Swale Borough Council Planning Services

SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL

PLANNING SERVICES

Planning Items to be submitted to the Planning Committee

08 May 2014

Standard Index to Contents

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

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

PART 2 Applications for which permission is recommended

PART 3 Applications for which refusal is recommended

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

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

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

ABBREVIATIONS: commonly used in this Agenda

CDA Crime and Disorder Act 1998

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

HRA Human Rights Act 1998

SBLP Swale Borough Local Plan 2008

INDEX OF ITEMS FOR PLANNING COMMITTEE – 08 MAY 2014

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

Part 2

2.1 NEWINGTON SW/14/0289 Colourpacks Plant Centre, Pgs 1 – 6 London Road

2.2 IWADE SW/14/0006 Culnells Farm, School Lane Pgs 7 - 13

2.3 SITTINGBOURNE SW/14/0265 15 Westerham Road Pgs 14 - 20

2.4 SHEERNESS SW/14/0059 13 Neptune Snooker Club, Pgs 21 – 26 Neptune Terrace

2.5 SHEERNESS SW/14/0230 84 Holmside Avenue, Halfway Pgs 27 - 31

2.6 FAVERSHAM SW/14/0093 97 Upper Brents Pgs 32 - 34

2.7 FAVERSHAM SW/14/0079 The School Pool, Oare Road Pgs 35 - 37

2.8 FAVERSHAM SW/14/0226 Plot 42, Lakeside Avenue Pgs 38 - 43

2.9 SITTINGBOURNE SW/14/0146 18 Bayford Road Pgs 44 - 55

2.10 MINSTER SW/14/0144 Land adjacent 32 Cliff Gardens Pgs 56 – 65

2.11 UPCHURCH SW/14/0074 Oast Field Stud, Gore Farm Pgs 66 – 87 Track, Holywell Lane

Part 5

5.1 MINSTER SW/12/1515 Glenlodge, Queenborough Drive Pgs 88 - 91

5.2 SHEERNESS SW/13/0783 2 Crown Cottages, Pgs 92 – 94 Queenborough Road

5.3 SITTINGBOURNE SW/13/0253 33 Cowper Road Pgs 95 – 97

5.4 LOWER HALSTOW ENF/13/0011 Land at Brick Barn Farm, Pgs 98 – 99 Halstow Lane

PLANNING COMMITTEE – 08 MAY 2014 Part 2

Report of the Head of Planning

Part 2

Applications for which PERMISSION is recommended

2.1 SW/14/0289 (Case 09728) Newington

Location : Colourpacks Plant Centre, London Road, Newington, Sittingbourne, Kent, ME9 7NY

Proposal : Provide an area of approximately 150m² as a retail/trade counter

Applicant/Agent : Mr N Fox, Colourpacks, London Road, Newington, Sittingbourne, Kent, ME9 7NY

Application Valid : 7 March 2014

8 Week Target : 2 May 2014

Subject to: Receipt of additional information/clarification from the applicant.

Conditions / Grounds

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

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

2. The use shall not commence until a plan showing an area for vehicle parking has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Those parking spaces shall be provided prior to the commencement of the use hereby approved, shall be reserved for the use of customers and visitors to the premises, and no permanent development, whether permitted by the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking or re-enacting that Order) or not, shall be carried out on the land or in such a position as to preclude vehicular access thereto.

Grounds: Development without adequate provision for the parking of vehicles is likely to lead to car parking inconvenient to other road users and in a manner detrimental to highway safety and amenity

3. Retail sales from the site shall be restricted to an area of 150 square metres, and as shown on the approved layout plan, and no additional floor space in the form of double-height shelving shall be provided.

Grounds: In respect of the terms of the application, and in the interest of preventing growth of retail use of the site in a manner harmful to highway safety and amenity.

4. The range of goods for sale shall be restricted to plants grown on the nursery, and no other goods.

Grounds: In respect of the terms of the application, and in the interest of preventing growth of retail use of the site in a manner harmful to highway safety and amenity.

5. The site shall not be open for retail sales to the public other than between the hours of 09.00 to 16.00 Monday to Saturday, and 11.00 to 16.00 on Sundays and Bank Holidays.

Grounds: In respect of the terms of the application, and in the interest of minimising harm to local amenity and highway safety.

Council’s approach to this application

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

In this case, subject to the receipt of additional information, the application was acceptable.

Description of Proposal

This application seeks planning permission for the provision of an area of roughly 150 square metres as a retail / trade counter, Colourpacks Plant Centre, London Road, Newington.

The area will be cleared of metal racking and other storage currently in situ, and wooden tables (of a variety of designs, but similar to those used at other garden centre / plant sales premises) will be erected for the display and sale of plants to the public. Vehicle and pedestrian access will be via the existing entrance from London Road, and parking is available at the front of the site within a large open area.

The application form states that hours of operation will be 9-4 Monday to Saturday, and 11-4 on Sundays and Bank Holidays. It also notes that opening hours will be seasonal, and from my discussions with the applicant he has indicated that it is unlikely the site will be open for public retail use during the winter months.

Relevant Site History and Description

Colourpacks Plant Centre occupies a large site to the north of the A2 London Road, in the countryside to the west of Newington. The entire site extends to approximately 19 acres / 8ha, and is bisected by the railway line. The front part of the site features large commercial greenhouses and a profile metal barn used for storage and as an office, while the rear of the site is largely open and given over to the growing or storage of plants.

Access to the site is from the A2 and leads into a wide yard area to the front of the barn and between the greenhouses. This area is largely surfaced with gravel and is sufficiently large for vehicles to park while HGVs manoeuvre in/out of the site.

Planning permission was granted for use of the site as a wholesale nursery in 1986, under application SW/86/0015. Condition (iv) of that permission restricted the use of the site to that of a wholesale trade nursery, and prohibited retail sales to the public from the site.

Since that time there have been a number of subsequent permissions for the erection of greenhouses, storage buildings, and a toilet block, although I do not consider those permissions to be relevant to the proposal at hand.

The current application arises further to withdrawal of an application last year (SW/13/1483) that sought retail use of approximately 1200 square metres of the site. Kent Highway Services raised objection to that proposal as the scale of operation may have given rise to significant traffic movements that would affect the flow of traffic on the A2 (further comments below). The applicant carried out discussions with KHS officers further to their comments, arriving at the current proposal on the basis of their advice.

Views of Consultees

Newington Parish Council object on the grounds of potential highway safety issues arising from vehicles turning across the A2 to access the site, and lack of “demarcation between retail and trade customers, and we are concerned of the inherent dangers this will cause to the public.”

Hartlip Parish Council (the neighbouring PC) also objects on the grounds of highway safety, and also note that the site is close to Gardening World (on the southern side of the A2, slightly further west) and that “it is difficult to see how two such similar businesses could survive in such close proximity particularly bearing in mind that B&Q and Homebase have premises within two miles.”

Hartlip PC also comment that “the application is so lacking in information that it is difficult to comment on it purposefully. For example, information is required on the types of goods to be sold.”

Kent Highway Services have no objection subject to the above conditions, and comment:

“I did have objections to the previous application, SW/13/1483. There appeared the possibility that the site could be operated as a large garden centre, and might be likely to generate a significant amount of traffic. The access to the site was not an appropriate form of junction for the potential level of activity, so the application was withdrawn. I subsequently advised the applicant that a development only likely to generate a modest amount of traffic would be more acceptable, as the existing simple priority junction arrangement would still meet the design criteria used for the expected level of activity though the access.

During the discussion, it was evident that the applicant merely wished to supplement their wholesale trade income by selling some of their plants direct to the public, rather than create a garden centre selling a wide range of goods. I considered that a small retail area limited to an area of 150m2, and selling only the plants grown at the nursery would be acceptable, as this would be expected to generate a limited amount of traffic over and above the current volumes associated with the existing commercial operation.”

Other Representations

Two letters of objection have been submitted by local residents, raising the following concerns:

- There is already a garden centre nearby; and - Highway safety, particularly in regards to vehicles turning across traffic to access the site, and entering fast-flowing traffic when leaving the site.

Policies

Policies E1, E6, E7, B1, RC1 and T1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008 are applicable here as they encourage and support expansion of rural businesses provided that there are no adverse amenity impacts and the development does not seriously affect the primary distributor roads through the Borough, or the character and appearance of the countryside.

Policy B4 specifically addresses the provision of new retail development within the Borough, but generally relates to larger scale developments such as new supermarkets or out-of-town shopping centres. I do not believe that it is applicable in this instance, given the very small-scale of the proposal.

The above policies are considered to be compliant with the NPPF, which generally supports economic development as long as it does not give rise to any serious harm to amenity, highway safety, or the character or appearance of the countryside. 4

Paragraphs 24 and 25 of the NPPF set out national policy in respect of main town centre uses which would not be located in a town centre and would not comply with an up to date local plan. In particular, they set out that a sequential test relating to the availability of alternative sites should be undertaken for such uses, with the caveat that it should not be applied to small scale rural development. “Small scale” is not defined in the document.

Discussion

The policies of the Swale Borough Local Plan broadly support the expansion of rural businesses, and whilst I note the contents of the NPPF with regard to the possible need for a sequential test, in this instance the proposal amounts, as a matter of fact and degree, to a fairly small scale retail proposal which would be firmly linked to the main use of the site for horticulture. Members will note condition 4 above, which restricts the goods sold to plants grown at the site. On this basis I do not consider that a sequential test giving consideration to alternative sites is required here.

I note the objections raised on the basis of competition. This is not a material planning consideration.

I consider the principle of the proposal to be acceptable; it would assist an existing business situated within the defined countryside of the Borough and, due to the nature of the site (and development in general along this stretch of the A2) would not give rise to any additional harm to the character or appearance of the countryside over and above the existing use of the site.

The proposed retail area extends to approximately 150 square metres of land at the front of the site, adjacent to one of the greenhouses. I note the Parish Council is concerned over what goods are to be sold from the site, and I have requested clarification from the applicant – I will update Members of any further details at the meeting, but as I set out above, condition 4 restricts the goods which could be sold from the site and this will ensure that the scope of retail at the site doesn’t grow beyond that which has been applied for. Unrestricted retail in this location would be a concern, but this is not what the application seeks permission for.

I note concerns relating to highway safety. However, Members will note that Kent Highway Services raise no objections, subject to the above conditions, commenting that the scale of the proposed retail use would be unlikely to give rise to a harmful increase in vehicle movements or require any highway works / improvements. I am satisfied that the proposal would not give rise to harm to highway safety or convenience.

Recommendation

I note local objections, but consider the proposal to be acceptable in scale, impact on the countryside, and highway safety. Furthermore the proposal would be in compliance with local and national policies seeking to encourage employment / business uses in the countryside and in my view this proposal does not amount to a 5

retail use which triggers the need for a sequential test. It amounts to a fairly small scale use of the site for purposes related to the main use of the site for horticulture.

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

List of Backgrounds Documents

1. Application papers and correspondence for SW/14/0289. 2. Application papers and correspondence for SW/13/1483.

2.2 SW/14/0006 (Case 13554) Iwade

Location : Culnells Farm, School Lane, Iwade, Sittingbourne, Kent ME9 8QJ

Proposal : Erection of an office and facilities building (retrospective) in association with the existing commercial buildings at this site (Use Class B1)

Applicant/Agent : Mr Carl Murphy, C/O Mr J Mann, 9 Preston Lane, Faversham, Kent, ME13 8LF

Application Valid : 16 January 2014

8 Week Target : 13 March 2014

Conditions / Grounds

1. The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved drawings: 2013-101-01 rev. B.

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

2. Within 2 months of the date of this decision ,full details of both hard and soft landscape works shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. These details shall include existing trees, shrubs and other features, planting schedules of plants, noting species, plant sizes and numbers where appropriate, means of enclosure, hard surfacing materials, and an implementation programme.

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

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

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

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

Grounds: In the interests of the visual amenities of the area. 7

5. The premises shall be used for the purpose of an office and for no other purpose, including any other purposes in Class B1 of the Schedule to the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (as amended).

Grounds: In the interests of the amenities of the area

6. The area shown on the submitted plan as car parking space shall be kept available for such use at all times and no permanent development, whether permitted by the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking or re-enacting that Order) or not, shall be carried out on the land so shown or in such a position as to preclude vehicular access thereto; such land and access thereto shall be provided prior to the first use of the office building hereby permitted.

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

7. Notwithstanding the details submitted, the roof shall be re-covered with tiles, the specific type and design of which shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval in writing. These details shall be submitted within 1 month of the date of this decision and the approved scheme shall be implemented within 2 months of the approval of the details.

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

8. Within 2 months of the date of this decision, the existing office portacabin identified on drawing no. 2013-101-01 rev. B shall be removed from the site (areas outlined in red and blue) and replaced with a fence, the details of which shall have been agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Grounds: In the interests of visual amenity, rural character and the historic character and appearance of the listed farmhouse.

Informative

The applicant is advised to take note of the letter from the Environment Agency dated 15th February 2014.

Council’s approach to this application

resulting in a significant change to the nature of the application and the application can then be amended and determined in accordance with statutory timescales.

In this case the applicant was asked for additional information in respect of the use and necessity of the building.

Description of Proposal

This application seeks retrospective planning permission for the erection of a standalone office building. The building is single storey with a pitched roof. It has timber cladding and a felt roof, although the application details note that they would be willing to change the material to green corrugated roof sheeting. It is located within the grounds of Culnells Farm featuring a complex of buildings which has taken on a commercial use over the years.

The proposed office building has been erected on a piece of land that is currently undeveloped approximately 10 metres from five B1 units (former agricultural barns) and 30 metres from the grade II listed building – Culnells Farmhouse. The use of the office building is for general administration and management of the businesses operating from some of the units at the site, to provide toilet (including disabled) and kitchen facilities for employees of the businesses. The building would provide a base for CCTV monitors and there would be a ‘drying room’ for wet and messy clothes. The intention is for the office to replace an existing portacabin that is located close to the collection of existing B1 buildings. The portacabin is not fit for purpose according to the applicant because it is damp and lets the water in. The applicant justifies the new location for the office on the grounds that it will give a better view of the site and they note that the area left vacant by the portacabin will be fenced off, improving the impact on the listed building.

The proposed plans show the provision of 6 parking spaces to the front of the office building, two additional parking spaces for an existing light industrial building and three additional trees close to the proposed office building.

Relevant Site History and Description

The most relevant planning history is as follows:

SW/92/0285 – change of use of agricultural buildings to B1 use (contractors plant hire business) – approved with conditions attached limiting the opening hours of the units.

SW/99/1169 sought permission to relax these condition but was refused on the ground that there would be an adverse impact on the residents of School Lane (traffic) and Culnells Farmhouse.

SW/05/1442 – change of use of agricultural unit to B1 – approved.

SW/06/0039 – retrospective planning permission for 8 dog kennels;

SW/07/1177 – demolition of existing buildings and the erection of new buildings to the southwest of the site for B1 use – approved but not implemented.

SW/13/0861 - retrospective planning permission for the erection of a standalone office building. This application was refused on the following grounds:

1. The proposed office building would be harmful to the character and appearance of the countryside, as it would lead to the piecemeal erosion of the countryside by virtue of its size, location and appearance, contrary to policies E1, E6 and E7 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008 and paragraph 28 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

The application site lies within flood zones 2 and 3, is within the countryside and a strategic gap.

Views of Consultees

Iwade Parish Council object to the proposal on the grounds that this is a retrospective planning application. They are also concerned that the new building is more than double the size of the original office at this site.

The Environment Agency have no objection to the proposal.

