TUNBRIDGE WELLS BOROUGH COUNCIL
NUMERICAL LIST OF PLANNING APPLICATIONS LIKELY TO BE CONSIDERED AT THE MEETING OF THE (040802/EAP001) Eastern Area Planning Committee at 5.30pm on 2 AUGUST 2004
An Area Planning Committee of Councillors will decide the following applications. The Planning Officers’ report of recommendation is available from the Planning Reception or on our Website. You may attend the committee meeting and put your views to the Councillors. A copy of "Your Right to Speak at Planning Meetings" is available from our website or from our offices.
APPL. NO. DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION DECISION PAGE NO.
TW/04/01516 Erection of 1 No. one and a half storey 2 bedroom detached 1 – 4 dwelling. Land adjoining Carlton House, Brenchley Road, BRENCHLEY.
TW/04/01268 Removal of condition 2, closure of Southernmost and 5 – 8 Northernmost accesses to A21. (TW/01/01433 refers). Grantham Hall Farm, Lamberhurst Quarter, LAMBERHURST.
TW/04/01548 Double garage. 9 – 11 Cranecroft, Slip Mill Lane, HAWKHURST.
TW/04/01193 OUTLINE – Proposed residential development. 12 – 16 Land off School Terrace, HAWKHURST.
TW/04/01578 Alterations and extensions to convert existing chalet 17 – 20 bungalow to two storey dwelling. Santolina, The Common, SISSINGHURST. - E1 -
EASTERN AREA PLANNING COMMITTEE
REPORT OF THE HEAD OF PLANNING SERVICES
2 AUGUST 2004
PLANNING APPLICATIONS FOR CONSIDERATION
APPLICANT REFERENCE LOCATION PROPOSAL
CONTACT ADDRESS DATE VALID GRID REFERENCE DATE OF APPLICATION
KENT COUNTY CONSTABULARY TW/04/01516 Land adjoining Carlton Erection of 1 No. one and a (David Hicken Associates Ltd. House half storey 2 bedroom Southgate House Brenchley Road detached dwelling. High Banks BRENCHLEY Loose BR Maidstone Kent ME15 0EQ) 07/06/04 07/06/04
DEPARTURE APPLICATION
This application proposes a new dwelling outside the defined Limits to Built Development in the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
However, in view of the Inspectors comments in considering an appeal following refusal of application TW/03/00643, I do not consider this matter needs to be referred to the Planning Board or the First Secretary of State.
DESCRIPTION
The application site is part of the rear garden of a modern detached house, known as “Carlton House”, owned by the Kent Police Authority. The plot would be approximately 22 metres x 22 metres. It is proposed to build on this plot a small dwelling with 2 bedrooms in the roof space. The two dormer windows for the bedrooms are on the east elevation, to avoid overlooking the primary school.
The dwelling would be built of brick with a plain clay tiled roof. Access to the site would be from a private road, owned by the Kent County Council, which is the main vehicular access to the Brenchley and Matfield Church of England Primary School, plus cottages to the rear. Two car parking spaces would be provided to the south of the dwelling, with access onto the private drive to the school.
The site is thus within a group of buildings and could not be described as open countryside. Nevertheless the site is outside the defined Limits to Built Development of Brenchley village.
The existing hedges on the north and east boundaries will be retained. A fence and native hedge will be provided along the southern boundary to the police house.
In addition two hornbeam trees will be planted in the garden.
RELEVANT HISTORY
TW/80/00672 – Outline dwelling – Refused 08/08/80. TW/87/01791 – Outline (Regulation 5 KCC) dwelling – Approved by KCC 18/07/88. - E2 -
TW/91/01216 – Outline – 4 bedroom dwelling – Refused 24/04/03 – Appeal Dismissed 22/10/03.
Inspector commented:
“ The site is previously developed land as defined in PPG3, and whilst that statement of Central Government policy emphasises the preference for urban sites, it does not preclude the development of housing in the countryside. PPG7 also states at paragraph 3.21 that housing development in the countryside, in the form of infilling, may be appropriate subject to the effect on the surroundings, which in this case include the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.”
“ I conclude therefore that residential development of the site in principle could be carried out in a way that would safeguard the natural beauty and the character and appearance of the area, and could introduce a more cohesive arrangement of built form within the group. However the proposal to develop a four bedroom dwelling would be likely to dominate the site, eroding open areas and thus cause harm to the character and appearance of the area.”
