185
SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING SERVICES Planning Items to be submitted to the Planning Committee 9 OCTOBER 2008 Standard Index to Contents PART 1 Reports to be considered in public session not included elsewhere on this Agenda PART 2 Applications for which permission is recommended PART 3 Applications for which refusal is recommended PART 4 Swale Borough Council’s own development; observation on County Council’s development; observations on development in other districts or by Statutory Undertakers and by Government Departments; and recommendations to the County Council on ‘County Matter’ applications. PART 5 Decisions by County Council and the Secretary of State on appeal, reported for information PART 6 Reports containing “Exempt Information” during the consideration of which it is anticipated that the press and public will be excluded ABBREVIATIONS : commonly used in this Agenda CDA Crime and Disorder Act 1998 GPDO The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 HRA Human Rights Act 1998 K&MSP Kent and Medway Structure Plan 2006 SBLP Swale Borough Local Plan 2008

SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING SERVICES...2008/10/09  · • Minutes of last Planning Committee Meeting • Minutes of any Working Party Meetings 2.1 OSPRINGE SW/08/0784 3 Porters

  • Upload
    others

  • View
    2

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING SERVICES...2008/10/09  · • Minutes of last Planning Committee Meeting • Minutes of any Working Party Meetings 2.1 OSPRINGE SW/08/0784 3 Porters

SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL

PLANNING SERVICES

Planning Items to be submitted to the Planning Committee

9 OCTOBER 2008 Standard Index to Contents PART 1 Reports to be considered in public session not included

elsewhere on this Agenda PART 2 Applications for which permission is recommended PART 3 Applications for which refusal is recommended PART 4 Swale Borough Council’s own development; observation on

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

PART 5 Decisions by County Council and the Secretary of State on

appeal, reported for information PART 6 Reports containing “Exempt Information” during the consideration

of which it is anticipated that the press and public will be excluded

ABBREVIATIONS: commonly used in this Agenda CDA Crime and Disorder Act 1998 GPDO The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order

1995 HRA Human Rights Act 1998 K&MSP Kent and Medway Structure Plan 2006 SBLP Swale Borough Local Plan 2008

Page 2: SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING SERVICES...2008/10/09  · • Minutes of last Planning Committee Meeting • Minutes of any Working Party Meetings 2.1 OSPRINGE SW/08/0784 3 Porters

INDEX OF ITEMS FOR PLANNING COMMITTEE – 9 OCTOBER 2008

• Minutes of last Planning Committee Meeting • Minutes of any Working Party Meetings 2.1 OSPRINGE SW/08/0784 3 Porters Lane Pgs 1 – 4 2.2 WARDEN SW/08/0735 19 St James Close Pgs 5 – 8 2.3 & 2.4 FAVERSHAM SW/08/0695 & Arden’s Cottage, Pgs 9 – 12 SW/08/0696 81 Abbey Street 2.5 FAVERSHAM SW/08/0785 24 Preston Street Pgs 13 – 15 2.6 THROWLEY & SW/08/0559 Land adjacent Heel Farm Pgs 16 – 35 STALISFIELD 2.7 OSPRINGE SW/08/0685 Millers House, Water Lane Pgs 37 – 40 2.8 TUNSTALL SW/08/0717 Keystun, Ruins Barn Road, Pgs 41 – 48 2.9 UPCHURCH SW/08/0592 30 Horsham Lane Pgs 49 – 57 2.10 LYNSTED SW/08/0852 Former garage site and land Pgs 58 – 65 adjacent 4 John Nash Close 2.11 BOUGHTON SW/08/0811 3 & 4 Swedish House, Pgs 66 – 73 Colonels Lane 2.12 BORDEN SW/08/0639 Bannister House, Bannister Hill Pgs 74 – 80 Colonels Lane 2.13 SITTINGBOURNE SW/08/0910 Swanstree Avenue Extension, Pgs 81 – 98 Between Swanstree Avenue and

Highsted Road 2.14 THROWLEY SW/08/0740 Shavers Meadow, Housefield Road Pgs 99 – 104 2.15 SITTINGBOURNE SW/08/0416 Parcels F & G East Hall Farm Pgs 105 – 117

Page 3: SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING SERVICES...2008/10/09  · • Minutes of last Planning Committee Meeting • Minutes of any Working Party Meetings 2.1 OSPRINGE SW/08/0784 3 Porters

3.1 DODDINGTON SW/08/0642 Hillcrest, Dully Hill Pgs 1 – 3 3.2 FAVERSHAM SW/08/0791 Corner of London Road/Brogdale Pgs 4 – 10 Road, Abbey School, London Road 4.1 TUNSTALL SW/08/0915 Tunstall C of E Primary School Pgs 1 – 4 5.1 DARGATE ENF/08/006 Land at Plum Pudding Lane Pgs 1 – 3 5.2 SITTINGBOURNE SW/07/0729 39 Palmerston Walk Pgs 4 – 5 5.3 TONGE SW/07/0923 Land adjacent Orchard Cottage, Pgs 6 – 9 London Road 5.4 WARDEN SW/07/1209 Land adjacent 45 Imperial Drive Pgs 10 – 12 5.5 LEYSDOWN SW/07/1446 Adjacent 1 Danes Drive, Bayview Pgs 13 – 14 5.6 NEWNHAM SW/01/0211 18 The Courtyard, Seed Road Pgs 15 – 20 5.7 MINSTER SW/07/0156 Land to rear of 42 Cliff Gardens Pgs 21 – 23 5.8 BOBBING SW/07/1194 Former Keycol Hospital Site, Pgs 24 – 26 Rook Lane

Page 4: SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING SERVICES...2008/10/09  · • Minutes of last Planning Committee Meeting • Minutes of any Working Party Meetings 2.1 OSPRINGE SW/08/0784 3 Porters

1

PLANNING COMMITTEE – 9 OCTOBER 2008 PART 2 Report of the Head of Development Services PART 2 Applications for which PERMISSION is recommended

2.1 SW/08/0784 (Case 01000) OSPRINGE

Location: 3 Porters Lane, Ospringe, Faversham, Kent, ME13 0DR

Proposal: Alterations to outbuilding to provide study, rear porch and

other alterations to property Applicant/Agent: Miss Kate Woolf, c/o Mr Patrick Jordan, Wyndham Jordan

Architects, 7 Bramley Avenue, Faversham, Kent, ME13 8NL

Application Valid: 10 July 2008 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) Details of the weatherboarding and roofing tiles, to be used on the

development hereby permitted shall be submitted to and approved by the District Planning Authority before the development is commenced.

Grounds: In the interest of visual amenity and in pursuance of

policies E1 and E19 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008, and QL1 of the Kent & Medway Structure Plan.

(3) Details of the materials of the proposed balconies and canopy shall be

submitted to and approved by the District Planning Authority before the development is commenced.

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

Continued . . .

Page 5: SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING SERVICES...2008/10/09  · • Minutes of last Planning Committee Meeting • Minutes of any Working Party Meetings 2.1 OSPRINGE SW/08/0784 3 Porters

2

2.1 (Contd) PART 2 Reasons for Approval Having taken all material considerations into account, it is considered that subject to compliance with the attached conditions, the proposal would be in accordance with the development plan and would not cause unacceptable harm to the amenities of the area. In resolving to grant permission, particular regard has been had to the following policies: E1, E6, E19 & E24 of The Swale Borough Local Plan 2008 and QL1 & EN1 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan. Description of Proposal The proposal is for alterations to an outbuilding to provide a study and a pitched roof rear porch and other alterations to the property including replacing windows, new French doors, the installation of two Juliet balconies on the north west, side elevation and north east, rear elevation a door canopy on the north-west elevation, and weatherboarding all the existing facades. The proposed extension consists of increasing the ridge height of the small adjacent outbuilding located to the rear of the property by 300mm to provide adequate space and the creation of a 2m by 0.7m bathroom on the ground floor, infilling an existing gap between the main house and the outbuilding Relevant Site History and Site Description The property is one of a pair of extended semi detached two storey dwellings located in an isolated location within the defined countryside. The properties are located close to Porters Lane but are largely hidden by extensive and mature vegetation. Access to the property, by vehicle and foot, is via the west of the property adjacent to the boundary. The property is in an unattractive state with the render, fenestration and outbuilding requiring refurbishment. The proposal seeks to create a better overall appearance. Views of Consultees Ospringe Parish Council comment that:

“they support the change of windows from the existing steel Crittle windows but object to the weatherboarding which we feel would be out of place compared to the adjoining property. We are also unhappy with the Juliet balcony on the NW elevation”

One letter from the neighbouring property comments that they have no objection to the plans but have queried access works and wish that the adjoining woodland is not affected.

Continued . . .

Page 6: SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING SERVICES...2008/10/09  · • Minutes of last Planning Committee Meeting • Minutes of any Working Party Meetings 2.1 OSPRINGE SW/08/0784 3 Porters

3

2.1 (Contd) PART 2

Policies Swale Borough Local Plan Policies E1 (general development criteria), E6 (development in the countryside), E9 (landscape designations), E19 (design) and E24 (extensions to dwellings). Kent & Medway Structure Plan Policies QL1 (design), EN1 (development in countryside) and EN5 (landscape designations) Discussion The property has been extended in the past along with the adjoining house, which began as simple farm cottages, and the scope of these works is minimal. The scheme involves the raising in height by 300mm of the existing outbuilding and the infilling of a link space between the house and the outbuilding of 2m by 0.7m resulting in the creation of a ground floor bathroom. The outbuilding is not visible from outside the site and is over 6m away from the boundary with the adjoining property. It is the extension works that require planning approval as the other refurbishment works such as the weatherboard cladding of the property, the new replacement windows, and the balcony and canopy do not require planning approval and can be carried out by the applicant at any time. Therefore although I note the comments of the Parish Council their objection to the weatherboarding of the property and balcony are not the most significant consideration in the determination of this application. Due to the location of the works in relation to the adjoining property and the nominal nature of the works I do not consider the adjoining property would be affected by the proposals. The works will improve the accommodation with no impact on neighbours, but will result in a certain smartening up of the now rather tired elevations. Whilst the cottages were never boarded, this treatment is common locally, and the result should fit into the area well.

Continued . . .

Page 7: SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING SERVICES...2008/10/09  · • Minutes of last Planning Committee Meeting • Minutes of any Working Party Meetings 2.1 OSPRINGE SW/08/0784 3 Porters

4

2.1 (Contd) PART 2

Summary and Recommendation At present the extended cottage does not present a wholly attractive appearance. The works proposed here will smarten it up, in a locally appropriate way. Subject to the attached conditions I recommend that planning permission be granted

Responsible Officer: Graham Thomas (Area Planning Officer) List of Background Documents 1. Application Papers for Application SW/08/0784 2. Correspondence Relating to Application SW/08/784

Page 8: SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING SERVICES...2008/10/09  · • Minutes of last Planning Committee Meeting • Minutes of any Working Party Meetings 2.1 OSPRINGE SW/08/0784 3 Porters

5

PART 2

2.2 SW/08/0735 (Case 17711) WARDEN

Location: 19 St James Close, Warden Bay, Kent, ME12 4NW.

Proposal: Stainless steel flue to roofslope (retrospective). Applicant/Agent: Mr Nigel Caddick, 19 St James Close, Warden Bay,

Sheerness, Kent, ME12 4NW Application Valid: 14th August 2008 Conditions None. Reason for Approval

Having taken all material considerations into account, it is considered that, the proposal would be in accordance with the development plan and would not cause unacceptable harm to the amenities of the area or prejudice highway safety or convenience. In resolving to grant permission, particular regard has been had to the following policies: Policies E1, E2 and E19 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008 and QL1 and NR5 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan. Description of Proposal This application seeks retrospective planning permission for a stainless steel flue on the front roofslope to 19 St James Close, Warden Bay. The flue is of a stainless steel construction, measures approximately 1.8 metres in height, and is fitted with a ‘chinaman’s cap’ at the top. The flue is fitted on the side of the front roofslope which is adjacent to no.20 St James Close. The flue serve a multi-fuel burner. Relevant Site History and Description The site is located within the built-up area of Warden. The property is a modern end-of-terrace house. In 2006, permission was granted for a two-storey side extension (SW/06/0735). The drawings approved for that extension showed a brick built chimney attached to the north-facing elevation of the extension. The extension has since been constructed but without the approved chimney. Instead, the above mentioned stainless steel flue was installed.

Continued . . .

Page 9: SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING SERVICES...2008/10/09  · • Minutes of last Planning Committee Meeting • Minutes of any Working Party Meetings 2.1 OSPRINGE SW/08/0784 3 Porters

6

2.2 (Contd) PART 2

Following complaints to and visits from Officers, it was decided that the flue would require the benefit of planning permission. Accordingly, Enforcement Officers made contact with the owners of the property, which eventually resulted in the present application. Views of Consultees

Warden Parish Council raise objection to the proposal, noting that:

“The residents of St James Close and Sea Approach have been canvassed. They wish to remain anonymous but feel the chimney is out of character with the area and that the fumes and odours affect their breathing and foul their washing. It is felt (that) photographs should have been taken prior to the installation to show the affect on the vista. Parish Council records show (that) this installation was never on the original planning application and we understand (that) it has been illegal and unauthorised since (20)08. The PC objects to this installation and recommends that it be removed.”

Swale Borough Council’s Head of Environment and Amenities raises no objection to the proposal. Other Representations One email of objection has been received from a resident of St James Close, which can be summarised as follows:

• The deeds for all the properties in St James Close state that “…there

should be no open fires or wood burning for the purpose of making charcoal or bricks.”

• St James Close was designed as a smoke free zone; there are no other fuel burning installations on this estate.

• Concern for the integrity of the adjoining owners’ party wall plastering being caused to blow due to the heat from the stove and its flue pipe.

• The vista of the skyline and the adverse affect the flue has had on the appearance of the properties in St James Close will reduce the commercial value of the properties, with fumes, and odours making the properties less attractive to prospective purchasers

• The flue results in coughing due to fumes, and odours, as well as contaminating washing hanging in the garden.

One letter from a resident of St James Close stating no objection to the proposal has also been received. The views expressed can be summarised as follows:

• The flue “does not affect us in any way and in our opinion is not unsightly at all, we have no problem with it being there.”

Continued . . .

Page 10: SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING SERVICES...2008/10/09  · • Minutes of last Planning Committee Meeting • Minutes of any Working Party Meetings 2.1 OSPRINGE SW/08/0784 3 Porters

7

2.2 (Contd) PART 2

Planning Policies The following policies of the Swale Borough Council Local Plan 2008 are relevant: E1 (General Criteria) E2 (Pollution) E19 (Design Criteria) The following policies of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan are also relevant: QL1 (Quality of Design) NR5 (Pollution) Discussion As will be noted above, two objections have been received (Warden Parish Council and a local resident) and two notifications of no objection have been received (SBC’s Environmental Health Officer and another local resident), it is necessary to study those points raised. The objector notes that the deeds to all the properties in St James Close state that: “…there should be no open fires or wood burning for the purpose of making

charcoal or bricks,” and that “St James Close was designed as a smoke free zone.”

This is a legal matter, rather than a planning matter. Also, it should be noted that the applicant has submitted copies of the deeds to their property. I have consulted colleagues in our Legal department, who confirm that they can find no such clauses on the deeds for the property in question. The objector also raises concern regarding the party wall between nos. 19 and 20 and on the impact of the flue on house prices. These are not planning issues, and no correspondence has been received from the occupants of no. 20. There is concern over fumes and smells effecting health and amenity. These are planning matters.

The Parish Council raise concerns regarding the appearance of the chimney and the affects of smoke from the same. I would contend that the flue, due to its slim design and appearance, is not visually obtrusive and does not seriously adversely affect the character and appearance of the street scene or the visual amenity of the area.

Continued . . .

Page 11: SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING SERVICES...2008/10/09  · • Minutes of last Planning Committee Meeting • Minutes of any Working Party Meetings 2.1 OSPRINGE SW/08/0784 3 Porters

8

2.2 (Contd) PART 2

The Parish Council also raise concerns over the effect of smoke upon the area. I have consulted the Head of Environment and Amenities who has replied that they have no adverse comments or observations to make on this proposal. I also note that the occupiers of a nearby property have noted that the flue “does not affect us in any way”. Recommendation This application seeks retrospective planning permission for a stainless steel flue on the front roofslope at 19 St James Close, Warden Bay. Whilst I have noted the points raised in objection to the proposal, I consider that the scheme does not give rise to significant harm to the character and appearance of the street scene, or to residential amenity. I therefore recommend that the application be granted planning permission.

___________ Responsible Officer: Graham Thomas (Area Planning Officer)

List of Backgrounds Documents

1. Application Papers and Correspondence for Application SW/08/0735 2. Application Papers and Correspondence for Application SW/06/1182

Page 12: SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING SERVICES...2008/10/09  · • Minutes of last Planning Committee Meeting • Minutes of any Working Party Meetings 2.1 OSPRINGE SW/08/0784 3 Porters

9

PART 2

2.3 SW/08/0695 (Case 02145) FAVERSHAM

Location: Arden’s Cottage, 81 Abbey Street, Faversham, ME13

7BH.

Proposal: Retrospective application for front fence and gate Applicant/Agent: Dr Nigel Morgan Application Valid: 24 June 2008 Condition

(1) The fence and gate hereby permitted shall be removed not later than

30th September 2010. Grounds: In order that the position can be reviewed and in

pursuance of policies E1 & E19 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008 and policy QL1 of the Kent & Medway Structure Plan.

Reason for Approval: Having taken all material considerations into account, it is considered that subject to compliance with the attached condition, the proposal would be in accordance with the development plan and would not cause unacceptable harm to the character of the Conservation Area or the listed building, particular regard has been had to the following policies: Policies E1, E14, E15 and E19 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008 and policies QL1, QL6 and QL8 of the Kent & Medway Structure Plan.

2.4 SW/08/0696 (Case 02145) FAVERSHAM

Location: Arden’s Cottage, 81 Abbey Street, Faversham, ME13

7BH.

Proposal: Listed building consent for replacement garden gate and short fence.

Applicant/Agent: Dr Nigel Morgan Application Valid: 24 June 2008 THIS APPLICATION MUST BE REFERRED TO THE GOVERNMENT OFFICE FOR THE WEST MIDLANDS

Continued . . .

Page 13: SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING SERVICES...2008/10/09  · • Minutes of last Planning Committee Meeting • Minutes of any Working Party Meetings 2.1 OSPRINGE SW/08/0784 3 Porters

10

2.3 & 2.4 (Contd) PART 2

Condition

(1) The fence and gate hereby permitted shall be removed not later than 30th September 2010.

Grounds: In order that the position can be reviewed and in pursuance

of policies E1 & E19 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008 and policy QL1 of the Kent & Medway Structure Plan.

Reason for Approval Having taken all material considerations into account, I consider 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 character of the Conservation Area or the listed building, particular regard has been had to the following policies: Policies E1, E14, E15 and E19 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008 and policies QL1, QL6 and QL8 of the Kent & Medway Structure Plan.

Description of Proposal These applications seeks retrospective planning permission and listed building consent for the erection of a front fence and gate at Arden’s Cottage, 81 Abbey Street, Faversham.

The proposed fence and replacement gate have a total height of 1.850 metres and are 3.620 metres in length.

The fence is not attached to the house or dug into the land. No damage or alterations have been made to the historic building. The fence is of good quality timber and traditional preservative colouring has been used. The access to the property has not been altered. Relevant Site History and Description The property is located in Faversham conservation area and built up area as defined in the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008. The house is grade 2* listed. Planning application SW/05/0089 and listed building consent SW/05/0090 were granted at appeal for a two storey extension on the south side of the existing property to provide a bedroom and bathroom. This fence occupies the same position as the front wall of that extension. I understand that the applicant intends to implement these approvals and that the fence is not intended to be a permanent feature. Views of Consultees and Other Representations Faversham Town Council recommend approval subject to conditions: Continued . . .

Page 14: SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING SERVICES...2008/10/09  · • Minutes of last Planning Committee Meeting • Minutes of any Working Party Meetings 2.1 OSPRINGE SW/08/0784 3 Porters

11

2.3 & 2.4 (Contd) PART 2 • Temporary permission not exceeding 3 years • Simplification of design- gate posts are to be the same height as the fence

and the head of the gate to be straight and same height as the fence. • Toning down in colour of the fence

Three letters of objection have been received from neighbouring residents. Their comments can be summarised as follows:

• Completely unsympathetic to listed building, concealing the courtyard area • Is an eyesore – inappropriate design and unpleasant finish • Materials not in keeping with the surrounding area

One further letter raises no objection to the fence and gate, but raises concern about the removal of lawn and vegetation from the space between number 81 Abbey Street and Arden’s Cottage and replacement hard landscaping being detrimental to the conservation area. Relevant Development Plan Policies Regard has been paid to the following policies:

Swale Borough Local Plan 2008: E1 (General Development Criteria) E14 (Listed Buildings) E15 (Conservation Areas) E19 (Design)

Kent & Medway Structure Plan QL1 (Design) QL6 (Conservation Areas) QL8 (Listed Buildings) Discussion

The fence and gate are of a quite simple design which does not in my opinion degrade the setting of the listed building or detract from the character of the conservation area in which it is situated. However, I note the comments made by Faversham Town Council and neighbouring residents regarding the proposal, and as a compromise have recommended a temporary permission in order that the position can be reviewed at the end of the period. Faversham Town Council have also recommended that a condition requiring simplification of the design would be beneficial. The design is already very simple and not in any way ornate. In addition, I do not consider this to be reasonable for a temporary permission. If permission were to be granted permanently in the future this recommendation could be reviewed. With regards to their last comment regarding the colour of the fence, this will very quickly tone down with weathering and I therefore do not consider it necessary to require details or a condition requiring this occurs. Continued . . .

Page 15: SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING SERVICES...2008/10/09  · • Minutes of last Planning Committee Meeting • Minutes of any Working Party Meetings 2.1 OSPRINGE SW/08/0784 3 Porters

12

2.3 & 2.4 (Contd) PART 2 In view of the planning permission and listed building consent to erect an

extension on this location, I do not believe that this fence and gate affects any features otherwise to be preserved.

Recommendation The fence does not unduly impact upon the character of the Conservation area and the listed building. A temporary permission/consent is appropriate for the development. For the above reasons I conclude that the proposal is acceptable and that it complies with policy. I therefore recommend that planning permission and listed building consent be granted.

Responsible Officer: Graham Thomas (Area Planning Officer) List of Background Documents 1. Application Papers and correspondence relating to applications

SW/08/0695 and SW/08/0696. 2. Application papers and correspondence relating to applications

SW/05/0089 and 90.

Page 16: SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING SERVICES...2008/10/09  · • Minutes of last Planning Committee Meeting • Minutes of any Working Party Meetings 2.1 OSPRINGE SW/08/0784 3 Porters

13

PART 2

2.5 SW/08/0785 (Case 23175) FAVERSHAM

Location: 24 Preston Street, Faversham, Kent, ME13 8PE

Proposal: The installation of an Automated Teller Machine Applicant/Agent: Bankmachine Ltd, c/o Miss Carolyn Booth, Complete

Technical Services Ltd, Hope Street, Rotherham, South Yorkshire, S60 1LH

Application Valid: 9th July 2008 Conditions

(1) The works to which this consent relates must be begun not later than

the expiration of three years beginning with the date on which this consent is granted.

Grounds: In pursuance of Section 18 of the Listed Building Act 1990

as amended by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. Reasons for Approval Having taken all material considerations into account, it is considered that subject to compliance with the attached conditions, the proposal would be in accordance with the development plan and would not cause unacceptable harm to the amenities of the area or prejudice highway safety or convenience, and would preserve or enhance the special character or appearance of the Conservation Area. In resolving to grant permission, particular regard has been had to the following policies: E1, E15, E19 and E23 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008, and QL1 and QL6 of the Kent & Medway Structure Plan. Description of Proposal The application is for the installation of an Automated Teller Machine (ATM) in the front window of “Martins” the newsagents at 24 Preston Street. The unit is of a standard design; it will have a stainless steel surround and be fitted to the existing shopfront with silicon jointed glazing.

Continued . . .

Page 17: SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING SERVICES...2008/10/09  · • Minutes of last Planning Committee Meeting • Minutes of any Working Party Meetings 2.1 OSPRINGE SW/08/0784 3 Porters

14

2.5 (Contd) PART 2

Relevant Site History and Site Description The application is submitted following the refusal of an earlier application SW/08/0404 which proposed a similar machine but had associated works and clutter, namely an illuminated fascia sign, a CCTV camera, an external light, a litter bin and a painted privacy area painted onto the pavement which were determined to cause harm to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. The shop is a newsagent located along Preston Street within Faversham Conservation Area and in the Core Shopping Area. Views of Consultees and Other Representations Faversham Town Council recommend refusing the application as “the siting of the ATM would cause obstruction to the narrow pavement in this location.” No response from local residents

Policies Swale Borough Local Plan Policies Policies E1 (General Development Criteria), E15 (Conservation Areas), E19 (Design) and E23 (New Shopfronts, Signs and Advertisements). Kent & Medway Structure Plan Policies QL1 (General Development Criteria) and QL6 (Conservation Areas). Discussion The key question here is whether the proposal preserves or enhances the special character or appearance of the conservation area, and pays regard to the Council’s duties regarding crime and disorder. The application has been submitted following an earlier refusal for a similar scheme but with the associated clutter and intrusive features removed from the proposal. As such I consider that the revised scheme to be more acceptable in terms of its impact on the Conservation Area. However these elements are ordinarily recommended to reduce both the fear and risk of crime. As Preston Street is already covered by CCTV and the applicant is confident the ATM is sufficiently protected, I do consider this to be an acceptable scheme in these terms.

Continued . . .

Page 18: SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING SERVICES...2008/10/09  · • Minutes of last Planning Committee Meeting • Minutes of any Working Party Meetings 2.1 OSPRINGE SW/08/0784 3 Porters

15

2.5 (Contd) PART 2

I note the comments from the Town Council however it is not unusual for an ATM to be in such a location and I do not consider it would cause such an obstruction or harm to the free flowing of pedestrians to justify refusing the application. Recommendation This revised and restrained scheme is more appropriate to area and would in my view not cause harm to the character or appearance of the Conservation Area in a safe manner, I recommend that planning permission be granted.

Responsible Officer: Graham Thomas (Area Planning Officer)

List of Background Documents 1. Application Papers for Application SW/08/0785 2. Correspondence Relating to Application SW/08/785 3. Application Papers and Correspondence relating to application SW/08/0404.