Other Representations

The applicant has submitted letters of support for the proposal from their tenants that support the proposal for improved facilities.

Policies

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)

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

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

NPPF – para 28: Planning policies should support economic growth in rural areas in order to create jobs and prosperity by taking a positive approach to sustainable new

development. To promote a strong rural economy, local and neighbourhood plans should:

● support the sustainable growth and expansion of all types of business and enterprise in rural areas, both through conversion of existing buildings and well designed new buildings;

●promote the development and diversification of agricultural and other land-based rural businesses.

Swale Borough Local Plan 2008 – E1, E6, E7, E9, E19, RC1, T3.

Discussion

I consider the key issues to be the principle of the development, the impact on visual amenities and the impact on the setting of the listed building.

Principle

Policy RC1 relates to the rural economy. With regards to new commercial development within the rural area, this policy states that maximum use should first be made of existing buildings, or if not suitable, their modest redevelopment, followed by use of previously developed land in preference to development on greenfield land. This would result in a more acceptable and sustainable development. For the previous planning application that was refused, officers concluded that the applicant had provided insufficient justification and/or information to demonstrate that the office could not have been provided within one of the existing buildings on the site or their extension or adaption in accordance with policy RC1. Officers also concluded that the applicant had provided inadequate justification as to the need for the significant increase in floorspace over and above the existing office facility. Officers had significant concerns about the location of the building which is physically remote from the collection of buildings at this site and results in a spread of buildings into the countryside. It was concluded at the time that an office building, located closer to the existing buildings, may be acceptable if sufficient justification for its size and provision outside of the existing buildings were accepted.

The applicant has submitted additional information with this current application and I consider that, on balance, the proposal would comply with policy RC1 of the adopted Local Plan.

Firstly, the applicant notes that they wish to improve the facilities and working environment at this site for their existing tenants and attract the right sort of tenant. This building would help to achieve this. They currently rely on a substandard portacabin and this does not function as a usable space for the tenants of the site. I consider that the improved facilities will help to secure the on-going commercial use of these building in the long-term. This is compliant with the NPPF (para. 28).

With regards to the need for a building of this size, the floorplan shows how each room would be used and the spaces shown do not seem excessive . Each room 11

would offer an improved facility for the existing tenants in my view. I therefore consider that its size is reasonable.

With regards to its location, the applicant explains that the existing buildings, being built of asbestos and being in a poor state of repair, would be impossible to extend and any conversion of space within the buildings would limit the use by its tenants. It would also be difficult to create a space within the buildings that provides the improved working environment that the applicant strives for. Any extension could also limit the circulation of vehicles around the site. I therefore consider that these options are not achievable. Consideration should then be given to whether the proposal would be better sited in a location closer to the existing buildings and therefore avoid spreading the buildings across the site and encroaching on previously undeveloped land. It would in my view be possible to site the building closer to the existing buildings but I am mindful of the need to avoid causing more harm to the setting of the listed farmhouse and the need to retain the circulation routes for vehicles. The applicant also wishes to avoid an overhead power line and considers that its current location will enable better surveillance of the site. Apparently, they have suffered from thefts in the past.

The siting of the building will allow the implementation of a robust landscaping scheme including the planting of three trees and wild flowers. I am of the view that, on balance, the building is appropriately located and would have a limited visual impact subject to a robust landscaping scheme and the alteration to the roof material as set out below. A significant consideration is also the ability for a condition (8) to be imposed which would result in the removal of the existing unsightly portacabin that is close to the listed farmhouse. This removal has been suggested by the applicant and would improve the setting of the listed building in my view. This must weight in favour of the proposal in my opinion.

Visual amenities

The form of the building and the timber cladding is acceptable in my view and is in- keeping within the rural area. However, the existing felt roof and proposed corrugated roof material is not encouraged as this would have a detrimental impact on the visual amenities of the surrounding area in my view. Members will note that I have recommended condition (7) which requires the re-covering of the roof with tiles and I will encourage the use of Kent peg tiles.

Impact on setting of Listed Builidng

Members will note that I have recommended condition (8) which will ensure that the existing unsightly portacabin is removed from the site and fencing erected to obscure external storage from view. The proposed new office building is far enough from the listed farmhouse that there would be very limited impact on its setting. I therefore consider that the historic setting of the listed building would be preserved.

There are no highway concerns in my view.

Recommendation

Having considered the relevant planning policies, comments from the Parish Council, consultees and the applicant (and tenants), I am of the view that the proposed office building would be compliant with Local Plan policy RC1 and paragraph 28 of the NPPF. It is therefore acceptable in principle in my view. I consider that the proposal would have no harm to visual amenities subject to the alteration to the roof material and a robust landscaping scheme. I also consider that the proposal would preserve the setting of the listed farmhouse.

I therefore consider that this planning permission should be granted.

List of Backgrounds Documents

1. Application papers and correspondence for SW/14/0006 2. Application papers and correspondence for SW/13/0861 3. Application papers and correspondence for SW/07/1177 4. Application papers and correspondence for SW/06/0039 5. Application papers and correspondence for SW/99/1169 6. Application papers and correspondence for SW/92/0285

2.3 SW/14/0265 (Case 07453) Sittingbourne

Location : 15 Westerham Road, Sittingbourne, Kent, ME10 1XB

Proposal : Outline application for the erection of 1 detached three- bed, two-storey house within side garden of No.15 (All matters except layout reserved)

Applicant/Agent : Mrs V Greenhalgh, 15 Westerham Road, Sittingbourne, Kent, ME10 1XB

Application Valid : 4 March 2014

8 Week Target : 29 April 2014

Conditions / Grounds

1. Details relating to the scale and appearance of the proposed building, the access thereto and the landscaping of the site shall be submitted to and approved by the Local 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.

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

Grounds: In order to prevent pollution of water supplies8.

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

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

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

Grounds: In the interest of visual amenity.

7. The landscaping details submitted pursuant to condition 1 shall show substantial planting of indigenous species along the frontage of the site.

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

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

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

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

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

10. The area shown on the submitted plan as driveway and parking shall be kept available for this purpose at all times and no permanent development, whether permitted by the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking or re-enacting that Order) or not shall be carried out on such land or in a position as to preclude vehicular access thereto; such land and access thereto shall be provided prior to the occupation of the dwelling hereby permitted.

Grounds: Development without adequate provision for the parking or garaging of cars is likely to lead to car parking inconvenient to other road users and in a manner detrimental to highway safety and amenity 15

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

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

Grounds: In the interests of residential amenity

12. The details submitted pursuant to condition 1. shall not show any first floor windows serving habitable rooms in the southern flank elevation of the dwelling. Any first floor windows shown in this elevation shall be obscure glazed and non-opening (other than where the opening element of the window would be at least 1.7 metres above the finished floor level of the room it serves.

Grounds: In the interests of residential amenity.

Informative

1. A formal application for connection to the public sewerage system is required in order to service this development. Please contact Southern Water, Southern House, Sparrowgrove, Otterborne, Hampshire, SO21 2SW (tel. 0330 3030119) or www.southernwater.co.uk.

2. Due to changes in legislation that came into force on 1st October 2011 regarding the future ownership of sewers it is possible that a sewer now deemed to be public could be crossing the property. Therefore, should any sewer be found `during construction works, an investigation of the sewer will be required to ascertain its condition, the number of properties served, and potential means of access before any further works commence on site. The applicant is therefore advised to contact Southern Water on the above details.

Council’s approach to this application

In this case the application was acceptable as submitted.

Description of Proposal

This application seeks outline planning permission for the erection of a single detached three-bed, two-storey house on land currently forming the side garden of 15 Westerham Road, Sittingbourne.

The application is outline only, and all matters other than layout have been reserved. The submitted layout plan shows a dwelling measuring approximately 7m wide by 8.5m deep positioned to the south of the existing dwelling. A new vehicle access is indicated at the front of the site, adjacent to existing access serving a garage block to the rear of the neighbouring properties (17-27 Westerham Road), and a parking area to the front of the new dwelling. The drawing also indicates that the property will be set back from the road by approximately 17m, and that the rear garden will measure approximately 18m deep.

The entire application site is approximately 43m deep by 9m wide.

No other details have been provided at this stage, and matters of access, scale, appearance and landscaping would be considered under a reserved matters application should outline planning permission be granted.

Relevant Site History and Description

15 Westerham Road is a detached house situated on a modern housing estate within the built up area of Sittingbourne. It is set back from the road with parking to the front and rear and a detached garage projecting forward of the main house. The house is set approximately 3m from the northern boundary (with no.13) and the garden wraps around the other 3 sides of the house.

It was constructed around 1957 and retained a very generous double-width plot as the surrounding estates (on Westerham Road and Berkeley Court) grew throughout the 1970s and 80s. The whole plot measures approximately 43m deep by 21m wide – there are no other plots of similar scale within the immediate area.

The area of land subject to this application is largely laid to lawn, with mature trees, shrubs and hedgerow along the boundary lines.

There is very little planning history for the site. SW/82/0729 granted permission for the erection of a porch and shower room extension in 1982, and in 2003 application SW/03/0093 granted permission for the erection of the front garage.

Views of Consultees

The Environment Agency has no comments.

Southern Water comment that the development will require a formal application for connection to the public sewer, and request the above informative is attached to any decision notice.

Other Representations

Five letters of objection have been submitted by local residents, raising the following concerns:

- Loss of daylight / sunlight to adjacent houses and gardens; - Overlooking from the first floor windows of the proposed dwelling; - Loss of privacy, particularly to neighbouring gardens; - Removal of mature trees and shrubs within the site; - Harmful to open character of the site; - Insufficient space for a new dwelling; - Noise and disturbance during construction; and - Impact on local property values.

Policies

Policies E1, E19, H2 and T3 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008 apply to this application in that they encourage new housing developments within the built up area that do not impinge upon local residential or visual amenity, are of an appropriate standard of design and provide adequate amenity space, access and parking for future residents.

These policies are consistent with the NPPF, which itself encourages the provision of new housing within sustainable locations such as this.

Discussion

The application site lies on an existing housing estate within the built up area, and in a very sustainable location close to the various shops, services and facilities offered within Sittingbourne as a whole. The principle of residential development on the plot is therefore in accordance with the general thrust of both local and national guidance, and what falls to be considered are matters of detail as discussed below.

Members will no doubt be aware of the limited nature of outline applications; only the principle of development and the matters applied for can be considered. In this instance, as above, the residential development of this site is acceptable as a matter of principle. The layout of the site and whether it can accommodate a dwelling without material planning harm are the key issues here.

The submitted drawing shows that, when subdivided, each plot would measure 8m wide, and that both existing and proposed houses – including all necessary parking 18

spaces, garden, etc. – could be comfortably accommodated. The parking layout shows parking provided to the front of the dwelling. However – this would be set back from the highway to an extent and would be shielded from view from the south by existing dwellings. I do not consider that this layout would harm the visual amenities of the area.

I also do not consider that the development would appear cramped, or contrary to the openness of the area as one of the neighbours has suggested. Plot frontage widths within the area range from 5m wide (nos.21, 23, and 25), 6m wide (no.19), or 7m wide (nos.5 and 17) to 12m (no.11), 14m (no.13) and 16m wide (no.15 as it is at present). Subdivision of no.15’s land to create an additional plot would therefore not be entirely out of character with the existing grain of development, in my opinion. The layout plan submitted shows, in my opinion, a reasonably spaced development which would not harm the character and appearance of the streetscene.

I do recognise the contribution that the frontage planting makes to the area, and appropriate landscaping to the front will help to soften and screen the development in views from the highway, much the same as the existing situation on site. Landscaping is one of the reserved matters, and can thus be carefully considered in a further application(s) to ensure that it is sufficient, appropriate (in terms of species and scale), and retained / cared for until established.

I recognise concerns in regard to overlooking, from the flank elevation facing no. 17 Westerham Road. Condition 12 above would address these concerns and would prevent any overlooking from any first floor flank windows in the proposed dwelling.

The rear garden of the new dwelling would be approximately 18m deep and there will be in excess of 21m rear-to-rear distance with existing properties in Berkeley Court. This is wholly in accordance with the Council’s adopted guidance and I do not believe that the erection of a two storey house would give rise to any serious overlooking, or overshadowing, to an extent that could reasonably justify refusal of outline planning permission at this stage.

Noise and disturbance are, unfortunately, part and parcel of any new development, but the standard hours of work condition would help to minimise any problems in this regard.

Property values are not a material planning consideration.

Recommendation

The plot is situated within a sustainable urban location, and is of sufficient size to accommodate a dwelling, in my opinion. The proposed layout is acceptable and would not cause significant harm to visual or residential amenity.

Taking the above into account I recommend that outline planning permission should be granted subject to conditions.

List of Backgrounds Documents

1. Application papers and correspondence for SW/14/0265.

2.4 SW/14/0059 (Case 05952) Sheerness

Location : 13 Neptune Snooker Club, Neptune Terrace, Sheerness, Kent, ME12 2AW

Proposal : Change of use from snooker club to dance studio

Applicant/Agent : Mrs K Lambeth, Inspirations Dance, 14 Sanspareil Avenue, Minster, Kent, ME12 3LD

Application Valid : 12 February 2014

8 Week Target : 09 April 2014

Conditions / Grounds

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

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

2. No amplified music/PA system shall be used other than in accordance with the details set out in the email received 28th March 2014, unless first approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Grounds: In the interests of residential amenity

3. The premises shall be used for the purpose of a dance studio and for no other purpose, including any other purposes in Class D2 of the Schedule to the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (as amended).

Grounds: In the interests of the amenities of the area

4. The use of the premises hereby permitted shall be restricted to the hours of 4pm to 9pm on weekdays, 9am to 12 noon on Saturdays, and shall not take place at any time on Sundays or Bank Holidays.

Grounds: In the interests of residential amenity

5. No additional openings shall be inserted in the northern elevation of the building, nor any alterations made to the existing openings in this elevation.

Grounds: In the interests of residential amenity.

6. The windows in the northern elevation of the building shall remain closed at all times when the building is in use.

Grounds: In the interests of residential amenity.

Council’s approach to this application

In this case the application was acceptable after further details of the proposed amplified music/PA system were submitted.

Description of Proposal

The application proposes changing the use of no. 13 Neptune Terrace, currently a ‘limited membership snooker club’ to a Dance Studio.

No external changes proposed. There are no parking facilities proposed. The applicant notes that “most of our children get dropped off and picked up outside the studio”, the applicant also comments that “there are 6 bays for cars to park up the ramp [adjacent], also along the main road there are spaces to park”.

The applicant proposes opening hours of 4pm to 9pm on weekdays, 9am to 12 noon on Saturdays, the building is not proposed to be in use on Sundays or Bank Holidays.

The applicant proposes using a 25w portable PA system to provide amplified music for dance classes.

Relevant Site History and Description

Neptune Snooker Club, no. 13 Neptune Terrace was extended as a result of application no. SW/80/1461, to the south elevation facing Marine Parade, the east of the property has a pitched roof and measures 5.4m to the eaves height, 9m to the roof ridge, this section of the building is approximately 11m in length. The rest of the existing building to the west is flat roofed, approximately 5.3m in height and 15.5m in length.

To the north elevation facing the public footpath and Neptune Terrace, no. 13 Neptune Terrace measures approximately 3.9m from the ground to the eaves height,

7.5m to the roof ridge, the flat roof section of the building to the west measures approximately 3.9m from the ground to the eaves height.

There is one existing window to the east elevation facing the car park. There are no windows existing on the south elevation. To the north elevation there are 5 windows and one double door. The windows and doors to the north and east elevation are double glazed.

There is an increase in land levels from Marine Parade to the public footpath outside Neptune Terrace of approximately 2m.

