Swale Borough Council Planning Services

SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL

PLANNING SERVICES

Planning Items to be submitted to the Planning Committee

13 March 2014

Standard Index to Contents

DEFERRED ITEMS Items shown in previous Minutes as being deferred from that meeting may be considered at this meeting

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

PART 2 Applications for which permission is recommended

PART 3 Applications for which refusal is recommended

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

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

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

ABBREVIATIONS: commonly used in this Agenda

CDA Crime and Disorder Act 1998

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

HRA Human Rights Act 1998

SBLP Swale Borough Local Plan 2008

INDEX OF ITEMS FOR PLANNING COMMITTEE – 13 MARCH 2014

 Minutes of last Planning Committee Meeting  Deferred Items  Minutes of any Working Party Meeting

Deferred Items

Deferred Item 1 BORDEN SW/13/1192 Oakdene, Woodgate Lane Pgs 1 – 8

Deferred Item 2 UPCHURCH SW/13/1373 Orchard Park, Oak Lane Pgs 9 - 37

Part 2

2.1 & 2.2 DUNKIRK SW/14/0003 & MOD Dunkirk, Courtenay Road Pgs 38 – 43 SW/14/0004

2.3 FAVERSHAM SW/14/0013 19A Preston Street Pgs 44 – 48

2.4 QUEENBOROUGH SW/13/1550 Klondyke and Twyfords Sites, Pgs 49 – 75 Former Caradon Works, Rushenden Road

2.5 SITTINGBOURNE SW/14/0106 Land adjacent 157 Peregrine Pgs 76 – 85 Drive

2.6 HARTLIP SW/13/1485 Land at Spade Lane Pgs 86 – 125

2.7 LOWER HALSTOW SW/14/0100 Stables rear of 82-84 School Pgs 126 – 135 Lane

2.8 IWADE SW/13/0435 Sittingbourne Speedway, Pgs 136 – 156 Marshbank, Old Ferry Road

2.9 IWADE SW/13/0434 Sittingbourne Speedway, Pgs 157 – 174 Marshbank, Old Ferry Road

Part 3

3.1 SITTINGBOURNE SW/14/0020 3 Clerke Drive Pgs 175 - 178

Part 5

5.1 BORDEN SW/13/1072 Bowl Reed, Oad Street Pgs 179 - 181

5.2 FAVERSHAM SW/13/0498 & Land to the rear of 20-32 Pgs 182 – 191 SW/13/0841 Tanners Street

PLANNING COMMITTEE – 13 MARCH 2014 DEFERRED ITEM

Report of the Head of Development Services

Deferred Items

Reports shown in previous Minutes as being deferred from that Meeting.

Deferred SW/13/1192 (Case 23786) Borden Item 1

Location : Oakdene, Woodgate Lane, Borden, Sittingbourne, Kent, ME9 7QB

Proposal : Variation of condition 1 of SW/11/1400 to allow stationing of two mobile homes.

Applicant/Agent : Miss Sally Laundon, Oakdene , Woodgate Lane, Danaway, Sittingbourne, Kent, ME9 7QB

Application Valid : 18 November 2013

8 Week Target : 13 January 2014

Conditions

1 No more than two mobile homes and one touring caravan shall be stationed on the site at any one time.

Grounds: In the interests of the amenities of the local area.

2 The caravans shall only be occupied by persons of gypsy/traveller status as defined in DCLG’s Planning Policy for Traveller Sites (March 2012) and by no other person(s) whatsoever.

Grounds: To ensure that the site occupants are gypsies/travellers.

3 The site shall only be used for residential purposes, and it shall not be used for any business, industrial or commercial use. In this regard no open storage of plant, products or waste may take place on the land, and no vehicle over 3.5 tonnes shall be stationed, parked or stored on the land.

Grounds: In the interests of visual amenity.

4 No floodlighting, security lighting or other external lighting shall be installed or operated at the site, other than in accordance with details that have first been submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Grounds: In the interests of the amenities of the local area.

Council’s Approach to the Application

The Council recognises the advice in paragraphs 186 and 187 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and seeks to work with applicants in a positive and proactive manner by offering a pre-application advice service; having a duty planner service; and seeking to find solutions to any obstacles to approval of applications having due regard to the responses to consultation, where it can reasonably be expected that amendments to an application will result in an approval without resulting in a significant change to the nature of the application and the application can then be amended and determined in accordance with statutory timescales.

In this case the application was determined without delay, following the receipt of amended drawings and additional information requested by Members of the Planning Committee.

Introduction

Members will recall that at the last meeting of this Committee held on 13 February 2014 consideration of this application was deferred pending further information. The previous report as appended to this item for Members’ information (Appendix A). The resolution to defer the item was as follows:

Resolved: That application SW/13/1192 be deferred to the next Planning Committee to allow for further information to be sought on the number of children on the site and their ages; clarity on the size and scale of the submitted plans; and more visual aids (aerial photographs) to enable a true understanding of the site.

Officers have sought clarification from the applicant, and can now respond as follows:

 The applicant has four children, whose ages are 2, 4, 6 and 8 years old.  It is not the applicant’s intention that the new mobile home would provide sleeping accommodation. The new mobile will give extra room for the applicant’s children to play indoors, store toys, etc. If on occasion the mobile home would be used as sleeping accommodation for the children, one of their parents would occupy the mobile home with them.  A new, clearer site plan, showing the position of the new mobile home and the access driveway and gate, to an appropriate scale, has been submitted and will be available for Members’ inspection at the meeting.  Aerial photographs of the site will also be available for Members’ inspection at the meeting. 2

Recommendation

The site has been in use in excess of four years now, and has become established as a well maintained and landscaped site. The site has been assessed as part of the Council’s corporate policy and has scored well (29), despite its distance from some facilities. The additional caravan and access will have limited effect on amenity. Whilst Members expressed commendable concern over the distance between the two mobile homes, in view of the ages of the children concerned, this is not a planning consideration when deciding this application, which is in accordance with national and local planning policy. However, Members will have noted that the new mobile is not intended to be used as sleeping accommodation. I therefore recommend that planning permission be granted.

List of Background papers

1. Application papers and correspondence relating to SW/09/0825 2. Application papers and correspondence relating to SW/11/1400 3. Application papers and correspondence relating to SW/13/0616 4. Application papers and correspondence relating to SW/13/1192

For information contact case officer Andrew Spiers

Deferred Item 1 – Appendix A

Deferred SW/13/1373 (Case 21085) Upchurch Item 2

Location : Orchard Park, Oak Lane, Upchurch, Sittingbourne, Kent, ME8 7FL

Proposal : Application to vary conditions (2), (3) and (4) of SW/10/0765 (private gypsy and traveller site consisting of eight plots); condition (2) to be varied to allow up to 32 caravans of which no more than 16 can be static caravans or mobile homes; condition (3) such that occupancy is restricted to gypsies and travellers as defined in Annex 1, Planning Policy for Traveller Sites; and condition (4) such that the use is to cease and the site to be restored to its previous condition if it ceases to be occupied by gypsies and travellers as defined in Annex 1, Planning Policy for Traveller Sites.

Applicant/Agent : Mr J Saunders C/O Mr Joseph Jones BFSGC, Saga Court, Unit 3, Sibleys Rise, Great Missenden, Buckinghamshire, HP16 9QQ

Application Valid : 31 October 2013

8 Week Target : 26 December 2013

13 Week Target: 30 January 2014.

Agreed extension of time: 17th March 2014

Conditions

(1) This permission does not authorise use of the land as a caravan site by any persons other than gypsies and travellers, as defined by Annex 1 of Planning Policy for Traveller Sites 2012.

Grounds: In the interests of preventing general residential use of this rural site.

(2) No more than 32 caravans as defined in the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 and the Caravan Sites Act 1968 shall be stationed on the site at any time, of which not more than 16 shall be static caravans or mobile homes and the remainder shall be touring caravans.

Grounds: In the interests of preventing the over-development of the site and upholding visual amenity.

(3) The site shall not be occupied by any persons other than Gypsies and Travellers as defined in Annex 1 of Planning Policy for Traveller Sites 2012.

Grounds: In the interests of preventing general residential use of this rural site.

(4) No commercial activities shall take place on the land, including the storage of materials.

Grounds: In the interests of visual amenity and the character and appearance of the area.

(5) No more than one vehicle over 3.5 tonnes shall be stationed, parked or stored on each plot as shown on drawing “Mr Saunders,” received 31 October 2013.

Grounds: In the interests of visual amenity and the character and appearance of the area.

(6) No external lighting shall be used on the site other than in accordance with the details shown on drawing “Mr Sauders” received 31 October 2013, or such other details as may be agreed in writing by the District Planning Authority.

Grounds: In the interests of visual amenity and the character and appearance of the area.

(7) No hardstanding shall be constructed or laid out and no caravan, shed, toilet or other structure shall be sited on the land other than in accordance with the details shown on drawing “Mr Sauders” received 31 October 2013.

Grounds: In the interests of visual amenity and the character and appearance of the area.

(8) The areas shown on drawing “Mr Sauders,” received 31 October 2013, as car parking spaces shall be kept available for such use at all times and no permanent development, whether permitted by the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking or re-enacting that Order) or not, shall be carried out on the land so shown or in such a position as to preclude vehicular access thereto.

Grounds: Development without adequate provision for the parking or garaging of cars is likely to lead to car parking inconvenient to other road users and detrimental to amenity.

(9) No development shall take place until a scheme of foul and surface water drainage has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Upon approval the scheme shall be implemented and subsequently maintained in perpetuity in accordance with the agreed details unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Grounds: In the interests of minimising risk the risk of pollution to underlying groundwater.

Council’s approach to this application

In this case the application was acceptable as submitted.

Background

Members will recall this application from when it was discussed at the meeting on 16th January 2014 with a recommendation that planning permission be granted. My report set out the reasoning why, amongst other things, it should be considered that the development is acceptable as a matter of principle. The report also considered the lack of a 5 year supply of appropriate and available gypsy and traveller sites, and the need for additional sites within the Borough, and set out why this matter should be given serious weight in the course of Member’s deliberations.

At the Planning Committee meeting in January Members resolved to defer this application for the following reason :

“Resolved: That application SW/13/1373 be deferred to allow officers to further investigate how the proposal would impact on local schools and other local community services, and whether the proposed pitch sizes met relevant guidance.”

Views of Consultees

At the last meeting Members were made aware of additional representations, not contained within the report. These are listed below for clarity:

- Head of Service Delivery raises no objection; - Environmental Health (Housing) officer raises no objection, but does set out a number of criteria that the development would need to satisfy to secure a site licence; and

- Upchurch River Valley Golf Course object to the proposals, and suggest the application be deferred until the Council has a “Traveller Study and Plans.”

In response to the queries raised by members at the meeting, the following additional representations have been received:

- Kent Police “note that this is an application for additional caravans or mobile homes within the boundary of an existing site,” and as such have no comments; and - Kent County Council has no objection to the scheme and do not wish to seek contributions towards local services through a S106 legal agreement. They comment:

“We have discussed with KCC Traveller unit and the specialist Traveller education Officer.

It is not KCC Policy to seek [contributions] upon traveller applications.

Due to the nature of this proposal and lack of clarity available upon who will occupy the additional units (which will be within existing pitches), it is not possible to establish any robust information. In the absence of occupation details and comments below (and from experience of KCC traveller unit etc) it appears likely the additional units will be occupied by extended existing families (teenagers).

The reality is that in this area there are sufficient Primary School places; secondary places are a little more problematic, but being a development of 8 units it is less than the County threshold of 10 units, so would not be assessed.”

The Environment Agency have also commented since the meeting, asking that a further condition in regards to a scheme of foul and surface water drainage be imposed to reduce risk of pollution to the underlying groundwater.

Discussion

Since the last meeting the agent has clarified that the application does not seek to create any additional pitches on the site. The proposed drawing shows the site layout (in terms of fences, plot divisions and hardstanding) as it currently exists on site – no changes will be made to the layout other than adjusting positions of mobile homes to accommodate the extra units.

These units will not count as additional pitches but will be additional caravans on existing pitches in order to provide accommodation for growing families, similar to an extension on a house to provide another bedroom.

At the previous meeting concerns were raised over the potential impact of the additional residents on local services and amenities. The best information available to the Council in this respect is that collected as part of the emerging Local Plan (“Bearing Fruits”) process. As part of this document the Council has engaged with 12

local services providers to determine the need / demand for additional facilities in each area of the Borough.

This has highlighted a need for new schools (primary and secondary) in Sittingbourne, and increasing capacity at existing schools (primary and secondary) in Sittingbourne and Faversham. A need for new GP surgeries has been shown in Sittingbourne (on the Meads) and at Queenborough & Rushenden, and a need for additional capacity within existing GP surgeries shown at various locations within Sittingbourne, Faversham, and Milton Regis.

Based on information provided by the (now defunct) Primary Care Trust Upchurch and Newington have not been highlighted as areas requiring new or additional school or GP places as a matter of priority within the next 17 years. I would also reiterate the comments from Kent County Council, above, who raise no objection on the grounds of school places.

Members should also be aware that the demands placed upon existing local services would be similar to that of 8 new permanent residential dwellings – however this should be tempered slightly by the fact that some (if not the majority) of the people who will be accommodated within the additional caravans proposed already live on the site. Some of the additional caravans will provide older children, currently living with their parents on site, their own unit within the confines of existing family pitches.

Members also raised questions about the size of the proposed pitches, and whether they meet relevant guidance. In this regard the Communities and Local Government publication “Designing Gypsy and Traveller Sites Good Practice Guide” is the most relevant document. This provides general advice in aspect of site selection and planning but does not provide a specific minimum acceptable pitch / site size. It states, at chapter 7:

“There is no one-size-fits-all measurement of a pitch as, in the case of the settled community, this depends on the size of individual families and their particular needs.

Nevertheless, as a general guide, it is possible to specify that an average family pitch must be capable of accommodating an amenity building, a large trailer and touring caravan, (or two trailers, drying space for clothes, a lockable shed (for bicycles, wheelchair storage etc), parking space for two vehicles and a small garden area.”

Members may care to note, however, that the site as a whole measures approximately 13,714 square metres (1.3ha) which, when split between 16 caravans amounts to approximately 857 square metres for each unit. This is, in my opinion, more than adequate space to comfortably contain all the necessary elements as listed above, and this is illustrated by the submitted drawing.

The pitches are not all to be split, however. They will remain as existing and as shown on the submitted drawing. Thus there will be a total of 7 double pitches with two caravans each and 2 single pitches, measuring approximately 1421, 1436, 1555,

1496, 1622, 1413, 1544, 759, and 796 square metres respectively. The remaining (approximate) 1672 square metres is given over to the access road.

Members also raised a query as to whether or not the application should be subject to a S106 legal agreement to provide financial contributions towards local services (such as schools, libraries or adult education services). As noted above KCC have not requested such a contribution, and state that it is not County policy to seek contributions on gypsy and traveller sites. In any instance I would again reiterate that this application seeks to provide additional accommodation on existing family pitches, and I do not believe it would be reasonable or justified for the Council to require any contributions on such a proposal.

Possible implications of a decision to refuse planning permission for application SW/13/0830

My concerns over a possible decision to refuse planning permission for this development is based on the need for planning decisions to reflect a proper assessment of planning policies and other material considerations (Section 54A of the Planning Act) and to present sound, justifiable and defensible planning reasons for refusal related to the likely impact of the proposed development. Members will be aware of the relevant policy considerations relating to gypsy / traveller applications, as set out in the Committee report appended to this report, and also as they have considered numerous applications for such development throughout the borough over the past few years.

The key issue in this respect is the Council’s progress towards meeting the requirements of the Government policy document – Planning Policy for Traveller Sites (PPTS). This policy requires the Council to be able to demonstrate a five year supply of available and appropriate sites sufficient to meet the need within the Borough. Currently the Council is not in a position to demonstrate a 5 year supply.

The PPTS sets out very clearly that Local Planning Authorities should have regard to, amongst other things, the existing level of local provision and need for sites, and the availability (or lack) of alternative accommodation for the applicants. The policy explicitly states that “...if a local planning authority cannot demonstrate an up-to-date five-year supply of deliverable sites, this should be a significant material consideration.”

The Council has a clear policy deficit in regards to the provision of gypsy and traveller sites and cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of available pitches, and this is a significant material consideration as set out by the PPTS. Furthermore I believe it would be difficult to argue that refusal of planning permission would be in the public interest to such a degree as to justify refusal of the applicant’s rights under Article 8, as there is little evidence to suggest there is harm to amenity. I am therefore of the firm opinion that there is little public interest / greater good to be found in refusing this planning application.

Recommendation

In my opinion this site is a good site on which to provide additional permanent gypsy / traveller accommodation. It is in a good location within close distance of both Upchurch and Rainham and the services thereat, has good vehicle access, and is well screened from view by existing landscaping. Furthermore the Council is unable to demonstrate a five year supply of available sites; does not yet have a site allocation DPD; and could not identify any alternative site where accommodation or new pitches could be provided.

I am therefore firmly of the view that planning permission should be granted.

In reaching this conclusion I have also had regard to Article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998, which I believe the Council would be in conflict with if planning permission is refused within the current policy and site allocation void.

I therefore recommend that planning permission is granted.

List of Background Documents

1. Application papers and correspondence for SW/13/1373. 2. Application papers and correspondence for SW/10/0765.

For information contact the case officer: Ross McCardle

Deferred Item 2 – Appendix A

2.2 SW/13/1373 (Case 21085) Upchurch

Location : Orchard Park, Oak Lane, Upchurch, Sittingbourne, Kent, ME8 7FL

Applicant/Agent : Mr J Saunders, C/O Mr Joseph Jones BFSGC, Saga Court, Unit 3, Sibleys Rise, Great Missenden, Buckinghamshire, HP16 9QQ

Application Valid : 31 October 2013

8 Week Target : 26 December 2013

13 weeks Target: 30 January 2014.

SUBJECT TO: The views of the Council’s Head of Housing Services

Conditions

(1) This permission does not authorise use of the land as a caravan site by any persons other than gypsies and travellers, as defined in paragraph 15 of ODPM Circular 01/2006.

Grounds: In the interests of preventing general residential use of this rural site.

Grounds: In the interests of preventing the over-development of the site and upholding visual amenity.

Deferred Item 2 – Appendix A

(3) The site shall not be occupied by any persons other than Gypsies and Travellers as defined in Annex 1 of Planning Policy for Traveller Sites, and if the site ceases to be occupied by such persons the use shall cease and all caravans, structures, materials and equipment brought on to the land in connection with the use shall be removed and the land restored to its former condition.

Grounds: In the interests of preventing general residential use of this rural site.

(4) No commercial activities shall take place on the land, including the storage of materials.

Grounds: In the interests of visual amenity and the character and appearance of the area.

(5) No vehicle over 3.5 tonnes shall be stationed, parked or stored on the site.

Grounds: In the interests of visual amenity and the character and appearance of the area.

(6) No external lighting shall be used on the site other than in accordance with the details shown on drawing “Mr Sauders” (Proposed Layout 2013) received 31 October 2013, or such other details as may be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Grounds: In the interests of visual amenity and the character and appearance of the area.

(8) The areas shown on drawing “Mr Sauders” (Proposed Layout 2013), received 31 October 2013, as car parking spaces shall be kept available for such use at all times and no permanent development, whether permitted by the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking or re-enacting that Order) or not, shall be carried out on the land so shown (other than the erection of a private garage or garages) or in such a position as to preclude vehicular access thereto.

Deferred Item 2 – Appendix A

Grounds: Development without adequate provision for the parking or garaging of cars is likely to lead to car parking inconvenient to other road users and detrimental to amenity.

Council’s approach to this application

In this case the application was acceptable as submitted.

Description of Proposal

This application seeks planning permission to vary conditions 2, 3 and 4 of planning permission SW/10/0765 to allow up to 32 caravans to be stationed at Orchard Park, Upchurch – of which no more than 16 would be static caravans or mobiles and 16 would be touring caravans – and for the site to be used by any gypsies and travellers as defined by law, instead of being restricted to the individuals specifically named on the 2010 permission. The decision notice for SW/10/0765 is appended.

The submitted site layout plan shows an additional static caravan and an additional space for a touring caravan on seven of the plots, and one plot that is subdivided to create a second. The application is accompanied by a Design and Access statement ,which amongst other things sets out the reasons why the application has been submitted ,including the personal circumstances of the applicant .

Members should note that the application relates to the existing site only, and does not seek expansion onto any neighbouring plots of land.

Site Description and Planning History

Orchard Park is a traveller site situated on Oak Lane to the south of Upchurch, and just to the north of the main A2, London Road, and immediately to the north of the mainline railway . It sits on the eastern side of Oak Lane, measuring approximately 96m by 136m, and extends to 1.39ha (or 3.4 acres)(the applicant owns land immediately to the north of the site, but this does not form part of this application and is undeveloped). The site is largely surrounded by established vegetation (since the site was first developed in 2005, planting – a combination of deciduous and non- deciduous trees - has become well established on the northern boundary) and there

Deferred Item 2 – Appendix A are few views into the site other than through the entrance gateway from Oak Lane and from the slightly elevated train line running to the south of the site.

The land is currently divided into 8 pitches, not all of which were occupied at the time of the case officer’s site visit - the applicant explained during this site visit that many of the residents often travel for work and are not on the site all year round. Each pitch is bounded by a laurel hedge and low post and rail fence, and features an area of hardstanding for caravans and vehicles, and an area of lawn. Some, but not all of the pitches, feature outbuildings / day rooms. The site is, in officers’ experience, always well maintained.

The site lies approximately 1.9km from the facilities within Upchurch, which include local shops, hot food takeaways, a post office, doctor’s surgery and a primary school. The Barnyard, roughly 650m to the north, provides a range of fresh and frozen food. Rainham, the nearest town, lies just over 2km to the west along the A2 and provides a wide range of facilities including shopping, education and medical services.

The site is not subject to landscape or ecological designations under the adopted Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

The planning history of the site dates back to January 2005, when two enforcement notices were served in respect of the laying of hardstanding and change of use of the site from agriculture to a residential caravan site. Appeals were submitted against both notices and at the subsequent public inquiry , the Inspector ruled that the site was not suitable for permanent permission ( the planning considerations that discouraged him from granting a permanent permission related to “…harm to the countryside in this attractive area of open countryside and the potential loss of best and most versatile agricultural land…”) , and thus granted temporary consent for a period of three years, on 27 March 2006.

Subsequently, in November 2010, Members granted permanent permission for use of the site as a “…private gypsy and traveller caravan site…” under application reference SW/10/0765, restricting occupancy to the applicant, his family, and the other individuals specifically named within the application particulars. The permission is limited by condition (2) to “…22 caravans of which no more than eight shall be static caravans or mobile homes…” In summarising the recommendation the officer noted:

“Members will note that the Gypsy and Traveller Corporate Policy Site Assessment Consultation…in respect of Orchard Park has given the site the highest score of any of the sites in the borough. My own assessment of the site has confirmed that this is indeed a good site that does not give rise to significant adverse implications in respect of any planning considerations.”

Deferred Item 2 – Appendix A

Views of Consultees

Gordon Henderson Member of Parliament for Sittingbourne and Sheppey has written to oppose the application. A summary of his comments is as follows:  The site was originally established without planning permission.  The approval of this site clearly demonstrates the unfairness in the system that favour gypsy’s over the settled community.  The site is exposed and there is no natural screening expansion of this site will be detrimental to the rural location and harm the character of the area.  There would be an impact on rural housing and the tourist facility that is the River Valley Golf Club and Gore Farm.  There may be conflict between families as a consequence of the large numbers proposed.  The pitches do not meet the National Standards which require 500 sqm.  There are no proposals to ensure that this development complies with Building Regulations as suggested should be the case within the DCLG circular guidance.  The proposal does not comply with the Council’s C4sh for energy and insulation standards to at least level 3 as all mobile homes should meet BS3632 for all year residential use.

Upchurch Parish Council objects to the proposal on the following grounds:  No objection to the principle of the proposal to vary condition 2 because it makes efficient use of the land and negates the need for further sites to be established. However, this acceptance of the proposal would only be on the basis that the number of occupants at the site does not increase. Any increase could lead to more pressure on local doctor’s surgeries and would potentially lead to increased vehicles movements in and out of the site. Existing amenities such as water and waste would need to be given further consideration.  Objection to the variation of condition 3 owing to the fact that such a permission would not be granted to members of the settled community. The variation of condition 3 would allow anyone to move onto the site. It is not unreasonable for a record of the residents to be kept.  Objection to the variation of condition 4 in that the land should be restored to its previous state should it cease to be used as a gypsy site. The land could be sold to a non-related gypsy family or immigrants.  The site is on a dark and fast road with no footpaths and pedestrians are at risk. There is no local bus route and the nearest shop is Gore Farm which has limited opening hours. The Co-op is not a reasonable walking distance away.  The cumulative impact of the gypsy sites within the area is having a negative impact on services and facilities.  Various comments on the quality and accuracy of the application submitted.  The Parish Council do not consider that their comments are given any real consideration.

Deferred Item 2 – Appendix A

Lower Halstow Parish Council objects to the proposal on the grounds that it is out of proportion with the surrounding area and the size of the local population. They note that there are existing sites in the area.

Hartlip Parish Council objects to the proposal on the grounds that the current proposal seems to be at odds with the Inspector’s wishes on the appeal decision for the original site. They consider that the human rights of the settled community as well as the gypsy community should be considered. The proposal would not be sustainable in their view. They consider that the proposal would be contrary to policy DM14 of the draft core strategy and there would be an adverse impact on local tourist destinations. The planning committee should consider the comments of the Minister on the application of planning policies in respect of gypsies – “Local Planning Authorities should strictly limit new traveller site development in open countryside….Stronger emphasis is now given to the protection of local amenities and the local environment.…I believe planning should focus on the special impact on the local community and local environment, rather than the identity of the applicant. The public want to see fair play, with planning rules enforced equally and due process followed for all involved.” They are also concerned about the high number of gypsy sites approved within this part of Swale. The development should contribute to local infrastructure in their view and the site has accommodated non- family members in the past. Police are frequently in attendance. Will the ever increasing family result in further extensions of the site?

Cllr Gerry Lewin – Ward Member for Upchurch and Lower Halstow objects to the proposal. He considers that weight should be given to the cumulative impact of the gypsy sites and the ‘cumulative point’ has been reached in Upchurch in his view. The visual impact of these sites is detrimental to the area/landscape. There will be an impact on local schools etc. etc. These sites have not contributed section 106 monies towards local infrastructure. He objects to the variation of condition 2, 3 and 4. Oak Lane is unsuitable for pedestrians and the site is some distance from local amenities. The site plan does not indicate the cess pits. Does the site plan show the location of the unauthorised utility block? How many vehicles will there be? The site can be seen from the road, contrary to the application form. Has there been any investigation into a new mobile home that entered the site in November this year?

Cllr John Wright – Ward Member for Upchurch and Lower Halstow objects to the proposal. He notes that the cumulative impact of so many new residents without any contribution to the social fabric of the surrounding villages will lead to unsustainable commuting, pressures on local facilities and services. There would also be a cumulative impact on the environment and rural landscape in his view. The impact on wildlife is a concern as well as inappropriate lighting. The countryside gap between the Medway towns and Upchurch is being slowly destroyed in his view. He is also concerned about the lack of pedestrian access to the site, lack of information about drainage and the lack of information about the future residents of the site. He asks whether they will have local connections. Consideration should be given to the provision of a turning circle within the site.

Deferred Item 2 – Appendix A

Kent Highway Services raise no objection to the proposal.

Southern Water has no objection to the proposal. The comments in respect of the previous application are unchanged and valid.

Medway Council comment as a neighbouring authority. They raise no objection.

Other representations

Thirty-nine letters of objection have been received from local residents. However, Members should note that a number of these objections have not provided their full name and / or address, and it is therefore possible that there may be some duplications. Many of the comments given by local residents reiterate the comments by the Parish Councils reported above. A summary of new points raised is as follows:

 Losing more green space;  Should be kept semi-rural;  Too many utility blocks that are not properly plumbed in to the sewers;  The residents should pay council tax, if they don’t already;  The front wall of the site is a danger to vehicles and is unauthorised;  The access to the site is dangerous;  Additional vehicles will create a highway hazard;  Anti-social behaviour experience within the village;  The site residents do not try to integrate into the local community;  The consultation with local residents is inadequate;  The flood risk assessment is for 8 plots and not 32;  Mobile homes are often replaced with permanent dwellings;  Commercial vehicles are parking at the site;  Larger sites can create anti-social behaviour;  The original permission was for three years only. How can this extension be allowed under these circumstances?  The site will become an eye-sore;  “I feel Upchurch has its fair share of gypsy and traveller sites;”  Consultations letters should have been sent out to more local residents;  Some of the caravans on site are occupied by Eastern Europeans, rendering the application on the basis of gypsy / traveller status null;  The caravans will be used to accommodate Eastern Europeans arriving in the UK from 2014;  The golf course receives many claims for damage from golf balls, which would increase with more caravans on site;  The Council should not approve retrospective gypsy / traveller applications [NB: this application is not retrospective.];

Deferred Item 2 – Appendix A

 The fact that the applicant’s family is growing should not justify the application – many local residents would like to build houses for their children but are not allowed to;  Inadequate school places for local children already;  Will set a precedent for expansion of other sites;  Is there an identified need for the development?  Would be more sensible to spread the sites evenly over a wider area;  The Council has not established a proactive policy on how to deal with such applications;  The Council ignores local opinion when dealing with such applications;  The land should be used to build affordable housing for locals;  “most houses built since 1964 in the village are not allowed to have caravans, boats, etc., on their front drives, so why will an exemption be made for the residents of Orchard Park?”; and  The site is not completely full, and thus does not need to be expanded.

I would also note that many letters incorrectly refer to the application as being for 32 pitches, or 32 additional pitches. Neither of these are correct – as above, the application is for 32 caravans in total including touring caravans, which amounts to 16 individual pitches, or an additional 8 pitches over the existing number.

Policies

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)

The NPPF was released on 27th March 2012 with immediate effect, however, para 214 states “that for 12 months from this publication date, decision-makers may continue to give full weight to relevant policies adopted since 2004 even if there is a limited degree of conflict with this Framework.”

The 12 month period noted above has expired. As such, it was necessary for a review of the consistency between the policies contained within the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008 and the NPPF. This has been carried out in the form of a report agreed by the Local Development Framework Panel on 12 December 2012. All policies cited below are considered to accord with the NPPF for the purposes of determining this application and as such, these policies can still be afforded significant weight in the decision-making process.

National Policy

National Policy on Gypsy and Traveller sites is set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and the Planning Policy for Traveller Sites (PPTS)(also published in 2012, and which deals with decision-taking on pages 6 and 7. These pages are attached as Appendix 2 below.). The requirement in both documents is very clear, in that the Council should now set pitch targets which address the likely need for pitches over the plan period. Furthermore, the Council is required, from

Deferred Item 2 – Appendix A

2013 onwards, to maintain a rolling five year supply of sites which are in suitable locations and available immediately.

The PPTS is a recent change in national policy; prior to this national policy was set out in Circular 01/2006; where the original intention was for regionally set pitch targets to be met.

I have also had regard to the guidance in the CLG document, ‘Designing Gypsy and Traveller Sites: Good Practice Guide’ (2008).

The Council has in my view responded positively and quickly to the change. The LDF Panel immediately recognised, and supported, the commissioning of a new Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment (GTAA), which was completed in June this year and identified a need for 82 pitches to be provided (adjusted down from 85 pitches in reflection of those sites granted consent whilst the document was under preparation).

