Swale Borough Council Planning Services

SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL

PLANNING SERVICES

Planning Items to be submitted to the Planning Committee

21 November 2013

Standard Index to Contents

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

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

PART 2 Applications for which permission is recommended

PART 3 Applications for which refusal is recommended

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

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

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

ABBREVIATIONS: commonly used in this Agenda

CDA Crime and Disorder Act 1998

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

HRA Human Rights Act 1998

SBLP Swale Borough Local Plan 2008

INDEX OF ITEMS FOR PLANNING COMMITTEE – 21 November 2013

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

Deferred Items:

Item 1 SITTINGBOURNE SW/13/1090 Plaza Court, East Street Pgs 1 - 23

Item 2 Pgs 24 – 55 FAVERSHAM SW/13/0670 Land adj 9/11Ashford Road

Item 3 Pgs 56- 82 SHELDWICH SW/13/0832 Land at Littles Manor Farm, Ashford Road Part 2

2.1 FAVERSHAM SW/13/1217 12 Fielding Street Pgs 83-86

2.2 MINSTER SW/13/1102 Redcot Caravan Park, Bell Farm Pgs 87-94 Lane

2.3 & 2.4 OSPRINGE SW/13/1083 & 1 Parsonage Oast, Painters Forstal Pgs 95-103 SW/13/1084 Road

2.5 UPCHURCH SW/13/1098 Hursell Farm, Chaffes Lane Pgs 104-125

2.6 & 2.7 FAVERSHAM SW/13/1115 & 94 West Street Pgs 126-135 SW/13/1116

2.8 & 2.9 DUNKIRK SW/13/1273 & MOD Dunkirk, Courtenay Road Pgs 136 - 140 SW/13/1274

2.10 FAVERSHAM SW/13/1138 Former Faversham Foundry, Pgs 141- 159 Seager Road

2.11 & 2.12 DUNKIRK SW/13/1340 & MOD Dunkirk, Courtenay Road Pg 160 – 164 SW/13/1341

Part 5

5.1 IWADE SW/12/1565 5 Sheerstone Pg 165 – 166

PLANNING COMMITTEE – 21 November 2013 Part 2

Report of the Head of Planning

Part 2

Applications for which PERMISSION is recommended

2.1 SW/13/1217 (Case 25084) F a v e r s h a m

Location : 12 Fielding Street, Faversham, Kent, ME13 7JZ

Proposal : Replacement of existing ground floor bay window and two first floor windows to front with UPVC sliding sash windows.

Applicant/Agent : Miss Anna Jameson, 12 Fielding Street, Faversham, Kent, ME13 7JZ

Application Valid : 4 October 2013

8 Week Target : 29 November 2013

Subject to: The receipt of any additional representations (closing date 4th November 2013)

Conditions/Grounds

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

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

2 Before the development hereby permitted is commenced, details of how the windows will be fitted, in relation to the frame and the existing brickwork, and details of the corner pillars to the proposed bay window shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall then be carried out in complete accordance with these approved details.

Grounds: In the interests of visual amenity and to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the conservation area.

Council’s approach to this application

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

In this case, the application will be considered by the Planning Committee, (following a recommendation for refusal from the Town Council) where the applicant / agent will have the opportunity to speak to the committee and promote the application.

Description of Proposal

This application seeks planning permission for the replacement of the present circa 1960s top-hung fixed pane timber framed windows in the ground floor bay window and the two first floor windows, all to the front of the property, with upvc sliding sash windows at 12 Fielding Street, Faversham.

The present windows are top-opening and of a 1960s design, which do not sit well in this type of house.

The proposed windows would be, as noted, upvc sliding sash windows, of a far better design, with the transom bars being located in the centre of the window frame, and with glazing bars making the 2 first floor windows and the central part of the ground floor bay window all of a four pane design.

Relevant Site History and Description

The property is a late Victorian mid-terrace house, situated within the Faversham Conservation Area, and covered by an Article 4 Direction, hence the need for planning permission.

There is no planning history for the property.

Views of Consultees

Faversham Town Council raises objection to the proposal, noting that:

“1. The use of UPVC is unacceptable in this part of the Conservation Area. 2. Timber windows are an economic alternative to upvc.”

Other Representations

No other representations have been received. However the closing date for representations is 4th November and I will update Members at the meeting.

Development Plan Policies

The following Development Plan Policies are relevant:

Swale Borough Local Plan 2008 Policy E1 (General Development Criteria) Policy E15 (Conservation Areas) Policy E19 (Design Criteria)

Discussion

The main issue to consider on this application is the effect of the proposed windows on the surrounding Faversham Conservation Area.

Policy E15 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008 states that for an application within a Conservation Area to succeed, it must be demonstrated that the proposal will “preserve or enhance” the character and appearance of the area. I would contend that the application does just that, in removing some windows which are not aesthetically pleasing with ones which are of a design and appearance more suitable for both the property and the area.

I do acknowledge the fact that upvc is not generally a suitable proposal within a Conservation Area, and that timber is the preferred material, but I still believe that the proposal is worthy of support for the following reasons:

• The present windows are not original, appropriate to the style of the property, or aesthetically pleasing, and detract from the character and appearance of the property and the street scene

• The proposed replacements are of a more appropriate design with regard to the age and character of the property

• The proposal satisfies the requirement to ‘preserve or enhance’ the character and appearance of the Conservation Area

• Policy E15 also states that one of its objective should be to “remove features that detract from the character of the area and reinstate those that would enhance it”. Even in upvc, I would contend that the proposal, if approved, would again be broadly in line with policy

I note the comments raised by the Town Council, but as discussed above, consider that the proposal is acceptable, for the reasons given.

The details submitted with the application require more detail with regard to the corner pillars to the proposed bay, and the method of insertion of the windows, so I therefore recommend the inclusion of Condition 2 above.

Recommendation

As stated above, I am of the opinion that this proposal would enhance the character and appearance of the conservation area, in accordance with Policy E15.I therefore recommend that permission should be granted, subject to the above conditions and that no fresh material planning issues being raised in any representations received prior to the closing date of 4th November 2013 .

Responsible Officer: Graham Thomas (Area Planning Officer)

List of Background papers

1. Application Papers and Correspondence for Application SW/13/1217.

2.2 SW/13/1102 (Case 13504) M i n s t er

Location : Redcot Caravan Park, Bell Farm Lane, Minster, Isle of Sheppey, Kent, ME12 4JB

Proposal : Variation of condition 2 of planning permission NK/8/56/60 to allow 10 month occupancy, 1st March to 31st December

Applicant/Agent : Mr Kevin Cumberland, Redcot C Park, Bell Farm Lane, Minster, Sheerness, Kent, ME12 4JB

Application Valid : 30 August 2013

8 Week Target : 25 October 2013

Conditions / Grounds

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

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

2. No caravans shall be occupied except between 1st March and 2nd January in the following calendar year, and no caravan shall be occupied unless there is a signed agreement between the owners or operators of the Park and all caravan owners within the application site, stating that:

(a) The caravans are to be used for holiday and recreational use only and shall not be occupied as a sole or main residence, or in any manner which might lead any person to believe that it is being used as the sole or main residence; and

(b) No caravan shall be used as a postal address; and

(d) No caravan shall be occupied in any manner, which shall or may cause the occupation thereof, to be or become a protected tenancy within the meaning of the Rent Acts 1968 and 1974; and

(e) If any caravan owner is in breach of the above clauses their agreement will be terminated and/or not renewed upon the next expiry of their current lease or licence.

On request, copies of the signed agreement[s] shall be provided to the Local Planning Authority.

Grounds: In order to prevent the caravans from being used as a permanent place of residence.

3. Any caravan that is not the subject of a signed agreement pursuant to condition 2 shall not be occupied at any time.

Grounds: In order to prevent the caravans from being used as a permanent place of residence.

4. The owners or operators of the Park shall at all times operate the Park strictly in accordance with the terms of the Schedule appended to this decision notice.

Grounds: In order to prevent the caravans from being used as a permanent place of residence.

SCHEDULE

The Park operator must:

1. Ensure that all caravan users have a current signed agreement covering points (a) to (e) in condition 2 of the planning permission; and

2. Hold copies of documented evidence of the caravan users’ main residence and their identity; this may comprise of utility bills, Council Tax bill, passport, driving licence or similar document; and

3. On request, provide copies of the signed agreement[s] to the Local Planning Authority; and

4. Require caravan users to provide new documentation if they change their main residence; and

5. Send all written communications to the main residence of the caravan user; and

6. Not allow postal deliveries to the caravan or accept post on behalf of the caravan users at the park office; and

7. Ensure that each caravan is to be used for holiday use only and that no caravan is occupied as a sole or main residence, or in any manner which might lead any person to believe that it is being used as the sole or main residence, of the user or occupant; and

8. Adhere to a code of practice as good as or better than that published by the British Homes and Holiday Parks Association.

Council’s approach to this application

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

In this case the application was acceptable as submitted.

Description of Proposal

This application seeks planning permission for variation of condition (2) of planning permission NK/8/56/60 to extend the occupancy period of Redcot Caravan Park from eight months (March to October, inclusive) to ten months. Members will note that the application seeks consent for occupation of the caravans between 1st March and 31st December, and that condition 2 above allows for occupancy between 1st March and 2nd January. This reflects the standard conditions agreed by the LDF Panel (and subsequently Cabinet).

Relevant Site History and Description

Redcot Caravan Park is situated on Bell Farm Lane, within the defined countryside to the east of Minster. The park extends to approximately 0.23ha, and contains 12 caravan plots and associated amenity buildings. Residential properties lie to the south of the park, Lazy Days Caravan Park and Bell Farm Park lie to the west and east respectively, and the Minster cliffs form the northern boundary.

The site lies outside of the flood zone, but within the projected 50-year coastal erosion zone.

Planning history for the park dates back to the original grant of permission in 1956. The most recent applications prior to the current proposal were SW/93/0803 which granted permission in 1993 for year-round occupation of one caravan as warden accommodation, and SW/96/058 which in 1996 granted permission for the erection of a toilet / shower block.

Members will recall that many similar applications seeking planning permission for eight to ten month occupancy period extensions at chalet and caravan parks elsewhere on the Island have been approved. These include SW/12/0358 for Lazy Days Caravan Park, and SW/11/1044 for Bell Farm Park, both immediately adjacent to the current application site.

Views of Consultees and Other Representations

Minster Parish Council objects to the application, commenting:

“MPC is concerned that this will set a precedent and lead to misuse through illegal permanent occupation. MPC reiterates its previous view that construction is inadequate for all year round occupation.”

The Head of Service Delivery has no objection.

No other representations have been received.

Policies

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was adopted on 27 March 2012 and became a material consideration to be taken into account in decision making.

Planning law requires that planning applications should be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The NPPF acknowledges that some development plan policies will need to be updated to take into account some of its provisions, and this is being undertaken through the emerging Local Plan.

The adopted development plan is the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008. The transitional arrangements for the NPPF meant that for the twelve months to 27 March 2013, decision makers could continue to give full weight to relevant policies in the Local Plan, even if there is a “limited” degree of conflict with the NPPF.

After 27 March 2013, however, weight can still be given to the 2008 Local Plan policies according to their degree of consistency with the NPPF (the closer the fit, the more weight may be given). Weight can also be given to relevant policies in emerging plans according to the:

− degree of consistency with the NPPF; − stage of preparation the emerging plan has reached – the more advanced the plan, the greater the weight may be given to the policies within it; and − the extent to which there are unresolved objections to the relevant policies (the less significant the objections, the greater the weight which may be afforded them).

While most of the draft development management policies in the emerging “Bearing Fruits” document seem broadly consistent with the NPPF, it does raise the bar in terms of needing to ensure that plans were positive and proactive in terms of providing for development through:

− positively seeking opportunities to meet the development needs; and − meeting objectively assessed needs unless the adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits.

At the moment, work on the emerging Local Plan is being undertaken to ensure compliance with the NPPF and to address comments received during public consultation last year. This and Bearing Fruits will carry little weight in the determination of planning applications.

The report taken to the LDF Panel meeting on 12 December 2012 considered the strengths, weaknesses and risks of continuing to use the Local Plan beyond March 2013 – at which point the NPPF policies have assumed greater weight where the Local Plan is not in accordance with it.

Each of the “saved” Local Plan policies (as listed in the back of Bearing Fruits) was assessed in terms of its compliance with the key provisions of the NPPF. The wording of most of the Local Plan (2008) policies is quite positively and broadly compliant with the more detailed provisions of the NPPF – including the policies noted below.

Policy E1 of the adopted Swale Borough Local Plan 2008 seeks to ensure that all development proposals, amongst others, be well sited and of a scale, design and appearance that is appropriate to the location and cause no demonstrable harm to local amenity.

Policy E6 of the Local Plan sets a policy of rural restraint, and restricts development outside of the defined built up area boundary.

E19 of the Local Plan focuses on design, specifically, and comments that all development proposals should enrich the qualities of the existing environment by promoting and reinforcing local distinctiveness and strengthening the sense of place. The policy wording continues to state that new development should be appropriate to its context.

Policy B6 of the Local Plan states that permission will not be granted for new caravan or caravan parks outside of the existing designated holiday park areas. It does, however, state that proposals to improve and enhance existing facilities, or to upgrade the quality of existing tourist accommodation will be supported.

Further to this; Policy B7 states that any planning permission for new or redeveloped holiday parks will be subject to a planning condition and / or legal agreement to restrict occupancy to March – October, and an additional 11 day Christmas / New Year period.

However; policy B7 has been superseded and replaced by the Council’s new corporate policy for holiday homes. It allows for occupation of the caravans / caravans between March and December, and the 11-day holiday period, and firmly establishes the principle of approving applications such as this. The above conditions and text extracts from the corporate policy, and the discussion below, clearly illustrate the Council’s revised position on the matter.

Of particular importance to this application, however; Members will be aware of a proposal put before the Local Development Framework Panel on 21 June 2011, which sought to review the current policy standpoint in regards to the occupancy

restrictions on the Borough’s holiday parks, and proposed to make it Council corporate policy to support applications to extend their occupancy periods from eight to ten months.