Page 19: SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING SERVICES...2008/10/09  · • Minutes of last Planning Committee Meeting • Minutes of any Working Party Meetings 2.1 OSPRINGE SW/08/0784 3 Porters

16

PART 2

2.6 SW/08/0559 (Case 18108) THROWLEY AND STALISFIELD

Location: Land adjacent Heel Farm, Stalisfield, Nr Faversham,

Kent, ME13 0JH

Proposal: Non-compliance with condition (1) of planning permission SW/05/0294 to allow continuation of model aircraft flying beyond 31 May 2008.

Applicant/Agent: Mr Robert Hills, 161 Faversham Road, Kennington,

Ashford, Kent, TN24 9AE Application Valid: 14 May 2008

Conditions

(1) The use hereby permitted shall cease on or before 31 August 2013

Grounds: in the interests of the amenities of the area, and to allow the situation to be reviewed at the end of the period, in pursuance of polices E1 and E2 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

(2) No model aircraft flying shall take place on the site outside the following times;

Monday to Friday 09.00-13.00 and Saturdays 10.00-16.00 and at no time on Sunday or Public Holidays; except those capable of flying silently, in which case the flying times may be extended to 19.00 on Mondays to Saturdays, but still be prohibited on Sundays and Public Holidays.

Grounds: In the interests of the amenities of the area, with special reference to the amenities of residents of the area, and in pursuance of policies EN1 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan and policies E1 and E2 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

(3) No more than two aircraft shall be allowed to fly at any one time, with a maximum of one further aircraft engine running on the ground.

Grounds: In the interests of the amenities of the area, with special reference to the amenities of residents of the area, and in pursuance of policies EN1 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan and policies E1 and E2 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

Continued . . .

Page 20: SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING SERVICES...2008/10/09  · • Minutes of last Planning Committee Meeting • Minutes of any Working Party Meetings 2.1 OSPRINGE SW/08/0784 3 Porters

17

2.6 (Contd) PART 2

(4) The launching of powered fixed wing aircraft shall only be from the larger north-eastern of the two take-off areas shown on the original application plan coloured in green and edged red, and the other smaller take-off area shall only be used for the launching of silent flight or helicopter models. No aircraft shall be allowed to fly beyond the boundaries of the field (as edged green on the application plan) and within the field, no aircraft shall be allowed to fly within 200 metres of any dwelling, or within 50 metres of the public footpath to the south of the flying field. These 200m and 50m exclusion zones must be clearly physically marked out on site at all times that model aircraft are flying, by means that are readily visible from the launch areas, and details of which are first to be submitted to and approved in writing by the District Planning Authority.

Grounds: In the interests of the amenities of the area, with special reference to the amenities of residents of the area, and in pursuance of policies EN1 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan and policies E1 and E2 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

(5) Only model aircraft fitted with an effective silencer (muffler) can be

flown at the site and must be silenced to a level that is below 82 dB(A) at a distance of 7 metres.

Grounds: In the interests of the amenities of the area, with special reference to the amenities of residents of the area, and in pursuance of policies EN1 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan and policies E1 and E2 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

(6) No aircraft flown at the site shall exceed a weight of 7 Kg and no

powered craft shall have other than two stroke internal combustion engines.

Grounds: In the interests of the amenities of the area, with special reference to the amenities of residents of the area, and in pursuance of policies EN1 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan and policies E1 and E2 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

(7) The use permitted shall be for the sole use of members of the North

Downs Model Flying Club.

Grounds: In the interests of the amenities of the area, with special reference to the amenities of residents of the area, and in pursuance of policies EN1 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan and policies E1 and E2 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

Continued . . .

Page 21: SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING SERVICES...2008/10/09  · • Minutes of last Planning Committee Meeting • Minutes of any Working Party Meetings 2.1 OSPRINGE SW/08/0784 3 Porters

18

2.6 (Contd) PART 2

(8) Notwithstanding the provisions of Class B of Part 4 of Schedule 2 to The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development Order)1995, as amended, there shall not be any competition flying, organised displays or joint club events related to model aircraft flying held on the flying field, as defined by the green line on the approved application plan, at any time.

Grounds: In the interests of the amenities of the area, with special reference to the amenities of residents of the area, and in pursuance of policies EN1 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan and policies E1 and E2 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

Reason for Approval

Having taken all material considerations into account, it is considered that subject to compliance with the attached conditions, the proposal would be in accordance with the development plan and would not cause unacceptable harm to the amenities of the area or prejudice highway safety or convenience. In resolving to grant permission, particular regard has been had to the following policies: E1, E2, E6 and E9 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008; and EN1, EN3 and EN4 of The Kent and Medway Structure Plan. Introduction

This application was reported to the August meeting where it was deferred for local re-consultations. Since then I have written to neighbouring residents and those with an interest in the application to clarify their thoughts as there appeared to be some confusion as to exactly what the proposal involved.

Description of Proposal and Site

This application is to extend an initial 3 year temporary permission for model aircraft flying at land adjacent to Heel Farm, Stalisfield, on a site which straddles the border with Throwley parish. The original application was controversial, and the permission was subject to a number of conditions around times of flying and size of aircraft, in order to strike an appropriate balance between users and widely scattered residents who, due to the area's very low background noise levels find the use intrusive over a very wide area. The site is an open field within the Kent Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Views of Consultees On original consultation the following views were received:-

Continued . . .

Page 22: SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING SERVICES...2008/10/09  · • Minutes of last Planning Committee Meeting • Minutes of any Working Party Meetings 2.1 OSPRINGE SW/08/0784 3 Porters

19

2.6 (Contd) PART 2

Throwley Parish Council recommended that the original time restriction be upheld as the noise from the aircraft does cause considerable nuisance ie, that the use as a whole should now cease completely. They added that silencers might be appropriate as planes appear to be getting bigger. Stalisfield Parish Council commented that they would be happy to see a further 3 year permission, but would wish this be granted a further temporary permission so that the matter can be kept under review. Kent Highways did not comment on the application. The Head of Environment and Amenities raised no objection as he had received no complaints about the use of the three year trial period. Other Representations On original consultation the following views were received:- Several letters had been received from local residents variously agreeing and objecting to a further time period. One very furiously argues that the whole matter is out of control and ruins the tranquillity of the area, and has devalued local properties. Another expressed strong original concern, but now opposed any easement of the restrictions on use – but without objecting to a renewal per se. Another neighbour recalled past problems before the controls were imposed, but now appeared to accept that the current use is at a reasonable level, although they would oppose a return to unrestricted flying, noting that silent planes do not present a problem. Results of Re-Consultation Re-consultation has prompted a significant number of replies including much support and objection respectively. My letter specifically asked the objectors to clarify the following: (1) Whether their objection relates to the continuation of the flying under

the current restrictions (relating to hours of operation restrictions and number and type of aircraft etc?

(2) Whether they consider the proposal is objectionable as currently

presented, but could be acceptable, subject to further conditions/restrictions or amended restrictions?

(3) Whether they consider any type of model aircraft flying on the site is

objectionable? Stalisfield Parish Council do not object to the use continuing under the current restrictions, but they would like to see a 3 year temporary permission.

Continued . . .

Page 23: SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING SERVICES...2008/10/09  · • Minutes of last Planning Committee Meeting • Minutes of any Working Party Meetings 2.1 OSPRINGE SW/08/0784 3 Porters

20

2.6 (Contd) PART 2 Throwley Parish Council have confirmed that their objection does relate to the proposal being allowed to continue, even under the current restrictions. They clarify that the use does cause unacceptable nuisance to residents living down-wind of the site, and that they would object to all flying at the site unless only electric silent planes were to be flown. Four letters of objection to the use have been received. I will summarise the points made:

• Any model aircraft flying is objectionable because of the noise, it

should be done elsewhere where the noise would be less noticeable. • Noise spoils walks in AONB, and frightens dogs making them hard to

control. • Is a very quiet and tranquil parish, otherwise away from noisy roads

and urban areas. • Areas of tranquillity are being reduced across the country. • Cannot be acceptable under any conditions • Against Government policy in 1982 which states model aircraft flying

may be disturbing • This is not farm diversification, as the owner does not farm any land. • Agricultural land should be used for agriculture • If the planes could be silenced would have no objection • Wind direction and topography means some people far away will be

more affected than some closer to the site. • Other noise sources come and go, this one affects the area almost

every day. • The noise affects those who work or stay at home during the day.

Eight letters, including one signed by 24 club members and others, in support have been received, which say:

• Model aircraft have been flying at this site for at least 20 years • The club has strictly abided by the conditions imposed in 2005, prior to this

I was not aware of any complaints • The planes are fitted with silencers and not allowed to fly without them • We are friendly and welcome visitors, the activity is an important part of

people's social life. • The club is affiliated to the British Model Flying Association and abide by

its strict rules, and is recognised by the Sports Council. The club is properly insured.

• We are not a bunch of hooligans out to make as much noise and disruption as possible. Forty or so members strongly support the application.

• I am registered disabled and was recently introduced to the club and it has made a great difference to my physical and mental wellbeing, please let it continue.

Continued . . .

Page 24: SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING SERVICES...2008/10/09  · • Minutes of last Planning Committee Meeting • Minutes of any Working Party Meetings 2.1 OSPRINGE SW/08/0784 3 Porters

21

2.6 (Contd) PART 2 • To fly it is necessary for me to assisted by others at the site at times. They

give their time gladly, freely and without recompense but at the cost to themselves of their own time.

• Most noise in countryside is from agricultural equipment, shooting or full size manned flying operations

• We have changed our practices since approval in 2005 and these changes have been successful and worthwhile.

• The current restrictions limit use to one day a week for those in full time employment. Other clubs have less restrictions.

• Aircrafts are now lighter and increased use of silent electric motors • Flying co-exists with local wildlife which has increased recently • Is farm diversification • We are disappointed with attitude of complainants • The number of legal sites in Kent are very few, making the introduction to

youngsters difficult. This site allows them to participate under proper supervision.

• There is no noise from the flying during the afternoons, or at all on Sundays or Bank Holidays. Other noises in the countryside continue at all times.

I have notified the Kent Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty Management Unit of the application, as I believe that it will be helpful to understand their view on the impact of the model flying on the special importance of the area. I hope to have their views in time for the meeting.

Relevant Development Plan Policies Policies E1, E2, E6 and E9 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008 are of relevance to this application. They deal with general development criteria, pollution, the countryside and AONB's respectively. Policies EN1, EN3 and EN4 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan are also relevant. These policies deal with protection of the countryside and AONB. Discussion The original application for this use was controversial with neighbouring residents, but was approved by the Planning Committee in 2005. The key issue to bear in mind now is that attached to the previous temporary permission were strict conditions to try to stop and prevent the use being of significant nuisance to neighbouring residents. A number of the objections to the current application refer to the use of the site prior to permission being granted, when the site was being used unlawfully and without the restriction of planning conditions. I note that the Council's Head of Environment and Amenities Officer has not raised objection to the current application as he has not received any complaints about noise resulting from the use during the temporary planning permission.

Continued . . .

Page 25: SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING SERVICES...2008/10/09  · • Minutes of last Planning Committee Meeting • Minutes of any Working Party Meetings 2.1 OSPRINGE SW/08/0784 3 Porters

22

2.6 (Contd) PART 2 I must stress to Members that the current restrictions, which include restricted hours of operation, limited numbers of aircraft, limited types of aircraft, the use of silenced aircraft only, no competitions etc would all still apply to a new permission. These restrictions appear to have been successful in preventing significant nuisance to the area. I understand that the club using the field were not (and may still not be) very pleased with the extent of the restrictions in the original permission, but I have not been aware of them breaching them. By sticking to the approved terms, they do appear to have reduced the impact of their use, although not sufficient to overcome all local concerns. Since the original grant of permission I have become aware of a Secretary of State’s appeal decision regarding a similar use in Shepway District, also within the Kent Downs AONB, where similar restrictions were imposed on an approved scheme. I consider that this backs up the case for a renewal of permission under the original restrictions. I have included a copy of the Inspector's report (which was agreed by the Secretary of State) at Appendix A to this decision for Members' information. I do not consider the proposal would have an unacceptably detrimental impact upon the character of the countryside or AONB in which it is situated. It is a use that does not have a permanent impact on the site or surrounding area. The proposal in my view is in accordance with policies designed to protect the countryside and AONB. Recommendation I have very carefully considered the representations from both sides. I believe that a balance can and has been struck between them in the original permission. I believe these are appropriate to this site's circumstances having regard to the attached appeal decision, its circumstances and its conditions (particularly conditions 5 to 8) but gives greater certainty to local residents about when noise might be an issue. I do not consider the proposal would unduly impact on the amenities of the surrounding area, or have a detrimental impact on the countryside or AONB in which it is situated. However, in order that the situation can be reviewed, I have recommended another temporary permission for a period of 5 years be granted.

____________ Responsible Officer: Graham Thomas (Area Planning Officer) ____________ List of Background Papers 1. Application Papers and correspondence relating to applications SW/05/0294

and SW/08/0559. 2. Inspector's appeal decision ref. APP/L2250/A/05/116032 dated 22 August

2006 and Secretary of State's decision letter dated 17 October 2006.

Page 26: SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING SERVICES...2008/10/09  · • Minutes of last Planning Committee Meeting • Minutes of any Working Party Meetings 2.1 OSPRINGE SW/08/0784 3 Porters

16

APPENDIX A ITEM 2.6 PART 2

Page 27: SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING SERVICES...2008/10/09  · • Minutes of last Planning Committee Meeting • Minutes of any Working Party Meetings 2.1 OSPRINGE SW/08/0784 3 Porters

17

APPENDIX A (Contd) ITEM 2.6 PART 2

Page 28: SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING SERVICES...2008/10/09  · • Minutes of last Planning Committee Meeting • Minutes of any Working Party Meetings 2.1 OSPRINGE SW/08/0784 3 Porters

18

APPENDIX A (Contd) ITEM 2.6 PART 2

Page 29: SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING SERVICES...2008/10/09  · • Minutes of last Planning Committee Meeting • Minutes of any Working Party Meetings 2.1 OSPRINGE SW/08/0784 3 Porters

19

APPENDIX A (Contd) ITEM 2.6 PART 2

Page 30: SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING SERVICES...2008/10/09  · • Minutes of last Planning Committee Meeting • Minutes of any Working Party Meetings 2.1 OSPRINGE SW/08/0784 3 Porters

20

APPENDIX A (Contd) ITEM 2.6 PART 2

Page 31: SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING SERVICES...2008/10/09  · • Minutes of last Planning Committee Meeting • Minutes of any Working Party Meetings 2.1 OSPRINGE SW/08/0784 3 Porters

21

APPENDIX A (Contd) ITEM 2.6 PART 2

Page 32: SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING SERVICES...2008/10/09  · • Minutes of last Planning Committee Meeting • Minutes of any Working Party Meetings 2.1 OSPRINGE SW/08/0784 3 Porters

22

APPENDIX A (Contd) ITEM 2.6 PART 2

Page 33: SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING SERVICES...2008/10/09  · • Minutes of last Planning Committee Meeting • Minutes of any Working Party Meetings 2.1 OSPRINGE SW/08/0784 3 Porters

23

APPENDIX A (Contd) ITEM 2.6 PART 2

Page 34: SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING SERVICES...2008/10/09  · • Minutes of last Planning Committee Meeting • Minutes of any Working Party Meetings 2.1 OSPRINGE SW/08/0784 3 Porters

24

APPENDIX A (Contd) ITEM 2.6 PART 2

Page 35: SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING SERVICES...2008/10/09  · • Minutes of last Planning Committee Meeting • Minutes of any Working Party Meetings 2.1 OSPRINGE SW/08/0784 3 Porters

25

APPENDIX A (Contd) ITEM 2.6 PART 2

Page 36: SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING SERVICES...2008/10/09  · • Minutes of last Planning Committee Meeting • Minutes of any Working Party Meetings 2.1 OSPRINGE SW/08/0784 3 Porters

26

APPENDIX A (Contd) ITEM 2.6 PART 2

Page 37: SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING SERVICES...2008/10/09  · • Minutes of last Planning Committee Meeting • Minutes of any Working Party Meetings 2.1 OSPRINGE SW/08/0784 3 Porters

27

APPENDIX A (Contd) ITEM 2.6 PART 2

Page 38: SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING SERVICES...2008/10/09  · • Minutes of last Planning Committee Meeting • Minutes of any Working Party Meetings 2.1 OSPRINGE SW/08/0784 3 Porters

28

APPENDIX A (Contd) ITEM 2.6 PART 2

Page 39: SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING SERVICES...2008/10/09  · • Minutes of last Planning Committee Meeting • Minutes of any Working Party Meetings 2.1 OSPRINGE SW/08/0784 3 Porters
Page 40: SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING SERVICES...2008/10/09  · • Minutes of last Planning Committee Meeting • Minutes of any Working Party Meetings 2.1 OSPRINGE SW/08/0784 3 Porters
Page 41: SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING SERVICES...2008/10/09  · • Minutes of last Planning Committee Meeting • Minutes of any Working Party Meetings 2.1 OSPRINGE SW/08/0784 3 Porters
Page 42: SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING SERVICES...2008/10/09  · • Minutes of last Planning Committee Meeting • Minutes of any Working Party Meetings 2.1 OSPRINGE SW/08/0784 3 Porters
Page 43: SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING SERVICES...2008/10/09  · • Minutes of last Planning Committee Meeting • Minutes of any Working Party Meetings 2.1 OSPRINGE SW/08/0784 3 Porters
Page 44: SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING SERVICES...2008/10/09  · • Minutes of last Planning Committee Meeting • Minutes of any Working Party Meetings 2.1 OSPRINGE SW/08/0784 3 Porters
Page 45: SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING SERVICES...2008/10/09  · • Minutes of last Planning Committee Meeting • Minutes of any Working Party Meetings 2.1 OSPRINGE SW/08/0784 3 Porters
Page 46: SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING SERVICES...2008/10/09  · • Minutes of last Planning Committee Meeting • Minutes of any Working Party Meetings 2.1 OSPRINGE SW/08/0784 3 Porters
Page 47: SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING SERVICES...2008/10/09  · • Minutes of last Planning Committee Meeting • Minutes of any Working Party Meetings 2.1 OSPRINGE SW/08/0784 3 Porters
Page 48: SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING SERVICES...2008/10/09  · • Minutes of last Planning Committee Meeting • Minutes of any Working Party Meetings 2.1 OSPRINGE SW/08/0784 3 Porters
Page 49: SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING SERVICES...2008/10/09  · • Minutes of last Planning Committee Meeting • Minutes of any Working Party Meetings 2.1 OSPRINGE SW/08/0784 3 Porters
Page 50: SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING SERVICES...2008/10/09  · • Minutes of last Planning Committee Meeting • Minutes of any Working Party Meetings 2.1 OSPRINGE SW/08/0784 3 Porters
Page 51: SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING SERVICES...2008/10/09  · • Minutes of last Planning Committee Meeting • Minutes of any Working Party Meetings 2.1 OSPRINGE SW/08/0784 3 Porters
Page 52: SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING SERVICES...2008/10/09  · • Minutes of last Planning Committee Meeting • Minutes of any Working Party Meetings 2.1 OSPRINGE SW/08/0784 3 Porters

36

PART 2

2.7 SW/08/0685 (Case 005715) OSPRINGE

Location: Millers House, Water Lane, Ospringe, Faversham, Kent,

ME13 8TX

Proposal: 2 storey extension to side of existing house to provide kitchen and day room at ground floor and additional bedroom (with ensuite) and family bathroom at first floor.

Applicant/Agent: Mr Neil Coles Application Valid: 23 June 2008 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 permitted shall not be carried out otherwise

than in complete accordance with the approved plans and specifications.

Grounds: In the interest of residential amenity and preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the Conservation Area, in pursuance of Policies E1, E15, E19 and E24 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008 and QL1 and QL6 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan.

(3) Samples of materials to be used on the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the District Planning Authority before development commences.

Grounds: In the interest of visual amenity and preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the Conservation Area and in pursuance of Policies E1, E15, E19 and E24 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008 and QL1 and QL6 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan.

Continued . . .

Page 53: SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING SERVICES...2008/10/09  · • Minutes of last Planning Committee Meeting • Minutes of any Working Party Meetings 2.1 OSPRINGE SW/08/0784 3 Porters

37

2.7 (Contd) PART 2

(4) Detailed drawings of all external joinery and fittings together with sections through glazing bars, frames, and mouldings shall be submitted to and approved by the District Planning Authority before any development takes place. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Grounds: In the interest of visual amenity and preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the Conservation Area and in pursuance of Policies E1, E15, E19 and E24 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008 and QL1 and QL6 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan.

(5) All rainwater goods to be used as part of the development hereby permitted shall be of cast iron.

Grounds: In the interest of visual amenity and preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the Conservation Area and in pursuance of Policies E1, E15, E19 and E24 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008 and QL1 and QL6 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan.

(6) Detailed drawings of eaves details shall be submitted to and approved

by the District Planning Authority before any development takes place. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Grounds: In the interest of visual amenity and preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the Conservation Area and in pursuance of Policies E1, E14, E15, E19 and E24 of the adopted Swale Local Plan 2008 and QL1 and QL6 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan.

Reasons for Approval:

Having taken all material considerations into account, it is considered that subject to compliance with the attached conditions, the proposal would be in accordance with the development plan and would not cause unacceptable harm to the character of the Conservation Area and would not cause unacceptable harm to the amenities of the area. In resolving to grant permission, particular regard has been had to the following policies: Policies E1, E15, E19 and E24 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008 and QL1 and QL6 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan.

Continued . . .

Page 54: SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING SERVICES...2008/10/09  · • Minutes of last Planning Committee Meeting • Minutes of any Working Party Meetings 2.1 OSPRINGE SW/08/0784 3 Porters

38

2.7 (Contd) PART 2 Description of Proposal This application seeks permission for a 2 storey extension to the side of the existing house to provide a kitchen and day room at the ground floor. An additional bedroom with ensuite and a family bath room will be located on the first floor. There are currently three front facing bedroom windows at first floor level facing the rear of houses in Water Lane. In this scheme, one of the bedroom windows is changed to serve a bathroom, and the new bedroom has a window on the end. The rear elevation forms the site boundary and currently has just one ground floor window. The proposal includes a new stair window and two new first floor windows here. It is proposed that the ridge and eaves heights of the extension would match those of the existing house. The new roof will be covered with natural slates and the external walls finished with a render finish to match the existing. Relevant Site History and Description Millers House is an early 19th Century 3 bedroom house located within the Ospringe Conservation Area. The property is located in the built-up area of Ospringe. The bathroom is on the ground floor and separates any connection between the kitchen and the dining room. The 3rd bedroom is accessed off the 2nd bedroom. The property has a simple rectangular plan and sites within a long thin plot to the rear of other houses along Water Lane. The property is surrounded by established trees with an allotment field to the rear. The relevant planning history is as follows:

SW/06/0797 - withdrawn application for a part single, part double-storey extension

SW/06/1387 - approved with conditions for a single storey and part first floor extensions to form new kitchen and master bedroom and internal alterations. The current scheme is similar but without the single storey element.

Views of Consultees and Other Representations Ospringe Parish Council has raised no objections to the application but are unhappy with the proposed windows on the rear elevation facing over their allotments. These windows are, however, the same as already approved under SW/06/1387.

Letters of objection have been received from residents of three neighbouring houses. Their comments can be summarised as follows:

Continued . . .

Page 55: SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING SERVICES...2008/10/09  · • Minutes of last Planning Committee Meeting • Minutes of any Working Party Meetings 2.1 OSPRINGE SW/08/0784 3 Porters

39

2.7 (Contd) PART 2 • The footprint of the house will be almost equal to the footprint of the

existing house • Overlooking from the extension onto the neighbouring properties and

garden amenity space, resulting in loss of privacy to the rear of adjacent houses, and garden areas

• The extension is too high • Reduction of level of light, sunlight and outlook to the rear from

neighbours’ kitchen and ground floor bedroom, bearing in mind rising ground levels

• Overlooking of the private allotment gardens • A single storey extension would have less impact • The extension will come close to the property’s boundary, with impact on

privacy, noise and visual amenity.

Relevant development plan policies Regard has been paid to the following policies:

Swale Borough Local Plan 2008: E1 (General Development Criteria) E15 (Conservation Areas) E19 (Design) E24 (Alterations and extensions)

Kent & Medway Structure Plan QL1 (Design) QL6 (Conservation Areas) The Council’s adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance, ‘Designing an Extension – A Guide for Householders’ is also relevant. Discussion

I note the issues raised from the representations, but on balance I consider this proposal to be sensitively designed and of an appropriate scale. Given the location of the property to the north west of the neighbouring dwellings I consider that concerns regarding the loss of light are overstated, given the distances and orientation involved. I do not consider the proposed relationship to be unacceptable. In any case it is very similar to that already approved. The extension will preserve the historic frontage of the building, which is visible from the road and considered to be the most important elevation. At present the house has three first floor bedroom windows facing the rear of dwellings fronting Water Lane. The proposal reduces this number to two bedrooms (plus a landing and bathroom), so improving the privacy of adjacent dwellings.

Continued . . .

Page 56: SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING SERVICES...2008/10/09  · • Minutes of last Planning Committee Meeting • Minutes of any Working Party Meetings 2.1 OSPRINGE SW/08/0784 3 Porters

40

2.7 (Contd) PART 2

I have requested minor amendments to the design, including the omission of the rooflights, the rationalisation of window openings to avoid the irregular arrangement currently proposed, and clarification of the eaves height. I hope to have amended drawings available at the meeting.

Recommendation The application should not unduly impact upon the character of the conservation area or impact on the privacy or amenities of neighbouring properties. For the above reasons I conclude that the proposal is acceptable and that, subject to receipt of amended drawings, it complies with policy. I therefore recommend that planning permission be granted.

Responsible Officer: Graham Thomas (Area Planning Officer)

List of Background Documents 1. Application Papers and correspondence relating to applications SW/08/0685. 2. Application Papers and correspondence relating to applications SW/06/1387

& SW/06/0757.

Page 57: SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING SERVICES...2008/10/09  · • Minutes of last Planning Committee Meeting • Minutes of any Working Party Meetings 2.1 OSPRINGE SW/08/0784 3 Porters

41

PART 2

2.8 SW/08/0717 (Case 17592) TUNSTALL

Location: Keystun, Ruins Barn Road, Tunstall, Nr Sittingbourne,

Kent, ME9 8AA

Proposal: Erection of a performing arts studio and staff flat (revisions to previously approved application ref: SW/07/0723 including alterations to the footprint and elevations)

Applicant/Agent: Mrs Angela Thorne, c/o Mr Phillip Hughes, PHD Chartered

Town Planners, PO Box 700, St Albans, Herts, AL2 3WB Application Valid: 2 July 2008 and as amended by drawings received 28

August 2008

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

Grounds: In pursuance of Section 91 of the Town and Country

Planning Act 1990 as amended by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

(2) No development shall take place until samples of the materials to be

used on the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the District Planning Authority.