From this, the Council will produce a Development Plan Document setting out deliverable sites to meet this need. However, it is anticipated that this will take at least four years to become formal policy, as it relies upon successful adoption of the draft Local Plan, entitled “Bearing Fruits,” which is unlikely to be formally agreed until at least late 2014.

Local Policy

i) The Swale Borough Local Plan 2008

The Development Plan comprises the South East Plan and the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008 (SBLP). I will focus on the contents of the Local Plan as the Government has recently abolished the South East Plan .

SBLP policy E1 sets out standards applicable to all development, saying that it should be well sited appropriate in scale, design and appearance with a high standard of landscaping, and have safe pedestrian and vehicular access whilst avoiding unacceptable consequences in highway terms.

SBLP Policy E6 seeks to protect the quality, character and amenity of the countryside, and states that development will not be permitted outside rural settlements in the interests of countryside conservation, unless related to an exceptional need for a rural location.

SBLP Policy H4 explains the Borough Council will only grant planning permission for the use of land for the stationing of homes for persons who can clearly demonstrate that they are gypsies or travelling showpersons with a genuine connection with the locality of the proposed site, in accordance with 1 and 2 below.

Deferred Item 2 – Appendix A

1. For proposals involving the establishment of public or privately owned residential gypsy or travelling showpersons sites: a) there will be a proven need in the Borough for the site and for the size proposed; b) the site will be located close to local services and facilities; c) there will be no more than four caravans; d) the site will be located close to the primary or secondary road networks e) in the case of a greenfield site there is no suitable site available on previously developed land in the locality; f) the site is not designated for its wildlife, historic or landscape importance; g) the site should be served, or capable of being served, by mains water supply and a satisfactory means of sewage disposal and refuse collection; h) there is no conflict with pedestrian or highway safety; i) screening and landscaping will be provided to minimise adverse impacts; j) no industrial, retail, commercial, or storage activities will take place on the site. k) use of the site will not give rise to significant adverse impacts upon residential amenity, or agricultural or commercial use, of surrounding areas; and l) the land will not be in a designated flood risk area.

2. Additionally to 1, for proposals for short term stopping places: m) there will be a planning condition to ensure that the length of stay for each caravan will be no longer than 28 days with no return to the site within 3 months.”

Policy H4 had largely been superseded by ODPM Circular 01/2006. However that has itself largely been superseded by the newly published Planning Policy for Traveller Sites.

SBLP Policy E19 requires development proposals to be well designed.

SBLP Policy T3 requires adequate parking to be provided.

ii) Bearing Fruits 2031

The Council’s Draft Core Strategy has now been replaced by the emerging draft Local Plan, entitled Bearing Fruits 2031, part 1 of which was sent out for consultation in August last year. The emerging nature of the document is such, however, that it cannot be afforded significant weight in the determination of planning applications such as this.

Policy DM10 of the emerging Local Plan aims to provide pitches for gypsies and travellers as part of new residential developments, stating:

Deferred Item 2 – Appendix A

“For housing proposals between 50 and 149 dwellings, one pitch shall be provided for gypsies and travellers. For 150 dwellings and above (or 200 dwellings on previously developed urban sites), unless a commuted sum has been agreed with the Council, 1% of the total number of dwellings proposed shall be serviced and made available to gypsies and travellers as pitches and/or bespoke accommodation, either for sale or rent, as appropriate, and up to a maximum of 10 pitches on any one allocation. Where identified, pitches may also be required to meet an affordable housing need.”

The policy also notes that sites may need to be granted permission individually in order to meet the five-year supply, and this will be subject to certain general criteria, and also compliance with draft policies DM9 and ST3.

Draft policy DM9 requires applications for affordable housing / gypsy and traveller pitches within rural areas to demonstrate that:

- The site is well located to local service centres and villages, with access to day-to-day services; - There will be no significant impact upon character and amenity of the countryside; and - The need for the scheme is clearly demonstrated and justified by the applicant.

Policy ST3 sets out a settlement hierarchy for when considering proposals for new development, stating that outside of the defined built up areas “permission will be granted for appropriate development involving…accommodation for gypsies and travellers that cannot be met at housing allocations or within or adjacent locations within” the identified Borough centres, rural service centres, or other villages with built up area boundaries.

iii) Corporate Policy

In January 2009 the Council published a consultation draft Gypsy and Traveller Corporate Policy to address the issue of gypsy site provision. This recognised that the Borough has traditionally had one of the largest gypsy and traveller populations within Kent and the South-East of England, often related to traditional farming activities.

The policy is based on meeting the predicted site needs from the Council’s original GTAA (and was designed to meet the expected RSS figures) and whilst the Circular advocates a site allocations policy, the Council’s policy explains that the combination of the wide range of pitch numbers potentially required, and the Council’s good record of approving small private sites, meant that at this stage a site allocations approach is not the right way forward for Swale.

The Council undertook a full survey of potential sites against a set of criteria in accordance with Government guidance. This included a review of current temporary

Deferred Item 2 – Appendix A permissions and an assessment of the potential of publicly owned land to meet the identified need. This site is mentioned in the survey.

This, together with finding a solution for a persistent group of families at Sittingbourne (who were responsible for the vast majority of the unauthorised encampments in the Borough), was expected to see the Council making adequate provision to meet needs.

Potentially acceptable sites have then been assessed against a range of criteria including ownership (deliverability), utilities, highway issues, landscape impact and ease of access to local services. These assessments are a simple but objective measure of the likely suitability of each site, but are not intended to be the sole consideration in determining planning applications, which remain to be determined on their own merits. Some sites have been excluded from these assessments due to flood risk or national or international nature conservation grounds, serious landscape or heritage impact or site suitability over a range of issues.

The Policy produced a schedule of possible sites to address local need, and these were published in the March 2010 Gypsy and Traveller Corporate Policy Site Assessment Consultation. The result of public consultation on that schedule and the assessment scores of potential sites was considered by the Council on 7 October 2010.

The Local Development Framework Panel at its meeting on 7 October 2012 accepted the following recommendations:

(1) “That site assessments are a material consideration for the purpose of decision making subject to review when new national guidance is produced and further note the report on site scores. Also, as sites come forward as planning applications the site assessment be reviewed for currency (2) That sites to be removed from the Site Assessment process in Appendix 2 be agreed. (3) That assessment work so far and consultation responses as evidence base for the LDF be noted. (4) That the Corporate Policy and Site Assessment be reviewed when new national guidance is produced. (5) That consideration of the Borough's pitch numbers be resolved when new national guidance is produced. (6) That the unapproved draft of Core Strategy policy be received for initial comments.”

The Council had thus been working towards meeting the anticipated requirement for provision of pitches through the publication of its Gypsy and Traveller Corporate Policy Site Assessment criteria. This has now been agreed as being a material consideration in the determination of planning applications. The site was scored

Deferred Item 2 – Appendix A when under consideration in 2010 and received a total of 36 points – a very high score.

The Corporate Policy has in my view been largely successful in guiding the provision of gypsy and traveller sites. Currently, the Council has granted planning permission for the following since 2006:

18 permanent sites – comprising 117 caravans equating to 68 pitches; and 12 Temporary sites – comprising 25 caravans equating to 15 pitches

Discussion

Principle

As discussed above: Orchard Park is an existing permanent traveller’s site, granted permanent permission in 2010 after inclusion in the 2009 Gypsy and Traveller Corporate Policy and being assessed as being one of the better sites in the Borough for permanent permission.

The GTAA recognises that the “growing up” of residents and the forming of new households is a key driver of the need for accommodation. With this in mind, a proportion of our assessed need for 82 pitches arises from household growth. The additional caravans proposed here would reduce the Council’s identified need and consequently reduce the number of pitches that would need to be found elsewhere, potentially on greenfield or otherwise unsuitable sites.

The proposal therefore has the benefit of providing accommodation on an existing site without the need for expansion onto previously-undeveloped land (the applicant owns a substantial parcel of land immediately to the north of the application site, which does not form part of this application). Preference for the use of previously developed land is promoted in PPTS (2012), as is a priority for expansion of existing sites, and the Draft Local Plan policy DM10(3) supports proposals for site expansion and intensification where appropriate, but Members should note that the Local Plan is in draft form only and thus has, as noted above, limited weight in the decision making process.

As the additional caravans will be accommodated within the existing site boundaries, which are largely enclosed by mature landscaping in views from all directions other than from the train line. I consider that there will be no additional harm to the character and appearance of the countryside as a result of this development. Furthermore the additional pitches will contribute towards the Council’s five-year supply, thus reducing the need to provide further pitches on fresh, undeveloped sites that may give rise to significant visual harm.

As such, I consider in the absence of an identified five-year supply of sites and mindful that this application relates to an existing site that is considered to be

Deferred Item 2 – Appendix A suitable for the use, that it is acceptable in principle, in accordance with national and local policy as summarised above.

Other Issues

The key issue in this respect, which I am sure Members are familiar with, is the Council’s progress towards meeting the requirements of the Government policy document – Planning Policy for Traveller Sites (PPTS). This policy requires the Council to be able to demonstrate a five year supply of available and appropriate sites sufficient to meet the need within the Borough. Members should note that the Council is not going to be in a position to do so for a number of years.

However this proposal for the addition of more caravan pitches on an established and suitably located gypsy site can be welcomed as a way of helping to meet the existing need for further pitches. Furthermore the approval of this site together with the additional pitches recently approved at Brotherhood Wood will make a significant contribution towards the Council meeting its 5 year supply of sites.

Any refusal would need to be able to clearly justify why the stationing of additional mobile homes on this existing site causes such additional harm to local amenity as to warrant refusal of planning permission. Whilst the PPTS does set out that sites in rural or semi-rural settings should not dominate the local community, careful consideration must be given as to whether or not the addition of the additional 8 static caravans and 8 tourers causes such domination of the area that permission should be refused.

In my view it would be very difficult to argue that this site, being relatively isolated from the surrounding village envelopes (Upchurch, Hartlip and Lower Halstow), gives rise to any domination of the local area. Both the PPTS and Draft Local Plan Policy DM10 address the issue of dominance in terms of the scale of gypsy and traveller sites in relation to the settled community. Paragraph 12 of the PPTS states:

Deferred Item 2 – Appendix A

“When assessing the suitability of sites in rural or semi-rural settings, local planning authorities should ensure that the scale of such sites does not dominate the nearest settled community.”

As this application is to provide additional accommodation within the boundaries of the existing site I think it is very hard to see how it could reasonably be argued that this proposal would give rise to any dominance over the nearest settlement. In this regard, I do not agree with local opinion.

In addition, Members will need to set out clearly how additional caravans, set within the existing site, would cause such harm to the visual amenity of this undesignated area that planning permission should be refused. The site is very well screened by boundary planting and is not readily visible from public viewpoints, other than passing views from the train line. In my opinion it would be extremely difficult to argue, on appeal, that the additional caravans and amenity buildings would cause significant material harm to the visual amenity of the area and the landscape sufficient to justify refusal of planning permission.

I am also mindful that the development would not give rise to unacceptable highway safety (Members will have noted above that KHS raise no objection) or Environmental Health implications.

I also note the position of the site relative to local services such as shops, schools, health care and other amenities and consider that the location is acceptable for the proposed level of accommodation in this regard. There is no evidence to suggest the existing services available within the local area would not be able to accommodate any of the needs generated by the extended development.

As above, I believe that the additional proposed pitches here would not be harmful so as to outweigh the clear government policy relating to planning permission and the lack of alternative sites.

Members must also be aware of the Human Rights implications when considering this and similar planning applications.

The essence of the Human Rights Act 1998 is to ensure that everyone has certain rights, in certain circumstances, which must not be interfered with unless it is demonstrably justifiable in the interests of the public good. In the instance of Article 8 the right to private and family life is undeniable unless it can be shown that it is in the public interest to deny such rights. Refusal of planning permission would therefore be a breach of Article 8 unless it can be clearly demonstrated that there are good reasons for doing so – in the case of the planning system those “good reasons” are the policies that are contained within adopted local and national guidance, and designed to protect the public interest and “greater good.”

There needs to be proportionality between the harm to the greater good that may arise by upholding the individual rights afforded by the Act (in this instance by

Deferred Item 2 – Appendix A allowing the applicant to live on site for a period of four years) and the public good in denying those rights.

Recommendation

In my opinion, this site is suitable for permanent permission as a gypsy/traveller site to accommodate the 32 caravans now proposed. It is located in a position that is acceptable in terms of highway safety, landscape visual implications and sustainability.

The Council is furthermore unable to demonstrate a five year supply of available sites; does not yet have a site allocation DPD; and would be unable, on appeal, to point to any alternative site where the occupiers of this site could relocate to.

In reaching this conclusion I have also had regard to Article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998, which I believe the Council would be in conflict with if planning permission were to be refused given the lack of an up-to-date Development Plan policy in respect of gypsy and traveller pitch provision and the absence of a robust reason for the refusal of planning permission.

I therefore recommend, subject to the views of the Council’s Head of Housing Services , that planning permission be granted. ______

Responsible Officer: Jim Wilson (Major Projects Officer) ______

Appendices

1. Decision notice for SW/10/0765 2. Extract from CLG Guidance ‘Planning policy for traveller sites’ (2012) on decision-taking

List of Background Documents

1. Application papers and correspondence for SW/13/1373. 2. Application papers and correspondence for SW/10/0765.

Deferred Item 2 – Appendix A

ITEM 2.2 APPENDIX 1

Deferred Item 2 – Appendix A

ITEM 2.2 APPENDIX 1

Deferred Item 2 – Appendix A

ITEM 2.2 APPENDIX 1

Deferred Item 2 – Appendix A

ITEM 2.2 APPENDIX 1

Deferred Item 2 – Appendix A

ITEM 2.2 APPENDIX 2

Deferred Item 2 – Appendix A

ITEM 2.2 APPENDIX 2

PLANNING COMMITTEE – 13 MARCH 2014 Part 2

Report of the Head of Planning

Part 2

Applications for which PERMISSION is recommended

2.1 SW/14/0003 (Case 00822) Dunkirk

Location : MoD Dunkirk, Courtenay Road, Dunkirk, Nr. Faversham, Kent, ME13 9LH

Proposal : Installation of 3 No. Microwave dishes on existing tower.

Applicant/Agent : Latent Networks Ltd, C/O Mr Leo Cunningham-Baily, Fisher German LLP, St Helens Court, North Street, Ashby De La Zouch, Leicestershire, LE65 1HS

Application Valid : 3 January 2014

8 Week Target : 28 February 2014

Conditions / Grounds

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

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

2. The telecommunications apparatus hereby permitted shall be removed from the site as soon as reasonably practical after it is no longer required for telecommunication purposes.

Grounds: In the interest of visual amenity.

3. The telecommunications dishes hereby permitted shall be painted grey.

Grounds: In the interest of visual amenity.

Council’s approach to this application

In this instance the application was acceptable as submitted.

2.2 SW/14/0004 (Case 00822) Dunkirk

Location : MoD Dunkirk, Courtneay Road, Dunkirk, Nr. Faversham, Kent, ME13 9LH

Proposal : Listed Building Consent for installation of 3 No. Microwave dishes on existing tower.

Applicant/Agent : Latent Networks Ltd, C/O Mr Leo Cunningham-Baily, Fisher German LLP, St Helens Court, North Street, Ashby De La Zouch, Leicestershire, LE65 1HS

Application Valid : 3 January 2014

8 Week Target : 28 February 2014

Conditions

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

Grounds: In pursuance of Section 18 of the Listed Building Act 1990 as amended by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

2 The telecommunications dishes hereby permitted shall be painted grey.

Grounds: In the interest of visual amenity.

Description of Proposal

Planning permission and listed building consent is sought for two 2.4m microwave dishes installed at a height of 27.8m and 37 metres and the installation of 1 no 1.2 microwave dish at a height of 28.75 metres on the existing 110 metre high tower, and associated cabling and the installation of a small equipment cabin at ground floor at the RAF mast. The proposed dishes would be painted grey to match the existing structure of the mast.

Dish 1 (2.4 metre diameter and at a height of 27.8 metres) would be located on the western elevation.

Dish 2 (1.2 metre diameter and at a height of 28.75 metres) would be located on the eastern elevation.

Dish 3 (2.4 metres diameter and at a height of 37 metres) would be located on the western elevation.

Relevant Site History and Description

The RAF Mast is grade II listed and lies within the designated countryside. The existing mast has a height of 110 metres and is already host to a number of telecommunications equipment.

SW/10/1128- erection of offices and storage building - refused.

SW/11/1370- Erection of a data storage facility (B8) and permanent historical exhibition (D1)- refused. Appeal recently dismissed by the Planning Inspectorate.

SW/13/0880 & SW/13/0885- installation of 2 x 1.8 microwave dishes at a height of 40 metres- approved. Not proceeded with due to the two dishes now proposed having been installed at that height – leading to SW/13/1341.

SW/13/1273 and 1274 - installation of two 1.8m microwave dishes at a height of 58m on the existing 110m tower, associated cabling and the installation of a small equipment cabin at ground level- approved.

SW/13/1340 and 1341 - listed building consent and planning permission for the placement of one x 2.4m and one x 1.2 dishes at a height of 47 metres- approved.

SW/13/1462 & SW/13/1463- planning permission and listed building consent for two 1.2m microwave dishes installed at a height of 40m on the existing 110 tower, and associated cabling and the installation of a small equipment cabin at ground floor.

Views of Consultees

Dunkirk Parish Council raises an objection to the proposal and makes the following comments:

‘The Council are concerned about the number of applications regularly being received for dishes on the mast and the cumulative effect that this may have. The health and safety risks of installing such equipment is not referred to in the supporting documents. The Council are also concerned that there is no certainty to the limit of future similar applications which may be received. The applications are each made by different telecommunication companies via different agents and there doesn’t appear to be any central control by the owner of the site as to what is installed on the mast and in the site buildings.

Despite requests in the past the owner has not provided details of the programme of work, maintenance of the mast and site, and safety certificates in place. Again, there doesn’t appear to be anyone managing these aspects at the site.

Dunkirk Parish Council feel that the committee should be aware of these concerns when making their decision’. The County Archaeological Officer raises no objection.

The Head of Service Delivery raises no objection.

Other Representations

Two letters of general observation has been received expressing concern about the amount of dishes being erected on the mast, that there does not appear to be an overall plan for the site and confirmation of the amount of dishes already located on the mast.

Policies

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)

The NPPF was released on 27th March 2012 with immediate effect, however, paragraph 214 states that “for 12 months from this publication date, decision-makers may continue to give full weight to relevant policies adopted since 2004 even if there is a limited degree of conflict with this Framework.”

Paragraph 42 states the following: ‘Advanced, high quality communications infrastructure is essential for sustainable economic growth. The development of high speed broadband technology and other communications networks also plays a vital role in enhancing the provision of local community facilities and services.’

Paragraph 43 states the following: ‘In preparing Local Plans, local planning authorities should support the expansion of electronic communications networks, including telecommunications and high speed broadband. They should aim to keep the numbers of radio and telecommunications masts and the sites for such installations to a minimum consistent with the efficient operation of the network. Existing masts, buildings and other structures should be used, unless the need for a new site has been justified. Where new sites are required, equipment should be sympathetically designed and camouflaged where appropriate.’

Swale Borough Local Plan 2008

The relevant policies include - E1 (General Development Criteria), E14 (Listed buildings) and E19 (Achieving High Quality Design and Distinctiveness) of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

Discussion

The main consideration in the determination of this application is the impact of the development on the historic character of the former RAF mast, the visual impact on the surrounding area as well as the cumulative impact of the previous approved dishes on the mast.

It should firstly be noted that there is already an existing telecommunications base station at this site and various dishes have already been installed on the mast. Taking into consideration the character of the site and the existing use as a telecommunications site I am of the opinion that the installation of three additional dishes does not have a detrimental impact on the historic character of the mast and does not have a negative impact on the visual amenity of the surrounding area.

The proposed dishes would not appear overly obtrusive from the surrounding views. Furthermore, painting the dishes grey would ensures that they blend into the existing structure of the mast and create a sufficient visual backdrop to significantly reduce any impact.

In terms of the ancillary equipment cabinet I am of the opinion that as the site is already used for telecommunication equipment and as the increase in equipment is small scale it does not have a significant impact on the character of the area. Furthermore, as the site is already used for this operation it would be appropriate to allow these additional installations rather than erecting a new mast to host the proposed dishes.

I note that there are now 8 dishes already erected on the mast and am of the view that the cumulative impact is not significant enough to warrant a refusal on visual impact concerns. The NPPF provides clear guidance on the location of telecommunications infrastructure stating that where possible existing structures should be used. In this case, it makes sense to use the existing mast for the siting of telecommunications infrastructures rather than erecting an entire

I note the comments made by Dunkirk Parish Council in relation to the future of the mast and their concern about health risks. The policy guidance is clear in its aims to use existing structures for the use of telecommunications infrastructure and does not highlight any potential health risks associated with such equipment. In addition, the Head of Service Delivery has raised no objection to the proposal on health and safety concerns.

Recommendation

Overall, I am of the view that the proposal is acceptable and does not have a detrimental impact upon the existing character of the site and the surrounding area. As such I recommend that planning permission and listed building consent be granted.

List of Backgrounds Documents

1. Application papers and correspondence for SW/14/0003 2. Application papers and correspondence for SW/14/0004 3. Application papers and correspondence for SW/13/1462 4. Application papers and correspondence for SW/13/1463 5. Application papers and correspondence for SW/13/1340 6. Application papers and correspondence for SW/13/1341 7. Application papers and correspondence for SW/13/1273 8. Application papers and correspondence for SW/13/1274 9. Application papers and correspondence for SW/13/0880 10. Application papers and correspondence for SW/13/0885 11. Application papers and correspondence for SW/11/1370 12. Application papers and correspondence for SW/10/1128

For further information please contact the case office, Tracy Day.

2.3 SW/14/0013 (Case 06901) Faversham

Location : 19A Preston Street, Faversham, Kent, ME13 8NZ

Proposal : (A) Change of use of first floor shop store (Class A1) to two no. two bedroom flats plus ancillary office for existing ground floor shop including front first floor replacement windows

(B) Alterations to existing ground floor shopfront to provide access to first floor accommodation

Applicant/Agent : Mr J Sternlicht ,C/O Mr S L Patching, Planning & Dev Consultant, 56 Bourne Avenue, Laindon, Basildon, Essex, SS15 6DY

Application Valid : 15 January 2014

8 Week Target : 12 March 2014

CONDITIONS

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

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

2 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in complete accordance with drawings: PLA 6, PLA 7A, PLA 7a, PLA 7b, PLA 7c, PLA 8A and PLA 9A.

Grounds: For the avoidance of doubt.

Pre-Commencement Conditions

3 Prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted, samples of all of the facing materials to be used in the development shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in complete accordance with the approved details.

Grounds: In the interests of visual amenity and of preserving or enhancing the character and appearance of the adjacent conservation area.

4 Prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted, detailed drawings of all new external joinery work and fittings, at two scales; 1:20, and 1:2 or 1:1, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, together with sections through glazing bars, frames and mouldings. The development shall be carried out in complete accordance with the approved details.

Grounds: In the interests of visual amenity and of preserving or enhancing the character and appearance of the adjacent conservation area.

5 Prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted, detailed cross-sectional drawings of the proposed new dormers, at a scale of 1:5, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in complete accordance with the approved details.

Grounds: In the interests of visual amenity and of preserving or enhancing the character and appearance of the adjacent conservation area.

Council’s approach to this application

In this case the application was approved as submitted, following the receipt of amended drawings

Description of Proposal

This is an application for a change of use of the first floor storage rooms above the existing shop to two no. 2 bedroom flats, plus an office ancillary to the ground floor shop, with alterations to the roof to create dormer windows, and a new door within the existing ground floor shopfront.

The building was the former ‘Gem’ cinema, which closed many years ago and now enjoys A1 retail use. That retail use (at present, a charity shop) would continue, with a change of use to the first floor only. The first floor is at present used for storage, but it is such a large floor area as to be unnecessary for retail storage and is, at present virtually empty. The proposal is to create two no. 2 bedroom flats at this level.

These flats would be lit by the creation of seven dormer windows, of vertical proportions and traditional design along the northern elevation. On this land-locked site where the building occupies the full width and depth of its plot, these dormers would face directly towards the hall and small garden area at the rear of the Alexander Centre, but which would be difficult to see from Preston Street itself. The proposed drawings also show a dormered porch to the rear, leading onto the existing fire escape (which is to be refurbished).

The final external change is to the shopfront, which at the moment presents a fairly traditional and symmetrical elevation with double windows either side of a deeply recessed entrance. The proposal would replace the southernmost of these windows with a door onto the street. It is also proposed to restore the deep cornice above the shopfront and pilasters to either side which are shown in an early C19th photograph. All other physical changes would be internal, and would not require permission. No off-street parking is envisaged.

The proposal is accompanied by a Design & Access Statement and a Heritage Impact Assessment.

Site Description & Relevant History

The building is a long, thin building, with a frontage of only 8 metres, but with a depth going back from Preston Street of 38.5 metres. The frontage still displays some interesting architectural features, especially at first floor level. The application material includes a photograph of the front of the building in circa 1910.

The building is situated within the centre of Preston Street, on the eastern side, within the Core Shopping Area and the Faversham conservation area. Although the building is not listed, due to its history as an early purpose built cinema, it can be regarded as a heritage asset under the terms of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

With reference to the history for the site, there is some history for advertisements and signage which are not relevant to this application (SW/82/0649 and SW/84/0085), but last year, an application for a similar conversion was submitted under reference SW/13/0771. Although Officers believed that the proposal was acceptable in principle, there were a number of design issues which needed to be addressed. After a site meeting, that application was withdrawn and the present submission followed in due course.

Views of Consultees

Faversham Town Council recommends refusal, noting that ‘It would have an adverse impact on the overall street scene.’

I have discussed the matters with our colleagues in the Environmental Protection Team, as the proposed dormers would face towards the side of the Alexander Centre, which is a venue for social events such as parties, etc., and as a

consequence of my consultation with the Environmental Protection Officers, the Head of Service Delivery raises no objection to the proposal.

Other Representations

No other representations have been received.

Relevant Planning Policies

The following saved policies of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008 are relevant to this development;

E1 – General Development Criteria E15 – Conservation Areas E19 – Design Criteria B1 – Supporting existing businesses B3 – Maintaining and Enhancing Town Centres H2 – Providing new Housing AAP1 – Area Action Plan – Faversham Town Centre

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)

Paragraph 134 – Notes that where a proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal.

Discussion

In my view the relevant planning considerations for this proposal constitute the balance between preserving the character and appearance of this interesting building, the character of the conservation area and the business needs of the applicant.

The external works envisaged are relatively minor, and I would contend that they would not adversely affect the character and appearance of either the building itself or the conservation area. Indeed, as the first of the small dormers to the side would be set back nearly seven metres from the front of the building, they would be difficult, if not impossible to see from Preston Street. It should be noted that the dormers are well designed and in accordance with the design guide for dormers as stated in the Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG), being of vertical proportions and only of a scale necessary to let in light.

The only really noticeable changes to the front elevation will be the reinstatement of the pilasters and cornice and the insertion of a door in place of what is now a window. I would contend that the door would not harm either the appearance or the established rhythm of the shop front, and the cornice and pilaster re-instatement are very welcome parts of the proposal, showing the applicant’s commitment to preserving the character of this interesting building. As such, I regret that I fail to understand the Town Council’s reason for recommending refusal of the proposal, as 47

the proposals referring to the front of the building have a minimal impact in terms of the proposed door, and a positive impact with regard to the reinstatement of the cornice and pilasters.

In terms of the change of use, there will be no loss of any retail space. The first floor at present is used for storage, not sales, and the ground floor retail area will remain. As such, I believe that the proposal is in accordance with Area Action Plan 1 and Policy B3 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

Recommendation

In my view, subject to the conditions above, the proposal is acceptable in principle, as it preserves the retail element of the building whilst providing new residential accommodation in a sustainable location, and with a minimal impact on the conservation area.

As such, I recommend that planning permission is granted.

List of Background papers

1. Application papers and correspondence relating to SW/14/0013. 2. Application papers and correspondence relating to SW/13/0771. 3. Application papers and correspondence relating to SW/84/0085. 4. Application papers and correspondence relating to SW/82/0649.

For further information contact case officer Andrew Spiers

2.4 SW/13/1550 (Case 25237) Queenborough

Location : Klondyke and Twyfords Sites, Former Caradon Works, Rushenden Road, Queenborough, Sheerness, Kent, ME11 5HN

Proposal : Site clearance, demolition of existing buildings, remediation, enhancement of the existing flood defences and land raising to form a development platform above a minimum height of 4.9m and below a maximum height of 5.4m Above Ordnance Datum (AOD) on the Twyford Site and Klondyke Site.

Applicant/Agent : Mr Jason Hobbs, C/O Ms Louise Morton, Quadrant Town Planning Ltd, The Office, 14 Harcourt Close, Henley on Thames, Oxon, RG9 1UZ

Application Valid : 17 December 2013

8 Week Target : 11 February 2014

13 Week Target : 18 March 2014

Subject to: Comments from the Environment Agency, KCC Archaeological Officer, Kent Highway Services, KCC Public Rights of Way Officer, and further comments from Natural England and KCC Biodiversity Officer. Also subject to the Appropriate Assessment concluding that will not adversely affect the integrity of the Special Protection Area (SPA) and Ramsar sites.

Conditions / Grounds

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

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

2. The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved drawings: C130; C131; C137; C136; C150 D2; C138 D2 & GIS069 – A.

Grounds: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.

Prior to commencement

3. No development of the Twyford site (as shown on Drawing no. GIS035 – A) shall take place (including demolition, ground works, site clearance), except within the area of flood defence works as indicated on plan C131 covered by condition (5) (Reptile mitigation method statement for flood defence works) until a method statement for the mitigation of impacts to reptiles, breeding birds, section 41 species and invertebrates has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The content of the method statement shall be informed by additional invertebrate surveys (as specified in paragraph 8.31 of the Ecology and Nature Conservation Report) and shall include the:

a) Purpose and objectives for the proposed works: b) Detailed design(s) and/or working method(s) necessary to achieve stated objectives; c) Extent and location of proposed works, for the donor and receptor sites, shown on appropriate scale maps and plans; d) Timetable for implementation, demonstrating that works are aligned with the proposed phasing of construction; e) Persons responsible for implementing the works; f) Initial aftercare and long-term maintenance (where relevant);

The works shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the approved details.

Grounds: In the interests of nature conservation.

4. No development of the Klondyke site (as shown on Drawing no. GIS035 – A) shall take place (including demolition, ground works, site clearance), until a method statement for the mitigation of impacts to reptiles, breeding birds, section 41 species and invertebrates has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The content of the method statement shall be informed by additional invertebrate surveys (as specified in paragraph 8.31 of the Ecology and Nature Conservation Report) and shall include the:

The works shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the approved details.

Grounds: In the interests of nature conservation.

5. No development of the Twyford Site (as shown on Drawing no. GIS035 – A) shall take place (including any demolition, ground works, site clearance) within the area of flood defence works until a method statement for the mitigation of impacts to reptiles has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The content of the method statement shall include the:

a) Purpose and objectives for the proposed works: b) Detailed design(s) and/or working method(s) necessary to achieve stated objectives; c)Extent and location of proposed works shown on appropriate scale maps and plans; d) Timetable for implementation, demonstrating that works are aligned with the proposed phasing of construction; e) Persons responsible for implementing the works; f) Initial aftercare and long-term maintenance (where relevant);

The works shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the approved details.

