SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL

PLANNING SERVICES

Planning Items to be submitted to the Planning Committee

2 APRIL 2009

Standard Index to Contents

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

K&MSP and Medway Structure Plan 2006

SBLP Swale Borough Local Plan 2008

INDEX OF ITEMS FOR PLANNING COMMITTEE – 2 APRIL 2009

• Minutes of last Planning Committee Meeting • Minutes of any Working Party Meetings

1.1 Planning Enforcement Report Pg 1

1.2 Monitoring of Section 106 Agreements Pg 2 + Appendices

2.1 MINSTER SW/08/0713 Adjacent to 95 The Broadway Pgs 1 – 6

2.2 NORTON SW/09/0097 Glebelands, Provender Lane Pgs 7 – 10

2.3 SW/09/0078 Tesco Store, Bridge Road Pgs 11 – 27

2.4 SHEERNESS SW/08/0311 Thamesteel Ltd, Brielle Way Pgs 28 – 32

2.5 SHEERNESS SW/08/0312 Thamesteel Ltd, Brielle Way Pgs 33 – 37

2.6 SW/09/0106 Station Garage, Stone Street Pgs 38 – 43

2.7 SW/08/1266 Grooms Cottage, Whitegates, Pgs 44 – 50 Wallbridge Lane

2.8 UPCHURCH SW/09/0112 3 The Street Pgs 51 – 55

2.9 WARDEN SW/09/0145 Glengarry, Preston Hall Pgs 56 – 61 Gardens

2.10 MINSTER SW/09/0004 Taylors Riding School, Pgs 62 – 83 Waverley Avenue

2.11, MINSTER SW/08/0579 The Hawthorns, Greyhound Road 2.12 & MINSTER SW/08/1253 The Farmyard, Road 2.13 MINSTER SW/09/0146 Rambling Rose, Greyhound Road Pgs 84 – 103

3.1 NORTON SW/09/0107 The Limeworks, Faversham Road Pgs 1 – 6

3.2 SW/09/0140 The Burrows, Swanley Farm, Pgs 7 – 12 Warden Road

3.3 FAVERSHAM SW/08/0335 Creek Marina, North Quay, Pgs 13 – 23 Conyer

5.1 Case 22796 Land adjacent to The Old Pgs 1 – 5 ENF/08/060 Malthouse, North Street

5.2 BORDEN Case 11412 Woodgate Oast Hotel, Pgs 6 – 8 Woodgate Lane

5.3 FAVERSHAM Case 4247 Site at Brick Stables and Wagon Pgs 9 – 14 Lodge, Nether Court, Abbey Barns, Abbey Street

5.4 FAVERSHAM SW/07/1173 8 Newton Road Pgs 15 – 16

5.5 FAVERSHAM SW/08/0427 8 Preston Grove Pgs 17 – 18

5.6 FAVERSHAM SW/08/0263 14 Lammas Gate, Abbey Street Pgs 19 – 20

5.7 BADLESMERE SW/08/0030 Leesway Cottage Pgs 21 – 24

5.8 FAVERSHAM SW/08/0284 28 Forbes Road Pgs 25 – 26

5.9 FAVERSHAM Case 22753 16 Priory Road Pgs 27 – 29

5.10 NEWINGTON Case 1025 Land to the rear of Mayfield Pgs 30 – 33 House, London Road

PLANNING COMMITTEE – 2 APRIL 2009 PART 1

Report of the Head of Development Services

PART 1

Any other reports to be considered in the public session

1.1 Planning Enforcement Report

The following details identify the enforcement cases dealt with and investigated during the period 1 June 2008 to 28 February 2009.

Enforcement Complaints received- 321 Enforcement Notices Issued - 163 (133 Parklands Village) Stop Notices Served - 2 Temporary Stop Notices Served - 2 Planning Contravention Notices - 3 Breach of Condition Notices - 4 Section 215 Notices - 2

The number of complaints resolved without requiring formal enforcement action over this period amounted to 84% of the total received.

Target enforcement response times are set at 90% for initial investigations (within 5 days of receipt of information for site inspection) and 5 days (for an initial response to the complainant). In respect of the initial response target 90.37% was achieved whereas 87.4% was achieved in respect of response to complainants.

Included at Part 6 of the Agenda is an Enforcement Schedule detailing the current situation on those cases where Members have authorised the issue of enforcement proceedings.

1 PART 1

1.2 Monitoring of Section 106 Agreements

I have attached as Appendices to this Report, Schedules which set out the details of Section 106 Agreements (as at March 2009) relating to our Planning Area Teams for Faversham and the Thames Gateway (, Sheppey and Swale West). The Schedules identify the sites/developments, categorise the subjects addressed in the agreements, summarise the requirements and, where appropriate, record the financial sums that have been received (where highlighted in red).

This Report is submitted for Members’ information. ______

Responsible Officer: James Freeman (Head of Development Services)

2

PLANNING COMMITTEE – 2 APRIL 2009 PART 2

Report of the Head of Development Services

PART 2

Applications for which PERMISSION is recommended

2.1 SW/08/0713 (Case 23259) MINSTER

Location: Adjacent to 95 The Broadway, Minster, Sheppey, Kent, ME12 2RT

Proposal: Two Detached Houses

Applicant/Agent: Miss K Edwards, c/o Mr David Hobbs, D J Hobbs, Quiet Waters, Ferry View Road, Horning, Norfolk, NR12 8PT

Application Valid: 26th June 2008

Conditions

(1) Details relating to the landscaping of the site shall be submitted to and approved by the District Planning Authority before any development is commenced.

Grounds: In pursuance of Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

(2) Application for approval of reserved matters referred to in Condition (1) above must be made not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date of the grant of outline planning permission.

Grounds: In pursuance of Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

(3) The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than the expiration of two years from the final approval of the reserved matters or, in the case of approval on different dates, the final approval of the last such matter to be approved.

Grounds: In pursuance of Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. Continued . . .

1 2.1 (Contd) PART 2

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

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

Grounds: In the interests of residential amenity and in pursuance of Policy E1 of Borough Local Plan 2008.

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

Grounds: In order to ensure sustainable development pursuant to Policies QL1 and NR3 of the Kent & Medway Structure Plan and Policies E1 E21 and U3 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

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

Grounds: In the interest of highway safety and amenity, and in pursuance of Policies E1 and T3 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008 and Policies QL1 and TP19 of the Kent & Medway Structure Plan.

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

Grounds: In the interests of highway safety and in pursuance of Policy E1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008 and Policy QL1 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan. Continued . . .

2 2.1 (Contd) PART 2

(8) Pedestrian visibility splays of 2m by 2m with no obstruction over 0.6 metres above the adjacent footway level shall be provided to both sides of each access prior to the commencement of any other development in this application and shall be subsequently maintained clear of any such obstructions.

Grounds: In the interests of highway safety and in pursuance of Policy E1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

(9) All materials on the ground floor level of the dwellings shall be of a flood resilient nature, details of which shall be submitted to and approved by the District Planning Authority prior to the occupation of the dwellings hereby approved. The approved details shall be maintained in perpetuity.

Grounds: In the interests of flood damage prevention and in accordance with Policies E1 and E4 of the Swale Borough Local Plan and Policies QL1 and NR11 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan.

(10) All ground floor levels will be at a minimum height of 4.5 metres AODN, and all first floor levels will be at a minimum height of 7.2 metres AODN.

Grounds: In the interests of flood risk prevention and in accordance with Policies E1 and E4 of the Swale Borough Local Plan and Policies QL1 and NR11 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan.

(11) All sleeping accommodation shall be at first floor level only.

Grounds: In the interests of flood risk prevention and in accordance with Policies E1 and E4 of the Swale Borough Local Plan and Policies QL1 and NR11 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan.

Reason for Approval

Having taken all material considerations into account, it is considered that subject to compliance with the attached conditions, the proposal would be in accordance with the development plan and would not cause unacceptable harm to the amenities of the area or prejudice highway safety or convenience. In resolving to grant permission, particular regard has been given to the following policies: Policies E1, E4, E19, E21, H2, U3 and T3 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008 and Policies QL1, NR3, NR11 and TP19 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan.

Continued . . .

3 2.1 (Contd) PART 2

Description of Proposal

This is an outline application for the construction of a pair of detached houses at land adjacent to 95 The Broadway, Minster. All matters except landscaping proposals are submitted and require determination.

The application is accompanied by a Design & Access Statement which includes a section on flood risk, as the site lies partly within flood zones 2 & 3.

The site measures 18 metres in width (9 metres per dwelling) by 31 metres in depth. The footprint of each house would have a maximum width of 5.8 metres (reducing to 3.6 metres) by 9.5 metres in depth. Each property would be provided with at least two off road parking spaces with on-site turning, and rear gardens of 12 metres in depth. Each house would have two floors, with a kitchen, utility room, lounge/diner and wc at ground floor level and three bedrooms (one with en-suite) and a bathroom at first floor level.

Relevant Site History and Description

The site is at present vacant and overgrown. There is no planning history for the site but, from the house numbering to be found either side of the site, it appears that there were two properties on site at some time in the past.

The site lies right on the edge of the coastal flood risk zone and is surrounded by suburban residential development.

Views of Consultees

Minster Parish Council raises no objection

Kent Highway Services raise no objection, subject to the inclusion of Conditions (6), (7) and (8) above.

The Environment Agency (EA) objects to the proposal, on account of the site’s position partly within an area at risk from flooding. They state that they object to the application on the basis that development could be potentially steered to areas of lower flood risk via the Sequential Test in Planning Policy Statement 25 (PPS25). Following further communications between the Agent and the EA, I understand that the EA have formed the opinion that as all of the requirements under PPS25 have not been satisfied under the application, they must maintain an objection; but as the position of the site is in a minor dip, and the site is surrounded by residential properties and easily accessible higher ground if the Council, with its detailed local knowledge, feels that the site’s position would justify overturning the advice of the EA, that is the prerogative of the Council.

Continued . . .

4 2.1 (Contd) PART 2

Other Representations

No other representations have been received.

Planning Policies

The following policies of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008 are relevant:

E1 (General Criteria) E4 (Flooding) E19 (Design Criteria) H2 (New Housing) U3 (Sustainable Construction) T3 (Parking)

The following policies of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan are also relevant:

QL1 (Quality of Design) NR3 (Sustainable Construction) NR11 (Flooding) TP19 (Parking)

Discussion

I believe the properties would fall in with the general pattern of development of the area and would not overlook or overshadow adjacent properties, and that they would not have any adverse impact on the amenities of the area or on residential amenity. As such, I believe the key issue for Members is the question of flood risk.

Members will note the representations from the EA. I consider that, as there are other vacant plots of land in Minster which are at less risk of flooding, that the proposal would fail the Sequential Test. However, as the site is situated within a localised dip, with higher ground immediately adjacent, I believe that a decision to approve the application would be within the jurisdiction of the Council, based on the Exception Test in PPS25. It will be noted that the proposal would produce a ground floor level of 4.5 metres AODN and first floor (sleeping accommodation) at a level of 7.2 metres AODN. In this way, the sleeping accommodation would be above likely flood levels. The Design & Access Statement suggests that all incoming services be set at a higher level, with ground floor materials designed to be flood resistant, and I am therefore recommending conditions to control these issues

I would also contend that, although the proposed development would not pass the Sequential Test, it would pass the Exceptions Test. To do so, the proposal would have to: Continued . . .

5 2.1 (Contd) PART 2

• Demonstrate that the development provides wider benefits to the community that outweigh flood risk; • Demonstrate that the development should be on developable previously developed land; • Include within the Flood Risk Assessment details which demonstrate that the development will be safe, without increasing flood risk elsewhere.

It is my contention that:

• The development of this overgrown, unsightly plot, and the creation of two modest sized homes would be of wider benefit to the community and in accordance with the needs expressed within PPS3 to provide more affordable family homes; • The numbering system on The Broadway, which skips from no. 89 to no. 95, would suggest that historically, there were previously two properties on this site. • The agent has included in the FRA details to protect the properties from flood damage and making the properties safe, including incoming services and meters located at high level on the ground floor, the ground floor being constructed of suitable water resistant materials, sleeping accommodation at 7.2 metres, etc.

In view of this, it is my opinion that, despite the site’s position on the very edge of the flood zone, with higher land immediately adjacent, the risk of flooding would be negligible. I therefore believe that the proposal is acceptable on these grounds. I would, however, recommend that the owners of the new properties register with the EA’s flood warning scheme.

Recommendation

This outline application is for the construction of two new houses adjacent to 95 The Broadway, Minster.

Whilst I note the objection raised by the Environment Agency, in view of the above information, I consider that this particular proposal within the Flood Zone is acceptable. The proposal would not constitute adverse harm to the character and appearance of the area, or to residential and visual amenity.

I therefore recommend that the application be granted planning permission. ______

Responsible Officer: Graham Thomas (Area Planning Officer)

List of Backgrounds Documents

1. Application Papers and Correspondence for Application SW/08/0713

6 PART 2

2.2 SW/09/0097 (Case 05763) NORTON

Location: Glebelands, Provender Lane, Norton, Nr Faversham, Kent, ME13 0SU.

Proposal: Erection of single storey barn style garaging and snooker room.

Applicant/Agent: Mr Roger Clark, c/o Mr Martin Hunt, Lloyd Hunt Associates, Camelot, Pescot Avenue, Longfield, Kent, DA3 7NA.

Application Valid: 30th January 2009

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) Samples of materials to be used on the exterior of the development hereby permitted shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the District Planning Authority before the development is commenced.

Grounds: In the interests of visual amenity and in pursuance of Policies E1 and E19 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008 and Policy QL1 of the Kent & Medway Structure Plan.

(3) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town & Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order), the use of the building hereby permitted shall be limited to the domestic and private needs of the occupier of the dwellings shown as ‘Glebelands’ on the approved plans, and shall not be used for a business or other purpose whatsoever other than the parking of vehicles and uses ordinarily ancillary to that dwelling.

Grounds: In the interests of residential amenity and in pursuance of Policies E1 and E6 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008 and QL1 and EN1 of the Kent & Medway Structure Plan.

Continued . . .

7 2.2 (Contd) PART 2

Reason for Approval

Having taken all material considerations into account, it is considered that subject to compliance with the attached conditions, the proposal would be in accordance with the development plan and would not cause unacceptable harm to the amenities of the area or prejudice highway safety or convenience. In resolving to grant permission, particular regard has been given to the following policies: Policies E1, E6, E19 and T3 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008 and Policies QL1, EN1 and TP19 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan

Description of Proposal

This application seeks planning permission for the erection of a single storey barn style triple garage and snooker room, with kitchenette and wc at Glebelands, Provender Lane, Norton. The structure would have a maximum footprint of 16.8 metres in width by 8 metres in depth (extending to 10.4 metres at the rear) and a ridge height of 4.5 metres.

The proposed structure would be situated at the southern end of the site, approximately twenty metres from the chalet bungalow, and screened by trees to the south and east.

The property is a large chalet bungalow surrounded by extensive grounds, situated within the countryside area of Norton, close to the junction of the A2 and Provender Lane.

Relevant Site History and Description

There is a long history of the site going back to 1980. The property was constructed under permissions SW/80/658 (Outline) and SW/81/103 (Reserved matters). However, Condition (iv) of SW/80/658 restricted the use of the bungalow as an agricultural dwelling only. In 1996, an application for a Lawful Development Certificate for the continued use of the property as a non-agricultural dwelling was approved (SW/96/831), as the evidence submitted showed that the property had been used as a non-agricultural dwelling for over ten years.

Of particular relevance to this application is a previous application from 2008 for a proposed ancillary building, comprising a garage, games room, kitchen, fitness room and lounge (SW/08/1283). That application was withdrawn on Officer advice, due to the sheer scale and mass of that proposed building, which would have been at odds with the Council’s policies of rural restraint. This application seeks to remedy that situation.

Continued . . .

8 2.2 (Contd) PART 2

Views of Consultees

A letter from Norton, Buckland and Stone Parish Council raises objection to the proposal, as “It is felt that such a large building would be disproportionate to the rest of the site.”

Kent Highway Services raise no objections, subject to the inclusion of conditions regarding parking & private use.

Other Representations

No other correspondence has been received.

Planning Policies

The following policies of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008 are relevant:

E1 (General Criteria) E6 (Rural Development) E19 (Design Criteria) T3 (Parking)

The following policies of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan are also relevant:

QL1 (Quality of Design) EN1 (Rural Development) TP19 (Parking)

Discussion

The design of the proposed structure is different from but appropriate to the bungalow and the surrounding rural area. Due to the large scale of the site, and the screening of the trees on the eastern and southern boundaries, the proposed structure would not raise any issues of overlooking or overshadowing.

Whilst I note the objections raised by the Parish Council regarding the size of the proposed structure, I would contend that, due to the very large scale of the site, the size of the original dwelling and the obscured position of the proposed structure, the proposal would have little impact on the character and appearance of the streetscene and the surrounding area. A previous application, as noted above (SW/08/1283), was withdrawn on Officer advice, as that application was for a structure that was not modest.

Continued . . .

9 2.2 (Contd) PART 2

Recommendation

The application is for a detached building comprising a garage, store, snooker room, kitchenette and wc at ‘Glebelands’, Provender lane, Norton.

The design of the proposed structure is appropriate to serve the adjacent dwelling and the character and appearance of the area. Whilst I note the objection raised by the Parish Council, I would contend that the proposal would raise no issues regarding loss of residential or visual amenity.

I therefore recommend that the application be granted planning permission. ______

Responsible Officer: Graham Thomas (Area Planning Officer)

List of Backgrounds Documents

1. Application Papers and Correspondence for Application SW/09/0097

2. Application Papers and Correspondence for Applications SW/08/1283, SW/96/831, SW/81/103 and SW/80658

10 PART 2

2.3 SW/09/0078 (Case 01884) SHEERNESS

Location: Tesco Store, Bridge Road, Sheerness, Kent, ME12 1RH

Proposal: Works to existing retail store to include extension, new elevation treatment and car par re-configuration. Creation of new public realm space on part of Bridge Road Car Park and creation and improvement of linkage to High Street. (Demolition of existing toilet block).

Applicant/Agent: Tesco Stores Ltd, c/o Mr Paul Burley, Montagu Evans, Clarges House, 6-12 Clarges Street, London, W1J 8HB

Application Valid: 26th January 2009 and as amended by drawing F/EXT/1272-PL221 Revision B received 17th March 2009; and additional information to clarify the planning and retail statement received 10th March 2009; and as amended by travel plan documents received 11th March 2009 and landscape plan received 17th March 2009.

Conditions

(1) The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

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

(2) Upon completion of the extension hereby approved, no more than 20% of the net floorspace of the extended store shall be used for the display or sale, either individually or collectively, of the following comparison goods: clothing; furniture; homeware; cookshop; electrical/gadgets; phones; luggage; sports; toys; photos; DIY/Car Care; domestic electrical; and white goods. The following ‘everyday’ comparison goods are excluded from this definition: newspapers and magazines; babycare; healthcare and cleaning products; pharmacy/optical goods; entertainment; media (DVDs, CDs, computer etc); books; stationery and cards.

Grounds: To ensure the development is retained as a convenience and ‘everyday’ comparison goods retailer and to restrict the introduction of high-street comparison goods which could affect the viability and vitality of the town centre and in accordance with Policies EP15 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan and B3, B4 and AAP4 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008. Continued . . .

11 2.3 (Contd) PART 2 (3) Notwithstanding the submitted plans and prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, full details of both hard and soft landscape works for all the public amenity areas identified on Plans within the approved Landscape Supporting Statement received 26 January 2009 and by amended drawing received 17 March 2009 (including the gun mount) and elsewhere within the application shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the District Planning Authority and these works shall be carried out as approved. These details shall include existing features, planting schedules of plants, noting species, plant sizes and numbers where appropriate, means of enclosure, hard surfacing materials, seating details, lighting and an implementation programme and timetable for completion.

Grounds: In the interests of the visual amenities of the area and in pursuance of Policies QL1 of the Kent & Medway Structure Plan; and E1 and E19 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

(4) All hard and soft landscape works pursuant to Condition 3 shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. The works shall be carried out prior to the occupation of the additional quantum floorspace or in accordance with the programme agreed in writing with the District Planning Authority.

Grounds: In the interests of the visual amenities of the area and in pursuance of Policies QL1 of the Kent & Medway Structure Plan; and E1 and E19 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

(5) Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, a landscape management and maintenance plan, which maintains any tree and planting for at least 5 years shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the District Planning Authority. The landscaping shall be maintained in accordance with the approved details for a period of no less than 5 years from the opening of the additional retail floorspace hereby approved.

Grounds: In the interests of the visual amenities of the area and in pursuance of Policies QL1 of the Kent & Medway Structure Plan E1 and E19 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

(6) The in-store toilets hereby approved shall be made available for general public use as part of a Community Toilet Scheme throughout the duration of the development unless otherwise agreed in writing by the District Planning Authority. The location of external directional signage advertising this shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the District Planning Authority and such signage shall be provided in accordance with those approved details and thereafter retained. In- store directional signage to the toilets shall also be provided.

Continued . . .

12 2.3 (Contd) PART 2 Grounds: To ensure the applicants retain the public convenience facility as set out in accordance with Policies E1 and AAP4 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

(7) Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, the applicants shall submit for written approval by the District Planning Authority a Local Recruitment and Training Strategy setting out how the retail related vacancies generated and created by the proposal will be sourced. The approved method shall be carried out in accordance with those details unless otherwise agreed by the District Planning Authority.

Grounds: To ensure the applicants source employment needs locally as set out in the application and in accordance with Policy AAP4 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

(8) Prior to the hereby approved details of the materials, to include British Standard details of proposed colours to be used in the elevations for the store and extension hereby approved shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the District Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with those approved details.

Grounds: In the interests of visual amenity and in pursuance of Policies QL1 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan and E1 and E19 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

(9) Prior to the occupation of the additional quantum of retail floorspace hereby approved, the Combined Heat and Power Plant and solar panels, as set out in the submitted Energy and Sustainability Statements shall be brought into use and shall thereafter be retained in working order unless otherwise agreed in writing by the District Planning Authority.

Grounds: To ensure the development contributes towards carbon reductions as set out in the application and in accordance with Policies NR1 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan and E1 and E21 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

(10) Within 15 months from first operation of the proposal hereby approved, the applicants shall submit an updated Energy and Sustainability Report to the District Planning Authority illustrating the actual carbon savings made from the proposals set out in the Energy and Sustainability Reports during the first 12 months of operation.

Grounds: To ensure the development contributes towards carbon reductions as set out in the application and in accordance with Policies NR1 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan and E1 and E21 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008. Continued . . .

13 2.3 (Contd) PART 2

(11) Notwithstanding the submitted Flood Risk Assessment, details of the surface water run-off; the safe routes to an appropriate safe haven along with the provision of an adequate Flood Evacuation Plan; and the details of the finished floor levels shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the District Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details, and the requirements of the Flood Evacuation Plan shall be adhered to in perpetuity.

Grounds: To ensure the development accords with flood risk policies in accordance with Policy E1 and E4 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

(12) Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, a Closed Circuit Television Plan illustrating the position and the coverage of the cameras within the Tesco store site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the District Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with those approved details and shall thereafter be retained unless otherwise agreed by the District Planning Authority.

Grounds: To ensure the development contributes to a safe and secure environment in accordance with Policies E1 and E20 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

(13) Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved transport and travel plan documents as submitted unless otherwise agreed in writing by the District Planning Authority.

Grounds: In the interests of amenity and to prevent on-street parking and inconvenience to other road users and in pursuance of Policies TP19 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan and Policies T1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

(14) The areas shown for vehicle parking shall be kept available for such a use and no development whether permitted by the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (as amended) or any Order revoking or re-enacting that Order shall be carried out on the land so at to preclude vehicular access and parking.

Grounds: In the interests of amenity and to prevent on-street parking and inconvenience to other road users and in pursuance of Policies TP19 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan and Policy T3 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

Continued . . .

14 2.3 (Contd) PART 2

(15) Notwithstanding the submitted plans and prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, details of the cycle parking provision including location shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the District Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and shall thereafter be retained.

Grounds: In the interests of amenity and to prevent on-street parking and inconvenience to other road users and in pursuance of Policies TP19 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan and Policy T4 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

(16) Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, a construction method statement detailing hours of construction, numbers of vehicles, construction compounds, parking, turning and loading facilities shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the District Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with those approved details.

Grounds: In the interests of amenity and to prevent on-street parking and inconvenience to other road users and in pursuance of Policies TP19 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan and Policies T1, E1 and E2 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

Reason for Approval

Having taken all material considerations into account, it is considered that subject to compliance with the attached conditions, the proposal would be in accordance with the development plan and would not cause unacceptable harm to the amenities of the area or prejudice highway safety or convenience. In resolving to grant permission, particular regard has been had to the following policies: QL1; QL2; QL7; TP19; NR1 and EP15 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan and AAP4; E1; E2; E3; E4; E16; E19; E20; E21; E23; T1; T3; T4; T5; T7; U3; B3; B4 and H2 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

Description of Proposal

The application proposes a number of alterations to the existing store and the surrounding environment; the latter being negotiated by officers:

1. To extend floor space trading area of the store by gross 1952m2; net 1295 m2; the vast majority to the south (towards Bridge Road) but also a strip to the west;

2. To relocate the store entrance close to the south west corner of the site and to provide a facelift to the west and southern elevations;

Continued . . .

15 2.3 (Contd) PART 2

3. To reconfigure the car park by re-designating existing spaces, altering traffic movement and re-providing for lost spaces at the north east corner of the site resulting in 16 additional spaces being provided (including 9 parent/child spaces);

4. To provide for significant off-site public realm improvements by replacing the eastern half of the Bridge Road Car Park with new public open space, seating and planting that provides for new access to Bridge Road and appreciation of the War Memorial; and

5. To improve linkage between store and High Street with high quality public access, planting and seating and to demolish the existing free- standing toilet block and replacing them with extra provision in-store

The planning application is accompanied by drawings; a planning and retail statement; a landscape statement; a statement of community involvement; a design and access statement; a transport statement; an energy statement, a sustainability statement; an ecology statement; a flood risk assessment; a transport statement and a travel plan.

Site Description and Relevant History

The application relates to the existing Tesco supermarket located just to the north west of Sheerness town centre. The car park is located to the west of the store with the existing store entrance located at the north west corner of the store.

To the north of the site is the sea wall leading to the Thames Estuary whilst to the south lies McDonalds Restaurant, a car parking area with 47 spaces, that comprises the Bridge Road Council Car Park and Sheppey College; and further south lies Bridge Road and Sheerness railway station. To the east lies an amusement arcade and night club which itself is adjacent to a large open space known as Beachfields Park. Sheerness town centre lies to the south east approximately 100 metres away from the store. To the west lies the Port of Sheerness.

The store was approved for outline consent in February 1991 under application SW/90/989. A full application followed for a 4820 m2 store under application SW/93/64 which was approved in March 1993. In April 2000, under reference SW/99/87, consent was granted for a 1,516m2 extension to the store as well as to vary Condition 2 of application SW/93/64 to allow 20% of the sales area to be used for non-food goods.

Other applications include extension to the warehouse (SW/02/1280 amended by SW/03/0196); car washes (SW/93/924 and SW/94/404); new exit (SW/02/1280); and a dot com canopy (SW/03/1056).

Continued . . .

16 2.3 (Contd) PART 2

Views of Consultees

The application was advertised by way of a site and press notice and letters were sent to surrounding properties.

Southern Gas Networks have written raising no objections to the scheme; though they have included a map of the pipelines in the area and have reminded the applicants of their responsibilities in this regard.

Natural has written expressing no comments on the application but has asked the District Planning Authority to consider opportunities for improved biodiversity.

The Environment Agency has raised no objections provided that the development is carried out in accordance with the submitted flood risk assessment.

English Heritage has written raising no comments.

Southern Water has written raising no objections.

The Architectural Design Officer at has written raising no objections to the proposal, though has asked for further details of the public realm improvements, CCTV, and traffic calming measures. This is addressed by condition (12).

The Greenspace Officer has written supporting the application and the public realm improvements to be created for the development as representing tangible improvements to the area. He has, however, made some minor comments that he considers can be controlled by planning conditions.

The Head of Environment and Amenities has written supporting the application and has explained that he is pleased that Tesco is offering its replacement toilet facilities as part of a Community Toilet Scheme. The Head of Environment and Amenities has raised no objection to the loss of part of the Bridge Road car park, explaining that ample capacity exists at other car parks such as Beach Street. No further comments have been raised in respect to the environmental health aspects over and above the comments received by the Environment Agency.

The Design and Conservation Manager has written raising no objections to the design though has requested further details of the materials especially the wall colours. This can be controlled by planning condition.

Kent Highway Services have raised no objection.

Continued . . .

17 2.3 (Contd) PART 2

Other Representations

The Campaign to Protect Rural England has written objecting to the application, stating that the extension will cause problems for the High Street retailers.

There have been 3 further letters of objection raising the following concerns:

• Tesco has already damaged the High Street and further expansion will damage the independent retailers and the Island economy; • The public conveniences should not be lost;

One letter has been received raising no objections, though has asked if the public conveniences would be re-provided; a letter response was sent on 23 February 2009.