Grounds: In the interest of visual amenity and in pursuance of

policies E1, E6 and E19 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008, and QL1 and EN1 of the Kent & Medway Structure Plan.

(3) No development shall take place until full details of both hard and soft

landscape works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the District Planning Authority and these works shall be carried out as approved. These details shall include existing features, planting schedules of plants, noting species, plant sizes and numbers where appropriate, means of enclosure, hard surfacing materials, and an implementation programme.

Grounds: In the interests of the visual amenities and in pursuance

of policies E1, E6 and E19 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008, and QL1 and EN1 of the Kent & Medway Structure Plan.

Continued . . .

Page 58: SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING SERVICES...2008/10/09  · • Minutes of last Planning Committee Meeting • Minutes of any Working Party Meetings 2.1 OSPRINGE SW/08/0784 3 Porters

42

2.8 (Contd) PART 2

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

Grounds: In the interests of the visual amenities and in pursuance

of policies E1, E6 and E19 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008, and QL1 and EN1 of the Kent & Medway Structure Plan.

(5) Upon completion of the approved landscaping scheme, any trees or

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

Grounds: In the interests of the visual amenities and in pursuance

of policies E1, E6 and E19 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008, and QL1 and EN1 of the Kent & Medway Structure Plan.

(6) The area shown on the submitted layout as vehicle parking space or

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

Grounds: Development without provision of adequate

accommodation for the parking of vehicles is likely to lead to parking inconvenient to other road users and be detrimental to highway safety and amenity, and in pursuance of policies E1 and T3 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008, and QL1 and TP19 of the Kent & Medway Structure Plan.

(7) Details of the visibility splays to the northern access to the site shall be

submitted to and approved by the District Planning Authority before the development is commenced. The approved visibility splays shall than be implemented in full before the development hereby approved is commenced and subsequently retained in perpetuity.

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

Continued . . .

Page 59: SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING SERVICES...2008/10/09  · • Minutes of last Planning Committee Meeting • Minutes of any Working Party Meetings 2.1 OSPRINGE SW/08/0784 3 Porters

43

2.8 (Contd) PART 2

(8) The use hereby permitted shall only operate between 0800 to 2100 hours Mondays to Fridays inclusive and between 1000 to 1700 hours on Saturdays and shall not operate on Sundays or Public Holidays.

Grounds: In the interests of the amenities of the nearby residential properties, and in pursuance of Policy E1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

(9) The use of the performing arts studio hereby approved shall be

restricted to specialist education and therapeutic services including music therapy, drama therapy, counselling, training and support services for foster care services in accordance with the supporting information provided with the application and not for any other purpose.

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

(10) 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 District Planning Authority.

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

(11) The living accommodation to which this permission relates shall only

be used by staff or a security/caretaker at the site and shall not be use for any residential purposes or for any office or counselling purposes.

Grounds: To take account of the special circumstances of the submitted application and to regulate and control any subsequent use of the premises in the interests of amenity and in pursuance of Policy E1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

(12) All windows and external doors shall be constructed of timber, and

joinery details, including full scale sections through all frames and mouldings, for the windows and external doors on the development hereby approved shall be submitted to and approved by the District Planning Authority. The development shall then be implemented in accordance with the approved details.

Grounds: In the interests of visual amenities and in pursuance of Policy E1 and E19 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

Continued . . .

Page 60: SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING SERVICES...2008/10/09  · • Minutes of last Planning Committee Meeting • Minutes of any Working Party Meetings 2.1 OSPRINGE SW/08/0784 3 Porters

44

2.8 (Contd) PART 2

(13) Constructional details, at a scale of 1:5 of the eaves, and showing the relationship between the roofs and the timber frames, shall be submitted to and approved by the District Planning Authority. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details.

Grounds: In the interests of visual amenities and in pursuance of Policy E1 and E19 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

(14) There shall be no discharge of foul or contaminated drainage from the

site into either groundwater or any surface waters, whether direct or via soakaways.

Grounds: To prevent the pollution of the water environment in pursuance of Policy E2 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

(15) Adequate precautions shall be taken during the period of demolition

and construction to prevent the deposit of mud and/or other debris on the public highway.

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

Reasons for Approval Having taken all material considerations into account, it is considered that subject to compliance with the attached conditions, the proposal would be in accordance with the development plan and would not cause unacceptable harm to the amenities of the area or prejudice highway safety or convenience. In resolving to grant permission, particular regard has been had to the following policies: SP1, SP2, SP5, SP6, SP7, E1, E6, E19, E21, RC2, C1, T1 and T3 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008, and QL1, EN1 and TP19 of the Kent & Medway Structure Plan. Description of Proposal Planning permission is sought for revisions to the previously approved scheme (reference SW/07/0723) for extensions to the existing building and erection of an outbuilding to provide facilities for the education and therapeutic care of foster children at Keystun, Ruins Barn Road, Tunstall. This proposal relates only to the outbuilding which would provide a performing arts studio and staff flat. This outbuilding would be located towards the southern boundary of the site approximately 11 metres from the existing building. The remainder of the approved scheme is not proposed to be amended.

Continued . . .

Page 61: SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING SERVICES...2008/10/09  · • Minutes of last Planning Committee Meeting • Minutes of any Working Party Meetings 2.1 OSPRINGE SW/08/0784 3 Porters

45

2.8 (Contd) PART 2

The proposed alterations to this outbuilding would involve its re-siting by 1 metre to the north. This would move the building further away from the retained trees to the south-west. The footprint of the proposed building would be altered in shape so that it its maximum width and depth would be reduced, making the overall footprint more compact. The footprint would though be increased by 20 square metres. The previous scheme provided two small bedrooms at ground floor for the staff flat. This proposal would provide one bedroom in total and this would be provided within the roof space together with an en-suite shower room. The previously approved outbuilding had a maximum height of 7.5 metres dropping to a minimum of 6.5 metres. The current proposal would have a maximum height of 8.2 metres dropping to a minimum of 7.5 metres. A gable window and two pitched roof dormer windows are proposed. The alterations proposed have allowed the provision of a unisex disabled persons wc and the area for dance and drama has been made slightly wider. The plans have been amended, altering the design of the building, adding pitched roofs to the (previously flat roofed) dormer windows, adding a chimney stack, deleting rooflights and adding variations in the ridge heights and roof spans of the various elements of the building. Relevant Site History and Description The previous application (reference SW/07/0723) for the erection of extensions & demolition of existing conservatory and outbuilding to provide education and therapeutic facilities for specialist foster care provider, replacement staff flat, alterations to access & landscaping was approved by Members at the Planning Committee meeting in October 2007. Prior to this, a planning application for a similar proposal was refused under reference SW/06/0730. The reason for refusal related to the principle of the development and the harm to the character and appearance of the area. The substantial extensions envisaged were considered to be unacceptable at this location. The subsequent 2007 application sought to address these concerns by reducing the floor space and footprint of the proposal, reducing the parking area and providing justification and support from independent third parties. The wider site extends to approximately two hectares and the development would be confined to an area of 0.4 ha. It is located outside of the built-up area boundary and as such, lies within the countryside. The area is characterised by rural land uses, predominantly agriculture. The nearest dwelling is 120 metres to the north, though the applicants land holding abuts the garden of this dwelling, Oakwood House. The proposed outbuilding would though be located at the opposite end of the site from this dwelling.

Continued . . .

Page 62: SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING SERVICES...2008/10/09  · • Minutes of last Planning Committee Meeting • Minutes of any Working Party Meetings 2.1 OSPRINGE SW/08/0784 3 Porters

46

2.8 (Contd) PART 2 Views of Consultees Tunstall Parish Council raise objection. They comment as follows:

“…the new proposal endorses the view that this is becoming a new school. Parish Councillors would like to know the final and overall plan since there appears to be staged expansion. We also note the provision of 10 additional car-parking spaces which suggests the increased use of a busy rural road where there are already issues of road traffic safety.”

The Head of Environment and Amenities raises no objection, subject to a

condition limiting hours of construction.

The Environment Agency raise objection. They do though recommend that there should be no discharge of foul or contaminated drainage from the site into groundwater. Kent Highway Services raise no objection to the proposal subject to conditions that control the use of the parking area, that require access details to be provided and that require precautions to be taken against the deposit of mud on to the highway. Other Representations No other representations have been received. Policies Strategic Policies SP1, SP2, SP5, SP6 and SP7 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008 seek to encourage sustainable development, development that has a positive impact on the environment, enhances rural communities, meets transport requirements and enhances community services and facilities. Policies E1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008 (SBLP) and QL1 of the Kent & Medway Structure Plan (K&MSP) give general guidance regarding design and amenity, amongst others. Policy E19 (SBLP) aims to achieve high quality design on all developments in the Borough. Policy E21 seeks to encourage the use of sustainable design and building techniques. E6 (SBLP) and EN1 (K&MSP) seek to protect the countryside of the Borough for its own sake by restricting unnecessary development. Policy RC2 seeks to retain and enhance rural services and facilities. Policy C1 seeks to encourage the provision of new community facilities. Policies T3 (SBLP) and TP19 (K&MSP) deal with traffic and seek to minimise the highway impacts of any new development through the provision of adequate parking, sightlines, turning space, etc. Policy T1 seeks to ensure that access points are adequate and have no highway safety implications.

Continued . . .

Page 63: SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING SERVICES...2008/10/09  · • Minutes of last Planning Committee Meeting • Minutes of any Working Party Meetings 2.1 OSPRINGE SW/08/0784 3 Porters

47

2.8 (Contd) PART 2 Discussion The principle of the proposed development has already been established by the approval of the previous scheme. The key issue here is therefore whether the proposed alterations to the outbuilding are acceptable. I note the concerns of the Parish Council. However, the proposal is for alterations to the performing arts studio and staff flat only. These alterations do not significantly alter the appearance of the building or its size in my opinion. The additional footprint of 20 square metres would not, I consider have a significant impact on the character or appearance of the countryside. I also consider that the proposed new height of the building would have little impact on the amenities or character of the surrounding area. The Parish Council also raise concerns regarding the overall development of this site and the impact on traffic. However, as this proposal only affects the performing arts building, I do not consider that the implications of the wider development on the surrounding area are relevant here. The parking area referred to by the Parish Council forms part of the application for the wider development of this site. These are not additional parking spaces associated with this application, but spaces that were previously approved under the 2007 application. As such, I have not considered the impact from this parking area. I do not consider that the additional floorspace created would measurably increase the capacity of this particular building for use by additional children and staff. As such, it is unlikely that this particular proposal would create more vehicle movements along Ruins Barn Road or within the site. Kent Highway Services have no objections to this proposal and it is unlikely that there would be any highway safety implications as a consequence of this particular scheme. The amended design of the proposed building is now in my opinion of a good standard and is comparable with that of the previously approved scheme. I do not consider that the proposed alterations to the performing arts building would have any detrimental impact on the visual amenities of the surrounding area or the character and appearance of the countryside. Recommendation This application seeks planning permission for amendments to the outbuilding approved under application SW/07/0723, at Keystun, Ruins Barn Road, Tunstall. The principle of the development has already been established, and the design and scale of the building is in my opinion acceptable. I note the objections raised by the Parish Council, but do not consider these to amount to reasons for refusal.

Continued . . .

Page 64: SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING SERVICES...2008/10/09  · • Minutes of last Planning Committee Meeting • Minutes of any Working Party Meetings 2.1 OSPRINGE SW/08/0784 3 Porters

48

2.8 (Contd) PART 2

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

Responsible Officer: Rob Bailey (Area Planning Officer) List of background documents 1. Application papers for SW/08/0717. 2. Correspondence relating to SW/08/0717. 3. Application papers and correspondence for SW/07/0723.

Page 65: SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING SERVICES...2008/10/09  · • Minutes of last Planning Committee Meeting • Minutes of any Working Party Meetings 2.1 OSPRINGE SW/08/0784 3 Porters

49

PART 2

2.9 SW/08/0592 (Case 17072) UPCHURCH

Location: 30 Horsham Lane, Upchurch, Kent, ME9 7AN

Proposal: New house on the site of a former bungalow Applicant/Agent: Mr D Paulley, c/o Mark Carter Design, Design Studio,

Priestfield Stadium, Redfern Avenue, Gillingham, Kent, ME7 4DD

Application Valid: 27 May 2008 and as amended by drawings received on

21 July 2008

Conditions

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

Grounds: In pursuance of Section 91 of the Town and Country

Planning Act 1990 as amended by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

(2) No development shall take place until samples of the materials to be

used on the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the District Planning Authority.

Grounds: In the interest of visual amenity and in pursuance of policies

E1, E6 and E19 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008, and QL1 and EN1 of the Kent & Medway Structure Plan.

(3) The garage hereby permitted shall be retained for the parking of private

motor vehicles or for uses ordinarily incidental to the enjoyment of the occupiers of the dwelling house and no development, whether or not permitted by the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order, shall take place in such a position as to preclude access to these areas.

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

Continued . . .

Page 66: SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING SERVICES...2008/10/09  · • Minutes of last Planning Committee Meeting • Minutes of any Working Party Meetings 2.1 OSPRINGE SW/08/0784 3 Porters

50

2.9 (Contd) PART 2

(4) Pedestrian visibility splays 2 m x 2 m with no obstruction over 0.6 m above the carriageway level as shown on the submitted plans shall be provided prior to the commencement of any other development in this application and shall be subsequently maintained.

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

(5) No development shall take place until full details of both hard and soft

landscape works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the District Planning Authority and these works shall be carried out as approved. These details shall include existing features, planting schedules of plants, noting species, plant sizes and numbers where appropriate, means of enclosure, hard surfacing materials, and an implementation programme.

Grounds: In the interests of the visual amenities and in pursuance of policies E1, E6 and E19 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008, and QL1 and EN1 of the Kent & Medway Structure Plan.

(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 District Planning Authority.

Grounds: In the interests of the visual amenities and in pursuance of policies E1, E6 and E19 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008, and QL1 and EN1 of the Kent & Medway Structure Plan.

(7) Upon completion of the approved landscaping scheme, any trees or

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

Grounds: In the interests of the visual amenities and in pursuance of policies E1, E6 and E19 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008, and QL1 and EN1 of the Kent & Medway Structure Plan.

(8) The area shown on the submitted layout as vehicle parking space or

garages shall be provided, surfaced and drained before the use is commenced or the premises occupied, and shall be retained for the use of the occupiers of, and visitors to, the premises, and no permanent development, whether or not permitted by the Town and

Continued . . .

Page 67: SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING SERVICES...2008/10/09  · • Minutes of last Planning Committee Meeting • Minutes of any Working Party Meetings 2.1 OSPRINGE SW/08/0784 3 Porters

51

2.9 (Contd) PART 2

Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order), shall be carried out on that area of land so shown or in such a position as to preclude vehicular access to this reserved parking space. Grounds: Development without provision of adequate accommodation for the parking of vehicles is likely to lead to parking inconvenient to other road users and be detrimental to highway safety and amenity, and in pursuance of policies E1 and T3 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008, and QL1 and TP19 of the Kent & Medway Structure Plan.

(9) Before the dwelling hereby approved is first occupied, a properly

consolidated and surfaced access (not loose stone or gravel) shall be constructed, details of which shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

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

(10) Any entrance gates erected shall be hung to open away from the

highway only and shall be set back a minimum distance of 5.5m from the carriageway edge.

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

(11) The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the

visibility splays shown on the submitted plan within the site boundaries have been provided with no obstruction to visibility at or above a height of 1m above the nearside carriageway level. The visibility splays shall thereafter be maintained free of obstruction at all times.

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

(12) Upon completion, no further development, whether permitted by

Classes A, B, C, D and E of Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 or not, shall be carried out without the prior permission in writing of the District Planning Authority.

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

Continued . . .

Page 68: SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING SERVICES...2008/10/09  · • Minutes of last Planning Committee Meeting • Minutes of any Working Party Meetings 2.1 OSPRINGE SW/08/0784 3 Porters

52

2.9 (Contd) PART 2

(13) The windows and door on the east facing elevation shall be obscure glazed prior to the development hereby permitted being occupied and shall be thereafter so retained.

Grounds: In the interests of residential amenity and in pursuance of

Policy E1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008. (14) No development shall take place until details have been submitted to,

and approved in writing by the District Planning Authority, which set out what measures will be taken to ensure that the development incorporates sustainable construction techniques such as rainwater harvesting, water conservation, energy efficiency and, where appropriate, the use of local building materials; and provisions for the production of renewable energy such as wind power, or solar thermal or solar photo voltaic installations. Upon approval, the details shall be incorporated into the development as approved.

Grounds: In the interest of promoting energy efficiency and

sustainable development, and in pursuance of Policies E1 and E21 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008 and QL1 and NR3 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan.

Reasons for Approval Having taken all material considerations into account, it is considered that subject to compliance with the attached conditions, the proposal would be in accordance with the development plan and would not cause unacceptable harm to the amenities of the area or prejudice highway safety or convenience. In resolving to grant permission, particular regard has been had to the following policies: E1, E6, E7, E8, E19, E21, H2, RC10 and T3 of the Swale Borough Local Plan, and QL1, EN1, HP2, HP3, NR3 and TP19 of the Kent & Medway Structure Plan. Description of Proposal This application seeks permission for the erection of a detached four-bed dwelling on the site of a previously demolished bungalow within the built up area of Upchurch. The proposal also involves extending the curtilage of the property westwards beyond the confines of the built up area and to erect a new garage and workshop on this new garden area. The accompanying Design & Access Statement comments:

“The existing site had a residential bungalow, which has been removed, with surrounding gardens and an existing access off Horsham Lane.

Continued . . .

Page 69: SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING SERVICES...2008/10/09  · • Minutes of last Planning Committee Meeting • Minutes of any Working Party Meetings 2.1 OSPRINGE SW/08/0784 3 Porters

53

2.9 (Contd) PART 2

The site is located off Horsham Lane and is the end house of a row of residential properties. There are also large detached houses opposite the site which is the end of the existing village envelope…The existing houses are a mix of 1960s / 1990s architectural styles. The proposal is for 1no. four bedroom family dwelling with the first floor built into the roof space to keep the height and mass as low as possible. The proposed house is set back from the existing road to provide adequate access from the road into each parking space. The height of the proposed building would be 4.8m to the eaves at the highest point…The scale is based on the existing width of the plot and the scale of the surrounding houses.”

Relevant Site History and Description 30 Horsham Lane is the site of a former bungalow, which was demolished sometime after planning permission was granted for redevelopment in 2000 (see below). The plot is currently vacant and has the appearance of a residential garden. There are dilapidated wooden gates and hedging to the front of the site, and a post and rail fence to the rear. Immediately to the east of the application site is a row of detached bungalows whilst opposite the site, to the south, is a modern development of detached houses known as “The Potteries.” To the west of the site are open fields, leading to Horsham Plantation and Horsham Lodge. The site is situated at the brow of a hill, giving long-distance views across the estuary. The adjacent bungalow has 3 flank windows facing the site, 2 of which appear to serve habitable rooms. The built up area boundary runs through the site, with the proposed dwelling sitting inside the village envelope and the proposed garage and gardens lying within the countryside. SW/00/0266 granted permission for “demolition of the former bungalow and replacement with new detached dwelling.” The current application proposes a dwelling similar to that approved in 2000, although of a slightly different design and a reduced bulk. Members should note that planning permission was granted in 1978 for the curtilage of the property opposite the site – 27 Horsham Lane – to be extended into the countryside. The property has since been greatly extended, with the original part of the dwelling being converted into a garage with bedrooms above, and the modern extensions (all sitting outside of the built up area at the time) becoming living space.

Continued . . .

Page 70: SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING SERVICES...2008/10/09  · • Minutes of last Planning Committee Meeting • Minutes of any Working Party Meetings 2.1 OSPRINGE SW/08/0784 3 Porters

54

2.9 (Contd) PART 2

Views of Consultees Upchurch Parish Council objects to the application:

- “This dwelling replaces a small bungalow, with no vehicular access, and by virtue

of its size would be totally out of place at the end of a row of similar bungalows. - There is not a need for a new building of this type in Upchurch. Smaller,

affordable housing would be more acceptable. - The dwelling encompasses the whole of the site on which the bungalow was

situated and the garage/garden is outside the village envelope. - The garage/garden is on prime agricultural land, although in 25. Certificates

(continued) AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS CERTIFICATE (A) “None of the land to which the application relates is, or is part of, an agricultural holding” has been signed by the agent. Has an application for a change of use from agriculture to residential/garden been made?

- The access is at the top of a narrow, dangerous hill with poor sightlines. The applicant’s statement that the boundary will be planted with trees will only exacerbate this poor sightline.

- Finally, it contravenes the directives in E8 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2005, or equivalent.”

Kent Highway Services commented that no visibility splays had been indicated on the submitted drawings:

“I would expect to see sightlines provided at the access, measured at 2.4m by 56m, to be kept clear of obstruction above 1.05m. The access will also need pedestrian visibility splays on each side of 2m by 2m, and kept clear of obstruction above 600mm.”

The applicant has therefore submitted amended drawings in light of these comments, to which Kent Highways have no objections, and suggest the above conditions. Natural England has no objection to the application. The County Archaeological Officer has no objection subject to the above condition. Other Representations No other representations have been received. Policies Policies E1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008 (SBLP) and QL1 of the Kent & Medway Structure Plan (K&MSP) give general guidance regarding design and amenity, amongst others. Policy E19 (SBLP) aims to achieve high quality design on all developments in the Borough.

Continued . . .

Page 71: SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING SERVICES...2008/10/09  · • Minutes of last Planning Committee Meeting • Minutes of any Working Party Meetings 2.1 OSPRINGE SW/08/0784 3 Porters

55

2.9 (Contd) PART 2

E6 (SBLP) and EN1 (K&MSP) seek to protect the countryside of the Borough for its own sake by restricting unnecessary development. Policy E7 of the Local Plan looks more specifically at protecting Strategic Gaps in the interest of retaining the individual character and setting of settlements. H2 of the Local Plan and HP2 of the Structure Plan encourage the provision of new housing within the built up areas of the Borough, and in locations with good access to local services and amenities. Furthermore, HP3 of the Structure Plan and Planning Policy Statement 3 encourage the use of previously developed land for residential development, as this reduces the need to use sites outside of the built up area. Policy E8 of the 2005 Local Plan, referred to in the Parish Council’s comments, has been carried over into E8 of the Local Plan 2008. It aims to prevent development on “the best and most versatile agricultural land (specifically Grades 1, 2 and 3a),” and states that development should only occur on agricultural land when it can not be accommodated within the built up area. RC10 of the Local Plan states that the Council will not allow proposals to extend the garden of a dwelling in the rural area, or to use such land as amenity land, “unless there is insignificant harm to the landscape or form of a settlement.” The policy further suggests that the use of landscaping can conserve or restore the character of the landscape. Policies T3 (SBLP) and TP19 (K&MSP) deal with traffic, and seek to minimise the highways impacts of any new development through the provision of adequate parking, sightlines, turning space, etc. Discussion I note the concerns of the Parish Council. It should be noted, however, that this application is essentially a resubmission of the scheme approved under reference SW/00/0266, as noted above. In any case, the site of the proposed dwelling is located within the built up area of Upchurch, and residential development of this part of the application site is acceptable as a matter of principle. The scheme is not proposing to replace or extend a dwelling in the countryside, but seeks to extend the curtilage of the proposed dwelling and use part of this land for the erection of the garage. I feel that the proposed dwelling is of an interesting and attractive design worthy of its prominent location at the top of Horsham Hill, and would not have a detrimental impact on the character or appearance of the adjoining rural area.

Continued . . .

Page 72: SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING SERVICES...2008/10/09  · • Minutes of last Planning Committee Meeting • Minutes of any Working Party Meetings 2.1 OSPRINGE SW/08/0784 3 Porters

56

2.9 (Contd) PART 2

The scheme originally proposed a conservatory on the western elevation, projecting out beyond the built up area boundary. This has been removed following discussions with the agent, in the interest of keeping all of the living accommodation within the built up area. The proposed dwelling would not, in my opinion, harm the visual amenities of the local area and would fit into the streetscene quite successfully. Due to the variety of house types, designs and sizes in this part of Horsham Lane the siting, scale, design, appearance and density of the proposed house is not, in my opinion, out of keeping with the rest of the properties in the immediate vicinity. Although the proposed garage and workshop are situated outside the built up area these are relatively small structures required in connection with the dwelling, which cannot be easily provided on the part of the curtilage that is within the defined built up area boundary. Since all of the main dwelling is to remain within the built up area boundary I can see no reason to object to this small intrusion into the countryside, since it would be positioned as close as practically possible to the main house, and would not harm the rural amenity of this area of land to an unacceptable level. I have recommended a condition restricting development under permitted development rights in order to prevent unauthorised expansion of the property beyond the built up area boundary. Whilst the adjacent dwelling has 2 facing windows serving habitable rooms, one of these is a secondary window to a room which has a primary front facing window. The proposed dwelling would be sited approximately 3 metres from the adjacent bungalow, and in my opinion would not appear oppressive from, nor cause demonstrable harm to the amenities of the occupiers of this dwelling. In addition, the Council’s normal procedure is that the impact on side windows is not considered to be a determinative issue that should result in refusal of an otherwise acceptable scheme. Members should also note that no objections have been raised by any local residents. The flank wall of the proposed dwelling, facing the adjacent bungalow, would feature a high level window serving a habitable room, a window serving a toilet, and a door. I recommend imposing condition (13) above, which requires the windows and door to be obscure glazed, and to be retained as such. Planning permission would be required for any additional openings on this elevation, by virtue of condition (12), which would remove permitted development rights for alterations and extensions to the dwelling. Subject to these conditions, I do not envisage significant harm to residential amenity.

Continued . . .

Page 73: SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING SERVICES...2008/10/09  · • Minutes of last Planning Committee Meeting • Minutes of any Working Party Meetings 2.1 OSPRINGE SW/08/0784 3 Porters

57

2.9 (Contd) PART 2

The scheme would have a substantial garden area. The application proposed substantial planting along the roadside edge but this has been removed in accordance with the Kent Highway Services comments – amended drawings have been received, as noted above, and KHS now have no objection. In regard to the Parish Council’s comment regarding agricultural land I would note that there is a distinction between agricultural holdings and countryside. The site is not an agricultural holding and the agricultural holdings certificate on the application form has therefore been completed correctly. Recommendation This application seeks planning permission for the erection of a house and garage at 30 Horsham Lane, Upchurch. The proposed dwelling would be located wholly within the built-up area of the village, is of an acceptable standard of design, and would not in my opinion cause significant harm to visual or residential amenity. The proposed garage and much of the proposed curtilage of the dwelling would be located in the countryside. I do not envisage significant harm to the character and appearance of the countryside or the streetscene as a result of this element of the scheme. Taking the above into account I recommend that planning permission be granted.