“However, the proposed 4 bedroom dwelling is overdevelopment of the site harming the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.”
POLICIES
1. Kent Structure Plan 1996
- Policy ENV1 – Protection of the countryside. - Policy ENV3 – Protection of Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. - Policy ENV4 – Protection of Kent Special Landscape Area. - Policy RS1 – Development in the countryside. - Policy RS5 – New housing development in the countryside.
2. Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan Adopted 1996
- Policy LBD1 – Development outside the Limits to Built Development. - Policy EN1 – General Development Control criteria. - Policy EN23 – Landscape protection in the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
3. Kent and Medway Structure Plan – Deposit Plan, September 2003
- Policy E1 – Protecting Kent’s Countryside. - Policy E4 – Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty. - Policy E5 – High Weald Special Landscape Areas. - Policy HP6 – Housing Development in the Countryside.
4. Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan Review – Second Deposit Copy, October 2002
- Policy LBD1 – Development outside the Limits to Built Development. - Policy EN1 – General control criteria. - Policy EN24 – Development Control criteria for all development outside the Limits to Built Development.
CONSULTATIONS AND BACKGROUND PAPERS
1. Highways Manager
05/07/04 – No objections.
2. Brenchley Parish Council
15/06/04 – Recommend refusal – The application does not alter our comments made on application TW/03/00643 – Namely the application site is outside the area for built development, and would share a joint drive with the local primary school which would intensify existing traffic problems. - E3 -
APPRAISAL
The site is outside the Limits to Built Development. However, the Inspector’s decision on TW/03/00643 is an important material consideration. The Inspector did not object to the principle of a new dwelling, on the basis that the site is previously developed land within an existing group of buildings. In my view the main issues are whether the design, size and siting of this proposed dwelling harm the character and appearance of the area.
Clearly any dwelling in this area of open garden land will erode the open rural character of the area to a degree. Nevertheless I consider that this small dwelling has been designed to respect the context of the site and cause minimal harm to the rural character of the area. The traditional design is appropriate to a rural area. Windows have also been positioned to minimise overlooking with the first floor dormer windows on the east elevation away from the elevation to the school.
The views of the Parish Council are noted but this private access road is also used by occupants of adjoining cottages to the north and I do not consider a highway safety ground of refusal could be supported – particularly as the Inspector in 2003 said:
“ The Parish Council refer to the possibility of the access intensifying existing traffic problems. On the information before me, I do not consider that a single four bedroom dwelling would significantly adversely affect traffic in the area.”
SUMMARY
The following is a summary of the main reasons for the recommendation:
- The Council has had regard to the appeal decision on application TW/03/00643.
- The scale, location and design of the development would preserve the landscape character of the locality.
RECOMMENDATION – APPROVE SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
(1) Standard detailed YZ01.
(2) Sample of materials D001.
(3) Provision of parking space V004.
(4) Restriction on permitted development R001
(5) Landscaping to be implemented L001.
PLANS
The following plans are the subject of the recommendation above: DHA/4900/01Rev A; DHA/4900/02 Rev A.
Reference: CLC/AJB/NC
- E5 -
APPLICANT REFERENCE LOCATION PROPOSAL
CONTACT ADDRESS DATE VALID GRID REFERENCE DATE OF APPLICATION
GRANTHAM HALL LTD TW/04/01268 Grantham Hall Farm Removal of condition 2, (Lloyd Hunt Associates Lamberhurst Quarter closure of southernmost Camelot LAMBERHURST and northernmost Prescot Avenue LA accesses to A21. Longfield (TW/01/01433 refers). Kent TN3 8AJ) 11/05/04 676450/372150 11/05/04
DESCRIPTION
This complex of farm buildings abuts the A21 Trunk Road to the north of the village of Lamberhurst. Works are currently proceeding on site to implement planning permission TW/01/01433 which includes:
- Alterations and extensions to farmhouse – a Grade II listed building. - Detached garage for farmhouse. - Conversion of two redundant farm buildings to two dwellings – these are also Grade II listed. - Refurbishment and alteration of farm building to include a farm office. - Alteration of outbuilding to form a 6 bay car parking area. - Demolition of certain buildings.