Grounds: In the interests of nature conservation.

6. No development of the Twyford site (as shown on Drawing no. GIS035 – A) shall take place (including demolition, ground works, vegetation clearance) until a construction environmental management plan (CEMP: Biodiversity) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The CEMP (Biodiversity) shall include the following.

a) Risk assessment of potentially damaging construction activities. b) Identification of “biodiversity protection zones”. c) Practical measures (both physical measures and sensitive working practices) to avoid or reduce impacts during construction (may be provided as a set of method statements). d) The location and timing of sensitive works to avoid harm to biodiversity features. e) The times during construction when specialist ecologists need to be present on site to oversee works. f) Responsible persons and lines of communication. g) The role and responsibilities on site of an ecological clerk of works (ECoW) or similarly competent person. h) Use of protective fences, exclusion barriers and warning signs.

The approved CEMP shall be adhered to and implemented throughout the construction period strictly in accordance with the approved details, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority.

Grounds: In the interests of nature conservation and residential amenities.

7. No development of the Klondyke site (as shown on Drawing no. GIS035 – A) shall take place (including demolition, ground works, vegetation clearance) until a construction environmental management plan (CEMP: Biodiversity) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The CEMP (Biodiversity) shall include the following.

Grounds: In the interests of nature conservation and residential amenities.

8. A barn owl roosting/nesting box shall be provided for barn owls within 200 metres of the development to which this consent applies at least 30 days before any part of the site used by barn owls is altered in any way. This provision shall be made at the earliest possible stage and shall not be subjected to direct disturbance, in accordance with The Barn Owl Trust/Natural England’s Making Provision for Barn Owls guidance, and in accordance with details that shall have first been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority.

The works shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the approved details.

Grounds: In the interests of nature conservation.

9. Prior to commencement of development of the Twyford site (as shown on Drawing no. GIS035 – A), full details of how the culverted section of the watercourse will be returned to an open channel shall be submitted for approval in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The agreed details shall be implemented in accordance with a timetable that shall first have been agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Grounds: In the interests of ensuring that the adjacent watercourse is not unduly affected.

10. Prior to the commencement of development of the Twyford site (as shown on Drawing no. GIS035 – A) hereby approved, the applicant, or their agents or successors in title, shall secure the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written specification and timetable which has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Grounds: To ensure that features of archaeological interest are properly examined and recorded.

11. Prior to the commencement of development of the Klondyke site (as shown on Drawing no. GIS035 – A) hereby approved, the applicant, or their agents or successors in title, shall secure the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written specification and timetable which has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Grounds: To ensure that features of archaeological interest are properly examined and recorded.

12. Prior to the commencement of the development of the Twyford site (as shown on Drawing no. GIS035 – A) details of the landscaping to be carried out along the banks of the culverted section of the watercourse as shown in drawing no. C131 D1, shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval in writing. These landscaping works shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details and in accordance with an agreed timetable of landscaping works.

Grounds: In the interests of the visual amenities of the area, ecology and biodiversity.

13. Prior to the commencement of the development of the Klondyke site (as shown on Drawing no. GIS035 – A) details of the landscaping to be carried out along the raised flood embankment as shown in drawing no. C130 D1, shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval in writing. These landscaping works shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details and in accordance with an agreed timetable of landscaping works.

Grounds: In the interests of the visual amenities of the area, ecology and biodiversity.

During construction

14. All groundworks and remediation activities, including noise, dust and odour mitigation measures (including the installation of a temporary barrier/hording construction) phasing, and hours of operation, shall be undertaken in line with recommendations contained within the Remediation Strategy and Implementation Plan for Queenborough and Rushenden Site (Hydrock Report ref: R/09375/004 Q&R and dated May 2011, submitted and approved by the Local Planning Authority.

Grounds: In the interests of residential amenity and to ensure any contaminated land is adequately dealt with.

15. The site compound as shown on drawing number C130 shall be provided throughout the construction period or as agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority following the submission of a revised plan.

Grounds: In the interests of highway safety and amenity.

Post-commencement

16. No removal of trees, shrubs and ruderal vegetation, or works to or demolition of buildings or structures that may be used by breeding birds shall take place between 1st March and 31st August inclusive, unless a competent ecologist has undertaken a careful, detailed check for active birds’ nests immediately before the vegetation is cleared and provided written confirmation that no birds will be harmed and/or that there are appropriate measures in place to protect nesting bird interest on site. Any such written confirmation shall be submitted to the local planning authority.

Grounds: In the interests of nature conservation.

17. Specific remediation activities shall be carried out in line with the Queenborough and Rushenden Phase 2 Twyford and Klondyke Sites Remediation Strategy compiled by Campbell Reith Consulting Engineers Project No 11465 dated December 2013, submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority.

Grounds: To ensure any contaminated land is adequately dealt with.

18. No floodlighting, security lighting or other external lighting shall be installed or operated at the site, other than in accordance with details that have first been submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. These details shall include:

 A statement of why lighting is required, the proposed frequency of the use and the hours of illumination.  A site plan showing the area to be lit relative to the surrounding area, indicating parking or access arrangements where appropriate, and highlighting any significant existing or proposed landscape or boundary features.  Details of the number, location and height of the lighting columns or other fixtures.  The type, number, mounting height and alignment of the luminaries.  The beam angles and upwards waste light ratio for each light.  An isolux diagram showing the predicted illuminance levels at critical locations on the boundary of the site and where the site abuts residential properties.

Grounds: In the interests of visual amenity and the residential amenities of occupiers of nearby dwellings.

19. Any additional conditions recommended by consultees.

Council’s approach to this application

The Council recognises the advice in paragraphs 186 and 187 of the National Planning Policy Framework and seeks to work with applicants in a positive and proactive manner by offering a pre-application advice service; having a duty planner service; and seeking to find solutions to any obstacles to approval of applications having due regard to the responses to consultation, where it can reasonably be expected that amendments to an application will result in an approval without resulting in a significant change to the nature of the application and the application can then be amended and determined in accordance with statutory timescales.

In this case, additional information in respect of the impact of the development on the SSSI, SPA and Ramsar site was required.

Introduction

This application is made against the backdrop of the Queenborough and Rushenden Masterplan 2010. This has been formally adopted by this Council as a Supplementary Planning Document. A summary of the key policies within the masterplan will be set out below. However, in short, it aims to regenerate existing and former industrial land to see the improvement of existing industrial sites, the provision of new employment uses and the provision of new homes and community facilities. It aims to link Queenborough and Rushenden together with the Twyford and Klondyke sites forming a key part of this link. The masterplan envisages 2000 houses that would mostly be built on the application site. However, this has had to be reduced somewhat having been reviewed in the formulation of the emerging local 55

plan (see policy section below). The masterplan acknowledges that the plan is progressive and will be implemented overtime. The land raising and lowering and associated works should therefore be seen as the first step towards the provision of these houses and the implementation of this part of the masterplan. The land raising and enhancement of the existing flood defences is necessary to address the flood risk that is present at this site.

Description of Proposal

The application site is divided into two distinct parts. The northern part is called The Klondyke and the southern part is called The Twyford. The Klondyke site is characterised by industrial buildings and uses. These buildings would be demolished as part of this proposal. The land would be raised in southern part of this area and lowered in the northern part. The land levels on the northwest tip of the application site and the land immediately adjacent to the creek will remain unchanged but there will be some remediation of this land. The Twyford site covers the majority of the application site and is mostly flat with a concrete surface. There is one large building on this land known as The Gateway Community Centre. This building would be demolished and the land would be raised.

This application seeks planning permission to raise the land levels by between 4.9 and 5.4 metres Above Ordnance Datum (AOD) over the majority of the application site and lower the land levels over the northern part of the site to between 4.9 and 5.4 metres AOD. On this ground, this would result in the land levels being raised by between 2.4 and 2.9 metres adjacent to Rushenden Road, between 1.1 and 2.2 metres adjacent to the embankment along the edge of The Swale Estuary and a reduction in the land levels at the northern end of the site by 1 metre on average. The result would be a more or less level development platform to pave the way for its future development. In addition there will be up to 1m top layer of surcharge added to the Twyford site and 2.5m added to the raised part of the Klondyke site which will create a temporary maximum height of 6.5m AOD across both sites. This is necessary to provide sufficient weight to allow the earth beneath it to settle in a controlled manner. This surcharge will be removed approximately 12 months after completion of the land raising. The raised development platform will comprise a layer of chalk and/or clay covered in temporary surcharge. The slope created at the edges of the development platform would have a 1 in 3 gradient. There would be a 5 metre gap between the back edge of the footpath along Rushenden Road and the start of this earth bank. A narrow drainage ditch would be provided within this space and there would be enough room for landscaping in the future. The land raising would involve the importation and redistribution of vast quantities of earth – in the order of 300,000m3 of material, principally chalk and clay. The material will be transported to the site by a combination of road and river. Following removal of the surcharge, most of the area will be left as bare earth until future development on the Application Site comes forward under future detailed development proposals.

As well as the above development, the application would involve the enhancement of existing flood defences on the Twyford site. This would take the form of an earth embankment inland from the concrete flood defence wall along the boundary between the Twyford Site and Klondyke Site. This earth embankment will be 6.2m 56

AOD and the slopes of the embankment will match the existing slopes adjacent to it (1 in 3). This will be covered with prepared soil and vegetation seeding in order to create a natural green habitat. The watercourse along the south-western edge of the Twyford Site will be enhanced by diverting the stretch of watercourse currently within the culvert to an open length of ditch and connecting it with the ditch which forms the southern boundary of the Twyford Site. This will form a continuous green corridor from Rushenden Road across the site and along the western edge of the Twyford Site. In addition, there will be localised lowering of the steel sheet piled wall with an area of rock infill positioned in Klondyke Creek. Flood gates will also be replaced with a solid wall at the south west corner.

Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) will be used at the site to reduce flood risk, improve water quality, assist groundwater recharge whilst also providing amenity and wildlife benefits. The existing drainage system on the Application Site will be replaced and be operational on a temporary basis as part of the land raising. Remediation of all contaminated land across the application site would be carried out.

The application is accompanied by a number of reports and documents which set out the environmental, transport and ecological impacts of the proposal: Air Quality Assessment; Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP); Cultural Heritage Report; Ecology and Nature Conservation; Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Assessment; Land Quality Statement (Klondyke); Landscape Character and Visual Amenity Appraisal; Land Raising Strategy (Klondyke); Noise and Vibration Report; Remediation Strategy (Klondyke); Sustainability Report; Transport Statement; Controlled Water Risk Assessment (Twyford); Remediation Strategy (Twyford); Land Raising Strategy (Twyford) and; Interpretive Site Investigation Report.

The applicant hopes to commence development later this year. The indicative construction programme for the Proposed Development is anticipated to span approximately 48 months although importation of material will last 12 months. Work will be undertaken on a phased basis with commencement on the Twyford Site in spring 2014, completing in 2016; and commencement on the Klondyke Site in 2015 with completion in 2018.

Relevant Site History and Description

The application site totals 20.10 ha (or 49.7 acres). Rushenden Road lies immediately to the east of the site whilst to the west lies the Swale Estuary, close to the point where it meets the Medway Estuary. Both of these water bodies are designated Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI); Special Protection Areas (SPA) and Ramsar. The north of the site is bounded by the creek adjacent to South Street and Queenborough High Street. The northernmost part of the site and the land to the north is covered by the Queenborough Conservation Area. There are a number of grade II listed buildings along the High Street. The site of Queenborough Castle, a Scheduled Ancient Monument lies 200 m to the northeast of the site.

The Klondyke site consists of industrial units providing some 7,000 sq m of floorspace for local companies which accommodate some 140 employees. The land to the north of the industrial estate is undeveloped and consists of grassland that is undulating and slopes down towards the creek. This is known as ‘The Saltings’. There are also some self-seeded trees.

The Twyford site is bounded to the east by a tall chain link fence with an entrance gate onto Rushenden Road. Along the western boundary of the Twyford Site is a ditch with grass banks and beyond a grassed earth bund which forms the flood defence along the Swale. The site falls within the highest category of flood risk – Flood Zone 3, land within the floodplain at risk of flooding if no defences are constructed with an annual risk of 1:200 of sea flooding. A small part of the Klondyke Site falls within Flood Zone 2.

There are two Public Rights of Way (PRoW) that pass through the Application Site - ZB49 and ZB48. In addition, a permissive footpath runs east west across the site from Rushenden Road to the Swale between the Twyford Site and the Klondyke Site.

The planning history for the Klondyke site is extensive and relates to the development and uses within the industrial estate. The planning history for the Twyford Site is as follows:

 SW/97/0265 – change of use of former glass works to open storage of new cars for export – approved.  SW/11/0601 – engineering operations comprising land raising and creation of a development on southern part of site (former Caradan works) – approved. The application when initially submitted proposed land raising on the Twyford site the subject of this application, as well as the former Caradan works. However in order to carry out this work, flood defence works would have been required on the Klondyke Industrial Estate, which is not in the applicants ownership. Without this firm proposal in place or details, the Environment Agency objected to the application. The solution was that only the southern part of the site be raised, with the northern land to be raised at a later date. The current planning application addresses the northern land (Twyford site). The land raising to the former Caradan works is complete and there is currently an approximately 3 metres blue hoarding surrounding the site.  SW/13/1427 – construction and operation of secondary aggregates recycling facility. Pending consideration by Kent County Council.

Views of Consultees

Natural England: The Council as the competent authority should carry out an Appropriate Assessment under the Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended). There is currently not enough information to make this assessment. Further information is required in the form of the results of the December 2013 through to March 2014 winter bird surveys (necessary to ensure that there would be no significant indirect impacts to the designated sites habitats and interest features); 58

clarity on how noise monitoring will be undertaken during construction; details of how the results of this monitoring will be used to provide a feedback mechanism to allow additional control measures to be implemented if required and; clarity on how additional control measures will be secured and implemented.

The Head of Service Delivery has no objection subject to conditions to ensure that the remediation activities, including the noise, dust and odour measures, are carried out in accordance with the submitted Remediation Strategy and Implementation Plan and the phase 2 plan.

Southern Water: The abandonment of a public sewer requires a formal application to them. If it is planned to abandon the foul water pumping station (wps) located on site, an investigation is required to confirm if wps and sewer can be abandoned. If it is found that third party flows are connected to the sewer or the wps it will not be possible to abandon these apparatus. Any sewer found during construction requires an investigation to ascertain its condition, the number of properties served and the potential means of access.

KCC Biodiversity Officer: An Ecology and Nature Conservation Report has been submitted in support of the proposed development. The potential ecological impacts have been identified and mitigation measures are proposed. They are broadly satisfied with the level and scope of the ecological surveys undertaken and proposed. However, some points of clarification are sought. The habitats on the Klondyke site are of the greatest ecological interest for the site. The extent of habitat loss is not detailed in the reports and should be provided. The report recommends a 5 metre buffer of un-developed land around the creek to protect the salt-marsh but it is not clear if this can be provided. Lizards and slow-worms have been recorded on the Klondyke site. Reptiles are planned to be re-located around the flood defence works in spring-summer 2014. The intention is to trans-relocate all reptiles from this area. It is likely that a suitable receptor site will be available. The agreement of this site should be controlled by a planning condition. A condition to require the submission of the survey data and detailed mitigation strategy for the presence of invertebrates on the Klondyke site is recommended. This should incorporate suitable replacement habitat. A condition is also recommended to require the submission of a detailed Construction Environmental Management Plan. There is outstanding data in the form of bird survey work over the December – March period. This is needed to conclude that there would be no likely significant impact on the SPA and Ramsar sites. There is the potential for breeding birds to use the site and it is proposed to undertake site clearance outside of the bird breeding season. This should be co-ordinated with the reptile mitigation strategy because of the tight time scales involved. The proposal will result in the loss of the Barn Owl nesting site. It is proposed to provide an alternative nesting site at an off-site location. A condition is required to control this. Measures to ensure that there is no harm to toads, hedgehogs, bats are identified by the applicant. Further details of the lighting at the site are required and are so fundamental to ensure that there is no significant harm to ecology that this should be provided prior to determination.

Lower Medway Internal Drainage Board: The Rushenden Drain is directly managed and maintained by them. Any works within 8 metres of the drain will require their consent. Further detail of how a culverted section of the watercourse will be returned to an open channel are required prior to the commencement of any works. The applicant should be encouraged to investigate the possibility of reintroducing a gravity outfall, to minimise the need for pumping. A detailed assessment of the floodwater displacement should be provided. The future drainage scheme should aim to achieve return runoff rates to that of the original Greenfield site with on-site drainage provided for the 100 year rainfall event. This would help to address the negative impacts of previous development and reduce flood risk to adjacent land and property.

Economic Development Officer: Although the loss of the employment uses on the Klondyke site is regrettable, the wider benefits that the regeneration of Queenborough and Rushenden will bring must also be considered. They are working with the owner of the Klondyke site and the tenants to find alternative premises.

Comments from the Environment Agency, KCC Archaeological Officer, Kent Highway Services, KCC Public Rights of Way Officer, and further comments from Natural England and KCC Biodiversity Officer are awaited and I will update members at the meeting.

Other Representations

Queenborough Harbour Trust support the proposal subject to conditions to ensure that access to the moorings is maintained and preferably improved; decontamination work is properly conducted; full details of works on their land at Cutters Wharf/Dock are provided to the trustees and terms agreed prior to work starting; their access needs to and from its property are recognised and form part of any current and future development plans; the impact on current land drainage area fully explored and the trustees informed of the results; no changes are made to or below the high water mark along Queenborough Creek or any part of the Swale foreshore without full discussion and agreement before any such work commences; at all times, trustees are kept appraised of the works.

Thirteen letters of representation have been received from members of the public. A summary of their comments is as follows:

 After spending tens of millions of pounds on some ten years on plans for the area, all they get is Thomsett Avenue (the Rushenden Relief Road).  Land contamination on a large scale across the site;  Public footpaths have been blocked;  To consider this application points to blatant disregard of the feelings of residents;  Request an artist’s impression of the site’s appearance in relation to the residential housing backing onto Queenborough Creek from the direction of the High Street as there is concern about the visual impact and views from existing properties; 60

 Potential loss of views over the creek from the properties along the High Street;  Opposed to any development of The Saltings. It should remain as a recreations landscaped area;  Detrimental to the Conservation Area;  The site doesn’t need further defending from flooding;  Support the regeneration of the town and development of the old industrial units;  Does the raising of the land increase flooding to Queenborough- land drainage issues;  Road traffic problems from construction vehicles;  Noise, smells and dust during construction. A high wall should be erected prior to construction;  Businesses have been established on the Klondyke site for many years. There has been a lack of respect for these businesses. Jobs will be lost and these businesses are an integral part of the local community. They have been left to find a new location for the business and that is not an easy task on the Isle of Sheppey. The council have not tried to assist them.

Swale Footpaths Group: The site is crossed by ZB 49, ZB 48 and a track. Temporary diversions of the footpaths may be justified for health and safety reasons but this development does not justify permanent diversions. Any closure of ZB 48 should be avoided because of the fine views from this embankment.

Policies

The NPPF was released with immediate effect, however, Paragraph 214 states that “for 12 months from this publication date, decision-makers may continue to give full weight to relevant policies adopted since 2004 even if there is a limited degree of conflict with this Framework.”

The purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development. The policies in paragraphs 18 to 219 of the NPPF, taken as a whole, constitute the Government’s view of what sustainable development in England means in practice for the planning system. At the heart of the National Planning Policy Framework is a presumption in favour of sustainable development, which should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan- making and decision-taking. For decision-taking this means: ● approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay; and

●where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out-of-date, granting permission unless: –– any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole; or –– specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be restricted.

The NPPF outlines a set of core land-use planning principles (Para 17) which should underpin both plan-making and decision-taking including to -Contribute to conserving and enhancing the natural environment and reducing pollution and encourage the effective use of land by reusing land that has been previously developed (brownfield land), provided that it is not of high value.

Paragraph 19 states that the Government is committed to ensuring that the planning system does everything it can to support sustainable economic growth.

Paragraphs 29-41 deal with sustainable transport and paragraphs 56-68 deal with requirement for high quality design. In particular, paragraph 56 includes the following: “Good design is a key aspect of sustainable development, is indivisible from good planning, and should contribute positively to making places better for people.’ The NPPF also considers the importance of the natural environment.

Paragraphs 47-55 of the NPPF seek to significantly boost the supply of housing.

Paragraphs 56-68 of the NPPF requires good design. The NPPF, at paragraph 100, states that inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding should be avoided by directing development away from areas at highest risk. Paragraphs 109-141 seek to conserve and enhance the historic environment.

Paragraph 119 of the NPPF states that the presumption in favour of sustainable development (paragraph 14) does not apply where development requiring appropriate assessment under the Birds or Habitats Directives is being considered, planned or determined. Members should note that an Appropriate Assessment is required for this site and therefore there is no presumption in favour of sustainable development.

National Planning Policy Guidance Flood Risk and Coastal Change provide more detailed guidance on the assessment of development within flood risk areas. It sets out how to apply the sequential and exception tests and details how Flood Risk Assessments should be set out.

Swale Borough Local Plan 2008

The site is designated within the Local Plan for the following Policies:

Policy AAP6 applies to this site. It states that An Area Action Plan is designated for Queenborough and Rushenden, as shown on the Proposals Map. Within this area, planning policies and proposals will aim to ensure a co-ordinated and phased development that 62

maximises benefits to the existing and new communities; the removal of unsightly industry and traffic; and the creation of a healthy living environment that improves quality of life whilst maintaining and enhancing the quality of the natural habitat. Planning permission will be granted, in accordance with an approved Development Framework and Master Plan, for mixed-use developments including: 1. new housing; 2. new employment development (including for existing businesses that are displaced); 3. new and improved community services and facilities; 4. physical, environmental and economic measures to support and integrate the existing and new communities and improve overall quality of life in the area, including a range of transport initiatives and improvements and possibly a neighbourhood Combine Heat and Power Scheme; and 5. new transport infrastructure, particularly the provision of the Rushenden Link Road; 6. proposals that avoid any significant adverse environmental impacts and where possible enhance the biodiversity interest of neighbouring internationally designated sites for nature conservation. To ensure a balanced community with access to jobs, facilities and an adequate transport network, new housing will be phased in accordance with provision of: a. transport measures, including the Rushenden Link Road, and other infrastructure; b. new or improved community facilities; and c. new employment land locally.

As appropriate, and depending upon the level of public funding, developer contributions will be required towards the provision of the Rushenden Link Road from all developments within the Area Action Plan area.

Policy MU5 states the following:

Land and buildings to the south of Queenborough Creek, as shown on the Proposals Map, are allocated for a mixed-use development comprising approximately 1,900 dwellings, commercial uses, and community facilities. Development proposals will need to accord with the Master Plan proposed under Policy AAP6. For the land and buildings south of Queenborough Creek, the Master Plan will need to: 1. address the relationship between the development and the provision of the Rushenden Link Road particularly in relation to the timing and phasing of development; 2. promote a mix of new housing, including 30% affordable provision to meet the needs of those unable to enter the housing market unassisted; 3. foster a high degree of innovation and creativity in design and layout, including the provision of some houses as energy efficient; and

4. promote a substantial ‘greening’ of the existing environment by the provision of open space, landscaping and improvements to wildlife habitats within the site, whilst avoiding any significant adverse environmental impacts and where possible enhancing the biodiversity interest of neighbouring internationally designated sites for nature conservation.

Policy H5(1).13 states that it is envisaged that approximately 1900 homes will be delivered on this land. Policy B14 considers 800sqm of new floor space will be provided on the site.

Policy B2 considers that planning permission for new employment development has been, or will be, granted for sites shown on the Proposals Map.

Other Policies which apply are: SP1 (sustainable development); E1 (General Development Criteria); E11 (Protecting Biodiversity); E12 (Protecting Wildlife Sites); T3 (vehicle parking); E14 (listed buildings); E15 (conservation areas) and; E16 (scheduled ancient monuments).

Emerging Local Plan - Bearing Fruits August 2013

This plan, and the policies within it, should be given limited weight at this time because it has not yet been put forward for examination although the consultation period has now expired. It is though a useful reference because it provides an up-to- date strategic vision for the borough and is drafted in light of the NPPF.

The emerging local plan identifies saved policies as set out above that pave the way for the regeneration of this land. However, it acknowledges that the Queenborough and Rushenden Masterplan has not been implemented as quickly as was hoped and gives a realistic estimate of the number of houses now envisaged within the Masterplan area.

Paragraph 6.2.40 – Given the current economic context, the 2,000 dwellings suggested by the adopted Local Plan and Supplementary Planning Document seem now to be an optimistic forecast of what is now likely to come forward within the regeneration area. This relied on significant proportions of high density and flatted accommodation taking advantage of the waterside location and a proposed marina. However, a pending first phase of development will be at a considerably lower density and is likely to set the pattern for the development of most of the rest of the site. This, together with issues around the proposed high density marina complex (now considered unlikely to proceed) is likely to considerably reduce the overall number of dwellings, perhaps, with the site now likely to yield closer to 889 dwellings. That said, if subsequent phases can demonstrate the deliverability of higher densities then the Council is likely to respond positively to proposals. Likewise, other development opportunities within the wider regeneration area may also emerge over time and, subject to the assessment of any sites value for employment, such sites may be considered acceptable for mixed uses including housing. 64

Paragraph 6.2.41 The Council had previously assessed that the timing of development here would be considerably slowed due to economic conditions and the viability of development within this part of Sheppey. One area to the south of the creek, in particular, had viability concerns, especially given contamination of the site and the presence of existing industrial uses. As a result, development of this and other aspects of the scheme were phased beyond the plan period.

For the purposes of this Proposed Development it is assumed that the marina will not be included and therefore the land raising to create a development platform within the Application Site will be carried out across the whole site including the area which was previously allocated for a marina.

The following policies are also relevant:

ST1 (sustainable development), ST6 (Isle of Sheppey development strategy), CP3 (housing), CP7 (historic environment), DM14 (general development criteria), DM20 (sustainable design and construction), DM27 (biodiversity), DM31 (listed buildings), DM32 (conservation areas) and, DM33 (archaeological sites).

Queenborough and Rushenden Masterplan

The masterplan area covers some 165 ha. The vision is for exemplary development that, over time, lifts aspirations and provides good homes and jobs, excellent facilities for existing and future residents and form the basis of real community. A fundamental part of the Masterplan is to connect and integrate existing areas by means of footpaths, cycleways and calmed and attractive streets. The environment and site context and setting has strong characteristics and, in some cases, is of significant nature conservation importance. The proposals are to use these characteristics to build on the identity of the Island and the locality to create a setting that is of the place. The masterplan takes into account the flood risks that the development of the area must contend with.

The masterplan sets out the development of 2000 home of which over half will be houses and the remainder apartments. It is intended that these are distributed across the residential development area in a mixture of densities and tenures. The land-use plan indicated that there would be predominantly housing across the application site with a possible marina. Employment uses will be directed to the eastern part of the masterplan area. Community and education uses are scattered about the western side of the masterplan area, within and close to the residential areas. Pedestrian and cycle routs are shown as passing through the application site at a number of points. The use of Sustainable Urban Drainage systems is envisaged through the masterplan area.

It is anticipated that the SPD will be updated to take account of changed economic circumstances and the emerging Local Plan.

Queenborough Conservation Area Character Appraisal and Management Strategy

The Conservation Area Appraisal notes that the area comprises the former Medieval quayside and port of Queenborough and highlights the importance of The Creek as follows:

‘The Creek, and its saltings (an area of open rough grassland and mud flats), is a key element of the landscape setting and maritime history of Queenborough. As a measure of its importance this open space is largely included within the conservation area boundary. It contributes an important area of green buffer between the quayside and the Klondyke Industrial Estate further to the south’

The Appraisal notes that The Saltings form an important open green space which contributes towards biodiversity and provides a visual and physical buffer which protects and defines the historic waterfront character of Queenborough.

Discussion

I consider the key issues to be the principle of the development, the impact on visual amenities, the impact on the character and appearance of the conservation area, the impact on the setting of listed buildings, the impact on residential amenities, the impact on ecology and biodiversity, the impact on flood risk and drainage and, the impact on highway safety/amenity.

Principle

This proposal will pave the way for the development of this site, primarily for housing. The raised development platform is necessary to ensure that any future development of the site for housing is not at risk of flooding. Essentially, housing on this land at the current land levels would not be approved due to floodrisk. The future housing on this site is expected to count towards this borough’s housing targets under the emerging local plan and the approval of this land raising, site clearance, decontamination and flood defence work will form a fundamental part of securing this development and ultimately, helping to meet this borough’s housing need. The proposal would be fully compliant with the aims and objectives of the masterplan and the adopted planning policies AAP6 and MU5 as set out above. This is a crucial stepping-stone towards the realisation of the regeneration of Queenborough and Rushenden. It will enable sustainable development on previously developed brownfield land and would address floodrisk whilst being sensitive to the historic environment, surrounding residents and businesses. In this respect, it is compliant with the NPPF. I therefore consider that this development is acceptable in principle (subject to the Appropriate Assessment concluding that will not adversely affect the integrity of the Special Protection Area (SPA) and Ramsar sites).

It is prudent at this stage to address the loss of the industrial units on the Klondyke site and policy B1 is of some relevance. Whilst this is highly regrettable, one must consider the wider aspirations of the masterplan for the area. The masterplan provides a strategic landuse vision of the area that clearly identifies the best location for housing. It sees housing directed to the west of the masterplan area and 66

employment uses to the east. The western location of the houses would take advantage of the waterside location, creating a high quality and desirable environment for future residents which in turn will attract housing developers to the land who will ultimately take forward the development of the residential units. Unfortunately, at the moment, Rushenden is essentially ‘cut-off’ from Queenborough by industrial uses. The masterplan seeks to close this gap and link the two settlements. The redirection of the industrial uses to the eastern part of the masterplan area will facilitate this and allow a continuous stretch of housing with its complementary community facilities and amenities. This will benefit the existing residents of the two settlements in my view. I am mindful that the businesses on the Klondyke site have been aware of the intentions to redevelop this area for housing for some time and whilst I have sympathy for the owners and employees of these local businesses, they have had a significant amount of time to find alternative premises. Our Economic Development officers advise us that the former owners of the Knlodyke have purchased a nearby site (at Brielle Way) at which they intend to build new B use commercial property. Some of the displaced businesses will therefore be able to occupy these units (subject to planning permission). In the meantime they will be assisting businesses not moving to the new site, in finding alternative premises. I understand that the applicant, – Homes and Communities Agency, are also working with the business in this regard. In due course, the adjacent Neats Court area is likely to include a range of sizes and types of business units. I am of the strong view that the loss of these businesses from this location would not necessarily lead to the closure of the businesses and that any harm to the local economy will be significantly outweighed by the economic, social and environmental benefits that the implementation of the masterplan will bring. I am also of the view that although the loss of ‘The Gateway’ – community centre, will have some impact in the short-term, I understand from the HCA that many of the groups who use this space can be absorbed in to other nearby local community facilities. It is anticipated that a new community facility will follow in a later phase of the regeneration project. In the long-term, I consider that the implementation of the masterplan will benefit the community significantly and in this regard, I am of the view that the loss of The Gateway is, though regrettable, justified in this case.

Impact on visual amenities

There are two aspects to consider here – 1. The temporary and more immediate visual impact of the land raising and 2. How a raised development platform for the future houses will integrate with its surroundings as and when the site is built-out.