There are no parking spaces associated with this site.

Planning permission was granted under reference SW/10/1067 for ‘Removal of existing extension erection of two storey extension and change of use/external works to existing building from snooker hall to create three residential dwellings with associated shared amenity area and landscaping’. This permission was never implemented and has now expired.

Application SW/80/1461 for ‘Change of use from amusement arcade to snooker club’ was approved. This decision included the condition that

“(v) The premises shall be used as a limited membership snooker club and for no other purpose.”

The site is currently unoccupied.

Adjacent to the site are residential dwellings. To the north of the site, across the public footpath, no’s 1 to 11 Neptune Terrace is a terrace of two storey Grade II listed dwellings and care home and one ground floor amusement arcade, use class D2, with first floor flats above, is approximately 6m from the application site.

No’s 1 to 5 Redan Place, a set of two storey terraced dwellings lies to the west, approximately 27m from the application site.

No’s 6 to 13 Marine Parade, a set of three storey terraced dwellings, including some ground floor retail units, lies to the South, approximately 11m from the application site.

The application site lies in flood zone 3.

Views of Consultees

The Head of Service Delivery does not raise objection and comments that the information submitted by the applicant regarding building integrity, type of equipment etc. is reasonable and indicates a fairly low key type of use which is unlikely to have an adverse impact on nearby residential properties. This has been addressed by condition 2, 4, 5 and 6 above.

English Heritage has no comment.

Kent Highway Services do not raise objection and comment that;

“It is appreciated that the application has generated a lot of objections relating to concern over the amount of parking available in this location. However, it should be noted that the parking demand for the proposed development would be considered less than the current use, when applying the figures taken from the Kent Vehicle Parking Standards document. This would suggest that the current Snooker Club should attract a provision of 18 spaces, whereas the Dance Studio would only require 10. Therefore, it would not be reasonable to insist upon additional parking spaces being provided as part of this application. It is also likely that the impact of any parking demand would be less too, as users would generally be dropped off and collected, rather than snooker players who’s vehicles would remain parked for the whole duration of their visit.

Consequently, I have no objections to the proposals in respect of highway matters.”

Other Representations

Cllr Mark Ellen, Ward member for Sheerness East, submitted a letter of support for the application and comments that the Snooker Club has been in need of redevelopment for some time. He does though comment that parking could be an issue.

Four letters of objection have been received which comment that;

 There would be an unacceptable level of noise by virtue of the proposed change of use, this is exacerbated by the proximity of adjacent dwellings to no. 13 Neptune Terrace. o The Listed Buildings adjacent have single glazed windows. Swale Borough Council is unlikely to support additional glazing to a Listed Building to address the impact of noise generated by the change of use. o The proposed use would generate heat making it likely that windows would be opened, increasing potential noise pollution. o There is concern about the hours of opening adding to the potential noise pollution during the evening and early in the mornings.

 The change of use is likely to cause parking problems as no parking is provided at the site.

Development Plan Policies

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

E1: General development criteria E13: Coastal zone & undeveloped coast C1: Existing and new community services and facilities 24

The National Planning Policy Framework is also relevant in terms of its general thrust towards good design and minimising potential amenity impacts arising from new development, and its broad support for sustainable economic development.

Discussion

The property lies within the built up area of Sheerness, where extensions and alterations to buildings are generally acceptable, subject to being of a high standard of design; sitting comfortably within the streetscene; and not giving rise to any serious amenity concerns, in accordance with the above policies.

I do not consider there will be any effect on the visual amenities of the area as a result of this development - there are no external changes proposed.

Members will note that Kent Highways Services do not raise objection, stating that that the parking demand for the proposed development would be considered less than the current use.

Given this, I do not consider that the proposed change of use would have any significant negative impact on highway safety or amenity.

I consider that the key issue here is the impact on residential amenity by virtue of potential noise and disturbance.

Members will note that Head of Service Delivery has no objection to the proposal, and considers the noise emitted by the 25 watt portable media player to be relatively low key. The windows and door that face the dwellings adjacent are double glazed and condition 6 above prevent them being open during times when amplified music is being played. In addition, condition 5 will prevent any new windows or doors being inserted in this elevation, and will prevent any works to the existing windows which might lessen their attenuating properties.

Furthermore, any potential noise created will be limited by the opening hours, the application proposes hours of opening to be 4pm to 9pm on weekdays, 9am to 12 noon on Saturdays, and no opening on Sundays or Bank Holidays. The hours of use would be controlled by condition 4 above.

In my view these controls will prevent any significant noise levels caused by virtue of the proposed change of use.

I consider that the proposed use as a Dance Studio would retain the use of the building as a community service facility in compliance with Policy C1 of Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

Recommendation

I do not consider that the proposed change of use would give rise to any serious harm to visual amenity. Nor do I consider that there would be any significant change to highway safety and amenity.

I consider that conditions 2, 4, 5 and 6 above will prevent any significant negative effect on residential amenity from the proposed change of use.

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

List of Background Documents

1. Application papers and correspondence for SW/14/0059 2. Application papers and correspondence for SW/10/1067 3. Application papers and correspondence for SW/80/1461

2.5 SW/14/0230 (Case 12205) Sheerness

Location : 84 Holmside Avenue, Halfway, Sheerness, Kent, ME12 3EZ

Proposal : Conversion of garage into dental surgery and enlargement of garage with roof alterations

Applicant/Agent : Dr Kevin Magee, C/o Mr John Liddiard, 14 Wentworth Drive, Cliffe Woods, Rochester, Kent, ME3 8UL

Application Valid : 27 March 2014

8 Week Target : 22 May 2014

Subject to: The comments of Kent Highway Services.

Conditions / Grounds

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

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

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

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

3. The use of the converted garage shall be solely as a dental surgery and for no other purpose falling within Use Class D2 of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987.

Grounds: In the interests of residential amenities.

4. The dental surgery use shall only take place on Thursdays, Fridays and Saturdays between the hours of 10:00 and 15:00 and customers shall visit by appointment only with 30 minutes allowed between each appointment.

Grounds: In the interests of residential amenity.

5. The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the alterations to the garage hereby permitted shall match those on the main dwellinghouse in terms of type, colour and texture.

Grounds: In the interests of visual amenity.

Council’s approach to this application

In this case the application was acceptable as submitted.

Description of Proposal

This application seeks planning permission to establish a small dental surgery within a garage structure at the side of no. 84 Holmside Avenue, a residential property. Alterations to the garage structure would involve the provision of a new roof with false pitch to the front, extension to the side so that it abuts the side elevation of the dwelling and alterations to the elevations to provide a door and windows with brick infill to the front elevation. A planning statement submitted with the application sets out the extent of the use proposed:

‘…the proposed working days are Thursdays, Fridays and Saturdays, with a maximum of four patients per day. Sufficient time between patients would be allows to ensure as far as possible that just one client would be present at the practice at any given time, thus minimising traffic and easing any parking difficulties.

One person would be employed on a part-time basis: he/she would act as a dental nurse/receptionist/practice manager.

Deliveries to the functional dental practice would be infrequent, are small in nature and would be made during working days and hours.

Clinical waste would be stored according to CQC and GDC best practice guidelines and collection would be arranged with licenced contractors when required.’

Relevant Site History and Description

A planning application for the use of the garage as a dental surgery was submitted and later withdrawn under SW/02/0454. At the time, the property was only provided with two off-street parking spaces although the applicant was asked o amend the front of the property to cater for additional parking – this offer was not taken up by 28

the applicant. Since this application was withdrawn the applicant has provided additional parking to the side of the property for up to three cars.

The application site lies at the southern end of Holmside Avenue. The section of road outside the application site is unmade and private. It is within the built-up area boundary and the area is characterised by residential properties. The land immediately to the south is designated as countryside. The property has one parking space to the front of the garage to be converted and up to three tandem parking spaces to the other side of the property.

Views of Consultees

Comments from Kent Highway Services are awaited and will be reported at the meeting.

Other Representations

Six letters of objection have been received from local residents. They are concerned about: the increase in traffic and parking close to the site; wear and tear on the unmade private section of the road; potential to attract criminals looking to steal medication and; the potential for the activity to increase in the future if the property is sold on.

Policies

Swale Borough Local Plan 2008:

E1 – general development E19 – high quality design E24 – alterations and extensions T3 – vehicle parking

Discussion

I consider the key issues to be the principle of the development, the impact on visual amenities, the impact on residential amenities and any highway implications.

Principle

The proposal would introduce a commercial use to this residential area. This in itself is acceptable in principle in my view because there are no policies preventing such a use. Indeed, it is often the case that a mix of residential and commercial uses work well together. This is of course subject to the commercial use having no significant harm on residential amenities.

Visual amenities

The proposed alterations to the elevations and roof of the garage would be an improvement to its appearance in my view. The false pitch to the front of the garage would reflect the pitched roof of the surrounding buildings to some extent and, subject to matching brick and fenestration, I consider that the external alterations would be acceptable. The level of parking likely to occur would not in my view harm the visual amenities of the area. If the use is controlled as per the above conditions, only one customer car and one staff car would be parked at the property over and above those owned by the occupiers of the dwelling. Even with the conversion of the garage, there would still be space behind the front elevation of the dwelling for parking of cars. This would not in my view harm the visual amenities of the area.

Residential amenities

The proposed external alterations would increase the height of the garage by 50 cm for its length (slightly higher for the false pitch). As the adjacent property has a garage along the party boundary with no 84, I am not concerned about any overshadowing impact in this case.

With regards to the proposed dental surgery use, I consider that this would be so limited that any increased noise and disturbance would be insignificant. Members will note the restrictive conditions set out above. It is worth noting that although the applicant has specified that there would be no more than four customers a day, imposing a condition to require this would be unwise in my view as it would be difficult to enforce and is unnecessary in this case given the limited hours and numbers of days allowed.

Highway safety/amenity

As this is a quiet road where properties have their own off-street parking facilities, I do not consider that there would be any highway safety concerns. I will though report the comments of Kent Highways at the meeting.

With regards to highway amenity, this relates to any inconvenience that may be cause to local residents as a consequence of on-street parking associated with the dental surgery use. In this case, the application property has ample off-street parking available as described above and so the loss of the garage space would not be harmful. Neither would the increase in parking requirements as a consequence of the proposed use. The tandem off-street parking spaces can be used by the residents of the property and the part-time employee and customers can use the space to the front of the garage. On-street parking would also be possible without interfering with parking for surrounding properties in my view. In addition, the condition requiring the appointments to be at least 30 minutes apart will ensure that there is only likely to be one customer car at the site at any one time. I therefore consider that the proposed use would have no detriment to highway amenity.

Other issues

Wear and tear of the private road is a private legal matter for the local residents who share this road to take up with the applicant directly and is not a material planning consideration in this case.

The potential increase in crime as a consequence of this proposal is not considered to be a concern that would outweigh the merits of this proposal and in any case, such an increase would likely to be minimal in my view.

Recommendation

Having considered the relevant planning policies and comments from the local residents, I consider that the proposal is acceptable in principle and would have no detriment to visual amenities or residential amenities due to its limited hours. There would also be no detriment to highway safety and amenity in my view.

I therefore consider subject to the views of Kent Highway Services, that this application should be approved.

List of Backgrounds Documents

1. Application papers and correspondence for SW/14/0230 2. Application papers and correspondence for SW/02/0454

2.6 SW/14/0093 (Case 25185) Faversham

Location : 97 Upper Brents, Faversham, Kent, ME13 7DL

Proposal : Ground floor rear extension

Applicant/Agent : Mr & Mrs P & K Evans, 97 Upper Brents, Faversham, Kent, ME13 7DL

Application Valid : 03 February 2014 as amended by drawings received 21 February 2014

8 Week Target : 31 March 2014

CONDITIONS/GROUNDS

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

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

2. New facing materials used on the exterior of the development hereby approved shall precisely match those used on the existing building.

Grounds: In order to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the conservation area

3. Prior to the commencement of works on the pitched roof of the development hereby approved, a proposed (north west) side elevation of the rear extension and a working drawing cross section of the extension at a scale of 1:20 showing the precise methodology for fitting the new roof to the existing work shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Grounds: In order to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the conservation area

Council’s approach to this application

The Council recognises the advice in paragraphs 186 and 187 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and seeks to work with applicants in a positive and proactive manner by offering a pre-application advice service; having a duty planner service; and seeking to find solutions to any obstacles to approval of applications having due regard to the responses to consultation, where it can reasonably be expected that amendments to an application will result in an approval without resulting in a significant change to the nature of the application and the 32

application can then be amended and determined in accordance with statutory timescales.

In this case the applicant was provided the opportunity to submit amendments to the submitted plans.

Description and Relevant History

Planning permission is sought for a pitched roof single storey rear extension to 97 Upper Brents, Faversham.

The applicants previously submitted a lawful development certificate application for a flat roof single storey rear extension under reference SW/13/1174 which has already been built .This was refused on the basis that the extension was not permitted development. Discussions with the applicants focused on the inappropriateness of the flat roof design. The applicants were encouraged to seek planning permission for a pitched roof extension.

The applicants now seek retrospective planning permission for what has been built and to add a pitch roof to the extension. The property was originally configured in an L shape on plan; the proposed extension has in filled the yard area between the existing kitchen/dining area and the common boundary wall. The extension extends by approximately 4.6m from the rear wall and with a width of approximately 2.2m. All of the houses along this part of Upper Brents have this single storey element to the rear.

The extension is to be used as a dining room and would feature two windows on the side elevation.

The property is an end of terrace located in the Faversham conservation area with the added control of an Article 4 (2) Direction which has removed permitted development rights where the works front a highway. As the development is at the rear this does not impact upon the decision in this instance.

Consultees and Representations

Faversham Town Council has made an objection on the grounds that the drawings are inadequate to describe what is proposed.

I have received two letters of support for this application on the grounds that the extension is similar to that on the neighbouring property, it would enhance the living/dining area, and it would not harm residential amenity.

Policies

Swale Borough Local Plan 2008

E1 (General Development Criteria) E15 (Development Affecting a Conservation Area) 33

E19 (Design Criteria) and E24 (Extensions & Alterations) Council’s adopted SPG on residential extensions

Discussion

The main areas of consideration are whether the size, scale and design of the proposed extension would preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the conservation area and the question of potential impact on the amenities of the neighbours.

The single storey extension extends 4.6m from the main rear elevation of the property along the common boundary. This level of projection along the common boundary is normally considered beyond the maximum acceptable projection under the recommendations outlined in the Councils SPG on house extensions, which recommends a maximum rear projection of 3.0m for single storey extensions. However as there is a gap between this house and its neighbour to the north-west I do not consider that the extension would dominate or significantly impact on the adjacent property in terms of outlook and the amount of light it would receive (once the pitched roof has been added).

The original extension, by virtue of its flat roof design, was considered inappropriate for the character of the building and the terrace as a whole. This has been amended in this current proposal with the addition of a pitched roof to preserve the character of the house and terrace. I do not consider the proposed pitch roof will have an adverse impact on the adjacent property. However, I recommend cross sectional drawings of the extension to show how the extension would connect to the existing building and relates to the adjacent property and for this to be required by condition.

Recommendation

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 and enhance the special character and appearance of the conservation area. I therefore recommend that planning permission be granted.

