides twelve
core principles that should undertake decision-taking.
Kent Design Guide
• The Kent Design Guide provides criteria and advice on providing well
designed development.
d) Relevant Planning History
The site has a long planning history including previous enforcement
investigations. However the most relevant applications are as follows:-
DOV/08/00549 – Retention of septic tank and soak away – appeal dismissed
DOV/03/1074 – Outline application for the erection of a dwelling – refused
DOV/91/00777 – Menage, pole barn/field shelter and hay/straw
barn – granted
e) Consultee and Third Party Responses
Rural Planning Advisor : Advises that there is no justification for the proposed
building.
County Archaeologist The site lies in an area of archaeological potential
associated with numerous crop marks in the fields surrounding the village.
The crop marks show evidence of buried past landscapes and archaeological
sites and there are extensive examples of such crop marks just to the north
98 west of the site. Finds of Iron Age and Roman date have also been made
nearby. The retrospective nature of this application means that the
opportunity for any archaeological mitigation has been missed and therefore
no further comments are made.
Natural England : Raises no objection to the proposals being carried out. The
lack of comment should not be interpreted as a statement that there are no
impacts on the natural environment. Other bodies and individuals may also
make comment to assess the impact.
Parish Council : Strong objection for the following reasons:
• There is no need for this proposal
• The site is outside of the confines and in an AONB
• Agree with comments made by local residents
Public Representation : Seventeen letters of objection have been received
(including the CPRE); the comments are summarised as follows:
• Unsightly, detracts from the AONB and the countryside and the
landscape.
• Can be seen from public footpath ER273, national cycle path, the golf
course and the National Trust Land and even more so during the
winter.
99 • There is no justified or exceptional circumstance for this building; it is
not required for agriculture or related to the current use of the site.
• Horses have not been continuously grazed at the site.
• It has resulted in the loss of an ecological habitat.
• It is not located close to a settlement.
• Access is poor and limited to an unadopted road.
• It appears to be intended for a commercial use.
• It is not sensitive to its location and does not enhance the landscape
in any way.
• It is unsightly and disfigures the countryside.
• The applicant has stated that the purpose is to stable his daughter’s
horse. The existing scale and layout of the development does not
suggest this use.
• The building does not conform to the 1991 permission in size,
position, orientation or type, this permission was given when the site
was associated with the riding school. It no longer is and therefore
there is no need for it.
100 • A commercial use for the barn would create noise and disturbance
and the roads are not suitable for such traffic.
• The storage of hay in an enclosed structure would present a fire risk.
f) 1. The Site and the Proposal
1.1 The application site lies outside the settlement confines of Kingsdown,
within a designated Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The area is
partly wooded, rolling countryside, where there are a number of
isolated dwellings, outbuildings and a riding school.
1.2 The site is an ‘L’ shaped parcel of land, with over-grown boundaries,
the central area of the site has been cleared and there is still evidence
of where hardcore had once been laid. There appears to be no
existing use for the site.
1.3 The application site was once part of the adjacent riding school and
formed part of the planning unit when planning permission
(DOV/91/777 refers) was granted on the 15 October 1991. It allowed
the erection of a ménage, pole barn and hay barn which were
considered necessary to the essential running of the riding school.
From the planning file notes it transpires that the pole barn/field
shelter had already been built prior to this 1991 planning application
being determined. Since that time the planning unit has been sub-
divided and the application site has became detached from the riding
school.
101 1.4 Retrospective planning permission is sought for the retention of a barn
that has been erected in the south eastern part of the site. The barn is
clad in olive green steel paneling and commencement of works took
place around March 2010, which is when complaints were first
received.
1.5 The applicant claims that this building was built differently to the
approved drawings granted by the 1991 permission because a
mistake arose as a result of the architect dying and the wrong
drawings being followed.
1.7 It had been previously agreed that the 1991 permission remained
extant because the conditions had been discharged and a material
start on the development had been made by virtue of the erection of
the pole barn.
1.8 A legal view on this stance has been received in view of the
uncertainty about the sub-division of the planning unit as it was in
1991 and whether there has been a material commencement of the
planning permission. The advice is that the planning permission ran
with the land and it makes no difference if the site is now within
different ownerships. Thus the conclusive advice is to the effect that
by virtue of part implementation of the 1991 permission with the
creation of the pole barn, the 1991 permission remains extant and the
hay barn as approved can be implemented.
1.9 The drawings will be on display
102 2. Main Issues
2.1 The main issues in this case are;
• Principle of the development;
• Impact on the character and appearance of the countryside and
the AONB;
• Impact on highway safety;
• Biodiversity; and
• Archaeology.
3. Assessment
3.1 The hay barn as erected is different to the approved drawings
associated with the 1991 permission by reason of its orientation and
the erection of doors (previously it was open sided). In addition it
appears that the barn on site is larger than that approved in the 1991
permission; however this cannot be confirmed as the original drawings
within the Council’s ownership cannot be scaled. The applicant has
not submitted a design and access statement or a planning statement
with the application and as such it is unclear what the building would
be used for. The description of the proposal on the planning
application form is ‘steel hay barn’; however, the site does not produce
hay and is not large enough to provide the amount of hay which would
justify a building of this size. There is no evidence from the applicant
or local residents to demonstrate that hay from surrounding farms is or
would be stored here.