The report put before the LDF panel commented:

“This report outlines a proposed change in policy in respect of holiday homes occupancy periods. The review is in response to a request from the Sheppey Local Engagement Forum to re-examine the occupancy conditions on holiday homes in the Borough. It is argued that this extension in occupancy will lead to investment and improving quality of the holiday parks by the operators and it will deliver tourism benefits and support for the local economy.

Following discussions with the holiday park operators, a new policy which would enable holiday homes to have extended occupancy periods from the current 8 months to 10 months has been drafted whilst ensuring safeguards, as far as possible, that holiday homes should be used as second homes rather than as permanent dwellings. A set of conditions and obligations which would be attached to any planning permission…

It is considered that these safeguards will ensure that the holiday homes are retained as secondary holiday homes and do not become the main residences of their occupiers. It should be noted that the current 8 month occupancy does not insist on any of these safeguards so people can stay for the whole 8 months and use it like a permanent home, which does not add as much to the local economy as lots of short holidays.”

The proposal was agreed by Members, and various applications have since been submitted by the park operators, keen to take advantage of the possibility of an extended season.

Discussion

The Council has, for many years, strongly and effectively resisted applications to extend the occupancy periods at the various holiday parks on the Island. However, it was considered appropriate to review this stance in light of current economic circumstances, and recognition that the Island is losing tourists to neighbouring Boroughs, where occupancy conditions are perhaps not so restrictive.

As noted above, a proposal to support applications to extend holiday park occupancy from 8 to 10 months was therefore reported to and agreed by the Local Development Framework panel on 21 June 2011.

The report also considered the potential of allowing 12 month residential usage of the various sites. This was not, however, considered to be acceptable due to the impact that a (potential) extra 7000 full-time dwellings would have upon the character and amenity of the countryside; local infrastructure and / or services; and the amenity of the existing full-time neighbouring residents.

However; the two month break period retained under the current proposal would help to retain the rural unspoiled character of the local countryside during the winter months, and provide a break for local residents. The units could only be used sporadically and only as holiday accommodation for the 10 month period, and the above conditions would ensure that they do not become permanent residential dwellings. The impact upon the local area during the additional 2 months should, therefore, not be serious.

Therefore, notwithstanding policy B7 of the adopted Local Plan; and in light of the LDF Panel’s decision this application is considered to be acceptable in principle.

The condition appended to the LDF panel report was in draft only, and has been amended to reflect practical and procedural issues that have since been highlighted. The aim, requirements and overall effectiveness of the condition remain largely the same, however.

Subject to the imposition of these conditions, as above, I do not believe that an extension to the occupancy period to 10 months would cause serious harm to the character or amenity of the wider countryside or to the amenity of the existing surrounding full-time residents; or give rise to significant highway safety and amenity problems.

It should also be noted that the site is not within a Flood Risk Zone, where winter accommodation would be at any greater risk of tidal or fluvial flooding.

The site is within the coastal erosion zone but this is not a reason to refuse planning permission in this instance, in my opinion, and it should be noted that Lazy Days and Bell Farm parks immediately adjacent to this site have previously been granted a similar occupancy extension.

I note the Parish Council’s objection. However I do not consider that the Parish has given sufficient weight to the Council’s corporate policy as referred to above, and I do not believe that the approval of this application would give rise to any precedent. Furthermore any unauthorised use of the caravans in a manner contrary to the above conditions, or at all during the closed season would be a matter for the planning enforcement team to investigate if it should occur, and is not sufficient justification for refusing permission.

I also note that under previous applications caravan owners have voiced concerns regarding the increase in Council tax. This is not a planning matter however, and residents who are not in favour of the proposal should discuss the matter with the park operator and the Council Tax department. The same is true of the readiness of the caravans for the winter weather – this is a private matter that should be resolved, as necessary, by caravan owners and/or the park operator.

Recommendation

The Council’s adopted Corporate Strategy on Holiday Homes supports such proposals, and the application is therefore acceptable in principle. Furthermore; I do not consider that an extension to the occupancy period would seriously affect the character or amenity of the countryside, or give rise to serious amenity concerns for local residents over and above the existing situation during the current 8 month season.

Taking the above into account I recommend that planning permission be granted.

Responsible Officer: Rob Bailey (Area Planning Officer)

List of Backgrounds Documents

1. Application papers and correspondence for SW/13/1102. 2. Application papers and correspondence for SW/11/1054 and SW/12/0358.

2.3 SW/13/1083 (Case 23944) O s p r i n g e

Location : 1 Parsonage Oast, Painters Forstal Road, Ospringe, Faversham, Kent ME13 0EN

Proposal : Retrospective application for a replacement fence

Applicant/Agent : Mr Robert Brown, 1 Parsonage Oast, Painters Forstal, Faversham, Kent, ME13 0EW

Application Valid : 6 September 2013

8 Week Target : 1 November 2013

Conditions / Grounds

None

Council’s approach to this application

In this case the application was considered acceptable as submitted.

Description of Proposal

The application has been made retrospectively for two sections of 1.8m tall garden fence. The fences are constructed of a gravel board at ground level of approximately 0.15m and then the rest of the fence is made up of treated vertical timber boards. In one of the fences there are three panels which consist of solid fencing to 1.2m in height with a trellis of approximately 0.6m above; these sections are on the far side of the garden away from the roadside.

The fences run from the roadside at each end of this long roadside garden, and then return around the rear boundary of the garden. They do not then run for the full length of the rear boundary, but are confined to short sections at each end of the garden. They thus each extend in an L shape from the roadside for approximately 5 to 6m and return parallel to the road for 7.5m and 5m respectively.

In the fence at the end of the garden closest to the dwelling there is a black metal gate which is marginally higher than the rest of the fence. The rest of the boundary of the garden is made up of a well-established leylandii hedge.

Relevant Site History and Description

1 Parsonage Oast is part of a former oast house which was converted to four dwellings under reference SW/86/0932, condition 6 of which stated the following:

“No further development whether permitted by Classes I or II of the Schedule to the Town and Country Planning General Development Orders 1977-1985 or the Town and Country Planning (National Parks, Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty and Conservation Areas) Special Development Order 1985 shall be carried out without the prior permission of the District Planning Authority.”

The applicant replaced the previous fence without permission and due to the above condition the owner of the property was invited to submit this application.

The garden of the property is separated from the dwelling by a pedestrian access route of approximately 2.2m width. The garden then runs parallel to the highway with the longest side facing the highway.

‘The Old House’ is a grade II listed property located on the opposite site of Painters Forstal Road.

A retrospective application submitted under SW/10/0228 for the replacement of rotting softwood windows with uPVC at tis property was refused in May 2010. The decision was appealed and dismissed in October 2010. The windows have since been replaced with timber windows by the owner.

There is also a current application on the site which has been made retrospectively under SW/13/1084 for the erection of a timber clad shed. This is reported elsewhere on this agenda.

View of Consultees

Ospringe Parish Council has recommended refusal on the grounds that “the scale and design of the fence is not in keeping with the location and is not in accordance with the parish design statement.”

Representations

I received one letter of support in regards to the proposal. The grounds for support are that “the replacement fence is outlined in the covenants that apply to these properties and smartens up the environment.”

Development plan policies

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

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

Polices E1, E6, E9, E14 and E19 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008

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

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

E9 (Protecting the Quality and Character of the Borough’s Landscape) seeks to protect, and where possible enhance the quality, character and amenity value of the wider landscape of the Borough.

E14 (Development Involving Listed Buildings) states that proposals, including any change, affecting a Listed Building, and/or its setting, will only be permitted if the building’s special architectural or historic interest, and its setting are preserved.

E19 (Achieving High Quality Design and Distinctiveness) requires development to be of a high quality design.

The Ospringe Parish Design Statement is relevant to this application. This encourages low fences so as not to obscure properties from the road, and seeks to ensure that new boundaries utilise materials that reflect the range of materials already found locally, such as brick, post and rail fencing, stone walls and iron railings.

Discussion

The main considerations in this case concern the scale and design of the fence and the impact which it would have upon visual amenity, especially in terms of conserving the original agricultural origins of the building, and any impact on the wider landscape or on the setting of the nearby listed building.

I note the objection received by the Parish Council and respond as follows. The fence forms part of the boundary of the garden of the dwelling which has the appearance of a typical garden. As such, I am of the opinion that the wooden fence that has been constructed in this location is appropriate as it is typical of a fence that would be expected to be found in a domestic garden setting. It is made of timber which is a very typical local material and although any garden fence may detract from the agricultural setting of a former oast house some degree of change is inevitable in such conversions. As such I am of the opinion that it looks in keeping with its surroundings and does not unacceptably detract for the character of the main building.

In addition to the above, whilst the fence does not represent the preferred form of boundary found in the settlement as described in the Ospringe Parish Design Statement, it is worth pointing out that the fencing does not obscure the dwelling (which sits right on the roadside) and that the vast majority of the fence is obscured by a large leylandii hedge which runs along the boundary of the curtilage and faces the highway. At the rear of the curtilage there is also existing vegetation which heavily screens the view of the fence that has been erected in this section of the garden. Due to this, the only part of the fence that is visible from Painters Forstal Road is the short section facing the dwelling. Even then, this is only visible from an extremely limited vantage point created by the small walkway between the fence and the rear of No. 1 Parsonage Oast, which is used for pedestrian access to the properties.

Furthermore, the very limited extent and conventional nature of the fence means that it does not have any significant effect on the local landscape or on the setting of the listed building opposite.

I also note the letter of support that has been received from the neighbour at No. 3 Parsonage Oast. I am of the opinion that the fence sections off the rear curtilage of the dwelling in a manner which is entirely appropriate. In addition to this I consider that the fence has been constructed in a professional manner and in my opinion has been constructed from materials of a satisfactory quality.

Summary and Recommendation

Overall I consider that the proposal is appropriate within the setting which it has been erected and furthermore the views to the fence are extremely limited. I take the view that the fence does not have an unacceptable impact upon the surrounding area and does not impact unacceptably upon visual amenity. Therefore I consider that the proposal complies with local policy.

Taking the above into account, I recommend that planning permission be granted.

Responsible Officer: Graham Thomas (Area Planning Officer)

List of Background Documents

1. Application papers and correspondence for SW/13/1083 2. Application papers and correspondence for SW/13/1084 3. Application papers and correspondence for SW/86/0932

2.4 SW/13/1084 (Case 23944) O s p r i n ge

Location : 1 Parsonage Oast, Painters Forstal Road, Ospringe, Faversham, Kent, ME13 0EW

Proposal : Retrospective application for erection of a timber clad shed

Applicant/Agent : Mr Robert Brown, 1 Parsonage Oast, Painters Forstal, Faversham, Kent, ME13 0EW

Application Valid : 6 September 2013

8 Week Target : 1 November 2013

Conditions / Grounds

None

Council’s approach to this application

In this case the application is considered acceptable as submitted.

Description of Proposal

The application has been made retrospectively for a timber clad shed within the curtilage to the rear of No. 1 Parsonage Oast, Painters Forstal Road, Ospringe. The shed is approximately 4m in width, 3.8m in depth and 2.5m in height and it has a flat roof.

The shed has feather edged weatherboarding which has been stained black and has a uPVC doors alongside a large uPVC window on the front elevation. The shed is located to the rear of the garden.

Relevant Site History and Description

1 Parsonage Oast is part of a former oast house which was converted to four dwellings under reference SW/86/0932, condition 6 of which stated the following:

The applicant replaced a previous shed without permission and due to the above condition the owner of the property was invited to submit an application.

‘The Old House’ is a grade II listed property located on the opposite site of Painters Forstal Road.

A retrospective application submitted under SW/10/0228 for the replacement of rotting softwood windows with uPVC at tis property was refused in May 2010. The decision was appealed under APP/V2255/D/10/2134132 and dismissed in October 2010. The windows have since been replaced with timber windows by the owner.

There is also a current application on the site which has been made retrospectively under SW/13/1083 for the erection of garden fences. This is reported elsewhere on this agenda.

View of Consultees

Ospringe Parish Council has recommended refusal on the grounds that “the shed is overlarge, out of proportion and of poor design and not in keeping with the location.”

Representations

I received one letter of support and one letter of objection in regards to the proposal from neighbours living within Parsonage Oast. The grounds for support are that the garden shed is an improvement on the previous and is discreet and unobtrusive.

The objection letter has been submitted on the grounds that the shed is four times larger than the children’s playhouse which it has replaced. Further to this the objector states that the new construction does not resemble a shed, it is very large, contains a uPVC window and door (the issue of which has been rejected in the main oast house) and that the shed does not blend in aesthetically with its rural surroundings. In addition the objection states that the structure will be used as an office.

Development plan policies

Polices E1, E6, E9, E14 and E19 of the Swale Local Plan 2008

E9 (Protecting the Quality and Character of the Borough’s Landscape) seeks to protect, and where possible enhance the quality, character and amenity value of the wider landscape of the Borough.

E19 (Achieving High Quality Design and Distinctiveness) requires development to be of a high quality design.

The Ospringe Parish Design Statement is relevant to this application. This encourages good design, avoiding pattern book houses, and the use of high quality (locally sourced) materials with appropriate roof details. The Statement specifically states that “UPVC replacement windows and doors are not appropriate in the conservation area or on historic buildings.”

Discussion

The main considerations in this case concern the scale and design of the shed and the impact which it would have upon visual amenity and the wider landscape.

I note the objection received by the Parish Council and respond as follows. In my opinion the shed is of an appropriate size. It covers an area of approximately 15sq m and has a height of 2.5m, therefore, due to its scale the structure sits comfortably within the garden. As a simple shed I believe that a more elaborate design than the one used would be inappropriate. In addition the stained timber feather edged weather boarding gives the structure an acceptable traditional appearance. These thoughts are echoed in the letter of support that was received.

The neighbour’s objection covers some of the same ground as the Parish Council but does raise some further points which I will now discuss. The shed is located at the rear of this long garden and the vegetation which surrounds it is higher than the shed itself. As such, the shed is only actually visible when looking through the garden gate, located approximately 22m from the shed. Therefore, I believe that the uPVC door and window do not harm the traditional character of the main oast house,

and their use is acceptable on this small detached building in this location as the views to the shed are limited in the extreme, cannot be seen from the surrounding area and therefore have no significant impact.

