Agenda Item 16 THE MAIDSTONE BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING APPLICATION NUMBER: MA/13/0397 GRID REF: TQ8953 THE WHITE COTTAGE, FLINT LANE, LENHAM. Hilltop The White Cottage 179.8m 174.7m 157.6m E N A L T N I L F This copy has been produced specifically for Planning and Building Control Purposes only. No further copies may be made. Reproduced from the Ordance Survey mapping with the permission of the Controller Rob Jarman of Her Majesty's Stationary Office ©Crown Copyright. Unauthorised Head of Planning and Development reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or " civil proceedings.The Maidstone Borough Council No. 100019636, 2013. Scale 1:2500 41 APPLICATION: MA/ 13/0397 Date: 7 March 2013 Received: 30 May 2013 APPLICANT: Mrs S Tamiz, Olympia Homes Ltd LOCATION: THE WHITE COTTAGE, FLINT LANE, LENHAM, MAIDSTONE, KENT, ME17 2EN PARISH: Lenham PROPOSAL: Demolition of existing dwelli ng and outbuildings and removal of existing hardstanding areas and erection of detached replacement dwelling with separate garage building/workshop and staff flat as shown on drawing nos. 2633/PL001, PL002, PL003, PL004, PL005, PL006, PL007, PL008, PL009 and PL/0010, 1242/12/5 (landscape masterplan), 1241/12/6revA (proposed diversion of PROW KH384), 1242/12/7revA (detailed landscape planting plan) and 3D model views, Design Statement, Planning Statement, Sustainability Statement, Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment, Tree Survey and Reptile Survey received 08/03/2013 as amended by revised site location plan 2633/PL000 received 30/05/2013. AGENDA DATE: 31st October 2013 CASE OFFICER: Steve Clarke The recommendation for this application is being reported to Committee for decision because: ● It is contrary to views expressed by Lenham Parish Council 1. POLICIES Maidstone Borough-Wide Local Plan 2000: ENV6, ENV26, ENV28, ENV33, ENV34, ENV49, H32, T13 Government Policy: NPPF 2012 2. HISTORY 2.1 Previous planning history is as follows • MA/01/1716: Erection of replacement hay barn APPROVED 26/11/201 • MA/93/0579: Erection of tack room/store attached to existing stable block: APPROVED 09/07/2013 42 ZCRD Rev Mar 12 • MA/91/1612: Retrospective application for stable block for personal use: APPROVED 07/08/1992 • MA/90/1839: Change of use of land for the stationing of a caravan for use as office and store room: REFUSED 09/08/1991 • MA/85/0823: Stationing of caravan for use as office and storeroom (ancillary to smallholding) for temporary 5 year period: APPROVED 06/08/1985 • MA/84/0639: Erection of single-storey rear extension: APPROVED 20/06/1984 3. CONSULTATIONS 3.1 Lenham Parish Council: Wish to permission refused and the application reported to the Planning Committee. ‘The house/staff accommodation would be more visually intrusive contrary to Local Plan policy H32. The proposals would harm the AONB and fail to conserve the natural beauty of the landscape, contrary to policy ENV33 and to paragraph 115 of the NPPF.’ 3.2 Natural England: Do not object ‘This application falls within Kent Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Natural England has no comments to make on this proposal as we do not believe that this development is likely to impact on the purposes of designation.’ Natural England has referred the Council to its standing advice in respect of potential impact on European protected species and reptiles. 3.3 KCC Biodiversity: Do not object and have made the following comments: ‘The Reptile Survey report has been submitted in support of this application. Although an ecological scoping survey is reported as having been undertaken during 2010, that report has not been submitted and we are unable to verify the reported conclusions that potential for bats, reptiles and roman snails on the site was identified. We advise that all ecological survey assessment reports in relation to this site are sought to ensure that we have all available information from which to provide advice. If the potential for bats has been identified we expect that a bat survey will be undertaken and the results provided to inform the determination of the application. Comparison of the 2012 aerial photographs with the previous 2008 aerial photographs indicate that there has been some changes in the management of the site, such that an update survey may be necessary to verify that the 2010 scoping survey findings remain relevant. We are satisfied that the Reptile Survey was undertaken to an appropriate standard. Slow-worms have been confirmed as present on the site and mitigation measures are proposed. Though no specific location for habitat enhancement has been identified, it 43 seems likely that an appropriate location within the wider site can be found that can function as a translocation area once suitably enhanced. We are therefore