DC/14/16 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE
6 January 2015
REPORT OF THE HEAD OF PLANNING ON APPLICATIONS
1. Y14/0873/SH LAND ADJACENT THE SURGERY MAIN ROAD (Page 6) SELLINDGE KENT
Hybrid application for the redevelopment of land between the A20 and M20 at Sellindge. Application for outline permission (with all matters reserved except access) comprising of 200 dwellings, local mixed use centre containing parish offices (sui generis up to 100m2), commercial floorspace (A1/A3/A5 uses up to 200m2) together with access form the A20, associated roads, parking, earthworks, open space including attenuation features and landscaping. Full application comprising 50 dwellings, village green and play equipment, access from the A20, associated roads, community car parking, earthworks, open space including attenuation features and landscaping.
2. Y14/1159/SH ARC WASH CHERRY GARDEN LANE (Page 71) FOLKESTONE KENT
Retrospective application for corporate and instructional/safety signage for car wash operation; including partially illuminated fascia.
3. Y14/0943/SH 6 BLACKHOUSE RISE HYTHE KENT (Page 79)
Erection of two storey side/rear extension and raising of roof to create full two storey dwelling.
DC/14/16 Application No: Y14/0873/SH
Location of Site: Land Adjacent to The Surgery, Main Road, Sellindge, Kent
Development: Hybrid application for the redevelopment of land between the A20 and M20 at Sellindge. Application for Outline permission (with all matters reserved except access) comprising of 200 dwellings, local mixed use centre containing parish offices (sui generis up to 100m2), and associated storage (sui generis up to 100m2, 40m2 as closed storage and 60m2 as secure outdoor storage) commercial floorspace (A1/A3/A5 uses up to 200m2) together with access from the A20, associated roads, parking, earthworks, open space including attenuation features and landscaping. Full application comprising 50 dwellings, village green and play equipment, access from the A20, associated roads, community car parking, earthworks, open space including attenuation features and landscaping.
Applicant: Taylor Wimpey UK Ltd
Agent: Mr D Bradley Barton Willmore LLP The Observatory Southfleet Road Ebbsfleet Dartford Kent DA10 0DF
Date Received: 31.07.14
Expiry Date: Planning Performance Agreement
Date of Committee: 06.01.15
Officer Contact: Mr Ben Geering
RECOMMENDATION: That the Head of Planning Services be authorised under delegated authority to grant planning permission, subject to the completion of a section 106 legal agreement with the applicant that secures the social and physical infrastructure and financial contributions detailed within this report and subject to conditions outlined within the report and any additional conditions which he considers to be necessary.
1.0 THE PROPOSAL
1.1 The application comprises a hybrid application for the redevelopment of land to the south of the A20 and north of the M20 within the village of Sellindge. The application site forms part of land designated within policy CSD9 of the DC/14/16 Shepway Core Strategy Local Plan 2013 as a Broad Location for residential development of up to 250 dwellings.
1.2 The hybrid application site in totality comprises 10.7 hectares, with the application predominantly outline in nature (6.4 Hectares), with all matters reserved other than Access, with full details provided for the development of phase 1 of the scheme (4.3 Hectares), comprising of 50 dwellings and the provision of the village green, community car park and associated works and landscaping within the eastern portion of the site.
1.3 A full list of the planning application documents is set out in Appendix 1 to this report.
1.4 The Planning Statement sets out the key features of the application, which include:
• Up to 250 dwellings in the form of 1 and 2 bed apartments, 2, 3, 4 and 5 bed houses; • A new Village Green of 1.6 hectares with significant frontage to the A20 and running southwards to the existing pond to the front of Somerfield Barn Court, including a play area to the north of the existing pond; • Additional areas of open space, leading from the Village Green to be landscaped to enhance biodiversity and provide a buffer area from the M20 to the South; • Significant traffic calming measures to the A20 that are outside of the application site that will be subject to a s278 Agreement with KCC Highways; • Three principal new accesses to the site from the A20 and a new improved access utilising the existing access to the A20 that serves Richardson Court and Somerfield Barn Court; • Three additional secondary accesses to the site from the A20 to serve private drives with limited housing; • Affordable housing with the proposed mix informed by discussions with Shepway District Council’s Housing Strategy Manager. • The delivery of a Mixed Use Local Centre comprising of a Parish Office of up to 100sqm with 100sqm of storage, commercial floorspace of up to 200sqm with residential development on upper floors shown on the A20 frontage directly adjoining a proposed new access to the site that runs immediately to the east of the existing car park; • A new community car park with 40 spaces, and dedicated cycle parking, immediately to the north of the proposed Mixed Use Local Centre; • Surface water attenuation areas incorporated into the layout as positive site features.
1.5 In addition Taylor Wimpey has secured a site to enable the extension of Sellindge Primary School from ½ to 1 form of entry. This is Belvedere Cottage and its curtilage which lies immediately to the west of the existing school. The Applicants control Belvedere Cottage and are prepared to make this available to KCC for the purposes of extending the school without requiring any land payment. A section 106 obligation will be DC/14/16 entered into binding the application site to prevent the commencement of development until a binding offer to transfer Belvedere Cottage to KCC has been made.
1.6 The build programme for the residential element of the development is dependent on timescales in getting planning permission, the approval of reserved matters and the discharge of planning conditions. It is also dependent on the market. However, the following indicative programme is considered realistic:
2015-16 – 30 units; 2016-17 – 50 units; 2017-18 – 60 units; 2018-19 – 60 units; 2019-20 – 50 units.
1.7 The Design and Access Statement (DAS), produced by Pegasus provides detailed character analysis of the village and sets out the design process undertaken in producing the submitted indicative masterplan for the development of the site which supports both the outline and detailed application, as required by policy CSD9.
1.8 The masterplan, whilst indicative in all matters other than access identifies the strategy for the development of the site, comprising of a tree lined avenue running parallel to the A20 providing access to the development, the retention of the existing linear ditch running west to east from Somerfield Barn Court to Rotherfield Cottage and the provision of a substantial buffer area to the north of the M20, connecting to the village green to the east.
1.9 The masterplan identifies development fronting on to street frontages, with perimeter block development as required by the Sellindge’s Future rural masterplan report.
1.10 The masterplan also identifies the likely location of the parish offices and commercial units, adjacent to the extended car park and existing GP surgery and village hall.
1.11 The masterplan identifies 2 distinct areas for residential development – Phase 1 to the east of the proposed village green comprising 50 units and to the west the Outline application area which is proposed to deliver up to 200 houses alongside the non-residential uses.
1.12 All matters other than access are reserved within this component of the application, with drawing T.0231_36B seeking approval for all access points serving both the outline and full development. This identifies ‘Access C’ from the A20 with the provision of a main tree lined avenue spine road (indicative layout) providing a linear street running parallel to the A20 and connecting up to ’Access B’, together with access for a private drive further to the west. Access points A and B, together with 2 new private drives and DC/14/16 the upgrading of the existing private access to Somerfield and Richardson Court are included within the detailed element of the application.
2.0 LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION OF SITE
2.1 The application site boundary, as shown in plan T.0231-09B is located within the village of Sellindge, approximately 10 kilometres to the south east of Ashford (connected by the A20) and 15.5 kilometres to the west of Folkestone.
2.2 Sellindge is a rural settlement dating back to Norman times, which developed as a linear settlement through the 18 th and 19 th centuries as a stopping point between Folkestone, Hythe and London. The village underwent significant suburban expansion in the mid twentieth century alongside growth in private car ownership, with a number of new estates built either side of Swann Lane. The construction of the M20 in the 1980’s had a significant impact on the role of the village, with the majority of traffic using the motorway to travel to and from the coast and the settlement no longer being located on the Strategic Road Network. Despite this the A20, with a 40mph speed limit forms a significant divide within the village, separating the residential core to its north from many of its services to the south.
2.3 Today the village has a population of approximately 1600 people, and is identified within the Shepway Core Strategy Local Plan as a Rural Centre that provides shops and services for a significant number of residents, visitors and for other villages in the North Downs.
2.4 The site itself covers an area of 10.7 hectares and currently consists of 4 fields separated by mature hedgerows. An existing track separates the site in two with access from the A20 directly opposite Swan Lane. The track provides access to Somerfield Barn Court and Richardson Court, which sit on the southern boundary of the site adjacent to the M20. Alongside the track at the centre of the site is a pond surrounded by mature trees, which will form the focal point to the proposed village green.
2.5 The northern and north eastern boundaries of the site are generally defined by the A20, except for a small stretch where some infill residential land uses and local facilities inject into the site’s northern boundary, with the proposed development wrapping around these properties to the rear. The local facilities form a small community hub and include Sellindge Village Hall and Sellindge GP Surgery and an existing 45 space car park, with the primary school located to the northern side of the road almost opposite, separated by the A20.
2.6 The western boundary, extending beyond the built up area of the existing village is adjoined by a number of sporadic, detached residential properties and farm buildings and framed by large mature trees and an existing close boarded fence. DC/14/16
2.7 The southern boundary is generally bordered by the M20 except for where the grade II listed properties Somerfield Barn Court and Richardson Court are located half way along the boundary. At present the boundary is buffered by existing trees and an acoustic fence.
2.8 The site is generally flat, with levels between 65m and 68m AOD and well contained on the floor of the vale enclosed by the M20 embankment and roadside vegetation to the south and residential development to the north and bounded by substantial hedgerows and tree belts on all sides.
2.9 There are two public rights of way that cross the site. HE301 runs along the southern boundary of the western extent of the site before running directly across the site to the junction of the access track that serves Somerfield Barn Court and Richardson Court with the A20. HE302A runs from HE301 southwards along the western boundary of the south western element of the site.
2.10 The site is crossed by a number of utility services the majority of which are underground. These include 132KV and 260KV National Grid cables that run parallel to the M20 to the north of Somerfield Barn Court and Richardson Court (the National Grid cable runs to the north of the pond at this point) and then back parallel with the M20 and then under the A20 to the east.
2.11 There are several semi-mature and mature trees within the site including Ash, Sycamore and Horse Chestnut. In addition there is a very mature Poplar tree within the site. The hedgerows are dominated by common species such as Hawthorn, Blackthorn and Elder and are poor species. However several of these hedgerows are mature and have potential to be of historic significance under the Hedgerows Regulations 1997. Several hedgerows also contain semi mature and mature trees.
2.12 Within the site are two ponds that form notable landscape features. The larger pond towards the centre of the site is surrounded by dense vegetation. The smaller pond is only seasonally wet. There are two ditches within the site both are steep sided seasonally wet ditches with vegetation along the sides.
3.0 PLANNING POLICY EVOLUTION & CONTEXT
3.1 Both the Localism Act 2011 and the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) reinforce the plan led system, but also emphasise the role that local communities can play in shaping their environment and the development that is required. The NPPF considers that ‘ proposals that can demonstrate this in developing the design of the new development should be looked on more favourably’ (Paragraph 66).
3.2 Following consultation within Sellindge on ‘Preferred Options’ in the summer of 2009 community feedback identified a number of improvements DC/14/16 to the village that could be delivered alongside housing development on alternative land within the village.
3.3 In early 2010 Shepway District Council successfully bid to the HCA for Rural Masterplan funding for Sellindge, with Urban Initiatives commissioned to complete this study.
3.4 The study aimed to provide a clear spatial vision for Sellindge to ensure growth in the village is sustainable and provides tangible benefits to existing and new residents, assessing development within a number of locations. The project included a village walk around, workshop, two landowner surgeries, a village game workshop to establish development options and a public exhibition.
3.5 The report, ‘Sellindge’s Future’ was produced in March 2011 and set out a vision for the growth of the village as well as opportunities for new development to support new and existing facilities within the area. The document details a thorough investigation and analysis of growth options for the village, formulated in conjunction with local residents, the Sellindge and District Residents Association and Parish Council before outlining a preferred masterplan for growth within the village.
3.6 The main principles of this development include:
• To create a new residential spine, running though the development parallel to the A20 to provide a continuous route through the new development and access to residential properties. • To create a new village green public open space around the existing social activity of the village hall, primary school and GP practice. • To create a pattern of streets and lanes with a rural quality which respects and responds to existing hedgerows, mature trees and water courses. • To create perimeter blocks where the front of properties overlook the public realm and back gardens adjoin other back gardens.
3.7 The findings of the Sellindge’s Future project and report were used to inform policy CSD9 of the Core Strategy, which underwent Examination in Public (EiP) before the Planning Inspectorate in May 2012 with a further hearing on modifications in May 2013. The modifications did not relate to the Sellindge proposals. Both Sellindge and District Residents Association and the Parish Council appeared at the EiP in broad support of the proposed residential development of Sellindge as set out in policy CSD9.
3.8 Following the publication of the Inspector’s Report in June 2013 Shepway District Council adopted the Core Strategy Local Plan in September 2013. The inspector concluded (para. 95) that
‘The location of the core development area responds to both the settlement’s existing built form and the clear local wish to create a new village green/open space area in a central position. On balance, these elements of policy CSD9 are adequately justified.’ DC/14/16
3.9 Policy CSD9 states the following:
Land in the centre of Sellindge forms a broad location for development to deliver a central village green/common, a more pedestrian/cycle-friendly Ashford Road, and other community facilities, financially enabled by limited residential development.
3.10 Any major residential-led development in Sellindge parish should meet all the following criteria:
a) Proposals must be properly masterplanned (following extensive community engagement) and the full area included in a single outline application. b) Development must ensure the delivery of a core area (bulk of identified land south of the A20) in parallel with/advance of any development to the west, north or east of it. c) Total residential development will not exceed approximately 250 dwellings (Class C3), with around 30% affordable housing subject to viability. d) Development should provide timely delivery of a village green/common south of the A20 that: i. is of at least 1.5–2 ha in size, or greater, ii. provides a range of facilities and type of landscaping identified through consultation with local residents and complementing the existing facilities located at the sports club, iii. is of the highest quality and incorporates robust and durable lighting and furniture, iv. provides new habitats for priority nature conservation species. e) Development should deliver a more pedestrian/cycle-friendly A20 through (as a minimum) informal traffic calming features at key locations, and perceived narrowing of the carriageway outside Sellindge primary school and associated highways improvement. f) Proposals must include satisfactory arrangements for timely delivery of necessary local community facilities including a primary school extension; and also potentially allotments and administrative accommodation for the parish council. g) Development should contribute to improvements in the local wastewater infrastructure and other utilities as required.
4.0 COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT & PRE-APPLICATION DISCUSSIONS
4.1 The planning application is supported by a detailed Statement of Community Involvement (SCI) which provides a detailed summary of public consultation carried out by the applicant prior to the submission of the planning application.
4.2 Taylor Wimpey commenced consultation with statutory organisations and key stakeholders regarding the submission of a planning application for the development of the site in October 2012 (alongside support for policy CSD9), with meetings taking place with Sellindge Parish Council, SDC DC/14/16 officers, KCC education and the Headteacher of Sellindge Primary School between October 2012 and March 2013.
4.3 Further meetings took place between Taylor Wimpey, KCC and SDC in the summer of 2013 regarding education and highway requirements, leading up to a stakeholder workshop within the Village Hall in September 2013 at which the key issues of community facilities, transport, the village green and other areas of open space, housing and the phasing of homes were discussed. Feedback from this consultation then further informed a public exhibition, held at the Village Hall in November 2013 at which there were 196 attendees, with 61 comment forms received. The SCI submitted in support of the application identifies how the issues raised have been addressed within the submitted application.
4.4 Following further meetings between TW, SDC, KCC (Education), KCC (Highways), Sellindge Parish Council and Sellindge GP Surgery a second stakeholder event was held in February 2014 focusing on the A20 improvement works and design of the village green.
4.5 A final meeting was held with SDC in March 2014 prior to the submission of the planning application.
4.6 Sellindge Parish Council organised a further public consultation event in September 2014 to discuss the potential for the village to develop a Neighbourhood Plan. Taylor Wimpey and key members of its consultant team were asked to attend the event and display details of its proposed development. This gave the community a further opportunity to comment on the proposals and ask questions of Taylor Wimpey and its consultants.
5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
5.1 Prior to the submission of the planning application on 5 th December 2013 Taylor Wimpey submitted a Screening Report, requesting a Screening Opinion for the proposed development from SDC to ascertain whether the development would be ‘EIA development’ and require the submission of an Environmental Statement.
5.2 The Council considered this request, as required by regulation 5(1) of the Town and Country Planning (EIA) Regulations 2011 and responded to the request on 8 th January 2014.
5.3 In considering the development proposed the views of Natural England, English Heritage, the Environment Agency, Kent County Council Highways and Archaeology, Kent Wildlife Trust and SDC Environmental Health were sought. Responses were received from all consultees and all consultee responses received stated that an EIA was not required. These consultee comments provided guidance for the future application and were made available to the applicant.
DC/14/16
5.4 The Screening Opinion concluded that:
‘It is the opinion of the Council that the development proposed falls within the description at paragraph 10 Infrastructure Projects (b) “Urban development projects” of Schedule 2 to the 2011 Regulations as the site area exceeds 0.5 Hectares. The site is not located within a “sensitive area” under Regulation 2 (1) of the above Regulations.
Schedule 3 of the regulations set out selection criteria which must be taking into account in determining whether the development is likely to have ‘significant effects’ on the environment. The proposed development has been considered against the three selection criteria under Schedule 3 of the above Regulations, which are:
1. Characteristics of the development 2. Location of the development 3. Characteristics of the potential impact
a) The location is not a ‘sensitive site’ as stated in the Regulations nor has any other statutory or non statutory landscape, archaeological or ecological designation, as discussed in section 3.8 of the Screening Report, which also identifies a number of documents that will be submitted in support of the planning application. b) Having considered the proposed development and the supporting documents for this screening opinion, together with the views of consultees and having taken in to account the selection criteria in Schedule 3 to the 2011 Regulations it is the opinion of Shepway District Council that the proposed development would not be likely to have significant effects and would not constitute development for which an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is required.’