List of Background papers

1 Application Papers and Correspondence for Application SW/14/0093 2 Application Papers and Correspondence for Application SW/13/1174

2.7 SW/14/0079 (Case 02191) Faversham

Location : The School Pool, Oare Road, Faversham, Kent, ME13 7QU

Proposal : Single toilet/shower unit

Applicant/Agent : Mr P Downs, Faversham Angling Club, 32 St Marys Road, Faversham, Kent, ME13 8EH

Application Valid : 22 January 2014 and as amended by drawings received 17 March 2014

8 Week Target : 19 March 2014

CONDITIONS/GROUNDS

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

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

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

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

Council’s approach to this application

In this case the applicant was provided the opportunity to submit amendments to the scheme to address the location objections.

Description and Relevant Site History

This application is for a single toilet and shower unit on land adjoining the lake at the Faversham Angling Club at The School Pool, Oare Road Faversham.

The proposed building would comprise of brick walls and a pitch tiled roof using similar materials to those of the houses in Lakeside Avenue to the north and would measure 3.14 metres wide, 3.9 metres deep and 4.5 metres high.

The original submission showed the proposed toilet block to be directly located in front of the new houses in Davington Park which gave rise to objections relating to the proposed location. The applicant has since submitted amended drawings with the proposal in an alternative location (the North West corner of the site). In this position the proposed building at the western end of Lakeside Avenue would be located immediately to the south of the double garage block to the front of 59 .

Relevant Consultees

Faversham Town Council raises no objection.

Natural England is satisfied that the proposed development being carried out will not damage or destroy the interest features for which The Swale SSSI has been notified and therefore raises no objection.

Other Representations

I have received eleven letters of objection with the proposal in its original location these objections relate mainly to its position, obstructing the direct view over the lake. Other objections refer to the fact that the lake accommodates 24 hour fishing with the proposal in that position it would create a loss of privacy as well as add to noise and smell pollution.

The applicant then submitted amended drawings with the proposal in an alternative location (the North West corner of the site). Following further consultation I have received one withdrawal of an objection and a further three objections reiterating the previous objections.

Policies

Swale Borough Local Plan 2008 E1 (General Development Criteria) E6 (The countryside)

Discussion

I consider that the main consideration in the determination of this planning application is the impact on the neighbouring properties and on the visual amenities of the area.

The original application clearly highlighted that a shower block would be beneficial but there was no doubt that there are more practical and suitable sites for it to be located. The school pool is a popular venue for members of the fishing club, guests and day ticket holders and would therefore be appropriate to provide additional toilet facilities. The applicants have clarified that the toilet block would need to be located in its new position as shown on the amended plan due to the levels of the sewer system serving the site. The building would be located next to the 1.5 m high railings that border the public footpath and will be behind an existing double garage block at no 59 lakeside Avenue in the Davington Park development which is approximately 3.5m away screening the block from the majority of the properties. In this position the proposal has far less impact on the surrounding visual amenities of the area and the impact on the surrounding residential amenity is greatly reduced than compared with the original submission. I also consider that there will be no significant impact on the neighbouring amenity in terms of the scale and siting of the proposed toilet / shower block in its new proposed location, the dwellings to the west of the site in Churchill way would be screened by an existing 2m high hedge which runs along the common boundary.

Recommendation

As noted above, the amended location for the proposed toilet building would be a significant improvement on the original location proposed in terms of its limited visual impact on the surrounding area and it is considered that it would now have little if any significant harm on the amenities of the nearby residential properties.

I therefore recommend that permission be granted.

List of Background papers

1 Application Papers and Correspondence for Application SW/14/0079

2.8 SW/14/0226 (Case 23045) Faversham

Location : Plot 42, Lakeside Avenue, Faversham, Kent, ME13 7FE

Proposal : Variation to condition 2 of approved SW/11/1482 to change the house type from 'Harrogate' to 'Stratford’'

Applicant/Agent : Mr Justin Reader, Redrow Homes South East Redrow House, 2 Aurum Court, Sylvan Way, Southfields Business Park, Laindon, Basildon, Essex, SS15 6TU

Application Valid : 17 April 2014

8 Week Target : 12 June 2014

Subject to: The signing of a suitably-worded deed of variation to the existing Section 106

Conditions

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

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

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

Number 2517-21-08-042 and “ the Stratford” Plot 42 (2011 release)

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

3 The dwelling unit hereby approved shall achieve at least a Level 3 rating under The Code for Sustainable Homes and a minimum of 10% of the energy requirement for the operation of the dwellings will come from on-site renewable energy measures, and no development shall take place until details have been submitted to, and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, which set out what measures will be taken to ensure that the development incorporates sustainable construction techniques such as rainwater harvesting, water conservation, energy efficiency and, where appropriate, the use of local building materials; and provisions for the production of renewable energy such as wind power, or solar thermal or solar 38

photo voltaic installations. Upon approval, the details shall be incorporated into the development as approved.

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

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

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

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

5 The areas shown on the layout plan hereby approved (namely drawing number 2517-21-08-042) as parking and garage space, shall be used for or be available for such use at all times when the premises are in use and no development, whether permitted by the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 or not, shall be carried out on that area of land or in such a position as to preclude vehicular access to this reserved area; such land and facilities, and access thereto shall be provided prior to the occupation of the buildings hereby permitted.

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

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

Grounds: In the interests of the amenities of the area

7 All hard and soft landscape works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details dated 17th July 2012 and approved on 29th November 2012 under planning reference SW/11/1482/CCB.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Council’s approach to this application

In this instance, following the receipt of additional information the application was acceptable.

Description of Proposal

This application seeks a variation to condition 2 (list of approved drawing numbers) of approved SW/11/1482 (which granted permission for 62 dwellings) to change the house type from ‘Harrogate’ to a ‘Stratford’ house type on Plot 42

The approved Harrogate house type is a double fronted two storey building with four bedrooms. The proposed Stratford house type would be smaller in size and have a reduced width compared to the Harrogate house type. No additional windows are proposed and the overall number of units on the site as a whole would remain the same.

The Stratford would measure 6.3m x 9.3 m by 9m ridge height and would have 4 bedrooms.

The application has been submitted with a draft Deed of Variation to the S106 agreement agreed under SW/07/1473. The original S106 has been changed by deeds of variation under planning permissions SW/10/0078, SW/11/0284 and SW/11/1482.

Members should note that this application is being reported to committee due to the Deed of Variation to the original Section 106 Agreement for which powers have not been delegated to officers.

Relevant Site History and Description

The majority of the site has been completed and a number of dwellings are already occupied. The site is accessed off Seager Road. Plot 42 is located towards the rear of the site, adjacent to the public footpath which runs directly along the western boundary of the site. The plot also backs onto an established residential area, most notably houses along Wreight Court.

SW/07/1473- mixed use, housing (111 houses) and employment- approved. SW/10/0078- 78 dwellings- approved. SW/11/0284- 62 dwellings- withdrawn. SW/11/1482- 62 dwellings- approved. SW/11/1482/NMA; NMA2; NMA3 and NMA6- various non-material amendments have been approved. SW/12/1013- minor material amendment to site layout and elevations for plots 7-13 (62 dwellings- approved. SW/13/1138- provision of 13 houses on part of the employment area approved under SW/07/1473.

Views of Consultees

Faversham Town Council raises no objection.

Other Representations

1 letter of objection has been received, from a resident of Wreight Court, making the following summarised comments:

 Infringement on privacy  Against any further development or alterations and variations to the Redrow/Seagers development 41

 The promised screening has not been installed  Direct outlook into adjacent dwellings

Policies

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)

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

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

At paragraph 17 it states that: ‘That planning should proactively drive and support sustainable economic development to deliver the homes, business and industrial units, infrastructure and thriving local places that the country needs. Every effort should be made objectively to identify and then meet the housing, business and other development needs of an area, and respond positively to wider opportunities for growth.’

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

Swale Borough Local Plan 2008 FAV1 (The Faversham and rest of Swale Planning Area) E1 (General Development Criteria) E9 (quality and character of the landscape) E19 (Design Criteria) H2 (Providing for new housing) T1 (Providing safe access for new development) T3 (Vehicle parking for new development)

Discussion

The main consideration in the determination of this application is the impact of the material amendment on the previously approved scheme SW/11/1482 and the impact on the surrounding area.

The original proposal and the principle of the development have been agreed for this site under the previous applications. The proposed amendment, namely the change 42

in the house type on Plot 42 only, is a relatively minor change which in my opinion does not alter the character of the site. The Stratford house type is used elsewhere on the site and is considered acceptable.

In my view the design changes are acceptable and ensure that the new house type is suitable for this part of the site.

I note the comments made by the objector but am of the view that the proposed change does not have any significant impact on the privacy of the adjacent properties. The new dwelling will not be located any closer to any of the site boundaries compared to the already approved dwelling type for this plot.

As the conditions under SW/11/1482 have all been complied with I do not consider it necessary to add any further conditions except for the ones listed above.

Recommendation

Overall, I am of the view that the proposal is acceptable and does not have a detrimental impact upon the existing character of the site and the surrounding area. As such I recommend that planning permission be granted subject to the signing of a suitably worded Deed of Variation to require full contributions as agreed under the original planning application.

List of Backgrounds Documents

1. Application papers and correspondence for SW/14/0226. 2. Application papers and correspondence for SW/12/1013. 3. Application papers and correspondence for SW/11/1482. 4. Application papers and correspondence for SW/11/0284. 5. Application papers and correspondence for SW/10/0078. 6. Application papers and correspondence for SW/07/1473. 7. Application papers and correspondence for SW/13/1138.

2.9 SW/14/0146 (Case 25247) Sittingbourne

Location : 18 Bayford Road, Sittingbourne, Kent ME10 3AD

Proposal : Demolition of rear barn, garage block and covered ways, together with the side conservatory structures, with the construction in lieu of 2 No. proposed houses, both attached to the current site dwelling to create a terrace, the construction of a rear single-storey extension to the current site dwelling and the undertaking of all external works associated with the development, including bin storage space and some off road car parking

Applicant/Agent : Mrs J Straight, C/o Mr L Simmons, LRD Simmons, RIBA, 46 Downsview, Chatham , Kent, ME5 0AL

Application Valid : 10 February 2014

8 Week Target : 07 April 2014

Subject to: comments from Kent Highway Services.

Conditions / Grounds

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

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

2. The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved drawings: 1511/BRS/03/A; 1511/BRS/04/A; 1511/BRS/05/A;

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

Prior to commencement

3. Prior to the commencement of development hereby approved, the applicant, or their agents or successors in title, shall secure the implementation of a watching brief to be undertaken by an archaeologist approved by the Local Planning Authority so that the excavation is observed and items of interest and finds are recorded. The watching brief shall be in accordance with a written specification and timetable which has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

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

4. Prior to the commencement of development hereby approved, a contaminated land assessment (and associated remediation strategy if relevant), being submitted to and approved in writing by the Local 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 Local 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.

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

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

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

Grounds: In the interests of residential amenity.

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

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

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

Grounds: In the interest of visual amenity.

9. Prior to the commencement of development hereby approved, details shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority and approved in writing, which set out what measures have been taken to ensure that the development incorporates sustainable construction techniques such as water conservation and recycling, renewable energy production including the inclusion of solar thermal or solar photo voltaic installations, and energy efficiency. Upon approval, the details shall be incorporated into the development as approved.

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

10. Prior to the commencement of development, the existing dropped kerb to the front of unit no. 20 as shown on the approved plans, shall be re-instated as footway in compliance with the standards of Kent Highway Services.

Grounds: In the interests of highway amenity.

During construction

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

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

Grounds: In the interests of residential amenity.

On-going

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

contamination shall be fully assessed and an appropriate remediation scheme agreed with the Local Planning Authority.

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

16. 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.

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

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

18. Before the development herby permitted is first used, the proposed first floor windows in the flank elevations to the new dwellings shall be obscure glazed and shall be incapable of being opened except for a high level fanlight opening of at least 1.7m above inside floor level and shall subsequently be maintained as such.

Grounds: To prevent overlooking of adjoining properties and to safeguard the privacy of neighbouring occupiers.

19. Prior to the occupation of the dwellings hereby approved, a 1.8 metre high close boarded fence shall be erected between the approved dwellings and no. 18 Bayford Road.

Grounds: In the interest of residential amenity.

20. Notwithstanding the details submitted, the window frames to the front elevations of the properties hereby approved shall be of timber construction.

Grounds: In the interests of visual amenity.

21. If, during development, contamination not previously identified is found to be present at the site then no further development (unless otherwise agreed in writing with the local planning authority) shall be carried out until the developer has submitted a remediation strategy to the local planning authority detailing how this unsuspected contamination shall be dealt with and obtained written approval from the local planning authority. The remediation strategy shall be implemented as approved.

Grounds: To protect the underlying groundwater from the risk of pollution and in accordance with the requirement of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

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

Grounds: To protect the underlying groundwater from the risk of pollution and in accordance with the requirement of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

23. If any piling activity is planned to take place at the site during the construction of the development hereby approved, details of the method of this piling shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval in writing and shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Grounds: To protect the underlying groundwater from the risk of pollution and in accordance with the requirement of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

Council’s approach to this application

In this case the application was acceptable as submitted.

Description of Proposal

This application seeks planning permission for the erection of one two-storey three- bedroom dwelling and one two-storey two-bedroom dwelling. Existing buildings previously used in a commercial capacity would be demolished to enable the erection of these dwellings. The three bedroom dwelling would be attached to the south flank elevation of no. 18 Bayford Road. This would be provided with two parking spaces to the side, although when applying our parking space standards only one would fit comfortably within the site. The two-bedroom dwelling would be attached to the north flank elevation of no. 18 Bayford Road. There would be no off- street parking provided for this dwelling. This development would result in a terrace of three properties with the existing no. 18 Bayford Road in the middle. Each property would be provided with rear gardens. The dwellings would be finished with yellow stock bricks, concrete interlocking tiles (to match no. 18 Bayford Road) and white UPVc windows. The only external alteration to no. 18 Bayford Road would be a small single storey rear extension and the removal of a side conservatory.

The buildings to be demolished are made up of the following:  Two storey pitched roof brick building extending some 15 metres to the rear of no. 18 Bayford Road;  Single storey timber garage to the rear of the site, adjacent to the boundary with no. 22 Bayford Road;  Four-metre-high open sided building/covered way to the rear of the site adjacent to the rear gardens of properties fronting Godnestone Road.

This application is accompanied by a Bat Roost Potential Building Assessment.

Relevant Site History and Description

The application site lies within the built-up area boundary. The predominant character of the area is residential with some commercial properties towards the southern end of Bayford Road and along the A2. The site lies within source protection zones 1,2 and 3 and there is the potential for archaeological finds.

A planning application for a similar development to this one was submitted under SW/13/1416 but was withdrawn to allow for amendments to the proposal in response to Officer concerns and the undertaking of an ecological survey of the existing buildings.

There is no planning history for this site and on inspection of the historic maps, it would appear that the two storey brick building was built in the late 1800s. Its exact use is unknown but the plans provided with this application indicate that the brick building was used as small storage units and the timber building as a garage.

Views of Consultees

The KCC Biodiversity Officer has reviewed the ecological information and they are satisfied that there is sufficient information to determine the application. They are also satisfied that due to the location and the amount of artificial light in the area, 50

there is low potential for bats to be present. They recommend that a condition is attached to secure biodiversity enhancements.

The Environment Agency have no comment owing to the low environmental risk of this development.

The Head of Service Delivery has no objection subject to conditions to control and remediate potential contamination, suppression of dust and the control of construction hours.

Comments from Kent Highway Services are awaited and will be reported at the meeting.