Policies

Kent & Medway Structure Plan:

Policy QL1 (Built Environment); Policy QL2 (Priorities for the Public Realm); Policy QL7 (Schedule Ancient Monuments); Policy EP15 (Sequential Considerations for Retail); and Policy TP19 (Parking Standards); and Policy NR1 (Sustainable Development)

Swale Borough Local Plan 2008:

Policy AAP4 (Sheerness); Policy E1 (General Principles of Development); Policy E3 (Land Contamination); Policy E4 (Flooding and Drainage); Policy E16 (Scheduled Ancient Monuments); Policy E19 (Achieving High Quality Design); Policy E20 (Designing out Crime); Policy E21 (Sustainable Design and Build); Policy E23 (New Shop fronts and Signage); Policy T1 (Access to New Development); Policy T3 (Vehicle Parking Standards); Policy T4 (Cycle Provision); Policy T5 (Public Transport); Policy T7 (Town Centre Parking); Policy U3 (Renewable Energy); Policy B3 (Vitality and Viability); Policy B4 (New Retail Development)

The national planning guidance in Planning Policy Statement 6 (Planning for Town Centres) (2005) is relevant to this application.

Discussion

The principle issues for consideration are the impact of the proposal upon the viability and vitality of Sheerness town centre, and the need for and quality of the public realm improvement works. Other issues are also relevant including climate change, heritage, design, flood risk, ecology, highway works/implications and residential amenity implications. Continued . . .

18 2.3 (Contd) PART 2

Policy Context

The Tesco store lies approximately 100 metres north west of the Core Shopping Area as defined within the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008. It lies within the built-up area of Sheerness and within the Area Action Plan boundary (AAP4). According to Table 2 of Annex A of Planning Policy Statement 6 (Planning for Town Centres) (PPS6), the store is classified as being located in edge-of-centre. As it is not within the core area, it is not exempt from being subjected to the retail impact tests set out in PPS6.

PPS6 is the Government advice for new and expanded retail development within, adjacent to, or outside of town centres, and carries significant weight when considering applications such as this. Development of this nature is usually subjected to five tests, these being:

• Need - both quantitative and qualitative – this will generally be assessed during the Local Development Framework process and is not required for proposals within the town centre though is required for edge of centre locations; • Scale; • Location – a sequential test is required examining the potential for sequentially preferable sites in the town centres, followed by edge-of- centre and followed by out of town; • Impact - its impact upon existing centres in terms of viability and vitality; and • Accessibility - by a choice of means of transport and the impact on car use, traffic and congestion.

Paragraph 3.29 of PPS6 is perhaps most relevant to this application in discussing extensions to existing retail units. It states for extensions exceeding 200m2:

“The impact on existing town centres of the proposed extension should be given particular weight, especially if new and additional classes of goods and services for sale are proposed. In addition, where establishing need is concerned, local planning authorities should establish that the evidence presented on the need for further floor space relates specifically to the class of goods proposed to be sold.”

The Kent and Medway Structure Plan Policy EP15 reflects the above tests requirements for retail development, including extensions to existing retail development.

The Swale Borough Local Plan 2008 does not generally comment on extensions to existing retail units. Policy B3 identifies the hierarchy for retailing in Sheerness; explaining that the defined core retail area and the secondary shopping area as shown on the Proposals Map are considered to Continued . . .

19 2.3 (Contd) PART 2

be the areas where retailing should be encouraged, protected and preserved in order to maintain the viability and vitality of those areas. Policy B4 refers to new retailing development, stating that in the defined built-up area of Sheerness, new retail development will generally only be permitted for sites in the Town Centre Area Action Plans, and if a site within the town centre is not available, then an edge-of-centre site may be acceptable providing:

• It is demonstrated the proposal would not undermine the viability and vitality of the existing town centre; and • It is located well in relation to the main road network and is easily accessible by public transport, pedestrians and cyclists.

The site also lies within the designated Area Action Plan Boundary where Policy AAP4 applies. The Policy seeks to meet the needs of the resident population and visitors by retaining and consolidating the town’s retail and service role whilst seeking to raise environmental quality. It seeks to retain or add to the range of shops and to support community learning, skills and heath needs.

The applicants have submitted a robust Planning and Retail Statement which sets the case for the store expansion. Following the advice set out in Paragraph 3.29 of the PPS6, it is considered the key areas for assessment should focus on the needs of the extension, the range of goods to be sold, and the impact of such expansion upon the viability and vitality of the town centre.

A) Need

Need must be assessed in two categories; quantitative and qualitative. Quantitative need means that there is sufficient available expenditure in the area that the development seeks to serve to support the quantum of floor space to be created and the types of goods to be sold. Qualitative need means providing consumer choice in promoting viability and vitality of a town centre.

In terms of quantitative need, the applicants have undertaken an assessment of demographic and economic profiling of the catchment area to establish available expenditure, and several tables on capacity and economics; consumer expenditure per head; total expenditure on convenience retailing; and total expenditure on comparison retailing have been submitted. Having established that available expenditure exists for the area (i.e. that existing Sheerness retailing is not meeting the needs of the area), the applicants have undertaken further survey work that concludes that capacity exists for both increases to convenience retailing as well as comparison retailing; and that the needs will partly met by the store expansion.

Continued . . .

20 2.3 (Contd) PART 2

The applicants also argue that from a practical standpoint, space has become a premium within the store, where goods are squashed together and stacked higher and higher, and is restricting the ability to introduce new food and non- food products into the store.

For new retail developments, PPS6 requires a sequential test for suitable vacant locations within the town centre. There are several reasons why a vacant shop within the town centre would not be suitable or reasonable for this proposal. Firstly, the expansion proposed is required to increase space and a range of goods across the range, rather than introducing a specific range of goods not currently sold, such as hardware or sofas etc and therefore it would be impractical and unreasonable for this need to be met in a detached unit. Secondly, having established the need and scale, there are currently no suitable vacant units of this size within Sheerness town centre, and this includes an assessment of the recently vacated Woolworth’s store.

The Planning Policy Manager has considered the need of the development set against the retailing need undertaken by Kent County Council in 2007, and has concluded that whilst convenience need in Sheerness is significantly lower than comparison need, the proposal and the range of goods to be sold (as discussed below) is fair and reasonable and no objection is raised.

B) Range of Goods to be Sold

There are a number ways of classifying the goods sold within a store. PPS6 uses the terms convenience and comparison goods; the former meaning everyday goods and foods, whereas the later means infrequent goods, such as clothing or footwear.

However this definition is not as simple as it seems as it creates divisions with similar commodities; for example, white serviettes are classed as convenience goods whereas white paper hankies are considered comparison goods. As such, supermarkets and other retail experts use a number of other classifications that try to categorise products more simply, such as ‘supermarket’ and ‘high-street’ goods (that is those goods you would expect to see in a supermarkets and those expected to be found on the high street), or foodhall and hardlines, or even food and non-food. The applicants have supplied additional information which quantifies products in these other categories.

In calculating the current floorspace breakdown using the convenience/comparison retailing definitions, the majority of the store is given over to convenience retailing (approximately 50% of the net floor space) with comparison goods making up approximately 36%. However, as stated comparison goods in this classification also includes general cleaning products, babycare, stationery etc which one would normally be expected to find within a convenience supermarket item. Continued . . .

21 2.3 (Contd) PART 2

The proposed extension would broadly result in the same ratio mix as existing; that is to say approximately 48% of the store would be for convenience retailing whilst 36% would be for comparison goods (the remaining 16% would be for non-retailing such as checkouts, toilets etc).

However, if using a ‘supermarket’ and ‘high street’ classification mentioned above, which allows for the serviette/hanky example to be classified together as a supermarket good, the extended store net sales area would comprise 76% off everyday food and non-food goods, with high street comparison goods (such as clothing, cookware equipment, electricals etc) restricted to 20% of the net sales area.

In planning application SW/99/887 (the existing store extension), condition 2 required that no more than 20% of the net floor space be allowed for non- foods. However, the condition is unclear as to whether this applies to everyday non-foods such as cleaning products, as well as goods such as clothing or electricals. It seems to me that everyday comparison goods should not form part of this classification or restriction, as I am satisfied general non-foods form part of the goods one would expect to see in a supermarket and am not convinced one would necessarily undertake a comparable shopping for cleaning products or babycare products. However, for other comparable goods such as clothing and cookware, I consider that one would most definitely use the high street for such shopping and control of these items is required.

I consider that a condition restricting sales to a simple food and non-food classification would be ambiguous and possibly open to challenge, particularly as the applicant has demonstrated need and that Sheerness has capacity for increased comparison goods. As such I consider that to provide clarity and to protect the High Street, it is necessary to impose a new condition defining the goods that should be restricted (i.e. high-street comparison goods) and this is set out in Condition 2 above.

C) Impact upon Viability and Vitality of Town Centre

The above links into this final paragraph on whether the need, size and goods to be sold will have a detrimental impact upon the viability and vitality of Sheerness town centre.

Having examined the above, to the point of being satisfied that need exists for increased convenience and comparison goods to extend the store; being satisfied that range of goods to be sold is comparable in ratio to the existing goods sold; and being satisfied that the condition restricting high-street orientated comparison goods to no greater than 20% of the net floor area (excluding everyday non-foods as defined) is fair and enforceable, I am of the firm opinion that the proposal will have no significant impact upon the viability and vitality of the town centre. Continued . . .

22 2.3 (Contd) PART 2

I am also convinced that the proposed public realm improvements, which are discussed below, will further encourage footfall traffic movement between the store and the High Street and thus maintain its viability and vitality; indeed the applicants’ traffic surveys have already identified that there is a high proportion of footfall traffic to the store particularly from the surrounding residential properties.

In conclusion, I consider the proposed extension to the store would continue to primarily sell convenience and everyday comparison goods and subject to condition 2 as set out above, would cause no significant harm to the viability and vitality of Sheerness town centre.

Landscaping and Public Realm

The applicants have submitted a Landscape Statement setting out their proposals for the store area and land to the south on the Bridge Road Car Park. As mentioned above, the current store although located 100 metres to the west of the High Street, is somewhat detached from the High Street. Shoppers and pedestrians currently have to walk past the existing toilet block which acts as a visual and physical barrier; across the Bridge Road Car Park and the service road to get to the store; and then walk to the store entrance at the northern end of the site.

The Tesco proposals offer a significant opportunity to undertake measures to re-integrate the store back into the High Street by creating much improved and better connections between the two. This is partly achieved by the relocation of the store entrance to the south west corner effectively reversing the current situation whereby the store turns its back on the town centre. Officers from various sections of the Council have worked very closely with the applicants to put forward a proposal of significant public realm improvements that promote movement and space in this area.

Loss of sections of Bridge Road Car Park

As part of the proposal, 24 of the 47 spaces on the eastern end of the Bridge Road Car Park would be removed and given over to a new public square, planting areas and seating area. The railings in front of the War Memorial would be removed allowing a full appreciation of the Memorial particularly on Remembrance Sunday. This will also provide for a new pedestrian access at this point onto Bridge Road and crossing to Sheerness railway station. Three additional spaces will be provided in the remaining Bridge Road Car Park on the western section resulting in a provision of 26 spaces.

Continued . . .

23 2.3 (Contd) PART 2

Policy AAP4 permits development providing there is no detrimental loss of parking. The Head of Environment and Amenities considers Sheerness has enough spare capacity form nearby car parks to cater for the loss of 21 spaces from Bridge Road. He also considers the proposed amenity improvements far outweigh the loss of the parking where this car park is very much under-used.

The Council's Greenspace officer fully supports the improvement to the public realm for the residents of Sheerness and, subject to further details being received, which are set out in Conditions 3-5 above, is fully supportive of the application.

Loss of the Toilet Block

The current free-standing toilet block would be removed. This is to allow the linkage to be opened up and vastly improved and to provide a high-quality space linking the store to the High Street. There are three other reasons why I consider this is acceptable.

Firstly, the Head of Environment and Amenities has written explaining that the decision to reduce the level of public convenience provision has already been made as part of the overall task of making savings in the Council's budget for 2009/10, It is hoped that local business, of which Tesco has agreed, will participate in a Community Toilet Scheme to allow members of the public to use toilets if need be. In any case, the Rose Street conveniences are not too far away for people to use. As it forms part of the scheme of works for this application whereby the developer will remove it at their cost, the Head of Environment and Amenities considers it a double benefit for the Council.

Secondly, Tesco will make their toilets publicly available and will have signage stating this. These toilets will not only be available for a longer time period than the current free-standing toilets, (the current opening hours of the store), but will also benefit from better supervision, security and cleaning.

Thirdly, and as a consequence of the planned toilet block closure, the store is proposing to double the floor area currently offered for additional toilet capacity; up from currently 28 m2 to a proposed 45 m2.

The Head of Environment and Amenities considers that the proposal only represents a win-win for the Council and strongly supports the proposal.

The public realm improvements proposed significantly improve the linkages to the High Street and thus maintain and improve its viability, whilst acting on their own strengths of visibly and tangibly improving the environment. As such, the proposals, which will all come as part of the development and be provided by the applicant, is strongly supported by officers.

Continued . . .

24 2.3 (Contd) PART 2 The submitted landscape statement also makes reference to planting areas near the store and within the car park. The Greenspace officer has welcomed these and again subject to details supports the scheme.

Employment Creation and Sourcing

Paragraph 11.63 of the applicant’s Planning & Retail Statement states that the proposal will generate approximately 92 new direct vacancies. My colleagues in Swale Forward have been working with the applicants to establish a relationship with the local job centre and other organisations to ensure that these jobs are sourced locally and that training is offered. The Regeneration Officer has informed me that links to the job centre are established and considered that to ensure this relationship continues, a condition should be imposed that requires the applicants to submit a local employment strategy and timetable on how any construction or other employment opportunities will be sourced. This is set out in Condition 7 above.

I consider the proposal will have a positive impact in creating many new jobs for the local community and should be supported in this regard.

Design and Impact on the adjoining Scheduled Ancient Monument

The applicants have submitted a Design and Access Statement in response to the new elevations. The applicants consider the current store is beginning to look dated and needs a fresh new image for the 21st Century.

The Design Officer has accepted the proposal and supports the new design for the store, though requires further details of the colours for the walls and glazing. This aspect is controlled by condition 8.

The Tesco Car Park lies adjacent to the Port of Sheerness Scheduled Ancient Monument. Notwithstanding this, neither English Heritage nor the Design and Conservation Officer are concerned that the proposal would have any detrimental impact upon its setting. As such no objections have been raised by either and I consider the proposal is acceptable in this regard.

I am minded to consider a gun mount that was located within the site when Tesco was first built, which is proposed to be relocated within the site as part of the proposal. Whilst fairly insignificant, its retention is important as many other gun mounts have been lost over the years. I welcome its retention and relocation.

Energy and Sustainability The applicants have submitted an Energy Statement and a Sustainability Statement setting out how the extended store will contribute to the effects of climate change. The statements sets out that the store will be fitted with a Combined Heat and Power Plant to refrigerate and light the existing store as well as the installation of solar panels to generate some on-site renewable energy. Continued . . .

25 2.3 (Contd) PART 2

The Climate Change officer has written stating that the measures will reduce carbon emission by 17% and is generally happy with the savings and the choice of technologies. She has however asked for assurances that CHP and the solar panels will be installed, and has required some form of post construction monitoring for the carbon savings made. Appropriate conditions are therefore set out in Conditions 9 and 10.

Environment and Flood Risk

The site lies adjacent to the and within a Flood Risk Zone 3 area. The applicants have submitted a Flood Risk Assessment, in which it states the proposal will not significantly increase flood risk to the area. The Environment Agency has written raising no objections to the proposal subject to the imposition of the conditions as set out Condition 11. The Council's Environmental Protection Team has not offered any comments on the scheme.

Ecology and Biodiversity

The applicants have submitted an Ecology Statement to support the proposal in stating that the proposal will not have any detrimental impact to wildlife or the nearby Medway SPA/Ramsar. Natural England have been consulted and responded that the proposal will have no detrimental impact on designated sites and consequently no objection is raised. Natural England have asked whether biodiversity measures can be looked into however I do not consider much can be achieved in this regard. In any case, I consider the public realm improvements more than compensate for any limited biodiversity improvements in this urban area. I am satisfied to this end and no conditions are recommended.

Impact upon Local Highway Network

Kent Highways Services (KHS) have examined both the submitted Transport Assessment and the Travel Plan. Initially, KHS had some concerns with the proposed pedestrian crossing at the western end of the site however this has been amended by the applicants to the satisfaction of Kent Highway Services. Following an additional paragraph being added to the travel plan, which now commits the applicants to sharing traffic data with the County, no objections are raised to the proposal.

KHS and the Climate Change Officer both noted the cycle provision, 12 spaces, is the minimum required by the parking standards and expressed disappointment that it was not increased. Following discussions with applicants, this has been increased to 20. Condition 15 requires details of such provision.

Continued . . .

26 2.3 (Contd) PART 2

Other

The applicants have also submitted a Statement of Community Involvement. It states that a public exhibition was undertaken and an advertisement was placed in the Sheerness Times Guardian; both events in October 2008. The verbal comments and written comments received have been published in the report where the applicants have stated that feedback was generally positive. Various other comments were also received in respect of flood risk, car parking and vehicular access.

I have taken on board the comments of the Kent Police Architecture Liaison Officer and consider issues discussed relating to public realm and traffic are covered in the report. I have included a condition requiring a CCTV plan as requested.

I am also satisfied the proposal will not raise any new issues that are not already experienced in terms of noise and disturbance, privacy or outlook to surrounding residential properties. Members will note that the current store has unrestricted hours of operation and delivery periods which at this stage cannot be controlled retrospectively.

Recommendation

Having considered the comments from consultees, local residents and the relevant Development Plan Policies, I am of the view that the proposal to extend the store and to create a vastly improved public realm space to be acceptable in principle, that it would accord with the character of the area and would have no detrimental impact upon the viability and vitality of Sheerness High Street or the general character of the area. Having consulted the various Council Officers and Kent Highways Services, I consider the application is acceptable in terms of sustainability and that it would not impact harmfully upon the local highway network.

Accordingly, I consider the application is in accordance with the Policy tests set out in PPS6 ‘Planning for Town Centres’ (2005), the Kent and Medway Structure Plan and the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008. I therefore recommend that the planning application be approved subject to the imposition of conditions set out in this report. ______

Responsible Officer: Jim Wilson (Major Projects Officer)

List of Backgrounds Documents 1. Application Papers for Application SW/90/989, SW/93/0064, SW/93/0924, SW/99/0087, SW/02/1280, SW/03/1056 2. Correspondence Relating to Application SW/90/989, SW/93/0064, SW/93/0924, SW/99/0087, SW/02/1280, SW/03/1056.

27 PART 2

2.4 SW/08/0311 (Case 01148) SHEERNESS

Location: Thamesteel Ltd, Brielle Way, Sheerness, Kent, ME12 1TH

Proposal: Extension to east of existing coil despatch building

Applicant/Agent: Thamesteel Ltd, c/o Thackerays Ltd. 16 Athelstan Road, Faversham, Kent, ME13 8QL

Application Valid: 17 March 2008, and as clarified by noise assessment received 17 February 2009

SUBJECT TO: The receipt of further information from the Agent

Conditions

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

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

(2) The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the extension hereby permitted shall match those on the existing building in terms of type, colour and texture.

Grounds: In the interest of visual amenity and in pursuance of policies E1 and E19 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008, and QL1 of the Kent & Medway Structure Plan.

(3) 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 0900 – 1700 hours, Saturdays 0900 – 1300 hours unless in association with an emergency or with the prior written approval of the District Planning Authority.

Grounds: In the interests of residential amenity and in pursuance of policies E1 and E2 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008, and QL1 of the Kent & Medway Structure Plan.

Continued . . .

28 2.4 (Contd) PART 2 (4) If during development contamination not previously identified is found to be present at the site then no further development (unless otherwise agreed in writing by the District Planning Authority) shall be carried out until the developer has requested and obtained written approval from the District Planning Authority.

Grounds: To ensure any land contamination is adequately dealt with pursuant to Policies E1, E2 and E3 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

Reasons for Approval Having taken all material considerations into account, it is considered that subject to compliance with the attached conditions, the proposal would be in accordance with the development plan and would not cause unacceptable harm to the amenities of the area or prejudice highway safety or convenience. In resolving to grant permission, particular regard has been had to the following policies: E1, E2, E19 and B1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008, and QL1, EP2 and NR5 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan.

Description of Proposal This application seeks permission for the erection of an extension to the eastern end of the existing coil despatch building at the Thamesteel Mill, Brielle Way, Sheerness. It is also proposed that the existing building be re- clad, removing holes and gaps in existing cladding. The extension would virtually double the length of the building as seen from public views from across the railway line. The submitted Design and Access Statement comments:

“The objective is to extend the exiting coil despatch building to house equipment that will enhance the product currently being produced so that it appeals to a wider market and sustains demand…

The existing coil despatch building would ideally be extended to the east and a lean-to structure added to the northern elevation. The eastern extension matches the form of the existing building along the southern boundary of the site, except for the ridge ventilation structure, which is not required…

The Eastern extension is 71 metres east to west and 33 metres wide. It will be equipped with an overhead crane to handle finished product and load lorries for shipping.

The building materials will match the existing buildings, with a steel portal frame structure covered with profile steel cladding and roofing sheets.”

The applicant has submitted a noise assessment report to consider the impact of the proposals on the noise climate in the local area, and to nearby dwellings in particular. This indicates that the extension and re-cladding of the existing building proposed will screen nearby properties from existing noise sources and reduce noise exposure. Continued . . .

29 2.4 (Contd) PART 2

Relevant Site History and Description

The Thamesteel site covers an area of 22 hectares, comprising numerous industrial buildings and machinery, and lies off Brielle Way on the entrance to Sheerness.

The coil despatch building sits to the eastern end of the mill site, close to the boundary with the Sheerness to Sittingbourne railway line, and closest to the residential areas of Railway Road and Broad Street. The existing building is already prominent in views from these residential areas. It is constructed of profile steel sheeting and is coloured light blue/grey, with ventilation louvers close to the eaves. The new extension would match the style and scale of the existing building.

Planning permission was granted in 1969 for the erection of industrial buildings on the site. Subsequently, numerous further buildings, machinery and equipment within the site have been granted planning permission fairly regularly from 1969 through to 2005.

Members will note that a concurrent application for extension to the coil despatch/rod mill building elsewhere on site, reference SW/08/0312, is also presented elsewhere in this agenda.

Views of Consultees

The Environment Agency has no objection subject to the above condition regarding contamination. They also note that the site lies within the flood plain, and that “surface water disposal, dampness and means of access during flooding” may be problematic for the applicant.

The Head of Environment and Amenities raises no objection, commenting that the proposal is likely to significantly reduce the noise levels for surrounding residents. He asks, however, that the applicants be requested to remove the verification louvres from the existing building to further reduce noise, commenting that they are unnecessary.

Other Representations

Three letters of objection have been received from local residents, offering the following summarised comments:

- The works will give rise to increased noise and disturbance; - The Mill should not have been built in such close proximity to the town; and - Existing buildings are unsightly, and extensions will only add to the visual intrusion. - Noise is already a problem, and would get worse. Continued . . .

30 2.4 (Contd) PART 2

Policies

Policies E1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008 and QL1 of the Kent & Medway Structure Plan are general policies seeking to ensure that all developments are acceptable in design, amenity and highway terms.

Policy B1 of the Local Plan supports the on-site expansion of existing businesses. This is supported by policy EP2 of the Structure Plan, which states that “existing employment sites that are well located and otherwise well suited to employment use should be retained for this purpose.”

E2 of the Local Plan and NR5 of the Structure Plan seek to minimise the impacts of all types of pollution from developments, including air and noise pollution. The text for E2 states that “the Council seeks to minimise the impact of noise between new and existing uses” and “reduce the potential risk of air pollution by influencing the scale, location and use of new developments.”

Policy E19 of the Local Plan looks specifically at design of new buildings, stating that they should be appropriate to its context in respect of scale, height and materials.

Discussion

I note the comments from local residents, and appreciate their concerns. However, based on the noise assessment submitted as part of this application, it is likely that the noise and disturbance from the site will be reduced considerably.

The application does not seek to alter the use of the site, or increase the intensity of current activities. Despatch of finished product currently takes place outdoors, and the proposed extension will house this area and provide a barrier between the work area and the surrounding residential properties. Re- cladding the existing building will also assist in this. Noise will therefore be heavily attenuated, with predictions showing a significant decrease in disturbance for local residents. It is also likely that the building will decrease the amount of dust kicked up by despatch activities, thus further reducing the impact of the mill on nearby residential properties.

I note that the building will be considerably increased in length, but I believe that due to its separation from nearby properties by the railway line, its impact will be in views (which cannot be legally protected) rather than any loss of amenity. I therefore feel that visual impact is not a reason for refusal.

I have discussed removal of the existing louvres as per the Head of Environment and Amenities comments with the applicant and await confirmation. Continued . . .

31 2.4 (Contd) PART 2

Recommendation

This application seeks permission for the erection of an extension to the existing product despatch building at the Thamesteel Mill, Sheerness. The proposal will enclose a loading/despatch yard within a building designed to match the existing.

I have considered issues of design, noise and amenity but none, to my mind, contain or amount to a reason for refusal. Taking the above into account and subject to further information from the Agent, I recommend that planning permission be granted.

Responsible Officer: Graham Thomas (Area Planning Officer)

List of Background Papers

1. Application papers for SW/08/0311. 2. Correspondence relating to SW/08/0311. 3. Application papers for SW/08/0312. 4. Correspondence relating to SW/08/0312.

32 PART 2

2.5 SW/08/0312 (Case 01148) SHEERNESS

Location: Thamesteel Ltd, Brielle Way, Sheerness, Kent, ME12 1TH

Proposal: Extension to north of existing coil despatch building and west of existing rod mill building

Applicant/Agent: Thamesteel Ltd, c/o Thackerays Ltd. 16 Athelstan Road, Faversham, Kent, ME13 8QL

Application Valid: 17 March 2008 and as clarified by noise assessment received 17 February 2009

SUBJECT TO: The receipt of further information from the Agent

Conditions

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

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

(2) The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the extension hereby permitted shall match those on the existing building in terms of type, colour and texture.

Grounds: In the interest of visual amenity and in pursuance of policies E1 and E19 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008, and QL1 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan.

(3) 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 0900 – 1700 hours, Saturdays 0900 – 1300 hours unless in association with an emergency or with the prior written approval of the District Planning Authority.

Grounds: In the interests of residential amenity and in pursuance of policies E1 and E2 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008, and QL1 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan. Continued . . .

33 2.5 (Contd) PART 2

(4) If, during development, contamination not previously identified is found to be present at the site then no further development (unless otherwise agreed in writing by the District Planning Authority) shall be carried out until the developer has requested and obtained written approval from the District planning Authority.

Grounds: To ensure any land contamination is adequately dealt with, pursuant to policies E1, E2 and E3 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

Reasons for Approval

Having taken all material considerations into account, it is considered that subject to compliance with the attached conditions, the proposal would be in accordance with the development plan and would not cause unacceptable harm to the amenities of the area or prejudice highway safety or convenience. In resolving to grant permission, particular regard has been had to the following policies: E1, E2, E19 and B1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan, and QL1, EP2 and NR5 of the Kent & Medway Structure Plan.

Description of Proposal

This application seeks permission for the erection of an extension to the northern elevation of the existing coil despatch building at the Thamesteel Mill, Brielle Way, Sheerness. The extension would be within the site, screened from public views by the existing buildings. This also means that any noise will be attenuated by the existing building, which is to be re-clad, further reducing noise leakage. The submitted Design and Access Statement comments:

“The objective is to extend the exiting coil despatch building to house equipment that will enhance the product currently being produced so that it appeals to a wider market and sustains demand…

The existing coil despatch building would ideally be extended to the east and a lean-to structure added to the northern elevation. The eastern extension matches the form of the existing building along the southern boundary of the site, except for the ridge ventilation structure, which is not required. The northern extension is hidden within the site by the same existing building on the southern boundary.

The northern extension is 37 metres long east to west and 30 metres wide. In this area forklifts will be used to handle spools of steel wire for loading onto repackaging equipment.

The building materials will match the existing buildings, with a steel portal frame structure covered with profile steel cladding and roofing sheets.”

Continued . . .

34 2.5 (Contd) PART 2 Relevant Site History and Description

The Thamesteel site covers an area of 22 hectares, comprising numerous industrial buildings and machinery, and lies off Brielle Way on the entrance to Sheerness.

The coil despatch building sits to the eastern end of the mill site, close to the boundary with the Sheerness to Sittingbourne railway line, and closest to the residential areas of Railway Road and Broad Street. The building is prominent in views from these residential areas, but its appearance from here would be unaffected by this extension. It is constructed of profile streel sheeting and is coloured light blue/grey, with ventilation louvers close to the eaves. The extension will be a lean-to structure in matching cladding.

Planning permission was granted in 1969 for the erection of industrial buildings on the site. Subsequently, numerous further buildings, machinery and equipment within the site have been granted planning permission fairly regularly from 1969 through to 2005.

Members will note that a concurrent application for extension to the eastern end of the coil despatch/rod mill building, reference SW/08/0311, is presented elsewhere on this agenda.

Views of Consultees

The Environment Agency has no objection subject to the above condition regarding contamination. They also note that the site lies within the flood plain, and that “surface water disposal, dampness and means of access during flooding” may be problematic for the applicant.

The Head of Environment and Amenities raises no objection, commenting that the proposal is likely to significantly reduce the noise levels for surrounding residents. He asks, however, that the applicant be requested to remove the ventilation louvres from the existing building to further reduce noise, commenting that they are unnecessary.