Addressing the immediate and temporary impact, one can refer to the former Caradan works which has already been the subject of land raising to create an elevated development platform. The appearance of the site is as one might expect, banks of earth surround the perimeter of the site and there is a flat, level surface. At present, the site is surrounded by a 3 metre high blue hoarding. This has been retained for security purposes. When officers considered the land raising at the former Caradan works, a key concern was to ensure that the banks were not too steep so that there was a more natural transition between the levels of the surrounding roads and residential properties and the level development platform. This was achieved in my view by requiring a gradient of 1 in 2 which steeper 67

therefore than the current proposal (which is 1 in 3). However, it is unfortunate that the hoardings are in place as this creates some harm to the visual amenities of the area, albeit for a temporary period. Officers are investigating the possible removal of this hoarding. This matter aside, it is prudent to consider the best solution for securing the current application site in the short to medium term (which admittedly could be many years before the site is developed). The applicant is yet to confirm the exact length of time that the hoarding would be erected for but the initial indication is that it would be for approximately 2 years during the construction phase. I suggest that the harm to visual amenities would be somewhat limited if the hoardings are indeed only present for two years. I suggest however, that if they are intended to be in place for much longer than this, it would be appropriate to require some temporary soft landscaping to the front of the hoarding and/or a security fence that is less imposing. The key areas of concern would be along Rushenden Road, adjacent to the creek and The Saltings. I will clarify this situation at the meeting.

With regards to the long-term impacts of the raised platform, the key areas of concern would be limited to the Twyford Site which would be raised above the level of Rushenden Road. As with the proposal at the former Caradan works, I am of the view that it is key to ensure that the bank of earth does not slope too steeply where it is adjacent to the road and that there is a small set-back from the pavement to allow for trees to possibly be planted in this location in the future. This is endorsed by the masterplan. Having reviewed the plans, it is clear that the slope would be a gradient of 1 in 3 and would be set back from the back edge of the footpath by 5 metres. I am of the view that although the earth banks would be distinct features within the street scene, the gradient of 1 in 3 will not be so severe that there would be detriment to the visual amenities of the surrounding area. The impact of the earth bank would be further reduced by the 5 metre setback. I consider that that any future development can be integrated into the surrounding urban and waterside landscapes with careful attention paid to the landscaping along these earth banks. This would be considered at the time of any future planning application for the development of the site. I acknowledge that such a difference in the land levels will separate any future development from its surroundings somewhat. However, I consider that this impact would be outweighed by the significant benefits that the future development of this site will bring to the area and the borough as a whole.

The bank should also not slope too steeply where it is adjacent to the raised embankment adjacent to the Swale Estuary. The concern is not necessarily a visual one but more about the ease of movement between the housing land and the waterside which will be a key element of the attractiveness of this development. A slope that is too steep could sever this important link to a certain extent. I consider that on balance, the gradient of the slope at this western bank would be acceptable and I also consider that pedestrian and cycle links can be carefully planned as part of any future development. Angled ramps at strategic points along this earth bank may be appropriate for example.

The proposed works to reinforce the flood defences would take on the form of the raised embankment, permanent concrete flood walls at the southwest corner (Railway embankment) and to the north east (Chalk Wharf) in place of existing metal gates, and extended culvert as set out above. I consider that these elements 68

of the proposal will have a very limited impact on visual amenities, merely continuing the existing raised embankment along the western boundary and improving the habitat and vegetation at the extended culvert. The replacement of the gates with a concrete wall would have a negligible impact on the visual amenities of the area in my view.

There are a number of trees within the Application Site which includes the Queenborough Conservation Area. None of these are grade A (trees of high quality) or B (trees of moderate quality). All trees identified are Grade C (low quality with an estimated life expectancy of around 10 years) or Grade R (need to be removed for arboricultural reasons), and contribute little to the landscape quality or ecological value of the site in my view. Most of the trees would be lost as a result of this development with the exception of a few self-seeded trees adjacent to the creek. Owing to the condition of the trees to be lost, I consider that this is an acceptable result of the development proposed and the benefits of the development will far outweigh their loss in my view.

Impact on historic environment

The northern part of the application site falls within the Queenborough Conservation area and covers the land known as The Saltings which is an undeveloped bank of grassland leading to the creek. It offers an invaluable buffer between the industrial uses on the Klondyke site and the properties along the High Street and South Street. Some of this land (northwest tip and immediately adjacent to the creek) would be untouched by this proposal with the exception of some remediation work. However, there will be a large amount of the land that would be remodelled, resulting in a small bank and a level area of bare earth. Although this will have some impact on the conservation area, the land at this section of the site would be reduced in height, thereby preserving the setting of the Creekside and the views from the properties in the High Street and South Street (although Members will be aware that there is no legal entitlement to the preservation of a view). In my view, the proposed works, which include the demolition of old industrial buildings, will have a positive impact on the conservation area and in this respect, the proposal will enhance the historic character and appearance of the conservation area. I also consider that there would be no detriment to the setting of the listed buildings along the High Street due to the distances between them and the application site and nature of the development. I have requested further details of the location of any security fencing which I will discourage from this area.

With regards to the impact on Queenborough Castle, due to the presence of intervening buildings, it is not anticipated that the land raised platform will be visible from the Castle.

The potential for intact archaeological remains within the Application Site is limited due to the presence of intrusive foundations of the industrial buildings which currently and previously stood on much of the Application Site. However, in order to mitigate against any potential loss, should remains be present, I have required a programme of archaeological mitigation works to be established prior to construction.

Ecology/biodiversity

Prior to the submission of this planning application, the Council was asked to consider whether the development required the submission of an Environmental Statement under the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations 2011. After consultation with the Environment Agency, Natural England and the Kent County Council Biodiversity Officer, it was confirmed on 13th November 2013, that an Environmental Impact Assessment would not be required, but that certain key environmental issues should be addressed in the planning application submission.

Habitat:

The industrial nature of the majority of the application site means that there is little potential for damage to important habitats and protected species. However, there are still pockets of land within the application site, for example, The Saltings and the land surrounding the existing drainage ditch on the Twyford site, that offer habitats for plants and wildlife. In terms of the loss of habitat as a result of this proposal, it is noted that the majority of the rough grassland at The Saltings would be the subject of land lowering, remediation and would be left as bare earth. In compensation for this, the applicant asserts that there would be additional habitat provided along the flood defence grass bund and extended culvert banks within the Twyford site. The exact quantities of habitat loss and gain are not known and so I have asked the applicant to provide this data.

Birds

Extensive bird surveys have been undertaken to establish the presence of birds on the Application Site, with wintering birds and passage birds being established on the shoreline of the Swale at low tide. In order to mitigate against any potential disturbance to wintering and passage birds, construction activity will be carefully phased. This approach has been agreed with Natural England. For example, noisy and / or intrusive construction activity will be concentrated, where possible, between April and late October because none of the breeding species of interest are expected to nest within 750m of the Application Site and there will be no concentrations of wading migrants or winter visitors at this time.

In order to minimise any potential adverse impact from noise on the birds between November and March inclusive, the construction activities within the Twyford Site will be programmed to commence on the eastern part of the site and move steadily towards the western boundary of the Application Site to therefore mitigate as much as possible against potential disturbance to the wintering and passage birds during this period. The applicant asserts that timing of construction activities will provide appropriate mitigation and minimise any potential adverse impact on these species. Members will note from the comments provided by Natural England that they require further survey work to be undertaken. This survey work has been submitted, with a small amount of data to follow. I am awaiting the further comments of Natural England in this respect and will update Members at the meeting.

A barn owl was noted within one of the industrial buildings to the west of the Klondyke Site, which is a Schedule 1 species under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, and which will be relocated under licence. The nest will be relocated under appropriate supervision in order to protect the barn owl. I have recommended a condition to ensure that this is carried out in the correct manner. Furthermore, site clearance will be undertaken, where possible, between August and March to avoid disturbance to breeding birds.

Protected species

The presence of bats, reptiles and invertebrates has been assessed at the site. Whilst no impact on bats was concluded, there is a need to trans-relocate the retiles to an alternative site. The impact on invertebrates was also considered by the applicant and whilst they note that there would be the loss of habitat which would have a detrimental impact on invertebrates, this would not be significant. I have taken the advice of the KCC Biodiversity Officer on these matters and have recommended the conditions that they have suggested in order to ensure that harm to protective species is minimised.

Appropriate Assessment

Under Regulation 61 of the Habitats Regulations 2010 an Appropriate Assessment (AA) is required for a plan or project which, either alone or in combination with other plans and projects, is likely to have a significant effect on a European designated site (Natura 2000 site), a Special Protection Area (SPA), Special Area for Conservation (SAC) or proposed SPAs and Ramsar sites that is not directly connected with the management of the site. The Local Planning Authority as the Competent Authority is required to screen the application for impacts from the loss of SPA birds habitat; water pollution and changes to hydrology. The site is directly adjacent to the Medway Estuary and Marshes Special Protection Area, Medway Estuary and Marshes Ramsar site and Medway Estuary and Marshes SSSI.

An AA was undertaken as part of the Queenborough and Rushenden Masterplan adoption. This concluded that the impact on these designated sites would be adverse but that these impacts, insofar as they relate to the application site, could be limited by requiring certain monitoring, controlling potential pollution and ensuring the protection of birds. Natural England has advised this Council that an additional AA should be carried out for this particular project and we have requested further information from the applicant in line with Natural England’s advice (see their comments set out above) in order that this AA can be carried out. I am awaiting further advice from Natural England before undertaking the AA and will update Members at the meeting.

Flood risk/drainage

The Application Site currently benefits from flood defence structures. However, the Application Site is at risk from a potential breach via a known weakness in the adjacent tidal flood defences due to a gap in the sea wall at the boundary between the Twyford Site and Klondyke Site. This gap has subsequently been replaced with a 71

flood gate by the Environment Agency. Existing flood gates at Chalk Wharf to the north east of the Application Site and to the south west of the Site, known as the Railway Flood Defence Gate, will be replaced with permanent structures, as agreed with the Environment Agency. This will remove two of the potential major breach points in the area. In addition, raising the level of the Application Site will reduce the risk to future development from a possible breach of the existing defences.

In summary, the land raising will provide protection for a 200 year tidal flood at 2115 and the flood defence works will protect against a 200 year tidal flood at 2070, with further improvements being brought forward in line with future development proposals of the Application Site to protect the site at 2115.

The applicant asserts that the Proposed Development will not increase the risk of flooding within the area. They state that “The whole raison d’etre of the application is to seek to improve the flood defences in order to protect the long term future of the Application Site, and surrounding areas, from flooding”. I am seeking further information from the applicant regarding the possible impact from any displaced water on the surrounding land as a result of the landraising. I will update Members at the meeting.

Comments from the Environment Agency are awaited and I will update Members at the meeting.

Impact on residential amenities

The proposal is some distance from residential properties and I consider that the earth banks and any boundary treatment necessary to secure the site will have no impact on residents in terms of overshadowing or an overbearing effect. The raised platform is far enough away from residential properties to ensure that there would be no harmful overlooking introduce with any future housing development in my view. However, such an impact would be considered and designed out if necessary as and when a detailed application for the housing is submitted. The main impact on residents will be from potential noise, smells, fumes and vibration during construction of the raised platform and demolition of the industrial buildings. To address this impact, the applicant has submitted a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP). This has been reviewed by the Head of Service Delivery who has no objection, subject to compliance with the CEMP. The CEMP sets out the hours of construction 8am to 6pm Monday to Friday and 9am to 1pm on Saturdays (including deliveries) and sets out measures to limit the impacts of the construction in all respects. I am satisfied that subject to these control measures being put in place, the development would have an insignificant impact on residential amenities. I have recommended a condition to ensure that a more detailed CEMP is provided and that it is adhered to.

Impact on highway safety/amenity

The impacts will be confined to the construction phase only. There will be a significant amount of material that needs to be brought onto the site and I understand that some would arrive by barge, which will moor at Coal Washer’s 72

Wharf to the west of Rushenden. However, a large amount would arrive by road. It is anticipated that the majority of trips will be undertaken within the first 12 month period of implementation of the proposed development and that the likely trip generation will be on average nine inbound and nine outbound lorry movements per hour. Over the working day the development is predicted to produce a total of 146 lorry movements.

All of the imported material will be sourced from the ‘main land’ and as a consequence will use the A249, Rushenden Relief Road and Rushenden Road in order to access both the Twyford and Klondyke Sites. No unauthorised vehicles associated with the development will travel through the centre of Queenborough to access the Application Site. This will avoid the main residential areas within the vicinity of the site. It is concluded that this number of vehicles would equate to a maximum traffic increase of 3.9% on these roads.

The material being imported to the Application Site via barge will come ashore at Coal Washers Wharf where it will be transferred to dumper truck. The dumper trucks will travel along the track between Coal Washers Wharf and Rushenden to enter the Site via its south-western corner.

A dedicated parking area with twenty car parking spaces will be provided within the Site throughout the construction phase.

I am awaiting comments from Kent Highway Services but subject to them raising no objection and the inclusion of any additional conditions recommended by them, I am of the view that the impact on highway safety and amenity will be acceptable.

Contamination and Air Quality

The site will be subject to re-profiling as a result of the land raising works and the placing of clean imported fill to raise the levels. As such, this will effectively remove the majority of contaminant pathways with regard to the risk posed to human health through creating a physical barrier. In addition, the risk to groundwater will be minimised because of the composition of the site is Alluvium and London Clay which is impermeable and therefore significantly reduces the risk of pollutants migrating in to ground water aquifers. The Head of Service Delivery is satisfied that the relevant reports are sound and that the remediation suggested therein will be appropriate. A condition requires the development to be carried out in accordance with the submitted contaminated land reports. It is considered that there will be a significant improvement in the level of contamination on the Application Site as a result of the proposed development.

During construction there will be a number of activities which will be undertaken on site which have the potential to generate and/or re-suspend dust, for example, site demolition, clearance, and preparation, storage of materials and the laying of hard surfaces. Potential impacts would only be expected up to a distance of 200m from the site boundary, with the main impacts occurring downwind of the site (north-east).

Most construction activities will be undertaken within controlled working hours, but dust from exposed soil has the potential to occur 24 hours/day unless it is appropriately mitigated. Any potential dust will be mitigated through visual monitoring during dry periods and water spraying if necessary. The Air Quality Report advises that the change in the level of pollutants will be imperceptible during construction of the raised platform. I therefore consider that the impact on contaminated soils, groundwaters and air quality will be acceptable.

Footpaths

I understand that the two public rights of way that cross the site will, at times during the construction phase, need to be temporarily diverted in the interests of health and safety. Whilst the footpath running north-south (ZB48) will be able to be fully reinstated after the land raising/food works are complete, it is likely, in my view, that the footpath that crosses the Twyford Site running east-west (ZB49) will have to be stopped-up. The loss of this footpath would be regrettable and a formal application to the KCC Public Rights of Way Officer will be necessary. However, I understand that the applicant will seek to reinstate both public rights of way as soon as possible. On balance, I consider that any temporary harm to pedestrians will be outweighed by the benefits that this development will eventually bring to the area. Such benefits will include the provision of a number of footpaths and cycleways through the application site.

Comments from the KCC Public Rights of Way Officer are awaited and I will update Members at the meeting.

Recommendation

Having considered the relevant planning polices, documents and guidance and the views of consultees and local residents, I am of the view that the proposal is acceptable in principle. This land is within the area earmarked for residential development under the Queenborough and Rushenden Masterplan and is fully compliant with Local Plan Policies. This development would enable the residential development to come forward.

Subject to refinement of the details, the proposal would have no undue impact on visual amenities, residential amenities, ecology and highway safety/amenity and contaminated land air quality, subject to the conditions set out above.

I am satisfied in respect of protected species that with appropriate controls (required by conditions as set out above), there would be no harm in this respect. The exact loss of habitat expected as a consequence of this proposal is yet to be confirmed but subject to there being no significant loss, I am of the view that the development would be acceptable in terms of the impact on ecology and biodiversity. I am though awaiting further comments from Natural England in respect of the impact on the SPA (birds).

I am awaiting comments from the Environment Agency (EA) in respect of flood risk but considering that as this proposal has been drawn up by the applicant in communication with the EA, I do not anticipate any concerns being raised.

I therefore consider that subject to comments from the Environment Agency, KCC Archaeological Officer, Kent Highway Services, KCC Public Rights of Way Officer, Economic Development Officer and further comments from Natural England and KCC Biodiversity Officer, planning permission should be granted. Also subject to the Appropriate Assessment concluding that will not adversely affect the integrity of the Special Protection Area (SPA) and Ramsar sites.

List of Backgrounds Documents

1. Application papers and correspondence for SW/13/1550 2. Application papers and correspondence for SW/11/0601 3. Application papers and correspondence for SW/13/1427

For information contact case officer Emma Eisinger

2.5 SW/14/0106 (Case 19959) Sittingbourne

Location : Land Adjacent 157 Peregrine Drive, Sittingbourne, Kent, ME10 4UW

Proposal : Proposed detached house with associated parking. (Amendments to approved scheme SW/12/0867).

Applicant/Agent : Mr E Bosley, C/O Mr Keith Plumb, Woodstock Associates, 53 Woodstock Road, Sittingbourne, Kent, ME10 4HJ

Application Valid : 3 February 2014

8 Week Target : 31 March 2014

SUBJECT TO: The comments of local residents, Kent Highway Services and Southern Water (Closing date: 3 March 2014).

Conditions

Time limit

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

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

(2) The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved drawings: BO/12/114.01 rev C, .02 rev C, .03 rev C and .04 rev C.

Grounds: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.

Prior to commencement

(3) No development shall commence until the relocation of the highway maintenance gates and fencing has been completed in accordance with a design and specification to be submitted to and approved in writing with the Local Planning Authority.

Grounds: In the interests of highway safety and convenience.

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

Grounds: In the interests of highway safety and convenience.

(5) Prior to the commencement of development hereby approved, details of the external finishing bricks, weatherboarding and roof tiles to be used on the development hereby permitted shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall proceed in accordance with the approved details.

Grounds: In the interest of visual amenity.

(6) Prior to the commencement of development hereby approved, full details of both hard and soft landscape works shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. These details shall include existing trees, shrubs and other features, planting schedules of plants, noting species, plant sizes and numbers where appropriate, means of enclosure, hard surfacing materials, and an implementation programme.

Grounds: In the interests of the visual amenities of the area.

During construction

(7) The development shall incorporate the sustainable construction techniques detailed within the submitted design and access statement.

Grounds: In the interest of promoting energy efficiency and sustainable development.

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

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

Grounds: In the interests of residential amenity.

(9) All hard and soft landscape works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. The works shall be carried out prior to the occupation of any part of the development or in accordance with the programme agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.

Grounds: In the interests of the visual amenities of the area.

Post commencement

(10) Before the dwelling hereby approved is first occupied, a properly consolidated and surfaced access (not loose stone or gravel) shall be constructed, details of which shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Grounds: In the interests of highway safety and convenience.

(11) Upon completion of the approved landscaping scheme, any trees or shrubs that are removed, dying, being severely damaged or becoming seriously diseased within five years of planting shall be replaced with trees or shrubs of such size and species as may be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority, and within whatever planting season is agreed.

Grounds: In the interests of the visual amenities of the area.

(12) The area shown on the submitted layout as vehicle parking and turning space and garage shall be provided, surfaced and drained before the dwelling is occupied, and shall be retained for the use of the occupiers of, and visitors to the dwelling. No permanent development, whether or not permitted by the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order), shall be carried out on that area of land so shown or in such a position as to preclude vehicular access to this reserved parking space.

Grounds: Development without adequate provision for the parking or garaging of cars is likely to lead to car parking inconvenient to other road users and detrimental to amenity.

(13) Upon completion, no further development, whether permitted by Classes A, B, C or D of Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (as amended) (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order) or not, shall be carried out without the prior permission in writing of the Local Planning Authority. Grounds: In the interests of the amenities of the area.

Informatives

1) Kent County Council Public Rights of Way Officer wishes to make the applicant aware that the re-siting of the highway gates must not encroach on the existing width of the public footpath. No furniture may be erected on or across the Public Right of Way without the express consent of the Highway Authority. Furthermore, there must be no disturbance of the surface of the right of way, or obstruction of its use, either during or following any approved development. No hedging or shrubs should be planted within 0.5 metres of the edge of the public footpath.

Council’s approach to this application

In this case the application was acceptable as submitted.

Description of Proposal

This application seeks planning permission for a detached house with associated parking on land adjacent to 157 Peregrine Drive, Sittingbourne. The proposal includes amendments to approved planning application SW/12/0867.

The dwelling would be 8.5 metres wide, 12 metres long, 5.2 metres to eaves height and 8.4 metres to ridge height. It would feature a two storey central front gable end and two front dormer windows with two further dual pitched gable end roofs to the rear. The dwelling would be 2 metres from the common boundary with 157 Peregrine Drive at the front of the site which would narrow to 1.2 metres towards the rear of the site.

The dwelling would have an integral garage and two individually accessible car parking spaces to the front of the dwelling. The area to the front of the dwelling leading to Peregrine Drive would be paved in block pavours.

The materials to be used are stock facing brickwork to the ground floor elevations with weatherboarding to the first floor elevations and a concrete interlocking tiled roof. Windows would be made of white UPVC.

A new 2 metre high close boarded fence would be erected to the rear of the garden to create a private amenity space. The rear garden would be between 15 metres and 23 metres in depth. Sustainable construction techniques to be incorporated into the development are listed within the design and access statement and include rainwater collection, increased thermal insulation and materials from renewable sources. A small area of soft landscaping is shown to the front of the proposed dwelling.

The main differences between this current scheme and the development approved under SW/12/0867 are that there are two front dormer windows and a two storey rear projection now proposed, as opposed to a single storey rear projection previously. The eaves would be 300mm lower than 157 Peregrine Drive to mitigate the ridge being 400mm higher than that previously permitted.

Relevant Site History & Description

The application site is located within the built up area boundary of Sittingbourne as defined by the Proposals Map of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008 and is located between 157 Peregrine Drive and Swanstree Avenue . Part of the site is owned by Kent Highway Services (KHS) and a fenced maintenance area has been incorporated into the scheme to allow KHS appropriate space to maintain the 2.6 metre tall acoustic fence that abuts the southern side of the application site. This fence was erected to mitigate noise pollution to local residents resulting from the Swanstree Avenue road extension.

At the time of the officer’s site visit the ground works for SW/12/0867 had been carried out and a temporary construction shed moved on to the site. The gate adjacent to the highway and vegetation have been removed from the site.

The applicant has reached agreement with KHS to allow access over its land to the building plot and will re-site the gates to secure the maintenance area to the west of the site. Public Right of Way (PROW) ZU30 is located to the rear of the site and PROW ZU31 is located to the front of the site, neither of which would be affected by the development.

The surrounding area is residential in nature with nos 155 and 157 Peregrine Drive being detached two storey dwellings with garages. These properties have substantial gaps between them at first floor level which creates an open and spacious feel within the streetscene. There is a terrace of properties at 146 to 152 Peregrine Drive opposite the application site which have a split level roof design with a two storey mono-pitch roof and a further subservient mono-pitch roof to each property.

In terms of planning history application SW/12/0867 for the erection of a four bedroom detached house with associated parking on this site was granted permission in September 2012 (not implemented ).

Views of Consultees

The Head of Service Delivery raises no objection on environmental health grounds subject to the condition above relating to hours of construction.

Kent County Council Public Rights of Way Officer raises no objection and requests that the above informative is added to any permission.

Kent Highway Service and Southern Water are yet to comment but I will update Members at the Meeting.

Other Representations

One letter has been received from a local resident which makes the following general comments;

 Mains services have reinstated an area of tarmac and landscaping on Swanstree Avenue very poorly. It has been trodden down, is not level and earth has been piled up on top with litter all over the place which is an eyesore because the previous landscaping was so nice. The closing date for the submission of representations is 3rd March 2014 and I will update Members at the Meeting.

Policies

The National Planning Policy Framework This is relevant in terms of sustainable development, housing provision, design and noise.

Swale Borough Local Plan 2008

Relevant Policies include SP4 (Housing), E1 (general development criteria), E19 (Achieving high quality design and distinctiveness), H2 (providing for new housing), T3 (Vehicle parking for new Developments) and T4 (Cyclists and Pedestrians).

Although not directly relevant to an application for new houses, the Council’s adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) entitled ‘Designing an Extension: A Guide for Householders’ gives useful advice on acceptable design and siting. Paragraph 5.0 looks to avoid loss of openness in otherwise open and spacious street scenes and states:

“in an area of mainly detached or semi-detached housing, the Council is anxious to see that the area should not become “terraced” in character, losing the sense of openness……A gap of 2m between a first floor extension and the side boundary is normally required.”

Paragraph 5.7 gives advice on rear extensions and states;

“For single storey rear extensions close to your neighbour’s common boundary, the Borough Council considers that a maximum projection of 3.0m will be allowed. A first floor extension should not exceed 1.8m”.

Dormer window design guidance states that a dormer should be no more than half the depth of the roof, should have a vertical or horizontal emphasis and a pitched roof, and a number of smaller dormers are preferable to one large dormer.

Discussion

The comments of the local resident are noted. However, they are not related to the proposal and fall outside the application site as the works appear to have been carried out by a utilities company.

As the site lies within the built up area of Sittingbourne and residential development has previously been approved on the site, the proposal is acceptable in principle in my opinion.

Design

I will focus on the design changes over approved scheme SW/12/0867. The two additional front dormer windows comply with the SPG and are an acceptable design solution in my view. The roof design with two rear gable ends is also an acceptable design in my view.

The design has some elements that reflect the character of 157 and 155 Peregrine Drive such as having a dual pitched roof, weatherboarding to the first floor elevations, and eaves and ridge height that broadly mirrors that of the neighbouring dwellings. The use of materials to demarcate the ground and first floors is considered to add design interest. The central two storey front gable end projection is considered to add to the design of the property. The flank elevation which would address Swanstree Avenue also has a number of windows which adds visual interest. Although somewhat larger than the footprint of neighbouring dwellings at 155 and 157 Peregrine Drive, the overall design including its size is acceptable in my opinion.

The sustainable construction techniques detailed in the design and access statement are considered acceptable and are secured by condition above.

Impact on the streetscene and visual amenities of the area

As set out above, the proposed dwelling would have elevations addressing both Peregrine Drive and Swanstree Avenue . With regard to Peregrine Drive, the size and design of the property is broadly in keeping with the other properties at 155 and 157 Peregrine Drive which would help the property to blend in with the streetscene. At the front of the site, the dwelling would be in excess of 2 metres from the boundary with 157 - this does though narrow to 1.2 metres towards the rear. However – the streetscene is mixed and has both detached and terraced properties. the siting of the dwelling is such that it would not materially harm the character of the street by way of a terracing effect, nor would it cause a harmful loss of openness in the streetscene.

Details of a streetscene elevation has been provided, which shows the proposal in context with the adjacent detached dwellings in Peregrine Drvie. Whilst the proposed dwelling has a slightly higher ridge height and a slightly larger footprint than those adjacent, it would in my view blend in well with the existing dwellings, and I am firmly 82

of the view that it would not cause demonstrable harm to the character and appearance of the streetscene.

The gap that would remain between the proposed dwelling, 157 Peregrine Drive and the acoustic fence would prevent the development from appearing cramped in my opinion.

When viewed from Swanstree Avenue, the proposed dwelling would be partly screened at ground floor level by the 2.6 metre tall acoustic fence that runs along Swanstree Avenue. The elevation facing this road has been well designed and includes fenestration to add visual interest and to prevent a blank elevation creating a poor appearance in the streetscene. The dwelling would be located closer to Swanstree Avenue in comparison to other dwellings in the area. However, it would still be set back from Swanstree Avenue, and it would be seen in the context of the existing houses. It would also be of a similar height and design to the neighbouring dwellings and would use similar materials. I am therefore of the opinion that the new dwelling would not appear out of place or harmful to the character and appearance of the streetscene and visual amenities of the area.

Impact on residential amenity and noise

The location of the proposal means in terms of residential amenity any potential harmful impact will be on the residents of 157 Peregrine Drive. The first floor side openings facing 157 Peregrine Drive are to be obscure glazed as shown on the submitted plans.

The two storey rear projection is acceptable as both the ground and first floor projections beyond 157 Peregrine Drive comply with the SPG advice of 3 metre ground and 1.8 metre first floor projections beyond a neighbour, taking into account the separation distance of 3 metres. I am also mindful that the proposal is located to the south of 157 Peregrine Drive and so would result in some loss of light and sunlight to this neighbouring dwelling and associated garden, however, because the rear projections accord with the Council’s SPG, any impact in this regard would not be significantly harmful, nor enough to warrant refusal of the application. Despite the slight angle of the property in relation to this near neighbour, there would not be an unreasonable degree of overlooking from the rear first floor windows of the proposal to the neighbouring garden. There would not be an unacceptable degree of overlooking, overbearing, or overshadowing in my view. I consider the impact on the residential amenity of the residents of 157 Peregrine Drive to be acceptable in my view.

The proposal would be located approximately 20 metres away from the rear garden of 152 Peregrine Drive therefore I do not consider there to be an unreasonable degree of overlooking to this private amenity space.

The above condition restricting hours of construction would prevent unreasonable disturbance to local residents during construction.

I recommend imposing condition 13 above which would give the Council control over any future additions to the dwelling in order to prevent extensions and alterations which could be harmful to the residential amenity of the occupiers of 157 Peregrine Drive such as rear extensions or dormer windows.

The rear garden size is ample for a dwelling of this size and would be secured as private amenity space with the erection of a 2 metre high fence.

The proposed dwelling would be located in close proximity to the acoustic fence along Swanstree Avenue which provides future residents with protection from the noise of Swanstree Avenue. The Head of Service Delivery has not highlighted noise as a problem.

In my view the impact on residential amenity is acceptable.

Highway safety and convenience

I am yet to receive Kent Highway Services comments although I do not anticipate any objections because the highways layout is the same as that previously permitted for this site. I will update Members at the meeting.

Impact on Public Rights of Way

The Kent County Council Public Rights of Way Officer raises no objection to the proposal. The public right of way to the east of the application site would not be affected by the proposal other than the construction of a 2 metre high wall to separate it from the proposed rear garden. The public right of way to the west of the application site would again not be altered by the proposal as its surface would not be affected by the development. Neither is it intended that it would be blocked or obstructed during the dwelling’s construction.

Recommendation

The development of this site is acceptable as a matter of principle. In my view the design of the proposed dwelling is acceptable. There will be limited harm to residential amenity and noise pollution, and to the character and appearance of the streetscene and visual amenities of the area. Finally, I do not anticipate that the proposal will give rise to any harm to highway safety and convenience, subject to Kent Highway Services comment, or the adjacent public rights of way.

Having regard to all material planning considerations, I recommend, subject to the conditions above, to the comments of Kent Highway Services and Southern Water, and any additional representations (closing date 3rd March 2014) that planning permission is granted.

List of Backgrounds Documents

1. Application papers and correspondence for SW/12/0867 and SW/14/0106

For information contact case officer Martin Evans

2.6 SW/13/1485 (Case 25262) Hartlip

Location : Land at Spade Lane, Hartlip, Sittingbourne, Kent, ME8 8PS

Proposal : Siting of two mobile homes with associated utility block, parking for cars and 2 touring caravans for a gypsy family

Applicant/Agent : Mr & Mrs A Smith, C/O Mr Martin Foad, M P Foad Ltd, 16 The Paddocks, Herne Bay, Kent, CT6 6QX

Application Valid : 19 December 2013

8 Week Target : 13 February 2014

Subject to: The receipt of an ecological survey identifying the potential for protected species at the site and there being no further survey work required or that additional conditions are added to address any impact on ecology and biodiversity, and the receipt of plans showing sightlines at the access of 2.4 metres x 45m.