103 3.2 Policy DM1 of the CS does not permit development on land outside
the urban boundaries and rural settlement confines unless specifically
justified by other development plan policies, or it functionally requires
such a location, or it is ancillary to existing development or uses.
Policy DM15 of the CS states that development which would result in
the loss of or adversely affect the countryside will only be permitted if
it is, inter alias; justified by the need of agriculture; or a need to sustain
the rural economy or community.
3.3 The building is not ancillary to any other development or use within the
site. There is no justification for this building or information to
demonstrate that the use functionally requires the location. It has
resulted in the loss of countryside and it is not justified by the needs of
agriculture, or required to sustain the rural economy. The use of the
building has not been explained and the need for it to be sited in this
location has not been proven. The proposal is contrary to policy DM1
and DM15. The applicant has not demonstrated that the building is
justified by other policies.
Visual Impact
3.4 The building as erected is clad in steel sheets and is olive in colour.
The design, size and materials are not traditional characteristics of a
rural building.
3.5 The building is visible from a number of public vantage points
including footpaths and cycle paths and the adjacent golf course. It is
104 harmful to the character and appearance of the countryside and the
AONB. The proposal is contrary to policy C3 of the SEP.
3.6 Policy C3 of the SEP and the NPPF require the AONB and
countryside to be protected for its own sake and encourages Local
Authorities to refuse planning permission for such developments
which cause harm and are without special justification.
Impact on Highway Safety
3.7 Policy DM11 states that development that would generate a need to
travel will not be permitted outside the rural settlement confines unless
justified by other policies.
3.8 The applicant has not indicated what existing traffic is generated or the
type if vehicles expected to visit the site, nor has a clear intended use
of the building been explained. As such it is likely that such a large
building would generate a need to travel and without any justification it
is considered to be contrary to Policy DM11 of the CS.
Biodiversity
3.9 Policy NRM5 of the SEP aims to ensure that the biodiversity of a site
is protected and that no harm comes to protected species. It is likely
that this site has a high biodiversity interest including, badgers and
reptiles. Furthermore, local residents have stated that they have also
seen protected species on the site.
105 3.10 The application has not been accompanied by a biodiversity statement
and there is no evidence to demonstrate that the applicant has fulfilled
his duties under the Countryside and Wildlife Act. Policy DM15
requires all developments not to result in the loss of ecological
habitats.
3.11 In the absence of information the proposal is considered to be
contrary to policy DM15 of the CS, NRM5 of the SEP and NPPF.
However, if Members are minded to grant permission biodiversity
enhancement measures could be implemented on the site and
required by way of a planning condition.
Archaeology
3.12 The area is rich in archaeological potential. However, due to the
retrospective nature of this application, it has not been possible to
carry out investigations, recordings or implement mitigation measures
contrary to Policy BE6 of the SEP which requires proposals to protect,
conserve and where appropriate enhance the historic environment
(which archaeological sites are considered to be part of).
3.13 The 1991 permission did not require any archaeological works to be
carried out and as such had the barn been completed in accordance
with the permission conditions relating to archaeology could not be
retrospectively imposed.
Other Material Considerations
106 3.14 It is clear from the above assessment that planning policies do not
support the development as proposed. It is apparent that on the basis
of the policies and other material consideration, including a relatively
high level of local concern, the barn has a detrimental impact on the
countryside, landscape, archaeology and biodiversity. The lack of
information with the application concerning the purpose of the barn
and such matters as traffic generations add weight to the cause for
concern. Without such information the effect of the proposal on local
residents cannot be properly assessed. However, the extant planning
permission is a material consideration and it has to be acknowledged
that if the current application were refused, the applicant could remove
the barn as built and build the barn approved in the 1991 permission
without further permission.
3.15 It is necessary to assess, therefore, whether the harm is now greater
than that which might have arisen from that originally approved.
3.16 The scaled accuracy of the 1991 drawings diminished with the
scanning for electronic storage. However, it is possible to conclude
that the approved barn should have the following approximate
dimensions; ridge 4m; eaves 3m; length 12.5m; and width 8.5m. The
historic drawings submitted by the applicant suggest that extant barn
should have the following dimensions; ridge 5.8m; eaves 3.4m; length
13.7m; and width 9m. The proposed drawings show that the built barn
on site has the following measurements; ridge 5.7m; eaves 3.3m,
length 13.7m; and width 9m. Members are advised that the difference
in size is not significant especially when the views of the barn are long
distance.
107
3.17 An obvious difference from the existing barn and the approved barn is;
the orientation, this is clear by the position of the asymmetrical ridge
and the height of the land level; and openings in the north east and
south east elevation of the barn, the proposed drawings now show a
sliding door within the north east elevation.
3.18 Members are advised that the changes highlighted are not so
significant as to cause greater harm to the AONB over and above
what has already been permitted.