In response to comments about the shed being used as an office I take the view that if the structure was used as an office this would be incidental to the enjoyment of the dwelling house and as such would simply be an outbuilding, in the same way that a conventional garden shed would be classified.

Policy E9 of the Local Plan states that in the AONB the priority is the long term conservation and enhancement of natural beauty of this national asset over other planning considerations. I am of the view that the shed, due to it being surrounded by existing and very well established vegetation has no significant negative impact and therefore conserves the natural beauty of the wider area.

Summary and Recommendation

Overall I consider that the proposal is of an appropriate scale and design. Views toward the structure are extremely obscured and the use of materials is, in my opinion, acceptable. I take the view that the shed has an insignificant impact upon the surrounding area as it can only be seen once viewed through the garden gate. As such I believe that the proposal complies with local policy.

Taking the above into account, I recommend that planning permission be granted.

Responsible Officer: Graham Thomas (Area Planning Officer)

List of Background Documents

1. Application papers and correspondence for SW/13/1084 2. Application papers and correspondence for SW/13/1083 3. Application papers and correspondence for SW/86/0932

2.5 SW/13/1098 (Case 21382) Upchurch

Location : Hursell Farm, Chaffes Lane, Upchurch, Sittingbourne, Kent, ME9 7BG

Proposal : Change of use of land to gypsy site and for siting for two static caravans and extension of one static caravan, and stationing of one touring caravan and use of barn as general amenities and extension of barn, and erection of stable building for the keeping of horses, and use of part of site for keeping horses. (Part Retrospective)

Applicant/Agent : Mrs Lynda Bearup, Hursell Farm, Chaffes Lane, Upchurch , Sittingbourne, Kent, ME9 7BG

Application Valid : 29 August 2013 and as amended by plans received on 9 September 2013

8 Week Target : 24 October 2013

Subject to: The receipt of additional information in respect of the gypsy status of the applicant’s son who would eventually reside within the 2nd static caravan.

Conditions

1. The site shall not be occupied by any persons other than gypsies and travellers as defined in Annex 1 to the DCLG Planning Policy for Traveller Sites.

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

2. No more than three caravans shall be stationed on the site at any one time.

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

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

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

4. No floodlighting, security lighting or other external lighting shall be installed or operated at the site, other than in accordance with details that have first been submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Grounds: In the interests of preventing light pollution within a rural area.

5. The stables hereby permitted shall only be used for the stabling of horses or ponies for private use and for no other purpose, including any commercial use. Grounds: In the interests of the amenity of the area, highway safety and convenience.

6. Prior to the commencement of development hereby approved, full details of the means of storage prior to disposal and the method of disposal of waste arising from the animals housed within the development shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Such waste shall only be disposed in accordance with the approved details and no waste shall be burnt.

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

7. With the exception of one trailer for the storage of manure, no external storage of materials or items of any kind including jumps and caravans (other than as set out in the application details).

Grounds: In the interests of rural amenity

8. Within 3 months of the date of this decision, details of the external alterations to the stable building, which shall include the removal of the Upvc windows and doors, shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval in writing and the approved details shall be implemented within 3 months of the written approval of the details.

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

9. Notwithstanding the provisions of Class A, Part 2, Schedule 2 to the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (as amended), no gates, fences, walls or other means of enclosure exceeding 1 metres in height shall be erected or provided along the northern boundary of the application site without the consent in writing of the Local Planning Authority.

Grounds: In the interests of visual amenity

Council’s approach to this application

In this case the application was acceptable as submitted.

Description of Proposal

This application seeks retrospective planning permission for the change of use of the site from agriculture to a gypsy site. This would involve the retention of one static caravan and one touring caravan, the use of part of a former agricultural barn for ancillary residential activities (wash room, bar, kitchen and storage) and part as stables and the retention of a permanent single storey building (stable-type building). The applicant is applying to use this building for the keeping of horses although its current unauthorised use is as a dwellinghouse. There is also a small shed (converted field shelter) close to the dwellinghouse used as a chicken coop and a small summerhouse located within the southeast corner of the site. Some of the land within the northeast corner of the application site is used for the keeping of horses.

The application proposes to introduce another single unit static caravan to be located to the east of the barn. This would be occupied by the applicant’s son, daughter-in- law and 2 year old granddaughter.

The existing static caravan is occupied by the applicant – Mrs Bearup, her grown-up son and her grandson who is 14 years old. The touring caravan is occupied by Mrs Bearup’s 85 year old mother. Mrs Bearup moved onto the site in 2009. When Officers visited the site in early 2012, it was evident that the dwellinghouse had been newly erected and occupied by the applicant’s son and his family but was originally intended to be a stable building for the keeping of the applicant’s horses. I am led to believe that the extensions to the static caravan and barn were erected in 2011. Most recently, the touring caravan occupied by Mrs Bearup’s elderly mother moved onto the site this Spring.

Previous applications have been supported by a statement from The National Romani Rights Association confirming Mrs Bearup’s status as a gypsy. Information has also been submitted to the Council which provides evidence of Mrs Bearup’s mother’s gypsy heritage and also Mrs Bearup’s gypsy heritage. Mrs Beaup now cares for her elderly mother who is living at the site in the touring caravan and Mrs Bearup’s grandchildren attend a local school and nursery.

The stable building is located to the eastern end of the site and is sectioned off from the rest of the site by a five bar gate and post and rail fencing. As part of its current unauthorised use as a dwellinghouse, there is a garden area/curtilage to the east of the site. The summerhouse mentioned above sits within this garden along with children’s play equipment. The static caravan is located to the west of the site close to the vehicular access and adjacent to the barn. This caravan has a post and rail fence surrounding it, forming a small garden area/curtilage. The touring caravan is sited towards the northern boundary of the site. This also has an area surrounding it which acts as a separate garden/curtilage. The remaining land consists of type- one/bare earth and is used for general parking and the free flow of vehicles and people within the site. The northeast corner of the site is used as a paddock for the keeping of horses. It is understood that the use of the barn for ancillary residential accommodation is used in connection with the touring and static caravans only.

Relevant Site History and Description

Planning permission was granted for the erection of an agricultural building (the barn currently used as stables/ancillary residential accommodation) under SW/05/1141. Planning permission was later granted for the temporary siting of a mobile home (current occupied by Mrs Bearup) under SW/06/0629. This had a condition attached which restricted the use of the mobile home to persons employed solely in agriculture and require the mobile home to be removed from the site on 1st September 2009.

This Council then received an application (SW/10/1533) to allow Mrs Bearup to live within the mobile home without complying with the restrictions placed upon it under the 2006 application. This application was withdrawn prior to registration following repeated attempts to obtain outstanding information about the gypsy status of the applicant.

A planning application was later submitted by the same applicant under SW/12/0058 for the change of use of the site to allow the siting of a gypsy mobile home with associated parking and amenity space. However, this was never determined because when Officers visited the site, it was apparent that there was further unlawful development at the site that had not been referred to in the application. The application was then made invalid. After repeated attempts to obtain plans and information to support the actual development at this site, the application was withdrawn.

The Council has served two enforcement notices on this site. The first was to address the breach of condition that required the removal of the static caravan from the site. This was served in 2010 and has never been complied with. The second enforcement notice addressed the breach of the condition that restricted the use of the static caravan to persons employed in agriculture as well as the condition limiting the time that it was allowed to be on the site. This was served in 2012 and has not been complied with. Officers now have authorisation to prosecute the occupants but await the outcome of this application and possibly any subsequent appeal.

Planning permission was recently refused under SW/13/0030 for the use of the site as a gypsy site, one static and one touring caravan, the use of the barn as ancillary accommodation and the retention of the dwellinghouse. Members are reminded that this application was refused only on the grounds that the permanent dwellinghouse (as opposed to a static caravan) was unacceptable in principle and that the permanent dwelling would have taken up valuable potential gypsy use. The reasons for refusal were as follows:

1. The application site lies within the countryside and is within a ‘Strategic Gap’ as defined in the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008. New residential development in such areas is considered to be unacceptable as a matter of principle, as it would result in the erosion of the rural, open and undeveloped character of the area. The dwellinghouse at this site would amount to unnecessary development, not requiring a rural location, which would fail to protect the countryside for its own sake and would cause demonstrable harm to the character and appearance of the countryside, contrary to Policies E1, E6, E7 and H2 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

2. The North Kent Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment indicates a significant level of unmet need for gypsy and traveller pitches within the Borough. The dwellinghouse would be unlikely to be viable as gypsy accommodation in the future and the loss of such accommodation would contribute to the need for such pitches, contrary to the provisions of Policy H4 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008 and Planning Policy for Traveller Sites and the National Planning Policy Framework.

When considering this application at the committee meeting on 4th July 2013, Members considered that the use of the site as a gypsy site was acceptable in principle (see minutes attached at Appendix B).

The application site lies within the countryside and is within a Strategic Gap. Access to the site is via a very long, un-made access track. It has a gated entrance off of Chaffes Lane adjacent to 93 Chaffes Lane. The land surrounding the application site is characterised by equestrian and agricultural uses. Greenacres gypsy site lies to the north east and is some 142 metres away. A large reservoir lies 135 metres to the southwest of the site.

The application site sits at the brow of a hill with the land sloping away steeply to the south and east and more gently to the north. There is a row of native trees along the southern boundary of the site. These are approximately 3 metres in height. Further small trees have been planted by the applicant along parts of the western and northern boundaries. A long line of taller native trees is present to the north and northeast of the site at a distance of some 100 metres away. A public footpath runs parallel with and to the south of the access track. The footpath then crosses the access track and cuts diagonally across an adjacent field, travelling away from the application site. Another public footpath cuts diagonally across the field to the north of the site. At its closest, the footpath is 39 metres from the gypsy site (excluding the access track).

The centre of Upchurch village is 1.2 km from the main part of the application site if travelling by road and 0.9 km via public footpaths.

Views of Consultees

Upchurch Parish Council object to the application on the following grounds:

• One of the conditions for permission for the site to be used as a pig farm was that, should the business be discontinued, the site be restored to its original use;

• It is not believed that the applicant has gypsy status;

• The plans still show permanent structures;

• There is a proliferation of gypsy/traveller sites in the village and there is no wish to grant more.

Southern Water have no objection but recommend that the applicant consult the Environment Agency directly in respect of the use of a cess pit. The adequacy of soakaways should be assessed by Building Control officers.

Kent Highway Services have no objection to the proposal.

The Head of Service Delivery has no objections.

Other Representations

Four letters of objection have been received raising the following issues:

• There are already a number of gypsy sites in the area; • Use of the footpath is made difficult by the owner’s dogs; • The barn was built without planning permission; • The rural character of the area will be lost; • The countryside is being eroded; • The barn is very large and could be used as a dwelling. • The keeping of horses is just another excuse to erect buildings. • This proposal is no different to the last application which was refused; • This development would open the door to further development of this site; • The development will impact on their enjoyment of the public footpath; • They do not understand why permission should granted for gypsies to use this site when permission would be refused if the applicant were from the settled community.

The Swale Footpaths Group comment that there is currently a request to divert the public footpath in the vicinity of the site and objections have been made to this. The new footpath would run along the access track to this site and there would be more vehicles using the track if permission is granted.

Bloomfields Planning Consultancy have written to object to this application. They comment that the applicant gives no justification for the use of the barn. Its use as anything other than for agriculture would have a detrimental impact on the character of the rural area. No justification for the need for an additional stable building has been submitted. The very large expanse of hardstanding is damaging to visual amenities. There is no explanation of landscaping or the treatment of site boundaries and there is no justification for the increase in parking at the site or the use of a cess pit. The loss of agricultural land would be contrary to policies SP1 and SP5. The need does not outweigh the harm to the countryside, adverse impacts are not mitigated, and the proposal is therefore contrary to policy SP2. The site is less than 200m from an area of Archaeological interest and Gore Farm which is grade II listed. The proposal does not take account of this and is contrary to policies E14 and E16. The application is also contrary to policies E7, E9, and E1 of the Local Plan. The gypsy status of the occupants is questioned and fails to comply with policy H4 in this respect. The applicant has not proven that there is a need for this site. There is potential conflict between the public footpaths close to the site and crossing the access track and vehicles using the access track. Because this site is away from existing settlements, it does not comply with paragraph 23 of Planning Policy for Travellers Sites and as such no permanent permission should be granted within this highly sensitive site. The proposal also fails to comply with the Council’s Draft Core Strategy because this requires priority to be given to previously identified sites. They also consider that the inclusion of a bar within the barn goes beyond the intention of gypsy and traveller policy. They question how the permanent dwellinghouse is considered to be contrary to Policies E6 and E7 but the barn, extension of the mobile home and the summerhouse are considered acceptable.

Policies

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)

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

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

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

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

From this the Council will produce a Development Plan Document setting out deliverable sites to meet this need. However it is anticipated that this will take at least three years to become formal policy, as it relies upon successful adoption of the draft Local Plan, entitled “Bearing Fruits,” which is unlikely to take place until at least late 2014 which will be completed and reported by February 2013.

Local Policy

i) The Swale Borough Local Plan 2008

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

LP Policy E6 seeks to protect the quality, character and amenity of the countryside, and states that development will not be permitted outside rural settlements in the interests of countryside conservation, unless related to an exceptional need for a rural location. LP Policy E7 seeks to ensure that settlements remain separate and that piecemeal erosion is resisted. LP Policy E9 seeks to protect the character and quality of the rural landscape.

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

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

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

LP Policy H2 states that permission for new housing will be granted for sites within the built-up areas or areas allocated for housing. Outside of the built-up areas, housing will only be granted in accordance with policies E6 (countryside) and RC3 (affordable rural housing).

LP Policy E19 requires development proposals to be well designed.

LP Policy T3 requires adequate parking to be provided.

LP policy RC9 allows the keeping and grazing of horses within the rural area subject to no conflict with the landscape character, biodiversity, amenity and highway matters. ii) Bearing Fruits 2031

The Council’s Draft Core Strategy has now been replaced by the emerging draft Local Plan, entitled Bearing Fruits 2031, part 1 of this document has been published for consultation.