Conditions / Grounds

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

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

2. The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved drawings: 490/02 rev. A & 490/01 rev. A.

Grounds: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.

3. The use as a residential caravan site shall be for a limited period being the period of three years from the date of this decision and at the end of this three years the use as a residential caravan site shall cease and all caravans, structures, fences, materials and equipment brought on to, or erected on, the land, or works undertaken to it in connection with the use, shall be removed and the land shall be restored to its condition prior to its first occupation.

Grounds: In recognition of the unsustainable location of this site balanced against the needs of the gypsy population.

4. The site shall not be occupied by any persons other than Gypsies and Travellers as defined in Annex 1 of Planning Policy for Traveller Sites, and if the site ceases to be occupied by such persons the use shall cease and all caravans, structures, materials and equipment brought on to the land in connection with the use shall be removed and the land restored to its former condition.

Grounds: In the interests of preventing general residential use of this rural site.

5. No more than two static caravans and two touring caravans shall be stationed on the site at any one time.

Grounds: In recognition of the terms of the application, and because an uncontrolled use of the land would be unacceptably detrimental to the character and amenities of the area.

6. No commercial activities shall take place on the land, including the storage of materials.

Grounds: In the interests of visual amenity and the character and appearance of the area.

7. No vehicle over 3.5 tonnes shall be stationed, parked or stored on the site.

Grounds: In the interests of visual amenity and the character and appearance of the area.

8. No floodlighting, security lighting or other external lighting shall be installed or operated at the site, other than in accordance with details that have first been submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Grounds: In the interests of preventing light pollution.

9. The area shown on the submitted layout as vehicle parking or turning space shall be retained for the use of the occupiers of, and visitors to, the premises, and no permanent development, whether or not permitted by the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order), shall be carried out on that area of land so shown or in such a position as to preclude vehicular access to this reserved parking space.

Grounds: To ensure the use does not prejudice conditions of highway safety or convenience.

10. Prior to the commencement of development hereby approved, full details of both hard and soft landscape works shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. These details shall include existing trees, shrubs and other features, planting schedules of plants, noting species, plant sizes and numbers where appropriate, means of enclosure, hard surfacing materials, and an implementation programme.

Grounds: In the interests of the visual amenities of the area.

11. All hard and soft landscape works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. The works shall be carried out prior to the occupation of any part of the development or in accordance with the programme agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.

Grounds: In the interests of the visual amenities of the area.

12. Upon completion of the approved landscaping scheme, any trees or shrubs that are removed, dying, being severely damaged or becoming seriously diseased within five years of planting shall be replaced with trees or shrubs of such size and species as may be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority, and within whatever planting season is agreed.

Grounds: In the interests of the visual amenities of the area.

13. Prior to the commencement of development hereby approved, full details of the method of disposal of foul and surface waters shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The approved details shall be implemented before the first use of the development hereby permitted.

Grounds: In order to prevent pollution of water supplies.

14. The vehicular access to the site as shown on the approved drawings shall be constructed and completed prior to the commencement of the first use of the development hereby permitted.

Grounds: To ensure that a satisfactory means of access is provided for the site.

15. The sight lines shown on the approved plans shall be provided prior to the occupation of the caravans and thereafter maintained clear of any structure, tree, plant or other obstruction which exceed 0.6 metres above carriageway level within the approved sight lines.

Grounds: In the interests of highway safety.

16. Prior to the commencement of development hereby approved, details of the exact external finishing materials to be used on the utility building hereby permitted shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details.

Grounds: In the interest of visual amenity.

17. Any floodlighting or security lighting shall be so sited, angled and shielded as to ensure that the light falls wholly within the curtilage of the site and such lighting shall be of an intensity and type to be approved by the Local Planning Authority before it is first used.

Grounds: To protect the visual amenities of the area.

18. If during development, contamination not previously identified is found to be present at the site, then no further development (unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority) shall be carried out until the developer has submitted and obtained written approval from the Local Planning Authority, details of how this unsuspected contamination shall be dealt with.

Grounds: To ensure that the development complies with the approved details in the interests of protection of Controlled Waters.

Informative

1. The applicant is advised that a separate planning application is required for the change of use of the adjacent land for the keeping of horses, if it is their intention to carry out such development.

Council’s approach to this application

In this case the application was acceptable as submitted although additional information was sought on the gypsy status of the applicant, the impact on ecology and biodiversity and connections to utilities.

Description of Proposal

This application seeks planning permission for the siting of two mobile homes (static) with associated utility blocks, parking for cars and two touring caravans for a gypsy family. The statics would be sited towards the southern boundary of the site with the utility blocks in a more central location and parking to the front and sides of each static. An access track (shingle finish with kerb stone) would be provided within the site leading from Spade Lane where the applicant intends to use an existing access (which would be finished with tarmac ) and which also serves the field beyond (also in the applicant’s ownership). The application papers note that the applicant would use the surrounding land for keeping horses. A separate planning application would be required for the change of use of this land for the keeping of horses and the applicants have been informed of this.

The plan indicates that the site would be bounded by screen planting of mixed native hedging plants including Hawthorn and Blackthorn. The height of this vegetation when planted is not specified. A new timber five bar gate is proposed to replace the existing metal gate at the access.

The static caravans would have a shallow pitched roof and rendered elevations. The utility block building would have a duel pitched roof finished with grey slates. The elevations would be finished with yellow stock bricks. The utility blocks would each have a bathroom and kitchen area.

The site would be occupied by the applicant, his wife, and two daughters who are 16 and privately tutored. The other static caravan would be occupied by the applicant’s grown-up son.

Relevant Site History and Description

SW/07/0428 – change of use of land (this site and adjacent land) for the keeping of horses and erection of 8 stables– application withdrawn.

SW/07/0664 – change of use of adjacent land for the keeping of horses and the erection of 4 stables – approved.

SW/13/1167 – on the adjacent land - erection of four stables and resiting of previously approved barn – approved.

The application site lies towards the southern end of Spade Lane where it meets Meresborough Lane. It is on the west side of Spade Lane opposite Splayfield Farmhouse. The land is level with the road and the surrounding land. Post and rail fences divide the applicant’s land from adjacent land. The land to the south is used for the keeping of horses and the land to the north and east is in agricultural use. The applicant’s land extends to the rear of properties fronting South Bush Lane. However, the application site would be approximately 200 metres from the gardens of these dwellings. There is an existing hedgerow along most of the eastern boundary of the application site adjacent to Spade Lane.

The village of Hartlip lies approximately 890 metres to the east of the site. Much of this village is covered by a Conservation Area where there are a number of listed buildings, including the Grade I listed church. The site lies 500 metres from the closest point of this Conservation Area. The closest listed building is Ivy Cottage at 533 metres to the east. The very edge of the town of Rainham is 1.4km (as the crow flies) to the northwest. Public footpath ZR75 lies 143 metres to the north of the site. This footpath leads to South Bush Lane to the west which forms the boundary between the Swale and Medway administrative areas. The same public footpath leads to ZR74 and then onto Dane Lane to the east.

The site lies within the countryside and within a Strategic Gap as defined by policies E6 and E7 of the Swale Borough Local Plan.

Views of Consultees

Hartlip Parish Council objects to the application on the following grounds:

 Gypsy status questioned;  Non-temporary structures will be provided;  Any additional application for equestrian use should consider the environmental harm;  Site is within a strategic gap;  Screening of the site is difficult and would in itself be detrimental to visual amenities;  The applicant already has a large site just two miles away;  A permanent dwelling would not be approved at this site and it would be ‘unfair’ to approve this development;  The site is grade 1 agricultural land;  The development would dominate Spade Lane including views from the Grade I listed church and historic school, the village of Hartlip and the Conservation area;  Negative impact on local cohesion;  Spoil the character of the community and would have an adverse effect on the residential amenity of neighbours;  Valuable wildlife corridor where badgers, stoats, field mice, kestrels, little owls, barn owls, sparrowhawks and buzzards are found and their habitat should be protected;  The development is not sustainable;  Local schools are oversubscribed;  Land owners in the area have not been allowed to extend their gardens onto grade 1 agricultural land;  There are already a number of gypsy sites close by. The tipping point has been reached already;  There is an historic roman villa at the top of Spade Lane and this is an historic landscape;  Significant light and noise pollution;  Spade Lane and South Bush Lane are narrow country lanes;  No connection to the existing drainage system; 91

 No community benefit or contribution to services;  Two footpaths within close proximity;  The Local Authority has failed to demonstrate a 5 year supply of gypsy sites and this is why the applications of this type are being submitted so regularly and;  There is no safe and convenient pedestrian vehicle access and parking.

The Head of Service Delivery raises no objection subject to conditions to control waste from the equestrian use, no burning, a scheme for surface water disposal, and details of foul sewage disposal.

Kent Highway Services have no objection to the proposal. They are aware of the significant number of objections raise by local residents about the impact that additional traffic from the proposal development on Spade Lane. However, they do not consider that the additional traffic generated by the development would have a significant impact in this respect due to the modest size of the proposal and the levels of traffic that already use the highway network locally. It is likely that the traffic generated would be well within the general daily variation of traffic flows along Spade Lane, and the traffic pattern similar to any number of comparable rural lanes within the Borough that are considered acceptable. However, they ask that appropriate visibility sightlines are provided at the access so that vehicles can exist safely and be seen by other road users in sufficient time. These sight lines should be shown on a plan.

The Environment Agency have no objection to the proposal subject to conditions to control the treatment of contamination if found during construction, design of the cesspool and control surface water drainage. They highlight the need for careful design of soakaways, septic tanks and cesspools to prevent the pollution of groundwaters.

The Public Rights of Way Officer notes that should planning permission be granted, a condition could be imposed to ensure that the northern boundary is thickened and maintained at a minimum height of between 2 and 3 metres.

Other Representations

A letter of objection has been received from the Member of Parliament for Sittingbourne and Sheppey – Gordon Henderson. He objects of the following grounds: 1. Mobile homes would look aesthetically displeasing in the quite, rural village of Hartlip; 2. The designs of the mobile homes are not in-keeping with nearby properties; 3. Members of the settled community would never be granted permission to develop this land; 4. The land creates a clear distinction between the boundary of Swale and Medway and the mobile homes would diminish the view rural landscape.

Some representations do not provide their address and so it is not possible to categorically state the number received (we could have received duplicates). It is though in the region of 150 of which 6 were in support of the proposal.

The various objections raised include the following:

 Not appropriate within countryside/strategic gap/green agricultural gap/on grade one agricultural land. Brownfield sites should be developed instread;  Additional pressure on infrastructure, local services and amenities (schools, doctor’s surgeries etc.);  Harm to highway safety and amenity due to increased traffic using Spade Lane;  A precedent will be set and could pave the way for further urbanisation of the land;  Too many gypsy sites in this part of the Borough and the local community is becoming overwhelmed. Harm to community cohesion;  This is not sustainable development;  Detrimental impact on visual amenities/character and appearance of the landscape. No amount of screening will reduce the impact;  The site will be visible from Hartlip as it is elevated above the application site;  Harmful to the view from the historic church and school in Hartlip and the Hartlip Conservation Area and harmful to setting of listed buildings;  The properties along South Bush Lane would be visually dominated by the development;  Loss of outlook and loss of privacy by way of noise and disturbance to 11 South Bush Lane (adjacent to application site);  The site provides an important wildlife corridor. Owls and badgers are regularly observed on the land to the north of the site and badgers have been seen on the application site;  The site is not accessible by public transport and not within reasonable walking distance of local amenities, schools and health care;  The needs of the travelling community ought to be proportionate to the needs of the settled community. Negative effect on community cohesion;  There would be a detrimental cumulative impact with the Yaugher Lane, Stockbury and Oak Lane sites. 45% of Swale gypsy pitches are within the adjoining 4 parishes;  The site is not promoted as a gypsy site though the local plan and is not subject to a comparative analysis of site;  The proposal is not in line with the PPTS which seeks to respect the interests of the settled community and directs gypsy sites to land not within open countryside;  The application is not supported by any evidence that there is a general need for a gypsy site in this location nor that the applicant has a need for this site. The applicant is already settled in a house/on another site close-by;  The gypsy status of the applicant should be verified;  Additional pollution in the form of vehicle emissions;  The caravans will probably stay on the site permanently;  Potential for archaeological finds at the site; 93

 Alternative gypsy pitches are available within the Borough;  Close to the AONB and Queendown Warren – SSSI;  The site will grow;  The applicant’s current site is better located;  The application should include the change of use of the adjacent land for the keeping of horses;  The land was offered for sale recently and so why is there now a need for the site;  The site is too far from local amenities and services to be sustainable. Spade Lane is dangerous for pedestrians;  Eric Pickles is quoted as saying that “Local Planning Authorities should strictly limit new traveller site development in open countryside.”  Devaluation of properties as a consequence of visual harm;  The Human Rights Act should not be used to make authorities scared of the legal consequences of making correct decisions;  Dene holes are known to be close to the site;  The properties on Southbush Lane were built for war heroes;

A petition of 59 signatures has been submitted to the Council. They object on the grounds:

“that the development would be sited on open countryside of historic, natural and strategic importance. The development is on previously undeveloped Grade 1 agricultural land and will dominate the surrounding area. It will dilute the rural boundary between Swale and Medway and as a consequence impose a further strain on stretched local resources. The immediate and far reaching consequences to the environment and infrastructure of such further piecemeal developments in the locality is immeasurable. It is unsustainable.”

The letters of support include the following issues:

 The application is not retrospective and this should be given credit;  Many of the objections insulting to the applicants;  The family are from the local area, hard-working; honest and reliable;  The impact on local schools and services would be neutral because the family already live in the local area;  A leaflet asking for support in opposing this application was received as far away as Bobbing;  This is one family going the right way to making a home for their children on land they privately own;  No planning application should be judged based on NIMBY and bigoted views;  There are not enough public sites to meet local gypsy need;  There will be no burden on schools because the applicant’s children are not at school age and;  The vehicles generated by this development will be of no significance.

The Gypsy Council have written to support the proposal. They note that the word ‘gypsy’ should not create such a negative and racially motivated reaction from the local community. There is a lack of public gypsy sites and so the only option for gypsy families is to use private sites. This family will provide for themselves in this way rather than depend on the public purse.

The Council for the Protection of Rural England (CPRE) object to the proposal. They comment that no new building has been approved in this area since the properties on South Bush Lane were built for returning First World War soldiers. This is the only real area that differentiates Medway from Swale in their view. The concepts of policy E7 should still be considered to underlie most of the policies in the emerging Local Plan (Policy ST5 is quoted). Without the differentiation of settlements in its broadest sense, there can be no meaningful planning. The significance of these separations is becoming increasingly important given the increased pressure for housing. The development is contrary to paragraph 55 of the NPPF and its core principle of recognising the intrinsic character of the countryside. The development would dominate the area in their view given the scattered nature of existing properties in the area. Based on the site assessment within the current GTAA, the site should not get past stage 2 because it is not well related to local services, schools etc. They do not consider that a temporary permission should be granted. The PPTS should be given weight in the decision making process but should not mean that planning permission is granted. The GTAA shows that the Borough requires 82 pitches from 1st April to 31st March 2031. Of these, 35 are forecast to be required in the next five years i.e. 7 a year. Since 1st April 2013, an additional 19 net pitches have been approved. It is arguable that there is no immediate need for further gypsy sites in immediate future therefore. Granting permission for other gypsy pitches has been made with the explicit recognition that it will reduce the need to provide further pitches on fresh undeveloped land. Spade Lane is on such land and should not be approved therefore. Policy ST3 of the emerging Local Plan states that gypsy sites should only be allowed in the countryside if accommodation cannot be met at housing allocations or within adjacent locations. There is no evidence in their view, that other such sites are not available. Lastly, the proposal is contrary to policy DM7 of the emerging Local Plan.

Policies

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)

The 12 month period noted above has expired. As such, it was necessary for a review of the consistency between the policies contained within the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008 and the NPPF. This has been carried out in the form of a report agreed by the Local Development Framework (LDF) Panel on 12 December 2012. All policies cited below, with the exception of policy E7 (Strategic Gap), are considered to accord with the NPPF for the purposes of determining this application 95

and as such, these policies can still be afforded significant weight in the decision- making process. With regards to policy E7, the report to the LDF panel notes that this policy is not wholly in accordance with the NPPF in that it seeks to protect gaps between settlements. In contrast, the NPPF in seeking to support a prosperous rural economy is more positively framed in terms of development opportunities in the rural area. In this sense, the prevention of the merging of settlements at a strategic level is weakened somewhat. This policy is at low/medium risk, should the Borough not have a viable and deliverable five year housing land supply. As such, it is not advisable to solely rely on this policy for the refusal of development.

The purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development. The policies in paragraphs 18 to 219, taken as a whole, constitute the Government’s view of what sustainable development in England means in practice for the planning system. At the heart of the National Planning Policy Framework is a presumption in favour of sustainable development, which should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan-making and decision- taking. For decision-taking this means: ● approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay; and ●where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out-of-date, granting permission unless: –– any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole; or –– specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be restricted.

Para. 7 defines sustainable development as having three strands – social, economic and environmental.

Para 55 - To promote sustainable development in rural areas, housing should be located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities. For example, where there are groups of smaller settlements, development in one village may support services in a village nearby. Local planning authorities should avoid new isolated homes in the countryside unless there are special circumstances such as: ● the essential need for a rural worker to live permanently at or near their place of work in the countryside; or ●where such development would represent the optimal viable use of a heritage asset or would be appropriate enabling development to secure the future of heritage assets; or ●where the development would re-use redundant or disused buildings and lead to an enhancement to the immediate setting; or

●the exceptional quality or innovative nature of the design of the dwelling. Such a design should: –– be truly outstanding or innovative, helping to raise standards of design more generally in rural areas; –– reflect the highest standards in architecture; –– significantly enhance its immediate setting; and –– be sensitive to the defining characteristics of the local area.

Para. 109 - The planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by:  protecting and enhancing valued landscapes, geological conservation interests and soils;  recognising the wider benefits of ecosystem services;  minimising impacts on biodiversity and providing net gains in biodiversity where possible, contributing to the Government’s commitment to halt the overall decline in biodiversity, including by establishing coherent ecological networks that are more resilient to current and future pressures;  preventing both new and existing development from contributing to or being put at unacceptable risk from, or being adversely affected by unacceptable levels of soil, air, water or noise pollution or land instability; and  remediating and mitigating despoiled, degraded, derelict, contaminated and unstable land, where appropriate.

Para. 112 - Local planning authorities 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.

Para. 115 - Great weight should be given to conserving landscape and scenic beauty in National Parks, the Broads and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, which have the highest status of protection in relation to landscape and scenic beauty. The conservation of wildlife and cultural heritage are important considerations in all these areas, and should be given great weight in National Parks and the Broads.

Para. 118 - When determining planning applications, local planning authorities should aim to conserve and enhance biodiversity by applying the following principles: ● if significant harm resulting from a development cannot be avoided (through locating on an alternative site with less harmful impacts), adequately mitigated, or, as a last resort, compensated for, then planning permission should be refused; ●proposed development on land within or outside a Site of Special Scientific Interest likely to have an adverse effect on a Site of Special Scientific Interest (either individually or in combination with other developments) should not normally be permitted. Where an adverse effect on the site’s notified special interest features is likely, an exception should only be made where the benefits of the development, at this site, clearly outweigh both the impacts that it is likely to have on the features of the site that make it of special scientific interest and any broader impacts on the national network of Sites of Special Scientific Interest; development proposals where the primary objective is to conserve or enhance biodiversity should be permitted; 97

● opportunities to incorporate biodiversity in and around developments should be encouraged.

Para 132 states that when considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. The more important the asset, the greater the weight should be. Significance can be harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of the heritage asset or development within its setting. As heritage assets are irreplaceable, any harm or loss should require clear and convincing justification. Substantial harm to or loss of a grade II listed building, park or garden should be exceptional. Substantial harm to or loss of designated heritage assets of the highest significance, notably scheduled monuments, protected wreck sites, battlefields, grade I and II* listed buildings, grade I and II* registered parks and gardens, and World Heritage Sites, should be wholly exceptional.

Para 134 states that where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, including securing its optimum viable use.

Planning Policy for Traveller Sites (PPTS)

National Policy on Gypsy and Traveller sites is set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and the Planning Policy for Traveller Sites (PPTS)(also published in 2012, and which deals with decision-taking on pages 6 and 7). The requirement in both documents is very clear, in that the Council should now set pitch targets which address the likely need for pitches over the plan period. Furthermore, the Council is required, from 2013 onwards, to maintain a rolling five year supply of sites which are in suitable locations and available immediately.

The PPTS is a recent change in national policy; prior to this national policy was set out in Circular 01/2006; where the original intention was for regionally set pitch targets to be met. The Council has in my view responded positively and quickly to the change in national policy. The LDF Panel immediately recognised, and supported, the commissioning of a new Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment (GTAA), which was completed in June 2013 and identified a need for 82 pitches to be provided (adjusted down from 85 pitches in reflection of those sites granted consent whilst the document was under preparation).

From this, the Council will produce a Development Plan Document setting out deliverable sites to meet this need. The Council is currently undertaking consultation on “issues and options” relating to this DPD. However, it is anticipated that the DPD will take at least two years to become formal policy, as it relies upon the successful adoption of the draft Local Plan, entitled “Bearing Fruits,” which is unlikely to be formally agreed until at least late this year.

Para. 22 - Local planning authorities should consider the following issues amongst other relevant matters when considering planning applications for traveller sites:

1. the existing level of local provision and need for sites 2. the availability (or lack) of alternative accommodation for the applicants 3. other personal circumstances of the applicant 4. that the locally specific criteria used to guide the allocation of sites in plans or which form the policy where there is no identified need for pitches/plots should be used to assess applications that may come forward on unallocated sites 5. that they should determine applications for sites from any travellers and not just those with local connections

Para. 23 - Local planning authorities should strictly limit new traveller site development in open countryside that is away from existing settlements or outside areas allocated in the development plan. Local planning authorities should ensure that sites in rural areas respect the scale of, and do not dominate the nearest settled community, and avoid placing an undue pressure on the local infrastructure.

Regard should also be had to the guidance in the Communities and Local Government document, ‘Designing Gypsy and Traveller Sites: Good Practice Guide’ (2008).

Local Policy

iv) The Swale Borough Local Plan 2008

SBLP Policy E7 seeks to resist development that results in the merging of settlements or results in the encroachment or piecemeal erosion of land or its rural open and undeveloped character or, prejudice the Council’s strategy for the redevelopment of urban sites.

SBLP Policy E9 seeks to protect the quality and character of the Borough’s Landscape. Within the Countryside and rural settlements, the Borough will expect development proposals to be informed by local landscape quality and character, consider the landscape character SPD, safeguard and enhance landscape elements 99

that contribute to the distinctiveness of the locality or the Borough, remove features which detract from the character of the landscape and minimise the adverse impacts of development upon the landscape character.

SBLP Policy E11 seeks to protect and enhance the Borough’s Biodiversity and Geological Interests. Policies E14 and E15 seek to conserve and enhance the setting of Conservation Areas and listed buildings.

Policy H4 had largely been superseded by ODPM Circular 01/2006. However that has itself largely been superseded by the newly published Planning Policy for Traveller Sites.

SBLP Policy E19 requires development proposals to be well designed.

SBLP Policy T3 requires adequate parking to be provided.

v) Bearing Fruits 2031

The Council’s Draft Core Strategy has now been replaced by the emerging draft Local Plan, entitled Bearing Fruits 2031, part 1 of which was sent out for consultation 100

in August last year. The emerging nature of the document is such, however, that it cannot be afforded significant weight in the determination of planning applications such as this.

Policy DM10 of the emerging Local Plan aims to provide pitches for gypsies and travellers as part of new residential developments, stating:

Draft policy DM9 requires applications for affordable housing / gypsy and traveller pitches within rural areas to demonstrate that:

Policy DM 30 - Development on agricultural land will only be permitted when there is an overriding need that cannot be met on land within the built-up area boundaries. Development on best and most versatile agricultural land (specifically Grades 1, 2 and 3a) will not be permitted unless: 1. The site is allocated for development by the Local Plan; 2. There is no alternative site on land of a lower grade than 3a; or 3. Use of land of a lower grade would significantly and demonstrably work against the achievement of sustainable development; and 4. The development will not result in the remainder of the agricultural holding becoming not viable.

101

The following policies are also relevant – DM14 (general development criteria); DM15 (design); DM27 (biodiversity); DM31 (listed Buildings) and; DM32 (Conservation Area).

vi) Corporate Policy

The policy is based on meeting the predicted site needs from the Council’s original GTAA (and was designed to meet the expected RSS figures) and whilst the Circular advocated a site allocations policy, the Council’s policy explains that the combination of the wide range of pitch numbers potentially required, and the Council’s good record of approving small private sites, meant that at that stage a site allocations approach was not the right way forward for Swale. The Council undertook a full survey of potential sites against a set of criteria in accordance with Government guidance. This included a review of current temporary permissions and an assessment of the potential of publicly owned land to meet the identified need. This, together with finding a solution for a persistent group of families at Sittingbourne (who were responsible for the vast majority of the unauthorised encampments in the Borough), was expected to see the Council making adequate provision to meet needs.

Potentially acceptable sites were then been assessed against a range of criteria including ownership (deliverability), utilities, highway issues, landscape impact and ease of access to local services. These assessments are a simple but objective measure of the likely suitability of each site, but are not intended to be the sole consideration in determining planning applications, which remain to be determined on their own merits. Some sites have been excluded from these assessments at the first stage due to flood risk or national or international nature conservation grounds, serious landscape or heritage impact or site suitability over a range of issues.

The Corporate Policy produced a schedule of possible sites to address local need, and these were published in the March 2010 Gypsy and Traveller Corporate Policy Site Assessment Consultation. The result of public consultation on that schedule and the assessment scores of potential sites was considered by the Council on 7 October 2010.

The Local Development Framework Panel at its meeting on 7 October 2012 accepted the following recommendations:

102

(2) That sites to be removed from the Site Assessment process in Appendix 2 be agreed. (3) That assessment work so far and consultation responses as evidence base for the LDF be noted. (4) That the Corporate Policy and Site Assessment be reviewed when new national guidance is produced. (5) That consideration of the Borough's pitch numbers be resolved when new national guidance is produced. (6) That the unapproved draft of Core Strategy policy be received for initial comments.”

The Corporate Policy has in my view been largely successful in guiding the provision of gypsy and traveller sites. Currently, the Council has granted planning permission for the following since 2006:

18 permanent sites – comprising 117 caravans equating to 68 pitches; and 12 Temporary sites – comprising 25 caravans equating to 15 pitches

(iv) GTAA 2013

In response to national policy and to gain a greater understanding of the Borough’s need for pitch provision, the Council were required to produce a Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment (GTAA), which was completed in 2013. The GTAA looked at a number of factors such as household growth and the number of families moving in and out of the Borough. The study also involved interviewing 163 resident households (79% of the estimated resident Gypsy and Traveller community within the Borough) to find out what their future accommodation needs were. The majority of Gypsies and Travellers both in caravans and in housing have lived in Swale for over ten years. Whilst the study assumed that inward and outward migration from the Borough equalled each other, it is possible that migration levels could increase in the future requiring a review of the GTAA or a need to grant planning permission for windfall sites - sites that come forward unexpectedly and get planning permission without first having been allocated for development in the Local Plan.

The GTAA concluded that the Borough requires 85 pitches to be provided from 1 April 2013 to 31 March 2031. This target has been adjusted to 82 pitches to reflect the granting of planning permission for three pitches between the survey base date February 2013 and 31 March 2013. An additional net 19 pitches have also been approved since 1 April 2013 but have not yet been developed. They are still included in the need figure and will be until they are developed.

103

At present, this Council is consulting on an issues and options paper relating to Part 2 of the Local Plan: Gypsy and Traveller site allocations. The closing date for this consultation is Friday 25th April 2014. This document will eventually identify and allocate sufficient sites to meet the future needs of Gypsies and Travellers in the Borough until 2031. The document recommends a new methodology for how to assess site suitability for determining whether or not to allocate a site. For completeness, I have appended a copy of the standard new methodology uncompleted (Appendix B) and have also carried out a completed assessment (Appendix C) for this site.

Swale Landscape Character and Biodiversity Appraisal SPD 2011

The site is identified as lying across the boundary of two character areas - Hartlip Downs and Newington Fruit Belt. The Hartlip Downs is noted as being in good condition good and moderate sensitivity to change. The SDP recommends conserving and reinforcing the character of the landscape. The Newington Fruit Belt The SPD recommends conserving and reinforcing the character of the area.

Discussion

The key issues for Members to consider here are the principle of the development, its impact on visual amenities/the character and appearance of the area, the impact on residential amenities, the impact on highway safety/amenity, the impact on the Hartlip Conservation Area and the setting of listed buildings and lastly, the impact on the AONB and SSSI.

Principle

It is prudent to comment on the impact of the loss of agricultural land. Many of the objections raise the point that the land is grade 1 in respect of its agricultural quality and in this respect would be the ‘best and most versatile’ land. Paragraph 112 of the NPPF states that ‘Local planning authorities 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.’ I am of the view that this borough’s need for the provision of gypsy pitches outweighs the economic and other benefits that the retention of this land for agriculture would have. In this respect, I consider that the loss of this agricultural land would be acceptable.

The site is not located in an area at risk of flooding, nor is it located in a nationally designated area relating to landscape or biodiversity. The site can therefore be considered further for its appropriateness as a gypsy site.

As set out above, the PPTS states that sites in the open countryside, away from settlements should be strictly controlled. In my opinion, this strand of the current policy has three purposes. Firstly, it seeks to ensure that visual harm to the countryside is minimised. I deal with the visual impact of this proposal below.

104

Secondly, I consider that it seeks to ensure that sites are not isolated from the settled community and thirdly, in my view, it seeks to ensure that sites are approved in sustainable locations.

This site is located a walking distance of some 1.3km to Gore Farm Farmshop, 2.6 km to the centre of Rainham - the closest town to the site and a further approx. 0.5 km to a school and doctors surgery, dentist etc. The journey for a pedestrian travelling to Rainham would be via a short stretch of Spade Lane, a narrow, unlit and sometimes busy rural lane, then along the unlit public footpath ZR75 and then along South Bush Lane (very narrow although less busy than Spade Lane and unlit) and then finally along London Road which has a pavement. The ease, safety and usability of this pedestrian route is therefore varied but I would argue that this, and the distances cited above, counts against this location as being ‘within a reasonable walking distance’ of local services and amenities. The site is a walking distance of 1.13km from Hartlip accessed mostly via unlit public footpaths ZR75, 74 and 77 and short stretches of rural lanes (also unlit). Hartlip has a primary school but is lacking in other services and amenities. Whilst I acknowledge that the application site is less remote from, and easier to walk to Hartlip, than Rainham, the lack of services and amenities in Hartlip Village is a significant concern.

The site is remote in this respect and apart from a scattering of residential properties along Spade Lane and South Bush Lane, would be remote from other properties and settlements. Member will note that the site does not score particularly well under the site assessment at appendix A and would fail at stage 2 of the site assessment at appendix B. For this reason I consider that the site is unsustainable. I consider that the proposal would fail to constitute sustainable development and would be contrary to the NPPF, PPTS and Swale Borough Local Plan Policy H4 (and emerging policy DM10) in this respect. I would not therefore recommend that permanent planning permission is granted.