Conclusion
3.19 Members are advised that the principle of such development is
contrary to local and national planning policy and would not normally
be acceptable. However, legislation requires due consideration to be
given to all material planning considerations. The extant 1991 planning
permission is the applicants fall back position, in the event that
permission is refused for this application. The fall back position is a
material consideration and carries significant weight. With
consideration given to the difference between the 1991 permission and
the retrospective barn on site Members are advised that permission
should be granted.
3.20 With there being no accompanying Design and Access Statement with
this application, concerns have been raised about the future use of this
large hay/straw barn now that the application site land no longer forms
part of the nearby Riding School. As a consequence it is
108 recommended that the Planning Enforcement Team carry out
unannounced site visits in order to ensure that the future use remains
as a hay/straw barn.
3.21 In respect of the Public Sector Equality Duty under the Equality Act,
the recommendation is not considered to disproportionately affect any
particular group.
g) Recommendation
That planning permission is granted subject to the following conditions: 1) in
accordance with the approved plans; 2) biodiversity enhancement measures.
Powers be delegated to the Regeneration and Delivery Manager to settle any
necessary planning conditions in line with the issues set out in the
recommendation and as resolved by the Planning Committee.
Case Officer
Rachel Humber
109 110 Agenda Item No 14
DOVER DISTRICT COUNCIL
PLANNING COMMITTEE – 11 JULY 2013
REPORT OF THE HEAD OF REGENERATION AND DEVELOPMENT a) DOV/13/00332 - Ground based photovoltaic solar farm, access and associated works - Land at Marshborough Farm, off Ash Road, Sandwich
Reason for report: The number of third party contrary views. b) Summary of Recommendation
Planning permission be granted. c) Planning Policy and Guidance
Dover District Core Strategy (CS) • Policy DM1 states that development will not be permitted outside the confines unless specifically justified by other plan policies, or it functionally requires such a location, or it is ancillary to existing development or uses.
• Policy DM15 states that development which would result in the loss of or adversely affect the character or appearance of the countryside will only be permitted if it is; i) in accordance with development plan documents; ii) justified by the needs of agricultural; iii) justified by the need to sustain a rural economy or community; iv) it cannot be accommodated elsewhere; and v) it does not result in the loss of ecological habitats. Measures should be incorporated to reduce as far as practicable any harmful effects on countryside character.
Dover Core Strategy Evidence Base Sustainable Construction and Renewable Energy. Evidence base for sustainable construction policies and testing of renewable energy capacity and feasibility of the Dover District Council Core Strategy 2006 – 2026.
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and Technical Guide • Planning for a low carbon future is instilled as one of the 12 core planning principles. • Supporting the delivery of renewable and low carbon energy and associated infrastructure is central to the economic, social and environmental dimensions of sustainable development.
Also, of relevance to this application is the advice at paragraph. 112 that LPAs should take into account the economic and other benefits of the best and most versatile agricultural land. Where significant development of agricultural land is demonstrated to be necessary, local planning authorities should seek to use areas of poorer quality land in preference to that of a higher quality. National Policy Statement (NPS) for Energy (EN-1)
111 • An increase in renewable electricity is essential to enable the UK to meet its commitments under the EU Renewable Energy Directive. It will also help improve our energy security by reducing our dependence on imported fossil fuels, decrease greenhouse gas emissions and provide economic opportunities.
• To meet its 2050 emissions reductions goals, the UK needs to move away from fossil fuels not only as a source of electricity generation, but also in other sectors of industry and for heating and surface transport. Increasing the supply of low carbon electricity is an essential pre-requisite for the switch away from fossil fuels in these areas, and this will further substantially increase demand for electricity
The Kent Design Guide (KDG) Advises on the importance of good design and offers design advice. d) Relevant Planning History
DOV/13/00093 - Screening Opinion – Not EIA development
e) Consultee and Third Party Responses
Principal Ecologist: No objection, there would be no landscape visual impact.
Environmental Health: No objections
KCC Highways: No objection subject to conditions.
KCC Public Rights of Way (PRoW): No objection subject to mitigation measures. A request to improve the surface of footpath EE214A is made.
KCC Archaeology: Comments awaited
Natural England : No objection subject to biodiversity enhancements such as the planting of the native hedgerow.
Environment Agency: No objection
Rural Planning Limited: The application site is Grade 1 agricultural land (Best and Most Versatile (BMV)) a decision will need to be made if the need for the proposed development outweighs the loss of the BMV land and if the proposal can be located on poorer quality land.
Woodnesborough Parish Council : Object on the grounds of visual appearance and the impact on the countryside. Do not object to the principle of renewable energy,
Public Representation : 25 letters have been received, 20 of which raise objections and 5 are in support of the proposal.
The objections are summarised as follows; • Loss of Grade 1 land; • Would resemble an industrial wasteland;
112 • Would not create jobs; • No reduction in energy prices for the local community; • Other sites should be considered; • Would have a visual impact; • Would be seen from public footpaths; • The site is at risk of flooding; • 25 years is not a short term impact; • Is a rich habitat for snakes, birds of prey and large mammals; • The access from the A257 is a significant safety hazard; • Large volume of construction traffic; • There is a greater need for food production; • Glare from the panels will be harmful; and • Concern about the use of the private access road.