6.0 CONSULTATION RESPONSES
The following comments represent the final comments of consultees, following the submission of further information and amended plans unless otherwise stated.
6.1 Parish Council
Comments on amended plans and additional information to be provided on Supplementary Sheets.
SPC made a number of comments and observations following the initial consultation as summarised below:
DC/14/16 • A proposed flat above a garage (plot 4) could be replaced with a house with parking rearranged in the area to remove the need for the rear parking courtyard • Pathways should not be gravel for future maintenance • Standard litter bins rather than dog waste bins should be provided • The gates to Somerfield and Richardson Courts should be relocated nearer to these properties so the woodland is retained within the village green • Clarification on the amount of affordable housing is needed – would not want to see the % fall too much and concerned that the % is below 20% in phase 1. • Affordable housing should be spread throughout the development with access to green space as likely to be occupied by families • Bus services should be extended if possible • Are visibility splays adequate for the private drives? • Should the car park be one way?
6.2 Stagecoach Buses
Following further amendments to the plans to incorporate appropriate bus stops Stagecoach Buses support the development, subject to the works being undertaken under s278 of the Highways Act.
6.3 Kent Highways Services
Please find enclosed below comments from Kent County Council Highways and Transportation service to the above-referenced planning application. Providing a minor amendment is made to the dimensions of 4 proposed visitor parking bays then I now have no objections to the application subject to conditions being attached to any planning permission granted, and providing the relevant obligations are secured via a S106 Legal Agreement.
Comments enclosed herein are presented under headings in a manner consistent with the KCC H&T response dated August 2014.
i) Service margins The service margins shown on the amended Phase 1 layout drawing T.0231_17M are to the satisfaction of the local highway authority.
ii) Obstructions in the visibility splays The revised drawing (T.0231_36A) shows the proposed works to the A20 that provides for a highway arrangement that will not give rise to the presence of obstacles in visibility splays. The only exception to this rule is in respect of the access labelled ‘existing private drive’, for which there could be instances whereby the visibility splay to the south-east could be masked by the presence of a stationary bus at the bus stop as marked. However, in such instances any vehicles emerging from the existing private DC/14/16 drive would be able to undertake a left-turn manoeuvre safely; given the fact a bus would be stationary within the north-west bound carriageway. Right turns out of the existing private drive would be undertaken with a driver proceeding under caution looking for an appropriate ‘gap’ in the traffic moving south-east bound. Given the volume of traffic moving along the Ashford Road corridor, coupled with the fact the proposed highway improvement will narrow the carriageway width, it is not considered that vehicle users passing north-west bound would overtake a stationary bus, thereby passing on the wrong side of the road.
The acceptability of the proposed points of access in terms of the visibility splays that can be achieved is wholly contingent upon the requirement for the applicant to implement the improvement works to the A20, thus enabling the introduction of a lower speed limit (30 mph from 40 mph). The applicant will be required to separately progress the necessary orders associated with the proposed speed limit reduction. iii) Frontage development
The local highway authority is now satisfied that the highway access arrangement (drawing T.0231_17M) to serve phase 1 is satisfactory, but only on the proviso that the works to the A20 are completed prior to first occupation on the application site. iv) Restricted turning heads Vehicle tracking diagrams (shown in drawing 2013/1673/002 Rev B) have been provided to demonstrate that a refuse vehicle of 11.4 metre length can successfully manoeuvre around internal roads and make use of the proposed points of access. v) Internal road width The internal road layout has been reduced to 4.8 metres, which is satisfactory to the local highway authority. vi) Internal forward visibility A minimum forward visibility of 25 metres on internal roads is required, and this has been demonstrated in the corresponding site layout drawing. vii) Application of tandem parking The previous tandem parking query in respect of 4-bed dwellings has been the subject of a revision through the provision of a garage and two further parking spaces in tandem arrangement, as shown on the amended Phase 1 layout drawing T.0231_17M, which is satisfactory to the local highway authority. viii) Visitor parking bays
DC/14/16 The visitors parking bays shown on the site layout plan (drawing T.0231_17M) are to the satisfaction of the local highway authority. The southern-most space to the west of the ‘indicative attenuation area’ (from a run of 4 spaces) could be reduced to 3 spaces to assist with internal layout from an urban design perspective. A number of the marked visitors parking bays are only 5 metre length parallel to the carriageway. The requirement is 6 metres. As a result the following parking bays need to be amended to satisfy the local highway authority:
- The visitor space to the frontage of unit No. 39 - The visitor space to the frontage of unit No. 16 - The visitor space to the frontage of unit No. 32/33 - The visitor space to the frontage of unit No. 27/28
Should the required amendment be made to the above-referenced visitor spaces then the local highway authority will be satisfied with the parking arrangement and layout.
(It should be noted that these visitor spaces now accord with KCC Highways requirements) ix) Parking bay dimensions
The minimum size of a parking bay is 2.5 metres (length) by 5 metres (length), which an additional allowance of 0.2 metres for an adjacent obstructions. x) Rural parking standards
The parking quantum must accord with IGN3 suburban edge / rural, which has been demonstrated in the revised site layout. xi) Plot specific parking concerns
The parking arrangement serving plots 1 and 44 are not satisfactory to the local highway authority. xii) Existing private drive (opposite the Swan Lane junction) The existing private drive that serves an existing Care Home and 16 dwellings is now shown to provide frontage access and parking for 6 dwellings associated with the development, which is acceptable to the local highway authority. xiii) Junction arrangement (Swan Lane junction) In the context of the proposed improvements to the A20 the arrangement of the A20/Swan Lane/private access road junction is satisfactory to the local highway authority. xiv) Pedestrian crossing demand and the provision of suitable crossing facilities DC/14/16
It is expected there will be strong pedestrian demand to cross the A20 Ashford Road at a point proximate to the Ashford Road/Swan Lane junction. Owing to the pedestrian desire line in this location, the proposed improvement to the A20 has been amended to include a zebra crossing at an appropriate location, which is to the satisfaction of the local highway authority. xv) Road safety audit
A Road Safety Audit has been prepared on behalf of the applicant and the design meets the requirements of the local highway authority. xvi) Proposed Travel Plan measures
Sellindge is well served by public transport, and the development proposal will improve pedestrian connectivity along the A20 corridor, thus providing improved local accessibility to public transport infrastructure.
The development is not sufficiently large to warrant the need for ‘kick-start’ funding to improve service frequency. However, in order to drive modal share it is crucial that new residents are appropriately incentivised to make use of public transport through subsidised travel following occupation. To this end it is considered that provision is to be made by the applicant for 3 months use of public transport per household, which will entitle a minimum of one user free travel for up to 3 months, or otherwise a number of occupiers the ability for subsidised travel to the sum equivalent to 3 months’ use for one individual.
The provision of public transport subsidy is to be secured through the S106 agreement. xvii) Construction of the extended public car park within Phase 1
The extension of the public car park to provide an additional 40 car parking spaces and 5 cycle spaces is to be completed and available for use prior to the opening of the proposed expansion to the local primary school, or otherwise prior to the first occupation of the mixed use local centre, whichever is earlier. xviii) Construction Management Plan
Given the number of sensitive land uses in/around the application site, construction traffic will only be permitted on the local highway network (i.e. access from the A20) between 10:00 and 14:00 on weekdays. Any restriction on Saturday will be at the discretion of the Local Planning Authority on the basis of amenity implications. This requirement is to be secured by condition. xix) Conditions
DC/14/16 The grant of planning permission is subject to the following conditions, and obligations are to be secured within the corresponding S106 Legal Agreement.
Condition 1. Provision and permanent retention of the vehicle parking spaces shown on the submitted plans prior to the occupation of the development hereby permitted.
Reason: In the interests of highway safety.
Condition 2. Completion and maintenance of the access details shown on the submitted plans prior to occupation.
Reason: In the interests of highway safety.
Condition 3. Provision of construction vehicle loading/unloading and turning facilities prior to commencement of work on site and for the duration of construction.
Reason: In the interests of highway safety.
Condition 4. Prior to the commencement of development a Construction Management Plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and local Highway Authority. This shall include details of the following:
• wheel washing facilities/measures to prevent debris and spoil and the discharge of surface water onto the public highway • access point for HGV’s and site personnel • provision of parking facilities for site personnel and visitors prior to commencement of work on site and for the duration of construction • dust suppression methods • plant and noise generated from operation of vehicles and machinery • fencing/hoardings • lighting • HGV routing • hours of operation • any temporary traffic management/signage required
All details of the approved Construction Management Plan shall be adhered to during the construction period of that phase.
Reason: To ensure provision of adequate off-street parking for vehicles and in the interests of highway safety and to protect the amenity of local residents.
Condition 5. Before each phase of the development is occupied vehicle turning areas for that phase shall be provided in accordance with details which shall have been previously submitted to and approved by the Local DC/14/16 Planning Authority and the vehicle turning areas shall be permanently retained available for this purpose.
Reason: So that vehicles may enter and leave the site in a forward gear in the interests of highway safety
Condition 6. Before the first occupation of each dwelling the following works between that dwelling and the adopted highway shall be completed:
(a) Footways and/or footpaths, with the exception of the wearing course. (b) Carriageways with the exception of the wearing course, including the provision of a turning facility beyond the dwelling, together with related:
i) Highway drainage, including off-site works. ii) Junction visibility splays. iii) Street lighting, street nameplates and highway structures (if any).
And the developer shall, at the same time, agree with the Local Planning Authority in writing when the final wearing course shall be applied, and it shall be applied at the time agreed.
Reason: In the interests of highway safety, and the convenience and amenity of occupiers of the development.
Condition 7. The improvement works to the A20 shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details shown on drawing 2013/1673/009 Rev B (to include accommodating the two private drive accesses with the A20 and all associated signage) and shall be constructed and opened to traffic before the occupation of the first dwelling on the application site.
Reason: In order to ensure adequate access to the development site in accordance with the requirements of Kent Design.
Condition 8. The extension of the public car park to provide an additional 40 car parking spaces and 5 cycle spaces is to be completed and available for use prior to the opening of the proposed expansion to the local primary school, or otherwise prior to the first occupation of the mixed use local centre, whichever is earlier.
Reason: In the interests of highway safety, and the convenience and amenity of occupiers of the development.
Informatives
It is the responsibility of the applicant to ensure, before the development hereby approved is commenced, that all necessary highway approvals and consents where required are obtained and that the limits of highway boundary are clearly established in order to avoid any enforcement action being taken by the Highway Authority. The applicant must also ensure that the details shown on the approved plans agree in every aspect with those approved under such legislation and common law. It is therefore important DC/14/16 for the applicant to contact KCC Highways and Transportation to progress this aspect of the works prior to commencement on site.
The movement of construction traffic/delivery vehicles into/out of the site will only be permitted on the local highway network (i.e. access from the A20) between 10:00 and 14:00 on weekdays. Any restriction on Saturday will be at the discretion of the Local Planning Authority on the basis of amenity implications. This requirement is to be secured by condition.
Future Reserved Matters application(s) will need to include provision within the layout proposals to accommodate cycle and motorcycle parking in accordance with SPG4 Parking Standards.
The improvement works to the A20 are to be completed by the applicant under a S278 Agreement with the local highway authority.
The legal order to have the speed limit of the A20 corridor that shall be subject to improvement works as shown on the approved drawing would also need to have been progressed by the applicant and all appropriate signage in place prior to first occupation.
vii) S106 Heads of Terms
The developer is to provide a travel subsidy of per household equivalent to 3 months’ travel on the public transport network. This measure is to be offered via the Travel Plan.
6.4 Environmental Health
With reference to this application Environmental Health make the following comments from the various documents submitted with the application:
6.4.1 CONTAMINATED LAND
1. Prior to commencement of the development a desk top study shall be undertaken and submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The study shall include the identification of previous site uses, potential contaminants that might reasonably be expected given those uses and any other relevant information. Using this information, a diagrammatical representation (Conceptual Model) for the site of all potential contaminant sources, pathways and receptors shall also be included.
2. If a desk top study shows that further investigation is necessary, an investigation and risk assessment shall be undertaken by competent persons and a written report of the findings shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to commencement of the development. It shall include an assessment of the nature and extent of any contamination on the site, whether or not it originates on the site. The report of the findings shall include:
(i) A survey of the extent, scale and nature of contamination; DC/14/16
(ii) An assessment of the potential risks to:
● Human health;
● Property (existing or proposed) including buildings, crops, livestock, pets, woodland and service lines and pipes,
● Adjoining land,
● Ground waters and surface waters,
● Ecological systems,
● Archaeological sites and ancient monuments; and
(iii) An appraisal of remedial options and identification of the preferred option(s).
All work pursuant to this Condition shall be conducted in accordance with the DEFRA and Environment Agency document Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination (Contamination Report 11).
3. If investigation and risk assessment shows that remediation is necessary, a detailed remediation scheme to bring the site to a condition suitable for the intended use by removing unacceptable risks to human health, buildings and other property and the natural and historical environment shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to commencement of the development. The scheme shall include details of all works to be undertaken, proposed remediation objectives and remediation criteria, a timetable of works, site management procedures and a verification plan. The scheme shall ensure that the site will not qualify as contaminated land under Part 2A of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 in relation to the intended use of the land after remediation. The approved remediation scheme shall be carried out in accordance with the approved terms including the timetable, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Local Planning Authority shall be given two weeks written notification of commencement of the remediation scheme works.
4. Prior to commencement of development, a verification report demonstrating completion of the works set out in the approved remediation scheme and the effectiveness of the remediation shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The report shall include results of sampling and monitoring carried out in accordance with the approved verification plan to demonstrate that the site remediation criteria have been met. It shall also include details of longer-term monitoring of pollutant linkages and maintenance and arrangements for contingency action, as identified in the verification plan, and for the reporting of this to the Local Planning Authority.
5. In the event that, at any time while the development is being carried out, contamination is found that was not previously identified, it shall be DC/14/16 reported in writing immediately to the Local Planning Authority. An investigation and risk assessment shall be undertaken and where remediation is necessary a remediation scheme shall be prepared. The results shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority. Following completion of measures identified in the approved remediation scheme a verification report shall be prepared and submitted to the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land and neighbouring land, together with those to controlled waters, property and ecological systems, are minimised and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other off-site receptors.
6.4.2 AIR QUALITY
There is currently no Air Quality Management Areas (AQMA) within the district of Shepway. The application has considered the impact the development site would have within the locality.
We concur with the results and agree there will be no significant change to the air quality of the area upon completion of the development.
Any short term occurrence in relation to dust whilst building works are taking place will be dealt with under the submission of conditions put into place through the construction management plan.
6.4.3 NOISE ASSESSMENT
With the publication of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) certain planning policy guidance documents were revoked, amongst which was PPG 24: Planning and Noise.
The new framework does require noise to be taken into account when considering any application and it is acknowledged that the noise report submitted with this application has achieved that. It has partially been based upon the criterion used in PPG 24, and also WHO guidelines, along with BS 8233: 2014, and recognised standards that are used for residential development that may be erected close to road and rail networks.
EH accept the methodology of the report and the monitoring that was undertaken. Section 4 of the report examines the results obtained from collected data to current standards. For the plots closest to the M20, the report makes recommendations regarding the standard of glazing that are required (see para 4.6 and 4.7 of the noise report). EH would endorse the requirement for passive acoustic ventilators for any habitable window facing the M20, however, if the design of the building can be such that non habitable rooms face the motorway, then this would be the preferred design criteria. Specific criteria has also been provided for houses that will face the A20 road network, and again the recommendations will need to be adhered too, to ensure all current noise standards are met. DC/14/16
For the outdoor noise levels to achieve the WHO standards, it is noted that some of the plots will require additional protection from acoustic fencing. These plots are specified in paragraph 4.9 and 4.14 of the acoustic report. It is vital that if any proposed changes are put to the council throughout the course of the development that would affect these plots, the criterion remains in place for the required standard of fencing to be erected. With the current designs as submitted, the garden areas are on the borderline of meeting WHO standards.
EH conclude with the assessment criteria that for housing to be erected close to the M20, A20 and railway line sensitivity to the layout and building design will be a vital element to ensure current noise criterion and standards are met for the new residential premises. Therefore, should permission be granted for this development, the noise report submitted with the application, and its recommendations will need to be incorporated into any planning conditions for the site.
6.5 Arboricultural Manager
I have been out to the Sellindge site and can confirm that I am satisfied with the recommendations contained in the pre-development tree survey and report.
It will be necessary for the developer to undertake all proposed tree work and erect all protective fencing prior to any construction activity and as such I would like this adding in as a condition on the consent.
6.6 KCC Regeneration Projects
The County Council has assessed the implications of this proposal in terms of the delivery of its community services and it of the opinion that it will have an additional impact on the delivery of its services, which will require mitigation either through the direct provision of infrastructure or the payment of an appropriate financial contribution.
The Planning Act 2002 and the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 (the CIL Regulations) (Regulation 122) require that requests for development contributions of various kinds must comply with three specific legal tests:
1. Necessary 2. Related to the development, and 3. Reasonable related in scale and kind
These tests have been duly applied in the context of this application and give rise to the following specific requirements.