It follows that, if permanent planning permission is not to be granted, consideration has to be given as to whether temporary permission should be granted or whether the harm caused is so significant that permission should be refused.

In considering this, one must give significant weight to the requirement upon this council to identify a five year supply of gypsy pitches. Paragraph 25 states ‘… if a local planning authority cannot demonstrate an up–to-date five-year supply of deliverable sites, this should be a significant material consideration in any subsequent planning decision when considering applications for the grant of temporary planning permission.’

This Council cannot as yet demonstrate a five year supply of gypsy sites. The GTAA identifies a need for additional gypsy sites in the borough (82) until 2031. It is stated that it will take approximately 3-4 years to adopt the Development Plan Document which will identify suitable gypsy sites and ultimately demonstrate the five year supply. In the absence of such a supply of available alternative sites for the occupiers of this site to relocate to it will be difficult for officers to demonstrate that a refusal of permission here complies with policy.

105

At this stage it is worth noting that the applicant currently lives within a static caravan within the grounds of a property in Lower Halstow that is owned by the applicant’s father. The father is in the process of selling their property (including the land occupied by the static caravan) due to ill health and needing to ‘down-size’. The applicant will therefore have to vacate the land once the property is sold. The applicant currently owns the land and so it is readily available.

As I set out above, the PPTS sets out that, in determining applications, Local Planning Authorities have to be mindful of, and consider, amongst other things, the existing level of local provision and need for sites and the availability (or lack of) alternative accommodation for the applicants. There is a clear argument that, for all but the most very harmful of sites (flood risk/AONB/SSSI etc.), temporary planning permission should be granted.

Whilst I consider that the site is not suitable for a permanent planning permission, members must consider whether it causes such harm to justify refusal of temporary planning permission. I have identified some harm in respect of the remoteness of the site from local amenities etc. but do not consider that this would be so significant that a temporary permission could not be granted. I set out below that there is no other significant harm identified and no harm that could not be mitigated to some degree. In this regard, I have recommended that the applicant be allowed to use the site in the manner set out in the application for no more than three years.

Gypsy Status

At this stage, it is prudent to address the concerns of many of the local residents and Hartlip Parish Council who question the gypsy status of the applicant. Members will note that I have recommended a condition to ensure that the site is only occupied by persons falling within the definition of a gypsy as set out in the PPTS –

“Persons of nomadic habit of life whatever their race or origin, including such persons who on grounds only of their own or their family’s or dependants’ educational or health needs or old age have ceased to travel temporarily or permanently, but excluding members of an organised group of travelling showpeople or circus people travelling together as such.”

The application is accompanied by a planning statement within which some information about the gypsy status of the applicant is provided. According to this document, the applicant’s parents were fruit pickers within Kent and the family first settled in Sittingbourne in 1985. The applicant has also worked as a fruit picker and tractor driver and occasional lorry driver but now works in the local area. The applicant and his family travel to gypsy fairs regularly. The two daughters are privately tutored and are hoping to take equestrian exams in the future. The family hope to keep horses on the adjacent field. The applicant has provided the following additional information:

 We do not travel as much as we used to because of my daughters education, our parents illness and work commitments in the local area.

106

 We do not live in a permanent dwelling we live in a mobile home adjacent to home farm.  We travel to gypsy fairs to teach our children about the Romany way of life and traditions but sometimes it can turn into work i.e buying and selling.  We are going to maintain our nomadic way of life as much as possible but because of my dad’s ill health, both my daughters education and my work here I need to be settled here now.  Me and my son are both working locally and will be for the foreseeable future.  My daughters are sixteen and will be in education for at least another two years maybe more, they are currently not in mainstream school and are privately tutored as a private tutor fitted in better with our nomadic way of life but they are both now working towards their GCSE’s and will be attending colleges in the area.  It’s very important to me that my children learn the traditions and the ways of the old Romany way of life, but we now feel it is time to put down roots and settle in the area for all of the above reasons and live, integrate and be accepted as part of the local community.  Due to my father in laws ill health he has now retired and I have taken over the business which has been running for more than twenty years and all the clients are in the local area…. also home farm is owned by my dad which we have always been lucky enough to use as a base but due to his ill health is now looking to downsize so this being one of the major reasons we need to relocate.

I am of the view that the above information is sufficient to demonstrate that the applicant is a gypsy and that they have gypsy status.

Visual impact

The site is currently relatively exposed to view from Spade Lane. The applicant proposes to increase the landscaping along the boundaries of the site and I consider that this will help to reduce the visual impact on the proposed caravans and utility block. I have recommended a condition to ensure that appropriate landscaping and boundary treatment is put in place. Although there would be some harm to visual amenities and the rural character of the landscape, I am of the view that this can be mitigated against to some degree with the use of landscaping and in this respect the harm would not be significant.

Residential amenities

The site does not adjoin any residential properties and I am of the view that any noise and activity associated with the residential use of the site would be very limited and no greater than one might expect to experience from any other residential site. Members will note that I have recommended a condition to ensure that there is no commercial activity at the site.

107

Highway safety/amenity

The proposal would generate only a small amount of traffic in my view. The level of traffic would be insignificant in my view. Kent Highway Services have raised no objection and I have recommended a condition to ensure that adequate sight lines are provided at the existing access. An amended plans showing these sight line has been requested.

Impact on conservation area/listed buildings

The distances between the application site, listed buildings, including the Grade I listed church and Ivy Cottage (the closest listed building) and the Hartlip Conservation Area will ensure that there is no harm to the settings of these heritage assets in my opinion. I therefore consider that the settings of these heritage assets would be preserved.

Impact on AONB/SSSI

The application site is 1.1 km and 1.3 km from the AONB and SSSI respectively and outside of the SSSI consultation zone. I therefore consider that the proposal will have no detrimental impact on the interest features of these nationally designated areas.

Other issues

I have carried an assessment of the site against the Standing Advice from Natural England on the potential for protected species at this site. I am also mindful of the comments from the Parish Council and local residents that the site is a ‘wildlife corridor’ and that there have been sightings of badgers and owls. I have therefore asked the applicant to instruct a suitably qualified ecologist to carry out a phase one ecological assessment of the site to establish the likelihood of protected species being presents and/or using the site. This will recommend if further studies/surveys are required. This may in turn lead to a requirement for mitigation. Subject to the receipt of this phase one assessment and further survey work/mitigation if required, I consider that there would be no significant harm to ecology and biodiversity at the site.

With regards to utilities, according to the applicant, the site is already connected to a water supply. Electricity can and will be supplied by Power Networks, (this has already been approved). Gas will be supplied by calor delivered to the site twice a year and stored in a 2000 litre tank, this is already approved.

Many local residents have raised the issue of oversubscribed local schools and the application putting more pressure on already stretched local services. Given the fact that the applicant has no children of primary school age and the fact that the two daughters are privately tutored, I do not anticipate there being any additional pressure on local schools as a consequence of a temporary planning permission here. I also note that the applicant already lives within the Swale Borough, in a

108

village close-by. They will already be registered at a local doctors/dentists and in this respect, there will be no additional pressure on local services.

Summary and Recommendation

Having considered the relevant planning policies, comments from consultees, local residents and the Parish Council, I am of the view that granting a permanent planning permission here would be unacceptable. However, I consider that the need for additional gypsy pitches across the borough significantly outweighs the harm that I have identified – remoteness of location. This need will eventually be met and therefore it is appropriate in my view to allow a temporary planning permission until the anticipated DPD is adopted. I have identified no significant harm to visual amenities, highway safety and amenity and no harm to residential amenities. Due to the distances between the application site and the Hartlip Conservation Area, listed buildings, the AONB and SSSI, I do not consider that the proposal will have any harm in respect of these considerations.

I have asked the applicant to provide further information in respect of the impact on ecology and biodiversity and ask Members to give Officer’s delegation to grant temporary planning permission subject to the receipt of plans showing sightlines at the access of 2.4 metres x 45m, to the receipt of an ecological survey identifying the potential for protected species at the site and to impose any additional conditions are added to mitigate any impact on ecology and biodiversity.

List of Backgrounds Documents

1. Application papers and correspondence for SW/13/1485 2. Application papers and correspondence for SW/07/0428 3. Application papers and correspondence for SW/07/0664 2. Application papers and correspondence for SW/13/1167

For information contact case officer Emma Eisinger

109

2.6 - Appendix A

Land at Spade Lane, Hartlip SITE SCORE – 23rd January 2014

General observations Comments

Parish Hartlip Full Address Land at Spade Lane, Hartlip, Sittingbourne, Kent. Me8 8PS Capacity of site to provide for approx Not Known caravans Is the site within any of the following No SSSI? Other European Designation Site? No Natural Conservation or Biodiversity No site? AONB? No Listed Buildings/Conservation No Areas/Scheduled Ancient Monument? Local Designated Wildlife Site? No Local Landscape Designation? No Local Plan Allocation? No What landscape character area does Hartlip Downs – condition good, the site fall within and what are the sensitivity moderate. Recommends relevant guidelines given by the conserve and reinforce. Swale Landscape Character Newington Fruit Belt – condition Assessment? moderate, sensitivity low. Recommends conserve and reinforce. Does the location meet the needs of Yes the prospective occupiers? Is the site existing or proposed? Proposed Is there potential for disturbance to No proposed occupiers e.g. Railway lines, industrial uses, busy roads? Any planning issues relating to No – other gypsy sites are a sufficient cumulative impact of successive distance away to ensure no sites within the same area? cumulative impact on the countryside.

110

2.6 - Appendix A

Site Availability

Site availability Yes/No Public/SBC/KCC ownership? No Is there a willing landowner? Yes Are the applicants in ownership? Yes No restrictive covenants or known No legal problems? Likely to be deliverable? Yes

Site Suitability

Site suitability Yes/No Utilities in place or easily provided? Yes Water (Taps etc) Yes Electricity Yes Gas bottle/tank or Oil tank Yes Drainage/Sewage (mains or cess Yes – septic tank pit?) Is site flat and stable surface? Yes If uneven, is there a flat surface n/a around proposed residences? Is site away from cliff edge/coastal No erosion? Is site outside flood zone 3 & 2? Yes Is site away from contaminated land? Yes If land is contaminated, is remediation viable? Is site on previously developed land? No

111

2.6 - Appendix A

Access and Parking

Access and parking Yes/No Is there a flat, usable access to the Yes site? If not, could one be provided? Are the surrounding roads usable? Yes e.g. not unmade, not dirt tracks and passable in bad weather? Are there parking areas on the site? Yes If not, can they be provided? Is there space for turning vehicles? Yes Is there space for servicing or large Yes vehicles? Is there pedestrian access to the site? Yes Are there footpaths/bridle ways No across the site? Are any proposed accesses away Yes from neighbouring residences? Is there minimal anticipated noise and Yes disturbance from an access close to dwellings?

Landscaping

Landscaping Yes/No Is the site enclosed in any way or No screened from the road/residences? Is there any existing landscaping Yes features e.g. trees, hedgerow, fences? If not, can these be provided? Yes Are there any landscaping measures Yes proposed? Is the site within the boundary or No immediately adjacent to an urban area/settlement boundary? If not is the site within close proximity Yes (2km) to an urban area or settlement?

112

2.6 - Appendix A

Impact on Amenity

Impact on amenity Yes/No If any overlooking is anticipated, can n/a it be resolved e.g. landscaping? Are the proposed residences more yes than 6m from other residences on site or neighbouring? Is the site away from operational land Yes e.g. car parks, industrial uses?

Sustainability of Location

Sustainability of location Yes/No Is the site within a reasonable No – Rainham 2.6 km distance (2km) to a settlement which offers local services and community facilities? If not,what distance? Is the site within a reasonable distance (2km) to the following services?  Nursery/Primary School? Yes –1.1 km Hartlip Primary school  Secondary School? No  Doctors? Primary Health No Care?  Dentists? No  Food/Clothes and other Yes - Gore Farmshop shops?  Public transport links e.g. bus Yes stops/train station

Total

Total score 28

113

2.6 - Appendix B – example of uncompleted assessment Appendix

Gypsy

Stage 1 - Is the site available? and

raveller

Criteria and Issues Assessment Red – Does not meet Amber – May be capable of Green – Fully 1: Site references criteria meeting criteria meets criteria

Site

Assessment

Allocations: Availability Owner confirmed site not Site availability uncertain Willing landowner available, nor is likely to Is the site available and

become available over plan Issues and Options deliverable?

period T

able

Table 7.1 Site Assessment Table: Stage 1 - Site availability

February 2014 IF RED THE SITE SHOULD BE DISCOUNTED AT THIS STAGE. ALL OTHER SITES SHOULD PROCEED TO STAGE 2.

Stage 2 – Suitability/ Constraints

Criteria and Issues Assessment references in Red – Does not meet Amber – May be capable of Green – Fully addition to National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), criteria meeting criteria meets criteria National Planning Guidance (NPG)

114

2.6 - Appendix B – example of uncompleted assessment

Flood Zone Swale Strategic Flood Risk Flood zone 3 Flood zone 2 Flood zone 1

Assessment (SFRA) and Flooding and risk to Environment Agency guidance residents

Environmental Kent Downs AONB Management Site within designation Within close proximity of a Outside designated

Designations Plan 2009. Advice from Natural with unacceptable designated area area England and other environmental detrimental impact Impact on designations bodies

Landscape Swale Landscape Character and Unacceptable detrimental Potential landscape Site not within

Biodiversity Assessment 2010 impact on landscape impact likely to be designated area/ No Impact on landscape and Kent Downs AONB character or quality mitigated impact character or quality Management Plan 2009 including cumulative impacts

Biodiversity Advice from KCC Archaeology Unacceptable impact Impact likely to be No unacceptable

Officers, UK/ Kent/ Swale BAP, Impact on biodiversity of mitigated impact advice from Natural England and known protected species environmental bodies

115

2.6 - Appendix B – example of uncompleted assessment

Scale of site or multiple Officer assessment - considering Has significant Scale has some impact Scale has little or no sites quantity of existing sites against dominating effect impact on nearest scale and form of existing settlement Scale dominating nearest settlement and advice from settlement sites service providers

Archaeology and Heritage asset list and advice Unacceptable detrimental Possible impact /minor Not adjacent to

Conservation from heritage advisors impact on scheduled ancient impact on scheduled ancient Scheduled Ancient

monument/other heritage monument/other heritage Monument/other Impact on Scheduled Ancient asset/non designated asset/non designated heritage asset/non Monument or other heritage heritage assets heritage assets designated heritage asset/non designated heritage assets asset

Contamination Consult Land Contamination Site is contaminated and Site is or is potentially No known

Planning guidance Document cannot be mitigated contaminated - potential contamination issues Unacceptable living 2013 and Contaminated Land impact likely to be conditions Strategy 2010 mitigated

116

2.6 - Appendix B – example of uncompleted assessment

Noise and disturbance Consult Noise and Vibration: Site located adjacent to Site located adjacent to No noisy adjacent issues Planning Guidance Document noisy land use – cannot be noisy land use - potential land uses

2013 mitigated impact likely to be mitigated Unacceptable living or low level conditions

Site access and safety Any transport information Remote location Some access to road network Good site and road submitted and Kent Highways accessed by unmade and site – potentially access and no Access/Proximity to major Services assessment/advice roads/ poor roads or requiring mitigation or significant highway roads and pedestrian unresolvable highway highway safety issue and safety concerns routes safety issue possibly capable of mitigation

Accessibility to facilities Desk top review None or few within Walking distance to most All within reasonable

reasonable walking services walking distance GP surgery, Primary distance School, Shops, Public Transport

Table 7.1 Site Assessment Table: Stage 2 - Suitability IF RED THE SITE SHOULD BE DISCOUNTED AT THIS STAGE. ALL OTHER SITES SHOULD PROCEED TO STAGE 3. 117

2.6 - Appendix B – example of uncompleted assessment Appendix Stage 3 - More detailed site suitability Gypsy

Criteria and Issues Assessment references Red – Does not meet criteria Amber – May be capable Green- Fully meets and

raveller

of meeting criteria criteria 1: Site Topography Site survey by Officers Steep slope which makes site Sloping land which may Level or gently

unsuitable require works to make site sloping site Site and landscape evidence

Assessment

Uneven or unsafe ground Allocations: submitted suitable for use levels and structures Residential Amenity Officers’ assessment - same Close proximity to existing Some impact on residential No impact on

as housing, overlooking, adjacent uses especially amenity – likely to be residential Issues and Options Impact on amenity of

residential properties where mitigated or low level amenity T disturbance from vehicle able proposed and existing movements, loss of light, any potential impact (light, residents overcrowding etc visual, other disturbance).

February 2 Has unacceptable impact which cannot be mitigated

014 Not applicable as a reason Yes – most (3 or 4) Yes – all Utilities Site visit and utility providers advice for discounting a site Electricity, Gas, Water,

Drainage/ Sewers (mains or cesspit)

118

2.6 - Appendix B – example of uncompleted assessment

Site capable of live/ work Site visit/ Not applicable as a reason No or maybe Yes submitted details for discounting a site mix

Priority for sustainable locationsParking Site visit and Not applicable as a reason No or inadequate parking/ Sufficient parking and turning Kent Highways for discounting a site turning or potential to space Services advice Sufficient parking and provide parking and turning space turning space

Landscaping Site visit and Not applicable as a reason No soft landscaping/ Site has existing soft Swale for discounting a site landscaping could impact landscaping/ option to provide Landscape Character and Sufficient landscaping for on landscape character soft landscaping Biodiversity Assessment amenity/impact on area 2010, Planting on New landscape character Developments: A Guide for

Developers

119

Appendix

Gypsy 2.6 - Appendix C – completed assessment

APPENDIX C –completed assessment and

Stage 1 - Is the site available? raveller

1: Site

Criteria and Issues Assessment Red – Does not meet Amber – May be capable of Green – Fully

Site

Assessment

references criteria meeting criteria meets criteria Allocations:

Availability Willing landowner

Issues and Options Is the site available and

able deliverable?

IF RED THE SITE SHOULD BE DISCOUNTED AT THIS STAGE. ALL OTHER SITES SHOULD PROCEED TO STAGE 2. February 2014

Stage 2 – Suitability/ Constraints

120

2.6 - Appendix C – completed assessment

Flood Zone Swale Strategic Flood Risk Flood zone 1

Assessment (SFRA) and Flooding and risk to Environment Agency guidance residents

Environmental Kent Downs AONB Management Outside designated

Designations Plan 2009. Advice from Natural area Gypsy

England and other environmental and Impact on designations

bodies raveller

Landscape Swale Landscape Character and Site not within Appendix

Site

Biodiversity Assessment 2010 designated area/ No Allocations: Impact on landscape and Kent Downs AONB impact character or quality

1: Site

Management Plan 2009

Issues and Options

Biodiversity Advice from KCC Archaeology Impact likely to be Assess Officers, UK/ Kent/ Swale BAP, Impact on biodiversity of mitigated advice from Natural England and known protected species

environmental bodies ment

February 2014

able

121

Appendix

2.6 - Appendix C – completed assessment Gypsy

Scale of site or multiple Officer assessment - considering Scale has little or no impact and

T sites quantity of existing sites against or on nearest settlement raveller

1: Site scale and form of existing

Scale dominating nearest Site settlement and advice from

Assessment

settlement sites Allocations: service providers

Archaeology and Heritage asset list and advice Possible impact /minor Issues and Options

Conservation from heritage advisors impact on scheduled

able ancient monument/other

Impact on Scheduled Ancient heritage asset/non Monument or other heritage

designated heritage assets February 2014 asset/non designated heritage asset

Contamination Consult Land Contamination No known contamination issues

Planning guidance Document Unacceptable living 2013 and Contaminated Land conditions Strategy 2010

122

2.6 - Appendix C – completed assessment

Noise and disturbance Consult Noise and Vibration: No noisy adjacent

issues Planning Guidance Document land uses

2013 Unacceptable living

conditions

Site access and safety Any transport information Good site and road submitted and Kent Highways access and no Access/Proximity to major Services assessment/advice significant highway roads and pedestrian safety concerns routes

Accessibility to facilities Desk top review None or few within

reasonable walking GP surgery, Primary distance School, Shops, Public Transport

Table 7.1 Site Assessment Table: Stage 2 - Suitability IF RED THE SITE SHOULD BE DISCOUNTED AT THIS STAGE. ALL OTHER SITES SHOULD PROCEED TO STAGE 3.

123

Appendix

2.6 - Appendix C – completed assessment Gypsy Stage 3 - More detailed site suitability

and

raveller

Criteria and Issues Assessment references Red – Does not meet criteria Amber – May be capable of Green- Fully meets 1: Site meeting criteria criteria

Site

Assessment

Allocations: Topography Site survey by Officers and Level or gently

landscape evidence sloping site Uneven or unsafe ground

submitted Issues and Options levels and structures

able

Residential Amenity Officers’ assessment - same as No impact on

housing, overlooking, residential

Impact on amenity of February 2014 disturbance from vehicle amenity proposed and existing movements, loss of light, residents overcrowding etc

Utilities Site visit and utility providers Yes – most (3 or 4)

advice Electricity, Gas, Water,

Drainage/ Sewers (mains or cesspit)

124

2.6 - Appendix C – completed assessment

Table 7.1 Site Assessment Table: Stage 3 - Detailed suitability

Site capable of live/ work Site visit/ submitted Yes details

mix

Priority for Gypsy

sustainable

and

locationsParking Site visit and Kent Sufficient parking T

Highways veller and turning space Services advice

Appendix Sufficient parking and Site

Allocations: turning space

Landscaping Site visit and Swale Site has existing

1: Site

Landscape Character and soft landscaping/ Issues and Options Sufficient landscaping for

Biodiversity Assessment option to provide amenity/impact on Assessment 2010, Planting on New soft landscaping landscape character Developments: A Guide for

February 2014 Developers

able

125

2.7 SW/14/0100 (Case 01372) Lower Halstow

Location : Stables rear of 82-84 School Lane, Lower Halstow, Sittingbourne, Kent, ME9 7ET

Proposal : Demolition of existing stables & erection of 4No detached dwellings & associated outbuilding, landscaping & adaption of existing access.

Applicant/Agent : I. Kemsley Farms Ltd, C/O Mr Tony Day, Alpha Design Studio Limited, 43 Park Road, Sittingbourne, Kent, ME10 1DY

Application Valid : 3 February 2014

8 Week Target : 31 March 2014

Subject to: the comments of local residents, the Council’s Tree Consultant, Kent Highway Services and the Lower Medway Internal Drainage Board (closing date 3rd March). The receipt of a preliminary ecological appraisal and any further ecological assessments/works required.

Conditions

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

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

2. Prior to the commencement of development, details of the external finishing materials to be used on the development hereby permitted shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details.

Grounds: In the interest of visual amenity

3. No development shall take place until details have been submitted to the Local Planning Authority and approved in writing, which set out what measures have been taken to ensure that the development incorporates sustainable construction techniques such as water conservation and recycling, renewable energy production including the inclusion of solar thermal or solar photo voltaic installations, and energy efficiency. Upon approval, the details shall be incorporated into the development as approved.

Grounds: In the interest of promoting energy efficiency and sustainable development. 126

4. No development shall take place until full details of both hard and soft landscape works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. These details shall include existing trees, shrubs and other features, planting schedules of plants, noting species, plant sizes and numbers where appropriate, means of enclosure, hard surfacing materials, and an implementation programme.

Grounds: In the interests of the visual amenities of the area.

5. All hard and soft landscape works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. The works shall be carried out prior to the occupation of any part of the development or in accordance with the programme agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.

Grounds: In the interests of the visual amenities of the area.

6. Upon completion of the approved landscaping scheme, any trees or shrubs that are removed, dying, being severely damaged or becoming seriously diseased within five years of planting shall be replaced with trees or shrubs of such size and species as may be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority, and within whatever planting season is agreed.

Grounds: In the interests of the visual amenities of the area.

7. All asbestos shall be safely removed from the application site prior to the occupation of any of the dwellings hereby permitted.

Grounds: To protect human health.

8. The area shown on the submitted layout as vehicle parking space, car ports and courtyard turning shall be provided, surfaced and drained before the development is occupied, and shall be retained for the use of the occupiers of, and visitors to, the dwellings, and no permanent development, whether or not permitted by the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order), shall be carried out on that area of land so shown or in such a position as to preclude vehicular access to the reserved parking spaces.

Grounds: Development without provision of adequate accommodation for the parking and turning of vehicles is likely to lead to parking inconvenient to other road users and be detrimental to highway safety and amenity.

127

9. Notwithstanding the provisions of Class A, Part 2, Schedule 2, of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (as amended) or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order, no fences, gates walls or other means of enclosure shall be erected within the application site without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority.

Grounds: In the interests of visual amenity.

10. Upon completion, no further development, whether permitted by Classes A, B, C or D of Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (as amended) (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order) or not, shall be carried out without the prior permission in writing of the Local Planning Authority.

Grounds: To prevent later additions to the property that would harm residential amenity.

11. No development shall take place until full details of the method of disposal of foul and surface waters have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The approved details shall be implemented before the first use of the development hereby permitted.

Grounds: In order to prevent the development creating and or exacerbating flooding and sewerage issues in the surrounding area.

12. All external windows and doors shall be of timber construction. Detailed drawings at an appropriate scale of all external window and door joinery work and fittings together with sections through glazing bars, frames and mouldings shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority before any development takes place. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Grounds: In the interests of securing an appropriate finish to the approved design.

13. No development shall take place until constructional details at an appropriate scale of the eaves have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Grounds: In the interests of securing an appropriate finish to the approved design.

14. Prior to the commencement of development elevations and a plan of the bin store hereby permitted shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall proceed in accordance with the approved details.

Grounds: In the interest of visual amenity. 128

15. No construction work in connection with the development shall take place on any Sunday or Bank Holiday, nor on any other day except between the following times :-

Monday to Friday 0730 - 1800 hours, Saturdays 0830 - 1300 hours unless in association with an emergency or with the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority.

Grounds : In the interests of residential amenity.

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

Grounds : In the interests of residential amenity.

17. The development shall proceed in accordance with the following approved plan numbers; 1283/1, /2, /3, /4, /5, /6 rev B, /7, /8 and /9.

Grounds: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.

Informatives

Kent County Council Public Rights of Way Officer wishes to make the applicant aware that this planning permission confers no consent or right to disturb or divert any Public Right of Way at any time without the express permission of the Highway Authority. The applicants attention is drawn to the contents of the associated KCC letter dated 14th February 2014.

Southern Water advise that the applicant contacts them to discuss water main implications on 0330 303 0119 or www.southernwater.co.uk .

Council’s approach to this application

129

In this case the applicant was made aware of the need for amended drawings and a preliminary ecological appraisal.

Description of Proposal

This application seeks planning permission for the demolition of the existing stables and the erection of 4no detached dwellings and associated outbuilding, landscaping and adaption of existing access at stables to the rear of 82-84 School Lane, Lower Halstow.

The design is intended to be sympathetic to the rural vernacular of the area. It employs simple forms and arrangements related to farm buildings, courtyards and rural areas to respond to the built up area to the north and countryside to the south. A buttress wall along the access track provides privacy and a sense of arrival into the courtyard.

House one would have 3 bedrooms. It would join the buttress wall on the western side of the development. It would measure 11.5 metres long, 6 metres wide and 6.5 metres to ridge height. It would feature traditional details such as wooden shutters, weatherboarding, exposed rafters, a partial first floor over-hang and a barn hoist arm to the roof.

To the south east would be houses two and three which are joined by a connecting roof. The dwellings are set out in a loose ‘T’ shape with single storey projections to the side and rear. Each would have 4 bedrooms and feature similar traditional design features. This block would be 22 metres long, 14.5 metres wide and 7.5 metres to ridge when measured at its largest points.

House four is to the southern boundary of the site and again has 4 bedrooms plus a connected home office/workshop and double car port. It would measure 6 metres wide, 15 metres long and 7 metres to ridge.

The materials to be used include plain clay and natural slates to the roof, feather edged featherboarding and yellow stock bricks to the walls and green painted joinery.

The plans show 10 car parking spaces within the courtyard which include 2 spaces in a car port, 3 spaces to the front of house 3, and a block of 5 spaces between houses 1 and 2. The plans also show 4 cycle parking spaces for each dwelling.

The boundary treatment is provided by the buttressed wall to the west with a 1.8 metre high close boarded fence to the southern end of this, a 1.2 metre high post and rail fence to the southern and eastern boundaries, and a 1.8 metre high close boarded fence to the northern boundary.

Indicative landscaping is shown on the submitted block plan including the retention of trees along the northern boundary with reinforced planting where necessary. Each dwelling would have irregular shaped but significant garden space to the rear and side. Refuse storage is shown to the west of the buttress wall. 130

The existing access track and public right of way would be widened to 4.5 metres reducing to 3.5 metres at the entrance to the courtyard. It would be surfaced in tar and gravel surface dressing. An earth farm track and public right of way would remain beyond the vehicle access to the courtyard. The pedestrian footpath along School Lane would be extended into the adapted access road.

Relevant Site History & Description

The application site is located to the rear of 82 and 84 School Lane and is accessed via an unmade track which leads to the complex of stables and hay stores which are in a relatively poor state of repair. The track is also a public right of way.

The land rises fairly significantly from a low point along School Lane to a high point along the southern boundary of the application site. There is a stream to the west of the application site. The surrounding area is residential in nature and characterised by bungalows along the southern side of School Lane and two storey houses to the north side.

The application site is located almost entirely within the built up boundary of Lower Halstow as defined by the Proposal Map of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008. Only a small band approximately 2 metres wide along the southern boundary of the application site is located within the countryside and strategic gap and this would be used as garden for house 4.

The application site has the following planning history;

 SW/87/0131- conversion of existing barn to single dwelling- refused.  SW/88/1421- erection of two detached houses- refused.

These applications were, in part, refused because they sat outside the built up area boundary at the time whereas the majority of the site is now inside.

Views of Consultees

Lower Halstow Parish Council object to the application on the following summarised grounds;

 Proposal out of character with adjoining properties and will be higher due to land levels and will dominate views.  Too high density compared to surrounding properties.  Proposal visible from one of main amenity spaces in the village and the wall will harm views from recreation ground.  Insufficient sight lines.  Increased traffic, insufficient parking for visitors and deliveries will exacerbate existing parking problems.  PROW would be behind large wall and proposal not compliant with secured by design.  Increase pressure for places on schools and sewage facilities. 131

 Proposal will flood and increase flooding for nearby properties due to natural surface. A nearby new property flooded recently.  There is no ecological report. There are bats, newts and frogs in the area and the impact on flora and fauna should be assessed.

The Head of Service delivery raises no objection subject to the above conditions relating to hours of construction and dust suppression.

The Environment Agency has no comment to make.

Kent County Council Public Rights of Way Officer (PROW) states that the alignment of the PROW is along the farm track rather than adjacent to it and no objection is raised to the proposal or the resurfacing of the PROW. The letter goes on to state that there should be no disturbance of the surface of the PROW, or obstruction of its use, either during or following any approval. Should a temporary closure of the PROW be required to enable the construction of the development an application should be made to the PROW office at least 6 weeks before the closure. The above informative is attached as required.

Southern Water raises no objection subject to the above informative.

I am currently awaiting the comments of the Council’s Tree Consultant, Kent Highway Services and the Lower Medway Internal Drainage Board (closing date for comments 3rd March) and will update Members at the Meeting.