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

“For housing proposals between 50 and 149 dwellings, one pitch shall be provided for gypsies and travellers. For 150 dwellings and above (or 200 dwellings on previously developed urban sites), unless a commuted sum has been agreed with

the Council, 1% of the total number of dwellings proposed shall be serviced and made available to gypsies and travellers as pitches and/or bespoke accommodation, either for sale or rent, as appropriate, and up to a maximum of 10 pitches on any one allocation. Where identified, pitches may also be required to meet an affordable housing need.”

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

Draft policy DM9 requires applications for affordable housing / gypsy and traveller pitches within rural areas to demonstrate that: - The site is well located to local service centres and villages, with access to day-to- day services; - There will be no significant impact upon character and amenity of the countryside; and - The need for the scheme is clearly demonstrated and justified by the applicant.

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

As these policies and the draft Local Plan as a whole should be afforded very little weight in the decision making process at the present time.

ii) Corporate Policy

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

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

The Council undertook a full survey of potential sites against a set of criteria in accordance with Government guidance. This included a review of current temporary permissions and an assessment of the potential of publicly owned land to meet the identified need. This site is not mentioned in the survey.

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

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

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

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

(1) “That site assessments are a material consideration for the purpose of decision making subject to review when new national guidance is produced and further note the report on site scores. Also, as sites come forward as planning applications the site assessment be reviewed for currency

(2) That sites to be removed from the Site Assessment process in Appendix 2 be agreed.

(3) That assessment work so far and consultation responses as evidence base for the LDF be noted.

(4) That the Corporate Policy and Site Assessment be reviewed when new national guidance is produced.

(5) That consideration of the Borough's pitch numbers be resolved when new national guidance is produced.

(6) That the unapproved draft of Core Strategy policy be received for initial comments.”

The Council had thus been working towards meeting the anticipated requirement for provision of pitches through the publication of its Gypsy and Traveller Corporate Policy Site Assessment criteria. This has now been agreed as being a material consideration in the determination of planning applications. This application has been assessed against the Site Assessment criteria and has scored a total of 30, a relatively high score (see appendix A).

Discussion

I consider key issues to be the principle of the development, the impact on visual amenities and the impact on the character and appearance of the landscape.

Principle

Gypsy site:

The site is not located in an area at risk of flooding, nor is it located in a nationally designated area relating to landscape or biodiversity. As set out above, the new government policy states that sites in the open countryside, away from settlements should be strictly controlled. In my opinion, this strand of the new policy has three purposes. Firstly, it seeks to ensure that visual harm to the countryside is minimised. I deal with the visual impact of this proposal below.

Secondly, I consider that it seeks to ensure that sites are not isolated from the settled community. This site, although located in the countryside, is within a short walking distance from the centre of the village of Upchurch (0.9km – using the adjoining public footpaths or 1.2km if using the roads in the area) and is accessed via a residential street that is within Upchurch village. There are a number of public footpath links that are close to the application site and that connect with Upchuch and Lower Halstow. It would be difficult to argue, in my opinion, that this site was isolated from the settled community.

Thirdly, in my view, it seeks to ensure that sites are approved in sustainable locations. This site is located a walking distance of some 1.2km from the shops and services in Upchurch which offers convenience shops, a post office, primary school, surgery and dentist. There is a regular bus service from the centre of Upchurch that connects Upchurch to Sittingbourne and Chatham and in addition, a bus service from Upchurch to the schools in Sittingbourne. I am of the view that this site is within a sustainable location and could, without detriment to them, support this extended gypsy family in terms of their access to local shops, services and amenities.

Members will see that I have carried out an assessment of the site under the Council’s published criteria and this is shown in appendix A. I therefore consider that in principle, this is a suitable and acceptable site for a permanent gypsy site. I do not consider that a temporary planning permission would be justified in this case because this gypsy development wholly complies with current national and local planning policies. Temporary permissions are used for sites which fail to meet the policy requirements in some respect but where there is an acknowledgement that there is a need for gypsy sites in the borough. The temporary period allows the situation to be reviewed once the Council has established that it can fulfil the identified need through the Local Plan. I am strongly of the view that this is entirely unnecessary here because this site does not conflict with any of the national or local policy requirements and would not therefore need to be reviewed.

The gypsy status of the applicant has been questioned by an objector and I consider that it is prudent to comment on this matter. As set out in the description section above, the previous application was accompanied by a letter from the National Romani Rights Association. This states that Mrs Bearup, the applicant, is well known to the association because her mother and father belong to known gypsy families in the area. The applicant’s parents were gypsies both by birth and culture. The applicant has also provided the Council with photographs and birth certificates demonstrating her parent’s connections to gypsies and the gypsy way of life as well as her own.

The definition of a gypsy is set out clearly in the national document ‘Planning Policy for Traveller Sites:

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

Before moving to this site, the applicant lived in a house in Upchurch village between 2001 and 2009 but prior to this, she lived in a caravan most of her life on various sites. Mrs Bearup moved to the application site after her marriage broke up. She states that she prefers to live the way she does now as opposed to a permanent house. Mrs Bearup’s grandchildren attend the local school and nursery and so her children are tied to staying in this area as a consequence. It is understood that Mrs Bearup provides care for her grandchildren on a regular basis. I am also aware of the fact that the applicant’s elderly mother, herself a gypsy, is of the age that would not allow her to travel frequently, if at all and Mrs Bearup receives a carers allowance for her care. Mrs Beaup has explained that her son who lives in the dwellinghouse only moved into this former stable building because he couldn’t afford to buy a caravan at the time. I am satisfied that the applicant is from gypsy heritage and that the particular circumstances of her family mean that she can no longer travel. She therefore requires a permanent site for herself and her family. Officers have asked the applicant to provide additional information about the gypsy status of her son who would eventually reside within the 2nd static caravan. This was following confirmation that that son is in permanent employment as a teacher and that his preference is to reside within the converted stable rather than a static caravan. A summary of the justification will be provided to members at the meeting.

With regards to the use of the existing former agricultural barn as part stables/part ancillary residential accommodation, I am of the view that this would be acceptable. Equestrian use is often associated with gypsy sites and it is not uncommon for sites to be shared in this fashion. Equestrian use is also often accepted within the rural area and is covered under policy RC9. With regards to the ancillary accommodation, it is often common practice for a gypsy site to have a permanent building used as utility block. This enables a better quality of living for the occupants of the caravans. I therefore accept that the stable building could be used in this capacity. I acknowledge that there is a domestic bar provided within the barn and whilst this may not be a necessity, I do not believe that we should seek to control the exact

nature of the domestic uses that take place within a person’s home. If we accept the use of the site as a gypsy site in principle, the use of the barn for any ‘ancillary’ domestic activity will also be acceptable. If however, the barn was to be used as a separate dwelling then I conclude that this would not be acceptable for the reasons set out below. This situation would therefore need to be monitored if planning permission is granted for a gypsy site.

Finally, regarding the principle of a gypsy/traveller site here, I have considered whether this site, in conjunction with others in the vicinity, gives rise to a harmful cumulative impact. In my view, whilst there are a number of such sites in the general area, including some in close proximity to the application site, I do not consider that either taken cumulatively with other sites or individually in its own right, would be so sufficient in scale to dominate the local community. Equally, I do not consider that this site gives rise to cumulative visual harm. Whilst there are a number of gypsy/traveller sites to the east, in Holywell Lane, the topography of the area combined with existing vegetation means that the sites are not readily visible in the same context. I consider the visual impact of the application site in more general terms below.

Stable building:

The Stable building is currently fitted out and occupied as a dwelling providing accommodation for the son, daughter-in-law and granddaughter of the applicant. This planning application applies for the retention of this building but its use as a stable for the keeping of horses. As such, should planning permission be granted in this case, the application will only have permission for its use as a stable for the keeping of horses and not for its current use. The applicant will therefore be expected to ensure that the use as a dwellinghouse ceases and appropriate enforcement action will be considered if necessary. The principle of the retention of the stable building and its use for the keeping for horses should therefore be considered. The applicant currently keeps two horses on the site and adjacent land. The converted stable building would provide approximately 3 stables and so there would be the potential for additional horses to be kept at the site. Policy RC9 of the adopted Local Plan allows the keeping and grazing of horses within the rural area subject to no conflict with the landscape character, biodiversity, amenity and highway matters. I will discuss the impact that the stable building has on the landscape character etc. in detail below. However, it is my view that the keeping of horses at this site and the retention of the stable building is acceptable in principle.

Impact on visual amenities/landscape

Overall, although the site is situated at the brow of a hill and so would potentially be very prominent within the surrounding landscape, in reality, the site is screened to a certain extent by the tree lines identified in the site description section above.

The existing static caravan is located close to the existing approved barn and is screened to a certain extent by the barn and the trees along the southern boundary of the site. The barn, static caravan and the extension to these structures are all in close proximity thereby reducing the spread of development across the site and therefore having a reduced impact on the landscape in my view. The touring

caravan that is to remain at the site is located towards to northern boundary of the site and is sited a 17.5m from the static caravan. This has resulted in the touring caravan being slightly more prominent than the static but not to the extent that it would have a significantly damaging impact on the character and appearance of the countryside/surrounding landscape in my opinion. The chicken coop is small and located in a position that would ensure that it would have a very limited impact on the landscape/character and appearance of the area in my view. The proposed static caravan would be located very close to the existing barn and also the line of trees to the southern boundary. As such, it would be largely screened from view from the west and south. The proposed static caravan would have a limited impact on the visual amenities of the area and the appearance and character of the landscape in my view.

The stable building is 34m from the barn and caravans and is therefore far more prominent within the landscape than the caravans. Under the previously refused application (SW/13/0030), this building was considered to cause some harm to the open rural character of the landscape. It was though acknowledged that at a distance, it appears as a stable building would and in this respect, may otherwise be considered a suitable structure within the rural landscape. However, the principle of this building with its use as a dwellinghouse was unacceptable. This building is now proposed to be used as a stable building and it is expected that the elevations of the building will be modified to remove the UPVC windows and doors and I have required this by condition 8. This will improve the appearance of the building in my view and will ensure that it resembles a simple rural structure which would be far more appropriate within the countryside in my opinion. I consider that the use of part of the application site (approx. 540 sq. m) for the keeping of horses would have little impact on the character or appearance of the landscape. This is subject to a condition that there should be no open storage of equestrian paraphernalia within this part of the site (excludes the adjoining land owned by the applicant but outside of the application site). I have not suggested a condition to limit the density of horses per acre as the majority of grazing land is outside of the application site.

I acknowledge that there is a large expanse of hardstanding at this site but also acknowledge that if we are to accept the principle of the use of this land as a gypsy site, hardstanding such as this and to this extent will be a feature. I do not consider that it would cause significant harm in any case. Surrounding the site, the boundary treatment is post and rail fencing. This is characteristic of the rural area in my view and respects the openness of the surrounding land. It is certainly a boundary treatment that is more preferable than a 2m high close boarded fence in my view. I have suggested removing permitted development rights for the erection of fences above 1 metre along the northern boundary of the site. The applicant has also planted some small trees close to some of the boundaries of the site that will mature in time. This will go some way towards softening the appearance of the site.

Whilst there are a number of gypsy/traveller in the Upchurch and Lower Halstow area, I do not consider that this site, taken cumulatively with the others, would lead to a concentration of sites which would cause harm to the visual amenities of the area or to domination of the local settled community.

Other issues

With regards to the cess pit and soakaway, both are covered under other legislation and I do not consider them to be of particular concern here in any case.

I acknowledge the fact that there may be some noise from vehicles using the access track to the site and that people using the electronic gate will cause some delay, therefore causing the potential for additional car and people noise. However, I do not consider that this noise would have significantly greater potential to disturb than the properties along Chaffes Lane and therefore conclude that there would be no harmful noise impact as a consequence of this proposal.

There is ample space within the application site and on the area of hardstanding to park and turn cars and any other vehicles associated with the use of this site.

Despite the concerns of local residents and the footpath groups/officer, I do not consider that this application has any consequences for the status or ability to use the public footpaths close to the application site. The footpaths do not actually cross the part of the site that is occupied by the caravans/dwellinghouse and I do not consider that the impact of barking dogs on the users of the footpaths would amount to a reasonable reason to refuse this application.

I do not consider that the application site is close enough to the archaeological sites or the listed building at Gore Farm to necessitate an assessment of the impact on the historic value of these heritage assets.

The site has very little value in terms of biodiversity in my view because of the ground conditions and also the use that it has been put to over a number of years. I therefore consider that there would be no detriment to ecology or biodiversity.

Recommendation

Having considered the relevant planning polices, the comments of the Parish Council, consultees and local residents, I am of the view that the use of this site as a gypsy site would be acceptable in principle and also that the provision of a stable building and use of land for the keeping of horses would be acceptable in principle. I have concluded that the static and touring caravans would not be significantly harmful to the character and appearance of the countryside/landscape and nor would the stable building once the elevations have been adapted. I do not consider that there are any highway safety or amenity concerns.

On the above basis I therefore recommend that permanent planning permission granted, subject to the receipt of satisfactory additional information relating to the gypsy status of the applicant’s son.

Responsible Officer: Rob Bailey (Area Planning Officer)

List of Background Documents

1. Application papers and correspondence for SW/13/0030 2. Application papers and correspondence for SW/12/0028 3. Application papers and correspondence for SW/05/1141 4. Application papers and correspondence for SW/06/0629

2.5 APPENDIX A

Hursell Farm, Chaffes Lane, Upchurch, Sittingbourne, ME9 7BG

SITE SCORE – 3rd June 2013

General observations Comments

Parish Upchurch Full Address Hursell Farm, Chaffes Lane, Upchurch, Sittingbourne, ME9 7BG Capacity of site to provide for approx Not Known caravans Is the site within any of the following No SSSI? Other European Designation Site? No Natural Conservation or Biodiversity No site? AONB? No Listed Buildings/Conservation No Areas/Scheduled Ancient Monument? Local Designated Wildlife Site? No Local Landscape Designation? No Local Plan Allocation? No What landscape character area does Upchurch and Lower Halstow Fruit the site fall within and what are the Belt relevant guidelines given by the Swale Landscape Character Assessment? Does the location meet the needs of Yes the prospective occupiers? Is the site existing or proposed? Existing Is there potential for disturbance to No proposed occupiers e.g. Railway lines, industrial uses, busy roads? Any planning issues relating to No cumulative impact of successive sites within the same area?