able to advise that sufficient information has been provided to show that the potential impacts to reptiles can be mitigated. A detailed mitigation strategy incorporating the measures in the report must be required as a condition of planning, if granted. We are currently satisfied with the age of the reptile survey, but we advise that updates to this survey will be required to inform the mitigation strategy if the works do not commence by Spring 2014. One of the principles of the National Planning Policy Framework is that “ opportunities to incorporate biodiversity in and around developments should be encouraged ”. The proposed landscaping shows a mix of native and non-native species and measures to manage the former quarry area which would provide an overall enhancement to the site. The proposal also includes a green roof “ finished with meadow grass ” though the details of this are not included. We advise that specialist guidance should be sought to explore the possibility of creating a chalk grassland green roof that would be in keeping with the Kent Downs. We advise that any lighting scheme proposed for the site must adhere to the Bats and Lighting in the UK guidance (see end of this note for a summary of key requirements) to ensure that the potential for impacts to bats is minimised.’ 3.4 Kent Highway Services: No objections ‘This proposal will not be likely to lead to any significant intensification of traffic and therefore I do not wish to raise objection.’ 3.5 KCC Public Rights of Way: No objections ‘I note that this development will directly affect Public Right of Way KH384. I further note there is plan attached to the application detailing a planned diversion of the path. As far as I can tell no formal application for a diversion has been made yet. I have no objection to the application on the condition that the footpath diversion application is applied for and successfully completed before any construction on the current path line. The existence of the right of way is a material consideration. The grant of planning consent does not entitle the developer to obstruct the Public Right of Way at any time without the express permission of the Highway Authority. The development, insofar as it affects the Public Right of Way, must not be started - until such time as the Order necessary for its diversion has been confirmed, and the new route provided. The successful making and confirmation of an Order should not be assumed. Please inform the applicant of the following General Informatives:- No furniture may be erected on or across Public Rights of Way without the express consent of the Highway Authority: 44 There must be no disturbance of the surface of the right of way, or obstruction of its use, either during or following any approved development without the permission of this office. There should be no close board fencing or similar structure over 1.2 metres erected which will block out the views: No hedging or shrubs should be planted within 1.0 metre of the edge of the Public Path. No materials can be brought onto site or stored on the Right of Way .’ 3.6 UK Power Networks: No objections 3.7 Southern Water: Make reference to the indication that a SuDS drainage system will be used and advise that procedures for its long-term maintenance will need to be put in place as SuDS systems are not adopted. Similar advice is given regarding the proposed reed-bed foul water disposal system. 3.8 MBC Environmental Health: No objections ‘The site is in a relatively quiet rural area therefore traffic noise is not a problem. The site is outside the Maidstone Town Air Quality Management Area and I do not consider the scale of this development and/or its site position warrant an air quality assessment. Any demolition or construction activities may have an impact on local residents and so the usual informatives should apply in this respect. The buildings to be demolished should be checked for the presence of asbestos and any found must only be removed by a licensed contractor. There is no indication of land contamination based on information from the Maidstone Borough Council’s contaminated land database and historic maps databases. Whilst there is no indication from the latest British Geological Survey maps of any significant chance of high radon concentrations, I note that some of the residential units will be built into the natural slope of the site and that the applicant should be made aware through an informative about the option to test for radon gas. The application form states that foul sewage will be dealt with by means of a reed bed, but I can find no further details provided in this respect amongst any of the documentation held in the MBC planning online system; so further information should be required as a condition of any planning permission granted.