Other Representations

Six letters of objection and one letter containing general comments have been received which are summarised as follows;

 Object to any further development in School Lane.  Traffic is heavy and fast.  Quality of life is reduced where once there was peace.  The site is the last arable land in the village.  Leave us with our village status.  Our house was designed with openings to overlook the fields.  Surprised that village boundary was moved. Future changes could lead to more development. Lower Halstow and Newington villages could join up in the future.  Loss of green agricultural land.  Design not in keeping with bungalows nearby.  I was refused permission to build a house at 82 School Lane as it was not in keeping with height of adjacent properties. A bungalow was constructed instead.  Height and elevated position of proposal will lead to loss of light to our house and garden.  Use of light and air from adjoining land is protected under common law.

132

 Invasion of privacy including overlooking into rear openings to the detriment of quality of life and enjoyment of our home and family life.  Buttress wall not in keeping with existing properties which are open plan and will block light to our property.  Buttress wall and properties 1 and 2 will overshadow our house and block views over fields.  Site drainage is a problem and will be exacerbated.  Loss of wildlife habitat including bat, owls and bird impacts.  Lack of parking in development and will overflow on to the road which is dangerous for road safety.  After the affordable housing survey concluded it was not worth building because there are little local jobs it is a shame to see this proposal. It’s a shame an executive development will take up precious land.  Concerns the enforced relocation of the current tenants of the stables.

Policies

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)

The NPPF is relevant in relation to sustainable development, housing provision, flooding and design.

Swale Borough Local Plan 2008

Policies SP4, E1, E6, E7, E10, E11, E19, H2, RC10, T3 and T4 are relevant to the proposal.

The Council’s adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance entitled ‘Designing an Extension: A Guide for Householders’ also offers relevant advice in that windows to the rear should be at least 21 metres from the windows of other houses to the rear.

Discussion

Principle of development

The proposal is located almost entirely within the built up area boundary where the principle of residential development is considered to be acceptable. The harm caused by the small section of land within the countryside and strategic gap to be used as garden on the southern boundary of the application site has to be weighed against the wider benefits of the proposal. The inclusion into the countryside is fairly minimal and in my view an application for change of use of this small strip of land would be approved.

Residential amenity

House 1 is positioned at an angle to 82 School Lane and there is a 15 metre separation distance. However, the side projection of 82 comprises a garage and utility room which are non-habitable rooms. The nearest habitable room window of 82 to house one is the rear facing kitchen window which is 21 metres away and is 133

set at an angle. The existing boundary vegetation would be retained and enhanced. In my opinion this would not result in a significant overlooking problem.

There is also a 21 metre rear habitable room window to window gap between house 2 and 82 School Lane, increasing to 25 metres between house 2 and 84 School Lane. In my opinion this would not result in a significant overlooking problem.

Having regard to the change in land levels, the separation distances and positioning of openings it is my view that the proposal would not give rise to significant harm to residential amenity by way of overlooking, loss of day or sun light or loss of outlook.

Design

The proposal is well designed. It would create an attractive form of development on this edge of village location that provides an intermediary between the suburban housing to the north fronting School Lane and the open countryside to the south. The design is appropriate to the location and in my opinion reflects Kentish rural vernacular in terms of building form, layout and finishing materials.

Streetscene and visual amenity

The proposal would be relatively visible from School Lane because it is two storey whereas the properties fronting School Lane are bungalows. However, this visual impact would not be significant or harmful in my opinion. There will also be some impact from house 1, the outbuilding for house 4 and the buttress wall when the development is viewed from the public right of way and the School Lane near the stream. Given the sensitive design employed the impact in this regard is minimal in my opinion.

The topography of the land works in favour of the proposal because the significant increase in land levels to the south screens the proposal from far reaching views from the south thus minimising the visual amenity impact in my view. The boundary treatment of post and wire fencing to the southern and eastern boundaries reduces visual impact.

The impact on the streetscene and visual amenity are in my view acceptable.

Highway safety and convenience

Kent Highway Services are yet to comment in this regard and I will update Members at the meeting. The provision of at least two car parking spaces per dwelling does though accord with adopted Kent Highway Service standards.

Other considerations

The Environment Agency considers the proposal to be low risk and therefore makes no comment.

134

Having regard to the standing advice of Natural England a preliminary ecological appraisal is required to assess the potential for protected species within the existing buildings to be demolished and the wider application site. The site is also adjacent to farmland and a stream which means there could be strong potential for bats and owls to reside within the building, amongst others. Should this report suggest further assessments are needed, they will also need to be submitted to the Council and their findings considered prior to determination of the application. Any mitigation measures if necessary will need to be required by condition of any permission granted.

The impact on the Public Right of Way is considered acceptable by KCC.

The impact on the existing trees to be retained is to be considered by the Council’s Tree Consultant. I will update Members at the Meeting.

The foul and surface water drainage condition recommended above will enable the Council to ensure that the proposal does not give rise to on or off site flooding which is particularly important given the sloping nature of the site and its position next to a stream and other houses. The method of disposal of foul water also needs to be fully detailed because a packaged treatment plant is proposed.

Recommendation

I am seeking delegation to approve this application subject to the comments listed above and the submission of a preliminary ecological appraisal and any further ecological assessments/works required.

The proposal is acceptable in principle in my opinion. The impact on residential amenity would be acceptable in my view. The design is appropriate within this setting. The proposal would not give rise to significant harm to the visual amenities or streetscene of the area. The impact on highway safety and convenience, ecology and other outstanding issues are to be considered upon receipt of relevant consultee comments.

Having regard to all material planning considerations, I recommend, subject to the receipt of outstanding representations, the above planning conditions and to any additional appropriate conditions that planning permission is granted.

List of Backgrounds Documents

1. Application papers and correspondence for SW/14/0100, SW/88/1421 and SW/87/0131.

For information contact case officer: Martin Evans

135

2.8 SW/13/0435 (Case 02712) Iwade

Location : Sittingbourne Speedway, Marshbank, Old Ferry Road, Iwade, Sittingbourne, Kent, ME9 8SW

Proposal : Use of land for the holding of a maximum of 14 public/league speedway events between 1st April and 31st October including up to 2 sundays per month in addition to the lawful use and use of central grassed area for youth football training

Applicant/Agent : Mr G Arnold, C/o Mr Mike Goddard, Goddard Planning Consultancy, 16 Dover Street, Canterbury, Kent, CT1 3HD

Application Valid : 12 April 2013

8 Week Target : 07 June 2013

13 Week Date: 12 July 2013

Conditions

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

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

2. This permission shall enure solely for the benefit of Sittingbourne Speedway Club and for no other persons.

Grounds: As permission has only been granted in recognition of the special circumstances of Sittingbourne Speedway Club and the Club’s commitment to the responsible management of the site.

3. The use hereby permitted shall cease on or before 28th February 2017.

Grounds: To allow the Local Planning Authority to monitor the operation of and noise from the site during this temporary period and give further consideration to the proposed use in the light of such monitoring.

136

4. Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 3 and Schedule 2 Part 3 or Part 4 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (as amended), the site shall not be used for any purpose other than motor cycle racing (including practice for those purposes) and youth football training without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority.

Grounds: To control the use of the site in the interests of the amenities of the nearby residents .

5. The use of the main speedway track for the approved events shall not take place outside the hours of 12.00 and 17.00 hours, no motorcycle used for speedway racing warm up or practice shall be started up on site before 11.50 hours. All motorcycle engines used in connection with speedway racing and practice shall be turned off within a maximum period of four hours of the first motorcycle starting up.

Grounds: To control the use of the site in the interests of the amenities of nearby residents.

6. A schedule of the days on which the use of the track for race meetings is anticipated in any one year shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority not later than 31st March of that year. The Local Planning Authority shall be notified as soon as may be practicable of any change to the submitted schedule.

Grounds: For the avoidance of doubt

7 The use of the tannoy/public address system shall only be used during the 14 public / league events and shall be controlled so as not to be audible at the boundary of any residential property at any time.

Grounds: In the interests of the amenities of nearby residents

8 The public address system shall be used only on days on which speedway events take place and spectators are admitted to the site and shall be restricted to the period between the hours of 0900 hours and 1800 hours on weekdays and 1230 hours and 1800 hours on Sundays. Its use, except in the event of emergency, shall be limited to the purposes of commentary on racing and announcements. There shall be no amplified music played through the public address system or other loud speakers.

Grounds: In the interests of the amenities of nearby residents

137

9 All vehicles operating on the track shall be fitted with noise emission control equipment in accordance with the current Technical Regulations of the Speedway Control Board. Vehicles not complying with those regulations shall not be admitted to the track without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority.

Grounds: In the interests of the amenities of nearby residents

10 The areas shown on the submitted plan as parking space shall be used for or be available for such use at all times when the site is in use and no development, whether permitted by the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (as amended) or not, shall be carried out on that area of land or in such a position as to preclude vehicular access to this reserved area; such land and access thereto shall be provided in accordance with the application details.

Grounds: The development without the provision of the parking space would be detrimental to amenity and likely to lead to inconvenience and danger to road users by virtue of vehicles parked on the public highway .

11 No vehicle, caravan or mobile structure of any kind shall be stationed on the land for purposes ancillary to its use as a speedway track other than on a day on which the site is in use, without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority.

Grounds: In the interests of visual amenity

12 Litter disposal points shall be maintained in positions to be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority within one month of the date of this permission. All litter disposal points shall be cleared not later than 24 hours after the conclusion of a race meeting and no litter or other rubbish shall be burnt on the site.

Grounds: In the interests of visual amenity

13 On the day of each public race meeting signs shall be erected in accordance with a scheme to be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority to direct spectators into and out of the site.

Grounds: To ensure the proper management of traffic in the interests of the amenities of the area .

14 A scheme for the control of dust and other debris resulting from the use of the track shall be submitted to and agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority within one month of the date of this permission. Thereafter dust and other debris shall be controlled in strict accordance with the agreed scheme whenever the track is being used.

Grounds: In the interests of the amenities of nearby residents. 138

15. No klaxons or airhorns shall be used on the site at any time.

Grounds: In the interests of the amenities of nearby residents.

Council’s approach to this application

In this case the application was determined as submitted.

Description of Proposal

This is an application for the holding of up to a maximum of 14 public /league speedway events each year between1st April and 31st October on the main track, and the use of the grassed central area for youth football training at Sittingbourne Speedway, Marshbank, Old Ferry Road, Iwade.

The application is accompanied with a planning design and access statement which states that:

“2.1 Sittingbourne Speedway Club first used this former Second World War gun emplacement in 1971 and has continued to use it over the last 41 years. During that time it has run public events every year. These have varied in number and attendance. There have been period of league related activity.

2.2 In 2001, following a public inquiry, the appointed Inspector concluded that the track has a lawful use for speedway training, practicing and associated activities with occasional events ( see paragraph 16 of the Inspector’s letter). Later in that paragraph he stated that the probability is that over the relevant period a lawful use became established for speedway training and practicing , together with ancillary meetings on a limited number of occasions each year.

2.3 There is inevitable a difference of opinion between the local planning authority and the club as to what was precisely meant in the Inspector’s letter, by the term “a limited number of occasions each year”. Because of those differences and because of repeated representations by local residents, the Council has encouraged the club to regularise its use by applying for planning permission. It first sought to achieve this with an application which was resolved to be permitted by the Council in 2007.

4 The Proposals

139

4.1 There are three elements to the proposals and two separate applications are submitted to cover these.

4.2 The first application is in similar terms to the application first made in July 2007 for (i) no more than 24 public/league speedway events per annum on up to 2 Sundays per month between 1st April and 31st October .This is in addition to the accepted lawful use of the main track for speedway training, practising and associated activities with occasional events recognised by the Inspector in his 2001 decision letter. In addition, as part of the application we are seeking (ii) permission to use the central grassed area in the middle of the track for youth football training.

The Main Track 4.4 The proposals seek permission for 14 public/league speedway events during the period of 1st April and 31st October in addition to the lawful use. The events would be held on a Sunday .There would be up to 2 in each Sunday of each month .The application applies to the use of the main track only. No built development is involved.

4.5 The events are to take place over and above the lawful use of the track as established by the Inspector in 2001.It involves specific events, where teams attend and compete and where a significant number of people attend to watch the events: we have in mind a number in excess of 40 people, but much depends on the weather, dates, other fixtures and the teams involved.

4.6 The events themselves will be limited in duration. They would take place between the hours of 12 noon and 5pm.There would be no mid-week events .The club, as now, would notify nearby residents and the Council of the dates when the events are scheduled to take place.

4.14 We are also seeking permission to use the central grassed area in the middle of the main track for youth football training. This will be of benefit to local schools’ football and local community groups. It will make good use of an otherwise underused piece of land.

4.15 It is propose to use it (1) at weekends from 9am until early evenings ,(2) on weekday evenings after school for 3-4 hours and (3) on weekdays during school holidays.

4.16 The applicant has the support of the local Police Community Support Officer ,Trinity FC and Essex Sports Agency .”

Relevant Site History and Description

Members will be aware that this has been a site giving rise to planning problems for some years. The site has been used for speedway activities since 1971, comprising just one main “adult” track. The track itself therefore became exempt from Enforcement proceedings to secure its removal during the 1970’s. However, speedway activity intensified during the 1990’s and gave rise to increasing complaints from residents living nearby. 140

Members should note that the owner of this property submitted an application for a Lawful Development Certificate in 1994, for use of the site as a motor cycle track. There was no decision issued as a result, and no appeal followed. More recently, and of greater significance, an application was submitted in January 1995 for use as a speedway track, which was permitted in August 1995, subject to a number of conditions, including a temporary period only, expiring on 20 April 1997. As a consequence, during the period 1995-1997 inclusive, this site was used not only for practising and training, but also for motor cycle racing (in the summer months), for competitive league events. These meetings were open to the public at large on payment of an entrance fee, and were so licensed by the sport’s controlling body, whereas previously only a training license has been granted.

During the life of this consent an application was also made to retain the junior track, and to erect a stand for spectators. Both proposals were refused. A second, junior track was laid down around 1997 without planning permission.

Unauthorised bunds were created in 1998, and were the subject of successful enforcement action following an Appeal that year.

A brief chronology since that time reads as follows:

· February 2000: Three Enforcement Notices were served in respect of development of junior track, use of junior track, and in respect of use of main track.

· March 2001: Planning Committee endorsed a recommendation that no further action be taken on removal of the bunding until the outcome of the appeals relating to the Enforcement Notices was resolved, since this issue was essentially peripheral to the nuisance caused by the use of the tracks.

· 10 July 2001: A Public Inquiry held into Appeals relating to Enforcement Notices.

· 14 September 2001: The Appeal Inspector’s decision was received; a copy is attached as Appendix A. Notices A and B were upheld, with the compliance periods in both cases extended to 9 months (to 14 June 2002).

Notice A related to the operational development of the training or junior track. Notice B related to the use of the main track.The Appeal Inspector quashed Notice C, which related to the use of the training or junior track on the grounds of duplication.

The matter was complicated by the Appeal Inspector’s decision, when he stated in respect of Notice B that “the probability is that at August 1995, the main track had a lawful use for speedway training, practicing and associated activities … together with ancillary meetings on a limited number of occasions each year”. He also suggested that the appellant “explore the option of submitting further applications, either about the main track, or the junior circuit, or indeed both”. 141

The Council felt that the Inspector’s decision letter was ambiguous and as a consequence advice was sought from a senior planning barrister, to hopefully clarify the current planning position. The barrister’s advice essentially indicated that, in his opinion, the Inspector’s decision allowed the track to be used as follows:

“(a) use mainly by club members only; (b) use for speedway training and practise once a week on weekdays or at the weekends. (c) use for occasional events held irregularly and infrequently throughout the year; (d) no use for commercial league speedway racing or for corporate days”.

Members may also wish to note that an application was received on 22 July 2002 for the retention of the junior track and was granted temporary permission for 5 years in November 2002 (Ref: SW/02/0978).

The fact that the use of the former gun battery for speedway has existed since the 1980’s (and indeed before that time) has not helped clarify the matter. The use intensified when the owner entered the national league in the 1990’s and in 2009 but intensification is a notoriously difficult concept in planning law. The former gun battery was scheduled as an Ancient Monument in 2002.

In 2007 planning permission was granted for the running of 14 public /league speedway events each year between 1st April and 31st October on the main track only (ref SW/07/0906).This permission was subject to a number of conditions including the use only being for a temporary period of 3 years expiring on 28th February 2010.

To the south east of the main track is a junior practice track, which is the subject of a separate application (SW/13/0434) reported elsewhere on this agenda. The site itself forms part of a redundant second world war gun emplacement .It has access from Raspberry Hill Lane close to Bedlams Reach .The area as a whole is untidy and unsightly.

A small number of residential properties lie about 200 to 250 metres to the west, south and south east of the site.

Views of Consultees

Iwade Parish Council raise no objection but ask that the following conditions be imposed :

- Noise and dust control measures be installed and monitored to avoid nuisance to nearby properties

- The access to the track be upgraded with a tarmac surface ,as during dry periods the dust created by vehicles attending events creates nuisance to nearby properties. 142

English Heritage do not wish to offer any comments on this occasion.

Natural England raise no objection and advise that if the proposal is carried out in accordance with the details submitted then it is not likely to have a significant effect on the interests for which Swale Ramsar and Special Protection Area or the Medway Estuary and Marshes Ramsar and Special Protection Area has been classified and therefore the authority is not required to undertake an Appropriate Assessment nor will the development damage or destroy the interest features for which the nearby SSSIs has been notified .

The Head of Delivery Services does not raise objection or recommend refusal of the application but if the application is granted advises that a number of conditions be imposed to safeguard and protect residential amenity. Such conditions include restrictions on number of events, their timing, written notice of such events to be submitted in advance, watering of main track to suppress dust, no pa system or music and appropriate silencers for the motorbikes. He also suggests that the times of the football training must reflect the periods when motorbikes are not used, nor when the track is being graded and maintained to avoid any conflict.

Other Representations

Three letters of objection have been received raising the following concerns: - The proposals will result in more noise and disturbance to nearby residents. - The football use would cause more noise - Increased use of the track will further intrude on our quality of life with loud persistent noises at weekends and depending upon the wind direction more petrol fumes - Sundays are very special, the one day of the week families can get together - The club were granted temporary planning permission for similar proposal 4 years ago but this expired due to their non-compliance with various conditions - There is now another speedway track in Sittingbourne better location and more facilities – we do not need two tracks in Sittingbourne.

Policies

The Development Plan principally comprises the saved policies of the Swale Borough local Plan 2008.The saved policies of the Swale Borough Local plan 2008 referred to below are relevant to this development.

The NPPF was released in March 2012 with immediate effect, however para 214 states “that for 12 months from this publication date ,decision makers may continue to give full weight to relevant policies adopted since 2004 even if there is a ;limited degree of conflict with this Framework.”

policies cited below are considered to accord with the NPPF for the purposes of determining this application and as such ,these policies can still be afforded significant weight in the decision making process.

The National Planning Policy Framework is also a material consideration in determining this application. In terms of “supporting a prosperous rural economy” , it states at paragraph 28 that;

“Planning policies should support economic growth in rural areas in order to create jobs and prosperity by taking a positive approach to sustainable new development. To promote a strong rural economy, local and neighbourhood plans should; Support 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.”

At paragraph 123, it states that planning policies and decisions should aim to avoid noise from giving rise to significant adverse impacts on health and quality of life as a result of new development.

Swale Borough Local Plan 2008

Relevant policies include: E1 – General development criteria E6 – The countryside B1 – Supporting and retaining existing employment land and businesses

Discussion

The use of this site as a whole for speedway activity is long established. Primarily this appears to have been on a low key training type use with occasional competitive racing. Clearly this use has caused a range of problems particularly to the few nearby residents. It is in a sensitive location in terms of nature conservation and I note that Natural England raise no objection to the application.

With respect to the impact of the Speedway use on nearby residents, Members may remember that following an increase in activity in 2003, Environmental Health officers investigating complaints concluded that there was a statutory nuisance and therefore served an Abatement Notice on 2 October 2003.The Notice did not seek to stop the activity but sought to place reasonable controls on it.

The applicant appealed against the Notice and the magistrates subsequently upheld and also altered the Notice. In effect the magistrates conceded that the activity of speedway did cause a statutory nuisance but then allowed it with certain controls. Members should note that the magistrates’ decision does not over ride or displace the planning position, as the legislation for both Planning and Environmental Health are totally separate entities. However it is clear that the two strands of control were now at divergence. Since this time the applicant has used the magistrates’ decision as a basis to conduct speedway activities.

144

Some residents are still aggrieved by this decision and disturbed by activities that resulted from the decision. Since the decision the Speedway Club has joined the National Conference League in 2005 and 2007 which gave a different perspective to the activities .People were paying to see the speedway racing at these events and the club was opened up from training and practice with a few sporadic events ,to more organised events necessitating controls from the governing body and Health and Safety at Work legislation.

The applicant states in his supporting statement the following:

“7.1 It seems to us that the main issues raised by the proposals are whether the use of the main track ,central grassland and junior track would create an unacceptable increase in noise and disturbance to those living near to the site, and whether any harm is outweighed by the advantages of the proposals in contributing to sport and recreation facilities in the area.

7.2 The starting point is the lawful use of the site which was established in the Inspector’s letter. There is some vagueness in his wording. He refers to occasional events and to ancillary meetings on a limited number of occasions each year. In our view, 14 events per annum would fit the definition of occasional and represents a “limited number of occasions” each year……..

7.8 The events on the main track themselves would occur no more than 14 days a year on Sundays (and of these no more than 2 per month), over and above its lawful use. The activities would be limited to between 12.00 and 17.00 hours. Racing would be intermittent during that period; individual races would take place over short periods, punctuated by periods of inactivity. The noise impact on the residents would not be substantial (see Inspector’s letter).This conclusion was also supported by the Magistrates Court in dealing with complaints about noise. The pre notification arrangements would give warning of events. Any additional harm would be limited and not unreasonable.

7.9 The use of the central grassland area for youth football training would not create an unacceptable increase in noise and disturbance for those living near to the site. It is a central part of the track. No amplified noise or music would be involved. It would be used at specific times. It is a relatively quiet use and would provide a beneficial community facility.

8.1 The Council has previously supported the grants of planning permission albeit on a temporary basis, for the 2 proposals which are the subject of the 2 separate planning applications: the main track and the junior/training track. The applications seek to regularise matters and to create some precision and a firm basis for control in the future.” I note the comments of the applicant but I also acknowledge the concerns of the nearby residents and those of the Head of Service Delivery that the proposals should not add to problems in this area .There are a number of issues which can addressed by condition such as access arrangements ,car parking ,crowd management ,the use of tannoys etc.

145

The fallback position here is that set out in the attached appeal decision with regards to the frequency and type of useage the site can currently be put to. In my view, the addition of two events per calendar month represents a significant intensification of usage both in terms of track usage, the numbers of spectators who will be attending events and general activity at the site, with associated problems ranging from car parking to noise from PA systems etc. Some of these problems were experienced in 2007 when the club joined a speedway league .However this application does offer the opportunity of considering the use of the site comprehensively .As stated above it may be that a properly conditioned approval could help to reduce the problems and ensure the site is operated in a responsible manner.

I am considering whether this application also represents an opportunity to impose controls on the wider use of the site, and will update Members at the Meeting.

Recommendation

In my view, it is debatable whether the proposed additional meetings would have an acceptable impact on residential amenity. However – I acknowledge the public benefit of provision of sport and recreation uses. In accordance with government guidance relating to the use of conditions, a trial period is warranted here, in order to allow the Council to be able to monitor the potential noise and disturbance emanating from the site.

Furthermore, this application provides an opportunity for additional controls to be imposed and I therefore recommend, subject to the above conditions, that temporary planning permission is granted.

List of Background Documents

1. Application Papers and correspondence for Applications SW/13/0435, SW/13/0434,SW/07/0906 and SW/02/0978 2. Planning Appeal Decision Letter Ref :APP/v2255/C/00/1040588

For information contact Case Officer: Rob Bailey

146

2.8 Appendix A

147

2.8 Appendix A

148

2.8 Appendix A

149

2.8 Appendix A

150

2.8 Appendix A

151

2.8 Appendix A

152

2.8 Appendix A

153

2.8 Appendix A

154

2.8 Appendix A

155

2.8 Appendix A

156

2.9 SW/13/0434 (Case 02712) Iwade

Location : Sittingbourne Speedway, Marshbank, Old Ferry Road, Iwade, Sittingbourne, Kent, ME9 8SW

Proposal : Retention of junior/training track (also known as 'the mini track').

Applicant/Agent : Mr G Arnold, C/o Mr Mike Goddard, Goddard Planning Consultancy, 16 Dover Street, Canterbury, Kent, CT1 3HD

Application Valid : 12 April 2013

8 Week Target : 07 June 2013

13 Week Date: 12 July 2013

Conditions

1. This permission shall lapse , the use shall cease and all surfacing and other material used for the construction of the junior track hereby permitted shall be removed from the site , on or before 28th February 2017.

Grounds: In order to review the position at that time in the light of any noise or other nuisance arising from the development .

2. The track hereby permitted shall be used only as a speedway track for the riding of motorcycles by members of the Sittingbourne Speedway Club ancillary to the use of the site as a whole for speedway, and shall not be used for any other motorised or other recreational purpose whatsoever.

Grounds : As the site lies in a rural area in close proximity to residential properties ,where unrestricted use could give rise to unacceptable noise and nuisance .

3. The track shall not be used other than at times when the main speedway track is being used for speedway activities. The track shall not be used for training, practising or in association with any events outside the times that the main track is in use for other purposes.

Grounds: As the site is in a rural area in close proximity to residential properties, where unrestricted use could give rise to unacceptable noise and other nuisance.

157

4. The track hereby permitted shall not be used for training and practising on occasions in excess of one day per week throughout the year, and shall not be used for organised speedway events on more than five separate days between 1st March and 31st October in any year, or at all outside those dates.

Grounds: As the site is in a rural area in close proximity to residential properties, where unrestricted use could give rise to unacceptable noise and other nuisance.

5. The track shall not be used in association with any “corporate days” events or commercial speedway racing events whatsoever.

Grounds: As the site is in a rural area in close proximity to residential properties, where unrestricted use could give rise to unacceptable noise and other nuisance.

6. The Local Planning Authority shall be informed in writing ,not less than 7 days prior to any speedway meeting , of the use of the track referred to in Condition (4) above.

Grounds: In order to minimise any adverse impacts of such events on the amenities of nearby residents and to ensure the proper enforceability of other conditions at this site.

7. A scheme for the control of dust and other debris resulting from the use of the track shall be submitted to and agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority within one month of the date of this permission. Thereafter dust and other debris shall be controlled in strict accordance with the agreed scheme whenever the track is being used.

Grounds: In the interests of the amenities of nearby residents .

8. All vehicles operating on the track shall be fitted with noise emission control equipment in accordance with the current Technical Regulations of the Speedway Control Board. Vehicles not complying with those regulations shall not be admitted to the track without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority.

Grounds: In the interests of the amenities of nearby residents

158

Council’s Approach to this Application

In this case the application was determined as submitted

Description of Proposal

This is an application for the retention of the junior/training track which is also frequently referred to as the mini track at Sittingbourne Speedway, Marshbank, Old Ferry Road, Iwade.

The application is accompanied with a planning design and access statement which states that:

“ The Mini/Junior /Training Track 4.17 The installation of a small track at the site began in 1997 and was completed later that year. The use has continued ever since as an important early training facility for children and new members ,where they can learn and practice the skills necessary for them to ride on the main track.

4.18 The junior or training track is located to the south east of the main track and is partly sheltered by it. The activities taking place are significantly lower key with smaller motorbikes, less powerful, less noisy and operating at much slower speeds.

4.19 in paragraph 8 of the Inspector’s decision letter , he stated that the “activities on the appeal site were only just perceptible, and even then on no more than an intermittent or occasional basis”.

4.20 This provides a training facility for children aged between 3 and 15 years of age. The bikes used are not more than 200ccs.No more than 2 bikes are on the min track at any one time.

4.21 The mini track would be used all year round. During school term time it would be used for one weekday and one weekend day (preferably Sunday).During school holidays it would be used for up to 7 days a week.”

Relevant Site History and Description

Apart from the history of the main speedway track which is fully reported elsewhere on this agenda under SW/13/0435 , of particular relevance to this application is that temporary planning permission was granted in November 2002 for a junior /training 159

track at this site for a period of 5 years ,subject to certain conditions. (ref : SW/02/ 0978).

To the north of the junior track is the main track, which is the subject of a separate application (SW/13/0435) reported elsewhere on this agenda. The site itself forms part of a redundant second world war gun emplacement .It has access from Raspberry Hill Lane close to Bedlams Reach .The area as a whole is untidy and unsightly.

A small number of residential properties lie about 200 to 250 metres to the west, south and south east of the site.

Views of Consultees

Iwade Parish Council raise no objection but ask that the following conditions be imposed :

 Noise and dust control measures be installed and monitored to avoid nuisance to nearby properties  The access to the track be upgraded with a tarmac surface ,as during dry periods the dust created by vehicles attending events creates nuisance to nearby properties.

English Heritage do not wish to offer any comments on this occasion.

The Head of Delivery Services does not raise objection or recommend refusal of the application but if the application is granted advises that a number of conditions be imposed to safeguard and protect residential amenity. Such conditions include restrictions on number of events, their timing, written notice of such events to be submitted in advance, watering of the track to suppress dust, no public address system or music and appropriate silencers for the motorbikes. He also strongly recommends that the use of the junior track is limited to coincide with the use of the main track only, and that it should not be used at other times.

Other Representations

Two letters of objection have been received raising the following concerns:

 Built without planning permission and then given temporary permission which has run out but continues to be used unlawfully.

160

 One of the objectors is a shift worker and noise disturbs them trying to sleep during the day.  If wind in the wrong direction then smell is horrible and our washing becomes tainted  We’ve had meetings and been advised that no there would be no competitions and no future plans to expand but here we are  Would the Council like this 200yards from their front door every Sunday throughout the summer

A comment has also been received from the Swale Footpaths Group stating that:

 there are no PROWs across the site  Does SBC seek advice from the Noise Abatement Society on applications where noise could be an issue?  Not walked any of the Chetney Marsh paths recently so can’t say if walkers on them might be affected.

Planning Policies

The 12 month period noted above has expired and as such , it was necessary for a review of the consistency between the policies contained within the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008 and the NPPF.This has been carried out in the form of a report agreed by the Local Development Framework Panel on 12 December 2012.All policies cited below are considered to accord with the NPPF for the purposes of determining this application and as such ,these policies can still be afforded significant weight in the decision making process.

The National Planning Policy Framework is also a material consideration in determining this application. In terms of “supporting a prosperous rural economy” , it states at paragraph 28 that;

161

Swale Borough Local Plan 2008

Relevant policies include: E1 – General development criteria E6 – The countryside B1 – Supporting and retaining existing employment land and businesses

Discussion

The use of this site as a whole for speedway activity is long established. Primarily this appears to have been on a low key training type use with occasional competitive racing.

Clearly this use has caused a range of problems particularly to the few nearby residents. It is in a sensitive location in terms of nature conservation and I note that Natural England raise no objection to the application.

With respect to the impact of the speedway use on nearby residents, Members may remember that following an increase in activity in 2003, Environmental Health officers investigating complaints concluded that there was a statutory nuisance and therefore served an Abatement Notice on 2 October 2003.The Notice did not seek to stop the activity but sought to place reasonable controls on it.

The applicant appealed against the Notice and the magistrates subsequently upheld and also altered the Notice. In effect the magistrates conceded that the activity of speedway did cause a statutory nuisance but then allowed it with certain controls. Members should note that the magistrates’ decision does not override or displace the planning position, as the legislation for both Planning and Environmental Health are totally separate entities. However it is clear that the two strands of control were now at divergence. Since this time the applicant has used the magistrates’ decision as a basis to conduct speedway activities.