Responsible Officer: Rob Bailey (Area Planning Officer) List of background documents 1. Application papers for SW/08/0592. 2. Correspondence relating to SW/08/0592. 3. Application papers for SW/00/0266. 4. Correspondence relating to SW/00/0266.

Page 74: SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING SERVICES...2008/10/09  · • Minutes of last Planning Committee Meeting • Minutes of any Working Party Meetings 2.1 OSPRINGE SW/08/0784 3 Porters

58

PART 2

2.10 SW/08/0852 (Case 17070) LYNSTED

Location: Former garage site and land adjacent 4 John Nash

Close, Lynsted, Sittingbourne, Kent

Proposal: Erection of two 3 bed semi-detached dwellings with associated off-road parking provision

Applicant/Agent: English Rural Housing Association, c/o Andrew Davison

Architect, Hunter House, 150 Hutton Road, Shenfield, CM15 8NL

Application Valid: 24 July 2008 SUBJECT TO: The completion of a Section 106 agreement limiting the

occupation of the dwellings to those in need of housing in the locality.

Conditions (1) The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the

expiration of 3 years from the date of this permission.

Grounds: In pursuance of section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

(2) No development shall be carried out on the land until samples of the

materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the proposed dwellings hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the District Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out using the approved materials.

Grounds: To ensure that the appearance of the development is in harmony with the existing character of the surrounding area as supported by Policy E1 and E19 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

(3) No windows or other openings shall be inserted at any time in the

eastern and western elevations at first floor level of the dwellings hereby approved, despite the provisions of any Development Order..

Grounds: In the interests of residential amenity, and in pursuance of Policies E1 & E19 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

(4) The bathroom windows in the side elevations of the dwellings hereby

permitted shall be obscure glazed at all times. Continued . . .

Page 75: SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING SERVICES...2008/10/09  · • Minutes of last Planning Committee Meeting • Minutes of any Working Party Meetings 2.1 OSPRINGE SW/08/0784 3 Porters

59

2.10 (Contd) PART 2

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

(5) The area shown on the submitted layout as vehicle parking space or

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

Grounds: In the interests of visual amenity and highway safety and convenience, in pursuance of Policies E1 and T3 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

(6) No dwelling/building shall be occupied or the approved use

commenced until space has been laid out within the site in accordance with the details shown on the application plan for cycles to be parked.

Grounds: In the interests of visual amenity and highway safety and convenience, in pursuance of Policies E1 & T4 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

(7) No development shall take place until full details of both hard and soft

landscape works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the District Planning Authority and these works shall be carried out as approved. These details shall include existing features, planting schedules of plants, noting species, plant sizes and numbers where appropriate, means of enclosure, hard surfacing materials, and an implementation programme.

Grounds: In the interests of the visual amenities of the area and in pursuance of policies E1 and E19 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

(8) The proposed landscape works shall be carried out before the

dwellings are first occupied. The landscape works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Grounds: In the interests of the visual amenities of the area and in pursuance of policies E1 and E19 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

Continued . . .

Page 76: SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING SERVICES...2008/10/09  · • Minutes of last Planning Committee Meeting • Minutes of any Working Party Meetings 2.1 OSPRINGE SW/08/0784 3 Porters

60

2.10 (Contd) PART 2

(9) If within a period of 5 years from the completion of the development, any of the trees or plants that form part of the approved details of soft landscaping die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased then they shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species.

Grounds: In the interests of the visual amenities of the area and in pursuance of policies E1 and E19 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

(10) No development shall take place until details have been submitted to,

and approved in writing by the District Planning Authority, which set out what measures will be taken to ensure that the development incorporates sustainable construction techniques such as rainwater harvesting, water conservation, energy efficiency and, where appropriate, the use of local building materials; and provisions for the production of renewable energy such as wind power, or solar thermal or solar photo voltaic installations. Upon approval, the details shall be incorporated into the development as approved.

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

(11) Provision shall be made within the site for the disposal of surface water

so as to prevent its discharge onto the highway details of which shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

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

(12) No construction work in connection with the development shall take

place on any Sunday or Bank Holiday, nor on any other day except between the following times:-

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

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

Continued . . .

Page 77: SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING SERVICES...2008/10/09  · • Minutes of last Planning Committee Meeting • Minutes of any Working Party Meetings 2.1 OSPRINGE SW/08/0784 3 Porters

61

2.10 (Contd) PART 2

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

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

Reason for Approval Having taken all material considerations into account, it is considered that subject to compliance with the attached conditions, the proposal would be in accordance with the development plan and would not cause unacceptable harm to the amenities of the area or prejudice highway safety or convenience. In resolving to grant permission, particular regard has been had to the following policies: E1, E6, E19, E21, E24, RC3 and T3 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008; QL1, SS7, HP1, HP5, HP7 and TP19 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan. Description of Proposal This application seeks planning permission to erect 2 no. 3 bed semi detached houses on a vacant former garage block site, and land to the side of an existing residential property, at the end John Nash Close, Lynsted. The proposed dwellings would be sited at right angles to the existing dwellings in John Nash Close, and would have a combined footprint of 10 metres wide, and 10.5 metres deep, with a pitched, tiled roof, with a ridge height of 9.1 metres. Each dwelling would have rear gardens measuring in excess of 13 metres. Two parking spaces per dwelling are proposed. The plans have been amended, deleting solar panels from the rear roof slopes of the dwellings, and amending the finishing materials from tile hanging to brickwork. The application is made on the basis that the dwellings would be ‘rural exception housing’ - affordable homes addressing a need for dwellings for local residents. As detailed below, outline planning permission (accompanied by a Section 106 agreement) has been granted for the development of this site with two affordable houses. The application under consideration here is for full planning permission, with a similar, but not wholly identical layout to the approved scheme.

Continued . . .

Page 78: SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING SERVICES...2008/10/09  · • Minutes of last Planning Committee Meeting • Minutes of any Working Party Meetings 2.1 OSPRINGE SW/08/0784 3 Porters

62

2.10 (Contd) PART 2

Relevant Site History and Description The application site is an L-shaped plot of land that runs eastwards down the side of an existing residential property and then turns south onto a former garage block site. The garage units have been removed in the past, although the area is still concrete paved. Whilst the site lies amidst housing, it is outside any built-up area, and as such residential development here is normally considered to be contrary to policies which preclude development in the countryside. The majority of the plot sits between the rear gardens of the existing houses on John Nash Close and Batteries Terrace. To the north there are open fields. The planning history of the site is as follows: DN/99/3 – Demolition of six garages. SW/99/0589 – Planning permission granted for the demolition of garages and use of the land as residential garden. SW/06/1174 - Outline planning permission granted for the redevelopment of the site with two 3 bed semi-detached dwellings with associated off road parking provision. The principle of the development, together with the siting and means of access were determined. Scale, appearance and landscaping were reserved for future consideration. The latter application proposed to provide housing to address an identified local need, as an exception to normal countryside protection policies, and was approved with a Section 106 agreement limiting the occupation of the dwellings to those in need of housing in the locality. Views of Consultees Lynsted with Kingsdown Parish Council comment as follows:

“Our planning committee has considered this case and supports the application. It considers however that the stacking arrangement for car parking is unsatisfactory, and suggests that this is given further consideration.”

Kent Highway Services have no objection to the proposals subject to conditions relating to parking details. Other Representations No other letters of objection was received

Continued . . .

Page 79: SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING SERVICES...2008/10/09  · • Minutes of last Planning Committee Meeting • Minutes of any Working Party Meetings 2.1 OSPRINGE SW/08/0784 3 Porters

63

2.10 (Contd) PART 2 Policies Government advice in PPS3 draws attention to the importance of the re-use of previously developed land. PPS 3 also stresses the importance of making the best use of land and the importance of creating mixed communities (by size and type of dwelling), delivering affordable housing and designing for quality. PPS 1 again emphasises the need to achieve good design standards for new development and high quality of urban design in wider context. Design issues are matters of proper public interest and the relationships between buildings in their wider setting are often as important or more important than individual designs. Poor designs and a lack of consideration of the setting and context of the proposed developments can cause material harm to the character and appearance of areas. Development plan policies should avoid unnecessary prescription or details but should guide the overall scale, density, massing, height, landscape, layout, access etc. of new development in relation to neighbouring buildings and the local area more generally. The new guidance also requires applicants for planning permission to demonstrate that their proposals are well related to the design, character and appearance of neighbouring and/or adjoining development. Policy E1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008 (SBLP) seeks to ensure that new developments have regard to their surroundings, are of appropriate scale, design and appearance and do not harm residential amenity, among other things. Policy E6 (SBLP) seeks to protect the countryside by restricting development outside of the defined built-up areas. Policy E19 (SBLP) expects development to be of high quality design. Policy E21 (SBLP) encourage the use of innovative and high quality low-impact design and build techniques. Policy E24 (SBLP) seeks all new development to be of a high standard of design appropriate to its surroundings and reflecting local distinctiveness. Policy RC3 (SBLP) states that, exceptionally, sites in the countryside may be considered acceptable for new residential development, providing that the there are, amongst other things, an identified need for housing in the locality, which cannot be met using land within existing built up areas. Policy T3 (SBLP) seeks adequate parking provision for new developments.

Policy QL1 of the Kent & Medway Structure Plan (K&MSP) seeks to ensure that all development proposals are of a high standard of design and quality, and do not give rise to harm to amenity.

Continued . . .

Page 80: SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING SERVICES...2008/10/09  · • Minutes of last Planning Committee Meeting • Minutes of any Working Party Meetings 2.1 OSPRINGE SW/08/0784 3 Porters

64

2.10 (Contd) PART 2 Policy SS7 (K&MSP) states that “development at, but outside the built confines of rural settlements, should be small scale and…be supported by a special local justification which may include the provision of affordable housing...” Policy HP1 (K&MSP) identifies the numbers of houses to be built in Kent between 2001 and 2016, whilst HP7 states that affordable housing will help contribute to fulfilling these targets. Policy HP5 (K&MSP) seeks to restrict housing development in the countryside. TP19 (K&MSP) seeks adequate parking provision for new developments. Discussion The proposed dwellings would be located a sufficient distance from the existing, and at such an angle that, in my opinion, no significant harm to residential amenity either by virtue of overlooking or overshadowing should occur, subject to conditions (3) & (4) above, which require the flank windows to be obscure glazed, and would require any new windows or other openings to be the subject of applications for planning permission. In addition, the siting of the dwellings is almost identical to those approved under the previous application at this site. The comments of the Parish Council in respect of the proposed parking arrangements are noted. However – it is notable that Kent Highway Services raise no objection, and, again, such a layout was approved here under the previous application. The design of the proposed dwellings is, I consider, acceptable. The traditional and simple design of the units would not in my opinion cause harm to the character and appearance of the area. The site is in the countryside – an area where new residential development is normally considered to be unacceptable as a matter of principle. However – the applicants have detailed that the proposed dwellings would be affordable housing to address the local need for dwellings. The principle of rural exception, affordable housing on this site has already been established. The justification for the residential development of this land has already been made, and accepted by the Council under the previous application. There is an identified need for affordable housing in this area, and the dwellings proposed here would go some way to meeting this need. Furthermore - the site is in my opinion well suited to residential development – it is previously developed land amidst existing residential development. My view is that this site represents an excellent opportunity to provide local needs housing without undue harm to the countryside.

Continued . . .

Page 81: SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING SERVICES...2008/10/09  · • Minutes of last Planning Committee Meeting • Minutes of any Working Party Meetings 2.1 OSPRINGE SW/08/0784 3 Porters

65

2.10 (Contd) PART 2

As with the previously approved outline application, I recommend that the dwellings be the subject of a section 106 agreement, and giving priority firstly to those currently living in either Lynsted with Kingsdown or Teynham Parishes, then those working within the parishes; persons previously resident or having parents/grandparents living in either parish, those in adjoining parishes and finally through to persons in housing need within Swale.

Recommendation This proposal seeks outline permission for the erection of 2 semi-detached dwellings within Lynsted. The application site is outside the built-up area boundary of the village. The houses are, however, wholly intended to meet local affordable housing need, the site already has the benefit of outline planning permission for rural exception housing, and the development proposed here is in my opinion acceptable, meeting an identified need for such accommodation in the vicinity. Adequate parking and amenity areas are proposed to be provided, and I do not consider that the scheme will give rise to any serious amenity concerns. Taking the above into consideration I recommend that planning permission be granted subject to a Section 106 Agreement reserving occupation to those meeting local housing need criteria.

Responsible Officer: Rob Bailey (Area Planning Officer)

List of background documents 1. Application Papers for Application SW/08/0852 2. Correspondence Relating to Application SW/08/0852 3. Application Papers and Correspondence Relating to Application SW/06/1174

Page 82: SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING SERVICES...2008/10/09  · • Minutes of last Planning Committee Meeting • Minutes of any Working Party Meetings 2.1 OSPRINGE SW/08/0784 3 Porters

66

PART 2

2.11 SW/08/0811 (Case 20733) BOUGHTON

Location: 3 & 4 Swedish House, Colonels Lane, Boughton,

Faversham, Kent, ME13 9SS

Proposal: Proposed construction of four 3-bedroom terraced houses and five 1-bedroom flats

Applicant/Agent: Reardon Properties Ltd, c/o Mr Keith Plumb, Woodstock

Associates, 53 Woodstock Road, Sittingbourne, Kent, ME10 4HJ

Application Valid: 16th July 2008 SUBJECT TO: Receipt of satisfactorily amended drawings Conditions

(1) The development to which this permission relates must be begun not

later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date on which the permission is granted.

Grounds: In pursuance of Section 91 of the Town and Country

Planning Act 1990 as amended by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

(2) Samples of materials to be used on the exterior of the development

hereby permitted shall be submitted to and approved by the District Planning Authority before the development is commenced. Grounds: In the interest of visual amenity and in pursuance of policies E1 and E19, of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008, and QL1 of the Kent & Medway Structure Plan.

(3) No development shall take place until full details of both hard and soft landscape works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the District Planning Authority. These details shall include existing features, planting schedules of plants, noting species, plant sizes and numbers where appropriate, means of enclosure, hard surfacing materials, and an implementation programme. Grounds: In the interest of visual amenity and in pursuance of policies E1 and E10 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008, and QL1 of the Kent & Medway Structure Plan.

Continued . . .

Page 83: SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING SERVICES...2008/10/09  · • Minutes of last Planning Committee Meeting • Minutes of any Working Party Meetings 2.1 OSPRINGE SW/08/0784 3 Porters

67

2.11 (Contd) PART 2

(4) The areas shown on the approved drawings as parking spaces shall be provided before the properties hereby permitted are occupied, and shall be retained for the use of the occupiers of, and visitors to, the premises. No permanent development, whether or not permitted by the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking or re-enacting that Order) shall be carried out on the area of land so shown or in such a position as to preclude vehicular access. Grounds: In the interest of highway safety and amenity, and in pursuance of policies E1 and T3 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008, and QL1 and TP19 of the Kent & Medway Structure Plan.

(5) All hard and soft landscape works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. The works shall be carried out prior to the occupation of any part of the development or in accordance with the programme agreed in writing with the District Planning Authority. Grounds: In the interest of visual amenity and in pursuance of policies E1 and E10 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008, and QL1 of the Kent & Medway Structure Plan.

(6) Upon completion of the approved landscaping scheme, any trees or shrubs removed, dying, being severely damaged or becoming seriously diseased within five years of planting shall be replaced with trees or shrubs of such size and species as may be agreed in writing with the District Planning Authority, and within whatever planting season is agreed. Grounds: In the interest of visual amenity and in pursuance of policies E1 and E10 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008, and QL1 of the Kent & Medway Structure Plan.

(7) The Oak tree to be retained must be protected by barriers and or

ground protection, as recommended in Clause 7 and as shown in Figure 2 of British Standard 5837:2005 ‘Trees in relation to construction – Recommendations’ before any equipment, machinery or materials are brought onto the site and before any demolition, construction or stripping of soil commences; and these barriers shall be maintained intact until all machinery, equipment and surplus materials have been removed from the site. No alterations or variations to the approved works or tree protection measures shall be carried out without the prior written approval of the District Planning Authority.

Grounds: To safeguard the existing oak tree to be retained and in

pursuance of Policy E10 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008. Continued . . .

Page 84: SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING SERVICES...2008/10/09  · • Minutes of last Planning Committee Meeting • Minutes of any Working Party Meetings 2.1 OSPRINGE SW/08/0784 3 Porters

68

2.11 (Contd) PART 2

(8) The oak tree shall not be cut down, uprooted or destroyed, nor shall it be pruned in any manner, be it branches, stem or roots without the written approval of the District Planning Authority. All tree works shall be carried out in accordance with British Standard 3998: 1989 ‘Tree Works’. If the oak tree is removed, uprooted or destroyed or dies, a replacement tree shall be planted and that tree shall be of such size and species, and shall be planted at such a time and in a position to be agreed with the District Planning Authority, as may be specified in writing by the District Planning Authority.

Grounds: To safeguard the existing oak tree to be retained and in

pursuance of Policy E10 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008. (9) No development shall take place until details have been submitted to,

and approved in writing by the District Planning Authority, which set out what measures will be taken to ensure that the development incorporates sustainable construction techniques such as rainwater harvesting, water conservation, energy efficiency and, where appropriate, the use of local building materials; and provisions for the production of renewable energy such as wind power, or solar thermal or solar photo voltaic installations. Upon approval, the details shall be incorporated into the development as approved.

Grounds: In the interest of promoting energy efficiency and sustainable development, and in pursuance of policies U3 and E21 of the Swale Borough Local Plan and QL1 and NR3 of the Kent & Medway Structure Plan.

(10) Provision shall be made as part of the development to ensure that

surface water does not discharge into the highway, or into the site from the highway, details of which shall have been submitted to the approved in writing by the District Planning Authority.

Grounds: In the interests of highway safety and to minimize the risk

of local surface water flooding, in pursuance of Policies E1 and E4 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

(11) Details shall be submitted to show adequate land reserved for cycle

parking or garaging for the flats hereby permitted in accordance with the Approved County Parking Standards and, upon approval of the details shall be provided before any flat is occupied and shall be retained for the use of the occupiers of, and visitors to, the premises. Thereafter, no permanent development, whether or not permitted by the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking or re-enacting that Order) shall be carried out on the area of land so shown or in such a position as to preclude vehicular access.

Continued . . .

Page 85: SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING SERVICES...2008/10/09  · • Minutes of last Planning Committee Meeting • Minutes of any Working Party Meetings 2.1 OSPRINGE SW/08/0784 3 Porters

69

2.11 (Contd) PART 2 Grounds: To encourage alternative means of transport, in

pursuance of Policy T4 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008. (12) The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the 2.4m

x 56m visibility splays shown on the submitted plan have been provided with no obstruction to visibility at or above a height of 1.05m above the nearside carriageway level. The visibility splays shall thereafter be maintained free of any such obstruction at all times.

Grounds: In the interests of highway safety and in pursuance of

Policy E1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008. (13) The pedestrian visibility splays of 2m x 2m shown on the approval plan

shall be provided with no obstruction over 0.6m above the access footway level prior to the commencement of any other development in this application and shall be subsequently maintained clear of any such obstruction.

Grounds: In the interests of highway safety and in pursuance of

Policy E1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008. Reasons for Approval

Having taken all material considerations into account, it is considered that subject to compliance with the attached conditions, the proposal would be in accordance with the development plan and would not cause unacceptable harm to the amenities of the area or prejudice highway safety or convenience. In resolving to grant permission, particular regard has been had to the following policies: E1, E2, H2, E10, E19, E21 and T3 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008, and QL1, HP1, HP3, HP6 and TP19 of the Kent & Medway Structure Plan.

Description of Proposal This application proposes the development of a site occupied until recently by a pair of elderly and dilapidated semi-detached chalet bungalows to provide four 3-bedroom terraced houses and five 1-bedroom flats, with associated parking, landscaping and access. The design & access statement explains that this application replaces a previous application – SW/07/0077 – that was approved for Swale Housing Association. It goes on to describe the site (0.15ha) and its surroundings (twentieth Century housing mainly in brick with tiled roofs). The proposal is described as providing low cost housing for local needs, and follows informal discussions with Officers.

Continued . . .

Page 86: SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING SERVICES...2008/10/09  · • Minutes of last Planning Committee Meeting • Minutes of any Working Party Meetings 2.1 OSPRINGE SW/08/0784 3 Porters

70

2.11 (Contd) PART 2

In terms of road noise from the elevated A2, the applicant refers to the previous noise survey report and it’s recommendation for double glazing to provide acceptable internal noise levels. In addition, the orientation of the houses facing the A2 provides passive sound reduction to living, sleeping and garden areas. The site is below road level, and the houses and flats occupy buildings of the same two-storey form previously approved, but utilising the roof voids. An existing public sewer across the site will be diverted. The accommodation will meet Code 3 levels for sustainable homes by including additional insulation, high efficiency boilers, low energy lighting and appliances, low flow toilets, renewable building materials and rainwater harvesting for flushing toilets and watering gardens. Adequate access arrangements are proposed, with 13 parking spaces, and landscaping to the Colonels Lane frontage will be a 1.8m high brick wall and hedge, as per the recent scheme further west in Colonels Lane. Relevant Site History and Description The application site is located at Colonels Lane, Boughton, and backs onto the A2 Boughton by-pass. The site is within an area of modern housing within the built up area boundary of Boughton, as shown on the proposals map of the Local Plan. The plot is triangular, with the boundaries being formed by Colonels Lane running northwest to southeast, the elevated A2 dual carriageway to the south, and existing residential properties to the west. A fine Oak tree, the subject of a TPO, stands at the eastern end of the site. SW/07/0077 proposed three 2-bed terraced houses and one detached bungalow and was approved in July 2007 after a Tree Preservation Order was served in respect of the fine Oak tree on the site. That scheme orientated the houses to face the A2 to protect the gardens from road noise, and the same principle is retained in this scheme. Views of Consultees

Boughton Parish Council have commented that building 9 “micro dwellings”

on the small site originally occupied by only 2 dwellings speaks for itself. They argue that the site is being over-developed, that the applicant has wrongly ticked “no” to the question of any tree being present on the site (they point out the TPO on the Oak tree, and to other Conifer trees), and query bathrooms accessed from kitchens. In addition they ask that drainage be installed to prevent roadwater running into the site, and whether noise levels from the by-pass have been taken into account.

Continued . . .

Page 87: SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING SERVICES...2008/10/09  · • Minutes of last Planning Committee Meeting • Minutes of any Working Party Meetings 2.1 OSPRINGE SW/08/0784 3 Porters

71

2.11 (Contd) PART 2 The Head of Environment and Amenities has no objection to the scheme in

principle but recommends a condition requiring double glazing is fitted to all windows to counter road noise. He also recommends a condition restricting construction working hours, although Members previously agreed not to impose such conditions on the previous planning permission.

Kent Highway Services raise no objections to the proposal subject to

conditions regarding highway drainage, parking, cycle parking, hard surfacing, and visibility splays.

Other Representations I have received one letter from a nearby resident asking whether old people’s

bungalows to meet local needs could be provided, and arguing that there are enough flats in the area.

Policies Government advice in PPS3 draws attention to the importance of the re-use of previously developed land. PPS3 also stresses the importance of making the best use of land delivering affordable housing and designing for quality. Policies HP3 and HP4 of the Kent & Medway Structure Plan (K&MSP) and SP4 and H2 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008 (SBLP) support this. Policy HP1 (K&MSP) identifies the numbers of houses to be built in Kent over the coming years, while H2 (SBLP) supports housing development within built up areas, subject to compliance with other policies. HP6 (K&MSP) encourages a range and mix of housing provision, intended to meet the needs of all sections of the community. Policy SP4 (SBLP) gives priority to lower priced housing, including that designed for single people. E1 (SBLP) and QL1 (K&MSP) seeks to ensure that new developments have regard to their surroundings, are of appropriate scale, design and appearance and do not harm residential amenity, among other things.

E19 (SBLP) seeks to ensure appropriate design on new developments.

E10 (SBLP) seeks to provide adequate landscaping for new developments and to protect trees. T3 (SBLP) and TP19 (K&MSP) seeks adequate parking provision for new developments, whilst T4 (SBLP) requires cycle parking.

Continued . . .

Page 88: SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING SERVICES...2008/10/09  · • Minutes of last Planning Committee Meeting • Minutes of any Working Party Meetings 2.1 OSPRINGE SW/08/0784 3 Porters

72

2.11 (Contd) PART 2 Discussion This is a site within the built-up area of the village, and is already committed to

re-development. The previous proposal was designed to the needs the then applicants identified, but the current applicant sees the need differently. This scheme responds to a need for low cost rented accommodation, and seeks to make efficient use of the site. It does so by creating four houses out of the same footprint of the approved three houses, and proposing five one bedroom flats instead of one bungalow.

All buildings are now of a two-storey form, also utilising the roof voids, and the

flats are now further from the protected Oak tree than the approved bungalow is.

The previous scheme represented a site density of just 26.6 dwellings per

hectare, but this more efficient scheme represents 59 dwellings per hectare, although as it includes flats the ratio looks artificially high.

In terms of other points raised by the Parish Council, I can confirm that the

Oak tree should not be threatened by the proposal and safeguarding conditions (7) and (8) are recommended. The layout responds to the noise issue on the site, and I have recommended a condition (10) to deal with the drainage issue. I believe that the internal arrangement of the flats is a matter for the applicant, and that the Conifer trees should not be seen as an obstacle to the site’s re-development.

There are no statutory objections, and I believe that the buildings will sit

comfortably on the site, and fit in with what is a predominantly two-storey streetscene along Colonel’s Lane. The eaves level of the proposed buildings is equal to that of the recently approved houses on the site, and I consider that the overall form of the houses and flats is appropriate to this village location. The site is low, and houses opposite are well above road level, meaning that the proposed buildings will not appear unduly tall.

I am seeking to explore with the applicant and re-siting of the houses to

provide larger gardens, as approved previously, by moving the houses further from Colonel’s Lane, as well as minor design revisions, and I will report progress to the meeting.

Recommendation This scheme for low cost dwellings within the built-up area of the village replaces an approved scheme and includes a mix of accommodation. The Oak tree on the site is protected by a TPO and should not be affected by the development.

Continued . . .

Page 89: SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING SERVICES...2008/10/09  · • Minutes of last Planning Committee Meeting • Minutes of any Working Party Meetings 2.1 OSPRINGE SW/08/0784 3 Porters

73

2.11 (Contd) PART 2

I consider that the scheme represents a suitable addition to the area, and that subject to improvement of the garden sizes and design refinements, I recommend that planning permission is granted.