There are currently three accesses to this site, as it also serves the adjoining farmland. Condition 2 of the permission stated:
“Before occupation of the premises, the existing southernmost and northernmost vehicular accesses to the A21 shall be closed permanently as indicated on the approved drawing to the satisfaction of Local Planning Authority.
Reason: In the interests of highway safety.”
It was thus intended that all vehicular access to the various buildings in the farmyard (including the three residential properties and farm office) would be from the existing central vehicular access.
However, since the initial application was submitted, works to the A21 Lamberhurst by pass have progressed to such an extent that the A21 Trunk Road in front of this farmyard site will be de-trunked, stopped up and maintained by the Kent County Council and Local Highway Authority. There will therefore be no through traffic on this section of former Trunk Road as it will become a dead end and will only be used by traffic requiring access to Grantham Hall and Grantham Hall Farm.
It is therefore submitted by the applicant that there is no longer any highway safety reason for this condition requiring the closing of these two accesses and for farming operational reasons they would wish to keep all three accesses open in order to separate farm traffic from residential traffic.
The application is referred to Committee at the request of the Parish Council and in view of the comments of the Kent County Council as Highway Authority.
RELEVANT HISTORY
SW/6/55/352 – Conversion of farmhouse to 2 cottages – Approved 09/02/56.
SW/6/57/84 – Farm implement shed – Approved 29/03/57. TW/01/01433 – Alterations and extensions to farmhouse with detached garaging. Conversion of redundant farm buildings to two dwellings and ancillary residential accommodation. Refurbishment and alteration of farm building to include farm office. Alteration of outbuilding to form car parking.
- E6 -
TW/01/01437 – Listed Building Consent – Demolition of various sheds, lean-to buildings; alterations and extension to farmhouses; conversion of redundant farm buildings to two dwellings; refurbishment of farm building to form farm office – Approved 07/08/03.
POLICIES
1. Kent Structure Plan 1996
- Policy T19 – Access to road network.
2. Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan Adopted 1996
- Policy EN1 – General Development Control criteria. - Policy TP1 – Safely located access.
3. Kent and Medway Structure Plan – Deposit Plan, September 2003
- Policy TP1 – Development and access.
4. Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan Review – Second Deposit Copy, October 2002
- Policy EN1 – General Development Control criteria. - Policy TP4 – Safely located access.
CONSULTATIONS AND BACKGROUND PAPERS
1. Highways Agency
07/06/04 – The opening of the A21 Lamberhurst Bypass will drastically alter traffic flows and we have no objection, subject to a condition specifying the prior opening of the Lamberhurst Bypass.
2. Kent County Council Highways
07/06/04 – Confirms this section of A21 will be de-trunked and maintained by Kent County Council. Road at this point will be stopped up.
However, it is now proposed this section of carriageway will be re-opened when the Kippings Cross to Lamberhurst link is constructed. Therefore two way traffic will again use this section of carriageway following the upgrade of the A21 between Kippings Cross and Lamberhurst. We therefore object to removal of the condition, as there will still be a highway safety need to only access the site by the safer central access.
3. Highways Manager (TWBC)
22/06/04 – I have no objection to removal of condition, subject to appropriate conditions to ensure this only happens after Lamberhurst Bypass is operational.
Appropriate visibility splays should be maintained at each access and the driveways should be surfaced in a bound material.
4. Lamberhurst Parish Council
28/05/04 – Recommend refusal – The long-term plan for this road is that it will re-open in a few years time as a local road. Therefore we feel the restriction should remain. APPRAISAL
The main issue is whether there are any highway safety reasons for maintaining this condition, as clearly the road in the short term will be a dead end and only used by traffic to this farm complex. There is no formally approved route of timetable for the Kippings Cross to Lamberhurst upgrade of the A21 Trunk Road and it is therefore considered by Officers that there are no valid reasons why the condition could not be relaxed, until such time as there are any operational plans to re-open this road to two way traffic. - E7 -
SUMMARY
The following is a summary of the main reasons for the recommendation:
- The proposal will not be detrimental to highway safety.
RECOMMENDATION – APPROVE SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
(1) This permission shall not have effect until such time as the A21 Lamberhurst Bypass is open and operational for traffic and all other works in connection with closing the existing trunk road are complete.