Other Representations

Four letters of objection have been received from local residents, offering the following summarised comments:

- The works will give rise to increased noise and disturbance; - The mill should not have been built in such close proximity to the town; - Existing buildings are unsightly, and extensions will only add to the visual intrusion; - The noise of forklifts keeps residents awake at night; and - No further permission should be granted until the applicant meets “the obligation in respect of solving excessive emissions.” Continued . . .

35 2.5 (Contd) PART 2

Policies

Policies E1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008 and QL1 of the Kent & Medway Structure Plan are general policies seeking to ensure that all developments are acceptable in design, amenity and highway terms.

Policy B1 of the Local Plan supports the on-site expansion of existing businesses. This is supported by policy EP2 of the Structure Plan, which states that “existing employment sites that are well located and otherwise well suited to employment use should be retained for this purpose.”

E2 of the Local Plan and NR5 of the Structure Plan seek to minimise the impacts of all types of pollution from developments, including air and noise pollution. The text for E2 states that “the Council seeks to minimise the impact of noise between new and existing uses” and “reduce the potential risk of air pollution by influencing the scale, location and use of new developments.”

Policy E19 of the Local Plan looks specifically at design of new buildings, stating that they should be appropriate to its context in respect of scale, height and materials.

Discussion

I note the comments from local residents, and appreciate their concerns. However, given the location of the extension on the far side of the building, it is likely that the noise and disturbance from the site will not be increased especially in relation to noise from forklift trucks.

The proposed building will enclose a loading area that is currently outdoors, with little opportunity for noise attenuation. By enclosing the forklift’s working area within the extension the noise generated by the activities in this area, and thus disturbance to local residents, is likely to be reduced.

I also note the comments regarding emissions from the site, but do not consider that to be relevant to this particular application, which will be enclosing a work yard rather than increasing production or output. Furthermore, the applicant has submitted copies of their quarterly monitoring data, required by the Environment Agency to ensure emissions are not exceeding regulations, which state that the mill is operating within the defined parameters.

I have discussed removal of the existing ventilation louvres with the applicant, as per the Head of Environment and Amenities comments and await a response.

Continued . . .

36 2.5 (Contd) PART 2

Recommendation

This application seeks permission for the erection of a an extension to the existing product despatch building at the Thamesteel mill, Sheerness. The proposal will enclose a loading/despatch yard within a building designed to match the existing. The extension will not be visible from nearby public vantage points.

I have considered issues of design, noise, emissions and amenity but none, to my mind, contain or amount to a reason for refusal. Taking the above into account and subject to further information from the Agent, I recommend that planning permission be granted.

Responsible Officer: Graham Thomas (Area Planning Officer)

List of Background Papers

1. Application papers for SW/08/0312

2. Correspondence relating to SW/08/0312

3. Application papers for SW/08/0311

4. Correspondence relating to SW/08/0311

37 PART 2

2.6 SW/09/0106 (Case 03344) FAVERSHAM

Location: Station Garage, Stone Street, Faversham, Kent, ME13 8PH

Proposal: Change of use from petrol forecourt to jet/hand car wash area with erection of 1000mm high brick wall to back edge of footpath

Applicant/Agent: Mr M Ashraff, c/o Mr N A Hutson, Neil Dowlman Architecture, 62 Northgate, Louth, Lincolnshire, LN11 0LY

Application Valid: 16 February 2009 and as amended by letter and drawings received 17 February 2009

SUBJECT TO: Views of Head of Environment and Amenities

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) Full details of the material and specification of the bollards and bricks and stone cappings, shall be submitted to and approved by the District Planning Authority prior to the commencement of the development.

Grounds: In the interest of visual amenity and conserving the special character of the conservation area, and in pursuance of policies E1, E15 and E19 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008, and QL1 & QL6 of the Kent & Medway Structure Plan.

(3) The access details shown on the approved drawings shall be completed in accordance with those details prior to the commencement of the use of the site being commenced and the access shall thereafter be maintained.

Grounds: In the interest of highway safety and convenience and in pursuance of policy E1 of the Swale Borough Local plan 2008.

Continued . . .

38 2.6 (Contd) PART 2

(4) No activity associated with the approved use shall be undertaken on site until the brick wall and bollard detail have been completed on site.

Grounds: In the interest of visual amenity and conserving the special character of the conservation area, and in pursuance of policies E1, E15 and E19 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008, and QL1 & QL6 of the Kent & Medway Structure Plan.

(5) No activity associated with the approved use shall be commenced until details of the proposed means of foul sewerage disposal have been submitted to and approved in writing by the District Planning Authority in consultation with Southern Water.

Grounds: In the interest of amenity and in pursuance of Policy E1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008

(6) The areas shown on the approved plan as vehicle parking and turning space shall be retained for the use of the occupiers of and visitors to the premises and no permanent development whether or not permitted by the Town & Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 shall be carried out on those areas of land or in such a position to preclude its use.

Grounds: In the interest of highway safety and convenience and in pursuance of policy E1 of the Swale Borough Local plan 2008.

(7) The jet washing of vehicles shall not be carried out in any other location than the position indicated on the approved drawings.

Grounds: In the interest of amenity and in pursuance of policies E1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008, and QL1 of the Kent & Medway Structure Plan.

(8) The use of the premises hereby permitted shall be restricted to the hours of 7 am to 7 pm on weekdays, 8.00 am to 6.00 pm on Saturdays and 10.00 am to 4.00 pm on Sundays and Bank Holidays.

Grounds: In the interests of the amenities of the area and in pursuance of policies E1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008, and QL1 of the Kent & Medway Structure Plan. .

Continued . . .

39 2.6 (Contd) PART 2

Reasons for Approval

Having taken all material considerations into account, it is considered that subject to compliance with the attached conditions, the proposal would be in accordance with the development plan and would not cause unacceptable harm to the amenities of the area or prejudice highway safety or convenience, and would preserve or enhance the special character or appearance of the Conservation Area. In resolving to grant permission, particular regard has been had to the following policies: B1, E1, E15 & E19 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008 and Policies QL1 & QL8 of the Kent & Medway Structure Plan

Description of Proposal

The application is for the change of use from petrol forecourt to jet/hand car wash area under the current canopy forecourt with the erection of 1000mm high brick wall to the back edge of the footpath facing Stone Street. The existing shop is to be used as a storage area. 4 car parking spaces are provided on site in addition to spaces for vehicles in the wash area, and two drying and polishing areas. The application is supported by a Design and Access Statement which explains that the proposed jet wash would operate below the existing canopy, and due to the site’s previous use, the proposal should not cause unacceptable nuisance to the area. Existing access arrangements are considered suitable to serve the new use. The applicant states a total of 10 parking spaces are available for customers, there will be no increase in internal floorspace proposed and the level of employment generated is not known

Relevant Site History and Site Description

This site is a long established petrol filling station near to Faversham town centre, and within the town’s conservation area. A garage/MOT station also operates from the site and this will remain.

Previous history for the site includes SW/77/1012 for the extension of the garage/workshop APPROVED, SW/85/807 the demolition of part of the existing building and the construction of the sales building, canopy and 3 8,000l tanks, APPROVED in 1985 and SW/86/1397 permission for illuminated id sign and price display box. Applications in 2007 and 2008 for the building of 7 two bedroom houses on the site were withdrawn following Officer advice that the Council is seeking to safeguard employment land at Faversham.

The application follows the withdrawal of an earlier jet wash scheme following consultation with Officers who were concerned as to the acceptability of a pvc screen. This application proposes a brick wall instead.

Continued . . .

40 2.6 (Contd) PART 2

Views of Consultees

Faversham Town Council recommends refusal of the application as the proposed development would create a nuisance to neighbouring properties and to passers by from noise and water spray and that the drainage and lack of screening would result in discharge of toxic and polluting chemicals into public sewer and public highways.

Kent Highway Services recommended approval of the scheme subject to the access arrangements being completed to their satisfaction, the parking and turning spaces shall be retained and the jet washing shall only take place in the location shown on the approved plans.

The Environment Agency commented that they have “assessed the application as having a low environmental risk”.

Southern Water comment that areas for vehicle washing should only be connected to the foul sewer after consultation with Southern water. A condition is requested to ensure this occurs prior to commencement of the development.

No response has yet been received from the Head of Environment and Amenities.

Other Representation

3 letters of objection have been received from local residents, their comments are summarised below:

• Not an appropriate use within a Conservation Area • There is a jet wash already at Macknade, no need to have two similar facilities in such close proximity NOTE: The jet wash at Macknade does not have planning permission. • Concerned about the additional traffic and loitering vehicles • Cause excess noise from the jet washers • Object on grounds of noise, traffic nuisance and environmental impact • The area is already congested with parking and traffic • Suggests closing Stone street to all vehicles

Policies

Swale Borough Local Plan Policies

B1 (Retaining Existing Employment Land), FAV1 (Strategy), E1 (General development Criteria), E15 (Conservation area) and E19 (Design) of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008

Continued . . .

41 2.6 (Contd) PART 2

Kent & Medway Structure Plan

Policies SW1, QL1 & QL8 of the Kent & Medway Structure Plan

Discussion

The site is located within the Town centre, is commercial in nature, lies close to residential properties and is also within Faversham Conservation Area; furthermore its retention as an employment site is supported by Local Plan Policy. The withdrawal of previous housing proposals and the submission of this application seems to me to represent something of a success for Local Plan policy.

The established current use of the site as a petrol station involves frequent visits to the site by vehicles and I do not consider this change of part of the site to a jet car wash would create any additional traffic or nuisance to what currently exists and no evidence has been provided to assume otherwise. I note Kent Highway services have not objected to the proposal or referred to highway safety or convenience concerns.

I am further satisfied that the 4 parking spaces provided and the additional space within the jet wash process would be sufficient to accommodate customers so as not to result in a highway obstruction or nuisance to local residents.

I note the concerns of local residents however the site is commercial in nature and has been for a number of years, the proposed use is entirely appropriate particularly considering the existing garage/MOT station on site. The fact that another such business exists within Faversham is not grounds to be considered in the determination of the application.

Furthermore the continuation of employment on this site within the town centre is to be encouraged and is supported by local plan policy.

As the site is within Faversham Conservation Area, Officers have been insistent that the boundary treatment is appropriate to the area and the proposed brick wall is seen as an acceptable solution in-keeping with the other walls in the immediate vicinity. The existing site frontage represents rather a gap in the otherwise clear sense of enclosure and the proposed wall will enhance the character of the conservation area.

Continued . . .

42 2.6 (Contd) PART 2

Recommendation

The site is commercial in nature and the retention of it as an employment site is fully supported by Local Plan Policy, I do not consider that the proposed new use would create any amenity problems to local residents nor to road users and with the attached conditions the scheme is acceptable. Therefore, whilst awaiting the comments of the Head of Environment and Amenities, I recommend that planning permission be granted. ______

Responsible Officer: Graham Thomas (Area Planning Officer) ______

List of Background Documents

1. Application Papers for Application SW/09/0106

2. Correspondence Relating to Application SW/09/0106

3. Application papers and correspondence for applications SW/77/1012, SW/85/807, SW/86/1397, SW/08/0993, SW/08/0054, SW/09/0014

43 PART 2

2.7 SW/08/1265 (Case 23318) UPCHURCH

Location: Grooms Cottage, Whitegates, Wallbridge Lane, Upchurch, Sittingbourne, Kent, ME9 0LN

Proposal: Use of part of building as a one bed dwelling associated with livery stables

Applicant/Agent: Palm Development Ltd, c/o Ms Anna Bloomfield, Bloomfields Ltd, 66 College Road, Maidstone, Kent, ME15 6SJ

Application Valid: 27 November 2008

SUBJECT TO: The submission of a satisfactory unilateral undertaking preventing the sale of the building separetly from the remainder of the site.

Conditions

(1) The occupation of the dwelling shall be limited to a person solely or mainly employed at the Whitegates livery stables and any dependent of such a person residing with them.

Grounds: As planning permission has only been granted in recognition of the circumstances relevant to this site, in the interests of residential amenity, and in pursuance of Policies E1, E2, E6, RC1, RC5 & RC6 of Swale Borough Local Plan 2008 and Policies EN1 and HP5 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan.

(2) Upon completion, no further development, whether permitted by Classes A, B, C, E or E of Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Amendment) (No. 2) (England) Order 2008 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order) or not, shall be carried out without the prior permission in writing of the District Planning Authority.

Grounds: In the interests of the amenities of the area and in pursuance of policies E1, E6 and E24 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008 and EN1 and QL1 of the Kent & Medway Structure Plan.

Continued . . .

44 2.7 (Contd) PART 2

Reason for Approval Having taken all material considerations into account, it is considered that subject to compliance with the attached conditions, the proposal would be in accordance with the development plan and would not cause unacceptable harm to the amenities of the area or prejudice highway safety or convenience. In resolving to grant permission, particular regard has been had to the following policies: E1, E2, E6, E7, RC1, RC5, RC6 & T3 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008; SS3, SS8, EN1, QL1 & HP5 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan

Description of Proposal This application seeks planning permission for the use of ‘Grooms Cottage’, Whitegates, Wallbridge Lane, Upchurch, as a one bed dwelling associated with the adjoining livery stables. The building is an existing two-storey structure, which is physically attached on three sides to the existing stables and associated buildings at the livery. To the front is an open area which could potentially be used as domestic curtilage. The building is located in excess of 29 metres from the closest dwelling (76 Wallbridge Lane) and is accessed via the existing access to the west, serving the livery stables. Parking at the site is provided informally to the west of the stable complex.

The agent has submitted a supporting statement, which seeks to provide justification for the proposed use on the grounds that the building is not required for a livery use, that it is unsuitable for such a use, and that its use for security/safety purposes is desirable for the livery. It is notable that she does not seek to demonstrate that the application meets the tests of relevant government policy in respect of agricultural/equestrian dwellings. She also states that the proposed use has been carried out over a long period of time without complaint, although this is contradicted by information in the Council’s possession.

Additional information in the form of a plan showing the domestic curtilage of the dwelling has been submitted. The agent has also confirmed that her clients are willing to submit a unilateral undertaking preventing the dwelling being sold separately from the widery livery stables site.

Relevant Site History & Description There have been no planning applications submitted in respect of this building or the wider site. The buildings at the site appear well established, as does the livery use.

Members may recall resolving to serve an enforcement notice in respect of the unauthorised use of the building the subject of this application for residential purposes. The notice was served, but was withdrawn by the Council due to a slight error in wording. In the meantime this application was submitted. The enforcement notice has not yet been reissued, in order to allow the Council to consider the details in this application. Continued . . .

45 2.7 (Contd) PART 2

The site lies in the countryside, outside the built up area of Upchurch and within a strategic gap as defined in the proposals map for the adopted Local Plan. The building in question forms part of a larger block of structures, including stabling, tack room, feed store and garage/store, and is physically attached to these buildings on three sides.

Views of Consultees

Kent Highway Services raise no objection.

The Council’s Agricultural Consultant has appraised the proposed use under the tests of Planning Policy Statement 7 (to which I refer below) and does not consider that sufficient information has been presented to demonstrate that there is a functional need for on-site accommodation.

Upchurch Parish Council raise objection, and comment that:

• The buildings were originally erected as stables and, to the best of its knowledge, no planning permission has been sought nor granted for residential use for the existing cottage • It is outside the village envelope • If permission were given for residential use, it could set a precedent for other stable-owners to request similar accommodation.

Other Representations

One letter of objection has been received, from the occupier of no.76 Wallbridge Lane. Their comments are as follows:

• The stables are self livery and not full livery where stable staff taske 100% care of the horses; • The stables have functioned for many years without the need for an on site presence; • The owner lives close enough to supervise the site; • Could set a precedent.

No other representations have been received.

Policies

The following Policies are relevant:

Continued . . .

46 2.7 (Contd) PART 2

Planning Policy Statement 7

Annex A to this government policy document allows for the erection of agricultural/forestry/equestrian dwellings in the countryside providing a number of strict tests are met, including evidence that there is a clearly established existing functional need which relates to a full-time worker, or one who is primarily employed in agriculture/equestrian purposes and does not relate to a part-time requirement, the unit and activity concerned have been established for at least three years and is currently financially sound with a clear prospect of remaining so, the need could not be fulfilled by another existing dwelling on the unit, or any other existing accommodation in the area which is suitable and available for occupation by the workers concerned and other planning requirements, e.g. in relation to access, or impact on the countryside, are satisfied.

Kent and Medway Structure Plan

SS3 Strategic Gaps SS8 Development in the countryside EN1 Protecting Kent’s countryside QL1 Quality of development and design HP5 Housing development in the countryside

Swale Borough Local Plan 2008

E1 General Development Criteria E2 Pollution E6 The Countryside E7 The separation of settlements RC1 Helping to Revitalise the Rural Economy RC5 Agricultural, Forestry and Other Occupational Dwellings RC6 Re-use of rural buildings for housing T3 Vehicle Parking for New Development

Of particular relevance to this proposal is Policy RC6 (Re-use of rural buildings for housing), which states that Policy RC6 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008 states that the conversion of buildings in the countryside to residential use is acceptable if one of the following criteria are met:

(1) the Borough Council is satisfied that the applicant has made a reasonable and sustained effort to secure an alternative acceptable re- use of the building for employment or community purposes (at a price that reflects that use), and has provided a statement of such action; or

(2) the Borough Council is satisfied that the building would be undesirable or unsuitable for a non-residential use in its own right or by way of its location or the scale of use that would otherwise result; or Continued . . .

47 2.7 (Contd) PART 2 (3) a residential use, or a mixed-use including residential is the preferred way in which a historic building could be retained and/or restored. In all cases, the building should be suitable for the proposed use, structurally sound and capable of conversion without: (a) the need for significant extension, alteration, or reconstruction; (b) significantly adversely affecting the countryside; and (c) without creating scales of residential use that would lead to unsustainable travel patterns.

Also relevant is the Council’s adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) – ‘The Conservation of Traditional Farm Buildings.’

Discussion The building is a significant distance from nearby dwellings, and I do not therefore envisage harm to residential amenity. I also note that Kent Highway Services raise no objection, and do not consider the proposal unacceptable in highway terms.

The building does not, in my opinion, meet the requirements of the SPG – it is not of sufficient architectural or historic merit to warrant conversion to a dwelling.

In addition, the application does not make the case that the use of the building as a dwelling meets the tests of PPS7 referred to above, and in any case, the Council’s Agricultural Consultant does not consider the proposal to meet these tests.

I note the concerns of the local resident and the Parish Council with regard to the setting of a precedent. I am of the opinion that the situation here is largely unique given the layout of the site and building and the likelihood of an alternative use for the building coming forward. I discuss these issues below.

The key matters to consider here are therefore whether the proposal complies with other policies in respect of the conversion of buildings in the countryside to dwellings, the impact of the proposal on the character of the countryside and the immediate vicinity, and any other material considerations.

Impact on the character of the countryside and the immediate vicinity

The building, access and parking area to the proposed dwelling already exist, and no new built development is proposed under this application. There is not therefore any impact on the countryside nor on the status of the strategic gap in terms of an increase in built development.

The use of the building as a dwelling would potentially give rise to an increase in activity here, which on a larger scale would certainly have implications for the character and appearance of the countryside. However – I am mindful that the proposal is for a one bed dwelling, and that the scale of the building is Continued . . .

48 2.7 (Contd) PART 2

such that a significant increase in activity on the livery site as a whole is unlikely as the result of the use proposed. I do not therefore consider that the proposal would give rise to significant harm to the character and appearance of the countryside nor to that of the immediate area.

The additional plan shows a small area of domestic curtilage to the front of the building. I do not consider that the use of this small area of land as domestic curtilage would be objectionable. It is though necessary in my view to impose condition (2) above, which prevents any outbuildings and domestic extensions which could, if uncontrolled, potentially cause harm to the character and appearance of the area. Subject to this condition, I do not envisage harm to the character and appearance of the area.

Conversion of buildings in the countryside to dwellings

As noted above, the proposed development does not comply with the SPG. However – the conversion of this building to residential use can be considered acceptable if it meets one of the tests of Policy RC6 (listed above) and is capable of conversion without significant extension, alteration, or reconstruction, significantly adversely affecting the countryside; and without creating scales of residential use that would lead to unsustainable travel patterns.

Dealing with these first – it is clear to my mind that the proposed use would not result and has not resulted in significant alterations to this building. The building has been altered over the years, (most recently by the use of uPVC windows) but the overall form and scale of the building has not apparently been altered for some significant time. The building appears structurally sound, and is already in use for residential purposes. In addition, the re-use of this building would not in my opinion, and as stated above, adversly affect the character of the surrounding countryside. Finally, the creation of a one bedroom dwelling for an employee here would not in my opinion give rise to a significant unsustainable travel pattern.

In my opinion the building is unsuitable for employment/community uses. It has an intimate relationship with the existing livery, which would make it unattractive for use as an office or for commuinity purposes. Furthermore is not of a suitable scale or design for B2 or B8 uses and in any case, such uses could potentially cause noise and disturbance to the horses in the adjoining stables and to local residents.

Furthermore, the building does not appear suitable for livery purposes. In particular, the first floor is unlikely to be of any use for feed storage, tack room etc, and any such use of the ground floor appears not to be required, given the extensive range of livery buildings elsewhere on the site.

Continued . . .

49 2.7 (Contd) PART 2

As such, I am satisfied that the proposal meets criteria (1) and (2) of Policy RC6.

I am though mindful of the very close relationship between the livery and the building, and the potential harm to amenity that could occupiers of the building could suffer in terms of noise and smells associated with the use. I am further mindful of the case the agent makes on the basis of site security and the well being of the horses. I consider that restricting the occupation of the dwelling to a person employed or mainly employed at the livery is appropriate, as such a person would address the need for security at the site and would be more likely to accept the potential harm to amenity that would occur from vehicle movements, the limited noise and disturbance arising from the use of the site, and the smells associated with such a use. I therefore recommend imposing condition (1) above, which requires the occupier of the dwelling to be employed at the livery. In addition, the curtilage of the dwelliung would be limited in size. Condition (2) above would give the Council control over extensions and alterations and therefore afford a degree of protection to this domestic curtilage.

Furthermore, I consider it necessary for the applicant to enter into a legal agreement which would prevent the dwelling being sold separately from the livery. This would prevent any potential difficulty in future should the business be sold, and would require the dwelling to remain as part of the wider holding. The applicant has agreed to provide a unilateral undertaking to this effect, which is awaited. I will report further to Members at the meeting.

Summary and Recommendation

This application seeks retrospective planning permission for the use of ‘Grooms Cottage’, Wallbridge Lane, Upchurch as a dwelling. In my view, although the proposal does not satisfy the tests of PPS7 in respect of such dwellings, the proposed use is acceptable, given the design and scale of the building, its lack of potential alternative uses, and its close functional relationship with the adjoining livery.

Subject to the receipt of a unilateral undertaking preventing the dwelling being severed from the remainder of the site, I recommend approval.

Responsible Officer: Rob Bailey (Area Planning Officer)

List of Background Papers

1. Application Papers for Application SW/08/1265

2. Correspondence Relating to Application SW/08/1265

50 PART 2

2.8 SW/09/0112 (Case 15254) UPCHURCH

Location: 3 The Street, Upchurch, Sittingbourne, Kent, ME9 7AJ

Proposal: New external canopy and external plant including walk in freezer and walk in chiller

Applicant/Agent: Co-operative, c/o Miss Jennifer Swain, Simons Design, 991 Doddington Road, Lincoln, Lincolnshire, LN6 3AA

Application Valid: 17 February 2009

SUBJECT TO: Comments from the Head of Environment and Amenities and any additional condition(s) suggested by them

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 development shall take place until samples of the materials to be used on the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the District Planning Authority.

Grounds: In the interest of visual amenity and preserving the character and appearance of the conservation area in pursuance of policies E1, E15 and E19 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008, and QL1 and QL6 of the Kent & Medway Structure Plan.

(3) Within 3 months of the date of this decision, the brick wall to be built up around the stealth unit as detailed in the approved application and as shown on drawing no. 5026-20/A1/102_6, shall be erected and retained in perpetuity unless otherwise agreed in writing by the District Planning Authority.

Grounds: In the interest of visual amenity and preserving the character and appearance of the conservation area in pursuance of policies E1, E15 and E19 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008, and QL1 and QL6 of the Kent & Medway Structure Plan.

Continued . . .

51 2.8 (Contd) PART 2 Reasons for approval

Having taken all material considerations into account, it is considered that subject to compliance with the attached conditions, the proposal would be in accordance with the development plan and would not cause unacceptable harm to the amenities of the area and would preserve or enhance the special character or appearance of the Conservation Area. In resolving to grant permission, particular regard has been had to the following policies: E1, E15, E19 and T3 of the Swale Borough Local Plan, and QL1, QL6 and TP19 of the Kent & Medway Structure Plan.

Description of Proposal

This application seeks retrospective planning permission for the erection of a canopy within the rear service yard of the Co-op and the siting of a stealth unit to house equipment associated with control of temperature within the store. A walk-in chiller and freezer unit is proposed to be installed beneath the canopy and a new 3 metre high brick wall is proposed to be erected around the stealth unit. This wall would be set behind the existing 2 metre high close boarded boundary fence adjacent to the footpath along The Street.

Relevant Site History and Description

A previous planning application for the same development at this premises was refused under reference SW/08/1042. The grounds for refusal were based on the impact of the units on the visual amenities of the surrounding area and that they would fail to preserve the character or appearance of the Upchurch Conservation Area. The current application differs from the previous application in that it provides a 3 metre high wall that would screen the stealth unit from public vantage points.

A Temporary Stop Notice was served on the site on 16th October 2008 preventing any further unauthorised works. This notice ceased to take affect on 12th November 2008.

The application site lies within the Upchurch Conservation Area and is within the built-up area boundary of Upchurch. The immediate surrounding area is characterised by a mix of commercial and residential properties. The wider surrounding area is characterised by residential properties of varied types and design.

The Co-op building has two storeys with a small mini-market at ground floor and two flats above at first floor. The rear service yard lies to the south of the building and there is a vehicular access into this yard from The Street. However, the agent has confirmed that service vehicles do not use this access to enter the service yard. A small retail unit abuts the premises to the south and no. 1 Horsham Lane, a residential dwelling, is situated to the west of the application site. Continued . . .

52 2.8 (Contd) PART 2

Views of Consultees

Upchurch Parish Council note that the acoustic assessment tests have only been carried out at the front of the Co-op building and from the houses beyond the Newsagents in Oak Lane where the building acts as a barrier to sound. No test has been carried out at the side of 1 Horsham Lane where there would be most impact. An additional acoustic test should be carried out. They also note that trees have been removed from the boundary between the Co-op and 1 Horsham Lane and that these should be replaced.

Comments from the Head of Environment and Amenities are awaited, and will be reported to Members at the meeting.

Other Representations

Two letters of objection have been received from the residents of 1 & 3 Horsham Lane. They comment that the noise assessment was not carried out from an area close to their properties and so the impact on them cannot be fully assessed. They also comment that the area to the north of the Co-op has been left in an untidy state, that the deliveries to the shop and customers visiting the shop causes congestion and that any further expansion would be strongly opposed.

The residents of no. 1 Horsham land also note that there is a blue box for the storage of newspapers attached to the wall of the Co-op near the service gate and that this has a detrimental impact on the visual amenities of the area.

Policies

Policies E1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008 (SBLP) and QL1 of the Kent & Medway Structure Plan (K&MSP) give general guidance regarding design and amenity, amongst others. Policy E19 (SBLP) aims to achieve high quality design on all developments in the Borough. Policy E2 (SBLP) requires all development to mitigate and minimise pollution (including noise) impact.

Policy E15 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008 notes that development within conservation areas should preserve or enhance all features that contribute positively to the area’s special character or appearance. Policy QL6 of the K&MSP replicates these considerations.

Discussion

I consider the key issues to be the impact of the development on the visual amenities of the surrounding area, the character and appearance of the conservation area and the impact on local residents.

Continued . . .

53 2.8 (Contd) PART 2

Visual amenities/Impact on conservation area:

The canopy and walk-in freezer/chiller units would be obscured from view from the main public vantage points of The Street and Horsham Lane. As such, I do not consider that this element of the proposal would have a detrimental impact on the visual amenities of the surrounding area or the character and appearance of the conservation area.

The stealth unit would be hidden from view by the proposed 3 metre high brick wall. This wall would in turn be mostly hidden from view by the existing 2 metre high close boarded fence along the boundary of the site adjacent to The Street. As such, I consider that the stealth unit would have a limited impact on visual amenities. I also consider that the proposed wall, although three metres in height, would not be overly imposing owing to the presence of the existing fence. The difference in the height between the fence and the wall would be approximately 1 metre. I do not consider that this would have a significant impact on the appearance of this particular part of the application site.

In summary, I consider that the development would have no detrimental impact on the visual amenities of the surrounding area and would continue to preserve the character and appearance of the conservation area.

Residential amenities

The main concern of local residents with regards to the impact on their residential amenities is the generation of noise by the plant the subject of this proposal. To address these concerns, the applicant has submitted a noise impact assessment. This assessment concludes that the existing ambient sound level in the vicinity of the store is due to a variety of nearby and more distant sources. Based on the plant operating conditions at the time of the survey, the report concludes that the noise level from the plant is acceptable at the nearest dwelling.

I am yet to receive comments from the Head of Environment and Amenities as to the adequacy of this assessment and the robustness of the conclusions. I have also identified the possible need for further testing from the closest dwellings, 1 & 3 Horsham Lane. Any comments received will be reported to Members at the meeting.

If the Head of Environment and Amenities finds the proposal acceptable in respect of noise impact, I am of the view that there would be no undue impact on the residential amenities of the neighbouring properties in terms of noise.