2.5 APPENDIX A

Site Availability

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

Site Suitability

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

2.5 APPENDIX A

Access and Parking

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

Landscaping

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

2.5 APPENDIX A

Impact on Amenity

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

Sustainability of Location

Sustainability of location Yes/No Is the site within a reasonable Yes distance (2km) to a settlement which offers local services and community facilities? If not, what distance? Is the site within a reasonable distance (2km) to the following services? • Nursery/Primary School? Yes

• Secondary School? No – 3.8km

• Doctors? Primary Health Yes Care?

• Dentists? No - 3.02km

• Food/Clothes and other Yes shops?

• Public transport links e.g. bus Yes stops/train station

Total

Total score 30

2.5 APPENDIX B

Planning Committee 4 July 2013

PART 3 - Application for which REFUSAL is recommended

3.1 SW/13/0030 (Case 21382) Upchurch

Location : Hursell Farm, Chaffes Lane, Upchurch, Sittingbourne, Kent, ME9 7BG

Proposal : Change of use of land to gypsy site for two gypsy families (related) and for the siting of one static caravan and extension and erection of dwelling (stable building) and stationing of one touring c aravan and use of existing barn as general amenity (retrospective)

Applicant/Agent : Mr L Bearup, C/O Mr Bernard Cullen, Kent Drawing, Office 1, First Floor, 25 High Street, Rainham, Gillingham, Kent, ME8 7HX

Resolved: That application SW/13/0030 be refused on the grounds set out in the report, but the use of the site as a gypsy site be acceptable in principle.

2.6 SW/13/1115 (Case 02540) F a v e r s h am

Location : 94 West Street,Faversham,Kent,ME13 7JQ

Proposal : Single storey rear day room extension and new ground floor WC/Cloakroom (at far end of existing Entrance Hall); Removal of non-original modern studwork wall between bedrooms 1 and 2; Form new double casement dormer window in rear attic bedroom roof slope (existing rafters retained); Replace non-original modern double glazed windows in rear elevation (3 windows); Install 2 conservation rooflights into catslide roof; Remove central brick pier in 1970's rear kitchen extension and insert oak beam.

Applicant/Agent : Mr Chris Marshall, C/O Mr Nick Hobbs, Nicholas Hobbs Associates, 57 Royal William house, St. Marys Road, Faversham, Kent, ME13 8EG

Application Valid : 11 September 2013, and as amended by drawings 537/02 A and 537/04 A, received 15 October 2013

8 Week Target : 6 November 2013

Conditions

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

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

2 No roof timbers shall be cut in order to accommodate the proposed dormer window in bedroom 4 on the development hereby permitted.

Grounds: In the interest of the special architectural or historic interest of the listed building.

3 All rainwater goods to be used as part of the development hereby permitted shall be of cast iron unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Grounds: In the interest of the special architectural or historic interest of the listed building.

4 No development shall take place until constructional details at a scale of 1:5 of the dormer window hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Grounds: In the interest of the special architectural or historic interest of the listed building.

5 Detailed drawings at a suggested scale of 1:10 and 1:1 or 1:2 of all new external and internal joinery work and fittings together with sections through glazing bars, frames and mouldings shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority before any development takes place. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Grounds: In the interest of the special architectural or historic interest of the listed building.

6 No development shall take place until constructional details at a suggested scale of 1:5 of the eaves have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Grounds: In the interest of the special architectural or historic interest of the listed building.

7 The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out otherwise than in complete accordance with the approved plans and specifications.

Grounds: In the interests of residential amenity.

8 Prior to the commencement of development, details in the form of samples of external finishing materials to be used in the construction of the development hereby approved shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and works shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details.

Grounds: In the interest of visual amenity.

9 Before any development takes place, construction details of and proposed sizes of rooflights shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Grounds: In the interest of the special architectural or historic interest of the listed building.

Council’s approach to this application

In this case the applicant did seek pre application advice from the Council. This was based upon a very similar scheme. The application was then amended in response to local representations and approved.

2.7 SW/13/1116 (Case 02540) F a v e r sham

Location : 94 West Street,Faversham,Kent,ME13 7JQ

Proposal : Listed Building Consent for single storey rear day room extension and new ground floor WC/Cloakroom (at far end of existing Entrance Hall); Removal of non-original modern studwork wall between bedrooms 1 and 2; Form new double casement dormer window in rear attic bedroom roof slope (existing rafters retained); Replace non-original modern double glazed windows in rear elevation (3 windows); Install 2 conservation rooflights into catslide roof; Remove central brick pier in 1970's rear kitchen extension and insert oak beam.

Applicant/Agent : Mr Chris Marshall, C/O Mr Nick Hobbs, Nicholas Hobbs Associates, 57 Royal William house, St. Marys Road, Faversham, Kent, ME13 8EG

Application Valid : 11 September 2013 and as amended by drawings 537/02 A and 537/04 A, received 15 October 2013

8 Week Target : 6 November 2013

Conditions

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

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

2 No roof timbers shall be cut in order to accommodate the proposed dormer window in bedroom 4 on the development hereby permitted.

Grounds: In the interest of the special architectural or historic interest of the listed building.

3 All rainwater goods to be used as part of the development hereby permitted shall be of cast iron unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Grounds: In the interest of the special architectural or historic interest of the listed building.

7 The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out otherwise than in complete accordance with the approved plans and specifications.

Grounds: In the interests of residential amenity.

Grounds: In the interest of visual amenity.

Grounds: In the interest of the special architectural or historic interest of the listed building.

Description of Proposal

These applications for planning permission and listed building consent have been made for the following:

- A single storey rear day room extension and a fully glazed link which will allow for access between the existing dwelling and the proposed extension. The glazed link will be approximately 2m in length and 2.1m in height. The extension will be approximately 3.1m in length, 2.9m in width and 2.8m in height; - New ground floor WC / cloakroom; - Removal of non-original studwork wall between bedrooms 1 and 2; - Form new double casement dormer window in rear attic bedroom roof slope, retaining the existing rafters; - Replacement 3 of non-original modern double glazed windows in rear elevation; - Installation of 2 conservation rooflights into modern catslide roof; - Removal of central brick pier in the 1970’s rear kitchen extension and insertion of oak beam.

The applications are supported by a Design and Access Statement which notes that the extension is modest with low eaves and ridge levels, so that it will not dominate the existing building, being built off the back of an unattractive 1970’s extension and largely obscuring it from view. The dormer window will be inserted over the rafters, so not requiring them to be cut; and the removal of the modern partitions will not have any impact on the surrounding historic fabric.

Relevant Site History and Description

94 West Street is a grade II listed dwelling located in the Faversham conservation area. It is a late / post medieval timber-framed townhouse with various additions to the rear.

The rear of both the adjoining neighbours properties extend further than No.94 West Street. The proposal site backs onto the vehicular and pedestrian access to Morrisons supermarket.

There have been previous applications made on the site as follows. Under SW/76/989 an application was approved in February 1977 for the demolition of the

rear section and to rebuild the extension. An application for planning permission and listed building consent was approved in March 1987 for new joinery work.

View of Consultees

Faversham Town Council has raised no objection to the application.

Representations

I received seven letters of objection and one letter of support in regards to the proposal. The grounds for objection are summarised as follows:

- The proposed modern glazed extension would be out of keeping with the conservation area and would spoil the view of the listed dwellings; - The design of the extension is not sympathetic to the surrounding listed buildings; - The large glazed window in the rear gable will be out of keeping and a hipped end of the extension should be insisted upon; - The large glazed areas will require triple glazing and heavy frame sections; - The proposed extension will have an unacceptable impact upon the neighbouring property at No. 95 West Street; - The plan to extend No. 94 West Street by 1.5m beyond the building line of No. 95 West Street would appear to contravene the Borough Council’s SPG – Designing an Extension, A Guide for Householders paragraph 5.8; - The new window in the roof would spoil the existing roof and provide security problems; - The new dormer window is at less than 90 degrees form the neighbour’s dormers and will create privacy problems; - By continuing the existing internal floor levels the extension will appear unduly high (by 35cm) shading the adjacent garden and dominating the existing buildings in scale; - The plan has roof angles which have been wrongly drawn and labelled; NOTE: There are some errors on the drawings which I am hoping to resolve with the applicant. - The proposed painting of the wall of No. 95 West Street does not appear to have been agreed with the owner of the property. However, the wall should not be painted as it is listed; NOTE: This element of the scheme has since been deleted - The pergola should not be attached to the next door property as this belongs to No. 95 West Street; NOTE: This element of the scheme has since been amended to avoid the pergola being attached to No. 95 - The wrong address is shown on the UK Planning website; NOTE: This is now correct. - Neither the declaration nor the ownership certificate has been signed; NOTE: Signatures have only been deleted for internet publication.

The letter of support from the neighbour to which the extension will be attached states that the proposals would be an enhancement on this part of West Street with entirely appropriate materials being proposed.

Development plan policies

Polices E1, E14, E15, E19 and E24 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008

E14 (Development Involving Listed Buildings) states that proposals, including any change of use, affecting a Listed Building, and/or its setting, will only be permitted if the building’s special architectural or historic interest, and its setting, are preserved.

E15 (Development Affecting a Conservation Area) states that development within, affecting the setting of, or views into and out of a conservation area will preserve or enhance all features that contribute positively to the area’s special character or appearance.

E19 (Achieving High Quality Design and Distinctiveness) requires development to be of a high quality design.

E24 (Alterations and Extensions) states that alterations and extensions will only be granted planning permission when they are of high quality design, in scale to the building and its surrounding, which maintain the character of the streetscene, preserve architectural, landscape or conservation features and protect residential amenity.

The Council’s Supplementary Guidance (SPG) Designing an Extension - A Guide for Householders which was adopted by the Council following public consultation, is a material planning consideration in determining applications, and which is referred to in paragraph 3.71 of the Swale Borough Local Plan.

The SPG Listed Buildings which was adopted by the Council following public consultation, is a material planning consideration in determining applications, and which is referred to in paragraph 3.51 of the adopted Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

Paragraphs 128, 129, 131 and 132 of the National Planning Policy Framework requires Local Planning Authorities to assess the particular significance of any heritage asset that may be affected by a proposal. Furthermore, it states that when considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation.

Discussion

94 West Street is located within the built up area of Faversham. As such the principle of development is acceptable. The main considerations in this case concern the impact that the proposals would have upon the listed building and the conservation area and the impact upon residential amenity, and whether the flood risk has been properly dealt with.

I note the objections received and respond as follows. I contacted the agent in regards to the issue of the limewashing of the wall of No. 95 West Street and the attachment of the pergola to this wall. It was recognised that this was not a party wall and as such the limewashing of this wall has been removed from the application, as shown on amended drawings. In addition to this the pergola will not be attached to the wall. This is also shown on amended drawings which have been received. As such I consider these grounds of objections to have been satisfactorily resolved.

The proposed extension is a modest single storey structure which will be sandwiched in between the much taller rearward projections of both neighbouring properties. The effect of cumulative extensions creates a rambling effect at the back of the properties in West Street where successive layers of history reveal themselves in an evolutionary mix. The proposed extension will add to that mix and is of a design which complements the existing dwelling. I do not consider the glazed gable end to be unacceptable in this mixed setting. The fully glazed link will be located between the existing property and the extension and as such will be hidden from external view. Therefore it will not cause an unacceptable impact upon the surrounding area.

The extension projects rearwards of No. 95 West Street by 1.5m. Paragraph 5.7 of the Borough Council’s SPG states that “For single storey rear extensions close to your neighbour’s common boundary, the Borough Council considers that a maximum projection of 3m will be allowed.” Paragraph 5.8 goes onto state that “If your neighbour’s house projects rearward of yours or already has an extension on the back, then the Borough Council may allow a rear extension to the distance of the adjacent property or extension provided the extension remains in scale and character with your property.” This is the case in this instance whereby the property at No. 95 projects at two storeys past the rear of No. 94 by approximately 5m. It is also worth noting that the extension will be built approximately 0.7m from the common boundary with No. 95. As such, due to gap between the extension and the

neighbouring property and that the extension projects 1.5m past the neighbour’s rear wall I am of the opinion that the extension would not cause unacceptable harm to the amenity of No.95.

Along the boundary with the proposal site, No.93 West Street has a large brick wall which offers a considerable amount of separation between the two properties at the rear. It is also worth noting that the adjacent neighbour at No.93 West Street supports the application as they believe the proposal would be an enhancement on the existing arrangement. I am of the opinion that the proposal would not cause unacceptable harm to the neighbouring amenity at No.93 West Street.

The proposed dormer window on the rear roof slope of the house is not out of character in this location. It has been designed to match those that exist on the front roof slope and to sit above the roof rafters so as to avoid cutting into them. Although the dormer is set at just less than 90 degrees to the neighbour’s dormers (which look out directly over the applicant’s property) I do not see any possible loss of privacy between the dormers. I therefore see this part of the proposal as acceptable.

Upon investigation it has been confirmed that the partition between bedrooms one and two is of modern stud and plasterboard construction and as such is not part of the historic fabric of the building. As a result I have no issue with this alteration. The rooflights and other alterations to the extension approved in the 1977 application are also less sensitive because they do not impact upon a historical part of the dwelling and again, this element of the proposal is in my opinion acceptable.

Finally, the applicant has stated that the floor levels within the proposed development will be set no lower than existing levels and flood proofing of the proposed development has been incorporated where appropriate. This is a commitment that the Environment Agency asks for, and I do not consider that this results in any significant harm to the amenity of the neighbouring properties. Rather, it is a sensible way to minimise flooding risks.

Summary and Recommendation

Overall I consider that the proposal would not unacceptably harm either the architectural or historical interest of the listed building and it would, in my opinion preserve the character of the conservation area. The extension, due to its limited projection past the neighbouring property would not unacceptably impact upon their amenity. Furthermore, the flood risk has been properly dealt with.

The applicant did request a pre application advice meeting at which the principle of the proposal was agreed as being acceptable. The meeting was positive and an application for what is now being determined was encouraged. Further to this the agent has been proactive in sending through amended drawings on the basis of discussions which I have had with them during the course of the application.