Reason: In the interests of highway safety in accordance with Policy TP1 of the Local Plan.
(2) This permission shall only have effect for so long as the public highway adjoining the site is not used for through traffic. In the event of plans for improving the A21 between Kippings Cross and Lamberhurst requiring this section of road to be re-opened to through traffic the southernmost and northernmost vehicular accesses shall be closed permanently as required by Condition 2 of TW/01/01433.
Reason: In the interests of highway safety.
(3) Vehicle to stand clear of highway H011.
(4) The area of land within the vision splays at the two accesses shown on the submitted plan shall be cleared of any obstruction exceeding as height of 0.6 metres and be so retained to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: In the interests of highway safety in accordance with Policy TP1 of the Local Plan.
PLANS
The following plans are the subject of the recommendation above: site layout plan P.I.C.2055; Plan numbers to be approved, SV/101/2055 and SV/100/2055 received 19 July 2004.
Reference: TA/NC
- E9 -
APPLICANT REFERENCE LOCATION PROPOSAL
CONTACT ADDRESS DATE VALID GRID REFERENCE DATE OF APPLICATION
MICHAEL AND BETTY TW/04/01548 Cranecroft Double garage. CROCKFORD Slip Mill Lane Cranecroft HAWKHURST Slip Mill Lane HA Hawkhurst Cranbrook Kent TN18 5AD 24/06/04 753950/317450 08/06/04
DESCRIPTION
The proposal is to construct a double garage within the applicants garden. There is an extensive landscaped area along the site frontage to Slip Mill Lane and an existing 2 metre close boarded fence on three boundaries. The applicants house is in a row of detached houses along this lane to the west of the former Rural District Council housing estate, known as Wellington Cottages.
There would be no alterations to the vehicular access as the garden area is already used to park cars and on site turning areas already exist. The garage would be 5.5 x 5.8 metres and built of thermalite blocks clad with tanalized feather edge wood boarding. In order to keep the roof height low it is proposed to use dark green corrugated steel sheets.
The application is referred to Committee at the request of the Parish Council.
RELEVANT HISTORY
TW/91/00825 – Detached garage – Approved 12/08/91 – Not built.
POLICIES
1. Kent Structure Plan 1996
- Policy RS1 – Developments at villages and small rural towns. - Policy ENV3 – Protection of Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. - Policy ENV4 – Protection of Kent Special Landscape Area.
2. Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan Adopted 1996
- Policy EN1 – General control criteria. - Policy EN23 – Landscape protection.
3. Kent and Medway Structure Plan – Deposit Plan, September 2003
- Policy QL5 – Quality and Density of Development. - Policy E4 – High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. - Policy E5 – High Weald Special Landscape Areas.
4. Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan Review – Second Deposit Copy, October 2002
- Policy EN1 – General control criteria. - Policy EN24 –Landscape of the Borough. - E10 -
CONSULTATIONS AND BACKGROUND PAPERS
1. Hawkhurst Parish Council
05/07/04 – Against – Inappropriate building materials in an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
APPRAISAL
The principle of building a double garage on this site was agreed in 1991, although at that time a brick building with a plain clay tile was proposed. That consent has since lapsed. The issue is whether the siting, design, size and materials are satisfactory. The garage would be to the side of the bungalow. Although the garage would be forward of the front elevation of the bungalow, it would nevertheless be set back 10 metres from the site frontage to Slip Mill Lane. The bungalow is set back 24 metres. Given the siting, and the landscape screening which exists I consider the siting to be acceptable. In my view there will be no impact on the wider Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty landscape and the design and material are appropriate. It should however be noted that a public footpath runs along the side boundary of the property.
To minimise the landscape impact of the garage a roof material has been chosen to reduce the pitch of the roof. In my view this is a material that can be considered appropriate in this well screened garden location, and will not harm the rural character of the area.
SUMMARY
The following is a summary of the main reasons for the recommendation:
- The development would be ancillary to the residential use of the site and would not be harmful to the rural character of the locality.
- The scale, location and design of the development would respect the context of the site and preserve the visual amenities of the locality.
RECOMMENDATION – APPROVE SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
(1) Standard detailed YZ01.
(2) Materials as specified D014.
(3) Garage restricted to private use R005.