The letters of support are summarised as follows; • It would create much needed jobs, during and after construction; • Would create green energy; • It is a positive development for the area; • The visual mitigation measures should be put in place prior to the commencement of development; • Mitigation should be ensured for the 25 year period;
f) 1. The Site and the Proposal
1.1 The site is situated on land north –east of the village of Marshborough, south of the A257 and west of the A256 Sandwich by-pass. The site comprises two fields currently used for arable farming. The site area is approximately 24ha and the topography is relatively flat. There are no trees or hedgerows surrounding or on the site, it has a somewhat barren appearance.
1.2 A public footpath, EE214A runs down the western site boundary. A second footpath EE215, runs across the centre of the field south of the application site.
1.3 Planning permission is being sought to erect a solar array and associated structures of 13MW AV, this is sufficient to provide electricity from a renewable source to approximately 4,600 households.
1.4 There are 2,730 arrays, each holding 24 modules and 16 inverter/transformer cabinets. Each solar module would be approximately 3m wide with a maximum height of 2.14m. There would be inverter and transformer cabinets approximately 2.5 wide x 6.9m long and 3.4m high. Zones containing the arrays would be secured with a 2m high wire mesh fence. A buried cable will run approximately 350m from the substation to an existing pole on a 33kv overhead line. This will be the point of connection to the National Grid, which is by Poulders Road on the A256.
1.5 The solar farm will come to the end of its life in 25 years, the panels and supports will be removed and thereafter the land will be reverted to its original state.
113
1.6 Plans will be on display.
2. Main Issues
2.1 The main issues in the consideration of this application are:
• The principle of development; • Impact on visual amenity; • Impact on highway safety; • Loss of Grade 1 agricultural land; • the Impact on biodiversity; and • Other matters.
3. Assessment
Principle
3.1 The NPPF advises to help increase the use and supply of renewable and low carbon energy, local planning authorities should recognise the responsibility on all communities to contribute to energy generation from renewable or low carbon sources. It also advises that w hen determining planning applications, local planning authorities should: • Not require applicants to demonstrate the overall need for renewable or low carbon energy and also recognise that even small-scale projects provide a valuable contribution to cutting greenhouse gas emissions; and
• Approve the application if its impacts are (or can be made) acceptable.
3.2 The National Policy Statement also echoes this advice. It is clear that the Government puts significant weight on the provision of renewable energy sources. The principle of development is considered to be acceptable, therefore unless material considerations indicate otherwise permission should be granted. 3.3 Also of consideration is the Evidence Base which underpins the Core Strategy (Sustainable Construction and Renewable Energy study), this advises that solar technologies were identified as a key opportunity for the south east region. Compared with the rest of the UK, the solar potential in Dover is good. It is recognised in this document that solar technologies will have a role to play in renewable energy delivery in Dover. The Core Strategy (paragraph 2.27) recognised the need to bring forward renewable energy schemes, particularly bearing in mind the scale of development promoted by the Strategy (paragraph 3.49) and its associated additional energy demands. In this respect it is very significant to note that the application scheme has the potential to cater for the electricity demands of around 45% of the 10,100 additional homes proposed in the Core Strategy over the period to 2026.
114 Chosen site location
3.4 The applicant advises that the site has been selected for its capability to support the development. Kent has good sunlight levels and other solar developments in the county have outperformed predicted output levels.
3.5 There are many factors which need to be taken into consideration when choosing a site suitable for a solar farm such as; a willing landowner, grid capacity and grid connection point (within a suitable distance of the willing landowner’s site), land not at risk of flooding and land not covered by Environmental or Landscape designations. Focusing solely on the grade of agricultural land gives an unrealistic picture of how much land is available for viable solar farms.
3.6 The applicant advises that although a soil survey has not been carried out, the proposed land parcel is unlikely to be the most productive because the landowner has made this field available and not the applicant’s preferred location which is closer to the national grid connection. It should be noted that not all Grade 1 land is of the same quality.
Visual Amenity 3.7 The applicant has submitted a Landscape and Visual impact Assessment, which provides an analysis of harm. It is acknowledged that the impact on Marshborough Road and Sandwich Road would be minimal and that a view of the array will be achievable from some of the nearest dwellings, this is not considered to be a significant impact and would be mitigated by the introduction of vegetation.
3.8 The report acknowledges that the greatest visual impact will be from the public footpaths (EE214 and EE215). This is also a concern of KCC PRoW. The NPPF advises that p lanning policies should protect and enhance public rights of way and opportunities to provide better facilities for users should be sought. Whilst not strictly relevant to the determination of a planning application, because it refers to planning policy writing, the sentiment is acknowledged. KCC have requested that as a mitigation measure the surface of footpath EE214 be improved. The applicant has confirmed that they are happy to make some minor improvement to the footpath by filling in pot holes with gravel etc. They have also confirmed that they would be willing to accept a condition to carry out these works.