Continued . . .

54 2.8 (Contd) PART 2 The walk-in chiller/freezer units would be obscured from view from the adjacent residential property, No. 1 Horsham Lane, by the canopy. This canopy would only be visible from the rear dormer windows within this neighbouring property. No. 1 Horsham Lane has a large felt roof garage/outbuilding to the flank and a garden shed. The canopy would be obscured from view by these structures from the ground floor window within No. 1 Horsham Lane. I therefore consider that the canopy and walk-in chiller/freezer units would have no overshadowing or overbearing impact on the adjacent residential property.

Other Matters

Local residents have raised concerns about the untidy state of land within the ownership of the Co-op but not affected by this proposal. This should not therefore affect the outcome of this application in my view.

Residents have also commented that there are traffic problems in the immediate area associated with the Co-op. Again, these are matters outside the scope of this application and should not have any bearing on its outcome.

The matter of a blue box for the storage of newspapers has been raised. I have alerted Planning Enforcement of this box who will consider the appropriate course of action.

Summary and Recommendation

Having considered the relevant structure and Local Plan Policies, comments from the Parish Council and local residents, I am of the view that the proposed brick wall would sufficiently obscure any views of the stealth unit from public vantage points and that there would be no detrimental impact on the visual amenities of the surrounding area. I also consider that the proposal would preserve the character and appearance of the Upchurch Conservation Area. Additionally, subject to no adverse comments from the Head of Environment and Amenities, I consider that there would be no undue noise impact on the neighbouring residents.

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

Responsible Officer: Rob Bailey (Area Planning Officer)

List of Background Papers 1. Application papers for SW/09/0112 2. Correspondence relating to SW/09/0112 3. Application papers for SW/081042 4. Correspondence relating to SW/08/1042

55 PART 2

2.9 SW/09/0145 (Case 18871) WARDEN

Location: Glengarry, Preston Hall Gardens, Warden, Sheppey, Kent, ME12 4PL

Proposal: Completion of site clearance of former dwelling foundations, erection of two new four bedroom dwellings and private access drive

Applicant/Agent: Mr Jay Roberts, c/o Mr Douglas Sheppard, Living Environment Design, 121 Mill Hill, Deal, Kent, CT14 9JB

Application Valid: 17 February 2009 and as amended by drawings received 26 February 2009

SUBJECT TO: Views of Parish Council, and outstanding representations (closing date 23 March 2009)

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) Samples or further details of materials to be used on the exterior of the development hereby permitted shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the District Planning Authority before the development is commenced.

Grounds: In the interests of visual amenity in pursuance of Policies E1 and E19 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008 and QL1 of the Kent & Medway Structure Plan.

(3) No additional or enlarged windows, doors, voids or other openings shall be inserted, placed or formed at any time in any elevation of the dwellings hereby permitted unless agreed in writing with the District Planning Authority.

Continued . . .

56 2.9 (Contd) PART 2

Grounds: To prevent overlooking of adjoining properties and to safeguard the privacy of neighbouring occupiers and in pursuance of Policy E1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008 and QL1 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan.

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

Grounds: In the interest of visual amenity and in pursuance of Policies E1 and E19 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008 and QL1 of the Kent & Medway Structure Plan.

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

Grounds: In the interest of visual amenity and in pursuance of Policy E1 and E19 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008 and QL1 of the Kent & Medway Structure Plan.

(6) 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 District Planning Authority, and within whatever planting season is agreed.

Grounds: In the interest of visual amenity and in pursuance of Policies E1 and E19 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008 and QL1 of the Kent & Medway Structure Plan.

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

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

Grounds: In the interests of residential amenity and in pursuance of Policy E1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

Continued . . .

57 2.9 (Contd) PART 2 (8) The new dwellings shall achieve at least a Level 3 rating under the Code for Sustainable Homes, and no development shall take place until details have been submitted to the District Planning Authority and approved in writing, which set out what measure will be taken to ensure that the development incorporates sustainable construction techniques such as rainwater harvesting, water conservation, energy efficiency, and provisions for the production of renewable energy such as wind power, or solar or solar photovoltaic installations. Upon approval, the details shall be incorporated into the development as approved.

Grounds: In the interests of promoting energy production and conservation, and in order to ensure sustainable development pursuant to Policies E1 and E21 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008 and QL1 and NR3 of the Kent & Medway Structure Plan.

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

Grounds: In the interest of highway safety and amenity, and in pursuance of Policies E1 and T3 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008 and QL1 and TP19 of the Kent & Medway Structure Plan.

Reason for Approval

Having taken all material considerations into account, it is considered that subject to compliance with the attached conditions, the proposal would be in accordance with the development plan and would not cause unacceptable harm to the amenities of the area or prejudice highway safety or convenience. In resolving to grant permission, particular regard has been had to the following policies: E1, E2, E5, E19, E21, H2, T1 and T3 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008; QL1, NR3, HP1, HP4 and TP19 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan.

Description of Proposal

This application is for the erection of two 4 bedroom detached contemporary style dwellings orientated on site to maximise coastal and sea views. The vehicular and pedestrian access is via shared private driveway located as existing in the southern corner of the site from Preston Hall Gardens. The driveway extends approximately three quarters of the way into the site along the south western boundary. Continued . . .

58 2.9 (Contd) PART 2

The proposed position of the dwellings to the northeast of the driveway, facing towards the sea. The windows to the rear and side are all high level, to minimise overlooking on to the neighbouring properties. The access to the dwellings is from the parking areas to the rear of the properties. The rear gardens adjacent to the driveway are proposed to be used for external drying areas, composting facilities, bike stores and bin/recyclable waste as shown on the plans. The gardens to the front will face the sea views. The two proposed dwellings will be identical in layout, the principle elevation will face seawards. One dwelling would be faced in white render, the other in brown walnut board cladding.

The footprint of each dwelling is 16 metres by 10.2 metres, with an area of 163 metres squared. The approximate height is 6.5 metres. The external volume of the dwellings is 1060.8 cubic metres.

It is proposed that the dwellings will achieve a Sustainable Homes Code Level 3, and incorporate up to date sustainable and renewable energy technology including rainwater harvesting and greywater recycling, and solar panels.

The buildings will have a striking modern appearance, but one which seems appropriate to this location.

Site Description The site is a corner plot fronting Preston Hill Gardens and Cliff Road located in the built-up area of Warden Bay. The site area is approximately 0.125 hectares, the site slopes primarily from the north-western boundary corner to the south-eastern corner to Preston Hill Gardens by approximately 3 metres. The plot is separated from the seafront/cliff edge by an area of scrubland. The original house was demolished some years ago after extensive fire damage.

There are two existing vehicular access points on to the site from Preston Hill Gardens and Cliff Drive.

The neighbouring properties are No. 40 Preston Hill Gardens and ‘Hilltop’. The surrounding design of the residential properties is varied in design.

Site History

SW/02/0272 – Outline permission refused for two bungalows as no slope stability report was submitted to confirm that there is no risk.

Outline planning permission was granted under SW/07/1484 for the erection of two dwellings, which was accompanied by a Geotechnical Report. The Report confirms that the gradual regression is unlikely to affect the plot or the proposed buildings which are more than 40m back from the rest. Continued . . .

59 2.9 (Contd) PART 2 Views of Consultees The views of Warden Parish Council are awaited (closing date is 23rd March 2009).

Kent Highway Services request plans showing 6 parking spaces rather than 5. In the spirit of the design I see no need to require additional provision.

Other Representations

No representations have been received yet- consultation closes 23rd March 2009. Policies The main policy considerations in determining this application are listed below: Swale Local Plan 2008 E1 (general development criteria) E2 (pollution) E5 (area of coastal erosion) E19 (achieving high quality of design and distinctiveness) E21 (sustainable design and build) H2 (providing new housing) T1 (providing safe access to new development) T3 (vehicle parking for new development)

Kent and Medway Structure Plan QL1 (Quality of development and design) HP1 (New Housing) HP4 (Quality of New Housing) TP19 (Vehicle Parking Standards) NR3 (sustainability)

Discussion I am of the opinion that the principle of residential development on the site is acceptable. Previous planning permission was granted for two dwellings on this site; this permission was for chalet style bungalows. It is important to consider the impact of these two residential units on the neighbouring properties and the surrounding area. I am not concerned about the style of design though modern, it would be of a high quality and appropriate for the location. The surrounding style of design varies substantially so the inclusion of two modern design dwellings would enhance the mix of design in the surrounding area. The repositioning of the two dwellings, facing towards the sea creates a great visual opportunity to use the sea views. I consider the size of the proposed gardens is considered acceptable. Continued . . .

60 2.9 (Contd) PART 2 Pre-application discussions have taken place with the applicant to ensure that there was minimal overlooking on to the neighbouring properties. The windows on the rear elevation are 0.4 metres in height and have a width of 1.8 metres. Most importantly the cill height is 1.8 metres above the finished floor level ensuring that there is no overlooking on to the neighbouring properties. I am of the opinion that the height of the proposed dwellings would not appear overbearing or obtrusive on the neighbouring properties. Plot 2 would not appear substantially high in comparison to the adjacent property Hilltop. The site slopes down towards the sea so I also do not think that No 40 Preston Hill Gardens would be adversely affected by the proposal. The proposed materials are considered acceptable for the units, and the contrast between the two units will add interest to the scheme. I consider that the design and the siting of the units within the site would create an attractive visual impact on the surrounding area. The visual appearance of the existing site would be substantially improved. I am aware that the plot lies within the coastal erosion zone but SW/07/1484 was permitted so the principle of the development of the site is considered acceptable. The applicant has submitted a Geotechnical Report which confirms that it is unlikely that the plot would be affected by the gradual regression provided coastal defences are maintained. As these defences protect Warden Bay as a whole I believe that it is reasonable to assume that these defences will be maintained. Recommendation In the light of the above discussion and having given careful consideration to the potential impact on the neighbouring properties I consider that the proposed development would not give rise to demonstrable harm such that the refusal of planning permission would be justified. The principle of the development and the proposed siting of the dwellings are, in my view acceptable. On balance I consider that the development would accord with the policies of the Development Plan, and raise the profile of the area.

I recommend that planning permission be granted. ______

Responsible Officer: Graham Thomas (Area Planning Officer) ______

List of Background Documents 1. Application Papers for Application SW/09/0145 2. Correspondence Relating to Application SW/09/0145 3. Application Papers and Correspondence relating to application SW/07/1484 and SW/02/0272.

61

62 PART 2

2.10 SW/09/0004 (Case 07017) MINSTER

Location: Taylors Riding School, Waverley Avenue, Minster, , Kent, ME12 2JL

Proposal: Demolition of existing stables, ancillary buildings and the detached bungalow ‘Swallows Return’ and redevelopment of the site to provide 23 no. mixed size, residential dwellings

Applicant/Agent: Greenback Properties (Waverley Avenue) Limited, c/o Mr Daniel Bragg, South East Architectural Services Ltd, 152 Mortimer Street, Herne Bay, Kent, CT6 5DU

Application Valid: 6th January 2009 and as clarified by additional information received on 20 February 2009 and amended by letter and drawings received 17 March 2009

SUBJECT TO: Further views of Kent Highway Services, further amended drawings and, completion of a Section 106 agreement in relation to affordable housing provision, open space contributions, highways contributions, public rights of way, contributions to community facilities, and prohibition on construction vehicles using Woodland Road.

Conditions

(1) Details relating to the scale, external appearance of the proposed buildings and the landscaping of the site shall be submitted to and approved by the District Planning Authority before any development is commenced.

Grounds: No such details have been submitted.

(2) Application for approval of reserved matters referred to in Condition (1) above must be made not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date of the grant of outline planning permission.

Grounds: In pursuance of Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

Continued . . .

62 2.10 (Contd) PART 2 (3) The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than the expiration of two years from the final approval of the reserved matters or, in the case of approval on different dates, the final approval of the last such matter to be approved.

Grounds: In pursuance of Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

(4) 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 District Planning Authority, comprising:

a) A desk study and conceptual model, based on the historical uses of the site and proposed end-uses, and professional opinion as to whether further investigative works are required. A site investigation strategy, based on the results of the desk study, shall be approved by the District Planning Authority prior to any intrusive investigations commencing on site.

b) An investigation, including relevant soil, soil gas, surface and groundwater sampling, carried out by a suitably qualified and accredited consultant/contractor in accordance with a Quality Assured sampling and analysis methodology.

c) 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 land contamination is adequately dealt with, pursuant to policies E1, E2 and E3 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

(5) Before any part or agreed phase of the development is occupied, all remediation works identified in the contaminated land assessment and approved by the District Planning Authority shall be carried out in full (or in phases as agreed in writing by the District 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 District Planning Authority. Continued . . .

63 2.10 (Contd) PART 2 Grounds: To ensure any land contaminated is adequately dealt with, pursuant to policies E1, E2 and E3 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

(6) Upon completion of the works identified in the contaminated land assessment, and before any part or agreed phase of the development is occupied, a closure 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, pursuant to policies E1, E2 and E3 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

(7) No impact pile driving in connection with the construction of the development shall take place on the site on any Saturday, Sunday or Bank Holiday, nor on any other day except between the following times:-

Monday to Friday 0900–1700 hours unless in association with an emergency or with the prior written approval of the District Planning Authority.

Grounds: In the interests of residential amenity and in pursuance of Policies E1 and E3 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

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

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

Grounds: In the interests of the residential amenity and in pursuance of Policies E1 and E2 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

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

64 2.10 (Contd) PART 2

Grounds: In the interests of residential amenity and in pursuance of Policy E2 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

(10) No burning of waste or refuse shall take place on the site during the construction of this development other than as may be agreed in writing by the District Planning Authority. The measures approved shall be employed throughout the period of demolition and construction unless any variation has been approved by the District Planning Authority.

Grounds: To preserve the amenity of surrounding residents and preserve the character of the area and in pursuance of Policies E1 and E2 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

(11) No development approved by this permission shall be commenced until a scheme for the provision and implementation of foul and surface water drainage works has been approved in writing by the District Planning Authority, such scheme shall be implemented to the reasonable satisfaction of the District Planning Authority before the dwellings hereby permitted are occupied.

Grounds: To prevent the increased pollution of the water environment and in pursuance of Policy E2 of the Swale Borough Local Plan.

(12) Details of the existing and proposed site and slab levels shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the District Planning Authority prior to the commencement of any development on site.

Grounds: In the interests of residential and visual amenity and in pursuance of Policy E1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

(13) During construction, provision shall be made on the site, in accordance with details first submitted to and approved by the District Planning Authority, to accommodate operatives’ and construction vehicles loading, off-loading or turning on the site.

Grounds: To ensure that vehicles can be parked or manoeuvred off the highway in the interests of highway safety, and in pursuance of Policy E1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

(14) Prior to the works commencing on site, details of parking for site personnel/operatives/visitors shall be submitted to and approved by the District Planning Authority and thereafter shall be provided and retained throughout the construction of the development. The approved parking area(s) shall be provided prior to the commencement of the development. Continued . . .

65 2.10 (Contd) PART 2

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, and in pursuance of Policy E1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

(15) 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 District 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 amenity and road safety and in pursuance of Policy E1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

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

Grounds: Development without provision of adequate accommodation for the parking of vehicles is likely to lead to parking inconvenient to other road users and be detrimental to highway safety and amenity and in pursuance of Policies E1 and T3 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

(17) The proposed estate roads, footways, footpaths, verges, junctions, street lighting, sewers, drains, retaining walls, service routes, surface water outfall, vehicle overhang margins, embankments, visibility splays, accesses, carriageway gradients, drive gradients, car parking and street furniture as appropriate shall be constructed and laid out in accordance with details to be submitted and approved by the District Planning Authority in writing before their construction begins. For this purpose, plans and sections, indicating as appropriate, the design, layout, levels, gradients, materials and method of construction shall be submitted to the District Planning Authority.

Grounds: To ensure that the roads are laid out and constructed in a satisfactory manner, and in pursuance of Policies E1, T1 and T3 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

Continued . . .

66 2.10 (Contd) PART 2

(18) Development approved by this permission shall not be commenced unless the method for piling foundations has been submitted to and approved in writing by the District Planning Authority. The piling shall thereafter be undertaken only in accordance with the approved details.

Grounds: The site is contaminated/potentially contaminated and piling could lead to the contamination of groundwater in the underlying aquifer and in pursuance of Policy E1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

(19) Prior to the commencement of the development herein approved, the Code for Sustainable Homes registration number, a design stage certificate and a post-construction certificate confirming the code level that will be achieved for dwellings shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the District Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details unless any variation has been approved in writing by the District Planning Authority. All dwellings within the development shall achieve a minimum of Code Level 3 of the Code for Sustainable Homes as confirmed within the submitted documents, or an equivalent rating in any subsequent replacing standard that has been agreed in writing by the District Planning Authority.

Grounds: In the interests of promoting energy efficiency and sustainable development and in pursuance of Policies QL1 and NR3 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan and E1 and E21 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

(20) Before development commences, a full bat survey should be undertaken, and details of any mitigation necessary should be submitted and agreed in writing by the District Planning Authority.

Grounds: In order to safeguard protected species that may be present within or adjacent to the building and in pursuance of PPS9 and Policy E11 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

(21) Before development commences, a full reptile survey should be undertaken, and details of any mitigation necessary should be submitted and agreed in writing by the District Planning Authority.

Grounds: In order to safeguard protected species that may be present within or adjacent to the building and in pursuance of PPS9 and Policy E11 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

(22) Before development commences, details of environmental enhancements for bats and owls should be submitted and agreed in writing by the District Planning Authority. Continued . . .

67 2.10 (Contd) PART 2

Grounds: In order to safeguard protected species that may be present within or adjacent to the building and in pursuance of PPS9 and Policy E11 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

(23) The development hereby permitted shall not commence until that part of Waverley Avenue shown to be made up, has been made up at least to base course.

Grounds: In order to ensure highways safety and to preserve the residential amenity of the surrounding residential properties and in pursuance of Policies E1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

Reason for Approval

Having taken all material considerations into account, it is considered that subject to compliance with the attached conditions, the proposal would be in accordance with the development plan and would not cause unacceptable harm to the amenities of the area or prejudice highway safety or convenience. Furthermore the proposal overcomes the main reason for refusal of the appeal. In resolving to grant permission, particular regard has been had to the following policies: E1, E2, E3, E9, E11, E19, E20, E21, B1, H2, H3, C2, C3, T1, T2, T3 and T4 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008; QL1, NR3, HP4 and TP19 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan.

Description of Proposal

Outline planning permission is sought for the erection of 23 dwellings on land at the former Taylors Riding School, Waverley Avenue, Minster. The application seeks to agree details of layout and access only, with all other detailed matters to be agreed later. The application proposed 24 dwellings originally but this has been reduced in an attempt to achieve a better provision of affordable housing.

The site is approximately 0.85 hectares and currently includes a detached bungalow, the vehicle driveway from Waverley Avenue, various stables, the ménage area, an enclosed indoor arena, grass paddock and various garages and barns.

The original detached chalet bungalow, known as Casita, is to remain and does not form part of the application site. Access will be from the new entrance road to the application site.

As part of the proposals it is also proposed to improve and make up part of Waverley Avenue to adoptable standards, from the junction with Drive past the entrance to the application site up to the dwelling known as Waverley Lodge.

Continued . . .

68 2.10 (Contd) PART 2 The submitted Design and Access statement states that:

‘This proposed layout is essentially a modification of the previously refused scheme of development. The layout remains relatively simple with the new access road leading to a junction that branches off and forms a cul-de-sac. The majority of the proposed dwellings have been positioned strategically around this access and its turning area to the North.

The new access road into the site will continue to the eastern end.....These units have been designed as the affordable housing aspect of the development. Previously the southern end of the site was designed with three separate rows of 4 no terraced dwelling each. As a result of the re-jig of the detached dwellings to the north of the site, the number of units to the south has been increased.

The other significant alteration from the previous scheme relates to the north- west corner of the site, identified as the remaining concern by the Inspector. Semi-detached plots 19 and 20 as they were referred to in the previous refused scheme, were deliberately designed with an undercroft, so as to reduce the overall height of the building and therefore the impact on the adjacent property, The Meadows, Hillside Road. Despite the steep gradient of the land on this corner, the proximity of the new dwellings to this property was deemed unacceptable.

The favourable solution appeared to be leaving this area as green space and dividing it as garden/amenity space for the newly proposed dwellings, units 4 and 5. This would overcome any possible complaint that could arise relating to The Meadows.

The newly proposed unit 5 has been repositioned to avoid direct overlooking on to the existing property, Ridgeway along Hillside Road.

In order to ensure the new dwellings do not overbear or detrimentally affect views from The Glen, a 10 metre buffer area has been maintained from the perimeter of the site.

Site Description The site is mainly open ground, long used for keeping horses. It adjoins the area of open space known as The Glen, but dense vegetation and steep slopes separate the two areas.

The site varies in levels, from the site entrance off Waverley Avenue the land slopes upwards towards Casita and the immediate stables. The main part of the site is fairly level but the north, south and eastern boundaries are all subject to steep gradients.

The Glen is located on the northern and eastern boundaries. The site is enclosed by residential areas to the south and west. The site lies entirely within the built-up area boundary for Minster as defined on the proposals map of the Swale Borough Local Plan. Continued . . .

69 2.10 (Contd) PART 2 Site History

A previous application went to the Planning Committee on the 29th March 2009 and the officers recommendation for approval was subsequently overturned for 3 reasons (SW/06/1321). See copy of decision notice at Appendix A.

The appellant lodged an appeal which was dismissed in April 2008 (attached in Appendix B). However, it must be noted that though the appeal was dismissed the Inspector did not consider that there would be significant effect on the character and appearance of the area. He further did not consider that the visual impact on The Glen would be significant or harmful. It was agreed that it was demonstrated that the stables are no longer economically viable and that there is no realistic likelihood of the use recommencing.

The Inspector was, however, of the firm opinion that the harm arising from the loss of privacy and the impact on outlook of the property known as The Meadows from Plots 19 and 20 would be contrary to the development plan. The Inspector came to the conclusion that this harm was so significant that it outweighed the benefits of bringing the site back into beneficial use and making more efficient use of land within the built-up area.

Furthermore, the Inspector awarded partial costs to the appellant as he found that the Council had acted unreasonably as they had provided insufficient evidence to defend the Council’s third reason for refusal (concerning employment potential of the riding school).

Following the Inspector’s dismissal of the appeal and the comments made, the agent entered further pre-application discussions with the officer’s to overcome the reason for dismissal which was the impact on The Meadows of previous Plots 19 and 20.

This scheme therefore attempts to address the sole reason for the appeal being dismissed; the impact on The Meadows.

Views of Consultees Minster Parish Council object to the proposal on the following grounds:

“There are problems with land subsidence in this area. The soakaways could cause further problems to the adjoining properties. The proposed access will put an unreasonable extra load on the Queenborough Drive/The Broadway Road Junction. MPC also suggests that improvements are made to public footpaths at least within or facing the boundary. Also a substantial development, MPC queries if this should be subject to a Section 106 Agreement regarding other services and facilities. Further MPC concerns include the impact on neighbouring properties in terms of possible overlooking and that the proposal is not in keeping with the other houses in the vicinity.” Continued . . .

70 2.10 (Contd) PART 2

Southern Water confirm that adequate foul sewage capacity exists in the area to serve the proposed development, but ask for a planning condition to require details of proposed means of surface water disposal.

Kent Wildlife Trust initially objected to the application as submitted on the grounds that not enough information was provided about the likelihood of potential species or important habitats being adversely affected by the development. They called for a site survey and tree survey to be carried out, bearing in mind the site's proximity to The Glen. The agent submitted a copy of the Ecological Scoping Report on 20th February which has been sent to the Kent Wildlife Trust. The objection has since been withdrawn subject to additional conditions, which I have recommended above.

The Head of Housing queried the mix of affordable housing units, preferring one larger 4 bedroom unit and some smaller units (for rent) rather than the original proposal for eight similar 2 bedroom flats. I have raised this with the applicant and the scheme has now been amended such that affordable housing provision is now proposed as one four bedroom house, and six flats.

Kent Highway Services - awaiting comments following submission of revised drawings.

Other Representations

Agents for the County Council have identified the need for developer contributions towards the following community facilities arising from the development:

Libraries - £ 227 per dwelling Adult Education - £ 180 per house Youth and Community - £ 827 per house £ 206.75 per flat Adult Social Services - £1201 per dwelling

As the scheme stands this results in a total contribution of £51,203.50, which can be secured through a Section 106 Agreement.

Swale Footpaths Group point to the public footpath running along the south side of the site, and possible impact on views from the path.

CPRE Kent object to the development on the basis that the site is not allocated in the Local Plan, encroachment on The Glen, insufficient need and previous refusals of permission.

I have also received 46 letters of objection to the application from local residents, containing the following summarised points:

Continued . . .

71 2.10 (Contd) PART 2

1. This is the same proposal that has previously been refused, and dismissed at appeal. Surely that should have been the end of the matter and no more taxpayer's money should be wasted on the subject.

2. No circumstances have changed since the last unanimous and correct decision of the Council to warrant approval now. This would simply encourage people to re-submit proposals until successful.

3. The houses will tower over bungalows on Hillside Road due to the levels involved. The land levels have been built up over the years and the houses and street lighting will be unacceptably prominent, obtrusive and overbearing, seriously harming the living conditions of the properties in Hillside Road. Overlooking of adjacent properties Woodlands and Sycamores, both from new houses and the new path.

4. Noise, lights, dust and car headlight pollution affecting the tranquillity of the area. Overloading foul and surface water drainage, especially if parts of Waverley Avenue is made up, flooding and subsidence fears are raised, including run-off to adjacent gardens at lower levels.

5. Traffic increase and impact on road safety at the congested junctions of Waverley Avenue and Queenborough drive, and the steep junction of Queenborough Drive and The Broadway. Lack of parking and garage provision leading to parking in Waverley Avenue.

6. Damage to unmade roads, making them impassable. The local roads cannot cope with additional traffic especially the unmade roads, and especially during construction. The whole of Waverley Avenue should be made up.

7. Harm to the character and amenity of The Glen, which is a rare and beautiful facility. Harm to birds and wildlife on the Glen. Disturbance to bats – a survey should be done. Loss of trees and area for dog walking.

8. The Glen may be less safe to use in the evening. The Glen was meant for recreation, not for housing, and is protected in the Local Plan. The site should be retained for leisure purposes, as it is still viable for horse riding and employment.

9. Overcrowding and over population on already stretched health, education, water, electric, sewage etc, facilities. Sheppey needs more services, not more housing.

Continued . . .

72 2.10 (Contd) PART 2

10. The houses are likely to be vacant and cause social problems in the area. There are already many properties for sale, and many being built. No more houses are needed on the Island. Demolition of 'Swallows Return' is unnecessary, this just seems to be done to provide access.

11. Density of development is too high and the estate type layout is out of keeping with its surroundings. Any three storey houses would be intrusive and inappropriate.

12. Increase in crime with extra people living in the area, especially view the proposed new footpaths. Prefer existing footpaths to be closed. Inadequate boundary fencing.

13. Previous objections should be referred to. Residents would seek compensation for allowing the project to go ahead.

14. A site meeting should be called if there are any new Members on the Planning Committee since the previous refusal, so that the levels and slopes can be appreciated.

15. One neighbour points to an error in the site boundary drawing, indicating encroachment on his land. I have asked the applicant to clarify this direct with the neighbours and ensure that this issue is eliminated. I understand that the amended drawings overcome this issue.

16. If development is approved, Waverley Avenue should be made up before site ground works and building commence and all construction traffic must use this part of Waverley Avenue, not via Woodland Drive. All surface water here should drain southwards, not towards the unmade part of Waverley Avenue. Making up of Waverley Avenue must not result in higher Council Tax for residents.

17. This is a back door way to provide social housing, which has a risk in terms of crime, drug taking and disrespect, especially with flats.

18. Devaluation of nearby properties.

Policies The main policy considerations in determining this application are those of PPG3 (Housing); Policies QL1 (Quality of development and design); HP1 (New Housing), HP4 (Quality of New Housing), TP19 (Vehicle Parking Standards) and H4 (Housing: Quality and density of development) and TP19 (parking) of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan; and Policies E1 (general development criteria), E9 (protecting the quality and character of the Continued . . .

73 2.10 (Contd) PART 2 Borough’s landscape), E11 (protecting, enhancing the Borough’s biodiversity and geological interests); E19 (achieving high quality of design and distinctiveness), E20 (promoting safety and security through design), E21 (sustainable design and build), B1 (supporting and retaining existing employment land and businesses), H2 (providing new housing), H3 (providing affordable housing), T1 (providing safe access to new development), T2 (essential improvements to the highway network), T3 (Vehicle parking for new development), T4 (pedestrians and cyclists), C2 (housing developments and the provision of community services and facilities), and C3 (provision of open space on new housing developments) of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

Discussion The main issue to consider with this application is the impact on The Meadows which was the sole reason for dismissal as stated by the Inspector. However, I will also consider the following points: • Effect on the character and appearance of the area • Compliance with policies concerning employment uses • Provision of affordable housing • Waverley Road improvement • Amenity space • Effect on living conditions

I will take each of the above points in turn. Effect on the character and appearance of the area The Inspector did not consider that the impact would be significant, as due to the length of the new access road, the changes in level and the siting of the proposed dwellings there would only be limited glimpses of the new dwellings from Waverley Avenue. Though the density is slightly higher than that of the surrounding area it is, at 27 dwellings to the hectare, still below the usually recognised minimum density of 30 dwellings per hectare. The Inspector also noted the impact on The Glen and he came to the conclusion that the visual impact on The Glen would not be significant or harmful. I am of the opinion that the proposed units on the site would still be screened by the trees and vegetation located on the eastern boundary so there would be limited impact on The Glen and its views.