(4) The existing turning facilities on site shall be retained from any obstruction to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: In the interests of highway safety in accordance with Policy TP1 of the Local Plan.
PLANS
The following plans are the subject of the recommendation above: Floor plans, elevation plans, block plan – received 8 June 2004.
Reference: AJB/NC
- E12 -
APPLICANT REFERENCE LOCATION PROPOSAL
CONTACT ADDRESS DATE VALID GRID REFERENCE DATE OF APPLICATION
MR M L AND MRS P G JEPP TW/04/01193 Land off School Terrace OUTLINE – Proposed (Lambert & Foster HAWKHURST residential development. 77 Commercial Road HA Paddock Wood Tonbridge Kent TN12 6DR) 07/05/04 759716/307600 07/05/04
DESCRIPTION
This application seeks outline planning consent for residential development on land fronting on to School Terrace, Hawkhurst. School Terrace is a narrow adopted road, off of Western Road. The application is accompanied by an illustrative design of a dwelling. All details are reserved for subsequent consideration.
The site currently forms part of the garden of Summerhill, which is accessed from Western Road. It has a frontage to School Terrace of 16.5 metres and an average depth of 20 metres. Although the site generally lies below the level of School Terrace, it is possible to provide a level vehicular access.
The application is referred to Committee at the request of the Parish Council.
RELEVANT HISTORY
SW/6/72/166 – Erection of a pair of semi-detached dwellings – Refused.
POLICIES
1. Kent Structure Plan 1996
- Policy ENV3 – Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty. - Policy ENV4 – Special Landscape Areas. - Policy RS1 – Development at small rural towns and villages. - Policy RS2 – Development within small rural towns and villages.
2. Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan Adopted 1996
- Policy EN1 – Development Control criteria. - Policy EN23 – Landscape protection. - Policy H9 – Residential development within the Limits to Built Development. - Policy VP1 – Vehicle parking. - Policy TP1 – Vehicle access.
3. Kent and Medway Structure Plan – Deposit Plan, September 2003
- Policy E4 – Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty. - Policy E5 – Special Landscape Areas. - Policy QL1 – Quality of development.
4. Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan Review – Second Deposit Copy, October 2002
- Policy EN1 – Development Control criteria. - Policy EN23 – Landscape protection. - Policy H5 – Residential development within the Limits to Built Development. - Policy VP1 – Vehicle parking. - Policy TP1 – Vehicle access. - E13 -
CONSULTATIONS AND BACKGROUND PAPERS
1. Highway Manager
22/06/04 – There are clearly accessability problems with this proposal but a residential use is not likely to generate enough traffic to warrant refusal of the application.
Construction traffic is, however, another matter and I have concerns over the impact of such traffic if it is not adequately regulated. I think we need to consider the matter at this stage and put in place appropriate conditions if permission is to be granted.
2. Hawkhurst Parish Council
08/06/04 – Against. This infill would be detrimental to the local environment. Access to this site and for other residents will be aggravated. This outline application does not restrict the development to one dwelling.
3. Mouchelparkman – Agents for KCC
07/06/04 – We write to advise that we have identified this application to our clients in the Kent County Council’s Education, Libraries, Adult Education, Youth and Community and Social Services Directorates for them to assess whether the proposal will necessitate any requirements.
We will advise as soon as we have their response and would request you reserve the County Council’s position, until you hear further from us.
4. Weald of Kent Preservation Society
25/05/04 – We object to this application. The area is already overdeveloped, and consideration should be given to neighbours by leaving open space in the midst of the closely packed dwellings. The access would also further exacerbate the parking difficulties in School Terrace.
5. Private
10 letters (from 7 properties).
The concerns set out in the letters can be summarised as follows:
- Proposed dwelling is not of a style in keeping with the locality. (6 letters) - Proposal would increase traffic in School Terrace. (5 letters) - Parking in School Terrace and the adjoining roads is already limited. (6 letters) - Access to this site should use the existing access to Summerhill. (5 letters) - Too much building is going on in Hawkhurst, to its detriment. (1 letter) - There will be problems getting construction traffic to and from the site. (1 letter) - Properties in School Terrace rely on School Terrace for parking. (1 letter) - Would the Council be willing to make good School Terrace if damage by the construction traffic? (2 letters) - There is no footpath for pedestrians in School Terrace. (2 letters) - The narrow road creates difficulties and cars damage gardens at present. (1 letter) - The plot is very small. (1 letter)
APPRAISAL
This site lies within the Limits to Built Development where small infilling plots such as this are acceptable. There is therefore no objection in principle to the development. The application is an outline application and the detail of any dwelling to be built would need to be the subject of a ‘reserved matters’ application.