Other Representations

Three letters of objection have been received from local residents. They object on the following grounds:

 Impact on parking – increased on-street parking, congestion and inconvenience;  Construction traffic will cause congestion and inconvenience;  Noise from the side access will disturb the residents of no. 22;  The flank wall of no. 22 may cause injury to future residents of the application due to its finish;  The enclosure of the land will reduce natural surveillance and increase the security risk;  The canopy over the front door to one of the units is too close to no. 22 creating maintenance issues;  The side access may not be wide enough for wheelchairs;  The residents of no. 22 will feel enclosed if the development goes ahead and will lead to the devaluation of their property;  The rear garden of no. 22 will be overlooked;  The new house will block out the late afternoon and evening light from the garden of no. 22;  The development will cause a lot of anxiety and health issues for the children living at no. 22;  The Victorian barn should not be demolished;  The building will disturb the foundations of no. 22

One resident comments that the existing buildings to be demolished has bats roosting within them.

Policies

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

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

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

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

Paragraphs 56-68 of the NPPF requires good design

Swale Borough Local Plan 2008

Relevant policies include SP1 (sustainable development); E1 (General Development Criteria); E11 (Protecting Biodiversity); B1 (employment sites) and T3 (vehicle parking).

Discussion

I consider the key issues to be the principle of the development, the impact on visual amenities, the impact on residential amenities, the impact on highway safety and amenity and the impact on ecology.

Principle

This site is within the middle of a predominantly residential street within the built-up area boundary. As such, I consider that the addition of two new dwellings here would be an appropriate use of the site. I have no concerns in respect of the loss of a commercial use/employment use at this site. There is no planning history which indicates what the commercial use might have been and how many employees it had. However, any use would have been restricted by the size of the site and the access from Bayford Road, a heavily parked street. A commercial activity may well have had some impact on the adjacent residents by way of noise and disturbance. I consider that the site is inappropriately located for any employment use, potentially having an adverse environmental impact and as such, would not be contrary to policy B1 of the Local Plan which seeks to retain existing employment land.

Impact on visual amenities

The proposed dwellings would reflect the form, scale and architecture of the existing properties fronting Bayford Road in my view. The detail to the fenestration and finishing materials would ensure that the new dwellings are assimilated into the street scene. The resulting terrace of properties would conform with the pattern of development in this road and the surrounding area. I therefore consider that the proposed dwellings would have no detrimental impact on the visual amenities of the surrounding area. In fact, I consider that the appearance of the application site would be improved as a result of dilapidated buildings being removed and gaps in the street scene being filled in a logical manner.

Impact on residential amenities

The proposed new dwelling to the south of no. 18 Bayford Road would be 2.5 metres (towards the front) and 4 metres (towards the rear) from the staggered flank elevation of the adjacent dwelling – no. 14. I consider that this gap will ensure that there would be no undue detriment to the residents of this neighbouring property by way of an overshadowing or overbearing effect. With regards to the impact on no. 22 – the property to the north of the site, I have given careful consideration to the impact on the side and rear facing windows within this property. It is likely that there would be some loss of light and possibly an overbearing effect on the residents of no. 22. However, I do not consider that this impact would be so significant that this application should be refused and in coming to this conclusion, I give weight to the negative impact that retaining this site as an unrestricted commercial use may have on the amenities of these occupants. This is a site that I consider is appropriate for the type of development being proposed. The presence of a dwelling within the gap between no. 18 and 22 seems a logical and good development solution. I am mindful that with many terraced properties, windows and amenity spaces immediately to the rear of these properties are restricted in terms of the light that reaches them and outlook. The properties in this area are predominantly terraced and therefore, the relationship between no. 22 and the proposed infill property is not uncommon in this area. There would be a gap of 1.2 and 2.6 metres from the staggered flank elevation of no. 22. I consider that this would be sufficient to ensure that a reasonable amount of daylight reaches the windows within this neighbouring 53

property. I am also mindful that there is a large building adjoining the boundary with no. 22 to the rear of the site and a large two storey building orientated to the south of this property. These would be removed as a consequence of the proposal and would be likely to result in increased sunlight to the rear of the garden. I therefore consider that there would be no significant impact on the residential amenities of the adjacent properties.

With regards to the impact on the residents of no. 18, the living environment would be greatly improved in my view. The loss of the commercial buildings would result in the provision of a rear garden for this property and the loss of potential for noise and disturbance from commercial activity.

Highway safety/amenity

There are no highway safety concerns here due to the small scale of this development, the nature of the road and the lack of impact on highway accesses and junctions. I therefore consider that the key area of concern in highway amenity which can include inconvenience to local residents as a consequence of increased on-street parking. Kent Highway Services will comment further on highway safety and I will report their comments at the meeting.

The proposal would result in two additional dwellings within this already heavily parked road. However, a significant consideration is the fact that this is currently an unrestricted commercial site. As a consequence, any amount of traffic, including large vehicles, could have been attracted to the site. The development now proposed would introduce dwellings that are relatively modest with 2 and 3 bedrooms respectively. The three bedroom dwelling would be provided with at least one off-street parking space and the proposal would result in the reinstatement of an existing dropped kerb outside the proposed no. 20. Members will be aware that it is an offence to block an existing access and as such, this dropped kerb would have resulted in the loss of one on-street parking space. Its re-instatement as footway would result in the gain of one on-street parking space that could be used by any local resident. The site is very close to Sittingbourne Town Centre, public car parks and public transport. Therefore, someone living within the new dwellings would not be reliant on a car and car-free development is to be encouraged in this type of location. I am of the strong view that this proposal would have no significant impact on the highway amenities of the area.

Ecology

A report on the potential presence of bats within the existing buildings has been carried out. The findings show no potential and this has been reviewed by the KCC Biodiversity Officer. They are in agreement with the conclusions. I therefore consider that there would be no harm to ecology as a consequence of this proposal. I note that KCC have suggested that biodiversity enhancements are considered further but owing to the nature and scale of the proposal, I consider that imposing such a condition would be too onerous. The rear gardens will provide an improved habitat for birds and urban wildlife and this would be sufficient in my view.

Other issues

Any impacts during construction would be for a short period only thereby limiting the impacts and such impacts are rarely considered to outweigh the benefits of a development. Other issues raised by local residents are so minor or relate to the private responsibility/concerns of the property owners that they do not lead me to conclude that this application should be refused.

Recommendation

Having considered the relevant planning policies, comments from consultees and the local residents, I am of the view that the development is acceptable in principle. The site is inappropriate for continued use as a commercial site and the development of dwellings here would conform with the predominant use of the area. The design would be in keeping with the surrounding dwellings and the impact on adjacent dwellings would be limited and not significantly harmful in my view. There would be some increase in on-street parking as a consequence of this proposal. However, I do not consider that this would be so significant as to be harmful to highway safety or amenity. There would be no harm to ecology as there has been found to be no potential for the presence of bats within the buildings to be demolished.

I therefore consider that, subject to the views of Kent Highway Services, planning permission should be granted.

List of Backgrounds Documents

1. Application papers and correspondence for SW/14/0146 2. Application papers and correspondence for SW/13/1416

2.10 SW/14/0144 (Case 24337) Minster

Location : Land adjacent to 32 Cliff Gardens, Minster On Sea, Sheerness, Kent, ME12 3QY

Proposal : Demolition of existing outbuilding. Erection of a detached chalet bungalow

Applicant/Agent : Mr Dean Ward, C/o Mr David Phillips, Craymanor Ltd, Samuel House, 1-3 Woodside Road, Sidcup, Kent, DA15 7JF

Application Valid : 07 February 2014

8 Week Target : 04 April 2014

SUBJECT TO: The receipt of further comments from Minster Parish Council

Conditions / Grounds

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

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

Pre commencement

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

Grounds: In the interest of visual amenity

3. The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved drawings: 11-020 sheet 4.2J, 11-020 sheet 3G,11-020 sheet 2G, 11-020 sheet 1.I and 11-020 sheet 4.1J.

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

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

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

5. Prior to the commencement of development hereby approved, details shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority and approved in writing, which set out what measures have been taken to ensure that the development incorporates sustainable construction techniques such as water conservation and recycling, renewable energy production including the inclusion of solar thermal or solar photo voltaic installations, and energy efficiency. Upon approval, the details shall be incorporated into the development as approved.

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

Post commencement

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

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

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

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

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

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

Grounds: In the interests of highway safety

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

Grounds: In the interests of the amenities of the area

11. 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.

Council’s approach to this application

In this case, residential development of the site is acceptable in principle. Pre- application discussions with the agent highlighted (on two separate occasions) the fact that the Council would be unlikely to support an application for the erection of a dwelling unless the fundamental problems with the parking layout and design issues were resolved. These issues were resolved after amended plans were received.

Description of Proposal

Application proposes the erection of a chalet bungalow with associated parking on land between 32 and 34 Cliff Gardens, Minster.

The proposed development would be 12.5m in length, 5.7m in width, with an open porch that projects 0.7m to the front, a raised decking area that projects 2m to the rear, 1.2m from ground level. The proposed development would appear as a pitched roof chalet bungalow that would measure 3.2m to the eaves height and 6.6m to the roof ridge to the front of the dwelling and 4.1m to the eaves height and 7.5m to the roof ridge to the rear of the dwelling as the land levels slope down to the north of the site.

The proposed dwelling would be 1m from the common boundary with no. 34 Cliff gardens to the side, 7m from the front boundary. The proposed common boundary between no. 32 Cliff Gardens and the proposed dwelling would be approximately 1.3m from either dwelling. The 1m high boundary fence would begin approximately 6.5m from the building line to the front of no. 32 Cliff gardens and extend from this point to the rear boundary. The boundary between the proposed dwelling and existing dwelling at the front of the dwellings would be separated by landscaping.

There are 4 rooflights proposed to the west roofslope facing no. 34 Cliff Gardens, 1m in height, 0.5m in width, 0.3m from the eaves height. There are 3 rooflights proposed to the east roofslope facing no. 32 Cliff Gardens, 1m in height 0.5m in width, 0.3m from the eaves height.

One ‘L’ shaped window is proposed to the east side of the building, to the west side of the building there is one ‘L’ shaped window and one other small window. It is proposed to provide an undercroft open sided car port to the front and east side with the first floor level overhead, whilst a first floor window is proposed to the front elevation. To the rear a set of glazed folding doors to the ground floor with raised patio area. At first floor level, the dwelling is stepped in towards the rear to create a first floor rear facing balcony.

The proposed under croft open sided car port measures 5.6m in length, 2.7m in width and 2.5m in height.

A one car parking space is provided for the proposed dwelling and one for the existing dwelling at no. 32. Parking for the proposed dwelling would be sited in the open sided undercroft car port, parking for no. 32 Cliff Gardens would be sited to the side of the dwelling, between the existing and proposed dwelling.

Some landscaping is proposed to allow a front garden to remain for no. 32 Cliff Gardens and for a front garden to be included within the landscaping for the proposed dwelling. This includes a strip of landscaping that would run down the middle of the front of the site, to the side of the drive to each dwelling, to mark the common boundary between the existing and proposed dwelling.

Relevant Site History and Description

The site previously comprised part of the residential amenity space to the side of no. 32 Cliff Gardens, containing a small outbuilding. The dwarf wall in front of the application site has been removed and the area is currently being used for parking.

No. 32 Cliff Gardens is a detached bungalow with a drive and parking to the side and gardens to the front, side and rear.

No. 34 Cliff gardens, adjacent, is a detached chalet bungalow with parking to the side, there are no flank windows to the side facing no. 32 Cliff Gardens. No. 30 Cliff Gardens is a detached bungalow with parking to the side.

The street scene of Cliff Gardens largely consists of detached bungalows and detached chalet bungalows with parking largely to the sides of the dwellings.

The land levels of the site slope down to the north away from the road.

Relevant planning history;

Application no. SW/11/0407 for ‘Demolition of Existing Outbuilding. Erection of a Detached Chalet Bungalow’ was withdrawn after pre-application advice was given.

Application no. SW/13/0052 for ‘Demolition of Existing Outbuilding. Erection of a Detached Chalet Bungalow’ was withdrawn after it was discussed that the issues brought up in the advice given on the previous application had not been resolved.

Application no. SW/10/1000 for ‘Detached chalet-bungalow within sub-divided plot, new parking provision for existing house’ at nearby dwelling, Marley, Oak Lane, Minster, Sheerness, Kent, ME12 3QW was granted conditional planning permission.

Views of Consultees

Head of Service Delivery has no objection subject to the inclusion of a condition which addresses nuisance to neighbouring residential properties from the construction of the proposed development, by limiting the hours when construction can take place.

Kent Highway Services comment that;

“The parking provision for the new development is considered adequate, but I would ask that the new access is shifted away from the boundary fence so that pedestrian visibility splays can be provided within the land controlled by the applicant. Given the limited amount of pedestrian activity expected in Cliff Gardens, splays of 1.5m by 1.5m would be acceptable, kept clear of obstruction above a height of 600mm.

It is noted that the drawings indicate 2 parking spaces for the existing property, but it is likely that the area in front of the proposed garage will be needed to provide 60

adequate turning space for vehicles to manoeuvre into and out of these spaces. However, I do not consider this to be an issue if the space is not left available, as despite the suggestion in the application documents, only 1 space has historically been provided for this dwelling, rather than the 4 that have more recently been parking on the frontage by illegally crossing the footway and verge since the front boundary fence has been removed.

Therefore, even if just a single space was provided directly behind the existing vehicle crossing, this would be sufficient.”

Lower Medway Internal Drainage Board confirm that this proposed development would not affect the Board’s interests.

Minster Parish Council provided the following comments on the original scheme :

“ Subject to adequate parking provision and an assurance that there will be no impact on the amenities neighbouring residents might reasonably be expected to enjoy”

The further comments of the Parish Council are awaited on the amended scheme and I will report further to members at the meeting.

Other Representations

Three letters of objection were received which commented that;

- Overlooking - Overshadowing - Site boundary line being inaccurately placed - Significant negative impact on streetscene - Lack of provision of off-road parking on site - Plot not wide enough - Pressure on drainage system

Development Plan Policies

The following Swale Borough Local Plan 2008 policies are relevant:

Policy SP4 (Housing) recognises the need for new housing within the borough. The policy encourages the more efficient use of previously developed urban land and buildings within the defined built up area boundaries, thereby limiting the development of Greenfield sites to a minimum.

Policy E1 (General Development Criteria) is a broad based policy which seeks to ensure that all development is positive, appropriately considered and designed whilst protecting residential amenity.

Policy E19 (Achieving High Quality Design and Distinctiveness) encourages high quality design that responds positively to its environment.

Policy H2 (Providing for New Housing) outlines that new residential development will be granted on sites within the built up area boundary.

Policy T3 (Vehicle Parking for New Development) states that the Council will only permit development if appropriate vehicle parking is provided in accordance with the adopted Kent County Council parking standards.

Policy U3 (Renewable Energy) encourages the use of renewable energy sources.

Although not directly relevant to an application for new houses, the Council’s adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) entitled ‘Designing an Extension: A Guide for Householders’ gives useful advice on acceptable design and siting.

Paragraph 3.4 gives advice on design and states that ;

“on houses with pitched roofs it is nearly always best to have a matching pitched roof on the extension with the same type of tiles. All such two-storey extensions should have a pitched roof and front and other prominent single storey extensions are normally better for having pitched roofs”.

Paragraph 5.0 looks to avoid loss of openness in otherwise open and spacious streetscene and states:

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

Paragraph 5.7 gives advice on rear extensions and states;

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

Paragraph 7.0 gives advice on car parking and states;

“Where car parking is or could be provided on the grounds of the property the council will try to ensure that a new extension does not take this away without a suitable alternative area being made available…”

Discussion

Principle

The property lies within the built up area of Minster, where extensions and alterations to buildings are generally acceptable, subject to them being of a high standard of design; sitting comfortably within the streetscene; and not giving rise to any serious amenity concerns, in accordance with the above policies.