• Financial contribution of £836,260 to fund expansion of Sellindge Primary School, together with land neighbouring the existing Sellindge Primary School (Belvedere cottage), freehold and transferred as a DC/14/16 vacant possession cleared of buildings and structures to below ground level and underside of foundations, at nil consideration to the County Council in line with KCC general site transfer requirements. • Pupil parent use of and access to the village hall car park:
Following pre-application discussions and agreements with the developer, Sellindge Primary School to be given unrestricted and unfettered vehicular access to and use of Sellindge village hall car park as no cost to KCC or the School for use by the parents/carers of Sellindge Primary School pupils as a school drop-off and pick-up area, and for any other appropriate school requirements as and when necessary and without prejudice.
• Secondary School contribution – No current requirement • Community Learning - £5,253.44 • Youth Services – No current requirement • Social Services - £18,467.50 • Libraries – £27,327.21 • Delivery of 3 lifetime homes wheelchair accessible units
The County Council has sought the above development contributions based upon the assessed impact of this development proposal on the delivery of its services. As such, the County Council will need to be able to monitor for and collect any contributions owing, as well as being able to enforce against those obligations; in the instance of late or non-payment.
Superfast Fibre Optic Broadband:
To provide ‘fibre to the premise’ (Superfast fibre optic broadband) to all buildings (residential, commercial, community etc) of adequate capacity (internal min speed of 100mb to each building) for current and future use of the buildings.
To be achieved via condition.
Implementation: The County Council is of the view that the above contributions comply with the provisions of regulation 122 of the CIL Regulations and are necessary to mitigate the impacts of the proposal on the provision of those services for which the County Council has a statutory obligation. Accordingly, it is requested that the Local Planning Authority seek a section 106 obligation with the developer/interested parties prior to the grant of planning permission. The obligation should also include provision for the reimbursement of the County Council’s legal costs, surveyors’ fees and expenses incurred in completing the Agreement.
6.7 Highways Agency
The Secretary of State for Transport offers no objection.
6.8 English Heritage (South East Region) DC/14/16
Our specialist staff have considered the information received and we do not wish to offer any comments on this occasion. Recommendation: The application should be determined in accordance with national and local policy guidance, and on this basis of your specialist conservation advice. It is not necessary for us to be consulted again on this application. However, if you would like further advice, please contact us to explain your request.
6.9 Natural England
Natural England does not wish to comment on this development proposal.
The development however, relates to the Kent Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). We therefore advise you to seek the advice of the AONB unit. Their knowledge of the location and wider landscape setting of the development should help to confirm whether or not it would impact significantly on the purposes of the AONB designation. They will also be able to advise whether the development accords with the aims and policies set out in the AONB management plan.
6.10 Kent Wildlife Trust
I welcome the overall biodiversity enhancements that are being proposed as part of this application for development of a large site, in particular the focus provided by the village green. The masterplan demonstrates that consideration is being given to Green Infrastructure corridors within and around the periphery of the site. I commend the retaining of existing ponds and associated surrounding green space and the retained woodland to the southern boundary.
However, this application appears to lack clear detail of specific loss of existing hedgerow and woodland on site, its current value both as a significant habitat in its own right and for protected species and how this will be adequately mitigated. I would recommend that Shepway District Council satisfies itself that this has been adequately considered, particularly in terms of the impact of any habitat loss upon protected species. If this detail is not part of this phase of development then the Council should ensure that this is covered in the later development detail and if necessary supported by condition.
I note that this development is not adjacent or within any areas protected for their wildlife value, such as a Local Wildlife Site. However, the site lies ‘sandwiched’ between surrounding Biodiversity Opportunity Areas for Kent Priority habitats (from the Kent Biodiversity Action Plan) and the woodland edge is continuous to it. This means that there is potential for habitat creation. This could be added as part of the Management Plan for the retained woodland on the periphery of the development site and for the Village Green and its surrounding open space and green corridors. As far as I can see, this has not been highlighted in the Landscape Management Plan or Ecological Assessment. DC/14/16
I would conclude that Kent Wildlife Trust has no objection in principle to this planning application provided that development is carried out with full consideration of protected species, retaining and enhancing existing trees and hedgerows, with any habitat enhancement works detailed and supported by condition.
6.11 Environment Agency
We have no objection in principle, subject to the following conditions being included in any permission granted:
Flood Risk: The proposed development will only meet the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) policy to reduce flood risk if the following planning condition is included.
Condition: The development hereby permitted shall not be commenced until such a time as a surface water drainage scheme addressing the maters identified below has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. 1. Discharge from the site to watercourses/ditches must be at appropriate Greenfield runoff rates for a range of return periods up to and including the 100 year plus climate change critical rainstorm event. 2. The capacity of the receiving watercourse/ditch must be assessed to ensure that surface water discharge will not cause downstream or onsite flood risk. 3. The surface water drainage scheme should be maintained appropriately for the lifetime of the development to ensure that the scheme works efficiently. 4. Where the drainage measures, SuDS, should be incorporated into the drainage scheme where ground conditions permit as outlined in the Flood Risk Assessment by C&A Consulting Engineers Ltd (dated July 2014). 5. Rainwater harvesting and grey water recycling should be considered in the drainage design to reduce portable water consumption and a reduction in surface water discharge.
The scheme shall be fully implemented and subsequently maintained, in accordance with the timing / phasing arrangements embodied within the scheme, or within any other period as may subsequently be agreed, in writing, by the local planning authority.
Reason:
To prevent flooding by ensuring the satisfactory storage of/disposal of surface water from the site. The surface water drainage scheme for phase 1 and 2 should be assessed by the Council’s own drainage engineer. DC/14/16 The applicant should note that works to watercourses/ditched on this site may require the prior land drainage consent of Kent County Council or the Rive Stour Internal Drainage Board. Please refer to the informative section of this response for guidance.
Informative:
For the majority of the site (apart from the north west corner) any watercourse within the boundary of the site would be classed as an ‘ordinary watercourse’ and comes under the terms of the Land Drainage Act 1991, (as amended by the Flood and Water Management Act 2010), whereupon any culvert, diversion, weir dam or like obstruction to the flow of the watercourse requires a flood defence consent (also known as a ‘land drainage consent’) from Kent County Council. In the absence of any agreement to the contrary, maintenance of the watercourse is the responsibility of the riparian owner. Part of the western area of the site appears to be located within the River Stour Internal Drainage District, where any watercourse would be classes as an ‘ordinary watercourse’ and comes under the terms of the Land Drainage Act 1991, whereupon any culvert, diversion, weir dam or like obstruction to the flow of the watercourse required the consent of the River Stour Internal Drainage Board, under the Land Drainage Act 1991. In the absence of any agreement to the contrary, maintenance of the watercourse is the responsibility of the riparian owner.
Groundwater and Contaminated Land:
We have no objection in principle to the proposed housing development at this site. To protect the groundwater environment the following conditions are requested and the following informatives should be passed onto the applicant for both the outline permission and the detailed planning application.
The site lies on head deposits that in turn overlie the Sandgate formation and Hythe formation. The Sandgate formation is classified as a secondary aquifer and the Hythe formation a principal aquifer. The groundwater levels are relatively high beneath the site, therefore groundwater quality and nearby surface waters will be at risk from historic, current and proposed activities at this site and all precautions should be taken to prevent discharges and spillages to ground, both during and after construction.
Contamination:
Condition: Prior to the commencement of development approved by this planning permission (or such other date or stage in development as may be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority), the following components of a scheme to deal with the risks associated with contamination of the site shall each be submitted to and approved, in writing, by the local planning authority.
1. A preliminary risk assessment which is identified: DC/14/16 a. All previous uses b. Potential contaminants associated with those uses c. A conceptual model of the site indicating sources, pathways and receptors d. Potentially unacceptable risks arising from contamination at the site. 2. A site investigation scheme, based on (1) to provide information for a detailed assessment of the risk to all receptors that may be affected, including those off site. 3. The results of the site investigation and the detailed risk assessment referred to in (2) and, based on these, an options appraisal and remediation strategy giving full details of the remediation measures required and how they are to be undertaken. 4. A verification plan providing details of the data that will be collected in order to demonstrate that the works set out in the remediation strategy in (3) are complete and identifying any requirements for longer-term monitoring of pollutant linkages, maintenance and arrangements for contingency action.
Any changes to these components require the express written consent of the local planning authority. The scheme shall be implemented as approved.
Condition:
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 a remediation strategy to the local planning authority detailing how this unsuspected contamination shall be dealt with and obtained written approval from the local planning authority. The remediation strategy shall be implemented as approved.
Reasons:
To protect vulnerable groundwater resources and ensure compliance with the National Planning Policy Framework.
The site lies on secondary and principal aquifers. The groundwater levels are relatively high beneath the site and therefore at risk of pollution.
National Planning Policy Framework:
NPPF paragraph 109 states that the planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by preventing both new and existing development from contributing to or being put at unacceptable risk from, or being adversely affected by unacceptable levels of water pollution. Government policy also states that planning policies and decisions should also ensure that adequate site investigation information, prepared by a competent person, is presented (NPPF, paragraph 121).
Phase 1 and Preliminary Phase 2 Geo-Environmental Site Investigation: DC/14/16
The Phase 1 and Preliminary Phase 2 Geo-Environmental Site Investigation report by REC dated September 2013, has been submitted with the planning application. I have the following comments on this report.
Potential sources of contamination have been identified on site, particularly the pond that was associated with a sheep wash. We agree with the recommendations that this areas and the other sources identified should be subject to detailed site investigation. If contamination is found, the risk to the groundwater and associated receptors should be assessed.
The drainage proposals made in respect are discussed below under ‘Drainage’.
Further clarification should be sought from the Local Authority Environmental Health Officer with respect to issues related to harm to human health.
Guidance:
We recommend that developers should:
• Follow the risk management framework provided in CLR11. Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination, when dealing with land affected contamination. • Refer to the Environment Agency Guiding principles for land contamination for the type of information that we required in order to assess risks to controlled waters from the site. The Local Authority can advise on risk to other receptors, such as human health. • Refer to our website for more information.
Waste on site:
The CLAIRE Definition of Waste: Development Industry Code of Practice (version 2) provides operators with a framework for determining whether or not excavated material arising from site during remediation and/or land development works are waste or have ceased to be waste. Under the Code of Practice:
• Excavated materials that are recovered via a treatment operation can be re-used on site providing they are treated to a standard such that they are fit for purpose and unlikely to cause pollution. • Treated materials can be transferred between sites as part of a hub and cluster project. • Some naturally occurring clean material can be transferred directly between sites.
Developers should ensure that all contaminated materials are adequately characterised both chemically and physically, and that the permitting status of any proposed on site operations are clear. If in doubt, the Environment Agency should be contacted for advice at an early stage to avoid any delays.
DC/14/16 The Environment Agency recommends that developers should refer to our:
• Position statement on the Definition of Waste: Development Industry Code of Practice and; • Website for further guidance
Waste to be taken off site:
Contaminated soil that is, or must be disposed of, is waste. Therefore, its handling transport, treatment and disposal is subject to waste management legislation, which includes:
• Duty of Care Regulations 1991 • Hazardous Waste (England and Wales) Regulations 2010 • The Waste (England and Wales) Regulations 2011
Developers should ensure that all contaminated materials are adequately characterised both chemically and physically in line with British Standard BS EN 14899-2005 ‘Characterization of Waste – Sampling of Waste Materials – Framework for the preparation and Application of a Sampling Plan’ and that the permitting status of any proposed treatment or disposal activity is clear. If in doubt, the Environment Agency should be contacted for advice at an early stage to avoid any delays.
If the total quantity of waste material to be produced at or taken off site is hazardous waste and is 500kg or greater in any 12 month period the developer will need to register with us as a hazardous waste producer.
Drainage:
Condition: No infiltration of surface water drainage into the ground is permitted other than with the express written consent of the local planning authority, which may be given for those parts of the site where it is has been demonstrated that there is no resultant unacceptable risk to controlled waters. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approval details.
Reasons: To protect vulnerable groundwater resources and ensure compliance with the National Planning Policy Framework.
Surface Water Drainage:
Limited site investigations have been completed on site to date, but these show that the groundwater level is as high as 5.79mbgl. This is based on data collected from one point during fieldwork completed in September 2013. We would expect groundwater levels to be at their lowest around this time of year, so this is unlikely to provide us with an accurate reading of the highest possible groundwater level at the site.
Any surface water drainage design for a new development that includes proposed infiltration should include information on groundwater levels. This DC/14/16 is especially important where groundwater levels are relatively high, such as at this site. A direct discharge to groundwater is not acceptable and an unsaturated zone must be maintained throughout the year.
As the design of surface water drainage at this site will be dependent on the groundwater level, we would expect more than one set of data on groundwater levels to be provided. To gain an accurate record of groundwater levels at the site, we would expect to see a range of data collected from across the site.
The documents submitted with the planning application state that deep bored soakaways are proposed to dispose of surface water drainage. The construction of deep bored soakaways will not be acceptable at this site. As the groundwater levels are so high, any deep bored soakaways constructed at this site will allow a direct discharge to groundwater, as stated above – this is not acceptable. As deep bore soakaways are unacceptable the applicant must ensure that there is adequate land available for alternative sustainable drainage measures.
For such a large development, the surface water drainage options need to be considered at an early stage in the planning and design process to ensure that there is an acceptable solution. We are likely to agree to the construction of shallow infiltrating SuDS features constructed up to one metre in depth, so these should be considered further, land may need to be made available for this as part of the development.
Infiltration at this site will however, only be considered by us once it has been proven that the locations proposed are not impacted by contamination. Drainage plans should be cross referenced with the required site investigations discussed above.
We would also expect any proposed infiltration devices to include appropriate pollution prevention methods (such as trapped gullies or interceptors) to prevent hydrocarbons draining to ground from roads, hardstandings and car parks. Clean uncontaminated roof water shall drain directly to infiltration devices entering after any pollution prevention methods.
Foul Drainage:
Any foul drainage should be directed to mains foul sewer.
Fuel, Oil and Chemical Storage:
Any facilities for the storage of oils, fuels or chemicals shall be provided with secondary containment that is impermeable to both the oil, fuel or chemical and water, for example a bund, details of which shall be submitted to the local planning authority for approval. The minimum volume of the secondary containment should be at least equivalent to the capacity of the tank plus 10%. If there is more than one tank in the secondary containment the capacity of the containment should be at least the capacity of the largest tank plus 10% or 25% of the total tank capacity, whichever is greatest. All fill DC/14/16 points, vents, gauges and sight gauge must be located within the secondary containment.
The secondary containment shall have no opening used to drain the system. Associated above ground pipework should be protected from accidental damage. Below ground pipework should have no mechanical joints, except at inspection hatches and either leak detection equipment installed or regular leak checks. All fill points and tank vent pipe outlets should be detailed to discharge downwards into the bund.
6.12 Southern Water
The exact position of the public sewers must be determined on site by the applicant before the layout of the proposed development is finalised.
It might be possible to divert the public sewer, so long as this would result in no unacceptable loss of hydraulic capacity, and the work was carried out at the developer’s expense to the satisfaction of Southern Water under the relevant statutory provisions.
Should the applicant wish to divert the apparatus:
1. The 150mm diameter sewer required a clearance of 3 metres either side of the sewer to protect it from construction works and allow for future access for maintenance. 2. No development or new tree planting should be located within 3 metres either side of the centre of the new public sewer. 3. No new soakaways should be located within 5 metres of a public sewer. 4. All other existing infrastructure should be protected during the course of construction works.
Alternatively, the applicant may wish to amend the site layout, or combine a diversion with amendment of the site layout. If the applicant would prefer to advance these options, items 1-4 above also apply.
Due to changes in legislation that came in to force on 1 st October 2011 regarding the future ownership of sewers it is possible that a sewer now deemed to be public could be crossing the above property. Therefore, should any sewer be found during construction works, an investigation of the sewer will be required to ascertain its condition, the number of properties served, and potential means of access before any further works commence on site. The applicant is advised to discuss the matter further with Southern Water.
In order to protect drainage apparatus, Southern Water requests that if consent is granted, a condition is attached to the planning permission. For example ‘The developer must advise the local authority (in consultation with Southern Water) of the measures which will be undertaken to divert the public sewers, prior to the commencement of the development’.
DC/14/16 Following initial investigations, there is currently inadequate capacity in the local network to provide foul sewage disposal to service the proposed development. The proposed development would increase flows to the public sewerage system, and existing properties and land may be subject to a greater risk of flooding as a result.
Additional off-site sewers, or improvements to existing sewers, will be required to provide sufficient capacity to service the development. Section 98 of the Water Industry Act 1991 provides a legal mechanism through which the appropriate infrastructure can be requested (by the developer) and provided to drain to a specific location.
Should this application receive planning approval, please include, as an informative to the permission, the following requirement: ‘The applicant/developer should enter into a formal agreement with Southern Water to provide the necessary sewerage infrastructure required to service this development.
The planning application makes reference to drainage using Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS).
Under the current legislation and guidance SUDS rely upon facilities which are not adoptable by sewerage undertakers. Therefore, the applicant will need to ensure that arrangements exist for the long term maintenance of the SUDS facilities. It is critical that the effectiveness of these systems is maintained in perpetuity. Good management will avoid flooding from the proposed surface water system, which may result in the inundation of the foul sewerage system.
Thus, where a SUDS scheme is to be implemented, the drainage details submitted to the Local Planning Authority should:
• Specify the responsibilities of each party for the implementation of the SUDS scheme. • Specify a timetable for implementation. • Provide a management and maintenance plan for the lifetime of the development.
This should include the arrangements for adoption by any public authority or statutory undertaker and any other arrangements to secure the operation of the scheme throughout its lifetime.