3.9 The Council’s Principal Ecologist has been consulted and has confirmed that there would not be a significant landscape impact. Any minor impact will be limited to a short view and would be temporary for a 25 year period
Residential Amenity
3.10 The nearest dwellings lie 150m to the north-west, called Each End, off the A257. Some 600m to the south of the site is a row of houses on Sandwich Road.
115
3.11 It is considered that the separation distance, the low key height of the panels and the proposed landscaping would mitigate any impact on amenity, which may have resulted.
3.12 It is acknowledged that some dwellings would have a view of the array but this is not harmful to residential amenity.
3.13 Local residents have expressed concerns relating to glare and reflection from the panels, it should be noted that solar panels are designed to absorb, not reflect, sunlight so have a low reflectivity. Studies carried out in connection with aircraft have found no evidence that glint and glare is an issue for any solar park near a general aviation or commercial airfield. If there was going to be a glare issue it would affect lines of sight above ground level (i.e. an aircraft). So it is unlikely to affect persons looking at the panels from ground level.
Highway Safety
3.14 Vehicular access to the site would be via a field gate on the A257 to the north, then along an existing farm track the runs parallel with the A257. A transport statement and construction management plan have been submitted with the application.
3.15 A temporary construction and storage area will be provided in the north west corner of the array area. Access to the storage area, which will be a delivery drop-off point, contain workers facilities and areas for plant storage and waste materials, is via the farm track from the A257.
3.16 Once the solar farm is in operation, traffic generated by it will be limited to that associated with occasional maintenance. No on site staff are required to operate the solar farm and no staff or maintenance buildings are needed within or near to the site.
3.17 The transport statement confirms that the construction of the solar farm would result in the temporary generation of construction and staff related vehicle trips over a 12 week construction period. The construction will result in a total of 1,290 HGV traffic movements (arrivals and departures) equating to an average of less than 20-24 movements (arrivals and departures) per day. This would result in an insignificant impact on the local highway network. Traffic will be advised to use the A257 and A256.
3.18 KCC highway services do not raise an objection, it is considered that the impact on the highway network is acceptable and the vehicle access is acceptable. A number of safeguarding conditions have been suggested and should be imposed.
Loss of grade 1 agricultural land
3.19 The NPPF advises that we should take into account the economic and other benefits of the best and most versatile agricultural land (grade 1, 2 and 3). Where significant development of agricultural land is demonstrated to be necessary, local planning authorities
116 should seek to use areas of poorer quality land in preference to that of a higher quality.
3.20 The Council’s agricultural advisor has commented on the importance of retaining grade 1 land because of its contribution to food production and it also offers much greater potential than poorer land for growing alternative fuel crops.
3.21 The southern part of the application site is located on grade 1 agricultural land (known as Best and Most Versatile), the northern part on grade 4. This is shown on a map by a line, while in reality there would be a gradual transition in the quality of the land. Thus not the entire application site is Best and Most versatile land. The applicant has provided an explanation as to why this has site been chosen above other locations and that is accepted.
3.22 A balanced judgement needs to be made. While national policy seeks, wherever possible, to steer development away from the best agricultural land, the District is also one of the most favourable areas in the country to harvest solar power. The level of development promoted by the Council’s Core Strategy makes it even more desirable to take such opportunities. In addition, the development is only temporary for a period of 25 years after which the land can revert to the original use and, during operation sheep grazing around the arrays can still occur. It is therefore considered that the benefit of the development outweighs the temporary loss of grade 1 land.
Impact on biodiversity
3.23 All historic field boundaries have been removed; it is intended to put back the lost landscape features by planting several kilometres of native hedgerows within and around the site. A high proportion of native trees and shrubs of local province will be incorporated (as shown on the submitted landscaping plan). This would have a positive impact on biodiversity by increasing the number of invertebrates present stimulating the bird and mammal population.
3.24 The applicant confirms that the land beneath the arrays will be seeded with a grass mix and grazed by sheep. Wildflowers and a variety of grasses will gradually begin to colonise the site and will not be sprayed with pesticides or herbicides. It is envisaged that an ‘unimproved’ lowland meadow would develop over the 25 year lifetime.
3.25 The applicant has carried out a Phase 1 Habitat Survey, it confirms that at present the site has a very low ecological biodiversity value, being ploughed fields devoid of flora and fauna. There are opportunities to increase the biodiversity value on this site and a list of measures has been provided. These should be required by way of condition.
3.26 The applicant advises that a Site Environmental Management Plan will be prepared and implemented to manage the land over the life time of the solar farm. This should be secured by a planning condition.
117
Other matters
3.27 The applicant has submitted an archaeological desk-based assessment, which has considered the effects of the development on the known and potential heritage resources. It has identified two grade II listed buildings and a schedule monument within the visual surroundings of the site, it is considered that the separation distance and the proposed landscaping of the site would protect the setting of these listed buildings. Furthermore, any impact would be temporary for a 25 yr period. The report explains that there is an archaeological interest within the site, it is anticipated that any such remains would likely be of local (medieval and post –medieval) or regional (Romano- British) importance. A condition requiring further archaeological works should be imposed on the permission.