___________ Responsible Officer: Graham Thomas (Area Planning Officer)

List of Backgrounds Documents

1. Application Papers and Correspondence for Application SW/08/0811 2. Application Papers and Correspondence for Application SW/07/0077

Page 90: SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING SERVICES...2008/10/09  · • Minutes of last Planning Committee Meeting • Minutes of any Working Party Meetings 2.1 OSPRINGE SW/08/0784 3 Porters

74

PART 2

2.12 SW/08/0639 (Case 10729) BORDEN

Location: Bannister House, Bannister Hill, Borden, Sittingbourne,

Kent, ME9 8HT

Proposal: A single storey side extension and a two storey rear extension with replacement parking provision to the rear of the application site.

Applicant/Agent: Mr J Rogers, c/o Mr J Rogers, 56 New Concordia Wharf,

56 Mill Street, London, SE1 2BB Application Valid: 17 June 2008 and as amended by drawings received 5th

August 2008

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 permitted shall not be carried out otherwise

than in complete accordance with the approved plans and specifications.

Grounds: In the interests of visual amenity, and to preserve the

special character of the conservation area, and in pursuance of Policies E1, E15, E19 & E24 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008, and Policies QL1 & QL6 of the Kent & Medway Structure Plan.

(3) No development shall take place until details in the form of samples of

materials to be used on all external surfaces have been submitted to and approved in writing by the District Planning Authority. The development shall then be implemented in accordance with these details.

Grounds: In the interests of visual amenity, and to preserve the special character of the conservation area, and in pursuance of Policies E1, E15, E19 & E24 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008, and Policies QL1 & QL6 of the Kent & Medway Structure Plan.

Continued . . .

Page 91: SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING SERVICES...2008/10/09  · • Minutes of last Planning Committee Meeting • Minutes of any Working Party Meetings 2.1 OSPRINGE SW/08/0784 3 Porters

75

2.12 (Contd) PART 2 (4) Manufacturers details of rainwater goods shall be submitted and

approved by the District Planning Authority prior to the commencement of works hereby permitted. The development shall then be implemented in accordance with these details.

Grounds: In the interests of visual amenity, and to preserve the special character of the conservation area, and in pursuance of Policies E1, E15, E19 & E24 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008, and Policies QL1 & QL6 of the Kent & Medway Structure Plan.

(5) Constructional details of the extensions hereby permitted showing sections at a scale of 1:20 shall be submitted to and approved by the District Planning Authority prior to the commencement of any works.

Grounds: In the interests of visual amenity, and to preserve the special character of the conservation area, and in pursuance of Policies E1, E15, E19 & E24 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008, and Policies QL1 & QL6 of the Kent & Medway Structure Plan.

(6) Prior to the commencement of any works hereby permitted detailed

drawings of all external joinery, together with sections through all members including, frames and mouldings and showing the relationship to the face of the wall, at a scale of 1:20 and 1:1 or 1:2 shall be submitted and approved in writing by the District Planning Authority. The development shall then be implemented in accordance with these details.

Grounds: In the interests of visual amenity, and to preserve the special character of the conservation area, and in pursuance of Policies E1, E15, E19 & E24 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008, and Policies QL1 & QL6 of the Kent & Medway Structure Plan.

(7) No additional windows, doors, voids or other openings shall be

inserted, placed or formed at any time in the extensions hereby permitted unless agreed in writing by the District Planning Authority. Grounds: To ensure the high quality design is not compromised and in the interests of residential amenity, in pursuance of Policies E1, E15, E19 & E24 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008, and Policies QL1 & QL6 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan.

(8) The glazed areas of the first floor north side elevation of the extension

hereby approved shall feature obscured glazing at all times and shall be non opening unless otherwise agreed in writing by the District Planning Authority.

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

Continued . . .

Page 92: SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING SERVICES...2008/10/09  · • Minutes of last Planning Committee Meeting • Minutes of any Working Party Meetings 2.1 OSPRINGE SW/08/0784 3 Porters

76

2.12 (Contd) PART 2

(9) No 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 District 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 District Planning Authority.

Grounds: To ensure that features of archaeological interest are properly examined and recorded in pursuance of Policy E16 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008 and Policy QL7 of the Kent Structure Plan.

(10) No development shall take place until the parking area and access

drive shown on the approved plans has been fully constructed and made available for the parking of vehicles.

Grounds: In the interests of highway safety and convenience, and in pursuance of Policies E1 & T3 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008

Reason for Approval Having taken all material considerations into account, it is considered that subject to compliance with the attached conditions, the proposal would be in accordance with the development plan and would not cause unacceptable harm to the amenities of the area or prejudice highway safety or convenience and would preserve or enhance the special character or appearance of the Conservation Area. In resolving to grant permission, particular regard has been had to the following policies: Policies E1, E15, E16, E19, E24 & T3 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008 and Policies QL1, QL6 & QL8 of Kent and Medway Structure Plan. Description of Proposal

Planning permission is sought for a single storey side extension and a two storey rear extension at Bannister House, Bannister Hill, Borden. The proposed side extension would be a single storey and would project sideways by 4.5 metres and rearwards by 5.1 metres. The proposed side extension would almost match the exact footprint of the existing garage and would have a hipped roof which has been designed in such way to be in keeping with the existing house. The proposed front elevation would be painted brick to match the existing. Amended plans have been received, altering the roof design of the proposed side extension.

Continued . . .

Page 93: SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING SERVICES...2008/10/09  · • Minutes of last Planning Committee Meeting • Minutes of any Working Party Meetings 2.1 OSPRINGE SW/08/0784 3 Porters

77

2.12 (Contd) PART 2 The proposed rear extension would be at a depth of 6 metres, would be approximately half the width of the dwelling and would be 7.3 metres in height. It would be set in from the northern side boundary of the site by 6 metres (15 metres from the dwelling to the north) and would abut the southern side boundary (6 metres from no.1 Upper Bannister Hill, the dwelling to the south.) This proposed extension would be of a contemporary design with large several glazed areas. No windows are proposed at first floor level in the southern side elevation adjacent to the boundary. The north side elevation would feature a large glazed area and windows. The plans show proposed parking spaces at the rear of the site. Access to the parking area would be from the southern part of the site, using the existing access which passes in front of Lower Bannister Cottages. These spaces and access do not though require the benefit of planning permission. Relevant Site History and Description Bannister House is located within the built up area of Borden and is situated within the Borden (Bannister Hill) conservation area. The house is located on the southern part of Bannister Hill and is a two storey dwelling with painted rendered walls and a tiled roof with a flat roof garage to the western flank of the house. The area is mainly characterised by large detached dwellings set in spacious plots. Some semi detached dwellings and terrace properties can also be found in this area. Application reference SW/06/0997 sought planning permission for a similar scheme to the current one, but was withdrawn prior to determination. Application reference SW/07/1066 for a single storey side extension, two storey rear extension and detached garage refused by Members at the 28th February 2008 Planning Committee Meeting, for reasons relating to harm to residential amenity, visual amenity, and to the character of the conservation area, all arising from the proposed garage. Views of Consultees Borden Parish Council raise objection to the proposed development, stating that “the style and architecture is not sympathetic to the existing building, given its location in close proximity to the conservation area.” Kent Highway Services raise no objections to the proposal, subject to a condition requiring retention of the parking area shown on the drawings.

Continued . . .

Page 94: SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING SERVICES...2008/10/09  · • Minutes of last Planning Committee Meeting • Minutes of any Working Party Meetings 2.1 OSPRINGE SW/08/0784 3 Porters

78

2.12 (Contd) PART 2

Other Representations

Two letters of objection have been received from the same writer, in response to the original consultation and the amended plans. The letters are summarised as follows:

• Loss of light and overshadowing to house and garden; • Design not in-keeping with style of dwelling; • Site in conservation area – extensions like this should not be permitted; • Single storey extension may be acceptable; • Loss of view; • Overbearing appearance;

No other representations have been received. Planning Policies

The following Policies are pertinent: Swale Borough Local Plan 2008 E1 General Development Criteria E15 Development Affecting a Conservation Area E16 Scheduled Ancient Monuments and Archaeological sites

E19 Achieving High Quality Design and Distinctiveness

E24 Alterations and extensions

T3 Vehicle Parking for New Development Kent & Medway Structure Plan QL1 Quality of development and design

QL6 Conservation Areas

QL7 Archaeological Sites

Also relevant is the Council’s adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance entitled ‘Designing an Extension A Guide for Householders’.

Continued . . .

Page 95: SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING SERVICES...2008/10/09  · • Minutes of last Planning Committee Meeting • Minutes of any Working Party Meetings 2.1 OSPRINGE SW/08/0784 3 Porters

79

2.12 (Contd) PART 2

Discussion

This development under consideration here is essentially identical to that proposed under the previous application (reference SW/07/1066) except for the omission of the proposed detached garage. The site is located in the built up area, and the extensions proposed are therefore acceptable as a matter of principle. The parking area shown on the drawings does not require the benefit of planning permission. It is however important that this area is provided prior to the construction of the side extension, in order for sufficient off street parking to be provided at the site. I therefore recommend imposing condition (10), which requires the parking area to be provided prior to the commencement of the development. This in my opinion satisfactorily addresses the highway issues arising from the proposal. The key issues here are the impact of the proposed development on residential amenity, and on the visual amenities of the streetscene and conservation area. Residential Amenity The proposed side extension would replace an existing garage, and would be of an identical footprint, albeit with a pitched roof. It would in my opinion be located a sufficient distance from the adjacent dwelling to not give rise to harm to residential amenity by virtue of overshadowing or loss of outlook. The proposed two storey extension would be sited 6.5 metres from the adjacent dwelling to the south, and would not project markedly past this dwelling. In addition, it would be located to the north of the adjacent dwelling. I conclude that it would not give rise to significant loss of light or outlook. Neither the side nor the rear extension would feature south facing windows, and I do not therefore envisage overlooking to the dwelling to the south. I do though recommend imposing condition (7) above, which would prevent the insertion of additional windows or doors without the benefit of planning permission. The proposed rear extension would be sited in excess of 15 metres from the dwelling to the north. Subject to conditions (7) and (8) above, which require the first floor windows to be obscure glazed, and prevent any further windows being inserted, I do not envisage harm to residential amenity either by virtue of overlooking, or overshadowing. Given the above, I do not envisage harm to residential amenity as a result of the proposed development.

Continued . . .

Page 96: SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING SERVICES...2008/10/09  · • Minutes of last Planning Committee Meeting • Minutes of any Working Party Meetings 2.1 OSPRINGE SW/08/0784 3 Porters

80

2.12 (Contd) PART 2

Visual Amenity Previous extensions, which have been more discreet in design, have proven to be unsuccessful in architectural terms and have resulted in poor copies of the existing building with poor quality detailing. I consider the current proposal would significantly improve the architectural quality of the building by replacing the existing flat roof side garage with a single storey extension that mirrors the architectural quality of the building. Perhaps the most controversial aspect of this scheme is the contemporary design of the proposed rear extension. The architect has reserved the more ambitious design ideas for the rear elevation. I am of the opinion that such a contemporary style of design would not be suitable on the front elevation, where a traditional style of design has been encouraged. However, the rear elevation has been compromised by earlier additions which have resulted in a bland elevation. The proposed contemporary extension displays a high quality of detailing which would result in an extension that would respond well to its setting. The proposal also accords with the advice from Government set out in PPG15, ‘Planning and the Historic Environment’, which states that where buildings make no positive contribution to the character of the Conservation Area, “their replacements should be a stimulus to imaginative, high-quality design…. What is important is not that new buildings should directly imitate earlier styles, but that they should be designed with respect for their context” (see para 4.17). Recommendation

This application seeks planning permission for a single storey side and two storey rear extensions to Bannister House, Bannister Hill, Borden. I do not envisage significant harm to residential or visual amenity arising from the scheme, and I consider that the proposed development would preserve and enhance the special character of the conservation area. I therefore recommend that planning permission be granted.

Responsible Officer: Rob Bailey (Area Planning Officer)

List of background documents

1. Application papers for SW/08/0639 2. Correspondence relating to SW/08/00639 3. Application Papers and Correspondence relating to SW/07/1066

Page 97: SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING SERVICES...2008/10/09  · • Minutes of last Planning Committee Meeting • Minutes of any Working Party Meetings 2.1 OSPRINGE SW/08/0784 3 Porters

81

PART 2

2.13 SW/08/0910 (Case 16835) SITTINGBOURNE

Location: Swanstree Avenue Extension, Between Swanstree

Avenue and Highsted Road, Sittingbourne, Kent

Proposal: 1. Revised position of acoustic fence along proposed Swanstree Avenue extension – chainage 590m to 840m, ie Haysel to Peregrine Drive. 2. Revised vertical alignment for chainage 590m to 760m, ie Haysel to Harvey Drive along Swanstree Avenue extension

Applicant/Agent: Ward Homes Trading, c/o Merebrook Consulting

Engineers, 14 Cathedral Road, Cardiff, South Glamorgan, CF11 9LJ

Application Valid: 8 August 2008 and as amended by plans received 28

August 2008

SUBJECT TO: the receipt of further information and amended plans, the views of neighbours on this information, the views of the County Archaeologist, and the further views of Kent Highways Services

Condition

(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 shall be carried out in complete accordance with the

approved drawings, except for such amendments as may be agreed in writing by the District Planning Authority following a highway safety audit.

Grounds: In the interests of highway safety and in pursuance of

Policies E1 and T2 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008 (3) Any facilities for the storage of oils, fuels or chemicals shall be sited on

impervious bases and surrounded by impervious bund walls. The bund capacity shall give 110% of the total volume for single and hydraulically linked tanks. If there is multiple tankage, the bund capacity shall be

Continued . . .

Page 98: SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING SERVICES...2008/10/09  · • Minutes of last Planning Committee Meeting • Minutes of any Working Party Meetings 2.1 OSPRINGE SW/08/0784 3 Porters

82

2.13 (Contd) PART 2 110% of the largest tank or 25% of the total capacity of all tanks, whichever is the greatest. All filling points, vents, gauges and sight glasses and overflow pipes shall be located within the bund. There shall be no outlet connecting the bund to any drain, sewer or watercourse or discharging onto the ground. Associated pipework shall be located above ground where possible and protected from accidental damage.

Grounds: To prevent pollution of the water environment, and in

pursuance of Policies E1 and E2 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

(4) No construction work in connection with the development shall take

place on any Sunday or Bank Holiday, nor on any other day except between the following times:

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

Grounds: In the interests of residential amenity, and in pursuance of

Policies E1 and E2 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008. (5) No development shall commence on the road development hereby

approved until the bund and acoustic fence shown on the approved drawings have been completed in their entirety.

Grounds: In the interests of the residential amenities of the

properties backing on to the road during construction, in pursuance of Policies E1 and E2 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

(6) The surface highway hereby permitted shall be constructed of porous

asphalt or other “quiet” surface material previously agreed, in writing, by the District Planning Authority.

Grounds: In the interests of residential amenity by reducing noise

levels and in pursuance of Policies E1 and E2 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

(7) The commencement of the development shall not take place until a

programme for the suppression of dust during the construction of the development has been submitted to and approved in writing by the District Planning Authority. The measures approved shall be employed throughout the period of construction unless any variation has been approved by the District Planning Authority.

Grounds: In the interests of residential amenity, and in pursuance

of Policies E1 and E2 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008. Continued . . .

Page 99: SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING SERVICES...2008/10/09  · • Minutes of last Planning Committee Meeting • Minutes of any Working Party Meetings 2.1 OSPRINGE SW/08/0784 3 Porters

83

2.13 (Contd) PART 2 (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 opening of any part of the development or in accordance with the programme agreed in writing with the District Planning Authority.

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

(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 District Planning Authority, and within whatever planting season is agreed. Grounds: In the interests of the visual amenities of the area in pursuance of Policy E1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008

(10) No development shall take place until details of surface water drainage

have been submitted to, and approved in writing by the District Planning Authority. Such details shall include the provision of on-site surface water storage, designed for a 1 in 100 year return period storm, with a 20% increase in capacity to take account of climate change and with a maximum rate of run-off of 7 litres/sec/ha or for the 1 in 2 year return storm, whichever is the lesser and include the size, disposition and capacity of all surface water storage ponds throughout the site. The system of stormwater drainage shall be implemented in accordance with the approved scheme, prior to occupation of any dwellings.

Grounds: In order to prevent flooding at the site and in pursuance

of Policy E1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

(11) All mechanical and electrical plant and equipment, including contractor’s mobile plant used during the construction of the development shall be fitted with the best practicable means of noise attenuation.

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

(12) Details shall be submitted to and approved by the District Planning Authority prior to the commencement of the development showing adequate space during the construction of the development to be provided on site or in such a position as may be previously agreed by the District Planning Authority to enable all employees and contractors vehicles to park, load and off-load and turn and for the provision of temporary construction huts and machinery.

Continued . . .

Page 100: SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING SERVICES...2008/10/09  · • Minutes of last Planning Committee Meeting • Minutes of any Working Party Meetings 2.1 OSPRINGE SW/08/0784 3 Porters

84

2.13 (Contd) PART 2 Grounds: In the interests of highway safety and the amenity of neighbouring dwellings, and in pursuance of Policy E1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

(13) And any further conditions requested by the County Archaeologist, or

Kent Highway Services. Reasons for Approval

Having taken all material considerations into account, it is considered that subject to compliance with the attached conditions, the proposal would be in accordance with the development plan and would not cause unacceptable harm to the amenities of the area or prejudice highway safety or convenience. In resolving to grant permission, particular regard has been had to the following policies: E1, E2, E9, E16, T2 and H2 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008. Description of Proposal This application seeks planning for amendments to the road scheme known as the Swanstree Avenue Extension as approved under planning reference SW/00/1175 in 2002. These amendments consist of changes to the position of the acoustic fence along part of the length of the road and an increase in the vertical alignment (ie the height above Ordnance Datum (AOD) of part of the road. Acoustic Fence – It is proposed to alter the position of the acoustic fence along 250 metres of the proposed road, between a point just to the east of the junction with Highsted Road, and to the rear of 20 Haysel, and a point immediately to the west of where the Public Right of Way ZU31 crosses the line of the proposed Swanstree Avenue Extension, to the rear of 134 Peregrine Drive. Between these points the acoustic fence would be located closer to the Swanstree Avenue Extension than envisaged under the approved scheme. The extent of the difference between the approved position and that now envisaged varies, but reaches a maximum of approximately six metres to the rear of 134 Peregrine Drive. An alteration to the height of the acoustic fence is also envisaged. Under the approved scheme, an acoustic fence measuring 2.5 metres in height for its entire length had been envisaged. Under this application, the height of the acoustic fence would be 2.5 metres along most of its length, but for a distance of 100 metres, where it runs between the rear of 18 Harvey Drive and 134 Peregrine Drive it would measure two metres in height. The following extract from the supporting letter sets out the justification for these amendments.

Continued . . .

Page 101: SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING SERVICES...2008/10/09  · • Minutes of last Planning Committee Meeting • Minutes of any Working Party Meetings 2.1 OSPRINGE SW/08/0784 3 Porters

85

2.13 (Contd) PART 2

“The original design position of the acoustic fence was assessed in the November 2000 EIA and its position is shown on the original Bradgate Development Ltd drawing E539/101. Between 22 Haysel and No. 134 Peregrine Drive the 2.5m high acoustic fence is located immediately at the rear of and at the same ground level height as the property boundaries which back onto the new road. A new screen mound of varying height is also shown detailed between the acoustic fence and the new road. It is this position of the acoustic fence that the Planning Consent SW/00/1175 has been granted for.

A further noise assessment report was commissioned by Merebrook for David

Wilson Homes in 2006. This was undertaken in autumn 2006 and was based upon the position of the acoustic fence as shown on the Merebrook drawing E696. The position and detailing of the fence in this drawing is unchanged to the original Bradgate drawing, as noted in the paragraph above.

During the consultation meeting held with the residents on 15th May 2008 at

Sittingbourne College, queries were raised with regards to the best position of the fence to reduce noise levels from the new road. Following this meeting and after detailed discussions between Kent County Council, Barratt Homes and Merebrook Consulting Engineers, a decision was made to take advantage of the screen mound shown and to move the acoustic fence on to this screen mound which although raising the height of the fence, would provide enhanced protection against the predicted traffic noise and also allow landscaping between it and the resident’s boundaries to soften its appearance. An additional advantage of moving the acoustic fence further away from the boundaries is that even though it is at a slightly increased overall height, the added distance reduces this effect. Between Chainage 725m and 825m (approximately 18 Harvey Drive to 132 Peregrine Drive) it has been possible to reduce the acoustic fence height from 2.5m to 2.0m whilst still providing a discernable benefit to the properties concerned.”

Tables showing predicted noise levels are attached at Appendix A. Vertical Alignment (Height above Ordnance Datum (AOD)) – the application also proposes an increase in the vertical alignment of the road along 170 metres of its length, between the rear of 20 Haysel and the rear of 17 Harvey Drive. The difference between the approved road profile and that now proposed reaches a maximum of one metre where it runs to the rear of 26, 28 and 30 Haysel. An extract from supporting letter provides the following justification for the proposed adjustment: “The vertical alignment of the road has been adjusted vertically to enable it to

pass over an existing foul sewer which runs from Chilton Manor Farm northwards, between 26 and 28 Haysel before connecting into the main sewer system in Haysel. The road level has been raised by a maximum of approximately 1m at Chainage 660m to provide a minimum 0.6m cover between the top of the foul sewer and the finished road level.

Continued . . .

Page 102: SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING SERVICES...2008/10/09  · • Minutes of last Planning Committee Meeting • Minutes of any Working Party Meetings 2.1 OSPRINGE SW/08/0784 3 Porters

86

2.13 (Contd) PART 2 The revised vertical alignment is required because within the Charges

Register of the Title Deed (ref K482932) to the strip of land that the Swanstree Avenue Extension road will be built upon, there is the right for the foul drainage from the farmhouse at Chilton Manor Farm to continue to pass along this route before, during and after the road is built.

Various options have been investigated with regards to the sewer. It cannot

be laid in a deeper trench under the road because this would mean it would be deeper than the mains sewer at the north side of the road, thus could not drain. To divert it to another main sewer, for instance the new Orchard Park development, would require an extremely long single pipe diversion at a disproportionate cost and raise maintenance issues with regards to responsibilities and on going maintenance cost as it passes over two highways and other owned land. A septic tank and or pumped solution has also been investigated, but again the disproportionate cost and maintenance issues raised with regards to responsibilities and cost make this solution unsuitable.

This vertical change in the alignment has been kept to 0.6m over the pipe (the

minimum clearance in highway design) to minimise the overall change. With the proposed change in position of the acoustic fence, the change to the vertical alignment over the 170m length considered can be accommodated without any increase in adverse noise levels. The noise levels in Tables 1 and 2 [attached as Appendix A] are based upon the road in its revised vertical alignment between Chainage 590m and 760m.”

In other respects the development will remain as approved in 2002. Relevant Site History & Description A road to link Swanstree Avenue and Brenchley Road is an idea that has a lengthy history, and has been supported by both Swale Borough Council and Kent County Council for some considerable time. As Members may be aware, the Swale Borough Local Plan (SBLP) 2000 included a policy - IN43 – which explained that land would be reserved for the road and that it would be delivered in conjunction with the development at Fulston Manor Farm. The route of the road was shown on the proposals map. The adoption of the 2000 SBLP was preceded by an Inquiry – in August 1998 - into objections to the Deposit Draft Swale Borough Local Plan. The Policy relating to the Swanstree Avenue Extension (Policy IN49) was subject to an objection. A number of the comments raised by neighbours in respect of the current application refer to this Inquiry. I have therefore attached the Inspector’s conclusions as Appendix B to this report. Members will recall that the planning application for the Swanstree Avenue Extension (reference SW/00/1175) and the residential development of the Fulston Manor Farm site were consider together at a meeting of the Planning Committee in October 2002.

Continued . . .

Page 103: SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING SERVICES...2008/10/09  · • Minutes of last Planning Committee Meeting • Minutes of any Working Party Meetings 2.1 OSPRINGE SW/08/0784 3 Porters

87

2.13 (Contd) PART 2

Planning permission was granted for the road (in October 2002), which will consist of a single carriageway connection between the cul-de-sacs at Swanstree Avenue in the east and Brenchley Road in west and will include a staggered junction with Highsted Road, and for the 22-hectare residential development of the housing allocation at Fulston Manor Farm (reference SW/00/1174). The residential development was approved in February 2004. As Members will probably be aware, the initial parts of the Swanstree Avenue Extension, namely the junction improvements at the Bell Road / Brenchley Road intersection and the eastward extension of Brenchley Road to provide vehicular access – via two roundabouts - into the Fulston Manor housing development has been constructed and is open to traffic. Since 2002, reserved matters approval has been given for the details of the residential development for the entire site, though the number of dwellings built and occupied – 325 privately owned houses and flats and a number of social dwellings - is currently well below the ultimate capacity of 615 dwellings (the sum of the reserved matters approvals for the various parcels within the site). The outline planning permission for the residential development is subject to conditions that require the delivery of the Swanstree Avenue Extension before specific numbers of dwellings have been occupied: the relevant conditions are numbers (11) and (12). They read as follows:

“(11) No residential units shall be occupied until that section of the Swanstree Avenue extension (approved under planning reference SW/00/1175) between Bell Road and the second, easternmost roundabout shown on drawing ref E539/100 Rev 1 has been completed to base-course level; and not more than 161 units shall be occupied until that road has been extended eastwards to join Highsted Road, and is open to traffic.

Grounds: In accordance with the terms of the application, Policy IN43 of the Swale Borough Local Plan and as the provision of the road is an essential pre-requisite of the development hereby permitted.

(12) Not more than 201 residential units shall be occupied at the site until

the full length of the Swanstree Avenue extension approved under reference SW/00/1175 has been completed in full, and all traffic calming measures up to and including Swanstree Avenue, Canterbury Road, and Bell Road connected with the scheme shown on the approved drawings have been completed and approved in writing by the District Planning Authority.

Grounds: In accordance with the terms of the application, Policy IN43 of the Swale Borough Local Plan and as the provision of the road is an essential pre-requisite of the development hereby permitted.

Continued . . .

Page 104: SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING SERVICES...2008/10/09  · • Minutes of last Planning Committee Meeting • Minutes of any Working Party Meetings 2.1 OSPRINGE SW/08/0784 3 Porters

88

2.13 (Contd) PART 2 The residential development has, as noted above, now proceeded well beyond these numbers of occupations. The countryside to the south of the application site is designated as a Special Landscape Area; the land is in agricultural use.