I note the policy shift relating to residential gardens not being considered as ‘previously-developed land,’ but this is not a relevant or determining factor to this application as the site lies wholly within the built up area boundary, where both local and national policies encourage provision of new residential development.

Visual Amenity

The proposed dwelling is of an appropriate scale and design, in my opinion, and I believe that it would sit comfortably within the street scene, which comprises a wide variety of housing types and designs including a number of similar designed chalet- bungalows.

The application originally proposed large flat roof dormer windows, but these have been removed following discussions with the agent. The first floor rooms (bathroom, stairwell and hallway) are now proposed to be served by rooflights within the west and east roofslopes ,whilst windows to the front and rear elevations would serve the two bedrooms, significantly reducing the impact on visual amenity.

On-site parking is proposed to the side of no. 32 Cliff Gardens and to the side of the proposed dwelling, within the undercroft parking space. The verdant character of the area will not be lost by virtue of this proposed development, and would comply with the Council’s SPG. Therefore, whilst I note the comments of the neighbouring resident, due to the amended plans relocating parking to the side of each dwelling, I do not believe that the development would give rise to any visual amenity concerns.

I have recommended the above conditions that remove permitted development rights and require that a scheme of landscaping is agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority before development begins to ensure that there is no significant negative impact on visual amenity by virtue of this proposed development.

Residential Amenity

The flank window of the proposed development that faces west at ground floor level will be largely obscured by the fence which runs along the common boundary. The proposed ground floor window that faces east on the proposed development, and the existing double doors on the flank of no. 32 Cliff Gardens, are offset from one another, so would, in my view, cause no significant negative effect on residential amenity.

The rooflights to the flank of the proposed dwelling are high level, however, as no. 32 Cliff Gardens is a bungalow, rather than a chalet bungalow, with one rooflight, and no. 34 Cliff Gardens has a blank roofslope, I do not consider that the proposed rooflights would cause any significant overlooking.

I also consider that, although the proposed dwelling is less than 2m from the common boundary with no. 34 Cliff Gardens as there is a garage to the side of the chalet bungalow, leaving a gap of approximately 3.5m between the side of the proposed dwelling and no. 34 Cliff Gardens, I do not consider that there would be any terracing effect in this instance.

The proposed dwelling does not project beyond the adjacent dwelling to the east, and the dwelling to the west is set away from the common boundary, with a garage between it and the boundary.

I am satisfied that the site boundary ownership line as shown on the Site Location Plan is correct. Should the neighbours wish to dispute the positioning of the site boundary, I believe this would be a private legal matter. The effect of an additional dwelling on the sewage system is not a material planning consideration.

Highway Safety and Amenity

I recognise the concerns regarding on-street parking affecting local residents, but would note that parking provision is considered to be sufficient in regards to the adopted parking standards, and that Kent Highway Services raise no objection.

The proposed new access is acceptable; having been moved away from the boundary fence so that pedestrian visibility splays of 1.5m by 1.5m can be provided within the land controlled by the applicant. This has been addressed in condition (9) above.

I consider that highway amenity and safety would be acceptable.

Recommendation

The proposal development would be of an appropriate scale and design, in my opinion, and amended drawings have been received showing the dormer windows removed, and highways and landscaping issues resolved, in accordance with the adopted SPG.

I have noted the comments of the surrounding residents, but none amount to a reason for refusal in my opinion.

Taking the above into account I recommend subject to the further comments of Minster Parish Council that planning permission be granted.

List of Background Documents

4. Application papers and correspondence for SW/14/0144 5. Application papers and correspondence for SW/11/0407 6. Application papers and correspondence for SW/13/0052 7. Application papers and correspondence for SW/10/1000

2.11 SW/14/0074 (Case 18241) Upchurch

Location : Oast Field Stud, Gore Farm Track, Holywell Lane, Upchurch, Sittingbourne, Kent, ME9 7BE

Proposal : Change of use of land to a 1 no. pitch gypsy site (1 no. mobile home, 2 no. touring caravans) with associated foaling boxes and parking bays

Applicant/Agent : Miss K Wilson, C/o Dr Simon Ruston, Ruston Planning Limited, The Picton Street Centre, 10-12 Picton Street, Montpelier, Bristol, BS6 5QA

Application Valid : 03 February 2014

8 Week Target : 31 March 2014

Conditions

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

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

(2) No more than one static caravan and two touring caravans shall be stationed on the site at any one time.

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

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

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

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

Grounds: In the interests of preventing light pollution.

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

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

(6) Within six months of the date of this planning permission, full details of soft landscape works shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. These details shall include existing trees, shrubs and other features, planting schedules of plants, noting native species, plant sizes and numbers where appropriate, and an implementation programme.

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

(7) All soft landscape works approved pursuant to condition 6 shall be carried out within the first available planting season following their approval, or in accordance with a timetable agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.

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

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

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

(9) Details of the method of foul sewage treatment shall be submitted for approval to the Local Planning Authority within three months of the date of this decision. These details shall include the site of any individual cesspools and/or septic tanks and/or other treatment systems. Information provided shall specify where each system will discharge to, (since for example further treatment of the discharge will be required if a septic tank discharges to a ditch or watercourse as opposed to sub soil irrigation). The approved shall be implemented within six months of the date of their approval. 67

Grounds: To prevent the discharge of unsafe human waste to the surrounding environment.

(10) No caravans shall be located to the south of the ‘Line of proposed flood level’ shown on the approved block plan within 12 months of the date of this planning permission. The caravans shall remain to the north of this line in perpetuity.

Grounds: To prevent unacceptable development within flood zones 2 and 3.

(11) The foaling boxes hereby approved shall not be constructed until details of the external finishing materials have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall proceed in accordance with these approved details.

Grounds: In the interests of good design and the amenities of the area.

(12) No further development shall take place until the applicant, or their agents or successors in title, has secured the implementation of a watching brief to be undertaken by an archaeologist approved by the Local Planning Authority so that the excavation is observed and items of interest and finds are recorded. The watching brief shall be in accordance with a written specification and timetable which has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

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

(13) The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved drawings: ‘Proposed plans and elevations’ received 3/2/14 and existing and proposed block plans received 18/3/14.

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

Informatives

1. The applicants attention is drawn to condition 2 of planning permission SW/03/0235 for the change of use of site from agricultural land to the keeping and grazing of horses with three stables and a hay bam which states “The stables and grazing land hereby permitted shall be for private domestic use and for no other purpose, including leasing to individual occupants, a livery stable or riding school.” Therefore, if the applicant intends to use the site for an equine business planning permission for the change of use from private stables would be required.

2. Kent County Council Public Rights of Way Officer wishes to make the applicant aware that planning permission confers no consent or right to disturb or divert the public right of way at any time without the express consent of the Highway Authority. Should the exercise of private rights damage the surface of the public right of way to such an extent that it is unsuitable for public use the proposed residents may be liable to repair the path surface.

Council’s approach to this application

In this case the applicant was asked to demonstrate their gypsy status to substantiate the terms of the application.

Description of Proposal

This application seeks planning permission for the change of use of land to a 1 no. pitch gypsy site (1 no. mobile home, 2 no. touring caravans) with associated foaling boxes and parking bays at Oast Field Stud, Gore Farm Track, Holywell Lane, Upchurch.

The use of the site as a gypsy pitch has already commenced – at the time of the officer site visit, the site had a static caravan, two touring caravans, a horse box and three vehicles parked on it. However, the layout of the existing site is not in accordance with the submitted proposed block plan. The layout of the site would be rearranged in accordance with the submitted plans should planning permission be granted.

However the proposed foaling boxes which have not been built would be 11m long, 5.5m wide and 3.8m tall and located directly to the north of the existing stables. The static caravan would be located to the east of the foaling boxes with two touring caravan spaces and five car parking spaces to the east of this. The associated driveway would be made of road scalpings and lead to a vehicle access onto the track.

The submitted proposed block plan shows that the development layout has been intentionally designed to be located outside the flood zones as indicated by the ‘line of proposed flood level’ on the drawing.

The agent has submitted a detailed planning statement and additional information demonstrating the applicants gypsy status. The planning statement clarifies the following;

“The applicant’s partner is an Irish Traveller. The applicant and her partner are engaged in equine related work, and travel to horse fairs every year in order to trade horses and dogs. Up until now, the applicant has applied for the provision of a mobile home based upon her equine business. Due to being poorly advised, these applications were unsuccessful, and the subsequent appeals withdrawn. The applicant was unaware that her enforcement notice had not been appealed. As a consequence, the applicant and her partner have chosen to apply for one pitch under Gypsy / Traveller status.”

The additional information extends to several dozen pages and includes a detailed breakdown of why the agent considers the applicant, her partner and their children can be afforded gypsy status. In summary, the applicants’ partner is an ethnic Irish Traveller. The applicant is from a settled background but has taken to her partners’ lifestyle. The couple are engaged in horse dealing and dog breeding and for the past 24 years have travelled extensively to sell both and attend horse fairs. The family lived in bricks and mortar housing for some time due to a lack of suitable sites and in order to provide a stable base for their children’s education. During this time they continued to travel in a caravan to deal in horses and dogs. Extensive case law is provided and provides commentary on issues such as seasonal travel, travelling for economic purposes, holding nomadism in abeyance and living in a caravan.

Site Description and Planning History

The application site is located to the west of Holywell Lane down Gore Farm Track. The part of the site adjacent to the track is relatively flat with the land beyond rising steeply to the north. Gore Farm Track is lined with trees and bushes and is a restricted byway and also a promoted cycle route.

There is open countryside to the south of the application site, a single residential dwelling know as ‘The Oast’ to the west with a reservoir beyond and countryside to the north. A number of other gypsy sites are located along Holywell Lane including The Paddocks, Hedgerows and Greenacres. Hursell Farm is also located nearby. Holywell Nursery and two residential properties known as The Shieling and Tree Tops are also located on Holywell Lane.

The application site is located within the countryside, a strategic gap, and Gore Farm Track is a rural lane in accordance with the Proposals Map of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008. The site also has archaeological potential. The southern edge of the application site is located within flood zone 2 and 3. A high pressure gas pipe line is located approximately 10m from the north east corner of the application site. The site falls within the Upchurch and Lower Halstow fruit belt in the Council’s adopted Landscape Character and Biodiversity Appraisal Supplementary Planning Document.

The planning history for the application site includes the following; 70

SW/03/0235- To change existing site from agricultural land to the keeping and grazing of horses with three stables and a hay barn- approved.

SW/11/0549- Change of Use from private stables to stud farm and livery yard including the erection of foaling boxes and the stationing of one mobile home for residential accommodation in association with the stud farm and livery business- refused for the following reasons;

“1. The application fails to adequately justify the provision of a mobile home for permanent residential accommodation and lacks clarity on the exact nature of the use of the mobile home. It is therefore unacceptable in principle, and its presence within the countryside would have an unnecessary and significant harmful impact on the character and appearance of the surrounding rural area. The new dwelling would also be sited within an unsustainable location, poorly related to public transport routes and centres where essential services are available. The proposal is therefore contrary to policies SP1, SP4, SP5, E1, E6, E9, RC1 & RC9 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008, PPS1 – Delivering Sustainable Development, PPS3 – Housing, PPS7 – Sustainable Development in Rural Areas and PPS4 – Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth.

2. The mobile home would, by virtue of its scale and size, have a significant detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the surrounding rural area and the quality of the landscape contrary to policies E1, E6, E9, E19, RC1 & RC9 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008, PPS7 – Sustainable Development in Rural Areas and PPS4 – Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth and the advice in the adopted Supplementary Planning Document – Swale Landscape and Biodiversity Appraisal February 2011.”

A subsequent appeal was withdrawn.

SW/12/0334- Change of use from private stables to stud & livery farm including erection of 3 foaling boxes, static mobile unit and provision of parking and turning- refused for the following reasons;

“1. The application fails to adequately justify the provision of a mobile home for permanent residential accommodation and lacks clarity on the exact nature of the use of the mobile home. It is therefore unacceptable in principle, and its presence within the countryside would have an unnecessary and significant harmful impact on the character and appearance of the surrounding rural area. The mobile home would also encourage unsustainable vehicle movements to the site given its location poorly related to public transport routes. The proposal is therefore contrary to policies SP1, SP4, SP5, E1, E6, E9, RC1 & RC9 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008 and provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework.

2. The mobile home would, by virtue of its likely scale and size, have a significant detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the surrounding rural area and the quality of the landscape contrary to policies E1, E6, E9, E19, RC1 & RC9 of

the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008 and advice in the adopted Supplementary Planning Document – Swale Landscape and Biodiversity Appraisal February 2011.”

Following the refusal of planning permission an enforcement notice ref ENF/13/0013 was issued requiring;

(i) Cease the use of any part of the Land as a caravan site for the stationing of any mobile homes or caravans. (ii) Remove any caravans/mobile homes from the Site, including any structures, fencing, materials and equipment brought on to or erected on the Land, including any works undertaken in connection with the use of the Site for stationing mobile homes or caravans. (iii) Restore the Land to its previous condition.

The time for compliance is 12 months from 22 May 2013. Enforcement action is being held in abeyance pending the outcome of this planning application.

Views of Consultees

Upchurch Parish Council’s comments are summarised as follows;  This is a retrospective application as the site is in use.  The previous stud farm application was refused. The use and layout are the same as previously proposed except this claims to be a gypsy site.  The Parish has 9 gypsy/ traveller sites and the location of this one is contributing to a vast expansion of such sites in the area. It joins Holywell Lane which has ribbon development of gypsy sites along it which contribute to an unsightly and haphazard development.  They front on to a narrow lane with no pedestrian footways and where it is difficult for two vehicles to pass each other.  The Parish’s views reflect those of the settled community within the Parish and request that they are given sympathetic consideration and that this application for yet another gypsy site be refused. We have more than our fair share of such sites compared to other areas within Swale.

The Head of Service Delivery recommends conditions relating to manure storage and the means of foul sewage treatment and discharge. The former is unnecessary because the existing facilities would be used and the latter is attached above.

Kent Highway Services raise no objection subject to a condition protecting vehicle parking space.

The Environment Agency considers the proposal to be covered by their standing advice.

Southern Water note the application does not state details of mean of disposal of foul drainage from the site. There are no foul sewers or surface water sewers in the area. The applicant should explore alternatives. The EA should be consulted on the use of private wastewater treatment works or septic tank drainage which disposes of

effluent to sub-soil irrigation. The owner will need to maintain the system. There is a communication pipe within the site.

Other Representations Received

Two letters of objection have been received which are summarised as follows;

 Strongly object because the road used as a public path (Gore Farm Track) is never maintained except for us filling in pot holes and cutting back the hedges.  If approved the road would be overused with no room for passing vehicles so you have to reverse.  Many walkers, runners and cyclists use the road and the proposal would create a hazard for them.  The outlook from our property and for the area would change from the previous open space.  Loss of property value  Villages look a mess due to the number of traveller sites.

One general letter has been received seeking clarification that this is a retrospective application and no new caravans are being proposed.

Swale Footpaths Group comments “again I am not certain of the exact location. There are several public rights of way nearby.”

The Health and Safety Executive does not raise objection.

Kent County Council Archaeology recommends that a watching brief condition is added to the permission.

Kent County Council Public Rights of Way Officer notes that Gore Farm Track is a restricted byway ZR25. Its status means that any motorised vehicular access would be in a private capacity. There must be no disturbance of the right of way or obstruction of its use either during or following development.