The Council’s Building Control officers or technical staff should be asked to comment on the adequacy of soakaways to dispose of surface water from the proposed development.
The application details for this development indicate that the proposed means of surface water drainage for the site is via a watercourse. The Council’s technical staff and the relevant authority for land drainage consent should comment on the adequacy of the proposals to discharge surface water to the local watercourse. DC/14/16
We request that should this application receive planning approval, the following condition is attached to the consent: ‘Construction of the development shall not commence until details of the proposed means of foul and surface water sewerage disposal have been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority in consultation with Southern Water’.
6.13 Affinity Water
Awaiting comments
6.14 East Kent PROW
As no Rights of Way are affected in phase 1 I have no comments to make at this stage. However I am pleased to see within the Design and Access statement the path HE301 has been identified to be diverted within phase 2 and look forward to be consulted.
In addition I draw the applicant’s attention to the following general informatives:
1. No furniture may be erected on or across Public Rights of Way without the express consent of the Highway Authority. 2. There must be no disturbance of any surface of the right of way, or obstruction of its use, either during or following any approved development. 3. No hedging or shrubs should be planted within 1.0 metres of the edge of the Public Path.
Please also make sure that the applicant is made aware that any planning consent given confers no consent or right to close or divert any Public Right of Way at any time without the express permission of the Highway Authority.
This response is made on behalf of Kent County Council, Countryside Access Service. The views expressed should be considered only as a response of the County Council in respect of public rights of way and countryside access matters relating to the application.
6.15 Kent Downs AONB Unit
Thank you for your consultation on the above application. The following comments are from the Kent Downs AONB Unit and as such are at an officer level and do not necessarily represent the comments of the whole AONB partnership. The legal context of our response and list of AONB guidance is set out as Appendix 1 below.
Comments:
DC/14/16 Our previous response sent in an email to you (14th August 2014) requested a Landscape Visual Impact Assessment and Landscape Character Assessment due to the possible impact of the application on the Kent Downs AONB. The site is in the setting of the AONB and is visible from the south facing scarp and the North Downs LDR.
Important elements:
This major development on this site demands innovative and high quality design to reflect its importance in a rural village at the foot of the Downs and in the setting of the Kent Downs AONB.
In accordance with the remit of the KDAONB Unit our comments are restricted to elements that could impact on views from and across the site towards the AONB and from the AONB over the site from the north, or that relate to the KDAONBs Wood Fuel project since it has synergy with the management of woodlands within the AONB.
Currently the area has a strong wooded green infrastructure around the boundaries and across the site which will be vital to maintain in order to ameliorate visual impact from the north. This major development will afford a large roofscape and changes to the views over the site and it is therefore important that:
• The existing green infrastructure is augmented across and throughout the site with large trees. Landscape – planting plans: Indigenous planting of hedgerow and large trees along streets and boundaries to create closing canopy along streets and open spaces would help to ameliorate visual impact in the longer term, and provide for shade etc. which addresses climate change. A wide range of species is suggested to cope with future threats of disease and climate change stress. These elements are not discernible in either the detail or outline plans.
• Any light coloured and blocky buildings over 2 stories in this middle ground of the far reaching views from the Kent Downs scarp will attract the eye. Alignment, materials (non reflective) colour, form height and alignment should be carefully assessed in relation to the view from the north. There should be not buildings over 2 stories. This is not apparent from the plans.
• Lighting: In a development of this size and type the impact of street lighting, and other lighting requirements is likely. Due to its rural location and sensitivity of the dark night skies around the setting of the AONB we would suggest that street lighting is kept to a minimum – indeed is not required – and other lighting is conditioned to ensure that no street lighting or personalised lighting is introduced after the development is built. NPPF Para 125 relate. The plans should consider these aspects .
Planning for Climate change; Sustainable buildings DC/14/16
New developments of this size may be able to benefit from district heating either from ground source heat pumps or the use of wood chip which is obtainable from the local AONB ( the Kent Downs AONB hosts a wood Fuels project. [email protected] can give you further information about the use of wood fuel heating systems in new developments.) PV panels provided at the outset of building is best in design terms as well as cost. Careful choice of roofs in relation to the reflectivity and impact on views from the surrounding AONB should be considered. If PV panels are used then they should be all black and not have silver reflective elements and surrounds. These are easily obtainable.
In summary the AONB concerns relate to height, alignment and form, use of non-reflective materials and colours, alignment of roofs for least impact, no street lighting to avoid further light pollution of the area and the need for high quality, and quantity, of green infrastructure throughout the development.
Without attention to these details the Kent Downs AONB Unit have concerns about the impact of the development on the setting of the AONB.
6.16 KCC Archaeology
Thank you for consulting us on the above planning application. The proposed development site comprises a mix of agricultural and horticultural land on the edge of the village of Sellindge, lying between the A20 and the M20 Motorway.
Archaeological Background
The immediate area has seen only limited archaeological investigation, with the investigations ahead of the construction of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link (CTRL) being the most significant in the area. The results of the archaeological works for the CTRL along with smaller scale investigation and chance finds suggest that the development site lies in a landscape that generally has a good archaeological potential.
Chance finds from the proposed development site include metal objects of prehistoric and early medieval date, including an Iron Age coin made from gold. Within the wider landscape other sites and finds of Neolithic, Bronze Age, Iron Age, Romano-British and medieval date are known. Of particular significance are a group of Bronze Age funerary monuments located on the opposite side of the M20 at Barrowhill and fields to the south-west.
The application is accompanied by a Cultural Heritage Desk-Based Assessment which includes the results of a geophysical survey and limited archaeological evaluation trenching. The desk-based assessment concludes that the site has a moderate potential for remains of Bronze Age date and a good potential for remains of Iron Age date.
DC/14/16 The evaluation works have demonstrated the presence of below ground archaeological remains at the site, with the remains observed within the evaluation trenches being of medieval and post medieval in date. The trial trenching undertaking to date has been narrow in scope, with a restricted number of trenches excavated, but this has provided some useful data to ground truth the geophysical survey results.
Recommendations
The proposed development site covers a significant area in a location where there is a moderate to good potential for archaeological remains. Limited on-site investigation works have demonstrated the presence of buried archaeology within the proposed development area. I would therefore recommend that provision is made in any forthcoming planning consent for a programme of archaeological works. The following planning condition covers what would be required:
AR1 No development shall take place until the applicant, or their agents or successors in title, has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written specification and timetable which has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To ensure that features of archaeological interest are properly examined and recorded.
In addition the proposed development has the potential to affect the setting of nearby Listed Buildings, particularly at Somerfield Court. I therefore recommend that the views of your council’s Conservation Officer are sought on the proposals.
7.0 PUBLICITY
7.1 Following receipt of the application on 31 st July 2014 extended consultation was carried out between 5 th August 2014 and 2 nd September 2014, with site notices displayed and an advertisement published in the Kent on Sunday 17 August 2014 in accordance with statutory requirements.
7.2 Amended plans were received by SDC on 17 th November 2014 with consultation carried out between 19 th November 2014 and 10 th December 2014. Site notices were displayed advertising the application, and a further advertisement published in the Kent on Sunday on Sunday 30 th November 2014.
Responses from Members of the Public
7.3 Comments in relation to the application have been received from 3 neighbours – GM Snowden of Pear House, Stone Hill, P Knight, Barrowhill DC/14/16 and V Osbourne of Silverspray, Main Road, Sellindge with the following comments provided:
• More variation in the houses is needed so as to look like a village that evolved naturally over the years and less like an estate • This could be achieved by more variety – for example weatherboarding and the hipping of roofs • Houses bordering the village green should have a more natural build line • Traffic calming measures are a great improvement to the village however this should extend across the 40mph area that includes Barrowhill as part of the village • Silverspray is directly adjacent to the development and relies on windows on its western side for majority of light. Whilst an attenuation area and planting is shown on the indicative masterplan there are concerns over the impact of development on this property. An access road is shown along the western boundary – will Taylor Wimpey provide fencing and appropriate screening?
7.4 A further letter has been received from Mr D Barkaway of Somerston Capital Ltd on behalf of Phides Estates (owners of Link Park) raising the following points:
No provision of a financial contribution towards the upgrading of the A20/A260/Stone St. Newingreen Junction is being made by the development. It is therefore contrary to policy SS5 of the Core Strategy. Improvements to this junction have been designed as part of the recent planning application at Lympne Airfield however a funding gap exists. All developments within the vicinity should contribute towards these required works
8.0 RELEVANT POLICY GUIDANCE
8.1 The following policies of the Shepway District Local Plan Review apply: SD1, HO1, LR8, LR9, LR10, BE1, BE5, BE16, U2, U4, U13, U14, U15, TR2, TR5, TR11, TR12, TR13, CO11, CO13
8.2 The following policies of the Core Strategy Local Plan apply: DSD, SS1, SS2, SS3, SS5, CSD1, CSD2, CSD4, CSD5, CSD9
8.3 The following Supplementary Planning Documents and Government Guidance apply:
National Planning Policy Framework National Planning Policy Guidance Kent Design Guide & associated appendices Building for Life 12 Affordable Housing SPD DC/14/16
8.4 Section 38 (6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, requires that the determination of any planning application shall be in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
8.5 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) sets out the Government’s planning policies for England and how these are expected to be applied, replacing a large number of Planning Policy Statements and Planning Policy Guidance, amassed over the last 20 years. As set out in Section 38(6) (above) Planning law requires that applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise, and the NPPF forms a material consideration in plan formulation and decision taking.
8.6 The NPPF identifies that within the overarching roles that the planning system ought to play, a set of core land-use planning principles should underpin both plan-making and decision-taking. These 12 principles include the following:
Planning should be genuinely plan-led, empowering local people to shape their surroundings, with succinct local and neighbourhood plans setting out a positive vision for the future of the area. Plans should be kept up ‑to ‑date, and be based on joint working and co ‑operation to address larger than local issues. They should provide a practical framework within which decisions on planning applications can be made with a high degree of predictability and efficiency;
Planning should not simply be about scrutiny, but instead be a creative exercise in finding ways to enhance and improve the places in which people live their lives;
Planning should proactively drive and support sustainable economic development to deliver the homes, business and industrial units, infrastructure and thriving local places that the country needs. Every effort should be made objectively to identify and then meet the housing, business and other development needs of an area, and respond positively to wider opportunities for growth. Plans should take account of market signals, such as land prices and housing affordability, and set out a clear strategy for allocating sufficient land which is suitable for development in their area, taking account of the needs of the residential and business communities;
Planning should always seek to secure high quality design and a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings;
8.7 Central to the NPPF (paragraphs 14 and 17) is a presumption in favour of sustainable development, for decision taking this means:
DC/14/16 Approving development that accords with the development plan without delay. Where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out of date, granting planning permission unless:
• Any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies within this framework taken as a whole, or • Specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be restricted.
8.8 Paragraphs 186 and 187 make it clear that Local Planning Authorities should approach decision taking in a positive way to foster the delivery of sustainable development. The relationship between decision making and plan making should be seamless, translating plans into high quality development on the ground. The NPPF stipulates that local planning authorities should look for solutions rather than problems, and decision takers at every level should seek to approve applications for sustainable development where possible. Local Planning authorities should work proactively with applicants to secure developments that improve the economic, social and environmental considerations of the area
8.9 Policy CSD9 states that land in the centre of Sellindge forms a broad location for development to deliver a central village green/common, a more pedestrian/cycle-friendly Ashford Road, and other community facilities, financially enabled by limited residential development.
8.10 Any major residential-led development in Sellindge parish should meet all the following criteria:
a. Proposals must be properly masterplanned (following extensive community engagement) and the full area included in a single outline application. b. Development must ensure the delivery of a core area (bulk of identified land south of the A20) in parallel with/advance of any development to the west, north or east of it. c. Total residential development will not exceed approximately 250 dwellings (Class C3), with around 30% affordable housing subject to viability. d. Development should provide timely delivery of a village green/common south of the A20 that: i. is of at least 1.5–2 ha in size, or greater, ii. provides a range of facilities and type of landscaping identified through consultation with local residents and complementing the existing facilities located at the sports club, iii. is of the highest quality and incorporates robust and durable lighting and furniture, iv. provides new habitats for priority nature conservation species. e. Development should deliver a more pedestrian/cycle-friendly A20 through (as a minimum) informal traffic calming features at key DC/14/16 locations, and perceived narrowing of the carriageway outside Sellindge primary school and associated highways improvement. f. Proposals must include satisfactory arrangements for timely delivery of necessary local community facilities including a primary school extension; and also potentially allotments and administrative accommodation for the parish council. g. Development should contribute to improvements in the local wastewater infrastructure and other utilities as required.
8.11 In addition to policy CSD9 the policies listed above apply, these are listed and summarised below:
Policy DSD – A presumption in favour of sustainable development
Policy SS1 – identifies the strategic priorities for the North Downs Character Area, including accommodating development outside of the AONB and without a material impact on its setting and providing for planned development at Sellindge
Policy SS2 – sets out the plans requirement of delivering 7000-8000 dwellings within the district between 2006/7-2025/6.
Policy SS3 – requires development within Shepway to be directed towards existing sustainable settlements to protect the open countryside and countryside and identifies that changes in settlements will be managed in a form that contributes to their role within the settlement hierarchy and local place shaping objectives to promote the creation of vibrant and distinct communities.
Policy SS5 – Requires development to provide, contribute to or otherwise address Shepway’s current and future infrastructure needs.
Policy CSD1 – Requires that subject to viability all housing development should include a broad range of tenures wherever practical. Developments of more than 15 units should provide 30% affordable housing, subject to viability and the location of affordable housing should not be concentrated in one location, and must be designed to integrate in function and appearance with private housing and existing properties.
Policy CSD2 – Sets out an objective that at least half of new bedrooms by 2026 will be three bedrooms or larger. In addition all developments of 10 dwellings or more should include 20% of market dwellings to meet Lifetime Homes Standards, unless demonstrated to be unfeasible in design or viability terms.
Policy CSD4 – Requires an increase in the quantity and quality of green infrastructure and biodiversity.
Policy CSD5 - Requires all new homes to contribute towards sustainable water resource management, maintaining or improving the quality and quantity of surface and ground water bodies. All new homes to include DC/14/16 design measures to restrict maximum water use to 105 l/person/day. New developments cannot increase peak rate and surface water runoff above existing surface water rates and SUDS schemes should be included.
Policy SD1 – overarching policy to deliver sustainable development
Policy H01 – Seeks to permit residential development on sites which form part of the land supply or are allocated within the Local Plan Review. Allows for the development of other sites subject to various criteria.
Policy LR8 – Requires designated Public Rights of Way to be properly integrated into the design and layout of development sites.
Policy LR9 – Seeks to protect existing open space and ensure appropriate levels of new open space are provided within developments at a minimum standard of 2.43Ha per 1000 population. Where such standards can’t be met, a commuted sum could be paid to improve or extend existing open space.
Policy LR10 – Seeks to ensure all residential development in which children are expected to live makes adequate provision for play space.
Policy BE1 – requires a high standard of layout, design and choice of material for all new development.
Policy BE5 – Seeks to protect listed buildings and their settings
Policy BE16 – requires development to retain important existing landscape features and make appropriate provision for new planting using locally native species of plants wherever possible.
Policy U2 – Requires main drainage disposal for sewage and wastewater.
Policy U4 – Protection of ground and surface water resources
Policy U13 – requires appropriate ducting for services
Policy U14 – encourages the use of renewable energy
Policy U15 – Seeks to ensure outdoor lighting is the minimum required and has a minimal impact on the night sky
Policy TR2 – seeks to ensure major developments include appropriate bus access and provision.
Policy TR5 – requires the provision of cycle facilities and routes within new developments.
Policy TR6 – requires the layout and design of development to provide for safe, attractive and convenient pedestrian routes.
DC/14/16 Policy TR11 – Requires new accesses and intensified accesses on to the public highway to be safe for all road users and meet highway standards.
Policy TR12 - Requires development to meet vehicle parking standards
Policy TR13 – Requires development with significant transport implications to submit travel plans.
Policy C011 – provides protection to protected species and their habitat.
Policy C013 – protects the freshwater environment, including watercourses and ponds.
APPRAISAL
9.0 Outline Application & Overarching Issues
Quantum of development and phasing
9.1 In accordance with policy CSD9 the application proposes a maximum of 250 dwellings, all within land identified within the policy as the Core Development Area and Supporting Residential Area. The application includes full details of phase 1 of the development (50 units), the details of which are assessed more fully in section 10 below. The balance of, 200 dwellings are located within the remainder of the application site at an overall density of 41 dwellings per hectare, excluding the significant areas of public open space to be provided within the development . All development is located to the south of the A20.
9.2 The application includes the provision of a mixed use local centre adjacent to the existing village hall and GP Surgery, providing a range of facilities within 2 x 100 square metre ground floor units that could include an A1 use shop or cafe, A3 restaurant or A5 takeaway. Alongside this the proposal includes provision of a 100 square metre parish office for Sellindge Parish Council and 100 square metre storage area, replacing the existing portacabin office to the rear of the village hall.
9.3 Policies LR9 and LR10 require the provision of on-site open space and play equipment, whilst policy CSD9 includes the requirements of a 1.5-2Ha Village Green. The detailed assessment of the village green and proposed play equipment is set out in section 10 of the report, however it should be noted that the overall scale of the village green (1.61Ha), Ecotrail (1.46Ha), natural and semi natural green space (0.4Ha) and amenity green space pocket parks (0.29Ha) provide for a total of 4.15 hectares of open space within the development, whilst the LEAP equivalent play space is appropriate to serve the development.