Views of Consultees Kent Highway Services raise no objection. I am though awaiting their further views with regard to the maintenance of the soft landscaped areas adjoining the carriageway, the access to these areas, and details of the street lighting. The Head of Environment and Amenities raises no objection to the application. His second consultation response reads as follows: “The revised position of the acoustic fence is intended to provide an

acceptable level of noise protection for existing properties at ground and first floor level from traffic using the proposed new road.

Provision of trees and shrubs when fully matured will help aesthetically in

disguising the fence but in terms of noise attenuation, will provide little or no benefit.

Essentially without the revised position and alignment of the acoustic fence,

the properties identified are likely to suffer adverse noise impact from the new road.”

The views of the County Archaeologist are awaited. I will up-date Members at the meeting. The Public Rights of Way Officer raises no objection. Natural England raise no objection. Southern Water do not wish to comment on the application. Other Representations The application has been advertised by site and press notice and by direct neighbour consultation. Eight letters of representation have been received. Seven of the letters raise concerns about the application, while the eighth endorses the proposed changes. The issues raised are summarised as follows:

• The movement of the position of the acoustic fence would obscure views of the countryside “even from upstairs windows”

Continued . . .

Page 105: SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING SERVICES...2008/10/09  · • Minutes of last Planning Committee Meeting • Minutes of any Working Party Meetings 2.1 OSPRINGE SW/08/0784 3 Porters

89

2.13 (Contd) PART 2

• Responsibility for the sewage pipe running under the Swanstree Avenue Extension should not rest with local residents (in particular, Nos 26 and 28 Haysel); the Council should be responsible for this

• It is appreciated that moving the fence close to the source of the noise, and further from dwellings, will result in a “better sound barrier”, however, it will block out light to dwellings

• Reducing the extent to which the road is excavated will result in a worsening of the aural and visual impact

• The changes will result in increased light pollution • The position of the noise fence now envisaged will result in better noise

mitigation to the adjacent dwellings than that approved under SW/00/1175 and better reflects the conclusion of the Planning Inspector who considered the proposed road as part of the Local Plan Inquiry held in 1998 as part of the process leading to the adoption of 2000 Swale Borough Local Plan [now superseded by the first review of the Swale Borough Local Plan, adopted in February].

• The proposed changes are supported and Members are asked to approve them without modification

• It is unclear what is being proposed • Full explanation is not given for the proposed amendments • It is unclear whether the tree growing at the rear of the garden to 132

Peregrine Drive will be removed under this proposal • There has been no public consultation in St Michael’s ward [In Roman

ward, a public meeting was undertaken this Summer.] • Why has the issue of the foul sewer crossing the route only come to

light recently? • Other options for dealing with the foul sewer link to Chilton Manor Farm

should be fully considered; other options may be viable • The road should have been provided already – because more than 201

dwellings have been built and occupied at Fulston Manor Farm • The local road network seems to be able to accommodate the traffic

growth that has resulted from the development of Fulston Manor; “is the Swanstree Avenue Extension really necessary?”

• Could householders be permitted to manage / maintain the land between their rear garden fences and the acoustic fence?

• Will the amendments proposed result in noise levels now exceeding accepted noise limits?

• The protracted process associated with the Swanstree Avenue Extension has been damaging to the health of local residents and has damaged local people’s quality of life

The letters are available for public inspection.

Continued . . .

Page 106: SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING SERVICES...2008/10/09  · • Minutes of last Planning Committee Meeting • Minutes of any Working Party Meetings 2.1 OSPRINGE SW/08/0784 3 Porters

90

2.13 (Contd) PART 2

Policies

Policies E1 (general development criteria), E2 (pollution), T2 (improvements to the highway network), E9 (special landscape area), E16 (archaeology) and H2 (providing new housing) of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008 are relevant here. Discussion The principle of this road link has previously been accepted and does not require further consideration here. I note that the need for the road is questioned. However, planning permission for the development of Fulston Manor Farm was granted after careful consideration of the implications for traffic flow in the area; the clear conclusion was reached that the existing road network would not be able to satisfactorily accommodate the increased traffic flows that would result from the development. Evidence has not been put forward to support the argument that this conclusion was incorrect. I am also mindful that Kent Highways Services remain supportive of the development. The key issues here are the implications for residential amenity and for the character and appearance of the area. Residential Amenity – the various issues raised by local residents are noted. I consider that these are as follows:

• Potential loss of outlook / view • Potential harmful outlook of the road and traffic • Implications for noise levels to adjacent dwellings and their gardens • Over-shadowing • Potential light pollution for adjacent dwellings

Potential loss of outlook/view – the amendment of the proposed position of the acoustic fence will affect the view from many of the dwellings that are located immediately to the north of the proposed road. The key question is whether the proposed changes will result in a significant worsening of the situation when compared to the approved scheme. As noted above, the proposed amendments would result in the acoustic fence being located further from dwellings. The extent to which this would be the case varies up to a maximum of six metres. The positive effect of this would be offset along part of the proposed route - between the rear of 20 Haysel and the rear of 17 Harvey Drive - by the increase in the vertical alignment that is proposed. Along this part of the proposed road, these amendments would reduce in some loss of view.

Continued . . .

Page 107: SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING SERVICES...2008/10/09  · • Minutes of last Planning Committee Meeting • Minutes of any Working Party Meetings 2.1 OSPRINGE SW/08/0784 3 Porters

91

2.13 (Contd) PART 2

Members will note though that landscape planting is to be undertaken on both sides of the acoustic fence; the planting to be undertaken between the acoustic fence and rear fences to dwellings will in any case impinge upon the view looking south from these dwellings. I consider that the potential reduction of the level of outlook / view from dwellings adjacent to the proposed road as a result of the proposed amendments would not amount to a reason for refusal. This impact should be considered alongside the implications for noise levels to domestic properties. Potential harmful outlook of the road and traffic – I am firmly of the view that the combination of the bunding of the development, the proposed acoustic fence and the soft landscaping of land on both sides of the acoustic fence will be sufficient to ensure that the proposed amendments will not result in a worsening of view from adjacent dwellings when compared to the approved scheme. Implications for Noise Levels – as noted above, the supporting letter provided by the applicant explains the amendment of the position of the acoustic fence will result in a reduction in noise levels experienced by the residents of adjacent dwellings compared to the levels that would have resulted from the approved scheme. I have sought the views of the Head of Environment and Amenities on these amendments and the response, which is set out above, concurs with the applicant’s analysis. In my view the changes to the acoustic fence will result in significant benefit for residents living to the north of the proposed road in comparison to the approved scheme. Over-shadowing – concern has been raised that the proposed amendments will result in adjacent dwellings been significantly over-shadowed by the development, in particular by the proposed acoustic fence. The paragraphs above dealing with loss of view/outlook should be noted in this context. It seems to me that in those places where the height of the bund and the acoustic fence on it would be higher than under the approved scheme, any additional impact will not be pronounced. And, as above, it is important to note a screen of landscape planting is to be provided in the areas between the carriageway edge and the rear fences to the gardens of the dwellings located immediately to the north of the development. Light Pollution – one of the consultation responses received from neighbours suggests that the proposed amendments will result in a worsening of the level of light pollution, particularly from street lighting, that would result from the development.

Continued . . .

Page 108: SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING SERVICES...2008/10/09  · • Minutes of last Planning Committee Meeting • Minutes of any Working Party Meetings 2.1 OSPRINGE SW/08/0784 3 Porters

92

2.13 (Contd) PART 2

The Environmental Statement submitted with SW/00/1175 refers to 5m-high columns; the cross sections submitted with the current application suggest 8m-high columns. I have discussed this matter with Kent Highway Services and the Head of Environment and Amenities. I am firmly of the view that an unacceptable impact on residential amenity will not result. The lighting columns and fittings are designed in a way that minimises light “spillage”. I am also mindful that a planning condition relating to the street lighting was not imposed on the extant planning permission (SW/00/1175) for the Swanstree Avenue Extension. Character and Appearance of the Area While the proposed amendments will materially alter the visual impact of the Swanstree Avenue Extension, I am firmly of the view that a significant worsening of the impact on the landscape will not result; unacceptable impact on the adjacent Special Landscape Area is not anticipated. Members will also note that there is a scope for a significant landscape planting. I hope to be able to report the details of this at the meeting. Other Issues The consultation responses raise a number of issues. One of these, namely the implications of the foul sewer connection from Chilton Manor Farm to the public sewer, warrants further consideration here. Members will have noted above that the proposal to raise the vertical alignment of part of the development is proposed in order to accommodate the foul sewer connection from Chilton Manor Farm to the public sewer that serves Haysel, just to the north of the proposed Swanstree Avenue Extension. Two issues relating to this point have been raised by local residents. Firstly, although the justification put forward by the applicant is noted, it is suggested that alternative solutions to the foul sewer issue should be fully considered. Although I am firmly of the view that the proposed amendments would not give rise to unacceptable planning implications, I have asked the applicant to give further consideration to this particular point. I will up-date Members at the meeting. Secondly, the implications of the construction of the road over the foul sewer serving Chilton Manor Farm in terms of the possibility that the pipe could be damaged as of result, for example, of vibration from traffic using the road. I have asked the applicant to address this point, and will up-date Members at the meeting.

Continued . . .

Page 109: SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING SERVICES...2008/10/09  · • Minutes of last Planning Committee Meeting • Minutes of any Working Party Meetings 2.1 OSPRINGE SW/08/0784 3 Porters

93

2.13 (Contd) PART 2

Recommendation I have considered the implications of the proposed amendments to the Swanstree Avenue Extension as approved under SW/00/1175, and evaluated the potential implications of the proposed changes to the vertical alignment of part of the proposed road – for a distance of 170 metres between the rear of 20 Haysel and the rear of 17 Harvey Drive – and to the acoustic fence – for a distance of 250 metres between a point just to the east of the junction with Highsted Road, and to the rear of 20 Haysel, and a point immediately to the west of where the Public Right of Way ZU31 crosses the line of the proposed road, to the rear of 134 Peregrine Drive. I conclude that the proposed amendments would not detract significantly from residential amenity or the character and appearance of the area, and that the development would accord with the relevant Development Plan policies. I therefore recommend, subject to the receipt of further information and amended plans, the views of neighbours on this information, the views of the County Archaeologist, and the further views of Kent Highways Services, that planning permission be granted.

Responsible Officer: Jim Wilson (Major Projects Officer) List of background documents 1. Application papers and correspondence for SW/08/0910 2. Application papers and correspondence for SW/00/1174 3. Application papers and correspondence for SW/00/1175

Page 110: SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING SERVICES...2008/10/09  · • Minutes of last Planning Committee Meeting • Minutes of any Working Party Meetings 2.1 OSPRINGE SW/08/0784 3 Porters

94

APPENDIX A ITEM 2.13 PART 2

Page 111: SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING SERVICES...2008/10/09  · • Minutes of last Planning Committee Meeting • Minutes of any Working Party Meetings 2.1 OSPRINGE SW/08/0784 3 Porters

95

APPENDIX B ITEM 2.13 PART 2

Page 112: SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING SERVICES...2008/10/09  · • Minutes of last Planning Committee Meeting • Minutes of any Working Party Meetings 2.1 OSPRINGE SW/08/0784 3 Porters

96

APPENDIX B (Contd) ITEM 2.13 PART 2

Page 113: SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING SERVICES...2008/10/09  · • Minutes of last Planning Committee Meeting • Minutes of any Working Party Meetings 2.1 OSPRINGE SW/08/0784 3 Porters

97

APPENDIX B (Contd) ITEM 2.13 PART 2

Page 114: SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING SERVICES...2008/10/09  · • Minutes of last Planning Committee Meeting • Minutes of any Working Party Meetings 2.1 OSPRINGE SW/08/0784 3 Porters

98

APPENDIX B (Contd) ITEM 2.13 PART 2

Page 115: SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING SERVICES...2008/10/09  · • Minutes of last Planning Committee Meeting • Minutes of any Working Party Meetings 2.1 OSPRINGE SW/08/0784 3 Porters
Page 116: SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING SERVICES...2008/10/09  · • Minutes of last Planning Committee Meeting • Minutes of any Working Party Meetings 2.1 OSPRINGE SW/08/0784 3 Porters
Page 117: SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING SERVICES...2008/10/09  · • Minutes of last Planning Committee Meeting • Minutes of any Working Party Meetings 2.1 OSPRINGE SW/08/0784 3 Porters
Page 118: SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING SERVICES...2008/10/09  · • Minutes of last Planning Committee Meeting • Minutes of any Working Party Meetings 2.1 OSPRINGE SW/08/0784 3 Porters
Page 119: SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING SERVICES...2008/10/09  · • Minutes of last Planning Committee Meeting • Minutes of any Working Party Meetings 2.1 OSPRINGE SW/08/0784 3 Porters
Page 120: SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING SERVICES...2008/10/09  · • Minutes of last Planning Committee Meeting • Minutes of any Working Party Meetings 2.1 OSPRINGE SW/08/0784 3 Porters

99

PART 2

2.14 SW/08/0740 (Case 13816) THROWLEY

Location: Shavers Meadow, Housefield Road, Throwley,

Faversham

Proposal: Stationing of mobile home and portacabin for use in connection with proposed free range egg enterprise.

Applicant/Agent: Mrs Lee c/o Mr D Bass, George Webb Finn, 43 Park

Road, Sittingbourne, Kent Application Valid: 7th July 2008

Conditions

(1) The use of the portacabin and mobile home hereby permitted for living accommodation shall cease and the portacabin and mobile home shall be removed and the land upon which they are sited restored to its former condition on or before 31st October 2011.

Grounds: In order that the position can be reviewed at the end of that period, in accordance with the terms of the permission and in accordance with the advice given in Annex 1 of the PPS7.

(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of condition (1), if the enterprise should

cease to operate from the site prior to 31st October 2011, the portacabin and mobile home hereby permitted for living accommodation shall cease and the portacabin and mobile home shall be removed and the land upon which they are sited restored to its former condition as soon as reasonably possible within a time frame to be agreed with in writing with the District Planning Authority.

Grounds: In order to prevent unnecessary and unsuitable occupation of the land and in accordance with the terms of the permission and in accordance with the advice given in Annex 1 of the PPS7.

(3) The occupation of the mobile home shall be limited solely to a person

employed in agriculture in connection with the agricultural enterprise at Shavers Meadow, Housefield Road, Throwley and his/her resident dependants.

Grounds: As the site is outside any area in which planning permission would normally be granted for a dwelling and as the mobile home is considered essential in the interests of agriculture and in pursuance of policies HP5 of Kent & Medway Structure Plan and RC5 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

Continued . . .

Page 121: SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING SERVICES...2008/10/09  · • Minutes of last Planning Committee Meeting • Minutes of any Working Party Meetings 2.1 OSPRINGE SW/08/0784 3 Porters

100

2.14 (Contd) PART 2 (4) Before the temporary buildings hereby permitted are first brought into

use the area between the nearside carriageway edge and lines drawn between a point 2.4m back from the carriageway edge along the centre line of the access and points on the carriageway edge 43m from and on both sides of the centre line of the access shall be cleared of obstruction to visibility at and above a height of 1.05m above the nearside carriageway level and thereafter maintained free of obstruction at all times.

Grounds: In the interests of highway safety and in pursuance of policy

E1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008. Reason for Approval Having taken all material considerations into account, it is considered that subject to compliance with the attached conditions, the proposal would be in accordance with the development plan and would not cause unacceptable harm to the amenities of the area or prejudice highway safety or convenience. In resolving to grant permission, particular regard has been had to the following policies: E1, E6, E9 and RC5 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008 and policies EN1, EN4 and HP5 of the Kent & Medway Structure Plan. Description of proposal This application seeks permission for stationing of a mobile home and portacabin for use in connection with a free range egg farm at Shavers Meadow, Housefield Road, Throwley. The application is supported by a full design and access statement, from which I have drawn the following points. The portacabin and mobile home are already in situ on site, although are not currently being used. They are located within 24 metres of the west boundary of the site. The mobile home measures 13.2 metres by 4 metres and is proposed to be used by the applicant and partner to live in on a temporary basis to ensure to properly manage the planned free range enterprise, as well as to provide security, disease control and be available for deliveries and collection of eggs. The mobile home features two bedrooms, a kitchen, lounge and shower room. The mobile home and portacabin have recently been clad in timber. The portacabin measures 9.8 metres by 3 metres and has two rooms. One room is intended to be used as an office and the other for egg grading and packing. The free range laying hens would roam approximately 15 hectares of land within the ownership of the applicant. They would be housed in a number of mobile poultry sheds which would be moved on a regular basis. The sheds themselves do not require planning permission. The financial appraisal predicts profits of £4,000 in year 1, £16,000 in year two, and £23,000 in year 3, greater than average agricultural pay.

Continued . . .

Page 122: SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING SERVICES...2008/10/09  · • Minutes of last Planning Committee Meeting • Minutes of any Working Party Meetings 2.1 OSPRINGE SW/08/0784 3 Porters

101

2.14 (Contd) PART 2

The site is generally well screened from view by dense hedging and trees from both adjoining roads. Relevant site history and description

The application site is in the north western corner of the applicants land close to the junction of Housefield Road with Throwley Road. The site is occupied by an existing agricultural building. The building and access track are positioned close to the site boundaries. The access point is located approximately half way across the site frontage to Housefield Road. The site is located within the Kent Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. There are no public rights of way on or adjoining the site. There have been several previous applications on the site which are relevant to this application. In 1991 under planning reference SW/91/1025 consent was sought for a change of use of the land to equestrian, keeping of 6 horses and for the erection of a stable block and tack room. This application was refused as the erection of a large block of stables would be unnecessary development and there were highway safety issues. Following this in 1991 a second application was submitted and subsequently refused for a similar proposal under reference SW/91/1227. In 2007 two applications were submitted and subsequently withdrawn for the same proposal as this current application relates to. The current application differs from the previous applications as it is accompanied by a good quality business plan and supplementary information. The two previous applications were considered under planning references SW/07/0653 and SW/071034.

Views of Consultees Throwley Parish Council objects to the application. Their comments can be summarised as follows:

• It seems to be an attempt to abuse the planning system to take advantage of agricultural planning concessions

• An excuse to gain planning permission in time for a dwelling • The mobile home is already in situ and being used • The project is not large enough to justify a mobile home

Kent Highway Services raise no objection to the application, although have recommended a condition be attached to any permission requiring sight lines.

Continued . . .

Page 123: SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING SERVICES...2008/10/09  · • Minutes of last Planning Committee Meeting • Minutes of any Working Party Meetings 2.1 OSPRINGE SW/08/0784 3 Porters

102

2.14 (Contd) PART 2

The Council's rural planning consultant has advised that previous applications have shown a functional need for on-site occupation, but they have not been supported by clear evidence of sound financial planning. However, despite volatility in feed and egg prices, this application provides evidence of potential profitability, that is capable of being tried and tested through a temporary planning permission, as per the requirements of national advice in PPS7. Other Representations CPRE raise objection to the application as the site is in an area of outstanding natural beauty and great care should be taken regarding any new buildings/ businesses in this area. One letter of objection has been received from neighbouring residents. Their comments can be summarised as follows: • Some development already seems to have taken place and is unsightly

and out of keeping • We have not seen any evidence of a free range enterprise taking place • Should the planning application be granted, the permission should be

conditioned to require the removal of the mobile home should the business fail

• Potential increase in traffic and dangerous junction at Housefield Road/ Faversham Road.

• Speed restrictions should be considered

Planning Policies Planning Policy Statement 7, (particularly Annex A) “Sustainable Development in Rural Areas” is of relevance to this application. PPS7 Annex A sets out the criteria to be satisfied when Local Planning Authorities are considering applications for agricultural dwellings. For applications for temporary dwellings there are five criteria to which an application should relate. These are: • Clear evidence of a firm intention and ability to develop the enterprise

concerned • Functional need for on-site residential accommodation • Clear evidence that the proposed enterprise has been planned on a sound

financial basis • The functional need could not be met by another existing dwelling on the

unit or any other existing accommodation in the area • Other planning requirements are satisfied

Continued . . .

Page 124: SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING SERVICES...2008/10/09  · • Minutes of last Planning Committee Meeting • Minutes of any Working Party Meetings 2.1 OSPRINGE SW/08/0784 3 Porters

103

2.14 (Contd) PART 2

Policies E1 (General Development Control Criteria), E6 (Protection of the Countryside), E9 (Landscape) and RC5 (Rural Dwellings) of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008 are relevant. Policies EN1 (Protection of the Countryside), EN4 (AONB) and HP5 (Rural Dwellings) of the Kent & Medway Structure Plan are also relevant. Discussion This application has been submitted following the withdrawal of two previous applications for the same proposal. This application differs from the previous two as a well researched business plan and planning statement have been included as part of the application which indicates that the proposed enterprise has been planned on a sound financial basis and meets the requirements for a temporary agricultural dwelling as outlined in Annex A of PPS7. As our rural consultant comments, the proposed business plan allows for about a quarter of the eggs produced to be sold to local outlets and the remainder delivered to Fridays of Cranbrook. The business plan indicates a sufficient return for viability, although this is particularly difficult to be clear about at present as feed and egg prices have been volatile recently and would have a large influence on the net result. Therefore, whilst the prospect of viability is not absolutely clear as matters stand, it is almost impossible to be certain in the current climate and the revised business plan now appears on balance to provide sufficient evidence that the farm enterprise has been planned on a sound financial basis. In addition, the uncertain elements are capable of being tried and tested through the recommended period of temporary consent. With regards to the need to live on site, it is generally accepted in these type of applications for agricultural enterprise that there is a need for someone to live on the site for security reasons. I therefore wish to stress to Members that the issue to focus on is whether the business plan appears to be sound and in accordance with the requirements of annex A of PPS7. In addition there are very few residential properties within a close distance of the site which would be suitable for occupation by the applicant for the purposes of security. In terms of siting, design and appearance, the buildings on the site have all recently been refurbished and are now far more appropriate to their rural surroundings. In addition, they are well obscured from view from public vantage points as the site is well screened.

Continued . . .

Page 125: SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING SERVICES...2008/10/09  · • Minutes of last Planning Committee Meeting • Minutes of any Working Party Meetings 2.1 OSPRINGE SW/08/0784 3 Porters

104

2.14 (Contd) PART 2 Kent Highway Services have not raised objection to the application and consider the existing access, access road within the site and hard standing area to be suitable for the proposal. They have, however, recommended a condition relating to sight lines which I have discussed with the agent and he is confident can be achieved. I note the objections raised by the Parish Council, CPRE and a neighbouring resident. The objections largely allege that the applicant is trying to abuse the planning system to gain a dwelling in the countryside. I consider that the application submitted is accompanied by a business plan which has taken time and effort and significant research, and also proposes a temporary dwelling. I have recommended any permission granted be given a temporary permission in order that the position can be reviewed, and should the business be unsuccessful, the portacabin and mobile home be removed from the site. I therefore consider that this strikes the right balance between the parties.

Some objectors also refer to the possibility that this application would be followed by an application for a permanent dwelling. Any application for a permanent house, would be determined on its merits at that time. Permitting a temporary residential use does not imply any consent for permanent use would be acceptable in the use. The point of permitting a temporary use is so that the situation can be reviewed. The CPRE raises concerns about the impact of the proposal on the rural landscape. However, as stressed earlier in the report, the buildings are well screened and have recently been refurbished externally. Recommendation

This application seeks permission the stationing of a mobile home and portacabin for use in connection with a proposed free range egg enterprise. The application meets the requirements for a temporary agricultural dwelling as outlined within Annexe A of PPS7 and meets the requirements of the development plan. I recommend that a temporary planning permission is granted.

Responsible Officer: Graham Thomas (Area Planning Officer) List of background documents 1. Application papers and correspondence relating to application SW/91/1025 2. Application papers and correspondence relating to application

SW/91/1227 3. Application papers and correspondence relating to application SW/07/0653 4. Application papers and correspondence relating to application SW/07/1034 5. Application papers and correspondence relating to application SW/08/0740

Page 126: SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING SERVICES...2008/10/09  · • Minutes of last Planning Committee Meeting • Minutes of any Working Party Meetings 2.1 OSPRINGE SW/08/0784 3 Porters

105

PART 2

2.15 SW/08/0416 (Case 4920) SITTINGBOURNE

Location: Parcels F & G East Hall Farm, Sittingbourne, Kent.

Proposal: Application for non-compliance with condition 32 of

planning permission SW/02/1180 limiting occupation of dwellings to 550 units until Sittingbourne Northern Relief Road (between Ridham Avenue and Castle Road) is open to traffic, insofar as it relates to land parcels F & G.

Applicant/Agent: Countryside Properties Plc, C/o The Planning and Design

Bureau, 45 Hart Road, Thundersley, Benfleet, Essex, SS7 3PB.

Application Valid: 16 April 2008 and as clarified by additional information

received on 19 August 2008

SUBJECT TO: The completion of a Section 106 Agreement in respect of a developer contribution towards the promotion of modal shift from car use to sustainable modes of transport such as walking and cycling.

Conditions (1) Not more than 550 residential units shall be occupied until a review of

the Development Brief has been prepared and approved by the District Planning Authority.

Grounds: In order that the situation can be reviewed at the end of this period and any additional measures can be incorporated into the Development Brief in order to prevent adverse impacts arising from the development, and in pursuance of Policies E1, E19, E21, H7 and T2 of the Swale Borough Local Plan.

(2) Not more than 737 dwellings shall be occupied until a Travel Plan has

been submitted to and approved by the District Planning Authority, and upon approval, the Travel Plan shall be implemented and monitored in accordance with such details as may be agreed.

Grounds: In order to minimise the number of journeys made by car

to and from the East Hall Farm development, in pursuance of Policies E1 and H7 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

(3) Not more than 850 residential units shall be occupied until the Northern

Relief Road is open to traffic between Ridham Avenue and the Castle Road roundabout east of Milton Creek.

Continued . . .

Page 127: SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING SERVICES...2008/10/09  · • Minutes of last Planning Committee Meeting • Minutes of any Working Party Meetings 2.1 OSPRINGE SW/08/0784 3 Porters

106

2.15 (Contd) PART 2 Grounds: In the interests of traffic flow and highway safety, and in

pursuance of Policies E1, T2 and T8 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

Reasons for Approval: Having taken all material considerations into account, it is considered that subject to compliance with the attached conditions, the proposal would be in accordance with the development plan and would not cause unacceptable harm to the amenities of the area or prejudice highway safety or convenience. In resolving to grant permission, particular regard has been had to the following policies: E1, E19, E21, H7, T2, T8 and SP1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008. Description of Proposal This application seeks approval for non-compliance with condition (32) of the outline planning permission (Ref: SW/02/1180) for development at East Hall Farm, Sittingbourne, in so far as it relates to Parcels F and G of the housing site. In particular, the application seeks approval for the non-compliance with the requirements of the condition that not more than 550 dwellings be occupied until the Northern Relief Road (NRR) is open to traffic between Ridham Avenue and Castle Road. Condition (32) reads as follows:

"Not more than 550 residential units shall be occupied until a review of the Development Brief has been prepared and approved by the District Planning Authority and the Northern Relief Road is open to traffic between Ridham avenue and roundabout 2 shown on the application plan. Grounds: In order that the situation can be reviewed at the end of this period and any additional measures taken to mitigate any adverse impacts arising from the development".