Compliance with policies concerning employment uses The Inspector was satisfied that it was demonstrated that the stables are no longer economically viable and that there is no realistic likelihood of the use recommencing. Continued . . .

74 2.10 (Contd) PART 2

This clearly confirms that the previous reason for approval with reference to the loss of potentially viable employment use has been overcome. The site is gradually falling into a state of disrepair and is clearly no longer used as a riding school and stables. I have no reason to believe that the use of the riding school is any longer economically viable.

Provision of affordable housing The site qualifies for affordable housing provision and the applicant has been helpful in establishing the suitable mix for the site in accordance with guidance supplied by the Housing Team. The following units will be provided for affordable housing provision:

7 units in total- One 4 bed house, four 2 bed apartments and two 1 bed apartments. I am seeking minor clarification of the likely design of these units.

Waverley Road improvement The applicant has agreed to enter into a S106 agreement to ensure the improvement of Waverley Avenue. The applicant is willing to upgrade this stretch of road, approximately 115 metres, to adoptable standards, this would include the provision of a 2 metre wide footpath and a 0.5 metre service margin to the other side. Additional street lighting will be installed as required, together with modifications to surface water drainage. It has also been agreed that dropped kerbs will be constructed to serve the 11 properties along Waverley Avenue whose individual entrances will require modifying as a result of the proposed alterations to the road.

Effect on living conditions The Inspector concluded that it would be The Meadows that would be most significantly impacted upon. The inspector agreed that the impact of the dwellings in this location would result in the proposed dwellings being unacceptable prominent, obtrusive and be seriously harmful to the occupiers of The Meadows.

However following discussions with the applicant and the agent I believe that the amendments made to the scheme overcome this reason for refusal. Plots now numbered 4 and 5 have now been significantly set back from the boundary with The Meadows. Plot 4 is screened by trees located along the north western boundary. The windows of both plots do not overlook The Meadows and the garage of Plot 5 has been repositioned to sit alongside the dwelling. The space between the houses has been divided to provided garden space for the two plots. Continued . . .

75 2.10 (Contd) PART 2 In my opinion these amendments overcome the issues concerning the impact on The Meadows. Other issues The question of foul and surface water drainage capacity in this area is noted and I have included condition (11) as suggested by Southern Water. The issue of subsidence and stability of building this number of dwellings on the land has been raised by several objectors, however, these are matters for the Building Regulations to address, and I do not consider that these can represent a reason to refuse this application. I note all of the concerns raised by the objectors, but Members will see that the Inspector’s main concern was the impact on The Meadows and that other issues did not warrant a reason for refusal if this main concern could be overcome. The appeal decision clearly states that ‘the proposed development would not be harmful to the character or appearance of the area or to the visual amenities of The Glen. It would not result in the loss of a potentially viable employment use. (See paragraph 23 of Appendix B). I am of the firm opinion that, despite continuing local concern, this proposal should be granted outline planning permission in view of the appeal decision and its contents. Recommendation In the light of the above discussion and having given careful consideration to the concerns raised by local residents, I consider that the proposed dwellings would not give rise to demonstrable harm such that the refusal of outline planning permission would be justified. The principle of the development and the proposed siting of the dwellings are, in my view acceptable. I consider that the development would accord with the policies of the Development Plan. There are a number of relatively minor issues still being discussed upon which I will report further at the meeting. I recommend that outline planning permission be granted subject to the receipt of a completed Section 106 Agreement in relation to affordable housing provision, open space contributions, highways contributions, public rights of way, routing of construction traffic and contributions to community facilities, and further the views of Kent Highway Services.

Responsible Officer: Graham Thomas (Area Planning Officer) ______List of Background Documents 1. Application papers and correspondence for SW/09/0004 2. Application papers and correspondence for SW/06/1321 3. Appeal papers and correspondence relating to appeal ref App/V2255/A/07/2060216

76

APPENDIX A ITEM 2.10 PART 2

77

APPENDIX A (Contd) ITEM 2.10 PART 2

78

APPENDIX B ITEM 2.10 PART 2

APPENDIX B (Contd) ITEM 2.10 PART 2

APPENDIX B (Contd) ITEM 2.10 PART 2

APPENDIX B (Contd) ITEM 2.10 PART 2

APPENDIX B (Contd) ITEM 2.10 PART 2

79

PART 2

2.11 SW/08/0579 (Case 23221) MINSTER

Location: The Hawthorns, Greyhound Road, Minster, Sheerness, Kent, ME12 3SD

Proposal: Change of use to residential stationing of one mobile home for a gypsy and erection of wooden garden shed

Applicant/Agent: Miss E Smith, The Hawthorns, Greyhound Road, Minster on Sea, Sheerness, Kent, ME12 3SP

Application Valid: 13 February 2009

Conditions

(1) The use hereby permitted shall be for a limited period of three years from the date of this decision, after which time the use hereby permitted shall cease and all caravans, the shed and all other structures, hard standings, fences, materials and equipment on the site and connected with the use shall be removed from the site within three months, and the land shall be restored to its former condition.

Grounds: So that the situation can be reviewed at the end of the period, and in pursuance of policies E1, E6, E9, H4 and T1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008 and EN1, EN3, HP5, HP9 and TP15 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan.

(2) The mobile home shall only be occupied by gypsies or travellers, as defined in paragraph 15 of ODPM Circular 01/2006.

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, and in pursuance of policies E1, E6, E9, H4 and T1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008 and EN1, EN3, HP5, HP9 and TP15 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan.

(3) No more than one mobile home or caravan 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, and in pursuance of policies E1, E6, E9, H4 and T1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008 and EN1, EN3, HP5, HP9 and TP15 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan. Continued . . .

84 2.11 (Contd) PART 2

(4) The use hereby permitted shall cease and any caravans, shed, other structures, hard standings, fences, materials and equipment on the site and connected with the use, together with all ancillary vehicles and equipment, shall be removed within 28 days of any one of the following requirements not being met:

(i) within 3 months of the date of this decision there shall have been submitted for the approval of the District Planning Authority a scheme for the means of foul and surface water drainage of the site (hereafter referred to as the drainage scheme). This scheme shall include proposals for the disposal of run-off from hardstandings to prevent localised flooding.

(ii) within 11 months of the date of this decision the drainage scheme shall have been approved by the District Planning Authority or, if the District Planning Authority fail to approve such a scheme, or fail to give a decision within the prescribed period an appeal shall have been lodged and accepted as validly made, by the Secretary of State.

(iii) if an appeal is made in pursuance of requirement (ii) above, that appeal shall have been finally determined and the submitted drainage scheme shall have been approved by the Secretary of State.

(iv) all works comprised in the drainage scheme as approved shall have been implemented, and completed within the timetable set out in the approved scheme

Grounds: In the interests of preventing pollution of groundwater and localised flooding, in pursuance of policy E4 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

(5) The site shall only be used for residential purposes and it shall not be used for any business, industrial or commercial use. In this regard no open storage of plant, products or waste may take place on the land, and no commercial 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, and in pursuance of policies E1, E6, E9, H4 and T1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008 and EN1, EN3, HP5, HP9 and TP15 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan.

(6) 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 District Planning Authority. Continued . . .

85 2.11 (Contd) PART 2

Grounds: In the interests of preventing light pollution , in pursuance of policy E2 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

(7) The earth bank to the western boundary of the site shall be reduced to not more than one metre in height within one month of the date of this permission.

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

Reason for Approval

Having taken all material considerations into account, it is considered that subject to compliance with the attached conditions, the proposal would not cause unacceptable long term harm to the amenities of the area or prejudice highway safety or convenience. In resolving to grant temporary permission, particular regard has been had to the following policies: E1, E6, E9, H4 and T1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008; and EN1, EN3, HP5, HP9 and TP15 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan.

2.12 SW/08/1253 (Case 14720) MINSTER

Location: The Farmyard, Elmley Road, Minster-on-Sea, Sheerness, Kent, ME12 3SS

Proposal: Planning permission for the stationing of two residential caravans

Applicant/Agent: Mrs May Price, The Farmyard, Elmley Road, Minster-on- Sea, Sheerness, Kent, ME12 3SS

Application Valid: 7 January 2009

Conditions

(1) The use hereby permitted shall be for a limited period of three years from the date of this decision, after which time the use hereby permitted shall cease and all caravans, and all other structures (except the original green clad barn), materials and equipment on the site and connected with the use shall be removed from the site within three months, and the land shall be restored to a clean and tidy condition.

Grounds: So that the situation can be reviewed at the end of the period, and in pursuance of policies E1, E6, E9, H4 and T1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008 and EN1, EN3, HP5, HP9 and TP15 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan. Continued . . .

86 2.11 & 2.12 (Contd) PART 2

(2) The mobile homes shall only be occupied by gypsies or travellers, as defined in paragraph 15 of ODPM Circular 01/2006.

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, and in pursuance of policies E1, E6, E9, H4 and T1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008 and EN1, EN3, HP5, HP9 and TP15 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan.

(3) No more than two mobile homes 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, and in pursuance of policies E1, E6, E9, H4 and T1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008 and EN1, EN3, HP5, HP9 and TP15 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan.

(4) The use hereby permitted shall cease and all mobile homes and all other structures, materials and equipment on the site and connected with the use, together with all ancillary vehicles and equipment, shall be removed within 28 days of any one of the following requirements not being met:

(i) within 3 months of the date of this decision there shall have been submitted for the approval of the District Planning Authority a scheme for the means of foul and surface water drainage of the site (hereafter referred to as the drainage scheme). This scheme shall include proposals for the disposal of run-off from hardstandings to prevent localised flooding.

(ii) within 11 months of the date of this decision the drainage scheme shall have been approved by the District Planning Authority or, if the District Planning Authority fail to approve such a scheme, or fail to give a decision within the prescribed period an appeal shall have been lodged and accepted as validly made, by the Secretary of State.

(iii) if an appeal is made in pursuance of requirement (ii) above, that appeal shall have been finally determined and the submitted drainage scheme shall have been approved by the Secretary of State.

(iv) all works comprised in the drainage scheme as approved shall have been implemented, and completed within the timetable set out in the approved scheme

Continued . . .

87 2.11 & 2.12 (Contd) PART 2

Grounds: In the interests of preventing pollution of groundwater and localised flooding, in pursuance of policy E4 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

(5) The site shall only be used for residential purposes, and it shall not be used for any business, industrial or commercial use. In this regard no open storage of plant, products or waste may take place on the land, and no commercial vehicles over 3.5 tonnes, and not more than two under 3.5 tonnes, 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, and in pursuance of policies E1, E6, E9, H4 and T1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008 and EN1, EN3, HP5, HP9 and TP15 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan.

(6) 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 District Planning Authority.

Grounds: In the interests of preventing light pollution , in pursuance of policy E2 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

Reason for Approval

Having taken all material considerations into account, it is considered that subject to compliance with the attached conditions, the proposal would not cause unacceptable long term harm to the amenities of the area or prejudice highway safety or convenience. In resolving to grant temporary permission, particular regard has been had to the following policies: E1, E6, E9, H4 and T1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008; and EN1, EN3, HP5, HP9 and TP15 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan.

2.13 SW/09/0146 (Case 22941) MINSTER

Location: Rambling Rose, Greyhound Road, Minster, Sheppey, Kent, ME12 3SP

Proposal: Change of use for land for stationing of 5 mobile homes for a gypsy family and 1 utility/day room

Applicant/Agent: Mr Frederick King, c/o Mr Donald Kenrick, 146 St Johns Road, Isleworth, Middlesex, TW7 6PL

Application Valid: 19 February 2009 Continued . . .

88 2.11, 2.12 & 2.13 (Contd) PART 2

SUBJECT TO: View of Kent Highway Services and outstanding representations (Closing date 23 March 2009)

Conditions

(1) The use hereby permitted shall be for a limited period of three years from the date of this decision, after which time the use hereby permitted shall cease and all caravans, utility/day room and all other structures, hard standings, fences, materials and equipment on the site and connected with the use shall be removed from the site within three months, and the land shall be restored to its former condition.

Grounds: So that the situation can be reviewed at the end of the period, and in pursuance of policies E1, E6, E9, H4 and T1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008 and EN1, EN3, HP5, HP9 and TP15 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan.

(2) The mobile homes and caravans shall only be occupied by gypsies or travellers as defined in paragraph 15 of ODPM Circular 01/2006.

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, and in pursuance of policies E1, E6, E9, H4 and T1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008 and EN1, EN3, HP5, HP9 and TP15 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan.

(3) No more than five mobile homes and one day room 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, and in pursuance of policies E1, E6, E9, H4 and T1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008 and EN1, EN3, HP5, HP9 and TP15 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan.

(4) The use hereby permitted shall cease and all caravans, the day room and all other structures, hard standings, fences, materials and equipment on the site and connected with the use, together with all ancillary vehicles and equipment, shall be removed within 28 days of any one of the following requirements not being met:

Continued . . .

89 2.11, 2.12 & 2.13 (Contd) PART 2 (i) within 3 months of the date of this decision there shall have been submitted for the approval of the District Planning Authority a scheme for the means of foul and surface water drainage of the site (hereafter referred to as the drainage scheme). This scheme shall include proposals for the disposal of run-off from hardstandings to prevent localised flooding.

(ii) within 11 months of the date of this decision the drainage scheme shall have been approved by the District Planning Authority or, if the District Planning Authority fail to approve such a scheme, or fail to give a decision within the prescribed period an appeal shall have been lodged and accepted as validly made, by the Secretary of State.

(iii) if an appeal is made in pursuance of requirement (ii) above, that appeal shall have been finally determined and the submitted drainage scheme shall have been approved by the Secretary of State.

(iv) all works comprised in the drainage scheme as approved shall have been implemented, and completed within the timetable set out in the approved scheme

Grounds: In the interests of preventing pollution of groundwater and localised flooding, in pursuance of policy E4 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

(5) The site shall only be used for residential purposes, and it shall not be used for any business, industrial or commercial use. In this regard no open storage of plant, products or waste may take place on the land, and no commercial 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, and in pursuance of policies E1, E6, E9, H4 and T1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008 and EN1, EN3, HP5, HP9 and TP15 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan.

(6) 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 District Planning Authority.

Grounds: In the interests of preventing light pollution , in pursuance of policy E2 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

(7) The earth bank to the western boundary of the site shall be reduced to not more than one metre in height within one month of the date of this permission. Continued . . .

90 2.11, 2.12 & 2.13 (Contd) PART 2 Grounds: In the interests of the amenities of the area.

(8) Notwithstanding the details shown on the submitted drawings no fencing surrounding the site shall exceed 2m in height.

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

(9) Details of the proposed utility/day room shall be submitted to and approved by the District Planning Authority prior to its siting.

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

Reason for Approval

Having taken all material considerations into account, it is considered that subject to compliance with the attached conditions, the proposal would not cause unacceptable long term harm to the amenities of the area or prejudice highway safety or convenience. In resolving to grant temporary permission, particular regard has been had to the following policies: E1, E6, E9, H4 and T1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008; and EN1, EN3, HP5, HP9 and TP15 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan.

Introduction

This report concerns three separate planning applications for small private gypsy sites. Each must be considered on its own merits, but I am reporting them together as they have similar issues, are all in the same Parish, and because the Parish Council have specifically requested that the cumulative effect of all three proposals is considered, and requests a site meeting.

Site Descriptions

Two of the three sites (The Hawthorns and Rambling Rose) are patches of mainly open ground interspersed with trees on the western side of Greyhound Road, which is an unmade track joining Lower Road west of Brambledown. This track serves one residential property and one stableyard but is otherwise little used.

The Farmyard is a largely hardsurfaced and solid fenced area of land accessed off nearby Elmley Road, another unmade track joining Lower Road at Brambledown Garage, and serving a greater number of properties, including bungalows and stableyards. The site itself contains a tall green coloured metal clad shed, and has a history of Enforcement problems.

All the sites lie outside any built-up area, in locations where development is usually restricted by rural settlement policies, and there are a number of planning refusals and Enforcement Notice issues on various pieces of land on either road, often to do with residential use of mobile homes. Continued . . .

91 2.11, 2.12 & 2.13 (Contd) PART 2

No site lies in an area of flood risk or with a particular wildlife or landscape policy designation.

Description of Proposals, and Relevant Site History

The Hawthorns (SW/08/0579)

This site has no prior planning history but is currently occupied by one caravan. The proposal is to site one mobile home for the sole occupancy of Miss E Smith, who is a gypsy, who has ceased travelling due to disability. Miss Smith states that she lived as a child in a caravan in Kent, before travelling in East Anglia, and recently living in Rainham. Until recently, she has been living on the nearby site Rambling Rose (one the other sites featuring in this report) but has moved off to allow children to move on to that site – see below. A letter has been provided by Miss Smith’s doctor to confirm her medical circumstances, which include back pain, depression and asthma, as well as limited mobility.

No commercial use of the site is sought. A detailed landscaping plan has been submitted with the application, and this includes an existing bank which has recently been created on the site’s western boundary. The height of this bank is not specified, but I believe that this can be controlled by a planning condition.

The Farmyard (SW/08/1253)

This site does have some planning history, as follows:

An Enforcement Notice was served against an extension to the original barn on the site in 2005. This extension has since been removed. The site was previously in a very untidy state with a considerable number of vehicles, scrap and other material presenting an intrusive appearance. The applicant has recently removed all this material.

The application proposes two mobile homes, one for the applicant Mrs M Price and her husband and the other for the applicant’s sister and her husband (Mr & Mrs Smith). Neither couple have any children at present.

The application is supported by a letter from the applicant in which she explains that she is born a gypsy and has lived in caravans at Stockbury since birth. She sees the site and its surroundings as ideal as there are already a number of mobile homes nearby and across the Island.

Continued . . .

92 2.11, 2.12 & 2.13 (Contd) PART 2 The applicant states that she has already removed a building subject to the Enforcement Notice and cleared tons of waste from the site, making it into a very respectable place to live. The applicant has forwarded a letter from a farmer at Stockbury who confirms that the family are known to him, and respectable and hard working, quiet and polite. He confirms the applicant’s statement about being born and living as a gypsy all her life (21 years).

Only the applicant’s mobile home currently occupies the site, but the submitted plan shows that the other will sit at right angles to it. The large barn on site is intended to be used as a utility room, kennels and to house a pool table.

Each couple would wish to keep a small truck/lorry on site as each husband works in road maintenance, but no further commercial use of the site is proposed.

Rambling Rose (SW/09/0146)

This is a larger site than the others featured in this report. It also has a 3-year temporary planning permission for two mobile homes for Mr King and Miss Smith (now at The Hawthorns see above) granted in April 2008 (SW/07/1198), which relates to part of the current site.

The site has been the subject of Enforcement action in respect of lack of a landscaping scheme required by the planning permission (a breach of condition notice); and a stop notice regarding a 3m high bank on the site’s western side. I believe a reduction in height of this bank can be secured through a new planning condition, as the applicant has expressed a willingness to reduce it.

The applicant (Mr King) seeks planning permission for the siting of five mobile homes and a day room including kitchen and wc. The submitted plan also shows an 8ft (2.4m) high post and rail fence to the entrance boundary, but I believe that hedging or a lower fence will be more appropriate, and that this matter can be dealt with by condition.

The additional mobile homes are sought so that the applicant’s children and grandchildren can live with him following the death of his former wife. The original permission for two mobile homes was for Miss Smith and Mr King, his wife and two children (boys who both have special educational needs). Miss Smith has now left the site (see The Hawthorns above) and this application is for 7 additional adults and 10 additional children, all under the age of 12.

Views of Consultees

Minster-on-Sea Parish Council (MPC) objected to the previous application at Rambling Rose, and now object to all three applications. They have sent the following comments in respect of each of these applications: Continued . . .

93 2.11, 2.12 & 2.13 (Contd) PART 2

• MPC asks that SBC consider the cumulative effect of all three of the above applications (SW/08/1253 CLD SW/08/0579 TD and SW/09/0146 TD) in relation to the effects on the community and asks for a site meeting to investigate this further. • This land adjoins a residential area and cannot therefore be considered in the same way as one located in a rural area outside a town or village ie it is not in open land. Concerns include lack of amenities, schools, health facilities and transport links to support the proposals. MPC’s view is that the area is not suitable for further development of any kind. • MPC also suggests that SBC checks existing conditions on previous planning applications and/or Enforcement Notices relating to the sites concerned as there are concerns that work has been completed prior to the determination of permissions and previous Council advice has been disregarded. • Further MPC concerns include the absence of a drainage strategy with concerns that this would result in an increased run-off from the sites which would be harmful to neighbouring properties. • Access is also a serious concern as the area joins a 60mph zone and therefore prejudices highway safety and convenience.

Natural England has been consulted in each of these applications. They raise no objection to any of the applications.

Kent Highway Services (KHS) do not raise objection to the applications at The Hawthorns or Rambling Rose on Greyhound Road. They have taken into account the cumulative effect of additional traffic on Greyhound Road, and do not consider that the road is unsuitable for the likely amount of traffic that will use it. At The Farmyard they seek a condition requiring a plan showing parking provision for three vehicles. Due to the size and nature of the site, and the way it lies off any highway I do not consider such a condition to be necessary.

I hope to have the views of KHS on the application at Rambling Rose available at the meeting.

Finally, the County Archaeological Officer has been consulted on the application at The Farmyard as it lies in an area that he has identified as having archaeological potential. His response is that no archaeological measures are necessary in this case.

Other Representations

As the applications relate to sites in different locations, and of differing scale, local consultations differ, and I will detail local responses separately for each site.

Continued . . .

94 2.11, 2.12 & 2.13 (Contd) PART 2

The Hawthorns (SW/08/0579)

I have received 7 letters of objection (3 anonymously and one from an address in Whybournes Chase, Minster) to this application on the following summarised grounds:

1. There is no water supply to this site without digging up the public highway and private road.

2. Greyhound Road is a single track road near to a bend in Lower Road. This could cause danger if the junction is congested as Lower Road has a 60mph limit here.

3. Refuse vehicles do not go down Greyhound Road. All refuse is left at the end of the road. Removal of waste will be a problem, and rubbish is burnt on the site – the amount of this can only increase, or it will be piled at the end of Greyhound Road, restricting access.

4. A tall earth bank has been erected on site which looks an eyesore and interferes with natural drainage of surface water to storm drains and fields beyond. This must be removed if permission is to be given.

5. No mains drainage in Greyhound Road, resulting in lack of sanitation, and additional heavy traffic for waste removal.

6. Upkeep of Greyhound Road is a private responsibility and cost on the single dwelling there. The applicant has offered to tarmac the road, but this may add to drainage problems. It is just unsuitable and for additional traffic, and this has been a factor in previous refusals of planning permission.

7. Brambledown lacks amenities and facilities to support a caravan site. The site is not conveniently located with no pavement.

8. Caravans have already been stationed in the site before the planning application has been granted.

9. The area is a small wooded area, populated with wildlife and a breeding habitat for long eared owls. The caravans have changed the area’s appearance.

10. The application represents new development in the countryside, which is unacceptable in principle. Previous applications have been refused in this area.

Continued . . .

95 2.11, 2.12 & 2.13 (Contd) PART 2

The Farmyard (SW/08/1253)

I have received 5 letters of objection from local residents, and one from an address in Whybournes Chase, Minster, on the following summarised grounds:

1. The application represents new development in the countryside, which is unacceptable in principle. Previous applications have been refused in this area.

2. It would be contrary to polices of the Structure Plan and Local Plan.

3. The land is agricultural and a change of use would be required. The site has in the past been used as a seaweed preparation plant, for scaffolding storage, house clearance items, and as a general dumping ground. The new owners have had to clear or bury much of the rubbish left behind – they will have known the previous use of the site.

4. Parking provision for six vehicles is not shown in the plans; they are not marked out on the plot. It is not clear where the site boundaries are, part of it serves as access to Elmley Stables, and a turning area.

5. The applicant may not be of gypsy origins, and other gypsy sites have been approved; are more needed?

6. This is a retrospective application as the applicant already lives on the site – she does not need a second mobile home. Will one of the mobile homes be equipped for a disabled person – the location is not suitable.

7. Elmley Road has no streetlights, no mains drainage, only one streetlight, and is not in a fit state to take extra traffic. However, contrary to the applicant’s claims, there are no occupied mobile homes in the vicinity of the site.

8. The applicant has not consulted neighbours about the application.

Rambling Rose (SW/09/0146)

I have received 6 letters of objection to this application, from local residents one an address in Whybournes Chase, Minster, and three anonymous letters. The closing date for representations extends until 23 March, so I will update Members at the meeting of any further representations received. The objections received so far contain the following summarised points:

1. There is no water supply to this site without digging up the public highway and private road. Continued . . .

96 2.11, 2.12 & 2.13 (Contd) PART 2

2. Greyhound Road is a single track road with no street lighting near to a bend in Lower Road. This could cause danger if the junction is congested as Lower Road has a 60mph limit here.

3. Refuse vehicles do not go down Greyhound Road. All refuse is left at the end of the road. Removal of waste will be a problem, and rubbish is burnt on the site – the amount of this can only increase, or it will be piled at the end of Greyhound Road, restricting access.

4. A tall earth bank has been erected on site which looks an eyesore and interferes with natural drainage of surface water to storm drains and fields beyond. This must be removed if permission is to be given.

5. No mains drainage in Greyhound Road, resulting in lack of sanitation, and additional heavy traffic for waste removal.

6. Upkeep of Greyhound Road is a private responsibility and cost on the single dwelling there. The applicant has offered to tarmac the road, but this may add to drainage problems. It is just unsuitable and for additional traffic, and this has been a factor in previous refusals of planning permission.

7. Brambledown lacks amenities and facilities to support a caravan site. The site is not conveniently located with no pavement. There are already too many caravans on the Island.

8. The proposal contravenes policies about development in the countryside, and it will degrade the area.

9. The application form states 10 mobile homes, are 5 or 10 proposed.

NOTE: The applicant has confirmed that the application is for 5 mobile homes.

10. The area is a small wooded area, populated with wildlife and a breeding habitat for long eared owls. The caravans have changed the area’s appearance.

11. The application represents new development in the countryside, which is unacceptable in principle. Previous applications have been refused in this area.

12. Lack of notification of original application on this site. Incorrect addresses in current consultations.

13. The applicant is already exceeding the 2 caravans approved for this site. Unruly dogs being kept threaten wildlife and domestic animals. Continued . . .

97 2.11, 2.12 & 2.13 (Contd) PART 2

Relevant Planning Policies

The Development Plan comprises the 2006 adopted Kent and Medway Structure (SP) and the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008 (LP). SP policy EN1 seeks to protect the countryside for its own sake, and states that development in the countryside should seek to maintain or enhance it. It further states that development which will adversely affect the countryside will not be permitted unless there is an overriding need for it which outweighs the requirement to protect the countryside. SP Policy EN3 aims to protect Kent’s landscape and wildlife, and to prevent development which, amongst other things, leads to the loss of features or habitats which are of an unspoilt quality free from urban intrusion.

SP Policy HP5 restricts housing development outside rural settlements in the interests of countryside conservation, unless related to an exceptional need for a rural location. LP policy E6 reflects this position.

For all development which is acceptable in principle, SP policy QL1 sets out standards and criteria, such as development being well designed, appropriate to its surroundings in scale, layout, pattern and character. 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.

In terms of policies directly related to the provision of gypsy sites, the SP contains policy HP9 which states that provision for gypsies should be in accordance with the Structure Plan’s policies for protection of the environment and the countryside. It suggests that sites should be within major/principal urban areas or rural settlements, failing which they should be located with good accessibility to major/principal urban areas or rural service centres with easy and safe access to primary and other main roads preferred sites should be located to avoid adverse impact on residential amenity, highway capacity and highway safety. Whilst the LP does not assess the need for sites, or allocate any new sites, it does encourage gypsies to provide their own sites via Policy H4 as follows:

Policy H4

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

1. For proposals involving the establishment of public or privately owned residential gypsy or travelling showpersons sites: Continued . . .

98 2.11, 2.12 & 2.13 (Contd) PART 2

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 i) the land will not be in a designated flood risk area.

2. Additionally to 1, for proposals for short term stopping places:

m) there will be a planning condition to ensure that the length of stay for each caravan will be no longer than 28 days with no return to the site within 3 months.

At a national level, Circular 1/94 was for a long time the standard advice on gypsy sites, but this has recently been superseded by Circular 01/2006 which was published on 2 February 2006, along with a raft of other guidance and draft advice relating to this field. It has changed the planning landscape in relation to the provision of gypsy sites, and requires full and careful consideration.

The circular recognises that the abolition of the duty to provide gypsy sites, and the encouragement of gypsies to find their own sites, has failed to result in adequate provision. It has resulted in conflict and controversy, and to anti- social behaviour. The new guidance aims to plan for gypsies, and at the same time to enable authorities to take more effective action against unlawful encampments where proper provision is being made. This provision is intended to be through development plan allocations, and if necessary, acquisition and development of necessary sites, based on needs assessments – in much the same way as local plans allocate for conventional housing. Continued . . .

99 2.11, 2.12 & 2.13 (Contd) PART 2

The circular importantly introduces a new definition of gypsies and travellers as;

“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 dependent’s educational or health needs or old age have ceased to travel temporarily or permanently, but excluding members of an organised group of travelling show people or circus people travelling together as such.”