School Terrace is an unclassified adopted highway and I understand that the applicants were required to pay their share of the cost of making the road up to an adoptable standard. The applicant has a “permitted development” right that would allow the construction of a new access on to School Terrace to serve the existing dwelling. Whilst, I understand the concerns of the residents of School Terrace about the loss of parking space that would result from this proposal, that could occur from the exercise of the “permitted development” rights whatever the outcome of this application. - E14 -
I am satisfied that the plot is of sufficient size to accommodate a dwelling in a satisfactory manner. Detailed design issues would be controlled at the reserved matters stage.
I do share the concerns of the Highway Manager and the local residents about the access for construction traffic. However, these concerns could be overcome by the use of a suitable condition.
With respect to the comments of Mouchelparkman, there is no provision agreed for collecting development contributions for these purposes. Moreover, a single infill plot is well below the threshold for developer contributions.
SUMMARY
The following is a summary of the main reasons for the recommendation:
- The site is within the limits to built development where there is no objection to the principle of the proposed development.
- Any potentially significant impacts on the amenities of nearby dwellings can be satisfactorily mitigated by conditions.
RECOMMENDATION – APPROVE SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
(1) Standard Outline Condition 1 YZ11
(2) Standard Outline Condition 2 YZ12.
(3) Standard Outline Condition 3 YZ13.
(4) The details submitted in accordance with Condition 1 above shall show a single storey elevation to the School Terrace frontage of the site.
Reason: In order to ensure that the development respects the context of the site and to protect the amenities of adjoining property.
(5) No development shall take place until full details of hard and soft landscaping have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority and these works shall be carried out as approved in accordance with the approved programme.
Soft landscaping details shall include details of any existing trees and shrubs to be retained together with planting plans; written specifications including cultivation and other operations associated with plant and grass establishment; schedules of plants, noting species, plant sizes and numbers/densities where appropriate and an implementation programme.
Upon completion of the soft landscape works, these works shall be maintained for a further period of 5 years. During this maintenance period any plants dying, becoming diseased or removed without the written consent of the Local Planning Authority shall be replaced in accordance with the approved planting scheme.
Reason: In pursuance of Section 197 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and to protect and enhance the landscape of this site within the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and the Kent Special Landscape Area.
(6) Before any work commences on site a detailed scheme for the delivery of construction materials, plant and machinery shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority and upon approval the work shall be progressed in strict accordance with the agreed scheme. Any variation from the approved scheme shall be first agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: In order to protect the amenities of adjacent residents and in the interests of highway safety.
(7) During construction work shall only be carried out between 08.00 and 18.00 hours on Mondays through to Fridays, 08.00 hours and 13.00 on Saturdays and not at all during Sundays and Bank holidays. Reason: In order to protect the amenities of surrounding residential property. - E15 -
(8) Vehicle Parking Outline Houses V001.
PLANS
The following plans are the subject of the recommendation above: Site plan.
Reference: PJT/NC
- E17 -
APPLICANT REFERENCE LOCATION PROPOSAL
CONTACT ADDRESS DATE VALID GRID REFERENCE DATE OF APPLICATION
MR AND MRS D MOY TW/04/01578 Santolina Alterations and extensions (Alan Bishop Consultancy The Common to convert existing chalet Grove Barn SISSINGHURST bungalow to two storey Grove Lane SI dwelling. Hunton Maidstone Kent ME15 0SE) 11/06/04 7872/3787 11/06/04
DESCRIPTION
The property is a modern chalet bungalow, with two rooms in the roof, on a large plot with a frontage of 55 metres to the A229. The area is characterised by ribbon development predominantly detached houses, on either side of the road, but the entire area is outside any defined Limits to Built Development. The plot is screened by a tall hedge along the site frontage, and the bungalow itself is set back 14 metres from the highway, (the A229 Staplehurst Road).
The proposal is to demolish a car port attached to the side of bungalow, a rear conservatory and a detached garage, plus a brick arch feature, which forms a front porch area.