The approval of this application would have the effect of disconnecting the timing of the delivery of the remaining residential development at East Hall Farm from the provision, and opening to traffic, of the Milton Creek Crossing section (also known as Ridham Roundabout to Castle Road Roundabout) of the Northern Relief Road. For the avoidance of doubt, the key issue for consideration here is the timing of the delivery of the housing at East Hall Farm in relation to the construction of the NRR Milton Creek Crossing rather than the total number of dwellings that will ultimately be built at the site. The application is accompanied by a supporting statement, a Transport Assessment and Transport Assessment Appendices, all of which are available for Members to inspect.

Continued . . .

Page 128: SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING SERVICES...2008/10/09  · • Minutes of last Planning Committee Meeting • Minutes of any Working Party Meetings 2.1 OSPRINGE SW/08/0784 3 Porters

107

2.15 (Contd) PART 2

As far as the determination of the application is concerned, the key information is set out on pages (5), (6), (7) and (8) of the supporting statement. The following extract is informative:

"The limitation on occupation to 550 units until the NRR is open to traffic was imposed because the Transport Assessment that accompanied the application for outline planning permission was prepared in August 2002 (hereafter called the '2002 TA') and had to make assumptions about the mix of development and consequent vehicular traffic implications. This was necessary because the development had not commenced. These assumptions, seen in the light of highway conditions prevalent at that time, and in particular specific highway junction conditions in the vicinity of the site, militated in favour of limiting the level of development to 550 units until the NRR was open for fear of otherwise causing traffic flow problems in Sittingbourne. However, since that time detailed approval of 531 units has been granted and accurate predictions about the housing mix and resulting traffic generation of the entire development (ie, the entire 850 unit quantum) can now be made. The 2008 TA has therefore accurately predicted the traffic flows arising from an 850 unit development at East Hall Farm and has re-assessed the capacity of highways and junctions in the vicinity of the site to accommodate it. The 2008 TA states in (paragraph 10.6) that: "…the traffic generation in the consented 2002 TA significantly over-estimated the traffic generation of the 550 unit scheme. As a result of the traffic generation for the 850 unit development, using revised trip rates and taking into consideration the level of 'flat' type development, is lower than the estimated level of traffic from the 2002 TA".

Paragraph 10.7 follows by stating that: "….the overall traffic generation for the 850 unit scheme using revised trip rates and taking into consideration the level of 'flat' type development, has a negligible increase in traffic levels about that of the consented level of traffic generation…."”

The Briefing Note at Appendix H of the 2008 TA identifies a figure of 737 units as being the 'nil detriment' figure, or, crudely, the number of occupied residential units that would equate to the traffic impacts attributable to 550 units as assumed in the 2002 TA, which was approved through the grant of the outline planning permission (reference SW/02/1180). I have questioned the applicant’s contention that the addition of 113 dwellings, the difference between the so called nil detriment and the 850 dwelling figure, the suggested maximum number of dwellings, can be expected to have negligible impact on traffic flow. I have also questioned the impact that a different mix of dwellings than that assumed in the 2008 TA can be expected to have upon traffic flows. My questions are set out at Appendix A.

Continued . . .

Page 129: SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING SERVICES...2008/10/09  · • Minutes of last Planning Committee Meeting • Minutes of any Working Party Meetings 2.1 OSPRINGE SW/08/0784 3 Porters

108

2.15 (Contd) PART 2

The applicant’s response is set out at Appendix B. These questions and the applicant’s answers are discussed below. The supporting statement also makes the offer of additional developer contributions, over and above those already entered into (which are described below) with the grant of the outline planning permission (SW/02/1180) for development at East Hall Farm. The relevant section of the statement reads as follows:

"Notwithstanding the conclusion that 850 unit occupation would have a negligible increase in traffic generation Countryside Properties PLC [the applicant] is willing to address the negligible off-site traffic impacts that may occur after 737 units are occupied. Specifically, the applicant will make available additional funding of up to £50,000 to be provided to encourage a modal shift from vehicles to sustainable modes of transport such as walking and cycling. The contribution would be provided as follows:

• £20,000 provided on occupation of 750th dwelling (ie soon after the nil detriment figure is exceeded);

• £20,000 provided on occupation of 800th dwelling; • £10,000 provided on occupation of 840th dwelling.

These amounts would be paid on the basis that, at each threshold, the NRR is not open to traffic. It is intended that delivery of this funding for sustainable transport improvements would be via a Unilateral Undertaking provided during the course of this application or a Planning Obligation prepared by the Council's Solicitor (at the LPA's discretion)."

Relevant Site History & Description Outline planning permission was granted (under reference SW/02/1180) for a mixed use development at East Hall Farm in July 2004. This planning permission is not subject to any condition or other restriction on the total number of dwellings to be built at the site; the restriction in condition (32) relates, as explained above, to the timing of the delivery of the housing in relation to the construction of the NRR Milton Creek Crossing and the review of the Development Brief. Significant development has taken place at the site with a number of phases of industrial, storage and distribution and residential development approved in detail and under construction. With regard to the residential development, reserved matters have been approved as follows:

Continued . . .

Page 130: SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING SERVICES...2008/10/09  · • Minutes of last Planning Committee Meeting • Minutes of any Working Party Meetings 2.1 OSPRINGE SW/08/0784 3 Porters

109

2.15 (Contd) PART 2

(1) Parcels B and B1 – 181 dwellings, planning reference SW/06/1227 (2) Parcels B2, C1 and D – 203 dwellings, planning reference SW/06/1447 (3) Parcel C – 91 dwellings, planning references SW/05/1297 (4) Parcel E – 56 dwellings, planning reference SW/07/1232 Giving a total of 531 dwellings so far granted under reserved matters approvals. The Section 106 Legal Agreement attached to the outline approval required a wide range of developer contributions including the following: (1) £4 million towards the provision of the Northern Relief Road (NRR) (2) £400, 000 ‘accessibility contribution’ to be paid in instalments and to be

used for the promotion of non-car modes of travel (3) £8,000 for each dwelling occupied in excess of 550. As Members will appreciate, the need for this application arises from the fact that the provision of the Milton Creek Crossing section of the NRR has been delayed and there is significant uncertainty as to when this key section of the NRR will be provided and open to traffic. The supporting statement deals with this issue on pages (4) and (5). It concludes that the earliest that this section of the NRR could be open to traffic would be Spring 2011. It is anticipated by the applicant that the 550 dwelling limit will be reached in 2010. There would therefore be a significant timescale, of a minimum of 12 months, when construction work at the site would have to cease. This application is designed to avoid this unwelcome interruption of the construction programme. Views of Consultees Kent Highways Services (KHS) have provided four responses to consultation. The key sections read as follows:

"It is accepted that the original TA presented a worst case scenario and that the TA produced in support of this application focuses on the mix of dwelling types currently being built which have a different traffic generation pattern. Whilst there is no highway and transportation objection to this proposal should the mix of the dwelling types change in the future we would wish to be further consulted.”

A quote from the second response reads as follows:

Continued . . .

Page 131: SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING SERVICES...2008/10/09  · • Minutes of last Planning Committee Meeting • Minutes of any Working Party Meetings 2.1 OSPRINGE SW/08/0784 3 Porters

110

2.15 (Contd) PART 2

"The original TA depicted a worst case scenario based on maximum residential trip rates which did not take account of the mix of housing types and the varying trip rates associated with them. This depicted a worst case in traffic terms and is not unusual with outline applications. As the development has proceeded the mix of housing types has emerged and the applicant has now produced a more refined TA, breaking down the different trip generation rates. It is also fair to say that data bases such as TRICS have also advanced since the original TA. The TA for the current application explains this in great detail.

Using the refined trip rates reflecting the various dwelling types in the

development the TA has demonstrated that the traffic generation of 550 units using the worst case trip rates of the original TA equates to 737 units using refined trip rates that reflect the dwelling types actually being constructed and the refined trip rates.”

Members will also note from the second response:

"However, as described above and previously advised there is no objection to the application as submitted. Should you be minded to recommend refusal of the application this is not supported by KHS."

Thirdly, in response to my request for clarification of the buying power of the £50,000 accessibility contribution being offered by the applicant, Kent Highways Services comment as follows:

"The sum of £50K could purchase 5-6 months of the bus service assuming this was an extension of the existing contract on similar terms, or three central refuges assuming they could not be provided for at least 2 years and dependant on when the contribution was triggered. Dependant on the location and design it would be a significant contribution to the cost of a pelican crossing. The contribution would be index linked in accordance with the S106."

Finally, Kent Highway Services have commented on the applicant’s response to the questions that I posed in respect to the traffic implications of dwellings built over and above the 737 units figure and in respect to the mix of house types and the potential impact on traffic levels. The key sentence reads as follows: “… the sensitivity testing has demonstrated that a change in the mix of

dwelling types does not lead to a massive increase in traffic …” The Head of Environment and Amenities raises no objection. Bapchilld Parish Council made the following observations:

Continued . . .

Page 132: SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING SERVICES...2008/10/09  · • Minutes of last Planning Committee Meeting • Minutes of any Working Party Meetings 2.1 OSPRINGE SW/08/0784 3 Porters

111

2.15 (Contd) PART 2

“1. Bapchild Parish Council understands that the Local Plan provides provision for 750 units in total for this site and has phased 200 units beyond the lifetime of the plan. Given the very short timescale between this application and the inquiry and formal adoption of the plan where housing allocations and phasing were discussed and debated at length, we fail to understand why the applicant has seen fit to submit this application at this juncture.

2. The Parish Council is not aware of any significant issues that have

arisen since the publication of the inspectors report and subsequent adoption of the plan that would materially change the views reached by both the Council and the inspector. We therefore see no reason why either the phasing of the development or the increase in density by a further 100 units to accommodate 850 units should be permitted.

3. The Parish Council have reservations about the ability of the existing

infrastructure to support even the addition of a further 200 unit without the completion of the Northern Relief Road (NRR), a situation that will be further exacerbated by he development plans for the town centre. We also believe that such an application which seeks to relinquish its dependence on the NRR could present opportunities for a legal challenge with regard to the £4m section 106 contributions required for the NRR.

4. The Parish Council are not persuaded that the additional offer of

£50,000 to educate the new owners of these properties will have any signing effect on modal shift from vehicles to more sustainable modes of transport. This anticipation of modal shift would appear to be entirely speculative and no figures or comparative developments have been offered in order to make a subjective judgement on the success of such a scheme."

The Highways Agency ‘offers no objection’ to this application. Other Representations Letters of objection have been received from 19 local residents. In addition, a copy of an on-line petition opposing the application has been received. 32 individuals have signed up to it. The issues raised in the consultation responses are summarised as follows:

• The traffic data and projections upon which the application is based are questioned; it is argued that the application is not properly researched;

• The development would exacerbate pressure on existing poor quality highway infrastructure;

• Lack of the NRR and poor access to Great East Hall deters possible purchasers, and devalues homes at East Hall.

Continued . . .

Page 133: SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING SERVICES...2008/10/09  · • Minutes of last Planning Committee Meeting • Minutes of any Working Party Meetings 2.1 OSPRINGE SW/08/0784 3 Porters

112

2.15 (Contd) PART 2 • The application is contrary to the objective of sustainable development. • Development will add to existing traffic congestion – causing "grid lock"

- emergency services will not be able to access the site. • Why is there only one route on and off East Hall Farm? • The 'bus only' link to Oak Lane is being used as a short cut by car

drivers. • Planning Committee should visit the site to view existing traffic situation

– at mornings and evening peak period. • Significant modal shift away from the car may not be achievable in

practice – in part due to site not being an easy walking distance from the town centre.

• The wellbeing of residents should be considered above the desk-top study by the applicant.

• No more than 550 dwellings should be built before the NRR across Milton Creek is open to traffic.

• A dedicated bus service is not running to East Hall Farm. • The application is motivated by profit – the transport infrastructure

should be put in place before the developer profits. • Why is East Hall Farm 'fenced off' from adjacent residential area? • Schools, shops an community facilities should be provided at East Hall

Farm. • It will be a waste of time attending the Committee meeting … and will

make no difference to the outcome. Policies Policies E1 (general development criteria), SP1 (sustainable development), T2 (essential improvements to the highway network), T8 (Sittingbourne Northern Relief Road) and H7 (East Hall Farm) of the Swale Borough Local Plan are of particular relevance here. Policy H7 notes, among other things, that the number of dwellings to be developed at the site could be increased to 750, though whether this number can be accommodated will need to be considered in detail through the review of the Development Brief. Contrary to the wording of this policy and for the avoidance of doubt, the planning permission does not impose an upper limit on the number of dwellings that can ultimately be built at East Hall Farm. Discussion It is important to emphasise that this proposal – and indeed condition (32) as worded in outline planning permission SW/02/1180 – relate to the timing of the delivery of the housing at East Hall Farm, and not the total number of dwellings that will ultimately be built there; the total number of dwellings to be built on this development will be determined by the parameters to be set out in the review of the Development Brief, and it is quite possible that this number could exceed the 750 figure suggested by Policy H7 in the Local Plan.

Continued . . .

Page 134: SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING SERVICES...2008/10/09  · • Minutes of last Planning Committee Meeting • Minutes of any Working Party Meetings 2.1 OSPRINGE SW/08/0784 3 Porters

113

2.15 (Contd) PART 2

The applicant proposes an upper limit of 850 dwellings for the purpose of this application. It is important to stress that whether this number of dwellings can be satisfactorily accommodated will not be known until the Development Brief has been reviewed (a draft review of the Development Brief has recently been received by the Council) and reserved matters applications giving a detailed layout have been provided. This application needs to be considered purely in terms of the possible implications for traffic flows and the local highway network. It is also important to emphasise that whether or not this application is permitted will not impact directly upon the delivery of the Milton Creek Crossing section of the NRR; as Members will be aware the road proposal has recently been subjected to a Public Inquiry, and it is the timing and nature of the Inspector's decision and the subsequent construction programme rather than whether or not permission is granted for non-compliance with condition (32) that is critical to when the NRR Milton Creek Crossing will be built and open to traffic. I am mindful of the various concerns expressed about this proposal by local residents and Bapchild Parish Council. However, as Members are aware, this application must be determined on planning grounds. The sole planning consideration here is whether or not non-compliance with condition (32), that is to say, the removal of 550 dwelling cap on the number of dwellings occupied at East Hall Farm before the Milton Creek Crossing is open to traffic – would have a significant adverse impact on local traffic flows. Members will note the comments of Kent Highways Services and their conclusion that the analysis undertaken by the applicant's highway engineers, Capital Symmonds, is correct in its conclusion that Transport Assessment carried out in 2002, before outline planning permission was granted for the East Hall Farm development, significantly over-estimated the traffic that the development would generate. The main reason for this over-estimate being incorrect assumptions about the mix of house types and sizes; for the housing subsequently approved, a greater proportion of the dwellings were small units – 1 and 2 bed flats – than had been anticipated, rather than larger dwellings, which tend to generate more vehicle movements. Furthermore, KHS conclude that this proposal would not have unacceptable highway implications. As mentioned above in the ‘Description of Proposal’ section, I have sought clarification from the applicant with regard to the implications of the dwellings built over and above the 737 unit level and with regard to their assumptions regarding the mix of dwelling types. This correspondence and the applicant’s response is appended. Kent Highway Services have reviewed this correspondence, and have re-stated their conclusion, namely that they raise no objection to this application.

Continued . . .

Page 135: SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING SERVICES...2008/10/09  · • Minutes of last Planning Committee Meeting • Minutes of any Working Party Meetings 2.1 OSPRINGE SW/08/0784 3 Porters

114

2.15 (Contd) PART 2

Members will also note the suggested planning conditions and S106 Agreement; these are necessary to secure the provision of a Travel Plan and a financial contribution of £50,000 towards the promotion of travel modes other than the car. Recommendation As explained, the key issue here is the timing of the delivery of the housing at East Hall Farm in relation to the construction of the NRR Milton Creek Crossing rather than the total number of dwellings that will ultimately be built at the site. Members will note that Kent Highways Services raise no objection to this application for non-compliance with condition (32). This is the crucial consideration here because the limitation on the number of dwellings to be occupied at East Hall Farm before the NRR Milton Creek Crossing was open to traffic was imposed solely to address the conclusion of the Traffic Assessment – the 2002 TA - carried out in support of the original planning application for development at East Hall Farm. As explained above, a Traffic Assessment carried out this year (the 2008 TA) – and with the benefit and certainty about the mix of dwelling types and sizes for the 531 dwellings for which reserved matters have been approved – concludes that the traffic generation will be significantly lower than anticipated by 2002 TA, and that '550 dwelling' cap is not justified. Therefore, whilst mindful of the concerns expressed by local residents and Bapchild Parish Council, I recommend subject to the above conditions and the completion of S106 Agreement to secure funding to be spent on promoting modes of travel other than the car, that planning permission be granted.

_____ _____ _ Responsible Officer: James Wilson (Area Planning Officer) _____ _____ _

List of Background Documents

1. Application papers and correspondence for SW/08/0416 2. Application papers and correspondence for SW/02/1180 3. Application papers and correspondence for SW/07/1232 4. Application papers and correspondence for SW/06/1447

Application papers and correspondence for SW/06/1227 Application papers and correspondence for SW/05/297

Page 136: SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING SERVICES...2008/10/09  · • Minutes of last Planning Committee Meeting • Minutes of any Working Party Meetings 2.1 OSPRINGE SW/08/0784 3 Porters

115

APPENDIX A ITEM 2.15 PART 2

Page 137: SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING SERVICES...2008/10/09  · • Minutes of last Planning Committee Meeting • Minutes of any Working Party Meetings 2.1 OSPRINGE SW/08/0784 3 Porters

116

APPENDIX B ITEM 2.15 PART 2

Page 138: SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING SERVICES...2008/10/09  · • Minutes of last Planning Committee Meeting • Minutes of any Working Party Meetings 2.1 OSPRINGE SW/08/0784 3 Porters

117

APPENDIX B (Contd) ITEM 2.15 PART 2

Page 139: SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING SERVICES...2008/10/09  · • Minutes of last Planning Committee Meeting • Minutes of any Working Party Meetings 2.1 OSPRINGE SW/08/0784 3 Porters
Page 140: SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING SERVICES...2008/10/09  · • Minutes of last Planning Committee Meeting • Minutes of any Working Party Meetings 2.1 OSPRINGE SW/08/0784 3 Porters
Page 141: SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING SERVICES...2008/10/09  · • Minutes of last Planning Committee Meeting • Minutes of any Working Party Meetings 2.1 OSPRINGE SW/08/0784 3 Porters
Page 142: SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING SERVICES...2008/10/09  · • Minutes of last Planning Committee Meeting • Minutes of any Working Party Meetings 2.1 OSPRINGE SW/08/0784 3 Porters

1

PLANNING COMMITTEE – 9 OCTOBER 2008 PART 3 Report of the Head of Development Services PART 3 Applications for which REFUSAL is recommended

3.1 SW/08/0642 (Case 17997) DODDINGTON

Location: Hillcrest, Dully Hill, Doddington, Faversham, Kent, ME9

0BY Proposal: Rear extension Applicant/Agent: Mrs A McMullen, Gloucester House, Dully Hill,

Doddington, Sittingbourne, Kent Application Valid: 10 June 2008 Reasons (1) The proposed extension to a dwelling with a floor area of less than 50

square metres would reduce the availability of small properties in a village with an identified need for smaller accommodation. As such it would be contrary to Policy RC4 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.

(2) The design of the extension results in a poor roof form comprising of a

slack pitch with a hipped roof form which is out of keeping with the original roof style. As such the proposal is contrary to policies E1, E19 and E24 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008 and QL1 of the Kent & Medway Structure Plan.

Description of Proposal This application proposes a rear extension to an existing bungalow known as Hillcrest, Dully Hill, Doddington. The existing property measures 11 metres in length by 3.8 metres in width and is rectangular in shape. The proposed extension would project rearwards by 3.2 metres and would cover approximately half of the width of the existing property. The resulting property would be ‘L’ shaped. The extension would provide a second bedroom and an enlarged living room, the existing property has one bedroom.

Continued . . .

Page 143: SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING SERVICES...2008/10/09  · • Minutes of last Planning Committee Meeting • Minutes of any Working Party Meetings 2.1 OSPRINGE SW/08/0784 3 Porters

2

3.1 (Contd) PART 3

The proposed extension, which would have a wide span would feature a very slack pitch to attempt to match the height of the existing roof. Relevant Site History and Description The site is located in the countryside, outside of the built up area boundary of Doddington as defined within the Swale Borough Plan 2008, and within the Kent Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The dwelling lies on the side of a shallow sided valley. There is no previous planning history relating to the site.

Views of Consultees Doddington Parish Council have not raised any objections to the application. Kent Highway Services have not raised objection to the application, however, have recommended a condition requiring a plan providing for the parking of two vehicles.

Other representations No other comments have been received.

Planning Policies

The policies most relevant to this application are E1 (general criteria), E6 (Countryside), E19 (design), RC4 (Extensions to Dwellings in the Countryside), T3 (Parking and new Development) of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008; and QL1 (design), and EN1 (Countryside) of the Kent & Medway Structure Plan.

Discussion This application to erect an extension to a very small dwelling in the countryside fails to meet the tests of the newly adopted policy, RC4 of the Swale Borough Local Plan which aims to protect very small dwellings from being enlarged. The existing dwelling measures approximately 37.4 square metres, which clearly falls within the realms of the policy which aims to protect dwellings with a floor space of less than 50 square metres in locations where there is an identified need for smaller properties.

Continued . . .

Page 144: SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING SERVICES...2008/10/09  · • Minutes of last Planning Committee Meeting • Minutes of any Working Party Meetings 2.1 OSPRINGE SW/08/0784 3 Porters

3

3.1 (Contd) PART 3

The Head of Housing has provided us with up to date figures detailing the number of persons registered and requesting housing in the Doddington area. The number requesting one bedroom properties was significantly higher than those requesting two bedroom properties, and even fewer were registered for seeking three, four and five bedroom properties.

I therefore consider there is an identified need for small housing, particularly

one bedroom properties, and as such this proposal is at odds with the newly adopted policy. The policy aims to ensure a continued supply of small and affordable housing in villages and rural areas.

In addition, the proposed design of the roof to the extension is poor, the pitch

being extremely slack and there is no attempt to match the existing roof form. This has resulted in a very poor design, that does not accord with the character of the cottage, and is not suitable for this rural location.

In terms of any potential impact on neighbouring amenity, the dwelling would be located away from neighbouring boundaries and would be unlikely to cause any issues relating to overlooking or overshadowing.

The applicant has been made aware of my concerns and has requested a site

visit unless approval is granted.

Recommendation This application fails to meet the requirements of policy RC4 of the newly adopted Local Plan which aims to protect small rural dwellings from being extended to ensure a continued supply. In addition the design of the roof is poor and not acceptable for this dwelling in the rural area. The scheme is in my opinion unacceptable and I therefore recommend refusal.

Responsible Officer: Rob Bailey (Area Planning Officer) List of background documents 1. Application Papers and Correspondence for SW/08/0642.

Page 145: SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING SERVICES...2008/10/09  · • Minutes of last Planning Committee Meeting • Minutes of any Working Party Meetings 2.1 OSPRINGE SW/08/0784 3 Porters

4

PART 3

3.2 SW/08/0791 (Case 23277) FAVERSHAM

Location: Corner of London Road/ Brogdale Road, Abbey School,

London Road, Faversham Proposal: Temporary advertising board 2.4 metres high by 2.4

metres wide Applicant/Agent: Mr A Hillier, Hillreed Land Limited, 60 Hillreed House,

College Road, Maidstone Application Valid: 10th July 2008 Reason (1) The proposed sign would, by reason of its prominent location, be an

intrusive element and would be likely to cause harm to the visual amenities of the area, street scene and surrounding countryside. The proposal is therefore contrary to policies E1, E6, E19 & E23 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008 and policies QL1 & EN1 of the Kent & Medway Structure Plan and the Council's adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance entitled “The Design of Shopfronts, Signs and Advertisements”.

Description of Proposal This application seeks advertisement consent to erect a non-illuminated sign to advertise businesses at Brogdale Farm but is to be partitioned at the Abbey School, corner of London and Brogdale Road, Faversham. The proposed sign would measure 2.4 metres high by 2.4 metres wide and would be a printed metal board with metal legs. The advertising board would state “Brogdale Farm, Shops/cafe, Orchard Tours, Home of the National Fruit Collection.” The applicant is requesting temporary consent for two years, and has explained the reason for it in his covering letter, which I have attached to this item as Appendix A. Relevant Site History and Description The site is located outside of the built up area boundary of Faversham as defined within the Swale Borough Plan 2008.

Continued . . .

Page 146: SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING SERVICES...2008/10/09  · • Minutes of last Planning Committee Meeting • Minutes of any Working Party Meetings 2.1 OSPRINGE SW/08/0784 3 Porters

5

3.2 (Contd) PART 3

A previous application at the site proposed a banner sign to be erected within the grounds of the Abbey School. The application was refused on highway safety grounds and for being contrary to advertisement policies. It was determined under planning reference SW/94/643 Views of Consultees Faversham Town Council have recommend refusal on two grounds:

“1. The sign is unnecessary as there are already brown tourist signs at this junction.

2. It would be an intrusion in the countryside.” Kent Highway Services have raised no objection subject to a condition requiring the advert not to be illuminated. Other Representations One Petition of objection featuring 107 names and 13 separate letters of objection have been received. These raise the following points: • Highway safety and visual impact. • A2 is littered with signs – unsightly and spoils countryside and districting to

drivers. • At a busy junction. • Close to school – accident waiting to happen. • There is no written evidence that Abbey School have given permission. • If permission is granted, similar adverts could appear. • Allowing a temporary sign could lead to a permanent one. • Planning permission was refused for a similar hoarding in 1994. • Sign is too large. • Brogdale Road cannot cope with extra traffic. • Is already a successful tourist attraction – does not need this monstrosity. • Once one board is permitted other signs could be added. • Do not wish to look at them from my property. • Already has two brown signs. • Could distract drivers. • Would have no effect on tourism. • Does not meet policy QL1 re scale, layout, pattern and character of area. • Further urbanisation of the playing field is too far. • Should not be allowed in a conservation area. In addition 5 letters of support, mainly from businesses at Brogdale Farm, have been received. Their comments can be summarised as follows:

Continued . . .