Conclusion
3.28 The principle of the development is considered to be acceptable and in accordance with national policy. The temporary loss of the grade 1 agricultural land is considered to be outweighed by the benefits of the development and the visual impact would be limited and in part mitigated by the extensive native planting proposed.
3.29 Consideration has been given to all other materials matters raised by third parties, but none outweigh the conclusion to grant planning permission.
3.30 In respect of the Public Sector Equality Duty under the Equality Act, the recommendation is not considered to disproportionately affect any particular group.
g) Recommendation
I PERMISSION BE GRANTED, subject to the following conditions:- 1) standard time limit; 2) approved plans; 3) Site Environmental Management Plan; 4) Biodiversity enhancement measures; 5) Archaeological investigations; 6) Arrays to be removed after 25 years; 7) details of improvements to the surface of public footpath EE214; 8) detailed landscaping plan and timetable; 9) Provision of construction vehicle loading/unloading and turning facilities; 10) Provision of parking facilities for site personnel and visitors; 11) Provision and implementation of a Construction Management Plan; 12) Provision and implementation of a Decommissioning Management Plan .
II 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.
Case Officer Rachel Humber
118 119 Agenda Item No 15
DOVER DISTRICT COUNCIL
PLANNING COMMITTEE – 11 JULY 2013
REPORT OF THE REGENERATION AND DEVELOPMENT MANAGER a) DOV/13/0330 – Certificate of Lawfulness (existing) for clay pigeon shooting ground, including tuition in clay pigeon shooting and the ancillary sale of guns - Lydden, Guildford Road, Sandwich Bay.
Reason for report: The number of third party contrary views.
b) Summary of Recommendation
Grant Lawful Development Certificate
c) Planning Policy and Guidance Circular 10/97: Enforcing planning control: legislative provisions and procedural requirements: Annex 8 lawfulness and the Lawful Development Certificate (LDC).
Members will be aware that planning policies are not applicable to the determination of Lawful Development Certificates.
d) Relevant Planning History
DOV/11/01125 - Certificate of Lawfulness (existing) for the daily use of land as a shooting school – Refused, due to insufficient information.
e) Consultee and Third Party Responses
RSPB : The historical use of the site for shooting has not been for a continuous 10 years. A certificate would legitimise significantly more intense shooting. Natural England should be consulted. The area is used by a large number of waders and wildfowl that use the grazing marsh and inertial areas for feeding and roosting and concerned that the birds would be disturbed.
An unsigned and undated statutory declaration submitted on the previous application has been appended to their letter, it advises that the warden has worked in the area since 2007, works a 45 hour week but rarely takes a day off during the autumn migration period. The location of the observatory is within 1,200m of the clay pigeon shoot and daily coverage of the estate goes much closer, close enough to hear the shooting when it occurs. During the period of employment it is confirmed that shooting takes place mainly at weekends but only sporadically at other times.
KCC Archaeology : No archaeological measures required.
Worth Parish Council : The 28 day permitted limit has only been exceeded 3 - 5 years ago and not 10. It was only at the end of 2011 when residents became concerned with shooting on a Sunday. The Parish council has no
120 evidence to demonstrate that the site has been used during the week. No additional evidence has been submitted.
Public Representation : 57 letters of objection have been received, the following summarises the comments; • In close proximity to SSSI, SPA • It is likely that protected bird species are nearby, they should not be disturbed whilst breeding • A shooting school is wholly inappropriate in this location because of the potential to disturb wildlife • No Environmental Impact Assessment has been carried out • It should not have been allowed to start in the first place • Noise disturbance to residents • The owner has been exceeding the 28 day temporary period • There has been no continuous use of shooting on the site • Frequent excessive noise on Sundays • The ancient highway cannot cope with additional traffic • All firearms should be eradicated from our society and not encouraged • Detrimental to golf tourism • Sporadic shooting throughout the week • The applicant operates more than the permitted 28 days a year • Shooting starts before 10.30am, normally at 8am • The residents would know if the shooting had been continuous for 10 years it is more likely to only be 3 – 5 years • Security of guns an ammunition is of concern f) 1. The Site and the Proposal
1.1 The site relates to a plot of land encompassing a small detached bungalow and surrounding land. It is located within the countryside and adjacent to land designated as a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and a Special Area of Conservation (SAC).
1.2 A Lawful Development Certificate is being sought to establish the lawful use of the site for use as a clay pigeon shooting ground, including tuition in clay pigeon shooting and the ancillary sale of guns. The applicant claims that the use has occurred continuously for a period of 10 years.