It is then proposed to build a whole new first floor, on top of the footprint of the bungalow to provide 4 bedrooms (one en-suite), plus bathroom and landing area.
Following refusal of a previous application it is now proposed to construct a slate roof with a 25 degree roof pitch (rather than 35 degrees with a concrete tile). This reduces the height of the main ridge to 7 metres and represents a reduction in height of about 1 metre compared to the refused scheme. The main ridge would be 1.25 metres higher than the ridge height of the existing structure. The eaves height would be 5.0 metres, 2.5 metres higher than the existing.
Existing (including car port, conservatory, Proposed % Increase arch to be demolished) 787 cubic metres 830 cubic metres 18%
The application is referred to Committee at the request of a Member.
RELEVANT HISTORY
WE/5/56/65 – Bungalow – Approved 07/06/56.
TW/84/00934 – Side extension, rear conservatory and dormer windows – Approved 20/08/84.
TW/03/02371 – Conversion of chalet bungalow to two storey dwelling – Refused 10/12/03.
POLICIES
1. Kent Structure Plan 1996
- Policy ENV4 – High Weald Special Landscape Area. - Policy RS1 – Rural settlement, General. - Policy RS5 – Development at Hamlets and in the countryside. - E18 -
2. Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan Adopted 1996
- Policy LBD1 – Site outside the Limits to Built Development. - Policy EN1 – General Development Control Criteria. - Policy EN23 – High Weald Special Landscape Area. - Policy H13 – Extensions to dwellings outside the Limits to Built Development.
3. Kent and Medway Structure Plan – Deposit Plan, September 2003
- Policy HP6 – Extensions in the Countryside. - Policy E5 – High Weald Special Landscape Area.
4. Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan Review – Second Deposit Copy, October 2002
- Policy LBD1 – Site outside the Limits to Built Development. - Policy EN1 – General Development Control Criteria. - Policy EN24 – Landscape of Borough. - Policy H12 – Extensions to dwellings outside the Limits to Built Development.
CONSULTATIONS AND BACKGROUND PAPERS
1. Cranbrook Parish Council
05/07/04 – Recommend approval.
2. Private
No views received.
APPRAISAL
I consider the main issue is whether this is a modest extension, complying with Policy H13 of the Adopted Local Plan and secondly, whether it causes harm to the landscape in this rural part of the High Weald Special Landscape Area. In particular the issue is whether the increased height and bulk of the building is more obtrusive in the landscape.
Clearly the proposal represents an increase in volume in an area that still retains an element of rural character, in that dwellings are on large plots and often set back from the main road. The subject property is not seen in close proximity to other development, other than Nursery Bungalow and an adjoining single storey shop. This proposal has attempted to reduce the impact on the landscape by incorporating a hipped roof and demolishing the side car port, detached garage and front arch feature. Nevertheless, the main element of concern is still the increase in height caused by the proposal to convert a chalet bungalow into a two storey house. This increase in roof height will be across the full width of the property and I do not consider this proposal is significantly different to application TW/03/02371, that was previously refused.
At present, the house is visible from the highway through its access. The roof is visible above the boundary hedge. If the proposal were implemented, the upper floor windows and roof would be clearly visible above the hedge. In conclusion, the proposal would be more obtrusive in the landscape, contrary to Policy H13.
RECOMMENDATION – REFUSE FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS:
(1) The proposed development, by reason of its increased height, and volume, would not be modest and would adversely affect the character of the area and as such would be contrary to Policies RS1 and RS5 of the Kent Structure Plan 1996, Policies EN1 and H13 of the Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan Adopted 1996, Policy HP6 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan – Deposit Plan, September 2003 and Policies EN1 and H12 of the Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan Review – Second Deposit Copy, October 2002. - E19 -
(2) The proposed development, due to its height and volume, would detract from the landscape character of the area which is within the High Weald Special Landscape Area. The proposal would therefore be contrary to Policy EN23 of the Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan Adopted 1996, Policy EN24 of the Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan Review – Second Deposit Copy, October 2002, Policy ENV4 of the Kent Structure Plan 1996 and Policy E5 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan – Deposit Plan, September 2003.
PLANS
The following plans are the subject of the recommendation above: RFD/794/1,2,3,4 and 5.
Reference: AJB/NC