This definition now allows for those who have stopped travelling to still be defined as gypsies if they have stopped doing so for educational, health or old age reasons.

The new planning circular explains that traditional gypsy lifestyles involving scrap metal, laying tarmacadam, seasonal agricultural work, casual labouring and other employment are changing, and that the community has become more settled, and is now operating in trades which require less mobility. This is essentially leading to the need for more permanent sites, from which gypsies can travel, and this allows better access to education and health care.

To plan for this, the new circular proposes that the likely scale of gypsy site need is assessed regionally, with caravan pitch numbers incorporated into Regional Spatial Strategies, and then translated into needs for individual local authorities. These numbers would in turn be translated into local allocations in the new development plan documents, which will eventually supersede the current and emerging Local Plans. This is intended to provide greater certainty, even though it is recognised as being a more difficult process than using solely criteria based policies, as we do now.

This process has begun in Swale, by our involvement in the joint commissioning of the North Kent Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment (GTAA). This indicates that despite the Council’s good record of approving private gypsy sites, the Borough has a relatively high need of 62 pitches for the 2006-2011 period, one of the highest in Kent.

This, however, may not be the final figure for the Borough as Kent County Council have submitted an alternative figure of 25 pitches for Swale to the Regional Assembly who, in turn, have produced further figures (but only at County level) for consultation. It may therefore be that the provision for the Borough will take some time to become clear.

In the meantime, the circular advice about dealing with the current application is to use other means of assessing need. Aside from any early results from needs assessments, the circular recommends that authorities utilise the following information sources; Continued . . .

100 2.11, 2.12 & 2.13 (Contd) PART 2

a) continuous assessment of incidents of unauthorised encampments, both short and long term; these are quite high in Swale b) the numbers and outcomes of planning applications and appeals; here temporary planning permissions have resulted from most recent gypsy site appeals c) levels of occupancy, plot turnover and waiting lists for public authorised sites; here we have high levels of site occupancy, low plot turnover and long waiting lists for public sites. d) the status of existing authorised sites, including those which are unoccupied and those subject to temporary or personal planning permission, one of which at Oak Lane, Upchurch only has temporary permission until March 2009. e) the twice-yearly Caravan Count undertaken on behalf of ODPM, which gives a picture of numbers and historic trends.

The circular states that local authorities will be expected to demonstrate that they have considered this information, where relevant, before any decisions to refuse a planning application for a gypsy or traveller site, and to provide it as part of any appeal documentation.

The circular goes on to say that where there is an unmet need but there is a reasonable expectation that new sites are likely to become available at the end of that period in the area which will meet that need, local planning authorities should give consideration to granting a temporary planning permission. The advice suggests that this might be when site allocations are being prepared. However, such temporary permissions are not seen as setting a precedent for a full permission on any particular site, and should not involve substantial capital outlay.

Finally, in paragraph 43, the circular states that where there is a clear and immediate need such as here, as evidenced by the number of unauthorised encampments and the GTAA, local authorities should bring forward Development Plan Documents (DPDs) containing site allocations in advance of regional consideration of pitch numbers.

In January 2009 the Council published a consultation draft Gypsy and Traveller Corporate Policy to address the issue of gypsy site provision. This recognises 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.

This draft Policy takes the predicted site needs from the GTAA, which varies significantly. Whilst the Circular advocates a site allocations policy, the Council’s draft 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, means that at this stage a site allocations approach is not the right way forward for Swale. Continued . . .

101 2.11, 2.12 & 2.13 (Contd) PART 2

Instead, it is proposed to undertake a full survey of potential sites set against a set of criteria in accordance with Government Guidance to be undertaken later in the year. This will include a review of current temporary permissions. This, together with targeting a persistent group of families at Sittingbourne, is expected to see the Council making adequate provision to meet such immediate needs. Whilst this is not yet part of an adopted policy I have had regard to the criteria based approach in the draft Corporate policy to aid assessment of the current applications.

The sites score highly in environmental terms, but are a little remote from public services, and two may not have a mains water supply at present.

As the policy is currently at consultation state I cannot guarantee its adoption in its current form. It therefore seems prudent to consider the sites as suitable for temporary permission pending adoption of the policy, assessment of potential alternative sites, and resolution of the question of water supply. These sites can then form part of the overall review of sites advocated by the draft policy.

Discussion

The current situation with regard to gypsy and traveller sites in Swale is that the GTAA and records of unauthorised encampments show a strong need for additional sites. Both public sites are full and there are no known alternative sites.

The Council’s adopted Policy H4 is a criteria based policy, at odds with current advice, and whilst the Local Plan Inspector had no option but to retain it, he did note that in adopting the Plan, that the Council is urgently reviewing the policy, and that in the meantime the circular will take precedence over the policy.

Despite the Council’s good and proud record of providing for small private sites in response to planning applications (often without recourse to appeals) we do not have a timetable for site allocations, or for the commencement of work on a DPD on the subject. The new policy is still in draft and the review of existing sites is not yet underway.

It is therefore very difficult to show that we are actively working to address the underprovision in the Borough. This has already resulted in three temporary planning permissions being granted on appeal since March 2006, and one being granted by Members on the current Rambling Rose site at the April 2008 meeting. A personal planning permission has also been granted on appeal in despite serious highway safety objections.

Continued . . .

102 2.11, 2.12 & 2.13 (Contd) PART 2

The Council’s draft policy is to continue to consider proposals for private gypsy sites on a site by site basis. Set against the proposed criteria, I consider that these three sites share common characteristics of rural locations, close to a main road and outside any specially designated flood risk, landscape or wildlife area. The fragmented pattern of land ownership locally means that the sites fit well into the local landscape and will not appear prominent or intrusive. The five caravans proposed at the current Rambling Rose site exceeds the number of caravans envisaged by Policy H4, but this has been exceeded before elsewhere, and the Circular argues against setting limits on caravan numbers in policies.

In the light of the evidence of need, but bearing in mind that the Council’s draft policy is not yet adopted, I feel sure that temporary planning permission ought to be granted/would be granted on appeal now for the caravans as they are sited today, pending site allocations being put forward, or the draft policy being adopted and realistic alternative sites being made available.

Recommendation

I believe that the Council’s position with regard to the provision of private gypsy sites remains difficult. Our adopted policy is not congruent with current guidance, and we have no timetable for the production of a replacement DPD. In the meantime the GTAA shows Swale as having a high need, and a high incidence of unauthorised encampments.

I believe that our draft policy will help us move forward, but it remains at consultation stage.

I believe that temporary planning permissions for these sites would be compatible with the policy and need context, despite adverse local opinion.

I therefore recommend that these applications are granted temporary permissions pending adoption of the Council’s policy and a review of available sites.

Responsible Officer: Graham Thomas (Area Planning Officer)

List of Background Documents

1. Application papers and correspondence for SW/07/1198, SW/08/0579, SW/08/1253 and SW/09/0146 2. Application papers and correspondence for SW/07/1198, SW/08/0579, SW/08/1253 and SW/09/0146

103 PLANNING COMMITTEE – 2 APRIL 2009 PART 3

Report of the Head of Development Services

PART 3

Applications for which REFUSAL is recommended

3.1 SW/09/0107 (Case 17705) NORTON

Location: The Limeworks, Faversham Road, Norton, Faversham, Kent, ME13 0SE

Proposal: New site entrance and driveway

Applicant/Agent: Mr Sam Harpa, c/o Mr Colman Cotter, Artlab Architects, 15 London Road, Sittingbourne, Kent, ME10 1NQ

Application Valid: 26 February 2009

SUBJECT TO: The views of the Parish Council and outstanding representations received (closing date 1 April 2009)

Reason

(1) The proposal by virtue of its intrusive and inappropriate nature results in a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the countryside and the setting of the Listed Building contrary to Policies E1, E6 & E14 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008 and Policy EN1 & QL8 of the Kent & Medway Structure Plan.

Introduction

In January 2009 planning permission was refused for application SW/08/0902 which was for a new site entrance, driveway and car port with blue palisade fencing and gates proposed for the entrance, the refusal notice stated:

“The proposal will, particularly because of the nature of the proposed entrance gates and nature and position of the proposed car port, be an intrusive and inappropriate development detrimental to the character and appearance of the countryside, and the setting of the listed building, in a manner contrary to Policies E1, E6 and E14 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008 and EN1, QL1 and QL8 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan.”

Continued . . .

1 3.1 (Contd) PART 3

Description of Proposal

This application aims to overcome the reasons for refusal of the previous similar scheme (SW/08/0902) by the removal of the proposed car port building and the replacement of the blue palisade gates and fences with chestnut paling fences and timber five bar gates.

This application is for a new site entrance and driveway for The Limeworks. The application proposes the new access to the site to be relocated approx 200m to the south west along Faversham Road. The entrance of the new access is to be flanked by chestnut fencing and timber double gates 1500mm in height. The chestnut fencing will be retained along the remainder of the boundary. The proposed new driveway is to run from this new entrance over the field and run parallel to the road along the line of a natural crest of the field, approximately 30m in from the road and is to be constructed from compacted recycled road planings, and will be approximately 140m long.

Surface water from the road is to be drained towards a new wildlife pond and wild meadow vegetation is proposed adjacent to Faversham Road

The application is supported by a revised Design and Access Statement, responding to Members’ previous concerns and explaining changes made to the scheme.

The applicants have submitted copies of letters from the Parish Council and local residents that were originally sent in support of the previously refused application. They say that they have contacted the neighbours who are satisfied that their letters can be re-submitted. These letters say, in summary:

Norton Buckland and Stone Parish Council fully supported the previous application and noted “the council is impressed by the imaginative approach displayed by the owner in this case and wishes to see a successful conclusion to this application “

South East Water, who used to own the Limeworks and who still own the adjoining land previously provided a comprehensive letter detailing the necessity for the new arrangement. This has not been copied by the applicant on this application, but it is summarised below as it is referred to in the supporting information submitted with this scheme.

• Since the sale of the Limeworks it has been increasingly difficult to ensure the public are excluded from the area around the pumping station • Terrorist related incidents associated with water treatment works and pumping stations are now considered to represent a higher risk and as such steps are being taken to reduce that risk

Continued . . .

2 3.1 (Contd) PART 3 • It is difficult to see anyone parked in the access and members of the public have parked here and is a real not theoretical risk • They are not at liberty to install additional gating on the access as there is no provision for this under the terms of the original sale • Because of these concerns South East Water would sell the applicant the adjoining field and included the requirement that he should install a separate vehicular access and cease using and seek the removal of the existing right of way from his title. • Benefits to South East Water that they can realign the fencing and gating to enclose the pumping station • Reduce traffic emerging from this access • Car parking in a screened area has been carefully designed and does not interfere with the water infrastructure and moves cars away from the Listed Building. • Any consent does not in itself form a precedent because of the very particular issues that are involved that relate primarily to a statutory undertaker with related security responsibilities and concerns

The 6 letters of support from local residents to the previous application are summarised below:

• The applicants are developing the site which has been a blot on the landscape and are producing an outstanding property • It will be greatly enhanced by the provision of its own entrance and driveway • The present entrance is very dangerous due to limited sight line when exiting the properties • The new site entrance will be a safer option from a highway perspective • Often visit the property and have great difficulty in coming in and out of the current driveway due to its position on a blind bend • New entrance will be safer for residents and traffic using the road • No objection to the scheme and as all the other work done has been to a high standard have no doubt this will be too • Support the new entrance clearly this should have been negotiated by Mid Kent Water before the company benefited from selling the site • There is a problem with speeding on this road • The renovated building and the proposed landscaping will greatly enhance the appearance of this lovely valley • The surface would be consistent with the rural setting • The proposed new pond and planting could successfully soften the impact of the new access • The changes are well thought out and will not be detrimental to the area • Would ask that the entrance is set as close to the Limeworks that safe sight lines will allow. This will be desirable to leave as large a proportion of the field intact to the west of the entrance as possible, minimise the length of the driveway and keep the driveway close to the residence for security reasons. Continued . . .

3 3.1 (Contd) PART 3 Relevant Site History and Site Description

The site is 3.7 ha and comprises the Limeworks building, an outbuilding and extensive land to the south and south west of the building fronting the Faversham Road. The existing site entrance is used by the occupants of the Limeworks, South East Water for access to the pumping station and the occupants of the neighbouring cottages, and is surrounded by blue palisade fencing

The Limeworks building was previously a water softening plant in the use and ownership of Southwest water. It was Listed as a Grade II Listed Building in 2007 and was subsequently sold and permission was granted under reference SW/07/0621 for the change of use of the building to a dwelling and the renovation of the engine room to form an antiques workshop. Listed Building Consent was granted under reference SW/07/0622 for the same scheme.

In March 2008 planning permission was applied for a new site entrance, driveway, car port and associated landscaping. The application was subsequently withdrawn in April 2008, whilst the resubmission in January 2009 was refused for the reasons as stated earlier.

Views of Consultees

I have not yet heard from the Parish Council on this application.

Kent Highway Services have commented on this application, and raise no objection to the application provided that conditions regarding the disposal of surface water, the retention of the car parking spaces, the location of the gates and the maintenance of the visibility splays were attached. These comments were identical to those offered on the previous application.

Other Representations

So far I have not had any fresh representations about this application, but I will report further at the meeting (closing date 1 April 2008).

Policies

Swale Borough Local Plan Policies E1 (General Development) E6 (Countryside) E9 Quality and Character of Borough’s Landscape E14 Listed Buildings

Kent & Medway Structure Plan EN1 Countryside QL8 Listed Buildings Continued . . .

4 3.1 (Contd) PART 3 Discussion

The elements of the development are located on a site within the defined countryside and a Listed Building is to be serviced by the proposal.

The scheme proposes the creation of a new entrance in the adjoining field to serve solely the Limeworks dwelling and the road will run through the field toward the residence. A raised bank and vegetation are proposed to mitigate the creation of the road, and a wildlife pond created to accommodate surface water run off. The scheme no longer includes the prominently sited car port.

In my view there is a strong policy presumption against such a development because of its impact on the countryside and on the setting of the Listed Building. The justification or demonstration of need has to be quite compelling in such circumstances.

Currently the entrance to the Limeworks is via the access used by the water company and the occupants of the neighbouring properties. This defined area of buildings and hardsurfacing has historically provided a clear contrast to the surrounding fields and rural character of the immediate vicinity. There is no plan for this access to be changed or improved in any way by the proposal and it will remain as is.

The revised proposal would still effectively extend the “developed” impression of the site by extending it through the raised landscape bank and down the new road across the open and visible field to the newly created wide entrance and gates.

The creation of the new access to cut across the field in this manner would be to the detriment of the character of the countryside. The division of the open field by the road would be break up and harm the rural appearance of the field, an impact exacerbated by the proposed fencing and gates which would appear to provide a highly visible entrance. Although it is appreciated this access is acceptable to Kent Highway Services and has received local support I do not consider this is sufficient grounds to mitigate for the impact of the development of the new entrance, associated road and gates on the character of the countryside.

The setting of this Listed Building is all the more special because of the unspoilt rural surroundings which provide a dramatic counterpoint to the 1930s pumping station and lime treatment works. The layout of the complex is virtually unaltered since the day it was built and should be preserved that way if at all possible. In my view, failure to preserve the setting of the listed building amounts to a reason for refusal in itself.

The proposal extends this developed appearance by the insertion of the road and gates and as such destroys the setting which has historically been so special. Continued . . .

5 3.1 (Contd) PART 3

I note that complicated legal agreements regarding the land to be sold to the applicant and that retained by South East Water and the rights of access which appear to be fundamental to this scheme. It appears that it is due to these legal agreements that the new access has become necessary, essentially at the insistence of South East Water as a condition of the proposed sale of the land, but I do not consider this sufficient justification to recommend approval of the scheme.

The applicant argues that the perceived security threat to the pumping station and highway safety are the main argument to justify the scheme. Without exception these issues seem to me either to be grossly overstated or could be dealt with in less invasive ways by either the applicant or the neighbour, and I do not consider these to be sufficient or proven grounds in support of the proposal.

I note that local residents have previously written in support of a similar scheme, and some Members saw benefit in the new entrance, mainly due to the sub-standard nature of the existing access. However I am still of the opinion that the creation of a further access which will only serve the Limeworks dwelling will only have a minimal impact on the current use and safety of the existing access. Furthermore, no remedial or improvement works are proposed for the existing access and it is still to remain as is, and will continue to be used by visitors to the pumping station and to the cottages.

I believe that this proposal offers negligible benefits in terms of highway safety, but considerable harm to the countryside.

Recommendation

I do not consider that the creation of the new access to the Limeworks will produce benefits sufficient to mitigate the damage the proposal will create and will not alter or improve the existing problems associated with the original access. In my view, the intrusive nature of the proposal as a whole and its detrimental impact on the setting of the Listed Building and the untouched surrounding countryside is sufficient to recommend that planning permission be refused. ______

Responsible Officer: Graham Thomas (Area Planning Officer) ______

List of Background Documents

1. Application Papers for Application SW/09/0107 2. Correspondence Relating to Application SW/09/0107 3. Application papers for applications SW/07/0621, SW/07/0622 and SW/08/0902.

6 PART 3 3.2 SW/09/0140 (Case 01939) EASTCHURCH

Location: The Burrows, Swanley Farm, Warden Road, Eastchurch, Sheppey, Kent, ME12 4ET

Proposal: Removal of mobile home and replacement with dwelling and double garage

Applicant/Agent: Mr D King, c/o Mr M Leeder, CHQ Partnership Ltd, Tannery House, 23 High Street, Baldock, Herts, SG7 6BE

Application Valid: 16th February 2009, and as amended by drawings received 3 March 2009

SUBJECT TO: Outstanding representations (closing date 23rd March 2009)

Reasons

(1) The proposal to remove a semi-permanent mobile home and replace it with a permanent dwelling in this rural area is unacceptable in principle as it would conflict with the development plan aim of restricting development in the countryside and protecting the countryside for its own sake. The proposal would therefore result in visual harm and consolidation of sporadic development, which would have a seriously detrimental impact upon the character of the countryside. The proposal is therefore contrary to policies E1, E6, E13 and RC4 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008 and policies EN1, EN3 and HP5 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan.

(2) The proposed new development would result in a dwelling which by virtue of its scale, design and floor space would not amount to a modest replacement of a dwelling in the countryside. The resulting dwelling would be far less modest in appearance, and far more intrusive in these rural surroundings than the existing mobile home. The proposal is therefore contrary to policies E1, E6, E13 and RC4 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008 and policies EN1, EN3 and HP5 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan.

(3) The proposed development would result in the loss of a caravan site which offers the potential to be suitable for use as a gypsy site in the future in an area that demands further gypsy and traveller sites. The proposal therefore conflicts with the aims of policy H4 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008, policy HP9 of the Kent & Medway Structure Plan and Circular 01/2006 which aims to provide an increase in the supply of permanent gypsy and traveller sites. Continued . . .

7 3.2 (Contd) PART 3 Description of Proposal

This application seeks permission for the erection of a chalet bungalow and a single-storey double garage following the removal of a residential mobile home at The Burrows, Swanley Farm, Warden Road, Eastchurch.

The proposed dwelling would be set back on the site with a large sweeping drive to the front. The dwelling would form an ‘L’ shape and would feature 3 bedrooms. The footprint of the building would measure 13.2 metres by 13.8 metres and would measure 6.1 metres in height at the highest point. Two rooms would be located within the roofspace lit via two small dormer windows and one rooflight window.

The garage would feature space to park two cars with an area for storage above. The footprint of the garage building would measure 6.2 metres by 6.2 metres and would measure 5.9 metres in height.

In terms of materials, the buildings would feature brick with white render and brown pantiles on the roof.

Access to the site would remain as existing.

The agent has submitted a Design and Access statement which describes the reasons for this application coming forward. Extracts read as follows:

“We conclude that the site is suitable for the proposed development on the following grounds.

The existing residential property is of no architectural merit and energy inefficient. This will be removed following completion of the new dwelling.

The proposed dwelling would be of a size and form sympathetic to the existing dwelling and character and appearance of its surroundings.

Sufficient space around the dwelling would allow for it not to have adverse impact on the adjacent landscape.

To the best of the applicants knowledge, no protected species or flora or fauna such as badgers, bats, breeding birds or other protected species will be affected by the proposed development.

The overall design of the dwelling has been prepared to take the best advantage of the outlook of the surroundings and to obviate any possibility of interference with current amenities of adjacent properties”.

Relevant Site History and Description

The site is accessed from Warden Road and is located within the Fletchers Battery area, a former military site, and is surrounded by old military buildings and a few residential properties. Continued . . .

8 3.2 (Contd) PART 3 The site is located within the coastal zone and outside of the built up area boundary of Eastchurch.

The site has been the subject of two previous applications

In 1976 under planning reference SW/76/0004 an application was made for the erection of slaughter house. This application was refused.

More recently in 2006 under planning reference SW/06/1002 an existing lawful development certificate was submitted for the use of land for the stationing of a caravan/mobile home. The certificate was issued in October 2006. It is this application to which the current mobile home on the site relates to.

Views of Consultees

Eastchurch Parish Council have raised no objection to the application.

Kent Highway Services have raised no objection to the application subject to a standard condition requiring the parking area/ garaging to be retained.

Other Representations

One letter of support has been received from a neighbouring resident. Their comments can be summarised as follows:

• Fully in favour of the development as I would like to see local people continue to live in the community and it would enhance the area • Mr King has been my neighbour for all of his life

Policies

Policies E1, E6, E13, E19, RC4 and H4 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008 are relevant to this application. They address general development criteria, the countryside, the coastal zone, good quality design, replacement dwellings in the countryside and accommodation for gypsies. Policies EN1, EN3, HP5, HP9 and QL1 of the Kent & Medway Structure Plan are also relevant. They address the countryside, protecting the character of the countryside, rural housing, provision of permanent gypsy accommodation and good quality design.

Discussion

In my view, the key considerations in this case are:

(1) Whether the development would conflict with policies for development in the countryside and would the proposal cause harm to the character and appearance of the area; Continued . . .

9 3.2 (Contd) PART 3 (2) Whether the proposal would amount to a modest replacement to a dwelling in the countryside; and (3) Whether the development would result in the loss of a potential gypsy site.

The issue of whether the proposal would conflict with the development plan aim of rural restraint is key in this case. Members will be aware that a lawful development certificate was issued in 2006 enabling the use of the site for the stationing of a caravan/ mobile home. This application did not allow the Council the chance to consider the impact of the use on the site as the use had become lawful.

However, the current application does provide the Council with the opportunity to consider the effect of a permanent dwelling in this location. Although the design of the dwelling is in itself acceptable, the location is sensitive. The Council has strongly resisted further residential accommodation and holiday accommodation within the Fletchers Battery area, as it is a rural area which needs protecting for its own sake. I would ask Members to focus on the question of whether a permanent larger and taller building would have a more detrimental impact on the countryside than the existing mobile home. In my opinion, a permanent two-storey building in this location would have a far more detrimental impact on the rural nature of this area than the present caravan, as the permanent nature of the design would give the area a residential and more urban appearance and could set a precedent, encouraging other owners within Fletchers Battery to come forward with residential proposals which would become difficult to resist.

I accept some Members may consider the appearance of the site could be improved by permitting this proposal. However, I would strongly urge they consider the impact of the permanency of the proposal on the surrounding area. I consider the proposal could have quite a detrimental impact on the whole character of the area, changing its rural appearance for the foreseeable future.

In addition, we must consider the impact of the proposal upon the countryside in terms of modesty, as required by policies E6 and RC4 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008 and HP5 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan. In terms of floor area, the proposed dwelling would be significantly larger than the existing mobile home, proposing an increase from approximately 70 square metres to 150 square metres. This is in excess of a 100% increase in floor space, which in my view, is not a modest increase. In addition to this the height and footprint is in excess of that of the current mobile home on the site. I therefore consider the proposal would not amount to a “modest” replacement dwelling in the countryside, but would have a far more imposing impact upon the surrounding rural area. Policy RC4 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008 states “The Borough Council will permit the rebuilding of an existing dwelling in the rural areas only if the proposed new dwelling is of a similar size and proportion to the original dwelling, and is to be erected on, or close to, the position of the original dwelling.” Continued . . .

10 3.2 (Contd) PART 3

The Council’s adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance entitled ‘Designing an Extension: A Guide for Householders’ reinstates this view and states that “in the Countryside, scale is of particular importance. The Council will not normally approve the extension of a dwelling in a rural area if it results in an increase of more than 60% of the original dwelling”

The site is also located within the coastal zone, which is covered by policy E13 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008. The policy states that “Where the Borough Council is satisfied that development would require a location outside the built-up area within the Coastal Zone, proposals will protect, conserve and, where appropriate, enhance the landscape, environmental quality, biodiversity and recreational opportunities of the coast”. As previously argued under the rural restraint considerations, I do not consider the proposal would adequately protect or enhance its surroundings.

The other issue which is key in this case is whether the site, which is legally a caravan site, would be suitable for use as a gypsy/ travelling persons site, and the approval of a permanent dwelling would remove this option permanently.

Members will be aware of the pressing need for further permanent gypsy sites in the Borough. Indeed, such proposals are reported elsewhere on this agenda. Finding suitable sites to try and prevent unauthorised encampments and use of lay-bys etc is an issue for the Council, local residents and gypsies and travellers alike. I am therefore very concerned that the loss of this caravan site to a permanent dwelling would remove the option of this site ever being used as a gypsy/traveller site.

Whilst the site is currently privately owned and the Council cannot force the owners to consider the option of allowing the site to be used by gypsies/ travellers, at some point in the future, if the site were to remain as a caravan site, the option would remain possible. I therefore urge Members to weigh up the requirement to provide further gypsy sites in the Borough within their decision making of this application.

Recommendation

I consider the proposal would be contrary to the aims of the development plan, particularly the policies that aim to preserve the countryside for its own sake, and the provision of sites for gypsies/travellers. Policy HP9 of the Kent & Medway Structure Plan specifically states that “local planning authorities must consider gypsies’ needs for accommodation and provide for adequate sites in their development plans”. I consider the proposal fails to meet the aims and requirements of the development plan.

Continued . . .

11 3.2 (Contd) PART 3

I have considered issues of the impact of the proposal of the local rural area and whether the proposal meets the development plan aims of protecting the countryside for its own sake and the impact on loss of a caravan site and the loss of a potential gypsy/ travelling persons site. Having weighed these issues up, I consider the proposal would have a negative impact on the rural area and would fail to meet the requirements of the development plan. ______

Responsible Officer: Graham Thomas (Area Planning Officer)

List of Backgrounds Documents

1. Application papers for SW/76/0004 2. Correspondence relating to SW/76/0004 3. Application papers for SW/06/1002 4. Correspondence relating to SW/06/1002

12 PART 3

3.3 SW/08/0335 (Case 22774)

Location: Conyer Creek Marina, North Quay, Conyer, Nr Faversham, Kent, ME9 9HL

Proposal: Use of land for boat storage and repairs including temporary shelter

Applicant/Agent: Mr & Mrs E U Spears, North Quay House, 1 North Quay Conyer, Sittingbourne, Kent, ME9 9HL

Application Valid: 20 March 2008

Reason

(1) The proposal represents industrial development within the countryside and in a Special Landscape Area, and would represent an inappropriate form of development, detrimental to the amenities of the rural location, to the protection of the landscape of the area, and to the amenities of local residents by virtue of additional traffic generation. The Council considers that the protection of the countryside, landscape, and the amenity of neighbours outweighs the case presented by the applicant. As such the proposal is considered to represent an undesirable form of development contrary to policies EN1, EN5 & QL1 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan and policies E1, E6, E9 and RC1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

Description of Proposal

This retrospective application is for the “use of land for boat storage and repairs including a temporary shelter.”

The land in question lies raised to the north of the existing North Quay Marina development. The applicant states it is approx 1050sqm in size and states the business is to be used by Conyer Creek Marina for “Boat Storage and Moorings” and that the land is “an extension to the adjacent land having the same use” and the site will be for the storage and repairs to boats and occasional building of small craft during the hours of 08.00 and 18.00 weekdays and 08.00 to 1300 Saturdays, and not normally working on Sundays and Bank Holidays.

Continued . . .

13 3.3 (Contd) PART 3 The applicant states the application will not result in any extra staff being employed.

The use represents a generally open use, but with a temporary shelter located to the north west of the site, which is a polytunnel structure. Access to the site is via the North Quay residential and marina development.

Relevant Site History and Site Description

The site in question is located to the north of Conyer Village and to the north of the North Quay development. The land was originally part of the long since closed Conyer Brickworks and was purchased by the applicant in the 1990’s.

The land lies outside the Conyer Village Boundary and is within the defined countryside, which here is within a Special Landscape Area, and a local nature reserve.

Planning permission was granted under permission SW/95/0622 for the demolition of the former boatyard at North Quay and the erection of 20 houses, access road, parking area, retention of the boat maintenance facility and provision of a new amenity block, renovation and alteration of berths on the Conyer Marina site in October 1996. This would have resulted in the cessation of the boat building activities at the site. This permission was not implemented.

A further application was submitted under reference SW/97/0707 and was very similar to that approved in 1996 though the design approach changed. It was also stated in that submission that:

“the current owners of the Marina operation will continue to operate a marina on that part of the land which has not been acquired by Environ for housing”

The Council’s decision here aimed to exchange the previous industrial use and traffic from the boatyard for the new marina and housing and traffic generated therefrom. This land is not subject to this application but has a direct link to it. See current application plan at Appendix A, which shows a slender finger of land (at the top of the plan) as "Existing boat maintenance and storage area", with the current application site cross-hatched to its east.