1.3 This revised application seeks to provide additional information to clarify the use. The evidence needs to demonstrate a continuous ten year use of the site, from the date the application was submitted. The period for consideration is 27 th April 2003 to 27 th April 2013. The evidence submitted with the application is as follows; • Letter dated 29 th August 2011 from Bill True; • Undated letter from Mr N Collins; • Letter dated 12 th October 2011 from Richard Andrews; • Letter dated 12 th August 2011 from Ken Rosser; • Undated letter from A Collins; • Letter dated 27 th August 2011 from George Thompson; • Certificates of Registration as a firearms dealer covering; o June 1995 to May 1998 (shooting school, gun repairs, retailers of firearms and ammunition);
121 o June 2001 to May 2004 (business: manufacturer and retail of firearms) o June 2004 to May 2007 June 2001 to May 2004 (business: manufacturer and retail of firearms) o June 2007 to May 2010 (business: gun fitting, retail sales, gun repairs) o June 2010 to May 2013 (business: gun fitting, retail sales, gun repairs) (Certificates relating to the period of 1998 to May 2001 were destroyed in a flood (applicant’s Statutory Declaration confirms). • Statutory Declaration from Mr Barry Gibb • Statutory Declaration from Mr Michael Hambrook • Newsletter of Springfield Clay Pigeon Club dated 18 th June 1996.
1.4 Site plan will be on display.
2. Main Issues
2.1 The issues to consider relate to the: • the background • evidence submitted by the applicant • third party comments • limitations; and • other matters
3. Assessment
Background 3.1 A similar application was refused by officers on 2 nd May 2012, under reference number DOV/11//1125. Members should be aware that a refusal to issue a LDC is not necessarily conclusive that something is not lawful: it merely means that, insufficient evidence was presented to satisfy the Local Planning Authority (LPA) that the use was lawful. The applicant is not precluded from submitting a further application if better evidence is subsequently available.
3.2 Members are reminded that the Courts have held that the relevant test of the evidence on such matters is "the balance of probability". Legislation advises that a LPA should not refuse a Certificate because the applicant has failed to discharge the stricter, criminal burden of proof, "beyond reasonable doubt". The applicant's own evidence does not need to be corroborated by "independent" evidence in order to be accepted.
3.3 The legislation advises that LPAs should proceed on the basis that the planning merits of the use are not relevant to the consideration of this application.
Applicant’s evidence
3.4 The evidence submitted to support the application is as follows;
122 3.5 Mr Hambrook’s statutory declaration confirms, in summary that; his employment commenced in the early 1990’s and has worked full time on the site since. At the start of his employment 10 – 30 people would visit the site per week to shoot. Guns were also being sold at the site and people visit to try out the guns. Generally he work on the site Mondays, Tuesdays, Thursdays, Fridays and Saturdays. Sometimes on Wednesday but will take another day off in lieu. Shooting lessons take place on at least three of four days of those weeks when the weather is suitable. He confirmed that he is aware that the shooting school is operational every other Sunday, even though not on site and have not witnessed it; he has cleared up the site on Monday. He has advised that he can say with absolute certainty that the level of shooting that takes place on those days and have remained remarkably similar in all these years. There has been the same mix of club uses, training and occasional events occurring throughout the whole period.
3.6 Mr Hambrook declares that Springfield Gun Club started to use the site in the late 1990’s and erected a new clubhouse some six months after they arrived. Deal and Sandwich Shooting School still operate from the site but Springfield left about five years ago. No shooting ever takes place before 10.30am and it finishes by 3.30pm in the winter and no later than 5.00pm in the summer, this has always been the case in all the time known.
3.7 Mr Gibb’s statutory declaration confirms, in summary that; he moved to the site in 1979 and his clay pigeon shooting hobby commenced at this level until 1989. The gun room was opened on the site in 1991, the sale of guns involve testing and this was done on site. Those buying guns were also welcomed to test the guns onsite. Repairs to the guns are done on-site and these are then tested.
3.8 Mr Gibb’s confirms that the shooting club commenced on site in 1994 and was called Deal and Sandwich Shooting School and that it has remained on site until present day, with shooting take place at least 4 – 5 days minimum every week, weather dependent. In 1996 Springfield Gun Club rented the premises for use on alternate Sundays, weather dependant. In 2007 they were asked to leave because they weren’t following the stringent safety precautions. It is declared that clay pigeon shooting lessons have also taken place during the week from the mid 1990’s to present date.
3.9 It is also stated that there is only one instructor that teaches a small group between 3 – 4, which takes place any day of the week. Lessons tend to be booked one at a time for at least five sessions, after then people just turn up and practice on their own (with supervision). During large lessons or company days, they will be extra help. Company days have taken place on average once a month since the 1990’s up to present day without any break. The shooting activity has been consistent for at least twenty years to the present day.
3.10 Mr Gibb considers that the permanent planning permission at the former mobile home park (Greenacres) given within the last 5 years has resulted in an increase in complaints from local residents. He also advises that the statutory declaration from Ian Hodgson (RSPB
123 warden), is weak because he only works 45 hours a week and covers an 11 mile area, this means he simply cannot be within earshot of the shooting ground.
Other evidence
3.11 The newsletter of Springfield Clay Pigeon Club dated 18 th June 1996, confirms that the first shoot date at the site would be the 4 th August 1996 and would be fortnightly thereafter. It confirms that the applicant has rented his site to the shooting club.