Policies

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)

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

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

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

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

Para 55 - To promote sustainable development in rural areas, housing should be located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities. For example, where there are groups of smaller settlements, development in one village may support services in a village nearby. Local planning authorities should avoid new isolated homes in the countryside unless there are special circumstances such as: ● the essential need for a rural worker to live permanently at or near their place of work in the countryside; or ●where such development would represent the optimal viable use of a heritage asset or would be appropriate enabling development to secure the future of heritage assets; or 74

●where the development would re-use redundant or disused buildings and lead to an enhancement to the immediate setting; or ●the exceptional quality or innovative nature of the design of the dwelling. Such a design should: –– be truly outstanding or innovative, helping to raise standards of design more generally in rural areas; –– reflect the highest standards in architecture; –– significantly enhance its immediate setting; and –– be sensitive to the defining characteristics of the local area.

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

Para. 112 - Local planning authorities should take into account the economic and other benefits of the best and most versatile agricultural land. Where significant development of agricultural land is demonstrated to be necessary, local planning authorities should seek to use areas of poorer quality land in preference to that of a higher quality. .

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

Planning Policy for Traveller Sites (PPTS)

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

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

From this, the Council will produce a Development Plan Document setting out deliverable sites to meet this need. However, it is anticipated that this will take until the end of 2015 to become formal policy, as it relies upon successful adoption of the draft Local Plan, entitled “Bearing Fruits,” which is unlikely to be formally agreed until at least late this year.

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

Local Policy

i) The Adopted Swale Borough Local Plan 2008

The Development Plan comprises the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008 (SBLP).

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

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

SBLP Policy E7 seeks to resist development that results in the merging of settlements or results in the encroachment or piecemeal erosion of land or its rural open and undeveloped character or, prejudice the Council’s strategy for the redevelopment of urban sites. 76

SBLP Policy E9 seeks to protect the quality and character of the Borough’s Landscape. Within the Countryside and rural settlements, the Borough will expect development proposals to be informed by local landscape quality and character, consider the landscape character SPD, safeguard and enhance landscape elements that contribute to the distinctiveness of the locality or the Borough, remove features which detract from the character of the landscape and minimise the adverse impacts of development upon the landscape character.

SBLP Policy E11 seeks to protect and enhance the Borough’s Biodiversity and Geological Interests.

SBLP Policy H4 had largely been superseded by ODPM Circular 01/2006. However that has itself largely been superseded by Planning Policy for Traveller Sites. In my view, Policy H4 should be afforded very limited weight in the decision making process.

SBLP Policy E19 requires development proposals to be well designed.

SBLP Policy T3 requires adequate parking to be provided.

SBLP Policy T4 requires public rights of way to be retained or exceptionally diverted.

SBLP Policy RC7 states that development would not be permitted that would harm the character of rural lanes.

SBLP Policy RC9 requires well designed stables that are of a scale that has an acceptable landscape impact. The Council’s adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance ‘The Erection of Stables and Keeping of Horses’ is also relevant.

ii) Bearing Fruits 2031

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

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

“For housing proposals between 50 and 149 dwellings, one pitch shall be provided for gypsies and travellers. For 150 dwellings and above (or 200 dwellings on previously developed urban sites), unless a commuted sum has been agreed with the Council, 1% of the total number of dwellings proposed shall be serviced and made available to gypsies and travellers as pitches and/or bespoke accommodation, either for sale or rent, as appropriate, and up to a maximum of 10 pitches on any one allocation. Where identified, pitches may also be required to meet an affordable housing need.” 77

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

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

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

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

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

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

iii) Corporate Policy

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

The policy is based on meeting the predicted site needs from the Council’s original GTAA (and was designed to meet the expected RSS figures) and whilst the Circular advocated a site allocations policy, the Council’s policy explains that the combination of the wide range of pitch numbers potentially required, and the Council’s good 78

record of approving small private sites, meant that at that stage a site allocations approach is not the right way forward for Swale. The Council undertook a full survey of potential sites against a set of criteria in accordance with Government guidance. This included a review of current temporary permissions and an assessment of the potential of publicly owned land to meet the identified need. This site is mentioned in the survey. This, together with finding a solution for a persistent group of families at Sittingbourne (who were responsible for the vast majority of the unauthorised encampments in the Borough), was expected to see the Council making adequate provision to meet needs.

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

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

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

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

The Council had thus been working towards meeting the anticipated requirement for provision of pitches through the publication of its Gypsy and Traveller Corporate Policy Site Assessment criteria. This has now been agreed as being a material consideration in the determination of planning applications. The current application site has been assessed under the site assessment contained within the Corporate Policy. This can be found at Appendix A. 79

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

18 permanent sites – comprising 126 caravans equating to 76 pitches; and 12 Temporary sites – comprising 25 caravans equating to 15 pitches

(iv) GTAA 2013

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

The GTAA concluded that the Borough requires 85 pitches to be provided from 1 April 2013 to 31 March 2031. This target has been adjusted to 82 pitches to reflect the granting of planning permission for three pitches between the survey base date February 2013 and 31 March 2013. An additional net 17 pitches have also been approved since 1 April 2013. The remaining need up to 2031 currently stands at 65 pitches.

At present, this Council is consulting on an issues and options paper relating to Part 2 of the Local Plan: Gypsy and Traveller site allocations. The closing date for this consultation is Friday 25th April 2014. This document will eventually identify and allocate sufficient sites to meet the future needs of Gypsies and Travellers in the Borough until 2031. The document recommends a new methodology for how to assess site suitability for determining whether or not to allocate a site.

Swale Landscape Character and Biodiversity Appraisal SPD 2011

The application site falls within the Upchurch and Lower Halstow fruit belt area of the Swale Landscape and Biodiversity Appraisal Supplementary Planning Document. In this area it is advised to look for opportunities to create features to restore a strong landscape structure with tree and hedge planting. The SPD states that the overall aim should be towards conservation and creation of the landscape.

Discussion

I note the objections of the local residents and Upchurch Parish Council. Permission cannot be refused because the application is retrospective. Loss of property value is not a material consideration here. Whilst the layout is similar to the previously refused application, this proposal is materially different because it is made under gypsy/traveller status. Issues relating to potential over proliferation of sites, the visual impact and highway safety are considered below.

Applicant’s Gypsy Status

A key issue to be considered is the status of the applicant as a gypsy or traveller. The PPTS provides a 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 dependants’ educational or health needs or old age have ceased to travel temporarily or permanently, but excluding members of an organised group of travelling showpeople or circus people travelling together as such.”

It is noted that the applicants’ gypsy status has never previously been put forward as justification for the grant of planning permission. I requested and have received a detailed explanation of the applicant, her partner and children’s gypsy status which I considered entirely convincing. I note that no representations have been received disputing the applicants gypsy status, and with no evidence to hand to contradict that provided by the applicant, I recommend that Members accept the gypsy/traveller status of the applicant and determine the application in this light.

Principle of development

The proposed development on the site is located outside flood zones 2 and 3. It is not located in a nationally designated area relating to landscape or biodiversity. It is not within or near to a conservation area or listed building. There is no known contamination issue at the site. The PPTS states that sites in open countryside away from settlements should be strictly controlled. In my view this policy has three purposes which are to minimise visual harm to the countryside, ensure sites are not isolated from the settled community and ensure sites are sustainably located.

The site is located within a reasonable distance of two primary schools in Upchurch and Newington, the Co-op shop and Gore Farm Farmshop, the Doctors surgery in Upchurch and the public transport links in Upchurch (bus stop) and Newington (bus and train station). The site is not within a reasonable distance of a secondary school or dentist, both of which can be found in Rainham. In my view, the site is in a comparatively sustainable location.

The site is located near two bricks and mortar houses and a number of other gypsy sites in the area. This forms a small cluster of residential development on the outskirts of Upchurch. I do not consider this location to be isolated from the existing community. 81

Whilst the site is slightly remote and removed from some facilities, other facilities are within a reasonable distance and I do not therefore consider this amounts to an isolated site.

The site assessment score totals 34 out of a possible 46 (See Appendix A) which, whilst not determinative, in my opinion demonstrates that the site is appropriate in many respects.

Whilst clearly there are a number of gypsy/traveller sites in the Upchurch area, this site taken cumulatively with others, or individually on its own merits would not dominate the nearest settled community. Equally, I do not consider that it would place undue pressure on the local infrastructure.

I consider the use of the site to be acceptable as a matter of principle.

Character and appearance of the countryside

In my opinion, the proposal would not result in an over-proliferation of such sites in the immediate vicinity. Whilst there are a number of gypsy sites in the area these are concentrated along Holywell Lane whereas the proposal is located down Gore Farm Track and is not visible from Holywell Lane. The site itself sits at the foot of a hill and Gore Farm Track is lined with hedges and trees which prevents undue visual harm in my opinion. The impact on the character and appearance of the countryside is acceptable in my view.

Highway safety and convenience

It is noteworthy that Kent Highway Services raises no objection to the proposal subject to a single condition protecting the vehicle parking spaces. Gore Farm Track is typical of an unmade road in that there are pot holes and the road is narrow in places. However, the road still provides a sufficient access to the site in my opinion and indeed the existing road is used by other residents to access their properties.

The condition of the road means vehicles travel at very low speed which would not harm pedestrian and cycle safety in my opinion.

Gore Farm Track is classified as a rural lane but in my view the proposal would not, in itself or cumulatively, result in an increase in traffic as to harm its character.

I consider the impact on highway safety and convenience acceptable.

Other material considerations

The site is well removed from the existing residential properties at ‘The Oast’ and ‘The Paddocks’ therefore the impact on residential amenity would be very minimal in my opinion.

Kent County Council’s Public Right of Way Officer raises no objection and I note Swale Footpaths Group raises no objection. The impact on the restricted byway and cycle route would be acceptable in my opinion.

Kent County Council Archaeology recommends a watching brief condition given the archaeological potential at the site which is considered reasonable.

The Health and Safety Executive does not advise that the application be refused on safety grounds due to the nearby gas pipe line and I have no concern in this regard.

The foaling boxes are well designed and in keeping with the area. They would be sensibly located, would comply with the SPG and are acceptable in all regards in my opinion.

Recommendation

Having considered the application against national and local plan policies and the Council’s Corporate Policy, I am of the view that the use of this site on a permanent basis for Gypsies and Travellers would be acceptable. The site achieved a relatively high score and is suitable in many respects and is away from sensitive areas.

Whilst a few services/amenities are not within 2km of the site, these do not in my view demonstrate that the site is in an unsustainable location, or amount to a sufficient reason to refuse planning permission, and to do so would be contrary to the provisions of government planning guidance, especially the PPTS. The harm to the character and appearance of the countryside is minimal in my view, and there would not be significant harm to residential amenity or highway safety and convenience.

Accordingly, the proposed permanent use of this site is considered acceptable and I recommend that planning permission be granted.

List of Background Documents

1. Application papers and correspondence for SW/03/0235, SW/11/0549, SW/12/0334 and ENF/13/0013.

2.11 APPENDIX A:

Oast Field Stud, Gore Farm Track, Holywell Lane, Upchurch. SITE SCORE – 13th March 2014.

General observations Comments

Parish UPCHURCH Full Address Oast Field Stud, Gore Farm Track, Holywell Lane, Upchurch, Sittingbourne, ME9 7BE. Capacity of site to provide for approx 3 caravans Is the site within any of the following No SSSI? Other European Designation Site? No Natural Conservation or Biodiversity No site? AONB? No Listed Buildings/Conservation No Areas/Scheduled Ancient Monument? Local Designated Wildlife Site? No Local Landscape Designation? No Local Plan Allocation? No What landscape character area does Upchurch and Lower Halstow Fruit the site fall within and what are the Belt; relevant guidelines given by the Inter alia consider the generic Swale Landscape Character guidelines for fruit belt landscapes Assessment? and for commercial and equestrian. Does the location meet the needs of Yes the prospective occupiers? Is the site existing or proposed? Existing Is there potential for disturbance to No proposed occupiers e.g. Railway lines, industrial uses, busy roads? Any planning issues relating to Yes cumulative impact of successive sites within the same area?

2.11 APPENDIX A:

Site Availability

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

Site Suitability

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

2.11 APPENDIX A:

Access and Parking

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

Landscaping

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

2.11 APPENDIX A:

Impact on Amenity

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

Sustainability of Location

Sustainability of location Yes/No Is the site within a reasonable Yes distance (2km) to a settlement which offers local services and community facilities? If not, what distance? Is the site within a reasonable distance (2km) to the following services?  Nursery/Primary School? Yes- 1.4km to Upchurch Primary School and 1.8km to Newington C of E Primary School.  Secondary School? No 5.5km to the Howard School Rainham  Doctors? Primary Health Yes – Doctors – Oak Lane, Upchurch Care?  Dentists? No. 5km to Rainham  Food/Clothes and other Yes- 1.5km to Co-op Upchurch shops?  Public transport links e.g. bus Yes- bus stop in Upchurch stops/train station

Total

Total score 34

PLANNING COMMITTEE – 8 MAY 2014 PART 5

Report of the Head of Planning

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

5.1 SW/12/1515 – Demolition of existing dwelling and garages. Erection of four dwellings with new access and car parking at Glenlodge, Queenborough Drive, Minster, Sheerness, Kent , ME12 2JN

APPEAL DISMISSED BUT COSTS CLAIM REFUSED

The Inspector commented on the planning appeal as follows:

Main Issues

3. The main issues in this case are:

-the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area -the effect of plot 4 on the living conditions of ‘Larapinta’ with particular regard to outlook.

Reasons Character and Appearance

4. The appeal site is located on the north side of Queenborough Drive. The land in the area slopes down steadily from north to south, such that the properties on the north side of the road sit at a significantly higher level than those to the south. The dwelling which currently occupies the appeal site is typical of the large, detached and generously spaced properties further west along Queenborough Drive. To the east, the houses, whilst detached, tend to be somewhat smaller and more closely spaced. Built form varies to include bungalows, two storey and, exceptionally, two and a half storey houses.

5. Although the spacing of the proposed houses would be generally consistent with those to the east, the buildings would be considerably larger in scale. In views from the street, all four storeys would be apparent. Whilst the proposed eaves level would be similar to that of ‘Larapinta’ this would be achieved by lowering the existing ground level to create semi-basement garages at the expense of the sloping driveways which characterise other properties on the north side of Queenborough Drive. The height of the proposed houses would, therefore, be significantly greater than others in the area. The bulky roofs and large dormer windows would further add to the scale of the front elevations of the proposed houses.

6. This combination of close spacing, compared with the larger houses to the west, and increased scale would result in the built form of the proposal being out of keeping with its surroundings. By virtue of the height and siting of the proposed buildings, and the extent of hardsurfacing and retaining structures in the front gardens, the development would also be very prominent in the street scene. The variation in external materials suggested by the appellant would not adequately mitigate these effects.

7. Consequently, I consider that the proposal would be detrimental to the character and appearance of the area. As such, it would not comply with Swale Borough Local Plan (LP) policies E1 and E19 insofar as they require proposals to respond positively to the characteristics of the locality and reinforce local distinctiveness. Reason for refusal 1 also refers to LP policy H2. However this policy is primarily concerned with the location and type of residential development and adds little to my consideration of this issue.

Living Conditions

8. Plot 4 would be sited some 1.5m off the common boundary with the neighbouring house known as Larapinta. The flank wall of the proposed house would project some 5m beyond the rear wall of Larapinta at ground floor level and 2.5m at first floor level. Larapinta is also located close to the common boundary and, at the rear, is single storey in height. Its flank wall has a window facing the appeal site.