Lastly permission was refused for the stationing of a mobile home on this site under reference SW/07/0746.

Views of Consultees

Teynham Parish Council raised no objection to the proposal stating:

“in view of the fact that this has been in situ for approximately 9 years. I have been requested to enquire as to whether this is a valid application. Why is it not a retrospective application?” Continued . . .

14 3.3 (Contd) PART 3

Kent Highway Services raised no objection to the application and commented:

“ I do not consider that the proposed additional area to be used in relation to the existing boatyards operation will give rise to any noticeable increase in vehicular traffic. The nature of the operations tend to be repair and construction contracts carried out over a relatively long period, with short phases of HGV movement when materials are delivered or lifting required. It is likely that these proposals could even make more efficient use of these movements”

The Environment Agency raised no objection to the application.

I am hoping to have the views of the Kent Wildlife Trust available at the meeting.

Other Representations

26 letters of objection have been received from local residents and their comments are summarised below:

1. Houses 3-21 covered by Conyer Quay Management ltd (1 & 2 not covered-owned by Spears family) 2. 1 & 2 have right of access through quay by foot or vehicle 3. North Quay Marine advertise designing/building motor and sailing boats, repairs, restorations, moorings and winter storage 4. The commercial companies do not have commercial rights of access over north quay residential area 5. Paint spraying intrusive 6. Excessive noise at all hours 7. Mooring of derelict and unseaworthy boats 8. Grinding noise a disturbance 9. Welding noise 10. Sand blasting nuisance 11. 2007 EA H& S exec & SBC re breaking up of boat and parts floating the Creek 12. 2008 unauthorised dredging in breach of FEPA licensing 13. Nearby Swale Marina provides all necessary requirements 14. There is no requirement for expansion of boat storage boat repair or a temporary shelter 15. 2001/2002 temp shelter first erected 16. Council said no further development would be sought in North Quay and the redundant brickfield as they would be outside the built up area boundary for Conyer 17. 2002 application received for the polytunnel and not all info submitted and file “put away to gather dust” 18. Temporary shelter is full blown workshop 19. Shelter is on land which was redundant brickworks

Continued . . .

15 3.3 (Contd) PART 3

20. Applicants have no access apart from water to the boatyard for the removal and delivery of craft 21. Father of applicant on PC and friend of SBC chairman of Planning 22. Part of the land not in ownership of applicants 23. As people permanently living on houseboats there is no requirement for boat storage 24. Does it have fire certificate? 25. The land is residential and the application is for industrial development and will increase use of the site 26. This will undermine integrity of narrow residential roads 27. Increase in heavy road traffic will undermine amenity of residents in North Quay 28. No way the development or intensity can be controlled ...what does “occasional boatbuilding mean? 29. Epoxying on site of concern 30. No details of storage of materials on site...possible problem to residents and creek 31. Applicant should commit to erect and use a permanent boat crane to reduce traffic on quay 32. Current use of land unsightly 33. Out of character with residential quay 34. For years boat building has gone on in tunnel discreetly 35. Advised twice a year a crane would lift boats in and out, this happens more than that 36. Not an acceptable use in a residential area 37. Applicant is trying to recreate the boatyard that was sold on condition of the sale to residential use 38. Vessels have residents living permanently on them 39. Unlicensed dredging of the river bed is occurring 40. Vessels are undergoing heavier work involving large quantities of steel and concrete ballast arriving by road 41. Photos provided to show increasing HGV movement and nature of materials brought onto site 42. Use of the site in increasing 43. Arrival of a permanent crane on site is a further blight on the landscape and has no place in the midst of a residential area

The applicant submitted a letter dated 7 May 2008 in response to the majority of the objections to the application. A copy is provided at Appendix B.

Policies

Planning Policy Guidance Note 4 (PPG4) states that a key aim is to continue economic development in a way which is compatible with environmental objectives and that development plans should provide the policy framework weighing the importance of industrial and commercial development with that of maintaining and improving environmental quality. Continued . . .

16 3.3 (Contd) PART 3

PPS9 – Nature Conservation, seeks to protect and enhance biodiversity PPG 13 – Transport, aims to create a better relationship between land use and transportation needs.

Swale Borough Local Plan Policies

Policy E1 (General Development Criteria) Policy E6 (Countryside Protection) Policy E9 (Landscape) Policy E12 (Wildlife Sites) Policy RC1((Helping Revitalise the Rural Economy) Policy SH1 (Hierarchy of Settlements)

Kent & Medway Structure Plan

EN1 (Countryside Protection) EN5 (Special Landscape Area) EN8 (Biodiversity) QL1 (General Development Criteria)

Discussion

The planning history of the North Quay site is very relevant to the consideration of this application.

When planning permission was granted for the change of use from the boatyard to a residential and marina site it was accepted that an area to the north of that site was to be used as an "area for boat maintenance, repairs and storage ashore”. It would not be unusual for a “Marina” style housing development with mooring facilities to have such an area where boats can be maintained and repaired as necessary. The area identified in the original planning permissions remains on site and is still utilised by the applicant for boat maintenance, storage and repairs.

However, due to the expansion of the business on the quayside additional land was acquired to the north, and this is a different issue. The site was once part of the former Brickworks but is located within the countryside, beyond the built-up area of Conyer, as defined on the proposals map of the adopted Local Plan.

As long ago as 2004 the applicant attempted to submit a planning application for the current use. However, the application was never registered. This application follows renewed complaints about the use.

In my view the main considerations in respect of this application are the impact of the development on the countryside, and on the amenities of residents of North Quay, and the needs of the small business involved. Continued . . .

17 3.3 (Contd) PART 3

Conyer is in a very unsustainable location only really accessible by private motor vehicles and as such significant new development here is contrary to the aims of the development plan, as witnessed by Local Plan Policy SH1, and to wider objectives, set by PPG4 and PPG13 which encourage the siting of business premises in sustainable locations.

Sited in the defined countryside Policy RC1 of the Local Plan encourages the diversification of the rural economy providing there is no adverse impact on the area’s rural character, and that any development is of an appropriate scale and would not result in a significant increase in traffic to the detriment of the character and quiet enjoyment of the area. The further two points regarding re-use of buildings do not apply as no buildings are on site, which could be utilised and the whole site is Greenfield in nature.

The Built Up Area boundary for Conyer has a clear physical line and marks a clear boundary between the built-up part of the village and the countryside. This line is locally emphasised by a significant change in levels, with the current application site on the higher ground. This area is also within the Site of Nature Conservation Interest identified by the Kent Wildlife Trust. Encroachment into the countryside over this boundary threatens all other land in the vicinity which is afforded extra protection under policies E6, E9 and E12 of the Local Plan, and Policies EN1, EN5 and EN8 of the Structure Plan.

The knock on effect of the increase in activity is also the impact on those trying to enjoy the quiet environment of the countryside, which is protected by the Local Plan

The increase in the size of the activity on the quayside has resulted in the business causing disturbance to local residents. The greater traffic movements in terms of numbers of “normal” vehicle deliveries and larger HGV movements have an impact on those living directly adjoining the site and due to the remote location of the site, road transport is the only option for small and large deliveries to the site and consequently all those along this rural route would be aware of and affected by this increase.

While the applicant states that there would be no increase in traffic to the site with the expansion of the business, evidence from local residents appears to show this not to be the case, particularly in reference to the increase in the frequency of large HGV lorries visiting the site. Furthermore by definition the expansion of a business is always likely to increase the activity on and to the site. This traffic must all find its way past all the houses at North Quay, and photographs show that this can involve very large vehicles, which do not mix well with this well designed but intimate layout.

This detrimental impact on the residential amenity of local residents is, in my view, further sufficient grounds to warrant refusal of the application.

Continued . . .

18 3.3 (Contd) PART 3

A mitigating factor could be an increase in employment the proposal might bring. However the applicant states that no additional staff would be employed if the application were to be approved.

Recommendation

The expansion of this business into the defined countryside will undoubtedly be to the benefit of the applicant but I do not consider a case has been presented to produce sufficient grounds to outweigh the harm the impact of this proposal would have on the character of the countryside, its landscape of biodiversity, the inappropriateness of its unsustainable location and the detrimental impact on the residential amenity of the local residents due to the increase in activity at this rural site. I therefore recommend planning permission be refused. ______

Responsible Officer: Graham Thomas (Area Planning Officer) ______

List of Background Documents

1. Application Papers for Application SW/08/0335

2. Correspondence Relating to Application SW/08/0335

3. Application papers for applications, SW/95/0622, SW/97/707 and SW/07/0746

19

APPENDIX A ITEM 3.3 PART 3

APPENDIX B ITEM 3.3 PART 3

20

13

APPENDIX B (Contd) ITEM 3.3 PART 3

14

APPENDIX B (Contd) ITEM 3.3 PART 3

15

PLANNING COMMITTEE – 2 APRIL 2009 PART 5

Report of the Head of Development Services

PART 5

Decisions by County Council and Secretary of State, reported for information

5.1 C22796 – Use of land as garden and erection of summerhouse - Land adjacent to The Old Malthouse, North Street, Sheldwich, Faversham, Kent, ME13 0LN

APPEAL DISMISSED

The Inspector commented as follows:

“Appeal Ref: APP/V2255/C/08/2075769 Land adjacent to The Old Malthouse, North Street, Sheldwich, Faversham, Kent ME13 0LN • The appeal is made under Section 174 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by the Planning and Compensation Act 1991. • The appeal is made by Mr J P J Marsh against an enforcement notice issued by Swale Borough Council. • The Council's reference is: SBL 3:07 (ENF/08/060). • The notice was issued on 29 April 2008. • The breach of planning control as alleged in the notice is: “Without planning permission, the material change of use of the land from arable land to land used for the purposes of a domestic garden, and for the stationing of a large wooden summerhouse”. • The requirements of the notice are: “(1) Cease using the land or any part thereof as a domestic garden. (2) Remove the wooden summerhouse from the land.” • The period for compliance with the requirements is: “3 months”. • The appeal is proceeding on the grounds set out in Section 174(2)(a) and (f) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended.

Summary of decision: the appeal is dismissed and the enforcement notice upheld.

The appeal on ground (a) and the deemed planning application

Main issues

1. I consider that the main issues to be decided in the case of this appeal are whether or not the unauthorised development: firstly, detracts from the appearance of the rural area in which the appeal site lies; and secondly, results in the loss of high grade farm land that should be retained for agricultural production.

Continued . . .

1 5.1 (Contd) PART 5

Reasons for the decision

Consideration of the first issue

2. The hamlet of North Street lies astride Ashford Road (A251) in a rural area to the south of Faversham. The appeal site is situated near the southern end of the hamlet, to the rear of what appears to have been a former agricultural building that has been converted to a terrace of 3 houses. The site comprises a roughly rectangular plot which is set to the rear of the central dwelling (The Old Malthouse) and the southernmost dwelling (South Oast). It occupies an area of about 73 m by 27 m with its west and south boundaries defined by post and wire fencing beyond which is arable land. The north boundary abuts land to the rear of the northernmost of the 3 terraced dwellings.

3. This plot is laid to grass and supports a number of newly planted saplings. Within the site close to the south-east corner of the land stands a timber building. Including a covered veranda this building occupies a ground area of some 7.5 m by 6.75 m and appears to be in use partly as a study and partly as a store for a motor mower and gardening equipment. The shallow pitched roof of this building is covered with felt tiles.

4. The Appellant’s history of his acquisition of the appeal site does not alter the fact that the lawful use of the land is for agriculture and not garden area associated with The Old Malthouse. This is confirmed by the Council’s refusal to grant planning permission for the change of use of the land “from arable to garden use”. As such, and in the context of the summerhouse that stands on the land, the appeal site does not enjoy any permitted development rights provided by the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (GPDO), as amended. In the light of these matters it is appropriate to consider the impact of the unauthorised use on the appearance of the surrounding area.

5. Although there is no specific mention in the enforcement notice, the Council’s appeal statement confirms that the appeal site lies in an area defined in the adopted development plan as a Special Landscape Area (SLA). Accordingly, the area is subject not only to the general planning policies relating to the countryside, but also to those applicable to SLAs. Policy E1 of the adopted Swale Borough Local Plan 2008 contains general provisions, but I consider all the other policies cited in the enforcement notice to be of particular relevance. These are Policies EN1 and EN5 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan 2006 and Policies E6, E9 and RC10 of the local plan. They afford protection to the countryside with structure plan Policy EN5 and local plan Policy EN9 providing for the safeguarding of SLAs.

Continued . . .

2 5.1 (Contd) PART 5 6. In my opinion, the appeal site consists of a substantial tract of land. It lies to the rear of the ribbon development that lines the west side of Ashford Road. It is open to view from Ashford Road to the south from vantage points at least 150 m distant from the site. Its prominence is accentuated by the substantial summerhouse, to which attention is drawn not only by its size but also by the raw reddish coloured stain or similar finish that has been applied to its walls. In particular, the summerhouse gives the impression that the built development on the road frontage extends into the open land that abuts this development to the rear. This open land mainly comprises arable fields one of which flanks the west and south site boundaries. In my opinion the summerhouse impinges on the open nature of the farmland thereby eroding its rural character.

7. I appreciate that the planting of tree and other plants does not constitute development as defined in the Act. However, in the course of time the trees planted on the site, and their positions throughout the site, would fail to reflect the true agricultural appearance of the area, but would reinforce the domestic character of the land at present attributable to the summerhouse. This is also a criticism I make of domestic activity that is likely to take place on the appeal site if its use as garden land becomes established. From consideration of these matters I find the unauthorised development unacceptable and in conflict with those development plan policies that provide protection for the countryside. In particular, it fails to accord with local plan Policy RC10 which militates against the extension of the garden of a dwelling into a rural area unless it would cause insignificant harm to the landscape or form of a settlement.

Consideration of the second issue 8. In part, the reasons given by the Council for issuing the enforcement notice refer to the matter of the loss of high quality agricultural land. The agricultural grade of the land is not mentioned by the Council. Moreover, the Council’s appeal statement makes no reference at all to this matter. I note that local plan Policy E8 provides protection for the best and most versatile agricultural land (ie Grades 1, 2 and 3a), but insofar as the grade of the land is not specified and the Council places no reliance on Policy E8, I come to no conclusion on this issue.

Consideration of other matters 9. I recognise that as owner of the subject land the Appellant has no direct access to it other than from the rear of his mid-terraced property, and this give rise to difficulty in maintaining the land or utilising it for its lawful agricultural use. I do not dispute these points. However, I do not accept that these matters justify allowing development I have found unacceptable and in breach of planning policies. Moreover, while the summerhouse might be an exempt building for the purposes of the Building Regulations, those regulations relate to legislation other than the Town and Country Planning Acts and have no bearing on the legislation under which my decision is made.

Continued . . .

3 5.1 (Contd) PART 5

10. Finally, the Appellant mentions that the owners of neighbouring properties have similarly taken arable land into use as garden extensions. These are not matters directly pertinent to the appeal before me but are for the Council to consider in the first instance. I have taken into account all the other matters raised but I do not find them of such importance as to outweigh the considerations that have led to my decision.

The appeal on ground (f)

11. The Appellant suggests that with success of the appeal and the associated grant of planning permission for the unauthorised development on the deemed application, lesser steps would automatically follow by virtue of the resultant approval. It is contended that the objections to the unauthorised development would therefore be overcome. This is because the summerhouse would become an exempt building for the purpose of the Building Regulations and by inference it would also be immune from planning enforcement action by the Council. It is further argued that restricted access to the land prevents it from being used for agriculture. I conclude from this it is alleged that the requirements of the notice are excessive because they do not permit any suitable alternative to its present unauthorised use as domestic garden space.

12. In addition to the foregoing matters the Appellant points out that the appeal site forms only part of a parcel of arable land acquired by a number of local residents for the purpose of extending the gardens of their dwellings. It is further mentioned that the Council has not sought from the Appellant information concerning his future plans for the land, particularly as it is stated that he has no intention to develop the land beyond its present use.

13. For its part, the Council holds the view that the requirements of the notice are reasonable. Nevertheless, it acknowledges that if the appeal succeeds and planning permission is granted on the deemed application, the summerhouse might fall within the ambit of development permitted by the GPDO, and could possibly be retained on the site unless a condition removing permitted development rights were imposed on the grant of planning permission. In support of its case the Council relies on an appeal decision Ref: APP/V2255/C/07/2040146, dated 22 November 2007 concerning land at Newnham Lane, Newnham, Sittingbourne.

14. The Appellant’s suggestion relating to the success of the appeal does not fall to be considered in view of my conclusions on the first issue set out above in relation to the appeal on ground (a) and the deemed planning application. Furthermore, I am not persuaded that lesser steps, based on the matter of restricted access to the land which prevents its use for agricultural purposes, are acceptable as the harm identified above would not be overcome or ameliorated by such steps.

Continued . . .

4 5.1 (Contd) PART 5

15. The matter of other agricultural land having been acquired in order to extend the gardens of neighbouring properties is not a matter properly raised under ground (f). It is a matter I have considered under the ground (a) appeal. Neither do I accept the Appellant’s intention not to develop the land beyond its present use to be a matter properly pursued under ground (f) as the point at issue is the matter of unauthorised development that currently exists on the land. From consideration of these matters I do not accept that the requirements of the notice are excessive. Accordingly, I am not disposed to allow the appeal on ground (f).

Formal decision

16. I dismiss the appeal, uphold the enforcement notice, and refuse to grant planning permission on the application deemed to have been made under Section 177(5) of the Act as amended.”

Observations

An excellent decision, where the Inspector has fully supported the concerns raised by the Council regarding this damaging development.

Responsible Officer: Graham Thomas (Area Planning Officer)

List of Background Papers

1. Planning Inspectorate Appeal Decision reference: APP/V2255/C/08/2075769

2. Appeal Papers (statements and correspondence)

3. SBC Enforcement Notice reference: ENF/08/060

5 PART 5

5.2 C11412 – Woodgate Oast Hotel, Woodgate Lane, Borden, Sittingbourne, Kent, ME9 7QB

APPEAL DISMISSED

The Inspector commented as follows:

“Appeal Ref: APP/V2255/A/08/2089645 Woodgate Oast Hotel, Woodgate Lane, Borden, Sittingbourne, ME9 7QB • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission under section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 for the development of land without complying with conditions subject to which a previous planning permission was granted. • The appeal is made by Mr. R. Knight against the decision of Swale Borough Council. • The application (Ref SW/08/0899), dated 4 August 2008, was refused by notice dated 29 September 2008. • The application sought planning permission for change of use of redundant farm building to hotel without complying with a condition attached to planning permission Ref SW/02/688, dated 5 December 2002. • The condition in dispute is No 21 which states that: “The occupation of the hotel by any individual or group of individuals shall not exceed 28 days in total in any three month period”. • The reason given for the condition is: “The type of accommodation and its rural location are not designed for or suited to long-term occupation and in pursuance of Strategic Policy 1 and Policy B7 of the Swale Borough Local Plan”.

Decision 1. I dismiss the appeal.

Main issue, and the previous appeal decision 2. This site has a lengthy planning history. I have noted in particular my colleague’s decision, dated 30 May 2008, on a planning enforcement appeal concerning the change of use of the subject property “to a mixed use including the authorised (hotel) use and the use of the land for residential purposes” (ref: APP/V2255/C/07/2052212).

3. I consider that the main planning issue in the present appeal remains the same as in that recent enforcement appeal: i.e. whether residential use of the site is acceptable having regard to development plan policies for protection of the countryside.

Reasons 4. The appeal site lies in a rural area on the east side of Woodgate Lane, near its junction with . It comprises a former farm building which, in 2002, was granted planning permission for conversion to a hotel.

Continued . . .

6 5.2 (Contd) PART 5

5. In his decision, following a hearing, the enforcement Inspector noted (para. 9) that the appellant had changed the use of the site to include residential use. He went on to consider the relevant development plan policies in the Kent and Medway Structure Plan, 2006, and the Swale Borough Local Plan, 2008, and the Council’s supplementary planning guidance on The Conservation of Traditional Farm Buildings. (I note that all these policies and guidance remain equally relevant to the present appeal.) He concluded (para. 17) that “insufficient evidence has been submitted for me to conclude that a fulltime residential occupation of the premises is necessary for the operation of the approved business…” and went on to dismiss the enforcement appeal and uphold the enforcement notice.

6. Incidentally, contrary to the appellant’s suggestion I do not read para. 17 as stating, or implying, that condition 21 was imposed unreasonably. Indeed, given the Inspector’s decision, such an interpretation defies common sense.

7. I see no need to discuss the evidence put in connection with the previous appeal. And I agree with the Council that there is no significant new evidence in the present appeal. The Council’s appeal questionnaire and statement contain full details of the history of the 2 appeals, including a description of the site and its surroundings, previous planning applications, the completed building works, and the planning policy background. The statement notes as the key issue “the creation of a residential unit within the countryside”, and addresses that in the light of the policies and the appellant’s submissions. It concludes, as did the enforcement Inspector, that the use of the building for residential purposes has not been demonstrated to be acceptable, and requests me therefore to dismiss the present appeal.

8. I have of course considered carefully the grounds for appeal and documentation submitted by the appellant. But, in short, I find nothing in this material which should lead me to a different decision in this appeal from that of the enforcement Inspector in the previous appeal. I am satisfied that there has been no significant change in the facts, applicable planning policies or other circumstances of this case to justify my making a different decision; moreover, if I were to do so, I might well be open to a charge of inconsistency, and a possible legal challenge.

9. I have considered the terms of a possible variation (or relaxation) of condition 21, as worded on the last page of the Council’s statement, but the Council is not advocating such a variation. I agree with the Council that that would not be appropriate, given the fundamental planning policy objection to a residential use of the property.

10. The appeal must therefore fail.”

Continued . . . 7 5.2 (Contd) PART 5

Observations

A short, clear and excellent decision in which the Inspector agreed with the Council that the situation had not altered at all since the previous appeal, and that the application still contained insufficient justification for either the creation of a new residential unit within the countryside, or a relaxation of the occupancy condition attached to the property. Following this decision Officers will now take further measures to ensure compliance with the Enforcement Notice.

Responsible Officer: Rob Bailey (Area Planning Officer)

List of Background Papers

1. Planning Inspectorate Appeal Decision reference: APP/V2255/A/08/2089645/NWF.

2. Appeal Papers (statements and correspondence)

3. SBC Decision on Application SW/08/0899

8 PART 5

5.3 Case 4247 – Conversion of brickwork stable, and wagon lodge to dwelling with restoration of medieval stable and shelter shed, Site at Brick Stables and Wagon Lodge, Nether Court, Abbey Barns, Abbey Street, Faversham, Kent, ME13 7BL

PLANNING APPEAL ALLOWED – LISTED BUILDING CONSENT APPEAL DISMISSED

The Inspector commented as follows:

“Appeal A: APP/V2255/E/08/2069000 Brick Stables and Wagon Lodge, Nether Court, Abbey Barns, Abbey Street, Faversham ME13 7BL

• The appeal is made under section 20 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 against a failure to give notice within the prescribed period of a decision on an application for listed building consent. • The appeal is made by Mr M Brice against Swale Borough Council. • The application Ref: SW/07/0633 is dated 21 May 2007. • The works proposed are conversion of brickwork stable and wagon lodge to dwelling with restoration of medieval stable and shelter.

Appeal B: APP/V2255/A/08/2065621 Brick Stables and Wagon Lodge, Nether Court, Abbey Barns, Abbey Street, Faversham ME13 7BL

• The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Mr M Brice against the decision of Swale Borough Council. • The application Ref: SW/07/0632, dated 21 May 2007, was refused by notice dated 17 August 2007. • The development proposed is conversion of brick stable and wagon lodge to dwelling with restoration of medieval stable and shelter shed.

Decisions Appeal A: APP/V2255/E/08/2069000

1. I dismiss the appeal

Appeal B: APP/V2255/A/08/2065621

2. I allow the appeal and grant planning permission for the conversion of the brick stable and wagon lodge to a dwelling with the associated restoration of mediaeval stable and shelter shed at Nether Court, Abbey Barns, Abbey Street, Faversham ME13 7BL in accordance with the application ref: SW/07/0632, dated 21 May 2007 and the conditions attached as Annex I to this decision.

Continued . . . 9 5.3 (Contd) PART 5

Main issues

3. Whether the advantages of the proposal in terms of the proposed repairs to the listed mediaeval buildings outweigh the presumption against residential development in an area designated as Flood Zone 3 and if so, whether the proposed works to the listed buildings are acceptable.

Site description and proposals

4. The Abbey Barns site lies within the Faversham Conservation Area and is an important complex of listed historic buildings, some of which have already been converted to new uses. The buildings that are the subject of these appeals are a brick stable range, probably dating from the 17th or 18th Century and listed Grade II, and the remaining sections of a small timber framed stable building dating from the 14th or 15th Century and listed Grade II* . 5. Abbey Barns are close to Faversham Creek and Crooks Ditch, a narrow drainage channel that discharges into the creek. The site lies within Flood Zone 3 on the maps produced by the Environment Agency (EA). The ground level of the brick stables is at 3.74m above Ordnance Data Newlyn (ODN) and the proposed first floor level would be 6.39m above ODN. The levels predicted by the EA for a 1 in 200 year extreme water level at the site is 4.6m above ODN (with no allowance for climate change) and the open coast extreme level is 5.9m above ODN, if adjusted to take account of climate change and the higher sea levels likely to result from this. However, this level is likely to be lower at the site, which is some 3Km from the coast.

6. The appellant wishes to convert the brick stables into a three bedroom dwelling. The sleeping accommodation would be located on a new first floor located within the roof space and accessed by internal and external staircases. Other living accommodation would be on the ground floor and the proposal includes the repair and re-roofing of the mediaeval stables.

Reasons

Flood risk

7. There is no dispute that, in Flood Zone 3, new residential development is discouraged. The site lies within Zone 3a and a single dwelling house falls within the ‘more vulnerable’ category as defined in Planning Policy Statement 25 (PPS25). Changes of use of existing buildings are not subject to the Sequential and Exception Tests set out in that document and which must be carried out before certain classes of vulnerable new development can be carried out in higher risk Flood Zones. However, they do need to be the subject of site specific flood risk assessments (FRA).

Continued . . . 10 5.3 (Contd) PART 5 8. The appellant has commissioned such a FRA, which acknowledges that it would not be possible to ensure that residential development in the building would be completely risk free. The nature of the listed building and the constraints on changes to its historic fabric mean that the mitigation measures would necessarily be limited. The proposed mitigation measures comprise locating the sleeping accommodation above the predicted ‘worst case scenario’ flood water levels and a reliance on the flood warning systems provided by the EA.

9. The appellant also notes that the building would have an external staircase leading to ground that is within fifty metres of land outside Flood Zone 3. This land is rising away from the building and would give quick and easy access to a safe dry escape route away from any flood, which would be approaching from the direction furthest away from the staircase.

10. I understand the concerns of the Council and the EA who have taken the decision that the risks posed by allowing full-time occupation of the brick stable is not outweighed by the benefits of bringing these important historic buildings into beneficial use. They consider that a commercial use would be more appropriate as it would pose less of a danger to the occupants and that such an alternative use has not been fully explored.

11. However, the stable is on the extreme edge of the 1 in 200 flood risk area and the development of the first floor would ensure that occupants would have a safe haven above the flood water level, even if they were not able to vacate the premises in time. Additionally, storm surges from coastal waters are more predictable than sudden flooding from rivers, giving more time for warnings to be issued to those potentially affected. The point was also made that any flooding on this side would be tidal, with the consequence that water levels would be likely to drop considerably more quickly than in a situation where the flooding was from a fluvial source.

12. In respect of an alternate use, the larger barns and other associated buildings on the site have been taken on by a joinery company and the brick and mediaeval stables are the only listed buildings that are now left in a near derelict condition. I am told that they were on the market for about ten years and, despite the possibility of grant aid for repairs for the mediaeval stable, no prospective commercial enterprises have come forward to purchase, repair and convert the buildings. I consider it likely that the costs of these works could be prohibitive in relation to the commercial floorspace that would result and that a residential conversion is likely to be the only viable financial option.

13. In any event, the appellant has offered to repair the mediaeval stable as part of the whole conversion works and with no other prospect of investment in the buildings, the alternative scenario is that they will deteriorate further, with the likelihood that the mediaeval stable will eventually be beyond repair. I saw at the site visit that it is already in a very poor state, with props supporting the building where the timber frame has moved away from the brick and flint footings. Continued . . . 11 5.3 (Contd) PART 5 14. There is agreement between the parties and from independent experts such as English Heritage that these buildings are of great historic importance. The mediaeval stables are described by the English Heritage Inspector who reported on the applications referred to the mediaeval stable as ‘ a very precious little building, possibly the only timber-framed farm building surviving in England from Mediaeval times, except for barns.’

15. I consider that, set against the limited and manageable flood risk, the above factors indicate that the overall benefits to the community, through the preservation and repair of the listed buildings, outweigh the disadvantages of the residential conversion. Policy E24 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2000 does allow for exceptions to the restriction on development on land that lies below 5.58 ODN and Policy NR10 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan restricts development only where the risk of flooding would be unacceptable. Therefore, I find that there is no over-riding conflict with these policies.

Works to the listed building

16. The Council failed to determine the application for listed building consent following the refusal of planning permission and also because it was concerned that there was not sufficient detail on the drawing to understand the details proposed in the conversion works. English Heritage, whilst supporting the scheme in principle, has also commented that more information is needed before consent could be granted.