3.12 The aforementioned letters from Mr True, Collins, Andrews, Rosser and Thompson confirm that they have visited the site regularly since 1995 for shooting and tuition, have visited on weekdays, weekends and bank holidays. Competitions and events have taken place.
Third party comments 3.13 Some of the comments received from third parties confirm that there has been frequent excessive noise on Sundays, the use regularly starts at 8am in the morning, and that there is sporadic shooting throughout the week. These comments generally support the submission of the applicant.
3.14 Third party comments make reference to the applicant’s ‘licence being exceeded’, the ’28 day period being exceeded’ and general breaches to use restrictions. Members should note that permitted development rights do exist, which allow the use of any land for any purpose for not more than 28 days in total in any calendar year (Part 4 of the General Permitted Development Order). It is this to which the comments from local residents refer. However, the legislation is clear that this benefit does not include the use of the land for clay pigeon shooting (condition B.1 (ii)) and therefore the use of the site has never benefited from this provision. Furthermore, there is no planning history which indicates that permission has ever been granted for such a use. It is therefore advised that the applicant is not in breach of a planning condition and that the use of the site would have required planning permission. It is on this basis that the applicant has to demonstrate on the balance of probability that the use has occurred continuously for a period of 10 years.
3.15 Whilst a significant number of third party objections have been received, the majority of the comments relate to the planning merits as if it were a planning application, such as noise disturbance, impact on birds, security and highway safety. These issues are not relevant to the determination of this LDC.
3.16 Some of the third party comments advise that the use has not been continuous over the last 10 years and is more than likely to have occurred within the last 3 – 5 years. No evidence has been submitted by the third parties to substantiate this opinion. The applicant advises that more activity has occurred in the general area within the last 5 years due to the adjacent mobile caravan park being given a full planning permission. Whilst there is sympathy with the concerns raised by local residents, they do not outweigh the evidence and the signed declarations received from the applicant.
124
3.17 It is clear from the evidence submitted that the use of the site to some degree, has been operating since 1994. The Springfield news letter confirms that their use commenced in 1996, some seven years prior to the ten years in question.
3.18 The sale of guns from the site has occurred since at least 1995, together with the testing and repairs. Certificates of registration as a forearms dealer have been submitted and show that this use has been continuous up until 31 st May 2013. No evidence has been submitted to demonstrate the intensity of the retail and repairs use, however it is likely that the scope of this element of the business is ancillary to the shooting school and is limited by the space available within the dwelling. It could be said that this element is incidental to the enjoyment of the dwelling for which planning permission would not be required. Since this use has occurred since 1995 and has not resulted in complaints from local residents, it is likely to be a minor element of the business. The description of the application has been amended to reflect this.
Limitations
3.19 A Lawful Development Certificate can be granted with certain limitations imposed on the use. The limitations should reflect how the site has been used for the last ten years. The applicant’s agent has suggested that the following limitations should be imposed: Sundays between 10.00 hours and 16.00 hours during April to September and 10.00 to 15.00 hours during October to March; and Mondays to Saturdays between 10.30 hours to 16.00 hours all year round for a maximum of five days per week.
3.20 With regards to the operating hours, local residents advise that the shooting can occur as early as 8am. It would therefore be possible for the applicant to state a limitation of 8am, but the applicant has advised a limitation of 10am. This would appear to be of benefit to the surrounding residents.
3.21 In addition to the limitations suggested by the applicant, it is felt reasonable that the following limitations are also proposed;
• Shooting lessons on a maximum of four days per week, not exceeding more than 4 people in a group; and • Twelve company/corporate days in any one calendar year, not exceeding more than 30 people in a group. This would reflect the evidence given by the applicant and would ensure that the use of the site is not intensified without planning permission.
Other Matters
3.22 It is noted that comments have been received from the RSPB regarding the impact on birds in the SSSI and state that Natural England should be consulted. However, as stated above this is not a planning application and consultation is not required. Your officers
125 aware of the implications of the use on protected species and would suggest that an informative letter is sent to the applicant with the certificate advising them of their duty under the Countryside and Wildlife Act.
Conclusion
3.23 On the balance of probability there is sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the site has been used continuously for ten years for clay pigeon shooting, shooting tuition and the ancillary sales of guns. g) Recommendation
I Certificate of Lawfulness (existing) for clay pigeon shooting ground, including tuition in clay pigeon shooting and the ancillary sale of guns be granted with the following limitations;
• Sundays between 10.00 hours and 16.00 hours during April to September and 10.00 to 15.00 hours during October to March; • Mondays to Saturdays between 10.30 hours to 16.00 hours all year round for a maximum of five days per week • Shooting lessons on a maximum of four days per week, with a maximum of 4 people in a group; and • Twelve company/corporate days in any one calendar year, with a maximum of 30 people in a group.
II Powers be delegated to the Regeneration and Delivery Manager to settle any necessary planning limitations in line with the issues set out in the recommendation and as resolved by the Planning Committee.
Case Officer Rachel Humber
126 127