DC/14/16 9.4 As set out in paragraph1.6, the development is proposed to be phased between 2015-2020, with between 30-60 units built each year. The delivery rate is considered realistic by the applicant and will provide a significant contribution to housing need within the North Downs Area and the councils 5 year housing supply requirement.
9.5 In addition it is anticipated that the construction of the development will create approximately 60 on-site and 35 off-site jobs with up to 130 onsite and 75 offsite at peak times. The Core Strategy Local Plan provides a detailed analysis of the population demographics of Shepway and the need to provide for a working age population. It is considered the development could provide for up to 250 economically active residents and generate significant additional expenditure and investment in the local economy. The applicant estimates up to 10 jobs would be generated from the commercial floorspace proposed.
9.6 Whilst all matters other than access are reserved, the indicative masterplan, Design and Access Statement and detailed element of the application provides a clear indication that the quantum of development proposed is appropriate to the application site and can be delivered at a density and layout that is appropriate to the character of the village.
9.7 Policy CSD2 states that 20% of market dwellings should meet lifetime home standards. Taylor Wimpey have confirmed that due to viability, phase 1 of the development will not provide Lifetime Homes. Following discussions in relation to viability and the provision of affordable housing, it has been agreed that the development will provide a significantly reduced quantum of lifetime homes so as to maximise affordable housing provision. Officers have therefore agreed that 5 units (including 3 wheelchair accessible properties as requested by KCC) will be provided within phase 2 of the development and this can be achieved by condition.
9.10 Both policies CSD9 and CSD1 state that 30% affordable housing should be provided within the development, subject to viability. The application has been subject to detailed viability assessment, as set out within section 9.58 of the report. Following extensive negotiation the application now proposes a total of 20% affordable housing, with 18% delivered in phase 1 of the scheme. It is considered that the affordable housing provision can be made appropriately within the site to meet with the requirements of policy CSD1. The layout and distribution of affordable housing within phase 1is discussed in section 10 of the report.
Urban Design
9.11 Sellindge’s character is defined by it’s rural setting, surrounding landscape and common architectural styles. The village sits within a plateau of surrounding farmland on three of its sides, east, west and north providing residents with expansive views and excellent connections to the countryside.
DC/14/16 9.12 To the South the land falls towards the dominant feature of the raised M20 and the High Speed Rail Link. This route has significant adverse visual and noise impacts on the village. Local architectural style varies within the village depending on the period of construction, however there is a rural quality to the architecture with a prominence of one and two storey semidetached and detached properties with hipped roofs. Materials are commonly red brick, white render and weatherboarding and clay roof tiles.
9.13 Along the historic routes of Ashford road and Swan Lane the adjacent development provides some enclosure and sense of arrival within the settlement. Development is often fragmented however and the continuity of development fronting the street is often broken. Elsewhere, development is typically set back considerably from the street allowing for generous front gardens and/or driveways.
9.14 The A20 Ashford Road is the primary route through the village providing access to Ashford (west) and Hythe (east). The route accommodates local journeys and a moderate amount of through traffic, and provides half hourly (day time) bus services to Ashford and Hythe. The nature of the route, with its rural characteristics, discontinued footpaths and dispersed frontage along its length contributes to higher traffic speeds, a common complaint by residents.
9.15 Due to its dispersed nature and lack of continuous footpaths along the main routes, walking within the village can be a challenge for residents. Many residents feel unsafe as pedestrians on Ashford Road because of the relative speeds of vehicles and as a result, relatively short trips to local services are often done by car. Connections to the countryside from Sellindge are excellent with a comprehensive network of rural footpaths and bridleways. Nevertheless off street paths cannot compensate for the difficulties of walking to the primary village facilities.
9.16 Sellindge has a clear identity as a rural service centre and plays an important role in serving the wider area. Its simple linear structure means it is easy to understand and find your way around. The dispersed nature of the village however makes it difficult to determine your arrival into the settlement and has also resulted in areas which can feel separate from one another. The village generally suffers from a lack of an identifiable centre or ‘physical heart’ that could play an important role in stitching these areas together and improving the cohesion of the village. The ‘centred gravity’ of existing social activity is around the Village Hall, Primary School, and GP Surgery, straddling the A20.
9.17 Building upon the detailed Urban Design analysis completed by Urban Initiatives the Design and Access Statement sets out the character analysis undertaken by Pegasus Urban Design to inform the concept and emerging masterplan.
9.18 The concept plan identified the key design strategies for the development. These included the creation of a village green at the heart of the development, the creation of a mixed use local centre overlooking the DC/14/16 village green, vehicular access from the A20, a tree lined avenue with pockets of open space through the western half of the scheme and the creation of a rural frontage to the southern boundaries of the site overlooking the proposed eco-trail.
9.19 Paragraphs 17 and 57 of the NPPF seek to secure high quality design and a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings as a core planning principle for plan making and decision taking. Paragraph 58 provides further guidance as to what makes good design, with the criteria of the policy discussed in detail within the Design and Access Statement.
9.20 Local Plan Policy BE1 states that a high standard of layout, design and choice of materials will be expected for all new development. Materials should be sympathetic to those predominating locally in type, colour, and texture. Development should accord with existing development in the locality, where the site and surrounding development are physically and visually interrelated in respect of building form, mass, height, and elevational details.
9.21 Core Strategy Policy SS3 (Part C) states that proposals should be designed to contribute to local place-shaping and sustainable development by conserving and enhancing all heritage assets. Part D of this policy states that a design-led and sustainable access approach should be taken to density and layout, ensuring development is suited to the locality and its needs and transport infrastructure.
9.22 The indicative masterplan identifies a coherent and well developed movement network, with a primary tree lined avenue, secondary streets and private drives. Future Reserved Matters application will need to provide full details of layout, scale, appearance and landscaping however it is considered the indicative masterplan identifies the site can accommodate a layout that would be suitable in design terms.
Highways
9.23 The NPPF seeks to ensure that sustainable development should go ahead, without delay and that transport policies have an important role to play in facilitating sustainable development.
9.24 The application has been supported by a detailed Transport Assessment (TA), submitted in accordance with the scoping agreed with KCC Highways at pre-application stage and inclusive of traffic flow and speed counts and analysis of existing parking patterns along the A20.
9.25 The TA includes the assessment of the development upon the Newingreen Junctions (A20/Hythe Road/Stone St.) as well as the Strategic Road Network Junction 11. This assessment shows that for the future year assessment (2031), including all background and planned growth within the Core Strategy Local Plan, the Sellindge development would result in a maximum additional 3.6% of traffic at the AM peak and 4% at the PM peak DC/14/16 through the junctions whilst Junction 11 will operate within capacity at the future assessment year. The applicant therefore concludes that the application will have a minimal impact on the Newingreen Junctions and is not required to contribute to their improvement.
9.26 KCC highways have assessed the TA in detail and agree with this conclusion, raising no objection to the application, subject to the conditions set out in section 6.3 of the report.
9.27 The Planning Statement and D&A statement identify that parking provision will be made in accordance with KCC’s standards set out in IGN3. The full element of the application meets with these standards, to the satisfaction of KCC as set out in section 6.3 of the report.
9.28 In accordance with policy CSD9 the application includes a comprehensive package of improvement works to the A20 in the vicinity of the application site to be implemented via a s278 highway agreement. The works are shown on drawing 2013/1673/009 revB and detailed on sheets 1 -5 of the Rev A20 Ashford Road Highway Improvement Scheme plans. The application has also been accompanied by an updated Technical Note, responding to the Stage 1 Safety Audit carried out for the improvement scheme.
9.29 The works propose introducing street improvements to achieve a better balance between pedestrians/cyclists and motor vehicle traffic, which dominate the public realm to the detriment of the amenity of its village and occupants. The works comprise of:
• Introducing a reduction from 40mph to 30mph speed limit within the defined area. • Provision of gateway treatments at the western and eastern ends of the scheme. • Narrowing of the carriageway to 6.1 metres from between 7.3 metres – 9 metres. • Introduction of 3 metre wide shared footway/cycleway on north side of the A20. • Introduction of 2 metre wide footway on south side of the A20. • On street parking laybys. • Zebra crossing outside of primary school. • Zebra crossing outside local centre. • 3 T-Junctions to access the proposed residential land to the south of the A20. • Improved bus stop provision.
9.30 Both KCC Highway and The Highway Agency have been consulted throughout the design process and have confirmed that the proposals do not have a material effect on Operation Stack in Sellindge and capacity is not an issue.
9.31 The village is well served by the existing frequent half hourly 10/10a (Folkestone-Hythe-Sellindge-Ashford) Monday to Saturday service and the DC/14/16 less frequent 18a (Hythe-Canterbury) service. The proposal includes the upgrading of existing bus stops, located in positions that Stagecoach consider the most appropriate to serve the village. The details of bus stop upgrades can be achieved via condition alongside the s278 works. Stagecoach have requested ‘kickstarter funding’ to facilitate later services from Ashford to encourage commuter use of bus services (as an alternative to the travel plan measures requested by KCC Highways). This can be achieved via s106, subject to confirmation with the applicant.
9.32 The applicant’s highway consultant has worked with Kent Police to agree the scope of works and extent of area to be reduced from 40mph to 30mph. Whilst the Parish Council and local residents have aspirations to extend the 30mph area, the proposals have to ensure that it can be enforced and will be workable. As such it is restricted to the area to the west of the traffic lights in the east and as far as the extent of proposed works to the A20 in the west. Once in force the reduced limit may assist the Parish Council and others in the further extension of the reduction in speed limit.
9.33 It is considered that the works to the A20 provide improvements that will benefit the quality of life of both existing and new occupants within the village. The works to be completed under s278 have been costed and submitted as an appendix to the confidential viability report supporting the application and represent a significant (circa £900,000) investment in the village, as required by policy CSD8, and promoting a sustainable community and opportunity to increases trips on foot or by bicycle, as required by the NPPF.
9.34 In accordance with local plan policy TR14 and the NPPF (para 37) a travel plan has been submitted with the application. This identifies that the village is well served by public transport and has access to many day to day facilities that reduce the need for some trips to be carried out by car. That said, car ownership is high and this reflects the locations of employment and demographics of the area.
9.35 Most of the travel plan measures form physical works to the highway, to be controlled by condition that will make the village safer and more usable for those on foot or cycle. Other measures include cycle parking provisions for properties, retail and other uses and open space and this provision can also be controlled by condition. Following negotiation with KCC Highways it has also been agreed that kickstarter funding will be provided to facilitate later bus services from Ashford. This requirement can be secured via the s106 agreement, however confirmation of this is awaited from the applicant.
9.36 As set out in KCC’s comments the proposed village car park provides an opportunity to act as a pick up and drop off point for the extended Sellindge Primary School, relieving congestion and dangerous parking on the public highway. Appropriate zebra crossings are to be provided so as to ensure safe walking access between the school and the car park. The free and available use of the car park for school pick ups and drop offs can be DC/14/16 controlled by planning condition, whilst any future application to extend the school to 1 form of entry would also provide opportunity for the school travel plan to introduce measures to reduce dependence on vehicular drop offs.
Heritage and Archaeology
9.37 A Cultural Heritage Desk based Assessment has been submitted in support of the planning application and reviewed by KCC Archaeology and SDC officers. A detailed discussion of the impact of the proposal on listed buildings is set out within the assessment of the full element of the application. Additional listed buildings are located to the north of the A20 (Guinea Hall and the Elm Tree Farm House and Barn). Detailed assessment of the potential impact of the setting of these properties can be considered when Reserved Matters are submitted. It should be noted that English Heritage do not wish to comment on the application.
9.38 KCC Archaeology agree with the applicant that there is moderate to good potential for archaeological remains and therefore recommend that a programme of archaeological works are undertaken, to be achieved by planning condition.
Landscape, ecology and biodiversity
9.39 Following requests from the Kent Downs AONB unit, the Landscape Visual Appraisal Report undertaken as part of the application screening opinion was submitted in support of the application.
9.40 In terms of landscape character this report assesses the area at national, county and district levels. At the national scale, Natural England’s Countryside Character Map identifies the Site within the Wealden Greensand Area. At the county level the Kent County Council Landscape Character Assessment notes that the overall condition of the landscape is poor, with the landscape described as fragmented with many detractors associated with road and rail transport corridors, linear development and agricultural buildings and poor tree cover. The Sensitivity is considered to be moderate given the high visibility. The recommended landscape strategy is to ‘Restore and Create’ and among the recommended actions are to create new landscape features.
9.41 The report made a number of recommendations that have been incorporated in to the masterplan, these includes retaining existing landscape features including mature trees, hedgerows, ditches and ponds and protecting the setting of the listed buildings through the establishment of a village green.
9.42 Kent Downs AONB units response to the application is set out in paragraph 6.15 of the report. In summary the AONB concerns relate to height, alignment and form, use of non-reflective materials and colours, alignment of roofs for least impact, no street lighting to avoid further light pollution of DC/14/16 the area and the need for high quality, and quantity, of green infrastructure throughout the development.
9.43 It is considered that the detailed element of the proposal addresses these concerns at the application stage, or can be controlled by conditions, such as details of lighting. An Ecological Assessment has been completed and submitted in support of the application. This considers the existing ecological value of the site and presence of protected species, including Great Crested Newts within the smaller seasonal pond within the outline component of the application. The report identifies that the hedgerows and tree belts within the site provide suitable foraging and nesting habitats for a range of common bird species.
9.44 The report identifies designated sites within the locality, including Gibbons Brook SSSI (0.9km) to the northeast of the site, and the Wye & Crundale and Downs and Folkestone to Etchinghill Escarpment SAC’s and the Harringe Brook Wood local wildlife site 1.5km to the south of the application site. The report concludes that the proposed development would not have any significant adverse impact on designated sites. Natural England concur with this view and raise no objection to the application.
9.45 Kent Wildlife Trust raise no objection to the application and consider it offers ecological and biodiversity benefits, however the Trust have requested clarification with regards to the protection of existing hedgerows within the outline elements of the application. These mitigation details, as well as others set out within the Ecological Assessment can be controlled by condition.
Geo-environmental Investigations, Surface and Foul Water Drainage, Flood Risk and addressing the impacts of climate change
9.46 Paragraph 17 of the NPPF contains 12 core planning principles that should underpin both plan making and decision taking . These include:
• Supporting the transition to a low carbon future in a changing climate, taking full account of flood risk and coastal change, and encouraging the reuse of existing resources, including conversion of existing buildings, and encouraging the use of renewable resources (for example, by the development of renewable energy); • Contributing to conserving and enhancing the natural environment and reducing pollution. Allocations of land for development should prefer land of lesser environmental value, where consistent with other policies in this Framework;
9.47 Paragraph 95 of the NPPF states that to support the move to a low carbon future, local planning authorities should: • Plan for new development in locations and ways which reduce greenhouse gas emissions; • Actively support energy efficiency improvements to existing buildings; and DC/14/16 • when setting any local requirement for a building’s sustainability, do so in a way consistent with the Government’s zero carbon buildings policy and adopt nationally described standards.
9.48 Paragraph 99 of the NPPF states that Local Plans should take account of climate change over the longer term, including factors such as flood risk, coastal change, water supply and changes to biodiversity and landscape. New development should be planned to avoid increased vulnerability to the range of impacts arising from climate change. When new development is brought forward in areas which are vulnerable, care should be taken to ensure that risks can be managed through suitable adaptation measures, including through the planning of green infrastructure.
9.49 Local Plan Policy SD1 sets out the environmental criteria required to be respected in order to take account of the broad aim of sustainable development. These criteria include the following:
a) Encourage energy efficiency and conservation, re-use and recycling of materials and, the sensitive development of renewable energy resources; b) Maintain and enhance water, soil and air quality;
9.50 Both SDC Environmental Health and the Environment Agency have reviewed the submitted Phase I and preliminary Phase II Site investigation report submitted in support of the application. This report identifies the historical uses of the site and the presence of services and other uses within the vicinity. The report identifies that the site has the potential for contamination from the farming uses undertaken, with both EH and the EA requesting standard conditions relating to contamination requested.
9.51 The application site is located within Flood Zone 1 outside of a groundwater protection zone and there is no historic evidence of groundwater flooding. The current Greenfield use has low run-off rates and therefore the disposal of surface water requires careful design so as to ensure that there is no risk of flooding as a result of the development. The surface water drainage strategy therefore seeks to provide a mixture of attenuated and released flows, at Greenfield run off rates to on site ditches and infiltration via deep boar soakaways. In order to mitigate the impact of climate change, the sustainable drainage system will be designed to cater for a 1:100 year, plus 30% rainfall event.
9.52 The surface water strategy for the outline proposals is set out within the Flood Risk Assessment and can be controlled via condition. This includes the use of porous paving, open attenuation and wetland areas and deep soakaways to recharge the secondary aquifer.
9.53 The foul drainage strategy is to connect to the existing local public sewers with improvement works if required to be funded by the applicant or Southern Water. Provision is made within the viability report for upgrade works to the sewerage network.
DC/14/16 9.54 It is considered that subject to appropriate conditions as requested by the Environment Agency, the Environmental Health Manager and Southern Water the proposed development meets with policies SS3 and CSD5 and the NPPF with regards to flood risk, contaminated land and surface and foul water drainage.
9.55 In accordance with policy CSD9 the application will deliver homes that meet Code for Sustainable Homes level 3, with an enhanced water efficiency provision of 90litres/person/day (equivalent to level 4+).
Mitigation the impacts of construction
9.56 So as to mitigate the impacts of construction and in accordance with the NPPF it is recommended that both Site Waste Management Plans and Construction Environmental Management Plans are required by condition.