Taking the above into account, and subject to resolution of minor errors on the drawings, I recommend that planning permission and listed building consent are granted.

Responsible Officer: Graham Thomas (Area Planning Officer)

List of Background Documents

1. Application papers and correspondence for SW/13/1115 2. Application papers and correspondence for SW/13/1116

2.8 SW/13/1273 (Case 00822) D u n k i rk

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

Proposal : The installation of two 1.8m microwave dishes at a height of 58m on the existing 110m tower, associated cabling and the installation of a small equipment cabin at ground level.

Applicant/Agent : Optiver Holding, BV C/O Mr Leo Cunningham-Baily, Fisher German LLP, St Helens Court, North Street, Ashby de la Zouch, Leicestershire, LE65 1HS

Application Valid : 8 October 2013

8 Week Target : 3 December 2013

SUBJECT TO: Views of the Parish Council and outstanding representations (closing date 11 November 2013)

Conditions / Grounds

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

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

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

Grounds: In the interest of visual amenity.

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

Grounds: In the interest of visual amenity.

Council’s approach to this application

The application was considered by the Planning Committee where the applicant/agent had the opportunity to speak to the committee and promote the application

2.9 SW/13/1274 (Case 00822) D u n k irk

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

Proposal : Listed Building Consent for the installation of two 1.8m microwave dishes at a height of 58m on the existing 110m tower, associated cabling and the installation of a small equipment cabin at ground level.

Applicant/Agent : Optiver Holding BV, C/O Mr Leo Cunningham-Baily, Fisher German LLP, St Helens Court, North Street, Ashby de la Zouch, Leicestershire, LE65 1HS

Application Valid : 8 October 2013

8 Week Target : 3 December 2013

SUBJECT TO: Views of the Parish Council and outstanding representations (closing date 11 November 2013)

Conditions

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

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

2 The telecommunications dishes hereby permitted shall be painted grey.

Grounds: In the interest of visual amenity.

Description of Proposal

The application is for listed building consent and planning permission for the installation of two 1.8 metre in diameter microwave dishes at a height of 58 metres on the former RAF Mast at Dunkirk. The proposal also includes a proposed equipment store measuring 0.6m x 1.2m x 0.6m at the base of the mast on the eastern side of the concrete base.

One antenna would be located on the northwest elevation of the mast facing towards London with the other antenna located on the southeast elevation facing towards Dover as the purpose of the installation is to provide a new connection between the financial districts of London and Frankfurt.

The Design and Access statement makes the following summarised comments: ‘The dishes will have a very limited impact by virtue of their size and their position (height) on the structure on which they are to be installed. To further reduce any visual impact, the dishes will have a white radome and will be coloured light grey to match the mast and the existing antenna.’

Relevant Site History and Description

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

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

SW/11/1370 - Erection of a data storage facility (B8) and permanent historical exhibition (D1) - refused. There is currently an existing appeal for this proposal being considered by the Planning Inspectorate.

SW/130880 &0885 - installation of 2 x 1.8 microwave dishes at a height of 40 metres - approved.

SW/13/1340 and SW/13/1341 - installation of two microwave dishes at a height of 47m on the existing 110m tower, and the installation of a small equipment cabin at ground level. These are current applications and are reported elsewhere on this agenda.

Views of Consultees

The Head of Service Delivery raises no objection subject to a condition restricting the hours of construction.

I am awaiting responses from Dunkirk Parish Council, The County Archaeological Officer and Natural England and will report back to Members at the meeting.

Other Representations

One letter of general observation has been received expressing the view that this application is for two dishes already located on the mast. However, the application indicates that the dishes proposed now have not yet been installed.

The closing date for comments is 11 November 2013 so I may need to report further at the meeting.

Policies

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)

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

Discussion

My main consideration in the determination of this application is the impact on the historic character of the former RAF mast and the visual impact on the surrounding area.

The dishes, when viewed against the backdrop of the mast, will not appear overly obtrusive from the surrounding views. Furthermore, painting the dishes grey will ensure that they blend into the existing structure of the mast and will create a sufficient visual backdrop to significantly reduce the impact.

In terms of the ancillary equipment cabinet that is proposed, I am of the opinion that as the site is already used for telecommunication equipment and as the increase in equipment is small scale it will have an insignificant impact on the character of the area. Furthermore, as the site is already used for this operation it would be appropriate to allow these additional installations rather than erecting a new mast to host the proposed dishes. I have raised the concern that there are already two dishes on the mast and the agent has confirmed that the proposed dishes have not yet been installed.

I note the comments made by the Head of Service Delivery in relation to hours of construction but do not consider it necessary to restrict the hours of construction due to the limited works proposed which are unlikely to have an impact on the surrounding residential amenity.

Recommendation

Overall, I am of the view that the proposal is acceptable and does not have a detrimental impact upon the character of the area. As such I recommend that planning permission and listed building consent be granted subject to outstanding representations from Dunkirk Parish Council and other representations.

Responsible Officer: Graham Thomas (Area Planning Officer)

List of Backgrounds Documents

1. Application papers and correspondence for SW/13/1273 and SW/13/1274 2. Application papers and correspondence for SW/13/0880, SW/13/0885, SW/13/340 and SW/13/1341. 3. Application papers and correspondence for SW/13/0880, SW/13/0885, SW/13/1340 and SW/13/1341

2.10 SW/13/1138 (Case 23045) F a v e r s h a m

Location : Former Faversham Foundry, Seagar Road, Faversham, Kent, ME13 7FD

Proposal : Provision of 13 residential dwellings extending to 2 & 2.5 storeys, together with associated car parking, landscaping and infrastructure works.

Applicant/Agent : Mr Mark Quinn, C/O Mr Karl Elliot Clague LLP, 62 Burgate, Canterbury, Kent, CT1 2BH

Application Valid : 16 September 2013, and as amended by drawings received 24th September 2013.

8 Week Target : 11 November 2013

13 Week Target: 16 December 2013

Subject to:

1 . Additional comments from Kent Highway Services on the amended site layout.

2. The views of the County Archaeological Officer.

3. Additional comments from CBRE regarding the appraisal of the financial viability assessment submitted with the application.

4. The signing of a S106 in respect of developer contributions.

5. Receipt of amended drawings showing some minor amendments in relation to design and site layout.

CONDITIONS/GROUNDS

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

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

2. The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved drawing:

21727A/A/100 revisions P2; 21727A/01- revision A; 21727/A/02- revision A and B; 21727/A/10- revision A; 21727/A/20- revision A; 21698A/30- revision A; 21698A/31- revision A 21698A/32- revision A; 21698A/33- revision A and 21698A/34- revision A

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

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

Grounds: In the interest of visual amenity.

4. Details in the form of cross-sectional drawings through the site, of the existing and proposed site levels shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before work commences and the development shall be completed strictly in accordance with the approved levels.

Grounds: In order to secure a satisfactory form of development having regard to the sloping nature of the site.

5. Prior to the commencement of development hereby approved, a programme for the suppression of dust during the construction of the development shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The measures approved shall be employed throughout the period of demolition and construction unless any variation has been approved by the Local Planning Authority.

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

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

Grounds: In order to prevent pollution of water supplies and localised flooding.

7. No development approved by this permission shall be commenced prior to a contaminated land assessment (and associated remediation strategy if relevant), being submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, comprising:

a) An investigation, to follow recommendations set out in Ecologia report letter dated 27th August 2013 reference 13.332.1, carried out by a suitably qualified and accredited consultant/contractor in accordance with a Quality Assured sampling and analysis methodology.

b) A site investigation report detailing all investigative works and sampling on site, together with the results of analyses, risk assessment to any receptors and a proposed remediation strategy which shall be of such a nature as to render harmless the identified contamination given the proposed end-use of the site and surrounding environment, including any controlled waters.

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

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

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

9. Prior to the works commencing on site details of parking for site personnel / operatives / visitors shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority and thereafter shall be provided and retained throughout the construction of the development. The approved parking shall be provided prior to the commencement of the development.

Grounds: To ensure provision of adequate off-street parking for vehicles in the interests of highway safety and to protect the amenities of local residents.

10. Prior to the commencement of development hereby approved, a report demonstrating how the proposal will incorporate measures to encourage and promote biodiversity and wildlife to include bird and bat boxes/bricks as illustrated in the Design and Access Statement (August 2013) shall be submitted to and approved in writing. Development shall be carried out in accordance with those approved details and shall thereafter be retained.

Grounds: In the interests of promoting wildlife and biodiversity and wildlife in urban areas.

11. Before any part or agreed phase of the development is occupied, all remediation works identified in the contaminated land assessment and approved by the Local Planning Authority shall be carried out in full (or in phases as agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority) on site under a quality assured scheme to demonstrate compliance with the proposed methodology and best practice guidance. If, during the works, contamination is encountered which has not previously been identified, then the additional contamination shall be fully assessed and an appropriate remediation scheme agreed with the Local Planning Authority.

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

12. Upon completion of the works identified in the contaminated land assessment, and before any part or agreed phase of the development is occupied, a validation report shall be submitted which shall include details of the proposed remediation works with quality assurance certificates to show that the works have been carried out in accordance with the approved methodology. Details of any post-remediation sampling and analysis to show the site has reached the required clean-up criteria shall be included in the closure report together with the necessary documentation detailing what waste materials have been removed from the site.

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

13. The dwellings hereby approved shall be constructed to Level 3 of the Code for Sustainable Homes or an equivalent standard and prior to the occupation of any of the dwellings the relevant certification shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority confirming that the required standard has been achieved unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

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

14. As an initial operation on site, adequate precautions shall be taken during the progress of the works to guard against the deposit of mud and similar substances on the public highway in accordance with proposals to be submitted to, and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such proposals shall include washing facilities by which vehicles will have their wheels, chassis and bodywork effectively cleaned and washed free of mud and similar substances.

Grounds: In the interests of highway safety.

15. Prior to commencement of the approved development full constructional details of the acoustic fence to be provided along the entire north-eastern site boundary adjacent to plots 7-12 inclusive shall be provided to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The acoustic fence, as approved, shall be erected before any of the dwellings hereby approved are first occupied, or in accordance with a schedule submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority, and in accordance with constructional details that shall have been agreed by the Local Planning Authority in writing.

Grounds: In the interests of residential amenity.

16. The area shown on the submitted plan Drawing No (drawing number 21727A/10 revision A) as car parking space shall be kept available for such use at all times and no permanent development, whether permitted by the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking or re-enacting that Order) or not, shall be carried out on the land so shown or in such a position as to preclude vehicular access thereto; such land and access thereto shall be provided prior to the occupation of the dwelling(s) hereby permitted.

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

17. All materials used for landscaping, or as infill, shall be clean, uncontaminated, naturally occurring, non-putrescible and non-leachate forming.

Grounds: To prevent pollution of the water environment, especially groundwater.

18. Piling or other foundation designs using penetrative methods shall not be permitted other than with the express consent of the Local Planning Authority.

Grounds: To prevent pollution of the water environment, especially groundwater.

19. The dwelling units hereby approved shall achieve at least a Level 3 rating under The Code for Sustainable Homes and a minimum of 10% of the energy requirement for the operation of the dwellings will come from on-site renewable energy measures, and no development shall take place until details have been submitted to, and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, which set out what measures will be taken to ensure that the development incorporates sustainable construction techniques such as rainwater harvesting, water conservation, energy efficiency and, where appropriate, the use of local building materials; and provisions for the production of renewable energy such as wind power, or solar thermal or solar photo voltaic installations. Upon approval, the details shall be incorporated into the development as approved.

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

20. The access details shown on the approved plans drawing number 21727A/10 revision A shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of any other works authorised by this permission, the occupation of any buildings hereby approved, the use of the site being commenced, and the access shall thereafter be maintained.

Grounds: In the interests of highway safety and convenience.

21. The proposed roads, including footpaths and turning spaces where applicable, shall be constructed in such a manner so as to ensure that each dwelling before it is occupied is served by a properly consolidated and surfaced footpath and carriageway to at least base course level between the premises and the public highway.

Grounds: To ensure adequate access.

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

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

Within these hours no impact pile driving which may be permitted under the terms of condition (9) above shall take place other than within the hours of 0900 to 1700 on Monday to Fridays only.

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

23. The areas shown on the layout plan hereby approved drawing number 21727A/10 revision A as parking and garage space, and cycle parking facilities, shall be used for or be available for such use at all times when the premises are in use and no development, whether permitted by the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 or not, shall be carried out on that area of land or in such a position as to preclude vehicular access to this reserved area; such land and facilities, and access thereto shall be provided prior to the occupation of the buildings hereby permitted.

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

24. No infiltration of surface water drainage into the ground at the site is permitted other than the express written consent of the Local Planning Authority, which may be given for those parts of the site where it has been demonstrated that there is no resultant unacceptable risk to controlled waters. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Grounds: To protect controlled waters, which would include groundwater.

25. Adequate underground ducts shall be installed before any of the buildings hereby permitted are occupied to enable telephone services and electrical services to be connected to any premises within the application site without resource to the erection of distribution poles and overhead lines, and notwithstanding the provisions of Article 3 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 no distribution pole or overhead line shall be erected other than with the express consent of the Local Planning Authority.

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

26. Public street lighting columns within the development shall be fitted with the wiring necessary to accommodate the “Hawkeye” surveillance system at the time of their installation, in locations agreed by the Local Planning Authority.

Grounds: In the interests of public amenity and safety pursuant to Policy E1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

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

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

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

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

29. Before the first occupation of a dwelling the following works between that dwelling and the adopted highway shall be completed as follows:

(A) Footways and/or footpaths shall be completed, with the exception of the wearing course; (B) Carriageways completed, with the exception of the wearing course, including the provision of a turning facility beyond the dwelling together with related: (1) highway drainage, including off-site works, (2) junction visibility splays, (3) street lighting, street nameplates and highway structures if any.

Grounds: In the interests of highway safety and convenience.

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

Grounds: In the interests of residential amenity.