17. The appellant submits that these matters could be dealt with by conditions attached to any consent, given the general support for the scheme, but I do not agree. The proposals include the insertion of a new floor in the brick stable block and the subsequent division of the space created within the roof space. The roof structure contains ties at plate level and collars about 1.7m above them. The headroom in parts of the upper rooms will therefore be limited and details of where and how the new floor is to be inserted will be critical.

18. Whilst there is an acceptable schedule of repairs for the mediaeval stables, the drawings submitted with the application for the conversion works of the brick building are at a scale of 1:100 and there is, as yet, no detailed schedule of works for the proposed changes. Given that the appellant is putting forward the historic importance of the buildings as a reason for relaxing some of the requirements in respect of flood protection measures, I consider it essential that more comprehensive information is provided at application stage.

19. I understand that the appellant was unwilling to make the financial commitment that these details would involve without the certainty that the proposal would be acceptable on planning grounds, but now that the grant of planning permission has been judged to be appropriate, I see no reason not to seek resolution of the more important outstanding questions about the scheme before listed building consent is granted. Continued . . .

12 5.3 (Contd) PART 5 20. It was clear at the Hearing that the appellant’s design consultant and the Council's conservation officer have a good working relationship and will liaise to find an acceptable solution that can be granted consent when the relevant details are available. In the meantime, I will not grant listed building consent based on the limited information that is before me at present, as I cannot be certain that the scheme would preserve the architectural and historic interest of the interior of the brick stable, as required by the Planning (listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.

Other matters

21. As the site lies within a conservation area, I have a statutory duty to consider whether the proposals would preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the conservation area. The repairs to the buildings will obviously be a welcome improvement and the principle of the new staircase, which is the only major external alteration to the buildings, has not been judged by the Council to harm the historic interest of the brick stable range. I see no reason to disagree with this assessment and consequently find that the character and appearance of the conservation area would be enhanced by the scheme.

Conditions

22. I have considered the conditions suggested by the Council, in the event of Appeal B succeeding, in accordance with the guidance given in Circular 11/95. I have amended the suggested wording where necessary to follow this guidance. Some of the conditions, in particular numbers 5, 6, 10, 11 and 12 are required because the buildings are listed and relate specifically to work that would require listed building consent. They do not, therefore, need to be included on the planning permission.

23. In addition to the standard commencement condition, I shall impose conditions requiring approval of external finishes or specifying which materials are to be used, in the interests of maintaining the historic character of the buildings. I shall also require the submission and implementation of a landscaping scheme to ensure that the setting of the listed buildings within the courtyard context Is maintained.

24. As the repairs to the mediaeval stables are an integral part of, and justification for the overall scheme, I shall impose conditions relating to the approval and implementation of the schedule for these works. In order to ensure that a suitable means of escape from the first floor is provided and retained, I shall impose a condition to this effect and in order to obtain a satisfactory drainage system I shall restrict the means by which surface and foul water may be disposed of.

25. As there is a possibility that the land may have been contaminated in the past, I shall require approval of details for how this would be dealt with, if any such contamination is found. As the site is of archaeological importance I shall require the approval of a watching brief before the development commences and the implementation of its terms during the project. Continued . . . 13 5.3 (Contd) PART 5

26. To ensure that the garaging shown on the plans are retained for the use of the occupiers of the property, I shall impose a condition removing permitted development rights in respect of the use of this space.

27. The Council has suggested a condition prohibiting the use of the ground floor as sleeping accommodation. I consider that this would be unenforceable and, provided the upper floor is installed as shown, this would achieve the aim of ensuring that there is a safe haven for the occupants of the building in the event of a flood. For this reason, I consider that, unusually, it would be appropriate to impose a condition requiring that the development is carried out in complete accordance with the approved plans.

28. The EA has suggested a condition requiring all materials on the ground floor of the converted building to be of a flood resilient nature. This is incompatible with the listed status of the building, and I will not therefore include it.

Conclusions

29. For the reasons given above and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the Appeal A should be dismissed but that Appeal B should be allowed, subject to the conditions discussed above.”

Observations

A slightly disappointing, although not totally unexpected decision in this case. The Inspector dismissed the listed building consent appeal and upheld the Council’s reasoning for not determining the application – that insufficient detail had been provided regarding the proposed conversion works. With regards to the planning appeal, the Inspector concluded that despite the building being located in flood zone 3, and the use falling within a more vulnerable use category, the conversion would not pose a risk to human life. She therefore considered bringing these historic buildings back into use outweighed the flood risk concerns. This was my initial view on the earlier application. The Environment Agency who maintained an objection to this application throughout the application and the appeal have been made aware of this decision.

Responsible Officer: Graham Thomas (Area Planning Officer)

List of Background Papers

1. Planning Inspectorate Appeal Decision reference: APP/V2255/E/08/2069000/NWF 2. Appeal Papers (statements and correspondence) 3. SBC Decision on Application SW/07/0632 and SW/07/0633.

14 PART 5

5.4 SW/07/1173 (C22776) – Replacement of existing single pane louvre windows at front of property with UPVC box sash double glazed units – 8 Newton Road, Faversham

APPEAL ALLOWED

The Inspector commented as follows:

“Decision 1. I allow the appeal and grant planning permission for the replacement of existing single pane louvre windows at front of property with UPVC box sash double glazed units at 8 Newton Road, Faversham, Kent ME13 8DY in accordance with the application Ref: SW/07/1173, dated 4 October 2007, subject to the following conditions:

1) The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this decision.

2) No development shall take place until full details of the proposed box sash double glazed units have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Main Issue 2. The main issue is whether the replacement windows would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Faversham Conservation Area.

Reasons 3. 8 Newton Road is one half of a pair of Victorian semi-detached properties within a group of three sited in a prominent site close within the Faversham Conservation Area and close to the town centre. Other properties of a similar era can also be seen along this stretch of road. Most of these properties, which are constructed of local yellow stock bricks under slate roofs, have retained their original features, including their wooden sash windows. However, No 8 differs from its neighbours as it has been painted and its roof has concrete tiles. It has also lost its original windows which have been replaced with metal ones with large single panes of glass with small louvered openings at the top. I note that there is a difference of view about the physical condition of what remains of the original window frames, although photographic evidence from the appellant appeared to indicate that they are poor, at least in part. On my site visit I saw that the arched tops have been replaced by a façade in front of the windows.

4. In my view the lack of vertical and horizontal sub-division of these windows, particularly the largest section of the ground floor bay window, is incongruous in this setting and detrimental to the character and appearance of the conservation area. In these circumstances I

Continued . . .

15 5.4 (Contd) PART 5

consider their replacement with appropriately designed UPVC box sash windows would provide an opportunity to re-introduce the vertical and horizontal subdivision of the windows. This would ensure that the appearance of the building is more in keeping with its neighbours than it is at present. On my site visit I also saw that an example window has been installed, albeit unauthorised. In my view this illustrated the benefits of sub-dividing the otherwise large expanse of glass.

5. I appreciate that this part of the Faversham Conservation Area is covered by an Article 4(2) Direction which seeks to prevent further erosion of the special character of the area through unsympathetic alterations. I understand that the Council would ideally prefer traditional materials to be used and accept that UPVC has a different appearance to that of wood. However, in this case the original wooden frames have been lost and the existing windows are out of character with others within this group of properties. For these reasons I conclude that their replacement with carefully proportioned UPVC which seeks to replicate the form of those in the adjoining houses would enhance the appearance of the Conservation Area. It would therefore comply with Policies QL1 and QL6 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan and Policies E1, E15 and E19 of the Swale Borough Local Plan (2008) all of which seek to ensure that development respects its setting, particularly in historic environments.

6. I will allow the appeal subject to conditions. In addition to the standard time limit I have imposed a condition requiring full details of the proposed windows to be approved by the Council prior to their installation in the interests of the appearance of the building itself and the Faversham Conservation Area.”

Observations

A very disappointing decision in this case. When the item was discussed at planning committee, Members were very supportive of the Faversham Article 4 direction and refused the application as the proposed windows would not preserve or enhance the conservation area. The Inspector did recognise the aims of the Article 4 direction, but considered overall that because the property differed in quality to those surrounding it, the proposal for replacing metal windows, which still have the original sash mechanisms, with uPVC would at least preserve the character of the conservation.

Responsible Officer: Graham Thomas (Area Planning Officer)

List of Background Papers 1. Planning Inspectorate Appeal Decision reference: APP/V2255/A/08/2084649 2. Appeal Papers (statements and correspondence) 3. SBC Decision on Application SW/07/1173

16 PART 5

5.5 SW/08/0427 (Case 23004) – Installation of replacement windows to bedrooms, landing and lounge – 8 Preston Grove, Faversham

APPEAL ALLOWED

The Inspector commented as follows:

“Decision

1. I allow the appeal, and grant planning permission for the installation of replacement windows to bedrooms, landing and lounge at 8 Preston Grove, Faversham, Kent, ME13 8JY in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref SW/08/0427, dated 10 April 2008, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the condition that the development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

Reasons

2. The main issue is whether the proposal would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Faversham Conservation Area.

3. The application seeks to replace a number of existing timber windows with uPVC. The Council has only expressed concerns about the replacement windows in the north and east facing elevations. The other windows to be replaced are on the south and west facing elevations. These would not be readily visible from any publicly accessible vantage points and I am, therefore, satisfied that they would not cause any harm to the character or appearance of the area.

4. No 8 is located towards the rear of a small cul-de-sac which includes a number of attractive modern detached houses which have largely been built using traditional materials. However, I could see on my site visit that some of these houses have uPVC windows on elevations facing the road, as do most nearby houses on Preston Grove. Therefore, the use of uPVC is an established characteristic of the area.

5. I accept that uPVC windows can have bulkier frames and a more synthetic and less natural appearance than timber. However, in this case No 8 is set well back from the end of the cul-de-sac and, as a result, there would only be very limited views of the windows in the north and east facing elevations from the public domain. From these views it would not be readily apparent whether the windows were made of uPVC or timber. In addition, views of the east facing bedroom and lounge windows would be from an oblique angle and views of the north facing bedroom window would be largely obscured by garden planting. These replacement windows would not, therefore, appear as incongruous or prominent features in the streetscene.

Continued . . .

17 5.5 (Contd) PART 5

6. I accept that small details can make a significant difference to the architectural quality of an area and that the Council is, quite rightly, seeking to ensure that high standards of design are achieved locally. However, for the reasons outlined above I consider that the proposal would preserve the character and appearance of the Faversham Conservation Area. Consequently I can find no conflict with Policies QL1 and QL6 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan or with Policies E1, E15 and E19 of the Swale Borough Local Plan. These seek to ensure that developments respond positively to the site and the locality, that they achieve a high quality of design, including in terms of materials, and that they preserve or enhance the special character or appearance of the conservation area.

7. The Council has argued that timber is a more environmentally sustainable material than uPVC. However, the use of uPVC is widespread and this matter does not weigh heavily against the proposal.

8. Given my conclusions on this specific case, I can see no reason why the proposal might lead to developments which would fail to preserve the character or appearance of the conservation area. Furthermore, each proposal stands to be considered on its own merits. 9. I have not been provided with any suggested conditions and, except for the standard limit on the period available to begin the development, I consider none to be necessary. 10. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.”

Observations

A very poor decision where the Inspector relied upon nearby unauthorised uPVC windows setting a precedent within the area. Also the fact the property is slightly set back from the road led the Inspector to conclude that replacing timber windows with uPVC would not have a negative impact upon the character of the conservation area.

Responsible Officer: Graham Thomas (Area Planning Officer)

List of Background Papers

1. Planning Inspectorate Appeal Decision ref: APP/V2255/A/08/2082476

2. Appeal Papers (statements and correspondence)

3. SBC Decision on Application SW/08/0427

18 PART 5

5.6 SW/08/0263 (Case 17931) – Replace windows, fascia soffit and gutters, using uPVC and with no change to appearance – 14 Lammas Gate, Abbey Street, Faversham, Kent, ME13 7ND

APPEAL DISMISSED

The Inspector commented as follows:

“Decision

1. I dismiss the appeal.

Main Issue

2. The main issue is whether the replacement windows would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Faversham Conservation Area.

Reasons

3. Lammas Gate is a modern development to the rear of Abbey Street in the Faversham Conservation Area. It is close to the part of the Conservation Area characterised by medieval and Georgian buildings which are maintained to a high standard and therefore within an area of exceptional interest and high quality. The design of the new development has included the use of traditional materials. On my site visit I saw that all the windows have wooden frames although some appeared to be bulkier than those in the older properties to allow for the installation of double glazed units. Nevertheless, the consistent use of traditional materials provides a sense of uniformity to the development and maintains the high standards of quality that are appropriate within a Conservation Area.

4. No 14 is the end of a row of terraced properties. All the existing windows both to the front and the rear of this group of houses have matching wooden frames. To the rear of No 14 is a conservatory which has also used wood. Whilst I appreciate that modern UPVC windows could be designed to match the size and shapes of the existing wooden frames they have a different texture and appearance. In the context of the development and its Conservation Area setting the introduction of UPVC, particularly in the front elevation and at first floor level at the rear, would appear as an alien feature. It would disrupt the uniform appearance of windows of this terrace and the consistent use of wooden window frames throughout the development as a whole. Similarly, I consider that the use of UPVC for facia, soffits and gutters would also be incongruous given the predominant use of traditional materials in the immediate vicinity, particularly where these can be seen from the street.

Continued . . .

19 5.6 (Contd) PART 5

5. Lammas Gate is not a public highway but is included in an area which is the subject of an Article 4 Direction. Although No 14 looks out towards a block of garages with metal doors residents clearly walk between these garages and their homes within the development and would see any changes to the materials used. These matters reinforce my view that the introduction UPVC onto the main elevations of No 14 would be harmful.

6. I therefore conclude that the replacement of the wooden window frames, facia, soffits and gutters with UPVC would be harmful to the appearance of this row of terraced houses. The proposal would therefore neither preserve nor enhance the character or appearance of the Faversham Conservation Area, contrary to Policies QL1 and QL6 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan and Policies E1, E15 and E19 of the Swale Borough Local Plan (2008) all of which seek to ensure that alterations to existing buildings respects the setting, particularly in historic environments.

7. The appellant has drawn my attention to situations where permission for UPVC windows and conservatories has been granted. However, I have not been provided with the full details of those cases, nor the basis on which they were approved by the Council. In any event, I must determine this appeal on its own merits. For the reasons set out above, and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.”

Observations

A very good decision where the Inspector clearly supported the Council’s aims of the article 4 direction in Faversham and concluded that the replacement of timber windows in this modern development in the heart of Faversham would neither preserve or enhance the conservation area. This decision indicates the importance of consistency in decision making, as it is largely based on the fact that nearby properties have a uniform appearance.

Responsible Officer: Graham Thomas (Area Planning Officer)

List of Background Papers

1. Planning Inspectorate Appeal Decision ref: APP/V2255/A/08/2086629/WF

2. Appeal Papers (statements and correspondence)

3. SBC Decision on Application SW/08/0263

20 PART 5

5.7 SW/08/0030 (Case 17125) – Change of use to self-contained annexe – Leesway Cottage, Badlesmere, Faversham, Kent, ME13 0NX

APPEAL ALLOWED

The Inspector commented as follows:

“Decision

1. I allow the appeal, and grant planning permission for external alterations to rear and side elevations to create a self contained annexe at Leesway Cottage, Badlesmere, Faversham, ME13 0NX in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref SW/08/0030, dated 9 January 2008, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following conditions:

1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision. 2) The self contained annexe hereby permitted shall not be occupied at any time other than for purposes ancillary to the residential use of the dwelling known as Leesway Cottage. 3) The materials to be used in the construction of external alterations hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building.

Main issues

2. I consider that the main issues are:

• whether the creation of a self contained annexe would conflict with planning policies intended to restrict development in the countryside • whether the proposal would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Badlesmere Conservation Area • the effect on the natural beauty of the landscape within the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) • the effect on highway safety.

Reasons

Development in the countryside

3. The annexe would be provided with 2 bedrooms, a kitchen, hall, bathroom and lounge. There would be no direct access from inside the existing house and the annexe would have its own external door. The Council considers that the degree of self containment is such that the proposal amounts to a new dwelling.

4. However, despite what is said in the appellant’s letter dated 31 January 2008, it is clear to me from the description of development, the submitted drawings and other documentation that the proposal seeks permission for ancillary residential accommodation rather than Continued . . .

21 5.7 (Contd) PART 5

for a separate dwelling. In particular, the annexe would share vehicular access and parking arrangements with the existing house, it would be accessed via a path through the existing garden and would fall within the same curtilage. I have also been told that the annexe would share the same services and drainage and that there would be no legal separation. I have no reason to doubt that this would be the case. I have, therefore, determined the appeal on the basis it was submitted.

5. In these circumstances a further planning permission would be needed to occupy the annexe as a separate dwelling and any such proposal would stand to be considered in the light of relevant planning policies and material considerations at that time. It has been put to me that the appellant no longer lives in the house. However, the changing personal circumstances of the appellant do not alter the basis on which I have considered the application.

6. Policy E6 of the Swale Borough Local Plan seeks to restrict development in the countryside in order to protect its quality, character and amenity. In this context the policy accepts modest extensions to dwellings currently in residential use. The proposal involves alterations to an extension which has already been approved and largely completed. Consequently, given that the annexe would be ancillary to the existing house I am satisfied that the proposal can be regarded as a modest extension. Accordingly, there would be no conflict with this policy.

Conservation Area and AONB

7. Information provided by the appellant indicates that the ridge would be slightly higher than that which has been previously approved. However, I have not been provided with the plans relating to this previous approval and from my site visit it was not possible to tell whether the roof has been built as previously approved or as is proposed in this application. For the avoidance of doubt I have assessed the appeal on the basis of the submitted plans.

8. Leesway Cottage is located within a small group of buildings which stand in attractive countryside. The resulting annexe would have a ridge and eaves which would be lower than those on the original house and the appearance of the main front elevation to the house would remain largely unaltered. The use of matching materials, which could be required by condition, would ensure that the proposed development integrates successfully with the existing building. Accordingly, despite the existence of other extensions, the proposal would be physically and visually subservient to the original house.

9. The appeal site and several other houses are served by an access track which is also a public right of way. As the annexe would be located to the rear of Leesway Cottage, any views of it from along the track would be substantially screened by the bulk of the existing Continued . . .

22 5.7 (Contd) PART 5 house. The annexe would be visible from the main road. However, it would only be noticeable in views across the car park to the Red Lion Public House. Given that the annexe would be subservient to the existing house, it would not appear as a prominent or incongruous feature when seen from this direction or from within the car park. Any glimpses of the annexe from other locations would be at some distance and it would not appear conspicuous locally.

10. Therefore, the proposal would preserve the character and appearance of the Badlesmere Conservation Area. For the same reasons I am satisfied that the natural beauty of the AONB would not be compromised. Accordingly, I can find no conflict with Local Plan Policies E1, E6 and E9 or with Policies QL1, EN1 and EN4 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan. These seek to ensure that development is well designed, responds positively to the site and locality and that the character and quality of the landscape and the countryside is preserved, including within the AONB.

Highway safety

11. I have determined the appeal on the basis that the annexe would be ancillary to the main dwelling. Accordingly, and having regard to the physical size of the annexe in relation to the existing house, it would not lead to any material increase in vehicle movements. In this context the existing parking provision within the site would be adequate. It is therefore unlikely that the proposal would lead to vehicles being parked on the access track.

12. Visibility for vehicles emerging from the site into the access track is partially obscured looking left by the hedge along the front boundary to the site. It also appeared to me that visibility at the junction of the access track with the main road falls below that which might now be required for a new junction. However, the access track already serves a number of houses and, given that I have concluded that the use of the annexe would not materially increase vehicle movements, I am satisfied that the proposal would not have any adverse effect on highway safety. Consequently, I can find no conflict with Local Plan Policies E1, T1 or T3 or with Structure Plan Policy TP15. These aim to ensure that highway safety is maintained and that vehicle parking provision is adequate. In reaching this conclusion I am aware that there have been some road traffic accidents locally.

Other matters

13. As the annexe would be ancillary to the existing dwelling, it is unlikely that its use would give rise to any significant additional levels of noise or disturbance for neighbours. I have not been given any substantive evidence to demonstrate that it would not be possible to provide a satisfactory means of drainage. Despite being of modest size, the internal space provided would be sufficient to provide satisfactory ancillary accommodation. Given my overall conclusions, I can see no reason why the proposal would have an adverse effect on local property values. Continued . . .

23 5.7 (Contd) PART 5

14. It has been put to me that the appellant intends to sub-divide Leesway Cottage into three dwellings. However, I have explained above the basis on which I have determined the appeal. Any subsequent proposals to use the building as two or more dwellings would require a further planning permission and so would be subject to Council control. Concerns have been raised that the submitted drawings are unclear and contradictory. However, they contain sufficient information to allow me to properly assess the proposal.

Conditions and conclusions

15. The Council has not suggested any conditions. However, for the reasons outlined above it is necessary to impose a condition requiring matching materials. My decision has been made on the basis that the annexe would be ancillary. Consequently, a condition requiring occupation on this basis is necessary, along the lines advanced in Circular 11/95 and as has suggested by the appellant.

16. For the reasons given above and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.”

Observations

A very disappointing decision where the Inspector disagreed with the Council that an annexe with all the facilities required for an independent dwelling with no access from the main house remained an ancillary use, and did not amount to an independent dwelling in its own right. The Inspector was also unconcerned about the impact of having a second totally independent annexe would have upon highway safety.

Responsible Officer: Graham Thomas (Area Planning Officer)

List of Background Papers

1. Planning Inspectorate Appeal Decision ref: APP/V2255/A/08/2084860

2. Appeal Papers (statements and correspondence)

24 PART 5

5.8 SW/08/0284 (Case 22712) – Dropped kerb – 28 Forbes Road, Faversham, Kent, ME13 8QG

APPEAL DISMISSED

The Inspector commented as follows:

“Decision

1. I dismiss the appeal.

Main Issue

2. The main issue is the effect of the creation of the proposed access on highway safety.

Reasons

3. Forbes Road is a busy road connecting the A2 with the town centre of Faversham. In the section between The Mall and Station Road it has two sharp bends, several junctions and a zebra crossing. The mouth of the junction with Athelston Road is almost opposite No 28 and the junction with Aldred Road is within 50m. The road also has a downward gradient from south to north and single yellow lines to restrict daytime parking. On my site visit I saw that the front garden of No 28 has been paved and a small vehicle was parked facing the road. The proposal seeks to introduce a dropped kerb to allow access to the hard-standing in front of the dwelling.

4. Most of the properties along Forbes Road have no off-road parking facilities; those that do are where the houses are set back further from the highway and there is sufficient room to turn a vehicle around within the site. No 28 is one half of a pair of semi-detached dwellings in a group of similar properties along this stretch of road all of which have small front gardens.

5. The paved area in front of No 28 is 5.8m deep by 6.8m wide. The highway authority considers this to be inadequate to allow vehicles to turn around on the site enabling a vehicle to enter and leave the site in forward gear. I have no reason to disagree with this assessment. The lack of turning space means that vehicles would be likely to reverse either on to the highway, or into the parking area in front of the house. This situation would be made potentially more dangerous by the proximity of No 28 to the junction with Athelston Road. The appellants may seek to enter and leave the site at low speeds. However, other road users may be travelling at speeds approaching 30 m.p.h. whilst needing to be alert to traffic movements at the junction and pedestrian activity in the vicinity of the zebra crossing. All these factors mean that movements in and out of the access at No 28 would result in increased hazards for traffic using Forbes Road and pedestrians using the footway. Continued . . .

25 5.8 (Contd) PART 5

6. I therefore conclude that the creation of the access would give rise to unacceptable harm to highway safety, contrary to Policy TP12 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan and Policies E1 and T1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan (2008). Whilst I appreciate the appellants’ desire to park close to their home and reduce the pressure on on-street parking in the locality I consider these to be insufficient reasons to set aside the harm that I have identified to highway safety. For these reasons, and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.”

Observations

A very good decision where the Inspector took highway safety concerns very seriously and put them above the needs and requirements of the applicants extenuating personal circumstances.

Responsible Officer: Graham Thomas (Area Planning Officer)

List of Background Papers

1. Planning Inspectorate Appeal Decision ref: APP/V2255/A/08/2081067

2. Appeal Papers (statements and correspondence)

3. SBC Decision on Application SW/08/0284

26 PART 5

5.9 C22753 – New Dwelling House, Springfield, 16 Priory Road, Faversham, Kent, ME13 7EJ

APPEAL DISMISSED

The Inspector commented as follows:

“Preliminary matters 1. At the site visit the Appellant confirmed that the proposed soft landscaping and visibility splays shown on the submitted site plan, fall outside the application site and are not within the ownership or control of the Appellant. I have dealt with the appeal on this basis.

Main issues 2. The first main issue is whether the proposal would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of Faversham Conservation Area. The second main issue is the effect the proposal would have on the living conditions of the occupiers of nearby dwellings and the adequacy of the living conditions of the proposed dwelling, with particular regard to privacy.

Reasons Conservation area 3. Policy QL6 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan 2006 and policy E15 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008 – Pre-publication Draft reflect the requirement in section 72 of the Town and Country Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, that when considering proposals in a conservation area special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing its character or appearance. Collectively and amongst other things policies QL1 of the Structure Plan and E1 & E19 of the Local Plan seek to ensure that new development respects the quality and character of the built environment.

4. The conservation area is widely drawn and comprises a mixture of buildings, spaces, soft landscaping and areas of water. Within the area in which the appeal site is located there is a strong sense of enclosure, where boundary planting, the topography, soft landscaping and informal gaps between some of the buildings contribute to its low key, verdant character and appearance

5. Currently the space created by and the soft planting within the rear gardens of Nos.14, 16 & 18 help to break up and soften the urban form of the adjoining development to the northwest. At the same time it contributes to and reinforces the verdant character and appearance of this part of the conservation area. The proposed dwelling, due to its size, siting and proximity to the access drive/parking court would have an urbanising impact on this part of the conservation area. It would appear cramped and out of keeping with the surrounding development and there would be little space available for soft landscaping.

Continued . . .

27 5.9 (Contd) PART 5 6. In relation to design the proposed dwelling would fail to respect or relate visually to the existing development within the cul-de-sac.

7. In accordance with Planning Policy Statement 1 (PPS1) – Delivering Sustainable Development and PPS3 – Housing, I fully acknowledge the need to make effective use of land within urban areas and to encourage higher density developments. However this has to be balanced with the need to respect and to ensure that developments do not compromise the quality of the environment. In this instance I conclude that the serious harm that would be caused to the character and appearance of the locality and the conservation area by the proposed scheme would outweigh the benefits of providing a new dwelling on the site.

8. I conclude on this issue that the scheme would fail to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of Faversham Conservation Area and would fail to respect the character of the locality. It would therefore conflict with Structure Plan policies QL1 & QL6 and Local Plan policies E1, E15 and E19.

Living conditions 9. The site is located in an area where the land rises to the southeast and northeast. This together with the narrow depth of the proposed rear gardens would result in the rear garden and ground floor rooms of the proposed dwelling being directly overlooked from the dwelling at No.16. It would also be overlooked to a lesser degree from the existing dwelling and rear terrace area at No.18. Having regard to the degree of overlooking I do not consider that it could be adequately dealt with by new tree planting. Notwithstanding this if a tall tree belt was formed around the boundaries of the proposed dwelling it would have a materially adverse enclosing impact on the proposed dwelling and to a lesser extent the rear garden environment to No.16.

10. Because of the elevated position of No.16, it would have an overbearing impact on the outlook from the proposed dwelling and its rear garden, which would exacerbate the perceived sense of being overlooked.

11. Due to the change in levels the rear gardens and/or rear rooms at Nos.16 and 18 would be overlooked from the rear garden and rear ground floor windows of the proposed dwelling. I am less concerned about the relationship with No.14 due to the juxtaposition of the existing and proposed dwellings. Similarly due to the existence of the access and parking area I do not consider that the scheme would materially add to any loss of privacy for the occupiers of Nos.24 & 26.

12. I conclude on this issue that the proposed development would result in unsatisfactory living conditions for the occupiers of the proposed dwelling and the occupants of Nos.16 and 18 due to inadequate and loss of privacy. As such it would be contrary to policy E1 of the Local Plan and policy QL1 of the Structure Plan, which amongst other things seek to protect the living conditions and provide a satisfactory environment for residents. Continued . . .

28 5.9 (Contd) PART 5

Other matters

13. I have taken into consideration the concerns relating to highway safety, rights of way and the planning condition relating to access, however they add little to my findings on the main issues.

Conclusions

14. Whilst I have found in favour of the appellant on some points my conclusions on the main issues represent compelling reasons for dismissing this appeal, which the imposition of conditions could not satisfactorily address.”

Observations

A very positive decision where the Inspector agreed with the Council that the proposal would appear cramped and would not preserve or enhance the character of the conservation area. The Inspector also agreed with the Council that the proposal would result in unsatisfactory living conditions for the potential occupiers and two neighbouring properties due to lack of privacy.

Members should note that there is still a current appeal relating to the site for a similar scheme refused at Planning Committee under planning reference SW/08/0456.

Responsible Officer: Graham Thomas (Area Planning Officer)

List of Background Papers

1. Planning Inspectorate Appeal Decision reference: APP/V2255/A/08/2073708/WF

2. Appeal Papers (statements and correspondence)

3. SBC Decision on Application SW/07/1405

29