Infrastructure Delivery and development viability
9.57 Policy SS5 of the Core Strategy Local Plan relates to infrastructure planning, stating that ‘development should provide, contribute or otherwise address Shepway’s current and future infrastructure needs. Infrastructure to support development must exist already, or a reliable mechanism must be available to ensure that it will be provided at the time it is needed.
9.58 Paragraphs 173 and 174 of the NPPF seek to ensure development is viable and deliverable.
“Pursuing sustainable development requires careful attention to viability and costs in plan-making and decision-taking. Plans should be deliverable. Therefore, the sites and the scale of development identified in the plan should not be subject to such a scale of obligations and policy burdens that their ability to be developed viably is threatened. To ensure viability, the costs of any requirements likely to be applied to development, such as requirements for affordable housing, standards, infrastructure contributions or other requirements should, when taking account of the normal cost of development and mitigation, provide competitive returns to a willing land owner and willing developer to enable the development to be deliverable.”
9.59 The National Planning Policy Guidance (NPPG) provides further information regarding assessing development viability. Paragraph 19 identifies that ‘In making decisions, the local planning authority will need to understand the impact of planning obligations on the proposal. Where an applicant is able to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the local planning authority that the planning obligation would cause the development to be unviable, the local planning authority should be flexible in seeking planning obligations...This is particularly relevant for affordable housing contributions which are often the largest single item sought on housing developments. These contributions should not be sought without regard to individual scheme viability. The financial viability of the individual scheme should be carefully considered in line with the principles in this guidance. DC/14/16 Assessing viability should lead to an understanding of the scale of planning obligations which are appropriate. However, the National Planning Policy Framework is clear that where safeguards are necessary to make a particular development acceptable in planning terms, and these safeguards cannot be secured, planning permission should not be granted for unacceptable development.’ 9.60 Paragraph 21 of the NPPG sets out the broad criteria under which viability must be assessed and these criteria agree with those contained within established best practise set out within the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) guidance note ‘financial viability in planning’ These can be summarised as:
9.61 Gross Development Value
• On housing schemes, this will comprise the assessment of the total sales and/or capitalised rental income from the development. Grant and other external sources of funding should be considered. On retail and commercial development, assessment of value in line with industry practice will be necessary. • Wherever possible, specific evidence from comparable developments should be used after adjustment to take into account types of land use, form of property, scale, location, rents and yields. For housing, historic information about delivery rates can be informative. 9.62 Costs • Assessment of costs should be based on robust evidence which is reflective of market conditions. All development costs should be taken into account including: • build costs based on appropriate data, for example that of the Building Cost Information Service; • abnormal costs, including those associated with treatment for contaminated sites or listed buildings, or historic costs associated with brownfield, phased or complex sites; • infrastructure costs, which might include roads, sustainable drainage systems, and other green infrastructure, connection to utilities and decentralised energy and provision of social and cultural infrastructure; • cumulative policy costs and planning obligations. The full cost of planning standards, policies and obligations will need to be taken into account, including the cost of the Community Infrastructure Levy. • finance costs including those incurred through loans; • professional, project management and sales and legal costs. 9.63 Land Value • In all cases, land or site value should: • reflect policy requirements and planning obligations and, where applicable, any Community Infrastructure Levy charge; • provide a competitive return to willing developers and land owners (including equity resulting from those wanting to build their own homes); and DC/14/16 • be informed by comparable, market-based evidence wherever possible. Where transacted bids are significantly above the market norm, they should not be used as part of this exercise.
9.64 Competitive return to developers and land owners - • The National Planning Policy Framework states that viability should consider “competitive returns to a willing landowner and willing developer to enable the development to be deliverable.” This return will vary significantly between projects to reflect the size and risk profile of the development and the risks to the project. A rigid approach to assumed profit levels should be avoided and comparable schemes or data sources reflected wherever possible. • A competitive return for the land owner is the price at which a reasonable land owner would be willing to sell their land for the development. The price will need to provide an incentive for the land owner to sell in comparison with the other options available. Those options may include the current use value of the land or its value for a realistic alternative use that complies with planning policy. Infrastructure requirements
9.65 The table below sets out the Heads of Terms for infrastructure requirements agreed with the applicant that accord with policies CSD9 and SS5 of the Core Strategy Local Plan.
Infrastructure Amount or Provision Phasing Village green and open Provision 1 space Equipped play area and Provision 1 ecotrail Commuted sum payment £626,320 TBC – village green to be for funding of open and provided at phase 1 and play space maintenance maintained for 1 year/up and management for 30 to completion of phase 1 years before transfer to SellindgePC /management company Expansion of Sellindge £836,260 TBC exact trigger point Primary however provision for School to 1FE additional school places needs to sit alongside occupation of phase 1 units. Land for expansion of Provision – transfer of A section 106 obligation Sellindge Primary school cleared Belvedere will be entered into binding Cottage site in the application site to accordance with KCC prevent the requirements commencement of development until a DC/14/16 binding offer to transfer Belvedere Cottage to KCC has been made.
Expanded village car Provision Phase 1, to be transferred park alongside village green Other KCC Contributions £51,028.15 TBC – linked to occupation of every specified number of units. S278 works to A20 Provision Phased in accordance with KCC Highways requirements Bus infrastructure On site provision and Phased alongside s278 £30k kickstarter funding works and phase 2. Confirmation awaited. Expansion of GP £252,000 Phase 2 Premises 100 sq/m parish council On site provision, Phase 2 office and storage areas transferred to PC for nominal sum Lifetime homes On site provision 5 0% for phase 1. Details of private dwellings lifetime home including requirements for phase 2 KCC requirement for 3 to be submitted alongside wheelchair accessible RM application lifetime homes Affordable Housing On site provision In accordance with phasing schedule. Phase 1 to deliver 18%, with a total of 20% provided by the development
9.66 It is considered that the s106 requirements above meet with paragraph 122 of the 2010 Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations, also set out within paragraph 204 of the NPPF which states that all developer contributions must meet the following tests and be: • necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms; • directly related to the development; and • fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development. A request has been made by KCC for superfast broadband provision to be achieved via condition. The applicant has questioned whether such provision meets the tests for conditions. As such an informative may be more appropriate.
9.67 Excluding affordable housing, which is discussed below the developer contributions for the application equate to approximately £4 million, over £16,000 per unit (and exclude sewerage and water network upgrade costs DC/14/16 associated with bringing the development forward which may be funded by the applicant).
Independent Review of Viability
9.68 Taylor Wimpey’s viability consultant, GVA submitted a confidential viability assessment in support of the planning application so as to demonstrate that the development could not provide all the required s106 contributions and other infrastructure and also provide the policy compliant requirement of around 30% affordable housing.
9.69 Shepway District Council have appointed Dixon Searle as an independent expert viability consultant to review the GVA report and ensure the viability work is fully tested in accordance with national guidance.
9.70 Following significant discussion between officers, Dixon Searle, Taylor Wimpey and GVA there has been an incremental increase in affordable housing provision within the development from an initial 7% overall, 18% in phase 1 to an agreed 20% overall, with 18% provided within phase 1.
10.0 Detailed Phase – 50 Dwellings & Open Space
10.1 Phase one of the scheme comprises of the eastern parcel of land identified for residential development within policy CSD8. It is located to the north of the M20 and southwest of the A20 and includes the detailed design of the village green. It includes properties identified within Character Area 1: Ashford Road, Character Area 2: Village Green and Character Area 3: Core Family Housing
10.2 The A20 works, as previously set out are detailed within the application however constitute works to the public highway to be achieved under s278 of the Highways Act 1980. It should be noted that these works are required to be completed by KCC Highways prior to the first occupation of properties within phase 1 of the development.
10.3 Similarly, the provision of land and funding for the extension of Sellindge Primary School to 1FE is required to be completed prior to the commencement of the development.
10.4 The site area of the detailed component of the application is 4.3 Hectares, with a net developable area of 1.32 Hectares. The village green, located to the north of Somerfield Barn Court provides 1.61 Hectares of open space, with further open space provided between the proposed residential development and Richardson Court to the south providing 0.8 Hectares of open space. Within phase one further natural/semi natural green space is provided to accommodate existing landscape features and ensure attenuation areas are provided for surface water drainage (SUDS)
DC/14/16 10.5 The detailed element of the application proposes 50 residential dwellings, comprising of the following mix:
• 14 x 4 bedroom 2 & 2.5 storey properties • 26 x 3 bedroom 2 storey properties • 8 x 2 bedroom 2 storey houses • 2 x 1 bedroom flats
10.6 A mixture of detached (13 units), semi detached ( 26 units), terraced (9 units) and apartment (2 units) properties are proposed, all incorporating private gardens, with the larger properties located within the Village Green and Ashford Road Character Areas with direct external frontages .
10.7 Of these properties 18% within the phase are affordable units, comprising of 2 x 1 bedroom flats, 5 x 2 bedroom houses and 2x 3 bedroom houses, all accessed via shared surface street 2 and private drives within the south eastern corner of the phase. The overall quantum of affordable housing is discussed within section 9.70 of the report. It is considered the mix and location of affordable housing located within phase 1 is appropriate, following assessment of development viability.
10.8 The majority of parking is provided on plot, with some off-street allocated places also provided. Visitor parking is provided on-street and well spread throughout the proposed development. Parking has been developed in accordance with the Kent Design Guide: Interim Guidance Note 3 (IGN3) for new developments in a Suburban Edge/Village/Rural context. This context seeks to maximise on plot provision, as well as ensuring visitor spaces are provided at 1 space for every 5 units. Whilst garages may be provided, as is the case in this development, they will not contribute towards the required provision. In this instance both SDC and KCC have agreed with the developer that tandem, rather than separately accessible on plot parking can be provided, alongside an increase in the number of visitor parking spaces being made available within the development. Where garages are provided these incorporate secure bicycle storage. Properties without garages are provided with secure sheds for bicycle storage. The development meets KCC standards of 1 cycle space per bedroom.
10.9 Following amendments to the proposed development the arrangement and amount of parking has been increased so as to ensure that sufficient allocated and visitor parking is provided, with a reduction in the number of garages and an increase in car ports and on street visitor spaces. The development now provides:
• 101 allocated spaces (tandem on plot, off-street and within car ports) • 2 unallocated spaces (off-street) • 14 visitor spaces (on street)
10.10 It is considered that this increase in provision beyond the requirements of IGN3 (96 allocated, 10 visitor) will ensure the development provides sufficient parking spaces to serve both its residents and visitors without DC/14/16 leading to unacceptable and dangerous parking within the development and surrounding area. It should also be noted that further unallocated parking is to be retained along Ashford Road, ensuring additional provision is available to visitors to the properties, particularly those that are fronting on to Ashford Road and accessed directly via private driveways.
10.11 The detailed application also includes the provision of a significant extension to the existing village hall/doctors surgery car park (0.09Ha) , serving the proposed mixed use local centre (including parish offices) to be provided within phase 2 of the development, the doctors surgery (to be expanded), the new village green and to act as a drop off and pick up point for the expanded Sellindge Primary School. The extended car park, accessed via Ashford Road provides an additional 40 parking spaces and 5 cycle stands. The current car park, which is often full due to the wide range of services on offer within the village provides 45 spaces, albeit 5-10 of these spaces will be lost to accommodate the extension to the GP Surgery (not forming part of the application).
10.12 The additional car park capacity has been assessed within the Transport Assessment (table 3.4), identifying that the development itself will generate a need for between 32-37 spaces at peak times, including replacement provision for the expanded GP’s. Given the above it is considered the extension to the village hall car park will ensure the village retains appropriate parking capacity to serve both the existing services, those to be expanded and extended as a consequence of this planning application and those new facilities to be provided.
10.13 The entire development provides for 3 new principal access points on to the A20, together with alterations to the existing access to Somerfield and Richardson Courts. Within phase 1 are Access points A and B. Further access to the A20 is also provided to 2 private drives, each serving 5 dwellings. Access point A serves 34 properties within the higher density Core Family Housing character area. The upgraded existing private drive access, to the east of the village green will continue to serve existing properties within Richardson and Somerfield Courts, together with 7 new dwellings within the village green character area.
10.14 Access A, located opposite the listed property Rhodes House provides the principal access to the bulk of phase 1 properties, with 2 shared surfaced streets providing the spine, directly fronted by properties together with access to 4 private drives.
10.15 Access B provides both a principal access point to phase 2 properties, as well as the extended village car park. Access B is also to be provided within phase 1 of the development so as to ensure appropriate access is available to the village car park.
10.16 KCC Highways’ comments are set out in section 6.3 of the report. These confirm that subject to conditions KCC support the proposed parking and layout of phase 1 of the development.
DC/14/16 Layout, Scale, Landscape & Appearance
10.17 Developable land within phase 1 is constrained by the M20 and high voltage underground and overground cables to the south. Pre-application discussions with KCC Highways made it clear that the provision of a new access and crossroads opposite Swan Lane would not be possible. Therefore the principal Access A to the development provides for a cul-de- sac rather than a dual access street, which would have been preferential, (as proposed for ‘The Avenue’ in phase 2 of the development) with the existing private drive serving Richardson and Somerfield Courts retained and upgraded. KCC Highways also required properties to be accessed via private drives, rather than direct access to the A20.
10.18 Properties within the development are generally two storeys, with a small number incorporating rooms within the roof. Heights of dwellings are between 7m and 9. 8m, with garages/car ports up to 4.9m in height.
10.19 Phase 1 incorporates a simple palette of materials that are based on a character analysis of the village as set out in the Design and Access Statement (DAS). Properties all incorporate red brick to the ground floor, with soldier courses and headers to the properties with full brick facades. Following amendments to the scheme, an increased number of properties incorporate white weatherboarding or tile hanging to the upper storeys, with either plain tile or slate effect tiles to the roof. Windows are upvc casements of differing designs depending on house type, in the main with larger windows to ground floor than at first floor. Full details and samples of materials for each house type (inclusive of windows and doors) as well as carports and garages and paving materials can be controlled via a condition so as to ensure appropriate quality is approved.
Character Area 1: Ashford Road
10.20 Whilst properties do not directly front on to and access the A20, the private driveways, serving 10 properties (units 1, 2, 18-25) provide development frontage to the highway whilst retaining the existing hedgerow that contributes positively to the semi rural village character of the area. Properties are semi detached and detached, of a red brick finish with tile hanging or weatherboarding to the first floor of a number of the units, with plots 22 and 23 incorporating a hipped roof and the remainder gable ended. Plot 1 is located just before the village green on approach from the south, with a large side garden. This property is visually prominent within the street scene and has been designed to be 2.5 storeys in height, with attractive dormers within the slate coloured roof and white weatherboarding at first floor level. Similarly plots 18 and 38, either side of Access A also incorporate weatherboarding at first floor level and white picket fencing to the front gardens, establishing the vernacular character of the development.
10.21 Following amendments to the development proposed Units 49-50 (two x 1 bedroom flats) are located in the south east corner at the fringe of the site adjacent to the footway access. Located between the attenuation area to DC/14/16 the north and buffer area/ecotrail to the south, with screening provided by the existing hedgerow these properties have been designed so as to give the appearance of a detached standalone property, with tile hanging to first floor and a symmetrical front elevation.
10.22 It is considered that the design, scale and massing of the houses within CA1 are appropriate to the vernacular of the village, as identified within the DAS and will contribute positively to its character. By fronting the A20 the properties replicate the historic pattern of development and help provide a sense of enclosure and activity to the street that alongside the physical works provides for increased activity and interaction between properties and the road that will help achieve the reduction in speed from 40mph to 30mph.
Character Area 2: Village Green
10.23 Properties 2-7, 26 & 31 directly front the village green, with access provided to these properties (apart from no.2) via the existing private drive serving Somerfield Barn Court and Richardson Court. Properties 30, 37, 36 are also within CA2, fronting south over the buffer area and ecotrail towards Richardson Court. Whilst properties 42 -46 are identified within CA3: Core Family Housing, these properties also front on to the buffer area and therefore when viewed from the ecotrail to the south form the edge of the development.
10.24 Properties within the defined CA2 are the largest and most spacious within phase 1, with the majority being 4 bedroom, 2 storey houses with on plot parking and garages.
10.25 Properties 2-31, fronting on to the village green incorporate red brick to the ground floors, with a combination of weatherboarding, tile hanging and render to the upper storey. Houses 2 and 3 form a terrace of 3 properties with number 1, albeit 2 and 3 are orientated to front the village green ensuring the block turns the prominent corner at the entrance to the village green, with an attractive white picket fence enclosing the property. Properties 7, 26, 31 and 30 are all house type PT43, 4 bedroom, 2 storey dwellings with prominent rear 2 storey wings and faux chimneys. Following amendments it is considered the design of these properties are suitable. Between properties 7 and 26 a footway provides access from CA3: Core Family Housing to the village green. These properties incorporate windows to the side elevations, ensuring this footpath is overlooked and natural surveillance is provided.
10.26 Plots 30, 37 and 36 are accessed via private drives from Shared Surface Street 01. As such these properties are to an extent dual fronted. The layout and design of these properties provides for an appropriate street scene when viewed from the access drive, with side and rear elevations including appropriate fenestration and enclosure where required.
10.27 It is considered that the design, scale and massing of the properties within CA2 are appropriate to the development and vernacular of Sellindge and DC/14/16 will contribute positively to is character. It is considered that the orientation of the dwellings to overlook the Village Green and other public open space is appropriate and will provide surveillance and enclosure to these areas.