32. And any further conditions required by Kent Highways Services

Informatives

A formal application for connection to the public sewerage system is required in order to service this development. To initiate a sewer capacity check to identify the appropriate connection point for the development. Please contact Southern Water, Southern House, Sparrowgrove, Otterbourne, Hampshire SO21 2SW (Tel 0330 303 0119 or www.southernwater.co.uk

Environment Agency:

There should be no discharge into land impacted by contamination or land previously identified as being contaminated. There should be no discharge to made ground. There must no direct discharge to groundwater. Sufficient information should be provided to indicate that these criteria can be met.

Only clean contaminated water should drain to the surface water system. Roof drainage shall drain directly to the surface water system (entering after the pollution prevention measures). Appropriate pollution control methods (such as trapped gullies and interceptors) should be used for drainage from access roads and car parking areas to prevent hydrocarbons from entering the surface water system.

Council’s approach to this application

Description of Proposal

Planning permission is sought for the provision of 13 residential dwellings extending to 2 and 2.5 storey units, together with associated car parking, landscaping and infrastructure works at the former Faversham Foundry, Seager Road, Faversham.

The proposal would replace 12 commercial units approved under SW/07/1473 (please see Relevant Site History below) with the 13 residential houses. As part of the current development there is a commitment to construct a further 5 commercial units (Units 16-20) and 4 commercial yards totalling n 1,000 sqm /10,000 sqft of commercial floor space of the 37 approved units under the original permission SW/07/1473.

14 of the commercial units totalling 27,000sqft or 2,508 square metres (including mezzanine space) have already been constructed. The original approval was for 37 units each with 1,050sqft foot print on ground floor not including mezzanines.

The total area of already built space plus proposed commercial to be built would be 37,000 sqft or 3,437 square metres.

The development site would be accessed from the neighbouring Redrow residential development approved under SW/11/1482; Unit 43 as approved would not be constructed by Redrow to enable access to the current application site.

The residential mix would include 3 and 4 bedroom properties, including 4 detached properties, 2 semi-detached properties and 7 terraced units. Each unit would have 2 dedicated parking spaces and the development as a whole would provide 4 visitor parking spaces (Please note that I am awaiting amended drawings following acceptance from Kent Highway Services) . Each property would also have cycle spaces. A 3 metre acoustic fence is proposed along the boundary of Unit 7 with the commercial site.

The Planning Application pack contains the following documents: - Design and Access statement - Planning Statement - Biodiversity Survey and Report

- Land contamination assessment - Contamination report update - Ecological Appraisal - Marketing Report- June 2013 - Draft Section 106 agreement - Flood Risk Assessment - Viability Report (confidential) - Transport Assessment

The Design and Access statement makes the following summarised comments:

‘The scheme will provide a number of significant benefits including: - The efficient re-use of a brown-field site - Provision of 13 high quality modern dwellings - Provision of a sustainable mix of dwelling types which will assist in creating a balanced development - Provision of distinguishable character areas within the site which will create a legible townscape within which residents and visitors can orientate themselves - Creation of a safe and secure pedestrian environment within the site and high quality ream - The proposed development would improve the appearance of the site - The proposed changes will help fund the construction of a further 5 employment units and 4 secure yards - The proposal will have considerable benefits both in delivering additional residential accommodation to the area and a more realistic but nonetheless substantial amount of further commercial floorspace’.

The submitted Marking Report makes the following comments: ‘In summary the property was exhaustively exposed to the market place for consideration by a wide range of end users over a 5 year period. It is considered that Atrium Chartered Surveyors and Quinn Estates have orchestrated a thorough marketing campaign, utilising local, regional and national publications, over a period of 5 years to promote the business park. To date Phase 1 and 2 have been completed and occupied by professional companies who cumulatively employ 90 people in well designed, quality business space. This report proves that there is no market for the remainder of the scheme in its current form and that the delivery of smaller number units, in what will be phases 3 and 4, will be adequate to satisfy demand over the next 4-5 years at current uptake rates. It is considered that the marketing campaign has been NPPF compliant.’

A draft Section 106 agreement has been received which will require some amendments following discussions with the agent. Members will note that I deal with developer contributions in the ‘Discussion’ section of this report.

The Financial Viability Review carried out by CBRE on behalf of the Council confirms that the proposed scheme as approved under SW/07/1473 requires residential uses to enhance viability and does not produce a sufficient residual land value enabling the viability benchmark sum to be achieved. The proposed scheme cannot support any affordable housing as it reduces viability further.

CBRE notes that there is not detailed information available regarding the accuracy of the abnormal costs which amount to £505,161. Should abnormal costs fall by circa £165,000 it is likely that the scheme will exceed the VBS (Viability Benchmark Survey) and it may therefore be possible to provide some affordable housing or a contribution in lieu of or reduce the number of residential units proposed on the site. I will update Members about this at the meeting.

Relevant Site History and Description

The site is located on land known as the Former Faversham Foundry and is accessed from Seager Road. The site comprises 0.3 hectares (or 31% of employment area as approved under SW/07/1473) and the main part of the site is irregular shaped.

To the north-east of the site are a number of operational commercial units 14 in total which form part of phase 1 and 2 (approved under SW/07/1473). Further to the east the site is bounded by Oare Road and an existing lorry park. Immediately to the south of the site are located several residential properties which form part of the recent development known as Davington Park. To the west of the site lie the gardens off the residential properties of Wreight Court. The site is generally flat.

The site, including both the commercial and residential uses, has a long and complex history. The relevant planning history is as follows:

SW/07/1473- mixed use, housing (111 houses) and employment , up to a total floorspace of 7700 sqm/ 77,700 sqft (on a site area of 0.96 ha or just under 2.5 acres) - approved.

SW/10/0078- 78 dwellings- approved, but superseded by SW/11/1482.

SW/10/1086- Proposed layout alteration to previously approved commercial units (as approved under SW/07/1473) 7 and 8 from two 97.5 metres square units to one 196.8 metres square unit- approved.

SW/10/1406- Proposed layout alteration to previously approved commercial units 5 and 6 from two 97.5 metres square units to one 196.8 metres square unit with additional external alterations- approved.

SW/11/0046- Amendment of part of the site layout for commercial area approved under SW/07/1473 to include the provision of fenced and un-fenced yard areas adjacent to unit 6- Approved.

SW/11/0284- 62 dwellings- withdrawn.

SW/11/1204- Construction of 3 commercial units (to be known as Units 9,10, 11 and 12 ) within the existing Faversham Foundry commercial redevelopment (as an amendment to the Units 9-12 as approved under SW/07/1473 and with no additional floorspace proposed)- approved.

SW/11/1482- 62 dwellings- approved.

SW/12/1013- minor material amendment to site layout and elevations for plots residential 7-13- approved.

Views of Consultees

Faversham Town Council object to the proposal for the following reasons: ‘The proposed development would result in the loss of potential employment development. Marketing of the proposed employment development has been given insufficient time particularly in current economic conditions.’

Kent County Council Development Contributions Team has requested the following contributions:

Primary and Secondary Education Provision- currently no requirement.

Libraries, Youth and Community Learning- Community Learning- £490.52 Youth facilities- No requirement Local Libraries- £2988.31

Adult Social Services- £3418.22

Total requested contribution amount- £6,897.05

Southern Water raises no objection subject to the attachment of an informative- see above.

Natural England raises no objection and makes the following comments: ‘this application may provide opportunities to incorporate features into the design which area beneficial to wildlife’.

Kent County Council Biodiversity Officer raises no objection- ‘the development has limited potential to impact on protected species and recommend that the enhancements are incorporated in the site.’

Kent Highway Services raise no objection subject to the provision of cycle spaces, visitors spaces within the development and wheelie bin access. I am awaiting comments from KHS on the revised drawings and will update Members at the meeting.

Kent County Council Countryside Access object to the proposal on the following grounds:

- Boundary treatment between the proposal and the existing public footpath is unacceptable - The boundary fencing would create an alley like effect making the footpath less desirable to use

My objections to this proposal could be removed by a condition restricting the height of the closeboard or solid fencing adjacent to the path to 1.2 metres and the creation of access points from the proposed site opposite or close to public footpaths ZF4 and ZF3 (north).’

The Environment Agency have no comments on this application.

The Council’s Economic Development Officer is supportive of the proposal and makes the following comments:

‘The Developer has sought to aggressively market the site and through delivery of high quality product has been successful in securing occupiers. I can confirm that in our dealings with the developer, when making referrals, they have taken a pro-active stance to secure these occupiers and that the level of promotion has been consistent over the past 5 years. I am also aware that it has been necessary for the developer to adopt a flexible approach to facilitate deals and this has included pricing which is below a truly economic level. This is fairly reflected in the developer’s own viability appraisal, which indicates that the scheme is not viable as permitted, a position confirmed by CBRE’s report produced on the Council’s behalf. Indeed, this conclusion has been reached by CBRE even though, in my opinion, they have applied a ‘sale’ value of £75 psf, which represents the most optimistic position.

The period of time over which the developer has pursued commercial development at the site (5 years) significantly exceeds that anticipated when the scheme was originally conceived in 2008. I am led to believe that as a consequence it has been necessary to extend the period of the loan funding for the scheme and that any further extension will not be possible. This being the case, I am concerned that there is the potential for the balance of the development site to be mothballed for some period of time, given the ongoing difficulties in bringing forward new, viable employment development. Creating a more viable scheme does provide an opportunity to bring forward new employment space for Faversham in the immediate future. Despite being at a reduced scale, compared to what could be delivered should the whole site remain in employment use, total floorspace will exceed that planned when the scheme was first permitted, increasing from 28,000 sq ft to 42,000 sq ft. ‘

The Council’s Green Space Officer makes the following comments:

‘To be consistent with the original S106 which take a contribution towards nearby Oare Gunpowder Works Country Park, I would agree to a similar Figure (£10,900) contribution again towards the development of facilities at Oare.’

The Council’s Housing Strategy and Enabling Officer makes the following comments:

‘I note that this site now has an application submitted and that as stated in the design and access statement this application is a continuation of SW/11/1482 and therefore the developer is required to provide 30% affordable. Because of this I thought it would be helpful for me to note what Housing would expect:

30/70% split- 70% social rent allocation/30% intermediate allocation

I can confirm that there is a requirement for affordable housing in Faversham for all types and sizes of accommodation. In line with Swale’s SPD we would expect the accommodation offered to be proportionate across the development site.’

I am awaiting comments from the County Archaeology Officer and will update Members at the meeting.

Other Representations

2 letters of objection making the following comments: - Prefer that the existing land be used for the original applied purpose, industrial units - It was only recently reported in the local newspapers, that the Davington area is one of the worst for unemployment and just developing land for housing will not benefit Faversham and its local surrounding areas - Adds to the traffic on the roads from here to Faversham which are currently impassable at certain times of the day due to the volume of traffic along Oare Road and Priory Road - First stage of development there were issues in relation to the parking of construction vehicles and Oare Road became congested- dangerous conditions - Last phase of the Foundry development is of poor design, no vernacular design, houses too high – presumably these houses will be of similar construction - Swale are determined to wreck the environment of Oare and Faversham - 2 letters of general comments making the following comments: - Oare Road needs to have a 30 mph repeater sign - Maybe Redrow could provide funding for this in exchange for the extra traffic the development would produce - Double yellow lines need to be extended past the entrance to the fishing lake - The site access during construction should not be through the secure gated commercial development - The future residential development should not be accessed through the commercial business site

Policies

The Development Plan principally comprises the saved policies of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008. The saved policies of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008 referred to below are relevant to this development.

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

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

At Paragraph 17 it states that the planning system 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.’

Paragraph 18 states that: ‘The Government is committed to securing economic growth in order to create jobs and prosperity, building on the country’s inherent strengths, and to meeting the twin challenges of global competition and of a low carbon future.’

Paragraph 19 states that: ‘The Government is committed to ensuring that the planning system does everything it can to support sustainable economic growth. Planning should operate to encourage and not act as an impediment to sustainable growth. Therefore significant weight should be placed on the need to support economic growth through the planning system.’

Paragraph 22 states that: ‘Planning policies should avoid the long term protection of sites allocated for employment use where there is no reasonable prospect of a site being used for that purpose. Land allocations should be regularly reviewed. Where there is no reasonable prospect of a site being used for the allocated employment use, applications for alternative uses of land or buildings should be treated on their merits having regard to market signals and the relative need for different land uses to support sustainable local communities.’

Paragraph 51 states that: ‘Local Planning Authorities should normally approve planning applications for change to residential use and any associated development from commercial buildings (currently in the B use classes) where there is an identified need for additional housing in that area, provided that there are not strong economic reasons why such development would be inappropriate.’

Paragraph 56 states that: ‘The Government attaches great importance to the design of the built environment. Good design is a key aspect of sustainable development, is indivisible from good planning, and should contribute positively to making better places for people.’

Swale Borough Local Plan 2008 FAV1 (The Faversham and rest of Swale Planning Area) SP4 (Housing) E1 (General Development Criteria) E19 (Design Criteria) B1 (Supporting and Retaining existing employment land and businesses) H2 (Providing for new housing) H3 (Providing Affordable Housing) T1 (Providing safe access for new development) T3 (Vehicle parking for new development)

Discussion

My main considerations in the determination of this application are the loss of the employment/commercial units (principle of the development), the design, highway considerations and the impact of the development on the surrounding area and residential amenity considerations.

Principle of the development My main concern in relation to the creation of the extra residential units on this site is the loss of the commercial floorspace previously approved under SW/07/1473. The residential development would help to fund the construction of a further 5 commercial units and 4 commercial yards (subject to permission being granted for the yards) totalling approximately 10,000 sqft, on the adjacent business site. The proposal for residential properties will create a more viable scheme which will provide an opportunity to bring forward new employment space for Faversham in the immediate future.

The application was submitted with evidence of the marketing that has taken place for the commercial site in the last five years. I have consulted the Council’s Economic Development Officer who is of the opinion that the applicant has carried out substantial and acceptable marketing for the site. I am therefore confident that the site has been pro-actively marketed in the last five years despite the economic recession.