Some residents are still aggrieved by this decision and disturbed by activities that resulted from the decision. Since the decision the Speedway Club has joined the National Conference League in 2005 and 2007 which gave a different perspective to the activities .People were paying to see the speedway racing at these events and the club was opened up from training and practice with a few sporadic events to more organised events necessitating controls from the governing body and Health and Safety at Work legislation.

The applicant states in his supporting statement the following:

harm is outweighed by the advantages of the proposals in contributing to sport and recreation facilities in the area.

7.7 The use of the mini track is small scale. It is located further from housing than the main track. Its impact is limited. 7.11 The junior track is a valuable facility for children in the locality.95% of those who use the small training track are under the age of 15.The small track provides an opportunity for recreation for young people. It also provides a facility for children of parents taking part in activities on the main track. It is part of the valuable family atmosphere that occurs at the track where children and adults can enjoy their sport together.

I note the comments of the applicant but I also acknowledge the concerns of the nearby residents and those of the Head of Service Delivery that the proposals should not add to problems in this area .There are a number of issues which can addressed by condition such as access arrangements, car parking ,crowd management, the use of tannoys etc, but these relate to the main track rather than the junior track.

In the terms applied for, as set out above, the use of the junior/mini training track would amount to a significant intensification of usage over and above the lawful use of the main track.

I am of the opinion that provided that the junior track is used solely at the times the main track is put to use, and for the purposes established for the site as a whole, I do not consider that the use will give rise to sufficient nuisance ,over and above those already resulting from the use of the site ,sufficient to warrant refusal.

Given the history of this site and the complex issues that this application raises, Members may consider that it is appropriate to grant a temporary 3 year planning permission to monitor the impact of the development on the surrounding area and nearby residents, which would also be in accordance with the recommendation for temporary permission for the main track to be used for up to 14 speedway events/league meetings reported elsewhere on the agenda under reference SW/13/0435.

163

Recommendation

Given the above, I am of the opinion that this application in isolation from the existing use of the site for speedway would be likely to be harmful to the amenities of nearby residents. However – if the use of the junior track is limited only to when the main track is in use, it may be acceptable in terms of its impact on the amenities of nearby residents. In addition, I acknowledge the public benefit of provision of sport and recreation uses. This has of course to be balanced against any substantial material planning harm such uses cause and therefore, in accordance with government guidance relating to the use of conditions, a trial period is warranted here, in order to allow the Council to be able to monitor the potential noise and disturbance emanating from the site.

I therefore recommend, subject to the above conditions, that temporary planning permission is granted.

List of Background Documents

1. Application Papers and correspondence for Applications SW/13/0434, SW/13/04345, SW/07/0906 and SW/02/0978 2. Planning Appeal Decision: APP/V2255/C/00/1040588

For information contact Case Officer: Rob Bailey

164

2.9 Appendix A

165

2.9 Appendix A

166

2.9 Appendix A

167

2.9 Appendix A

168

2.9 Appendix A

169

2.9 Appendix A

170

2.9 Appendix A

171

2.9 Appendix A

172

2.9 Appendix A

173

2.9 Appendix A

174

Planning Committee – 13 MARCH 2014 Part 3

Report of the Head of Planning

PART 3

Application for which REFUSAL is recommended

3.1 SW/14/0020 (Case 24660) Sittingbourne

Location : 3 Clerke Drive, Sittingbourne, Kent ME10 2RY

Proposal : Post & rail fence 82.5 cm at greatest height

Applicant/Agent : Ms G Smith, 3 Clerke Drive, Sittingbourne, Kent, ME10 2RY

Application Valid : 18 January 2014

8 Week Target : 15 March 2014

Reasons for refusal

1. The fence, by virtue of its height, siting and presence, has a significantly harmful impact on the open layout and character of this part of the residential estate and would detract from the visual amenities of the surrounding area contrary to Policies E1 and E19 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

2. The fence, by virtue of its siting, shortens the length of the driveway resulting in insufficient space for two cars to park off street in tandem, contrary to policies T1 and T3 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

Council’s approach to this application

In this case the application is retrospective and the works have already been completed. There are no amendments that can be made to the design of the fence at this stage that would make the application acceptable. 175

Description of Proposal

Application seeks retrospective permission for the erection of a new front fence at no. 3 Clerke Drive, Sittingbourne.

The white boarded fence, as erected, measures a maximum of 0.82m in height.

This fence runs virtually the entire length of both side boundaries of the front garden, running partially along the front boundary of the site, enclosing a soft landscaped area and leaving access to an 8.92m long driveway.

Relevant Site History and Description

The property is a detached house with a linked garage, located on an open plan estate with few gates, fences, walls or other means of enclosure to the front or sides of the adjacent dwellings. The surrounding adjacent dwellings are of similar scale and design.

Application no. SW/86/0064 for ‘Erection of 80 houses and bungalows with all associated garages, drives, fences, roads and footpaths’ removed permitted development rights in relation to fences to the front of dwelling is condition no. 5b which reads;

“no gates; fences, walls or other means of enclosure other than those shown on the approved plans shall be erected or provided in advance of any wall of any dwelling house which fronts on a highway or fronts on to any open area other than rear gardens without the prior permission, in writing, of the District Planning Authority”

Application no. SW/12/0324 at no. 3 Clerke Drive for ‘Garage conversion into shower room/hall extension, for a disabled person’ was granted permission in May 2012 .

Application no. SW/06/0113 at no. 9 Clerke Drive for ‘Removal of existing wooden fence, replace with new fence to the existing side boundary’ was granted permission in March 2012.

No other fences, replacement or otherwise, have been granted planning permission on adjacent dwellings.

No other relevant planning history.

Views of Consultees

Kent County Council highways commented that;

“as the current layout stands, I do have concerns over the inner fence running parallel to the former garage, which has been converted into a habitable room. This fence has shortened the length of the driveway, such that a second vehicle parked here is likely to protrude beyond the curtilage and obstruct the public footway. I wish 176

to see that section of fence removed so that adequate space is available for 2 vehicles to park”

Kent County Council Archaeology advises that no archaeological measures are necessary.

Other Representations

Five letters of support were received in addition to one supporting petition with signatures confirming ‘no objection’ from 14 different addresses. The letters commented that;

 The applicant uses the fence to guide her round the garden/drive due to her poor sight.  The fence has a positive impact on visual amenity.

Six letters of objection were received which commented that;

 The estate was designed to be open plan, with no fences to the front of dwellings that were not part of the original plans.  The design of the fence is poor  Fence has an unacceptable harmful impact on visual amenity and the character of the wider area

Development plan policies

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)

The 12 month period noted above has now expired, as such, it is necessary for a review of the consistency between the policies contained within the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008 and the NPPF.

This has been carried out in the form of a report agreed by the Local Development Framework Panel on 12 December 2012. The Swale Borough local Plan policies below are considered to accord with the NPPF for the purposes of determining this application and as such, these policies can still be afforded significant weight in the decision-making process.

Relevant policies of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008 include;

E1: General development criteria E19: Achieving high quality design and distinctiveness E24: Alterations and extensions T3: Parking 177

Adopted SPG entitled “Designing an Extension - A Guide for Householders”, mentioned in the supporting text to policy RC4, in the adopted Swale Borough Local Plan 2008 is also relevant. The SPG was adopted by the Council in 1993 after a period of consultation with the public, local and national consultees, and is specifically referred to in the supporting text for saved Policies E19 on the Local Plan. It therefore remains a material consideration to be afforded substantial weight in the decision making process.

Discussion

As explained above, this is the only example of a fence enclosure to the front of a property within the immediate area, noting that No 9 Clerke Drive involved the relocation of a fence to the side of the property closer to the road but allowing still for a significant landscaped margin to Austin Close. In such circumstances I consider that the current proposal detracts significantly from the sense of ‘openness’ to the estate, resulting in an unacceptable detrimental impact to the streetscene and the wider area. There is also the prospect that allowing this proposal would set a precedent.

The shortening of the existing front drive by virtue of the siting of this fence immediately to the front of the house results in only sufficient space for one car parking on site space instead of the previous two tandem car parking spaces. I consider that this reduction of on-site parking facilities would result in a harmful increase in off-street parking.

The applicant states that the fence is used to guide her to her parked car. Alternative ways of carrying out this function ,which have less visual impact on the surrounding area and still maintain the existing parking facilities at the site such as a single guide rail leading from the front of the dwelling to the south side of her drive could be explored between officers and the applicant through pre application discussions. However this should not prevent Members determining the current retrospective application as submitted.

Recommendation

Taking the above into account I recommend that planning permission be refused .

List of Background Documents

1. Application papers and correspondence for SW/14/0020 2. Application papers and correspondence for SW/12/0324 3. Application papers and correspondence for SW/06/0113 4. Application papers and correspondence for SW/86/0064

For Information Contact Case Officer: Hannah Lucitt

178

PLANNING COMMITTEE – 13 MARCH 2014 PART 5

Report of the Head of Planning

PART 5 Decisions by County Council and Secretary of State, report for information

5.1 SW/13/1072 (Case 18779) - new single storey garages at Bowl Reed, Oad Street, Borden, ME9 8JX

APPEAL DISMISSED

The Inspector commented as follows:

Main Issue

1. The main issue is the effect of the proposed garages upon the character and appearance of the host site and the surrounding area.

Reasons

2. The appeal site comprises a large detached dwelling and incidental buildings set within extensive grounds. The site is adjacent to a motorway embankment on one side, but the surrounding area is otherwise characterised as open countryside with relatively few buildings. The host dwelling is visible from adjoining land and from the relatively busy local road to the front. The dwelling itself is two-storeys, and is set back from the road broadly in line with the siting of two existing garden store buildings.

3. The design of the garages seeks to be in character with the existing buildings, and the structure would occupy a hard surface towards the front of the site. The garages would help to create a relatively enclosed front courtyard to the property and would provide secure storage. The appellant also suggests that concentration of the buildings as proposed would restrict the impact upon the surrounding countryside and that the building would be concealed from the road behind existing trees.

4. Notwithstanding these considerations, the proposal would still have a significantly larger footprint than each of the existing store buildings. Further, the garages would be positioned forward of the main existing building line of the house and store buildings. The garages would be both closer to the adjacent highway than the existing buildings and would be sited perpendicular to the established building line.

5. Rather than appear as a subservient structure subordinate to the house, the scale and position of the garages would be such as to create an unduly dominant and discordant addition. Whilst the host boundaries are significantly screened by planting, the building would still be visible to some extent from outside the site as an unduly large and prominent structure. The scale and 179

position of the garages would also partly obscure open views from within the site of the area between the existing buildings, the local road and the site’s boundary with the motorway embankment.

6. The spaciousness, layout and form of the host site give it an essentially open, rural character consistent with its countryside setting. The scale and position of the garages would serve to consolidate the front area with significant built form such as to undermine this overall character and appearance, and would compromise views within the site.

7. I note that the proposed building would be partly used for storage of agricultural equipment. Whilst Policy E6 (The Countryside) of the Swale Borough Local Plan, 2008 (the Local Plan) allows development in certain circumstances where it relates to agriculture, this consideration would not outweigh in this instance the serious harm to character and appearance arising from the proposed scale and position of the development.

8. It is therefore concluded that the proposed development would significantly harm the character and appearance of the host building and the surrounding area. Accordingly, the development would be contrary to Policies E1 (General Development Criteria), E6 (The Countryside), E19 (Achieving High Quality Design and Distinctiveness), and E24 (Alterations and Extensions) of the Local Plan. These seek, amongst other matters, to ensure that development is appropriate to its location, to deliver high quality design which promotes and reinforces local distinctiveness, and to protect and enhance the countryside. I find these policies broadly consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) which looks to respect and safeguard the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside, and to deliver high quality design.

Other Matters

9. Regard has also been given to all other matters raised, including the benefits to the appellant of secure storage for expensive machinery required to maintain adjacent agricultural land, the benefits of a courtyard, and the possible noise attenuation which may be afforded to occupiers by the garages. I consider these benefits would be at the expense of local distinctiveness and would mitigate against the aims of the Local Plan and the Framework, including respect for the character and quality of both the site and of the countryside.

10. I have also noted a previous appeal decision APP/V2255/A/10/2128100 dated 21 October 2010, but full details of that scheme have not been provided.

Conclusion

11. For the above reasons, and with regard to all other matters raised, I conclude the appeal should be dismissed.

180

Observations

A clear decision from the Inspector where he acknowledges that the garages would have detrimental impact on the application site and the surrounding area by virtue of siting within the site, scale and massing.

Background Papers

1. Application papers and correspondence for application SW/13/1072 2. Appeal decision dated 20 December 2013 re: APP/V2255/D/13/2208505

For information contact case officer: Tracy Day

181

5.2 SW/13/0498 & SW/13/0841 – Demolition of existing shed and construction of one new house with parking area for two cars, land to the rear of 20-32 Tanners Street, Faversham, ME13 7JP

APPEAL A ALLOWED AND APPEAL B DISMISSED BUT COSTS AWARDED TO APPELLANT

The Inspector commented as follows:

Decisions

Appeal A

1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the demolition of an existing shed and the construction of one new house with parking area for two cars and private garden at Land to the rear of 20-32 Tanners Street, Faversham, Kent, ME13 7JP in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref SW/13/0841, dated 2 July 2013, subject to the conditions attached as Schedule A to these decisions.

Appeal B

2. The appeal is dismissed.

Applications for costs

3. Applications for costs were made by Mr Adam Roake against Swale Borough Council in respect of both appeals. These applications are the subject of a separate Decision.

Procedural Notes

4. The appellant chose throughout his submissions to refer to the first and second appeals. However, he attached the description ‘the first appeal’ (Ref: APP/V2255/A/13/2208579) to that made in respect of his later, revised application (Ref SW/13/0841, dated 2 July 2013), whilst using the description ‘the second appeal’ (Ref: APP/V2255/A/13/2208936) for his original application (Ref SW/13/0498, dated 24 April 2013). I have retained this ordering in my titles, Appeals A and B.

5. At the site visit, the appellant asked whether I would go and see eight sites in the vicinity of the appeal site which he thought provided support for his appeal. The Council had no objection to my visiting these sites, which I did unaccompanied after the formal site visit had ended. A list of the sites I saw is appended at Schedule B.

182

Main Issues

6. Although the Council advanced different reasons for refusing the two applications I consider that both raise the same main issues, namely – i. Whether the proposed developments would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Faversham Conservation Area; and ii. The effect of the proposed developments on the living conditions of their future occupants and the occupants of neighbouring dwellings.

Reasons

Background 7. The two appeals relate to alternative proposals for the construction of a single dwelling on a backland site in the Faversham Conservation Area. The two proposals are on broadly similar footprints and are for dwellings of similar style. However, Appeal B is for a two-storey, three bedroom dwelling; Appeal A for a single-storey, two bedroom dwelling. Appeal A was a response to the Council’s refusal of Appeal B with the key difference being that the proposed dwelling in Appeal B would be significantly higher than Appeal A.

The impact of the proposed developments on the character or appearance of the Faversham Conservation Area

8. The Faversham Conservation Area comprises the historic core of the town. Superimposed on the original grid-iron pattern of streets is a varied composition of buildings of different ages and different styles. However, these are linked by generally small-scale forms and common, locally-based materials.

9. The appeal site is at the heart of the Conservation Area. It lies between Tanners Street to the west, which largely comprises vernacular cottages of different dates and South Street to the east, which here is dominated by a large block of Almshouses. The appeal site is elevated on a small plateau, which drops away to the west but which is slightly below the Almshouses. The southern part of the site is occupied by a garage block, which is outside the red line, but the forecourt of which is also in the ownership of the appellant. Access to the site is via a lane that passes in front of the garages before turning west in a dog leg to exit on to Tanners Street.

10. The appeal site itself is in a semi-derelict condition, being overgrown but is occupied by a single garage, immediately to the north of the main garage block. This is on part of the footprint of both proposed dwellings and would be demolished to make way for them. At the time of my site visit, there were four mature trees remaining on site. Two at the northern end and beyond the footprint of the proposed dwellings are protected by a Tree Preservation Order (TPO). The other two are self- seeded sycamores, which would be lost to make way for both dwellings but the felling of which has not produced any objection from the Council.

11. In assessing the impact of the two proposals on the Conservation Area, the first factor to be considered is that, despite the site’s elevated position, neither would be 183

visible from any public views outside the site. The Almshouses block off the site from the west, whilst the close-knit development along Tanners Street would mean that neither dwelling would be prominent from that direction. The two-storey dwelling (Appeal B) might be glimpsed by someone walking uphill along Tanners Street from the north but at best there would only be a partial view of its roof ridge. Moreover, the dog-leg nature of the access would result in both proposed dwellings remaining invisible even to someone passing directly by the access in Tanners Street.

12. The reasons of refusal advanced by the Council in respect of the two appeals seek to distinguish between the greater impact of Appeal B on the Conservation Area, with its two storey dwelling, and the single-storey alternative of Appeal A. However, whilst accepting that there would be some greater visibility of Appeal B, I consider the difference to be marginal and, in these circumstances, Appeal B would result in no significantly greater harm to the appearance of the Conservation Area than would Appeal A.

13. I recognise, however, that the character of the Conservation Area needs to be considered against other factors than simply visibility. In refusing the second application (Appeal A), the Council referred to the amenity value of an open green space that gives ‘…relief to the residents of an otherwise densely developed area…’ That reason was not advanced in refusing Appeal B but it seems to me that, if valid, it must apply to both proposals as both would result in the loss of the site’s current character.

14. However, I found the argument that the site carries great amenity value difficult to support. This is private land to which the public has no right of access. Furthermore, as I have already commented, it is visible only to the occupants of a limited number of neighbouring dwellings in Tanners Street, the rears of which back on to it, and to those residents of the Almshouses who have windows facing the site. Those neighbouring residents may value the amenity of the site but to the wider public, it is both invisible and inaccessible.

15. An exception may be the trees on the site, which can be seen over the roof lines of neighbouring buildings. However, in respect of the pair of trees protected by the TPO, neither of the proposals would require their felling and in this respect, I consider the loss of public amenity to be minimal. 16. As to the wider character of the Conservation Area, I observed on my site visit, and was directed to by the appellant, a number of sites where there had been infill or backland development behind the main streets of the grid-iron pattern. This is especially true of the south west quadrant of the historic core, containing the appeal site, where the grid-iron is less pronounced and there seems to have been more instances of infill development. It is therefore difficult to accept that the provision of a single dwelling on the appeal site would represent a fundamental breach in the character of the Conservation Area.

17. I therefore conclude that neither proposal would fail to preserve the character or appearance of the Faversham Conservation Area and that, in this respect, both proposals (Appeals A and B) are compatible with Policies E1 and E19 of the adopted Swale Borough Local Plan. 184

The living conditions of future occupants and those of neighbouring dwellings

18. In refusing Appeal B, but not Appeal A, the Council suggested that the proposed dwelling would result in a poor standard of residential amenity for future occupants due to the confined and enclosed nature of the site and the consequent poor standard of privacy. I accept that the garage block presents a poor approach to the dwelling but I do not consider this to be unacceptable to the living conditions of future occupants. Nor is the access to Tanners Street atypical of the manner in which access is provided to a number of backland sites in the area that I discuss in paragraph 16 above. Moreover, notwithstanding these matters, they would no doubt be reflected in the choice of any future occupants of these properties and the costs of living there.

19. Although the Council’s reasons for refusal focus on the living conditions of future occupants of the proposed developments, I am aware that neighbours, especially in Tanners Street, have expressed concerns about their impact on them. However, in this respect, I draw a distinction between the two proposals. Whilst the separation distances between the proposed dwellings and the facing elevations in Tanners Street may be acceptable in terms of what would be normal in an urban area, the drop in height between the appeal site and Tanners Street would emphasise the visual dominance of any building on the appeal site.

20. In respect of the single storey proposal of Appeal A, there would be no significant material harm - as is evidenced by the existing garage on the site which would be of broadly similar height. However, the two storey dwelling proposed by Appeal B would be far more prominent and I accept that it would result in an uncomfortable relationship with the back gardens and rear elevations of the facing dwellings in Tanners Street.

21. In respect of the proposed dwellings’ relationship to the Almshouses, I see no problem in terms of the relationship of both proposed dwellings to the main block which is listed. This is more than far enough away for there to be no material harm to either. However, with respect to the modern extension block to the Almshouses that sits immediately to the east of the appeal site, the facing elevation of Appeal B, the two storey dwelling, would be sufficiently close to create an uncomfortable relationship with the rear elevation of the extension and could result in significant material harm to the outlook and privacy of facing windows where these would be directly adjacent.

22. By contrast, the impact of Appeal A, the single storey dwelling that sits well below the level of the extension to the Almshouses, would be minimal.

23. The Council has suggested, and the appellant has agreed, a condition that would withdraw permitted development rights to erect a fence above 1.5 metres along the appeal site’s boundary with the rear gardens of the properties in Tanners Street. I accept that such a condition may be relevant in the case of Appeal B but I am not convinced that it would meet the tests set by Circular 11/95, The Use of Conditions in Planning Permissions. I have no powers, were I to allow this appeal, to impose 185

such a condition on the occupants of Tanners Street on the other side of the boundary. Yet if there is the likelihood the Council fears, and I consider the possibility exaggerated, the differences in height make it as likely that such fences would be erected on the Tanners Street side. A condition withdrawing rights to erect fences of 1.5 metres on the appeal site side of the boundary seems to me to have little purpose.

24. Furthermore, I see little point in such a condition in respect of Appeal A. For the same reasons that cause me to conclude that the single storey dwelling would have significantly less effect on the living conditions of the occupants of the houses in Tanners Street, the necessity for the proposed condition to be applied to Appeal A has not been demonstrated.

25. In drawing the above conclusions, I make a significant distinction between Appeal B’s two storey dwelling and the single storey dwelling proposed by Appeal A. The impact of the former would be substantially greater and would represent sufficient material harm to warrant dismissing the appeal. I therefore conclude that whilst Appeal A would not adversely affect the living conditions of its own future occupants or those of neighbouring properties, Appeal B would result in significant material harm in the latter respect. Appeal A would not therefore be contrary to those provisions of Policies E1 and E19 of the adopted Local Plan that seek to protect residential amenity; Appeal B would.

Conclusions

26. In terms of the effects of the two, alternative proposed developments, I accept that whilst both would be acceptable in respect of their impact on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area, Appeal B, the two-storey dwelling would have a greater impact in relation to residential amenity. That material harm is sufficient to warrant the dismissal of Appeal B, whilst Appeal A is, I conclude, acceptable in all respects.

Appeal A 27. For the reasons given above I conclude that Appeal A should be allowed.

Appeal B

28. For the reasons given above I conclude that Appeal B should be dismissed.

Conditions to be attached to Appeal A (APP/V2255/A/13/2208579)

29. I have considered the conditions that the Council asked me to impose were I to allow the appeal in the light of the advice in Circular 11/95, The Use of Conditions in Planning Permissions.

30. In addition to the conditions setting the statutory time limit for the commencement of development and ensuring that the development is carried out in line with the respective plans, a condition setting out the prior approval of the materials to be used in the development is especially necessary given its location in a Conservation 186

Area. I also consider that conditions requiring prior approval of sustainable construction techniques to be used in the development and of schemes of hard and soft landscaping, including arrangements for the retention and protection of existing vegetation on the site, are necessary. I shall impose conditions in all these respects.

31. Given the relationship of the site to neighbouring development, I consider two conditions restricting some permitted development rights are necessary. These aspects are to ensure that the allocated parking space is retained and to make sure that the external lighting of the site is only that which is necessary. I shall impose conditions withdrawing permitted development rights in both respects. However, for the reasons put forward above, I consider that a condition restricting the height of boundary fencing is unnecessary for the single storey proposal, Appeal A. I shall not impose such a condition.

32. Finally, however, also to protect the living conditions of neighbours, I shall impose a condition to ensure that work on the site does not occur outside normal hours.

SCHEDULE A : CONDITIONS TO BE IMPOSED ON APPEAL A: APP/V2255/A/13/2208579

1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 4046/P/4.00, 4046/P/4.01, 4046/P/4.02, 4046/P/4.03, 4046/P/4.04, 4046/P/4.05, 4046/P/4.06 and 4046/P/4.07.

3) No development shall take place until samples of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the building hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

4) No development shall take place until full details of the measures to be taken to ensure that the development hereby approved incorporates sustainable construction techniques have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. These techniques shall include water conservation and recycling, renewable energy production and energy efficiency. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

5) No development shall take place until full details of both hard and soft landscape works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority and these works shall be carried out as approved. The works shall apply both to the site of the development hereby approved and also the access route to it and details shall include those trees, bushes or hedges to be retained, a schedule of proposed new planting, noting species, plant sizes and numbers where appropriate, means of enclosure, external lighting including on the access route, hard surfacing materials and implementation programme.

187

6) All hard and soft landscape works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. The works shall be carried out prior to the occupation of any part of the development or in accordance with the programme agreed with the local planning authority and shall be retained thereafter. Any trees or plants which within a period of 5 years from the completion of the development die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species, unless the local planning authority gives written approval to any variation.

7) All trees, bushes or hedges to be retained shall be protected by barriers and/or ground protection in accordance with the recommendations in BS 5837: 2005, ‘Trees in relation to construction’. Details of the proposed protection works shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority before any development takes place, including any demolition, soil stripping or the removal of surplus material or the movement on to the site of any machinery or equipment. The approved protection works shall remain in place throughout the period of construction and no variations or alterations to those approved works shall be carried out without the written approval of the local planning authority.

8) The space marked on approved drawing 4046/P/4.00 for the parking of a vehicle shall be retained for this purpose whilst the dwelling hereby approved is occupied. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking, re-enacting or modifying that Order), no development shall take place on the space or in such a position as to prevent vehicular access to the space.

9) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking, re-enacting or modifying that Order), no external lighting, other than that approved in writing by the local planning authority, shall be installed on the site or the access route to it.

10) Demolition or construction works shall not take place outside 0730 hours to 1900 hours Mondays to Fridays and 0730 hours to 1300 hours on Saturdays nor at any time on Sundays or Bank and Public Holidays.

COSTS DECISIONS

The Inspector then determined the appellant’s application for costs as follows:

Decisions

‘A : Appeal Ref: APP/V2255/A/13/2208579

1. The application for an award of costs is allowed in the terms set out below.

B : Appeal Ref: APP/V2255/A/13/2208936

2. The application for an award of costs is refused.

188

Reasons

3. Circular 03/2009 advises that, irrespective of the outcome of an appeal, costs may only be awarded against a party who has behaved unreasonably and thereby caused the party applying for costs to incur unnecessary or wasted expense in the appeal process. 4. These applications, both of which are for a full award of costs, refer to two appeals on the same site in a Conservation Area in Faversham.

Appeal B

5. Appeal B relates to the original application, Ref SW/13/0498, dated 24 April 2013, which was refused on 21 June 2013. The Council cited two reasons for refusal – the effect of the height of the proposed building on the visual and residential amenity of the area, and an unacceptable level of amenity for future occupants. The costs application states the Council should have granted permission because the proposed development was in accordance with the development plan. The first reason for refusal relied on the visual effect of the proposed development, especially the consequences of its height in relation to neighbouring topography. In putting forward this reason, the Council not only had regard to Policies E1 and E19 of the adopted Local Plan, which require the protection and enhancement of the built environment and the promotion of high quality design, but would also have taken into account the need to pay special regard to the preservation or enhancement of the character or appearance of the Faversham Conservation Area.

6. The applicant clearly disagreed with the Council’s assessment of the proposed development against these policies, as he was entitled to do in making his appeal. However, the Council’s conclusions were based on a planning judgement that cannot, in my view, constitute unreasonable behaviour. Nor do I give any credence to the suggestion that because the Council chose to rely on its officers’ report in defending the appeal in this respect, it failed to give adequate reasons for its decision.

7. I accept that the second reason for refusing the first application was also a matter of planning judgement so far as it relates to the relationship between the proposed development and adjacent properties. It is equally a matter relevant to the provisions of Policies E1 and E19 of the adopted Local Plan. The applicant has suggested, however, that this was a matter which could have been settled without an appeal as the Council subsequently agreed a condition that could resolve part of the issue of the relationship between the proposed development and neighbouring properties in Tanners Street. However, relying on the officers’ report in respect of this first application, matters other than that relationship are discussed and the second reason for refusal cites the unattractive entrance to the site as an additional factor that would lead to a poor standard of residential amenity for future occupants. On balance, I therefore consider that the Council did not act unreasonably in putting forward its second reason for refusing the first application.

189

Conclusion in respect of Appeal B

8. I therefore find that in respect of Appeal B (Ref : APP/V2255/A/13/2208936) unreasonable behaviour resulting in unnecessary or wasted expense, as described in Circular 03/2009, has not been demonstrated.

Appeal A

9. The applicant submitted a revised scheme, Appeal A (Ref : APP/V2255 /A/13/2208579) – basically substituting a single storey dwelling for the two storey property previously proposed – on 2 July 2013, but this was refused on 4 October 2013. However, in refusing Appeal A, Council Members, having overturned officers’ recommendation to approve the application, cited a single, reason – the detriment to the area’s amenity produced by the loss of an open green space.

10. In considering the second application, Members were entitled to set aside the recommendation of their officers. However, the Circular advises that they must give sound planning reasons when doing so. It was, of course, open to Members to disagree with their officers’ judgement that the applicant’s changes had resolved the matters that had led to the first refusal. They chose not do so. Instead, they substituted a new reason, to which no reference had been made in refusing the first application, although in this respect the effects of the two proposed developments are identical. It is also difficult to avoid the charge that the new reason for refusal is somewhat spurious given officers’ reference to the site as ‘…an area of waste ground…’ (a phrase repeated in the Council’s appeal statement) and the failure to present any evidence to support the claimed amenity value placed on it by the local community.

11. On the contrary, officers advised members that the changes made to the proposed development had made a refusal difficult to justify on the grounds previously put forward and that an appeal against such a refusal was likely to be allowed. Members appear, however, to have been determined to refuse the application and consequently produced a new reason, not cited against the first application, and for which there was little evidence.

Conclusion in respect of Appeal A 12. I therefore find that in respect of Appeal A (Ref : APP/V2255 /A/13/2208579) unreasonable behaviour resulting in unnecessary expense, as described in Circular 03/2009, has been demonstrated and that a full award of costs is justified.

Costs Order 13. In exercise of the powers under section 250(5) of the Local Government Act 1972 and Schedule 6 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended, and all other enabling powers in that behalf, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Swale Borough Council shall pay to Mr Adam Roake (Urbanise), the costs of the appeal proceedings described in the heading of decision A: Appeal Ref: APP/V2255/A/13/2208579.

190

14. The applicant is now invited to submit to Swale Borough Council, to whom a copy of this decision has been sent, details of those costs with a view to reaching agreement as to the amount. In the event that the parties cannot agree on the amount, a copy of the guidance note on how to apply for a detailed assessment by the Senior Courts Costs Office is enclosed.’

Observations

Appeal B was refused under my delegated powers, and the Inspector has fully supported the Council’s position on this appeal, by dismissing both the appeal and the appellant’s claim for costs.

However, the Inspector has both allowed the appeal relating to Appeal A and has also awarded full costs on this appeal only, noting that ‘Members appear, however, to have been determined to refuse the application and consequently produced a new reason, not cited against the first application, and for which there was little evidence.’ Members will doubtless recall that this application was recommended for approval.

For information contact case officer: Andrew Spiers

191