Character Area 3: Core Family Housing
10.28 Enclosed by the outward facing CA1 and CA2; CA3 provides higher density development of 2 bedroom semi detached and terraced houses and 3 and 4 bedroom semi detached and detached properties, accessed via Shared Surface Street 01 and 02 from Ashford Road. Accessed from Shared Surface Street 01, properties incorporate on and off plot allocated parking spaces, with car barns and garages separating properties. Visitor parking is provided within on-street build outs, with further allocated and unallocated off-street parking. The majority of affordable housing is located within this character area, accessed via Shared Surface Street 02 which also serves plots 38 and 41. This area of the development provides a significant surface water attenuation area (SuDs) to the east of the access street, adjacent to Ashford Road, alongside a number of visitor parking bays. The design of properties 42-50 includes weatherboarding and tile hanging to the first floors, reflecting the fringe location at the edge of the development overlooking the ecotrail and buffer area to the south.
10.29 Properties fronting on to the shared surface streets generally have small front gardens with landscaping providing defensible space and enclosure. All properties are two storey, with private rear gardens. Shared Surface Street 01 provides a more urban form than that exhibited within the other character areas, with a predominant rhythm of semi detached dwellings fronting on to the block paved street. The dwelling types and appearance of these properties are similar to those in CA1 and CA2, albeit simpler in form and predominantly red brick to upper and lower storeys. It is considered that the design, scale and massing of the properties within CA3 are appropriate to the development and vernacular of Sellindge and will contribute positively to is character.
Open space, arboriculture, biodiversity and Ecology
10.30 In accordance with policy CSD9 the development proposes the provision of a large village green to the south of Ashford Road that forms a focal point and heart to both the development and wider village itself. The detailed design of the village green is included within Phase 1 of the development, providing separation from the Outline element of the application (200 houses) and includes the provision of a play area to the north of the existing pond, planting, pathways and trails and seating and picnicking areas.
10.31 Policy CSD9 requires that – Development should provide timely delivery of a village green/common south of the A20 that:
i. is of at least 1.5–2 ha in size, or greater, DC/14/16 ii. provides a range of facilities and type of landscaping identified through consultation with local residents and complementing the existing facilities located at the sports club, iii. is of the highest quality and incorporates robust and durable lighting and furniture, iv. provides new habitats for priority nature conservation species.
10.32 The application proposes a village green of 1.61Ha, together with further publically accessible open space within the ecotrail and 30 metre buffer area to the north of the M20 that spans across the width of the development (phases 1 and 2) , providing a further 1.46 Ha of publically accessible open space. The design of the village green seeks to provide significant open frontage to the A20 with railings so as to ensure it appears as a significant feature within the village. Existing trees are retained within the village green, whilst additional planting further enhances its parkland character.
10.33 Bonded gravel paths provide a network of routes through the village green, including the formalisation of footpath HE301, connecting to the proposed ecotrail, which includes interpretation and sculptural items.
10.34 It is proposed that any lighting to the village green is dealt with via condition; however it is the view of the Kent Downs AONB unit that in this rural location lighting should be low level and minimised to reduce the visual impact of the development on the wider landscape.
10.35 An indicative specification of materials is set out within the submitted Public Open Space Detailed Landscape Masterplan, with a detailed Landscape Management Plan for public open space within phase 1 of the development also provided which sets out a proposed future management and maintenance regime. Indicative materials, which set a benchmark for the proposal include timber toddler and junior (18 months – 11 years) play equipment, swings and spinners, together with animal sculptures and the grading of the landscape to provide a more natural area of play. The Ecotrail is proposed to incorporate signage, interactive wooden items/sculptures and litter bins, whilst robust timber seating, picnic benches and litter bins are proposed. The proposal includes the retention of the existing pond, with selective regarding and tree removal opening it up as a landscape feature, including an island for ducks to escape predators and a safety ring. Pathways are proposed to be provided in bonded gravel.
10.36 The village green and ecotrail includes provison for significant biodiversity enhancement, including the provision of meadow planting, native hedgerows and fruit trees. Further biodiversity enhancements such as bird and bat boxes can be achieved via condition.
10.37 It is proposed that the village green is transferred to the parish council following an appropriate maintenance period by the developer, alongside long-term funding for its maintenance and management to be achieved as part of the s106. SDC Grounds Maintenance have been consulted on the DC/14/16 detailed Open Space Landscape Masterplan and consider that the planting proposed, open space layout and maintenance scheme is robust. The comments of the Council’s Arboricultural Manager’s are set out in section 6.5 of the report, and agree with the conclusions reached, subject to appropriate conditions.
10.38 Kent Wildlife Trust, offer no objection to the application, which provides significant opportunity for ecological and biodiversity enhancement within the village green and buffer areas.
Impact on setting of listed buildings
10.39 Both Somerfield Barn and Richardson Court are located to the south of the application site, whilst the Rhodes Cottage is located to the north of the A20 opposite part of the application site. All of these properties are Grade II listed. The location of the village green seeks to ensure the open setting of Somerfield and Richardson Court is retained, ensuring that new residential development does not enclose the properties to the north. Due to the buffer area, accommodating the high voltage cabling, properties are located a significant distance from Richardson Court (50+m) and do not negatively impact on its setting. The provision of the village green and associated landscaping works to the north of the properties is considered to have a positive impact on their setting, whilst overall the development is considered to have a neutral impact on the setting of these 2 listed properties.
10.40 Rhodes House, located to the northern side of the A20 is an attractive 2 storey painted brick house, set within large grounds. It is located opposite the proposed attenuation area, with existing landscaping being retained along the M20. It is not considered the proposed development impacts on the setting of this property.
10.41 Neither English Heritage nor the District’s Conservation Officer object to the application, which is considered to comply with policies within the Local Plan and NPPF which seek to protect the setting of listed buildings.
Residential Amenity
10.42 Following amendments to the scheme every property in phase 1 of the development has access to a private garden. Rear gardens within the development are considered appropriate to the size of the dwelling and the amount of accommodation provided, with rear gardens generally over 10 metres in depth. The layout of the development seeks to reduce interlooking or overlooking between properties and of private rear gardens by arrangement, orientation, fenestration location and the use of boundary treatments and garages.
10.43 There are no existing residential properties within sufficient proximity of the development to be impacted upon in terms of overlooking or overshadowing.
DC/14/16 Noise
10.44 A detailed noise assessment has been submitted with the application, as assessed in section 6.4 of the report by the Environmental Health Manager (EHM), providing assessment against noise generated by the M20, A20 and Railway. Properties within phase 1 of the development are located a minimum of 40 metres from the southern boundary of the site which adjoins the embankment of the M20, with the majority located a significantly further distance from the motorway or screened by the existing Somerfield Barn and Richardson Court buildings. The noise assessment identifies that the proposed properties are located within Noise Exposure Category B where some mitigation through design is required. The report identifies a ‘worst case scenario’ of 27 metres between the edge of the carriageway and proposed dwellings, which is significantly exceeded by proposed dwellings within phase 1. Further, the nearest properties (49/50) are one bedroom flats with first floor bedroom accommodation to the rear of the building and those adjacent (47/48) are side on to the southern boundary and over 45m from the acoustic fence at the southern limit of the site. The nearest properties that front towards the M20 (42-46) are located at least 47m from the site boundary and over 50m from the carriageway with the M20. The Noise Report Assessment identifies that subject to appropriate design mitigation, which can be achieved via condition, the development is acceptable and would not lead to a loss of amenity for occupants. This conclusion is agreed to by the EHM, subject to a condition requiring the mitigation measures set out in the report being provided.
Refuse Strategy
10.45 The application has been supported by a refuse strategy which identifies dwellings using bin collection points, dwellings not using bin collection points and the location of bin collection points, as well as maximum distances for waste operative movement (25m) and occupier movement (30m). This strategy has been considered by the Council’s Waste Services Department who consider it is appropriate and meets with the Council’s waste collection requirements.
Foul and Surface Water Drainage
10.46 As with the outline application the full element of the application includes the use of permeable paving and attenuation areas to control run off to the existing ditch within the northeast corner of the site. The detailed design and long term maintenance and management requirements of which can be controlled by condition. It is considered that these elements meet with the NPPF and policy CSD5 of the Core Strategy Local Plan.
11.0 Human Rights
11.1 In reaching a decision on a planning application the European Convention on Human Rights must be considered. The Convention Rights that are DC/14/16 relevant are Article 8 and Article 1 of the first protocol. The proposed course of action is in accordance with domestic law. As the rights in these two articles are qualified, the Council needs to balance the rights of the individual against the interests of society and must be satisfied that any interference with an individual’s rights is no more than necessary. Having regard to the previous paragraphs of this report, it is not considered that there is any infringement of the relevant Convention rights.
11.2 This application is reported to Committee due to its strategic significance to the district.
12.0 SUMMARY
12.1 Having regard to all of the sections set out in detail above, there is no reason that the development should not proceed in a timely and controlled manner.
12.2 The application conforms with national planning policies contained in the NPPF and the Council’s own planning policies and strategies, as set out in the Core Strategy Local Plan and those policies retained in the Shepway District Local Plan Review. The scheme brings to fruition a major element of the Council’s Core Strategy for housing provision within the North Downs Character Area alongside significant investment in infrastructure and improvements to the village identified alongside the local community.
12.3 It is therefore recommended that the Head of Planning Services be authorised under delegated authority to grant outline planning permission, subject to:
• Completion of a section 106 legal agreement with the applicant that secures the social and physical infrastructure and financial contributions detailed within this report and which the Head of Planning Services considers to be acceptable;
• The key conditions discussed in this report and any amendments and additional conditions the Head of Planning Services considers to be necessary following detailed discussions with the applicant.
RECOMMENDATION – That the Head of Planning Services be authorised under delegated authority to grant planning permission, subject to the completion of a section 106 legal agreement with the applicant that secures the social and physical infrastructure and financial contributions detailed within this report and subject to conditions outlined within the report and any additional conditions which he considers to be necessary.
DC/14/16
Decision of Committee
DC/14/16
DC/14/16
Appendix 2 The planning application comprises of the following documents: Black text = documents and drawings as originally submitted on 31 July 2014 that still form part of the application Red text = documents and drawings as submitted on 14 November 2014 that form part of the application Green text = documents and drawings as submitted on 20 November 2014 that form part of the application Blue text = documents and drawings as submitted on 24 November 2014 that form part of the application Purple text = documents and drawings as submitted on 25 November 2014 that form part of the application Orange text = documents and drawings submitted on 05 December 2014
Documents:
Air Quality Assessment: Acoustic Air Cultural Heritage Desk Based Assessment: CgMs Revised Design & Access Statement: Pegasus Planning Group (T.0231_27-7A) Ecology Assessment: Ecology Solutions Education Report: EfM Flood Risk Assessment: C & A Consulting Engineers Foul Drainage Strategy: Utility Law Solutions Landscape Management Plan – Phase One Public Open Space: Pegasus Environmental Noise Assessment: Acoustic Air Phase 1 and Preliminary Phase II Geo Environmental Site Investigation: REC Planning Application Forms and Certificate: Barton Willmore Planning Statement: Barton Willmore Statement of Community Involvement: Webb PR Transport Assessment and Travel Plan: RGP Tree Survey and Arboricultural Impact Assessment: Ian Keen Ltd Tree Constraints Plan (dwg refs: 8158/01 Rev A 1/3, 8158/01 Rev A 2/3 and 8158/01/Rev A 3/3): Ian Keen Ltd Tree Protection Plan (dwg refs: 8158/02 Rev B 1/2 and 8158/02 Rev B 2/2): Ian Keen Ltd
Drawings:
T.0231_01J: Indicative Masterplan T.0231_09B: Site Location Plan T.0231_17P: Site Layout Phase 1 T.0231_26-1-1B: AA23 Floor Plans and Elevations T.0231_26-1-2: AA23 Floor Plans and Elevations T.0231_26-2A: AA31 Floor Plans and Elevations T.0231_26-3-1B: PA44 Floor Plans and Elevations T.0231_26-3-2B: PA44 Floor Plans and Elevations T.0231_26-4-1A: PT41 Floor Plans and Elevations T.0231_26-4-2A: PT41 Floor Plans and Elevations T.0231_26-5A: PT42 Floor Plans and Elevations T.0231_26-6-1D: PT43 Floor Plans and Elevations T.0231_26-6-2B: PT43 Floorplans T.0231_26-6-3C: PT43: Elevations T.0231_26-8-1B: PA34 Floor Plans and Elevations T.0231_26-8-2A: PA34 Floor Plans and Elevations T.0231_26-8-3A: PA34 Floor Plans and Elevations T.0231_26-9A: PA25 Floor Plans and Elevations T.0231_26-10A: CH1 Floor Plans and Elevations DC/14/16 T.0231_26-11-1A: PT36 Floor Plans and Elevations T.0231_26-11-2A: PT36 Floor Plans and Elevations T.0231_26-12-1A: PB33G Floor Plans and Elevations T.0231_26-12-2A: VG36 Floor Plans and Elevations T.0231_26-13-1A: PT37 Floor Plans and Elevations T.0231_26-13-2A: PT37 Floor Plans and Elevations T.0231_26-15-1A: Garage Floor Plans and Elevations T.0231_26-15-2A: Car Port Floor Plans and Elevations T.0231_26-15-3: Triple Garage Floor Plans and Elevations T.0231_26-16: Sub Station Elevations T.0231_26A-17A: 1BF01: Floor Plans and Elevations T.0231_26-26-3-3A PA44: Floor Plans and Elevations T 0231_33A: Street Scenes T 0231_33B-1: Street Scenes T 0231_33A-2: Street Scenes T.0231_33-F: Phase 1 – Detailed On-Plot Soft Landscape Proposals T.0231_34-D: Phase 1 – Public Open Space Strategic Landscape Masterplan T.0231_35-C: Phase 1 – Public Open Space Detailed Landscape Masterplan T.0231_36B: Access Points Drawing T.0231_37D: Phase 1 - Materials Plan T.0231_39A: Enclosure Details – Phase 1 T.02331_44: Refuse Strategy T 0231_45A: Land Areas
Topographical Survey
2013/1673/009B: A20 Improvements A20 Ashford Road Highway Improvement Scheme (Sheets 1 to 5 – revision A) Designer’s Response to Stage 1 Road Safety Audit (November 2014) 2013/1673/002B: Vehicle Tracking 2013/1673/010B: Site Access Tracking
DC/14/16 Application No: Y14/1159/SH
Location of Site: Arc Car Wash Cherry Garden Lane Folkestone Kent
Development: Retrospective application for corporate and instructional/safety signage for car wash operation; including partially illuminated fascia
Applicant: Mr G Barnes Anduff Car Wash Ltd 35-37 Amersham Hill High Wycombe Bucks HP13 6NU
Agent: Mr S Prior LWA Architects Ltd Naseby Road Clipston Market Harborough Leicestershire LE16 9RZ
Date Received: 13.10.14
Expiry Date: 08.12.14
Date of Committee: 06.01.15
Officer Contact: Mr John Macauley
RECOMMENDATION: That advertisement consent be granted subject to the conditions set out at the end of the report.
1.0 THE PROPOSAL
1.1 This application seeks retrospective advertisement consent for the display of corporate and instructional/ safety signage for the car wash operation; including partially illuminated fascia.
The signs applied for are as follows:
1) 2 x signs advertising the single vacuum service measuring 1.83 metres high and 60cm wide, on a green background with white and red lettering (non-illuminated).
2) 2 x menu boards advertising the services provided measuring 2 metres high by 2.6 metres wide in predominantly green, white, and red (non- illuminated). DC/14/16 3) 7 x poster signs measuring 2 metres high by 1.25 metres wide in predominantly green, white and yellow.
4) 1 x sign advertising the double vacuum service measuring 1.83 metres high by 1.04 metre wide (non- illuminated) predominantly in green.
5) 1 x totem sign measuring 2 metres high by 1 metre high (non- illuminated) in predominantly green, white and blue, advertising the car wash.
6) 2 x small round time signs in green and white.
All located on the forecourt to the car wash, and
7) Externally illuminated fascia sign surrounding the building in predominantly green with logo in blue and writing in white. The external illumination is provided by down-lighters.
8) Fascia sign advertising “foamsoft scratch free technology” with a picture of a car, predominantly in green and blue (non illuminated).
1.2 Following negotiation by officers the applicant has agreed to remove two forecourt signs that are positioned outside the fence adjacent to the junction with Cherry Garden Avenue and Cherry Garden Lane.
2.0 LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION OF SITE
2.1 The application site is a car wash located at the junction of Cherry Garden Lane and Cherry Garden Avenue. It is on the edge of a small commercial park. It is a busy junction close to junction 13 of the M20 the entrance to the Shearway Business Park.
2.2 Residential properties are located on the opposite sides of Cherry Garden Lane and Cherry Garden Avenue, opposite the site.
3.0 RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
There is extensive planning history relating to this site, the following is the most recent and relevant to this application:
Y02/0214/SH - Erection of a conveyor car wash with jet wash bays and valeting centre (alternative design to that approved on appeal under reference Y01/0125/SH). Approved 19.04.02.
Y02/0571/SH - Display of internally illuminated fascia signs and non-illuminated post mounted signs- Approved. DC/14/16 Display of internally illuminated gantry sign - Refused. 20.09.02.
Y03/0759/SH - Installation of an internally illuminated 3.2m high totem sign. Refused 27.08.03. Appeal allowed
4.0 CONSULTATION RESPONSES
4.1 Kent Highways Services I have no objections to the proposals subject to the following conditions being attached to any planning permission granted:
• The maximum luminance not to exceed the values given in the institution of Lighting Engineers Technical Report Number 5 ‘Brightness of Illuminated Advertisements’. The values from the second edition are as follows:-
Illuminated area (Sq.m) Lit Area.