The National Planning Policy Framework provides specific guidance on alternative uses for employment use land, in particular in the B use classes, and states that long term protection of sites for allocated employment use where there is not reasonable prospect of the site being used for that purpose is not viable. In this instance the agent, via the marketing report and Viability Survey, has confirmed that the commercial site is no longer viable for full development. Where there is an identified need for residential properties provided there are not strong economic reasons why such development would not be appropriate the loss of commercial land is acceptable. I am of the view that the development meets the guidance criteria of the NPPF and is therefore acceptable.

Policy B1 of the Local Plan 2008 seeks to support and retain existing employment and business land. However, the loss of commercial land may be considered acceptable if it has been demonstrated by expert advice that the site is no longer suitable for any employment use or it has been demonstrated by market testing that there is insufficient demand to justify its retention for any employment use. I consider the proposal to meet the criteria of Policy B1 and therefore to be acceptable in terms of local plan policy.

The 13 dwellings proposed will ensure that there is funding available to bring forward the adjacent commercial development of the additional 10,000 sqft. On balance I am of the view that the development of the application site for residential, in order to provide a viable commercial development is considered acceptable in principle. Members should also note that the construction of the five commercial units and 4 yards are linked to the residential development by the signing of the Section 106 agreement which provides assurance that the commercial units will be built as planned.

Design/Highway considerations Following discussions with the agent the proposal has been slightly amended to create a more visually attractive development. I consider the site layout acceptable and am of the view that the properties have been well designed to appear in keeping with the adjacent Redrow development. The access via the adjacent residential development is a suitable option and ensures a successful integration of the two development sites.

Design guidance was provided at the pre-application stage and the agent has fully taken the advice into consideration and amended the design and site layout accordingly.

I am awaiting revised drawings showing some minor amendments to the scheme which will create more interesting side elevations to some of the units and improve the amenity impact of Unit 7 and will update Members at the meeting on these revisions.

I sought the views from Kent Highway Services with regards to the site layout and proposed parking arrangement. Following their advice I am awaiting revised drawings showing cycle and visitor parking provision.

Residential Amenity The application site is currently vacant, though planning permission was previously granted for commercial units, and therefore there is currently a limited impact on the surrounding area. I am of the view that the proposed residential development will have much less of an impact on the surrounding residential development, when compared to the approved commercial buildings, in particular on the newly built Redrow residential properties located adjacent to the site.

The proposal ensures that there is no overlooking onto adjacent residential properties and the garden spaces ensure that acceptable minimum distances between properties are maintained.

Following discussions with the agent proposes to amend the site layout to relocate Units 4-7 by approximately 500mm towards the western boundary to improve the distance between the flank of unit 7 and the proposed acoustic fence together with the reconfiguration of the hammer head serving the commercial development. In my opinion this would overcome my concerns in relation to the future amenity of Unit 7. I am awaiting the final amended drawings and will update Members at the meeting.

Members will note that 2 letters of objections have been received which focus on the highway implications of the proposed development and the loss of the employment land. In my opinion, there will not be a significant impact on the local road network as a result of the proposed 13 residential units. In my view the commercial units would have possibly created more traffic movements and as such I consider the traffic generation acceptable and this conclusion is endorsed by Kent Highway Services.

Landscape and Ecological Implications Members will have noted above that neither the application site nor the immediately adjoining landscape has any landscape designation.

In addition, the Ecological report sets out measures to promote biodiversity. I have included a condition requiring details of biodiversity measures which will ensure that the development enhances biodiversity on the site. Members will note that Natural England, again, do not object to the application. Indeed they welcome the possibility that this development will enhance biodiversity on the site.

In my view, not only will adverse impact be avoided but the development has the potential to enhance the visual appearance of the site.

Section 106 agreement Kent County Council have requested a contribution of £6,897 for adult social services, libraries, youth and community learning and a further £10,900 is required by this Council’s Greenspaces Officer towards the Oare Gunpowder Country Park. The S106 also legally ties the commercial units on the adjacent site to the development of the residential units; prior to the occupation of 8 dwellings on the site no less than 5 further commercial buildings and 4 commercial yards (to be confirmed by the agent) on the retained employment shall be constructed.

In addition, a contribution of £75 per dwelling for wheelie bins will be required and a 5% monitoring charge will be levied on the combined developer contributions.

I note that the Housing Strategy and Enabling Officer seeks a 30% affordable housing contribution. The agent confirmed, in a confidential viability assessment, that the development would be unviable if a 30% affordable housing contribution is sought. CBRE were instructed to assess the viability of the site and it has been confirmed that the development is unable to support the provision of affordable housing. I am therefore of the view that the development is not able to support the provision of affordable housing and the 30% provision should not be sought. In any case, the justification for this request is questionable, given that the threshold for requiring affordable housing is 15 dwellings.

Furthermore, I am awaiting further comments from CBRE in relation to the figures listed for abnormal costs in the submitted Viability assessment. I will update Members at the meeting.

Recommendation

On balance, this proposal is considered acceptable in terms of local and national planning policy considerations. The provision of the residential units will ensure that 5 extra commercial units and 4 commercial yards are provided in the short/medium term which is arguably to be welcomed in Faversham. I am of the opinion that the commercial space has been sufficiently marketed and the viability assessment confirms that the commercial development is not viable.

I therefore recommend, subject to the further comments of CBRE on the ‘abnormal costs’, the receipt of the requested amended plans, the signing of a Section 106 agreement and the receipt of outstanding representations that planning permission be granted.

Responsible Officer: Jim Wilson (Major Planning Officer)

List of Backgrounds Documents

1. Application papers and correspondence for SW/13/1138 2. Application papers and correspondence for SW/07/1473. 3. Application papers and correspondence for SW/10/1086. 4. Application papers and correspondence for SW/10/0078. 5. Application papers and correspondence for SW/10/1406. 6. Application papers and correspondence for SW/11/0046. 7. Application papers and correspondence for SW/11/0284. 8. Application papers and correspondence for SW/11/1204. 9. Application papers and correspondence for SW/11/1482. 10. Application papers and correspondence for SW/12/1013

2.11 SW/13/1340 (Case 00822) D u n k i r k

Location : MOD Dunkirk, Courtney Road, Dunkirk, Faversham, Kent, ME13 9LH

Proposal : The installation of 1 x 2.4m and 1 x 1.2m dishes on the existing communication mast at Dunkirk. Together with a small equipment cabinet and ancillary equipment. This application is to replace the 2 x 1.8m dishes that obtained planning and listed building consent on the 27th September 2013 - SW/13/0880 and SW/13/0885

Applicant/Agent : Decyben SAS, C/O Ms Louise Hvaal Savills, Wessex House, Priors Walk, East Borough, Wimborne, Dorset, BH21 1PB

Application Valid : 23 October 2013

8 Week Target : 18 December 2013

SUBJECT TO: Views of the Parish Council and outstanding representations (closing date 25 November 2013)

Conditions / Grounds

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

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

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

Grounds: In the interest of visual amenity.

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

Grounds: In the interest of visual amenity.

Council’s approach to this application

The application was considered by the Planning Committee where the applicant/agent had the opportunity to speak to the committee and promote the application.

2.12 SW/13/1341 (Case 00822) Dunkirk

Location : MOD Dunkirk, Courtney Road, Dunkirk, Faversham, Kent, ME13 9LH

Proposal : Listed Building Consent for the installation of 1 x 2.4m and 1 x 1.2m dishes on the existing communication mast at Dunkirk. Together with a small equipment cabinet and ancillary equipment. This application is to replace the 2 x 1.8m dishes that obtained planning and listed building consent on the 27th September 2013 - SW/13/0880 and SW/13/0885

Applicant/Agent : Decyben SAS, C/O Ms Louise Hvaal Savills, Wessex House, Priors Walk, East Borough, Wimborne, Dorset, BH21 1PB

Application Valid : 23 October 2013

8 Week Target : 18 December 2013

SUBJECT TO: Views of the Parish Council and outstanding representations (closing date 25 November 2013)

Conditions

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

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

2 The telecommunications dishes hereby permitted shall be painted grey.

Grounds: In the interest of visual amenity.

Description of Proposal

These applications are for planning permission and listed building consent for the placement of one x 2.4m and one x 1.2 microwave dish at a height of 47 metres on the existing former RAF Mast at Dunkirk. The proposal also includes a proposed small equipment store at the base of the mast on the eastern side of the concrete base.

This proposal therefore simply seeks a decrease in the diameter of one, and an increase in the diameter of the other, of these dishes from both being 1.8m; and the repositioning of the dishes at 47 metres high instead of the 40 metres high position approved in September this year under SW/13/0880 and SW/13/0885.

The installation is to facilitate the installation of an international financial telecommunications system, and using an existing structure to support the dishes is seen by the applicants as preferable to the erection of new masts, as well as providing an income for the maintenance of the mast.

Relevant Site History and Description

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

SW/11/1370- Erection of a data storage facility (B8) and permanent historical exhibition (D1) - refused. There is currently an existing appeal for this proposal being considered by the Planning Inspectorate.

SW/13/0880 & SW/13/0885 - installation of 2 x 1.8 microwave dishes at a height of 40 metres - approved.

SW/13/1273 and SW/13/1274 - installation of two 1.8m microwave dishes at a height of 58m on the existing 110m tower, associated cabling and the installation of a small equipment cabin at ground level. These are current applications and are reported elsewhere on this agenda.

Views of Consultees

Natural England raises no objection to the proposal.

I am awaiting a response from Dunkirk Parish Council, The County Archaeological Officer and the Head of Service Delivery and will report back to Members at the Planning Committee.

Other Representations

No representations yet received, but the closing date is 25 November 2013 so I may need to report further at the meeting.

Policies

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)

Discussion

My main consideration in the determination of this application is the impact on the historic character of the former RAF mast and the visual impact on the surrounding area.

It should firstly be noted that there is already an existing telecommunications base station at this site and various dishes have already been installed on the mast. Taking into consideration the character of the site and the existing use as a telecommunications site I am of the opinion that the installation of two additional dishes will not have a detrimental impact on the historic character of the mast and will not have a negative impact on the visual amenity of the surrounding area. Furthermore, the dishes, though one being slightly smaller and at a height of 40 metres, have already been approved under SW/13/0885 and SW/13/0880 and I therefore consider the principle acceptable. I do not consider the slight increase in the diameter of the other dish and the increased height placement a significant change when viewed against the backdrop of the mast. The dishes will not appear overly obtrusive from the surrounding views. Furthermore, painting the dishes grey will ensure that they blend into the existing structure of the mast and will create a sufficient visual backdrop to significantly reduce the impact.

In terms of the ancillary equipment cabinet that is proposed, I am of the opinion that as the site is already used for telecommunication equipment and as the increase in

equipment is small scale it will not have a significant impact on the character of the area. Again the equipment cabinet has already been approved under the previous applications. Furthermore, as the site is already used for this operation it would be appropriate to allow these additional installations rather than erecting a new mast to host the proposed dishes.

Recommendation

Responsible Officer: Graham Thomas (Area Planning Officer)

List of Backgrounds Documents

1. Application papers and correspondence for SW/13/1340. 2. Application papers and correspondence for SW/13/1341. 3. Application papers and correspondence for SW/13/0880, SW/13/0885, SW/13/1273 and SW/13/1274

PLANNING COMMITTEE – 21 November 2013 PART 5

Report of the Head of Planning

PART 5 Decisions by County Council and Secretary of State, report for information

5.1 SW/12/1565 – New 2 bedroom dwelling, demolition of 50% of garage and conversion of remainder to garden store: 5 Sheerstone, Iwade, Sittingbourne, Kent, ME9 8RN.

APPEAL ALLOWED

Main Issue

2. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development upon the character and appearance of the street-scene.

Reasons

3. The appeal site comprises a 2-storey semi-detached dwelling occupying a large corner plot and set within a wider residential area.

4. Whilst the area has a broad character of well spaced, 2-storey properties set behind generous boundary planting and front/side gardens, surrounding properties are of mixed styles and design. Immediately opposite the appeal site to the north are smaller 2-storey semi-detached dwellings. Adjoining and to the south are larger dwellings similar to the appeal site, and the overall character of the street-scene therefore appears fairly mixed.

5. The proposal is to erect a detached dwelling within the curtilage of No 5 between the northern flank wall of the existing house and a partly retained garage. The new dwelling would occupy a more confined plot than those adjoining to the south, and would be smaller in its footprint than No 5 and No 7. Nevertheless, it would sit within a reasonably sized plot and would be physically detached from adjoining properties.

6. The corner position of the dwelling and its orientation mean it would be visible from a number of surrounding viewpoints and within the context of properties of contrasting styles and siting. Whilst the new dwelling would follow the building line of No 5, it would project slightly beyond the building line of the adjacent, partly retained garage. This projection is not considered to be significant, however, given the variety of building designs and building lines in this vicinity. Further, the building line along that particular frontage is not sufficiently well defined for the projection to be unduly harmful. The new dwelling would still be set back from the highway, and further screening would be offered by the well-planted northern boundary to No 3. The extension at No 31 also demonstrates how development can occur adjacent to Sheerstone without necessarily detracting from the local character.

7. Reference has been made to a previous appeal at No 5 which dismissed an earlier proposal for outline permission to erect a detached dwelling (appeal reference T/APP/V2255/A/91/178986/P8 dated 16 July 1991). The Inspector was particularly concerned about the visual relationship of the proposal to the larger properties to the south, about the position relative to No 5 and provision of a small front garden. Those factors have all been carefully noted, but the position and orientation of that dwelling were materially different to the current proposal and comparison is therefore of limited relevance.

8. Given the design, position and orientation of the proposed dwelling and the immediate character of the vicinity, the building would not appear unduly prominent, or as a cramped or incongruous feature out-of keeping with the surrounding area.

9. It is therefore concluded that the proposed development would not be harmful to the character and appearance of the street-scene. Accordingly, the development would not be contrary to Policies E1 (General Development Criteria) and E19 (Achieving High Quality Design and Distinctiveness) of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

Conclusion

10. For the above reasons, I conclude the appeal should be allowed.

Observations

A disappointing decision in which the Inspector considers the impact on the character and appearance of the area to be acceptable.

Responsible Officer: Rob Bailey (Area Planning Officer)

Background papers

1. Application papers and correspondence for application SW/12/1565. 2. Appeal decision dated 2 October 2013 ref APP/V2255/A/13/2196228.