9. The extent and close proximity of the proposed rear projection would have an oppressive effect on the outlook from the side and rear windows of Larapinta. It would, therefore, have a harmful effect on the living conditions of the occupiers and be contrary to LP policy E1 which, among other things, requires proposals to cause no demonstrable harm to residential amenity.

10. I also note that the proposal would not accord with the advice in the Council’s adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance ‘Designing an Extension: A Guide for Householders (SPG). It advises that rear extensions close to the common boundary should project no more than 3m at ground floor level and 1.8m at first floor level. Whilst the SPG is aimed at extensions, rather than new dwellings, the principle of limiting the extent of rear projections to protect the outlook of neighbouring occupiers is relevant in this case.

Other Matters

11. The appellant has referred to a planning permission (SW/06/0723) for alterations and extensions to Larapinta. I understand that, if implemented, this scheme would result in the relative projection of plot 4 being reduced to a distance which would comply with the SPG advice. It would also raise the ridge height of Larapinta. However, that permission has now expired, the appellant has no control over Larapinta and the current occupants have indicated that they have no intention of renewing the permission. As such, regardless of whether permission would be granted if a fresh application was 89

made, there seems no realistic prospect of Larapinta being extended as anticipated by the appellant and, therefore, I can give this consideration very little weight.

12. The appellant has also offered to amend the proposal to move the dwelling on plot 4 such that the rear projection beyond Larapinta would comply with the SPG advice. However, the Council and consultees did not have an opportunity to consider this amendment before the application was determined. No drawings showing the proposed change have been submitted, but it would be significant enough that neighbouring occupiers may reasonably expect to be consulted. Therefore, I cannot take into account the proposed amendment.

13. I have had regard to the other concerns expressed locally, but they have not led me to a different overall conclusion.

14. The scheme has also attracted support from nearby residents. I have already dealt with the points made regarding the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area. The effect of the proposal on property values and questions of ‘financial jealousy’ on the part of objectors are not planning matters. I accept that the construction of the proposed houses could provide employment for local people. However, the scale and duration of that benefit would not outweigh the lasting harms identified above.

15. There is nothing to indicate that the development plan policies referred to above are in conflict with the Framework.

Conclusion

16. For the reasons outlined above, the appeal should be dismissed.

COSTS DECISION

Decision

1. For the reasons that follow, the application for an award of costs is refused.

Reasons

2. Circular 03/2009 advises that, irrespective of the outcome of the appeal, costs may only be awarded against a party who has behaved unreasonably and thereby caused the party applying for costs to incur unnecessary or wasted expense in the appeal process.

3. The applicant has applied for a partial award of costs based on the appellant’s refusal to accept that a planning permission for an extension to a neighbouring property (Larapinta) should not be taken into account and on appellant’s nonattendance at an earlier site visit for the appeal.

4. I note that the question of the now expired planning permission appears not to have been raised by either party before the appellant submitted this appeal.Whilst the Council’s statement makes clear its view that the permission should not be taken into account, I consider that the appellant was entitled to have the matter considered by an Inspector. As such, the appellant’s continued reliance on the permission in support of its case in respect of the second reason for refusal does not amount to unreasonable behaviour for the purposes of paragraphs A12 (whether it is necessary for a matter to be determined by anInspector) or A28 (whether a view taken in the past can still be relied upon) of the Circular.

5. Since the appellant’s continued reliance on the permission in its final comments pre-dates receipt of the applicant’s cost claim, the appellant should not be at risk of an award of costs based on the advice at paragraph A23 (indication of a party’s intention to apply for costs).

6. The Planning Inspectorate has previously accepted1 that the appellant was not responsible for the delay in the appeal as a result of the abandoned site visit. It would, therefore, be inappropriate to make an award of costs on the basis of the appellant’s non-attendance at the site visit.

7. I therefore find that unreasonable behaviour resulting in unnecessary expense, as described in Circular 03/2009, has been not demonstrated and that a partial award of costs is not justified.

Observations

A welcome decision that wholly supports the Council’s refusal and once more reaffirms that the adopted policies and Supplementary Planning Guidance are significant material considerations in the determination of applications.

It is, however, extremely disappointing that the concurrent costs claim by the Council was not upheld, as officers believed the grounds of appeal to be wholly contrary to the provisions of national guidance.

Background Papers

1. Application papers and correspondence for application SW/12/1515 2. Appeal decision dated 30 December 2013 ref APP/V2255/A/13/2199659

5.2 SW/13/0783 – Retrospective application for proposed “Granny” annexe at no. 2 Crown Cottages, Queenborough Road, Sheerness, Kent, ME12 3RH

APPEAL DISMISSED

The Inspector commented as follows:

Preliminary matter

2. I noted at my visit that the development had been carried out.

Main issue

3. The main issue in this case is whether the development would accord with local planning policy for dwellings in the countryside.

Reasons

4. No 2 is a two storey detached dwelling located along a road with a number of other residential properties in the rural area. Although the appellant considers the location not to be ‘countryside’ or a ‘rural location’, for the purposes of planning policy this does seem to be the applicable designation.

5. Whilst the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) seeks to boost housing supply and deliver a wide choice of high quality homes, it also recognises the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside and reiterates that the Government attaches great importance to the design of the built environment.

6. At local level, the Council’s approach to extensions in the rural areas is set out in Policy RC4 of the Swale Borough Local Plan (LP) adopted in February 2008. On properties with an existing ground floor area of 50 square metres or more, and taking into account any previous additions, this policy permits modest extensions of an appropriate scale, mass and appearance. This is further expanded upon in Supplementary Planning Guidance entitled Designing an Extension A Guide for Householders (SPG) which although adopted some time ago, in my view contains some basic principles that stand the test of time. I have therefore approached the appeal by considering whether the development is a modest extension of an appropriate scale, mass and appearance.

7. As the extension would, according to the Council and not disputed by the appellant, represent an increase in floor space of some 111%, its size cannot be said to be modest. The extension’s width is more than the main two storey element of the dwelling. This is not compensated for by its lower height because of the overall size of the extension and shape and size of its roof together with the way it extends the built development across much of the 92

site’s considerable frontage even allowing for the gap retained between the host property and No 1 Neatscourt Cottages or by its reduced rear width. The dwelling has already had the benefit of a side and rear extension.

8. Although the property forms part of a group of dwellings and Queenborough Road runs roughly parallel with a new main road and there is a Morrisons supermarket and KFC and service station along this route with other development nearby, the extension appears as a large and bulky addition. This is largely due to its overall size, width and roof height and type. It appears out of proportion with the main dwelling and cannot be said to be smaller and less significant than the main dwelling. Although matching materials have been used and this does to some extent ameliorate the visual impact, the development appears too wide, too bulky because of its clumsy roof design and out of scale. It does not relate well to the main dwelling which has a half hipped roof and different detailing and the development appears as an incongruous addition.

9. The property is also visible across a wide area with long distance views of it gained across the expanse of open, flat land characteristic of this locality.

Conclusion

10. As a result I conclude that the development would not accord with LP Policy RC4 or the general thrust of the Framework which states that permission should be refused for development of a poor design that fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area and the way it functions.

11. I appreciate that the appellant has built the development in good faith and has invested a considerable amount into the annexe which is for relatives to live in. How the Council has handled the application or whether the annexe has been built for four years or more are not matters before me.

12. The Council does not raise concern about the effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties and I agree with their assessment on this matter.

13. Reference is made to extensions to other properties in the locality including those that seem to be more than the 60% increase in floorspace referred to in paragraph 3.3 of the SPG. However, I do not know the precise considerations that led to those decisions or if the proposals are directly comparable to the appeal proposal. The appellant also refers to an outbuilding that has been removed to ‘compensate’ for the annexe. I have limited information about the outbuilding; it is not indicated on any of the drawings and in any case the relevant policy does not include any account to be taken of ‘replacement floorspace’. I have determined this appeal on its merits as an annexe (rather than a use as a separate dwelling) in the light of the development plan and all material considerations. The apparent lack of complaint or concern from local residents does not put aside the objections on its planning merits. I have also 93

considered whether any conditions could be imposed such as restricting the development’s use to ancillary accommodation, but this would not overcome the concerns outlined above.

14. For the reasons given above and having regard to all other matters raised, the appeal should be dismissed.

Observations

Full support for the Council’s decision.

Background Papers

1. Application papers and correspondence for application SW/13/0783 2. Appeal Decision dated 15th January 2014 ref; APP/V2255/D/13/2209048

5.3 SW/13/0253 (case 19728) Conversion of covered parking into 2 flats and relaxation of condition 4 of SW/03/1310 and condition 1 of SW/09/0975 to set aside on-site parking requirement at 33 Cowper Road, Sittingbourne ME10 3AL

APPEAL DISMISSED

The Inspector commented as follows:

Main Issue

7. The main issue in this appeal is whether the proposed development would result in a satisfactory living environment for existing and future residents, with particular regard to outlook and overlooking and loss of privacy.

Reasons

8. The appeal site comprises a residential building fronting Cowper Road which is divided into a number of flats, with a central access under the frontage building to a single storey and flat roofed garage/storage building at the rear of the site. I understand that this has been used for garage/storage use, not related to the residential occupiers of the site. The surrounding area is predominantly residential with Victorian terraced housing and some later infill developments.

9. The proposal seeks to modify the rear building with the addition of a pitched roof over most of the building and to convert it to 2 x 1 bedroom residential units. Each bedroom at first floor level would rely on one roof light in the front roof slope for light and outlook, and at ground floor level each through lounge/dining/kitchen would be served by two roof lights at the rear and a full height V shaped window at the front. However, each of these windows at the front would only be glazed on the side facing towards the boundary wall.

10. The National Planning Policy Framework (Framework) includes as one of its Core Principles that planning should always seek to secure a high quality of design and a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings. Policy E1 of the adopted Swale Borough Local Plan 2008 (Local Plan) sets out development management criteria including that a proposal should cause no demonstrable harm to residential amenity.

11. Given the proposed window arrangement, I consider that each unit, particularly at ground floor level, would be provided with a very poor and restricted outlook. Although there would be a full height window to the front of the main living space, the outlook from the glazed element would be directed towards the boundary fence. I understand that this arrangement has been promoted to try and reduce issues of overlooking and loss of privacy. However, I consider that the limited provision and proposed arrangement of

windows overall and particularly to the main living space would result in an oppressive and unacceptable living environment for the residents of each unit.

12. The outlook for the existing residents from their windows facing towards the rear is currently dominated by the existing building and this would become more bulky and imposing with the addition of a pitched roof. Although its external appearance would be improved, the very proximity of this large building presents and would continue to present an oppressive and restricted outlook for the flats in the frontage development. I recognise that some of these rooms serve bathrooms and kitchens but at the site visit, I was also advised that some of the windows serve habitable rooms.

13. I also consider that there would be issues of overlooking and loss of privacy for both the existing and the proposed residents given the proximity of the front and rear building and the arrangement of windows as existing and as proposed. I do not consider that it would be acceptable, enforceable nor would accord with the Core Principles of the Framework or Policy E1 of the Local Plan to seek to overcome issues of overlooking and privacy through the use of window blinds for the first floor bedrooms of the new units. I also give very limited weight to the Appellant’s contention that overlooking would be avoided due to the reflectance effect of the glazing to the proposed bedrooms and no evidence has been submitted to substantiate this point. Furthermore the residents of the new units would be able to look out of their windows onto the common areas or across to the existing flats. In this regard, and whilst I note the Appellant’s comments that the tenants do not use the rear amenity area, the proposals include for the provision of a communal amenity area between the buildings.

14. I therefore conclude that the proposed development would result in a very poor and unsatisfactory living environment for both the existing and prospective residents. It would conflict with the Framework and Policy E1 of the Local Plan.

15. The Appellant has indicated that the proposal would assist in the security of the site but in this regard I noted that security gates have been placed across the front of the site to prevent uninvited entry to the rear. There would be provision for a secure cycle store but no parking at the rear of the site. I agree with the Highway Officer that the two spaces proposed at the front of the site would be substandard in size and could also impede the free flow of pedestrian movement. However, the lack of on-site parking on the site was not a ground for refusal and on the basis of the evidence before me and the generally sustainable location of the site, I have no reason to take a different view.

16. The Appellant has drawn my attention to other permissions which have been granted in the vicinity of the appeal site and in particular to the scheme at No 60 Shortlands Road which he considers is comparable with his own proposals. Each proposal must be judged on its individual merits but I have nonetheless taken these other schemes into account. However, and on the 96

limited information provided, I do not consider that they are directly comparable with the scheme proposals before me and do not therefore persuade me to a different conclusion. The Appellant has also contended that the rear building could remain in its current state and use. This not a matter that it before me and does not in any event persuade me that the current proposals should be permitted given my findings on the unsatisfactory living environment both for existing and prospective residents.

17. I have noted that the proposals are aimed to provide low cost starter homes for young people working locally. Whilst the objective is supported and encouraged by the Framework, this does not outweigh the harm I have concluded relating to the unsatisfactory living environment for existing and future residents.

18. For the reasons given above and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that this appeal should be dismissed.

Observations

This is a good decision which fully supports the Council’s concerns about the poor living environment that would result from the retention and conversion of the building to flats. The Council can now consider whether enforcement action to seek the removal of this building is appropriate, as it was anticipated under the previous planning permission SW/09/0705.

Background Papers

1. Application papers and correspondence for SW/13/0253 2. Appeal decision dated 28th March 2014 Ref: APP/V2255/A/13/2207470

5.4 Ref: ENF/13/0011 (Case 14855) Stationing of a caravan on Land at Brick Barn Farm, Halstow Lane, Lower Halstow, Nr Sittingbourne, Kent ME9 7AB

The Inspector commented as follows:

The Ground (g) appeal

3. The ground (g) appeal appears to be made on the basis that the appellant would like to keep the mobile home on site for security reasons. She would like someone to be able to be on site due to the risk of robberies, which have taken place in the past. The appellant requests that the compliance period be extended to 12 months. The Council contend that other security measures could be taken and that 6 months is a reasonable time period in which to physically remove the caravan and restore the land to its previous condition.

4. I have carefully considered all the points made during the appeal. I appreciate the appellant’s wish for additional time to comply with the notice due to security concerns. However, this has to be weighed against the stated harm to the amenity of the surrounding area caused by the breach of planning control. I am also mindful that some 4 months have elapsed since the appeal was made, with enforcement action effectively suspended. Although the appellant has suggested that the compliance period be extended to 12 months, she has not explained how she plans to deal with the matter of security after that period. Therefore, it would appear that the security problem will still exist and extending the compliance period will not alter that situation. From reading the appellant’s case, her arguments appear to be more suited to an appeal under ground (a). However, as this ground was not appealed it is not before me to consider. On the evidence before me I see no good reason to justify extending the compliance period further and consider the 6 months given to comply with the notice to be adequate.

5. In view of the above, I consider it appropriate to return the control of development to the Council as soon as possible. I therefore take the view that the period for compliance of the notice is sufficient to meet its requirements.

6. Bearing all these points in mind, I do not consider that an extension of the compliance period would be justified in this case. The ground (g) appeal fails accordingly.

Formal decision

7. For the reasons given above, and in exercise of the powers transferred to me, I hereby dismiss the appeal and uphold the enforcement notice.

Observations

This is a good decision which will ensure that the caravan is removed from the site. Unfortunately the caravan remains on site despite the requirements of the Enforcement Notice and further steps are being taken to enforce its removal.

Background Papers

1. Papers and correspondence for enforcement notice ref ENF/13/0011 2. Appeal decision dated 26 September 2013 Ref APP/V2255/C/13/2198210