Up to 0.49 = 2000 0.5 to 1.99 = 1600 2.0 to 4.99 = 1200 5.00 to 9.99 = 1000 Over 10.00 = 800 (All measurements are in Candelas/Metres Sq.)
• The illumination of any sign which is visible from the carriageway not to be of flashing type
4.2 Folkestone Town Council No objection.
5.0 PUBLICITY
5.1 Neighbours notified by letter. Expiry date 04.11.2014
6.0 REPRESENTATIONS
6.1 2 letters received objecting on the following grounds:
• Intrusive nature and aggressive designs of lighting and signage to frontage fascia • Lighting illuminates the hall, front bedroom, bathroom and lounge of property and constitutes lighting trespass • Signage is overbearing and unnecessary DC/14/16 • New internal bright red and blue lighting intrusive and dazzling • All lights left on at night after business closes • Application should be refused • No lighting should be allowed on the frontage • Signage should be more in keeping with residential area • Red arc light above fascia is intrusive • Concern that the light can interfere with sleep quality. • Concern raised regarding the signs being distracting to motorists coming off the roundabout.
6.2 E-mail received from Cllr Berry making the following points:
Support concerns raised by number 8 Papworth Close. As their property is 50 yards from the premises I can see that the said lighting would interfere with their sleep quality. The coloured illuminations seem to be excessive and could cause a distraction from the traffic lights which are also in that vicinity and therefore could be a highway safety issue.
7.0 RELEVANT POLICY GUIDANCE
7.1 The full headings for the policies are attached to the schedule of planning matters at Appendix 1.
7.2 The following policies of the Shepway District Local Plan Review apply: SD1
7.3 NPPF – paragraph 6.
7.4 NPPG – Advertisements.
8.0 APPRAISAL
Background
8.1 This retrospective application was submitted following a planning enforcement investigation into the display of the signage
Relevant Material Planning Considerations
8.2 The Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) Regulations 2007 sets out that when assessing applications for advertisement consent local planning authorities can only take account of their impact on amenity and public safety. This is also set out in the NPPF. Guidance on assessing amenity and public safety is set out in the NPPG.
8.3 In the determination of this application consideration has been given of the impact on the signage on the visual amenity of the local area, the amenity of DC/14/16 local residents and the impact on public safety in relation to the nearby highways.
8.4 The red and blue internal lighting referred to in the representations is not the subject of this application as it is not illuminating an advert and therefore it does not require advertisement consent. As it is positioned inside the building it does not constitute development and does not require planning permission. Therefore the local planning authority does not have any control over it. However, the applicant has been aware of the concerns raised by local residents and is prepared to install an obscure film to reduce the impact of the lighting.
8.5 The external red external lighting strips below the roof line of the building do not form part of this application either as they are neither an advert nor are they being used to illuminate an advert. For this reason they do not fall under the advertisement regulations.
Visual Amenity
8.6 The majority of the non illuminated free standing signs on the forecourt to the premises are not visible from Cherry Garden Avenue and are screened to certain degree from Cherry Garden Lane by an existing fence. They are visible from Cherry Garden Lane but are seen against the backdrop of the car wash structure and are not unduly intrusive in the streetscene. The two which are of concern are positioned outside the fence on the grassed area. These are considered to be unattractive and prominent in the streetscene and the applicant has agreed to remove them.
8.7 The fascia signs on the building are larger and more prominent being located on the building and as a result are clearly visible in the street scene. However, for the majority the fascia signage is non- illuminated with only small sections on the east, north, and south elevation illuminated via down- lighters. These signs are not considered to be unreasonable for this building and use and, together with the down lighters, are considered acceptable.
Amenity of Residents
8.8 The closest properties to the site are in Webb Close on the opposite side of Cherry Garden Lane and Papworth Close on the opposite site of Cherry Garden Avenue. Both are separated from the site by a road. Concerns have been raised by the residents of properties on Papworth Close. However these properties are opposite the site on the other side of Cherry Garden Avenue, approximately 55 metres from the site and with a busy dual carriageway in between. Given the distances of the properties from the site, the level of signage as now proposed is not considered to be unduly intrusive or detrimental to the amenities of the occupants.
8.9 Objections have been raised concerning the brightness of the site, focusing on the neon lighting that exists as external strips below the roof line of the building, as well as internal fittings to the car wash. However, these neon lights are not part of the advertisement for the site. Although members of the DC/14/16 public might associate the neon lighting with the car wash, it cannot be classified as an advertisement. The lighting does not carry any overt message and as a result does not constitute an advertisement within the definition of section 336 (1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The signage the subject of this application clearly displays a message, either as a fascia advertisement, or as forecourt advertising. There is lighting associated with the fascia signage shown clearly in the application and that is directed at the signage via down lighters. The neon lighting is independent from this and as a result cannot be considered an advertisement to be considered as part of this application.
Highways
8.10 Kent County Council has no objections to the display of the signage subject to conditions restricting its luminance and ensuring the lighting is not of a flashing type.
Human Rights
8.11 In reaching a decision on an application for advertisement consent the European Convention on Human Rights must be considered. The Convention Rights that are relevant are Article 8 and Article 1 of the first protocol. The proposed course of action is in accordance with domestic law. As the rights in these two articles are qualified, the Council needs to balance the rights of the individual against the interests of society and must be satisfied that any interference with an individual’s rights is no more than necessary. Having regard to the previous paragraphs of this report, it is not considered that there is any infringement of the relevant Convention rights.
8.12This application is reported to Committee at the request of Cllr Berry.
9.0 SUMMARY
9.1 The applicant has agreed to remove two forecourt signs that are most visible to the general public passing the site currently displayed on the junction with Cherry Garden Avenue and Cherry Garden Lane. As a result, and having regard to the context of the location, manner of illumination, design of the signage and relationship to the building they are attached and within the forecourt of, the remaining signs are considered to have no significant impact on local amenity, or highway safety and the signage is considered acceptable.
10.0 BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS
10.1 The consultation responses set out at Section 4.0 and any representations at Section 6.0 are background documents for the purposes of the Local Government Act 1972 (as amended). DC/14/16
RECOMMENDATION – That advertisement consent be granted subject to the following conditions: 1. Standard advertisement condition. C901 2. The maximum luminance of the signage shall not exceed the values given in the institution of Lighting Engineers Technical Report Number 5 ‘Brightness of Illuminated Advertisements’ as follows:-
Illuminated area (sq.m) lit area. Up to 0.49 = 2000 0.5 to 1.99 = 1600 2.0 to 4.99 = 1200 5.00 to 9.99 = 1000 Over 10.00 = 800 (All measurements are in Candelas/Metres Sq.)
Reason: In the interests of highway safety
3. The illumination of any sign which is visible from the carriageway shall not be of flashing type.
Reason: In the interests of highway safety
4. Within one month of the date of this decision, the two forecourt signs shown circled in red on the photograph dated the 13.11.2014 are to be removed. Reason: In the interest of the amenity of the area as these signs are considered to result in a cluttered appearance to the site.
Decision of Committee
DC/14/16
DC/14/16 Application No: Y14/0943/SH
Location of Site: 6 Blackhouse Rise Hythe Kent CT21 5UX
Development: Erection of a two storey side/rear extension and raising of roof to create full two storey dwelling.
Applicant: Mr P Spooner
Agent: Mr I McMillan John E McMillan Associates 38 Bouverie Square Folkestone Kent
Date Received: 18.08.14
Expiry Date: 13.10.14
Date of Committee: 06.01.15
Officer Contact: Mrs Wendy Simpson
RECOMMENDATION: That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions set out at the end of the report.
1.0 THE PROPOSAL
1.1 This proposal involves the removal of the main dwelling roof and the building up of the main dwelling walls to create a full two storey dwelling with barn hipped roof. The main eaves of the dwelling would be about 5m and the roof ridge about 7.8m. The new first floor level created would be tile hung externally.
1.2 The proposal will result in a dwelling of 4 bedrooms with 4 bathrooms and extended ground floor living accommodation.
1.3 The proposal has been amended during the course of the application to introduce a hip to the roof and additional details have been provided in relation to relative land levels with No. 5 Blackhouse Rise.
2.0 LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION OF SITE
2.1 The application property is located within a residential area within the urban envelope of Hythe Town. The site is also within the designated area of the Kent Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
2.2 The property is of a chalet bungalow design (with front and rear box dormers) within a triangular plot at the turning-head of the close. The dwellings in this area are all detached but of various designs and sizes, within good sized plots.
DC/14/16 2.3 The land levels in this area rise from south to north and consequently there are land level differences between adjacent properties. In this case dwellings to the north, and No. 5 Blackhouse Rise to the east, are at a higher ground level than the application dwelling whilst No. 7 Blackhouse Rise, to the south west, is at a lower ground level.
3.0 RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
CH/4/62/4/ - Layout of estate 9 houses. Approved
SH/74/159 - Extension/shower room. Approved
4.0 CONSULTATION RESPONSES
4.1 Hythe Town Council – Support subject to a request that a hip roof may be visually more acceptable.
5.0 PUBLICITY
5.1 Neighbours notified by letter. Expiry date 16.09.2014 and 19.11.2014
6.0 REPRESENTATIONS
6.1 2 letters/emails received to the original proposal objecting on the following grounds:
• Loss of light to living room of No. 5; • Overbearing presence to the property 34 Blackhouse Hill; • The proposal 'would introduce an incongruent and discordant element that would not suit the site's capacity'; • Out of keeping to adjoining buildings and the general character and appearance of the street scene; • Loss of privacy to 34 Blackhouse Hill;
2 letters/emails received to the revised proposal objecting on the following grounds: • Loss of amenity to other properties; • Loss of light to living room of No. 5; • Size and scale of the proposal 'impacts on others'; • Overlooking to 34 Blackhouse Hill;
2 letters/emails received neither objecting or supporting but making the following comments: DC/14/16 • No objection in principle but hipped roof would reduce the impact on the streets scene and bring it more in keeping with neighbouring properties; • All houses in Blackhouse Rise are of individual design and the proposal will be in-keeping with houses in the immediate area and the revision to the roof design will lessen the impact on the street scene.
7.0 RELEVANT POLICY GUIDANCE
7.1 The full headings for the policies are attached to the schedule of planning matters at Appendix 1.
7.2 The following saved policies of the Shepway District Local Plan Review apply:
SD1, BE1, BE8, TR12
7.3 The following policies of the Shepway Local Plan Core Strategy apply: DSD
7.4 The following Supplementary Planning Documents and Government Guidance apply:
National Planning Policy Framework
8.0 APPRAISAL
Relevant Material Planning Considerations
8.1 The main issues in respect of this application are visual amenity and design, impact on the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), amenity of neighbouring residents and parking.
Visual Amenity/Design
8.2 Policy BE8 relates to extensions to residential properties. Policy BE1 requires a high standard of design for new development and that the development respects the built form of surrounding development in terms of mass, form, height and elevational treatment.
8.3 In this case the dwelling will be changed from its current chalet bungalow form to a full two storey dwelling. Within Blackhouse Rise are detached dwellings of various designs including both other chalet bungalows and two storey dwellings. The common roof form in the street is for gabled roofs of various pitches (depending on the house type), however the Town Council and neighbours suggested a hipped roof may be more appropriate. The applicant considered this suggestion but instead conceded by amending the roof form to a barn-hip (semi-hip). The case officer is minded that a full hip DC/14/16 on this property might be very shallow and with gables being the usual roof form in Blackhouse Rise was happy to accept the barn-hip proposed instead of a full hip. The Town Council has not raised further objection in this matter.
8.4 The application property is at a lower ground level than the adjacent dwelling at the end of Blackhouse Rise, No. 5, and additional drawings provided by the applicant show that the extended dwelling, under this proposal, would keep the dwelling lower than the roof ridge height of that No. 5.
8.5 The extensions will also allow for important gaps between dwellings to remain together with views to trees and sky beyond between dwellings. As such the proposal will not result in an unacceptable 'cramping together' of dwellings in a street scene.
8.6 A planning condition can be used to ensure that matching materials are used to match the extension works to the original dwelling.
8.7 As such no objection is raised to the proposal under policy BE1 or the relevant parts of policy BE8 of the Shepway Local Plan Review.
Impact on the AONB
8.8 Unusually, the application site is both within the urban boundary of the town (Hythe is not a rural settlement) but also falls within the Kent Downs AONB, whilst being outside of the Special Landscape Area. Given the location of the site within a residential road and the mix of dwellings within that road there is no considered to be any impact on the AONB.
Neighbouring Amenity
8.9 The planning officer has visited the property 7 Blackhouse Rise and is satisfied that the new extension to the eastern side will not allow a new situation of overlooking into the patio area of 7 Blackhouse Rise due to land level differences, boundary treatment /existing planting and the layout of the garden area of 7 Blackhouse Rise.
8.10 To the rear, 34 Blackhouse Hill currently looks into the rear garden of the application property from windows and a balcony but the overlooking is not mutual as there are currently no clear glazed windows at first floor level in the rear of 5 Blackhouse Rise. The current proposal will result in a bedroom window being at first floor level of the rear elevation together with 3 bathroom windows. This will result in some view being possible into the property of 34 Blackhouse Rise, which is at a higher ground level. However, there are some trees along the shared boundary between the dwellings which provide some screening; the overlooking will be mutual as 34 currently overlooks the rear garden of No.6 and under permitted development rights a dormer could be constructed on the existing dwelling that would have the same result. As such it is not reasonable on planning grounds to object to the proposed scheme on this basis.
DC/14/16 8.11 Although an objection has been received from 34 Blackhouse Hill in relation to the extended building appearing overbearing within its outlook, No.34 remains at a higher ground level than the application property and will retain a good outlook over and between dwellings down to the sea. Furthermore, loss of a private view is not a material planning consideration and there is sufficient distance between the properties such that there will be no unacceptable overbearing impacts on No. 34.
8.12 No. 5 Blackhouse Rise is situated a number of metres behind the application property and will be aware of the western flank of the application property particularly from its front elevation windows at ground and first floor levels. However, the western flank is not on the boundary between these properties but there is an attached garage immediately on the boundary which contributes to the existing general outlook from the ground floor window (living room) in the front elevation of that house. The existing garage and house of No. 6 do not dominate the outlook from the living room windows of No. 5 as the elevated position of that house ensures a very open outlook generally down to the sea. The garage of No. 6 is to remain unchanged and it is considered that the proposed change to the flank of the main body of the house, under the current proposal, will not be overbearing within the overall outlook from No. 5. The applicant has also amended the roof design to reduce the flank of the extended dwelling when viewed from 5 Blackhouse Rise.
8.13 Due to the orientation of the dwellings, whilst there will be some additional overshadowing created by the proposed works these will not be of an extent or duration to any individual property that would warrant the refusal of the application on this basis.
8.14 The relationship of Nos. 5 and 6 Blackhouse Rise is such that No. 5 is set back behind the point of the rear elevation of No. 6 but at a higher ground level by about 1.65m (excluding garage). Additional drawings provided by the applicant showing the relationship between Nos. 5 and 6 demonstrate that the proposed works will not result in a significant loss of daylight to the front elevation windows of No. 5 due to separation between the properties and the relative ground level differences.
8.15 As such no objections are raised to the proposal in terms of impacts on neighbours' amenities under saved policies SD1 or BE8 of the Shepway Local Plan Review.
Parking
8.16 The garage is to remain together with two in-line parking spaces. As such the retention of the existing parking spaces will remain under this proposal and there will be sufficient parking to serve the proposed development. Therefore, no objection is raised to the proposal under saved policy TR12 of the Shepway Local Plan Review.
DC/14/16 Human Rights
8.17 In reaching a decision on a planning application the European Convention on Human Rights must be considered. The Convention Rights that are relevant are Article 8 and Article 1 of the first protocol. The proposed course of action is in accordance with domestic law. As the rights in these two articles are qualified, the Council needs to balance the rights of the individual against the interests of society and must be satisfied that any interference with an individual’s rights is no more than necessary. Having regard to the previous paragraphs of this report, it is not considered that there is any infringement of the relevant Convention rights.
8.18 This application is reported to Committee at the request of the Ward Councillor, Councillor Ewart-James, in relation to the impact on the daylight to and outlook from No. 5 Blackhouse Rise.
9.0 SUMMARY
9.1 The proposed extensions to 6 Blackhouse Rise are of a scale and design that are sympathetic to the original building and do not harm the street scene or character of this residential street/area and will not have unacceptable impacts on neighbours’ living conditions. The proposal is considered to comply with policies SD1, BE1, BE8, TR12 of the Shepway Local Plan Review and policy DSD of Shepway Core Strategy and it is therefore recommended that planning permission be granted.
10.0 BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS
10.1 The consultation responses set out at Section 4.0 and any representations at Section 6.0 are background documents for the purposes of the Local Government Act 1972 (as amended).
RECOMMENDATION – That planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions: DC/14/16 1 The development must be begun within three years of the date of this permission.
Reason: As required by Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).
2 The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out except in complete accordance with the details shown on the submitted plans: Site Location Plan, SK1 and SK3, received on 18 August 2014; proposed drawing (drawing number off page) revision B, received on 27 October 2014 and section drawings (2 sheets) showing relationship of Nos. 5 and 6 Blackhouse Rise, received on 4 November 2014.
Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in order to ensure the satisfactory implementation of the development in the accordance with the aims of policy SD1 of the Shepway District Local Plan Review.
3 The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building unless otherwise agreed by the local planning authority.
Reason: To ensure that the external appearance of the works when completed match that of the original and will not detract from the original and will not detract from the character of the building or the appearance of the area generally in accordance with policies BE1 and BE8 of the Shepway Local Plan Review.
Decision of Committee
DC/14/16