Page 147: SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING SERVICES...2008/10/09  · • Minutes of last Planning Committee Meeting • Minutes of any Working Party Meetings 2.1 OSPRINGE SW/08/0784 3 Porters

6

3.2 (Contd) PART 3 • Brogdale is off beaten track – requires assistance. • Some residents are opposed to Brogdale but I urge this application to be

viewed in a different light. • In current economic climate – need all the help we can get. • We get a lot of comments from visitors who struggle to find the site. • Sign is in keeping with its environment. • Brogdale has received £1 million investment securing its future. • Sign is now essential part of letting people know we are here. • Sign is valuable tool in attracting business to Market Place – all about

promoting locally sourced products. Planning Policies The policies most relevant to this application are E1 (general criteria),E6 (Countryside), E19 (design), and E23 (Adverts) of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008; and QL1 (design), and EN1 (Countryside) of the Kent & Medway Structure Plan, and the Council’s adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance entitled “The Design of Shopfronts, Signs and Advertisements”. Policy B26 (SBLP) aims to safeguard the continuation of the National Fruit Collection at Brogdale provided the proposals at the site are appropriate to the character of the site, and contribute to the long-term viability of the Collection. Discussion The site is located outside of the built up area boundary, close to residential properties, where the Council usually consider advertisements will not be permitted, on amenity grounds. Paragraph 4.1 of the adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance entitled “The Design of Shopfronts, Signs and Advertisements” states that “The Borough Council will not normally permit advertisements outside of town centres, particularly in sensitive areas such as residential areas and open countryside.” In this case the proposed sign would be located in a school playing field which is not associated with the content of the sign. In my view if the sign were to be permitted, this would result in unnecessary clutter in the countryside detrimental to amenity, which is unacceptable as a matter of principle and against the aims of the development plan to preserve the countryside for its own sake. I note the objections raised by many local residents and the Town Council relating to the application. Generally the points they raise are fair and correspond with the development plan policies relating to adverts. However, some points raised, particularly those that are personal to the applicant/ business are not material planning considerations.

Continued . . .

Page 148: SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING SERVICES...2008/10/09  · • Minutes of last Planning Committee Meeting • Minutes of any Working Party Meetings 2.1 OSPRINGE SW/08/0784 3 Porters

7

3.2 (Contd) PART 3

In addition I do not consider the advertisement of a business off site is either necessary or suitable in this countryside location. Recommendation This application seeks advertisement consent for the erection of a temporary advert board. The board would be erected within a school playing field, outside of a built up area boundary, in a manner detrimental to the amenity of the area, and as such is unacceptable in principle and fails to preserve the countryside for its own sake. I recommend that express consent is refused.

___________ Responsible Officer: Graham Thomas (Area Planning Officer)

List of background Documents

1. Application papers and correspondence relating to application SW/94/643. 2. Application papers and correspondence relating to application SW/08/0791.

Page 149: SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING SERVICES...2008/10/09  · • Minutes of last Planning Committee Meeting • Minutes of any Working Party Meetings 2.1 OSPRINGE SW/08/0784 3 Porters

8

APPENDIX A ITEM 3.2 PART 3

Page 150: SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING SERVICES...2008/10/09  · • Minutes of last Planning Committee Meeting • Minutes of any Working Party Meetings 2.1 OSPRINGE SW/08/0784 3 Porters

9

APPENDIX A (Contd) ITEM 3.2 PART 3

Page 151: SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING SERVICES...2008/10/09  · • Minutes of last Planning Committee Meeting • Minutes of any Working Party Meetings 2.1 OSPRINGE SW/08/0784 3 Porters

10

APPENDIX A (Contd) ITEM 3.2 PART 3

Page 152: SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING SERVICES...2008/10/09  · • Minutes of last Planning Committee Meeting • Minutes of any Working Party Meetings 2.1 OSPRINGE SW/08/0784 3 Porters
Page 153: SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING SERVICES...2008/10/09  · • Minutes of last Planning Committee Meeting • Minutes of any Working Party Meetings 2.1 OSPRINGE SW/08/0784 3 Porters
Page 154: SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING SERVICES...2008/10/09  · • Minutes of last Planning Committee Meeting • Minutes of any Working Party Meetings 2.1 OSPRINGE SW/08/0784 3 Porters
Page 155: SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING SERVICES...2008/10/09  · • Minutes of last Planning Committee Meeting • Minutes of any Working Party Meetings 2.1 OSPRINGE SW/08/0784 3 Porters

1

PLANNING COMMITTEE – 9 OCTOBER 2008 PART 4 Report of the Head of Development Services PART 4 Swale Borough Council’s own development; observation on County Council’s development; observation of development by Statutory Undertakers and by Government Departments; and recommendations to the County Council on ‘County Matter’ applications.

4.1 SW/08/0915 (Case 01198) TUNSTALL

Location: Tunstall C of E Primary School, Tunstall, Sittingbourne,

Kent, ME9 8DX

Proposal: Folding glazed doors, external decking and canopy to existing building

Applicant/Agent: Governing Bodies of Tunstall C of E Primary School, c/o

KCC Planning Application Group, First Floor, Invicta House, County Hall, Maidstone, Kent, ME14 1XX

Application Valid: 6 August 2008 OBJECTION BE RAISED

Reason

(1) The proposed development, by virtue of its scale, design and materials would fail to preserve the special architectural and historic interest of the listed building, and would fail to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the conservation area. The application is therefore contrary to policies E1, E14, E15 and E19 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008, and QL1, QL6 and QL8 of the Kent & Medway Structure Plan.

Description of Proposal Swale Borough Council has been consulted on an application seeking planning permission for the installation of folding glazed doors, external decking and a canopy to the exterior of a classroom at Tunstall School, a grade II listed building. It is proposed to fix the additions to a modern flat-roofed extension, which forms an infill between two historic projecting wings to the southern elevation of the building.

Continued . . .

Page 156: SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING SERVICES...2008/10/09  · • Minutes of last Planning Committee Meeting • Minutes of any Working Party Meetings 2.1 OSPRINGE SW/08/0784 3 Porters

2

4.1 (Contd) PART 4

The proposals will replace dilapidated windows and doors, and provide sheltered outdoor learning and play space for the children, in line with government education requirements. The planning application was accompanied by an application for conservation area consent for these works. However – conservation area consent is not required for this development (such consent is only required for the demolition of non-listed buildings above a certain size in conservation areas). Listed building consent is though required, and such an application has not yet been made. Relevant Site History and Description Tunstall School is an attractive Grade II listed building constructed of brick and flint. It is situated within the Tunstall conservation area, set back from the road, and screened by several large trees along the front and side boundaries. The proposed glazing, canopy and decking would adjoin a modern flat-roofed extension set within the southern elevation of the building, and approved under applications SW/97/0824 and 0825. This extension is set between two historic projecting wings and forms a teaching and admin room. The area is not visible from outside the site. There are numerous previous applications for additions and extensions to the school, to which no objections were raised, including the provision of mobile classrooms, play equipment and additional teaching space. Other Representations No representations have been received. Policies National planning policy, in the form of Planning Policy Guidance Note 15 (Planning and the Historic Environment) is relevant here. Policies E1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008 (SBLP) and QL1 of the Kent & Medway Structure Plan (K&MSP) seek to ensure that all development proposals are acceptable in general design, impact and amenity terms. Policy E19 (SBLP) is more specific, in that aims to achieve high quality design on all developments within the Borough.

Continued . . .

Page 157: SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING SERVICES...2008/10/09  · • Minutes of last Planning Committee Meeting • Minutes of any Working Party Meetings 2.1 OSPRINGE SW/08/0784 3 Porters

3

4.1 (Contd) PART 4

E15 (SBLP) and QL6 (K&MSP) seek to preserve and enhance the character or appearance of the Borough’s conservation areas by ensuring that all developments within these designated areas are of an appropriately high standard of design and make use of suitable materials and construction techniques. Policies E14 (SBLP) and QL8 (K&MSP) have similar aims, but specifically in relation to listed buildings. Discussion Whilst I note the requirements for sheltered outdoor space for schoolchildren, the impact of this development upon the listed building and the conservation area are the key issues here. This application falls well short of what is required by PPG15. Paragraph 2.11 requires applicants to understand the significance of the heritage asset and to assess the impact of the proposed development on the special interest of the listed building. The current application makes no concession at all to the listed status of the building. The design statement fails to address issues of conservation or design except to state that the extension is ‘designed to blend in with the existing school as much as possible.’ I do not consider that a flat-roofed extension built of steel beams, twin-cell polycarbonate sheeting, uPVC fascias and plastic gutters blends in well with the building. I do not consider that the development pays sufficient regard to the special character of the listed building at all. The Council has a statutory duty to have regard to preserve the listed building and to preserve or enhance the character of the conservation area. Whilst the proposed works are relatively minor, in my opinion they would cause demonstrable harm to the special architectural and historic interest of the listed building. In doing so, I consider that they would also fail to preserve or enhance the special character of the conservation area. Any need for such facilities at the school is not in my opinion sufficient to outweigh the harm the development would cause, as outlined above. Such facilities are quite capable of being provided using a design and materials that would compliment the listed building and preserve the character of the conservation area. Recommendation

This application seeks planning permission for the installation of folding glazed doors, external decking and a canopy at Tunstall School, a grade II listed building situated within the conservation area.

Continued . . .

Page 158: SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING SERVICES...2008/10/09  · • Minutes of last Planning Committee Meeting • Minutes of any Working Party Meetings 2.1 OSPRINGE SW/08/0784 3 Porters

4

4.1 (Contd) PART 4 The proposal, as discussed above, is considered to be harmful to the special

architectural or historic interest of the listed building by virtue of its scale, design and the proposed materials, and that it would fail to preserve or enhance the character of the Tunstall conservation area.

I therefore recommend that an objection be raised.

Responsible Officer: Rob Bailey (Area Planning Officer)

Background papers

1. Application papers for SW/08/0915. 2. Correspondence for SW/08/0915. 3. Application papers for SW/08/0916. 4. Correspondence for SW/08/0916.

Page 159: SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING SERVICES...2008/10/09  · • Minutes of last Planning Committee Meeting • Minutes of any Working Party Meetings 2.1 OSPRINGE SW/08/0784 3 Porters

1

PLANNING COMMITTEE – 9 OCTOBER 2008 PART 5 Report of the Head of Development Services PART 5 Decisions by County Council and Secretary of State, reported for information 5.1 ENF/08/006 (C21831) – Land at Plum Pudding Lane, Dargate ENFORCEMENT NOTICE APPEAL DISMISSED The Inspector commented as follows:

• “The appeal is made under section 174 of the Town and Country

Planning Act 1990 as amended by the Planning and Compensation Act 1991.

• The appeal is made by Mrs L C Strong against an enforcement notice issued by Swale Borough Council.

• The Council's reference is HER7:06. • The notice was issued on 28 January 2008. • The breach of planning control as alleged in the notice is a material

change of use of part of the land from agricultural use to a mixed use including the stationing of a stable block/field shelter.

• The requirements of the notice are: (i) Cease the use of the Land for the stationing of a stable

block/field shelter. (ii) Remove from the Land the stable block/field shelter and any

other materials not connected with the agricultural use of the land.

• The period for compliance with the requirements is three months. • The appeal is proceeding on the grounds set out in section 174(2)(c)

of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended. Since the prescribed fees have not been paid within the specified period, the application for planning permission deemed to have been made under section 177(5) of the Act as amended does not fall to be considered.

Decision 1. I dismiss the appeal and uphold the enforcement notice. Procedural matter 2. Although an appeal was made on ground (a), that is that planning

permission should be granted for what is alleged in the enforcement notice if it is considered to constitute development against which the Council can take action, the appropriate fees have not been paid. The application for deemed planning permission does not therefore fall to be considered and I shall take no further action on the appeal on ground (a).

Continued . . .

Page 160: SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING SERVICES...2008/10/09  · • Minutes of last Planning Committee Meeting • Minutes of any Working Party Meetings 2.1 OSPRINGE SW/08/0784 3 Porters

2

5.1 (Contd) PART 5

3. In her submissions on the appeal under ground (c) the appellant claims that the alleged change of use has not occurred because horses are no longer kept on the site. This should more properly be treated as an appeal under ground (b), that is that the breach of control alleged has not occurred as a matter of fact. I consider there would be no disadvantage to either party if I proceeded in this way and I shall therefore consider the arguments as if an appeal under ground (b) had been made.

Reasons The appeal on ground (b) 4. The site is part of a larger field in open countryside on the outskirts of

the village of Dargate. It is fenced and gated and there is a rough, unmade track leading to it from the road. The structure referred to in the enforcement notice is timber framed and clad, with a corrugated fibre-cement pitched roof. It contains two stables and stands on a metal frame. There were no horses in the field or stables at the time of my site inspection.

5. Whether or not horses are presently being kept on the land, the

stables that the Council refer to in the enforcement notice are present on the site. It is clear that they have been used at some time, as the earth within them has been churned up, presumably by horses’ hooves, and there was a feed or water container within one of the stalls.

6. Land used for the grazing of horses has been held by the courts to be

in an agricultural use, but the erection of a stable building would change this to a use for the keeping of horses. Planning permission for such a change of use has already been refused at appeal, as has a proposal for the erection of stables. The presence of the stables, if found to be a development which can be controlled through the planning process, would indicate that a change of use has occurred, whether or not horses were being kept on the site at a particular point in time. The appeal on ground (b) consequently fails.

The appeal on ground (c) 7. The appellant considers that the stable block is not a building but a

mobile field shelter. Consequently she submits that it is not development and therefore cannot be controlled by the local planning authority. In reaching my decision on I have taken into account relevant case law pertaining to such cases. The Courts have identified three primary factors as being relevant to what is a ‘building’. These are size, physical attachment and permanence. I noted at the site visit that the stables measure some 7m x 4m x 2.6m high. In terms of size, therefore, the structure is substantial enough to have an impact on its surroundings and make a physical change to the characteristics of the land.

Continued . . .

Page 161: SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING SERVICES...2008/10/09  · • Minutes of last Planning Committee Meeting • Minutes of any Working Party Meetings 2.1 OSPRINGE SW/08/0784 3 Porters

3

5.1 (Contd) PART 5

8. In respect of physical attachment, whilst the Courts have held that a mobile shed was not a building, the main factor that led to this conclusion was that the shed was not in any way attached to the land and could be moved about freely. In this case, the Council states that the stables were constructed on site, which is not challenged by the appellant, and they have the appearance of a prefabricated structure that would require a degree of assembly in its intended location. I do not see how a structure of this size and weight could be moved ‘freely’ about the land without being dismantled, as it is not on wheels and the ‘skids’ referred to by the appellant are the metal frame on which it stands. There is no sign that the structure has ever been moved from its present location, nor have I been told there is any intention to do so.

9. Even if the degree of physical attachment to the land is limited to the

inherent weight of the structure, there is, nevertheless, no suggestion that it is intended to be a temporary installation. The fact that an appeal has been made against the requirement to remove the stables indicates that the appellant hopes to retain them on the site and they should therefore be considered as a permanent structure.

10. Taking all these factors together, I find that, in these circumstances

and as a matter of fact and degree, the stables are a building for which planning permission is required. Therefore, as planning permission for it has not been granted, there has been a breach of planning control. Consequently, for the reasons given above and having regard to all other matters raised, I consider that the appeal on ground (c) should not succeed.”

Observations

A very welcome decision that should help slow the current creeping degradation of land at Dargate.

Responsible Officer: Graham Thomas (Area Planning Officer) List of Background Papers 1. SBC Enforcement Notice dated 28 January 2008. 2. Appeal Papers 3. Appeal decision letter ref: APP/V2255/C/08/2068619 dated 11 August 2008.

Page 162: SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING SERVICES...2008/10/09  · • Minutes of last Planning Committee Meeting • Minutes of any Working Party Meetings 2.1 OSPRINGE SW/08/0784 3 Porters

4

PART 5 5.2 SW/07/0729 (Case 12655) – 2 bedroom dwelling on land at 39 Palmerston

Walk, Sittingbourne APPEAL DISMISSED The Inspector commented as follows: �

“Appeal Ref: APP/V2255/A/08/2065649 39 Palmerston Walk, Sittingbourne, Kent ME10 3BT

• The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission.

• The appeal is made by Mr R Johnson against the decision of Swale Borough Council.

• The application Ref SW/07/0729, dated 15 June 2007, was refused by notice dated 31 July 2007.

• The development proposed is new 2No. bedroom dwelling adjacent to 39 Palmerston Walk.

Decision 1. I dismiss the appeal. Main issues 2. The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on the

character and appearance of the area, and its effect on highway safety in relation to car parking provision.

Reasons 3. The area near the appeal site is an open-plan residential estate

predominantly of terraced houses. Vehicle circulation is segregated and many dwellings front onto broad landscaped open spaces with pedestrian walkways. The open landscaped areas continue round the flank walls at the ends of several of the terraces, including at the appeal site. The dwellings and gardens are compact, and such open spaces provide a pleasant and spacious setting for the relatively high-density development and make a strong contribution to its identity

. 4. The proposed development would be almost identical to No.39 in size

and design. It would take up the majority of the existing open space between the flank wall of No.39 and the footpath which runs alongside it. Although a margin of green would be left I consider that the proposed dwelling would make this part of the estate uncharacteristically cramped, and would erode its sense of place. I recognise that planning permission was granted for a side extension to No.39 but that was of significantly less width than the house currently proposed.

5. Parking for the houses on the estate is provided largely in the form of

garage courts. The appellant owns 1 Palmerston Walk, and suggests that some land adjacent to the garage allocated to that property could be used for a parking space and garage for the proposed dwelling.

Continued . . .

Page 163: SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING SERVICES...2008/10/09  · • Minutes of last Planning Committee Meeting • Minutes of any Working Party Meetings 2.1 OSPRINGE SW/08/0784 3 Porters

5

5.2 (Contd) PART 5 The land in question, at the entrance to a garage court, is at present

planted with mature shrubs which perform a valuable function in screening and softening the buildings. I consider that the creation of a parking space and additional garage at this spot would enable the retention of an acceptable amount of the planted area to mitigate the rather harsh appearance of this car-dominated part of the estate, and this and details of the elevations and materials of the proposed garage could be subject to condition.

6. Nevertheless the shortcomings which I have identified concerning the

proposed dwelling itself lead me to conclude on this issue that the proposed development would harm the character and appearance of the area, and would thus conflict with Policies E1, H2 and E19 of the Swale Borough Local Plan Review (LP), which aim to preserve the quality of the built environment.

7. The Council suggest hat the proposed parking space and garage

would not have natural surveillance from nearby houses and would be far from the proposed dwelling, so that it might not be used. However, I consider that the segregated design of the estate means that this is the case for many residents and I do not find that the proposed parking would be significantly further from the dwelling than other examples. The submission of details of the proposed garage and hardstanding, to ensure adequate dimensions, could be the subject of condition. I find therefore that there would not be a significant additional pressure on on-street parking, or thus a hazard to highway safety, from the proposed development. It would not therefore conflict with LP Policies T3, E1 and E19.

8. I have considered all matters put before me including the fact that

reasonably sized gardens would be created for the existing and proposed dwelling, and that the scheme would provide low-cost accommodation. However none, including my findings on the highway safety issue, outweigh the considerations that have led me to my overall conclusion. For all the above reasons, and having considered all matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.”

Observations A good outcome, although it is disappointing that the Inspector did not share

the Council’s concerns with regard to the car parking provision. Responsible Officer: Jim Wilson (Major Projects Officer) List of Background Papers 1. Planning Inspectorate Appeal Decision reference: APP/V2255/A/08/2065649 2. Appeal Papers (statements and correspondence) 3. SBC Decision on Application SW/07/0729

Page 164: SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING SERVICES...2008/10/09  · • Minutes of last Planning Committee Meeting • Minutes of any Working Party Meetings 2.1 OSPRINGE SW/08/0784 3 Porters

6

Page 165: SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING SERVICES...2008/10/09  · • Minutes of last Planning Committee Meeting • Minutes of any Working Party Meetings 2.1 OSPRINGE SW/08/0784 3 Porters

6

PART 5 5.3 SW/07/0923 (Case 02315) – Outline application for construction of two

permanent dwellings to replace two residential caravans – Land adjacent Orchard Cottage, London Road, Tonge, Sittingbourne, Kent, ME9 9PS

APPEAL DISMISSED The Inspector commented as follows: �

“Appeal Ref: APP/V2255/A/08/2073626 Little Radfield Orchard, London Road, Teynham, Sittingbourne ME9 9PS.

• The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant outline planning permission.

• The appeal is made by Mr and Mrs T Hewitt against the decision of Swale Borough Council.

• The application Ref SW/07/0923, dated 31 July 2007, was refused by notice dated 12 October 2007.

• The development proposed is an outline application for the construction of 2 permanent dwellings to replace 2 residential caravans.

Procedural Matter 1. The application is submitted in outline with layout, scale, appearance

and landscaping all reserved for future consideration. Plans requested by the Council to illustrate the scale of the development, indicate 2 similar chalet style dwellings with 3 double bedrooms at first floor level, with most of this accommodation within the steeply pitched roof. The appellants describe the proposed buildings as one and a half stories. I regard these plans and description as only illustrative of what the appellants intend, since scale and appearance are reserved matters.

Decision 2. I dismiss the appeal. Main issues 3. The main issues are:

(a) Whether the development would be consistent with policies for new dwellings in the countryside;

(b) The effect on the character and appearance of the area. Reasons The principle of the development 4. The appeal site is the eastern portion of a wide site fronting the A2

owned by the appellants and currently occupied by mobile homes. The site is located within a cluster of buildings lying between the villages of Bapchild and Teynham. In planning terms the site is in the countryside where policies SS8 and HP5 of the Structure Plan and policy E6 of the Swale Local Plan seek to restrict new development, particularly new residential development.

Continued . . .

Page 166: SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING SERVICES...2008/10/09  · • Minutes of last Planning Committee Meeting • Minutes of any Working Party Meetings 2.1 OSPRINGE SW/08/0784 3 Porters

7

5.3 (Contd) PART 5

5. The whole of the land owned by the appellants (not just the appeal site) benefits from a Certificate of Lawful Existing Use (CLEU) granted in 2002 for the stationing of 2 residential caravans. It is the appellants’ case that the proposed 2 dwellings would replace the 2 authorised residential caravans, resulting in no increased residential use of the land.

6. I accept that if implementation of the appeal proposal effectively

superseded the CLEU, then there would be no additional residential use of the site from that which currently takes place and no conflict, in principle, with the aims of the development plan to restrict new dwellings in the countryside. But I am not satisfied that this would necessarily be the case. As I have indicated, the CLEU covers the whole of the appellant’s land, not just the appeal site. One of the mobile homes is outside, or partly outside, the boundary of the appeal site. The appeal site does not include the existing centrally placed access to the site and so implementation of the appeal proposal would still allow separate access to the rest of the site which is large enough to comfortably accommodate 2 mobile homes. I am not satisfied that implementation of the appeal proposal would fully extinguish the rights granted by the CLEU and thus the retention of one or 2 mobile homes on the remainder of the appellants’ land might still be lawful. If this were to be the case there would be an increase in the number of residential units in the countryside contrary to well established policies.

7. Although the Council has not explicitly raised an issue concerning the

effect on the CLEU, one of the Council’s suggested conditions is that no development should take place until a planning obligation or other legally binding agreement has been concluded with the Council relating to the cessation of the lawful use of the site for the stationing of residential caravans. This condition can only have been suggested because of the Council’s concern that the proposal would not fully and effectively supersede the CLEU. The appellant has objected to the imposition of such a condition on the grounds that it is contrary to the advice in Circular 11/95 The Use of Conditions in planning Permissions. The Circular (paragraph 13) clearly indicates that: Permission cannot be granted subject to a condition that the applicant enters into a planning obligation under section 106 of the Act or an agreement under other powers. The suggested condition would be in breach of this advice and it would be unreasonable to impose such a condition. The objection I have identified to the principle of the development cannot therefore be overcome and is sufficient reason to dismiss the appeal.

Continued . . .

Page 167: SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING SERVICES...2008/10/09  · • Minutes of last Planning Committee Meeting • Minutes of any Working Party Meetings 2.1 OSPRINGE SW/08/0784 3 Porters

8

5.3 (Contd) PART 5

Character and appearance 8. The development in the vicinity of the appeal site is very mixed

in terms of both scale and appearance. Immediately to the east is a substantial chalet style dwelling beyond which is a restaurant and beyond that a large former oast with a modern industrial building behind it. On the western side of the appellants’ land is another dwelling with industrial premises adjoining it. The appeal site is below the level of the A2 road and generally below the ground level of the buildings on either side. As a result of this difference in levels and the fencing and planting along most of the frontage of the appellants land, the existing mobile homes are not prominent. One is seen through the access and the other 2 are seen across the front garden of the adjoining dwelling. To the rear of the appeal site is a long industrial-like building, but this is at a lower level than the appeal site and in summer at least is fairly well screened from the road by the hedge along the rear of the appellants’ land. Despite the presence of the mobile homes on the site, the appellants’ land has a relatively open appearance when viewed from the road as a result of the low height of the mobile homes and the remaining unused parts of the site. The character of the site contrasts with the more substantial nearby buildings. Although the appeal site is in the countryside, I consider that the locality has only a semirural character because of the scale of existing buildings.

9. The proposed dwellings that are illustrated on the submitted plans

would be much more noticeable when passing the site than the existing mobile homes. The roofs would be visible above the boundary fence and hedging and the height, bulk and close spacing of the suggested dwellings would result in the appeal site having a predominantly built-up character. The effect of the development would be to noticeably consolidate and reinforce frontage development on this side of the A2 and to remove the sense of openness which the appeal site currently provides. The semi-rural character of the area would be further eroded. I therefore consider that the dwellings as illustrated would conflict with the policy E1 criterion 6 of the local plan, which seeks development to be of a scale appropriate to the location, and with policy E6 to protect the character of the countryside.

10. Given that scale and appearance are reserved matters, I have

considered whether a lesser form of development than that illustrated would be acceptable. In my view, provided that the proposed dwellings were single storey only, with relatively modest ridge heights to the roof and retained some space around each dwelling, then there would not be the noticeable harmful impact I have described above. If the appeal were otherwise acceptable, I could impose a condition requiring the details submitted in pursuit of the reserved matters to be for single storey dwellings only.

Continued . . .

Page 168: SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING SERVICES...2008/10/09  · • Minutes of last Planning Committee Meeting • Minutes of any Working Party Meetings 2.1 OSPRINGE SW/08/0784 3 Porters

9

5.3 (Contd) PART 5

11. My assessment above is made in the context suggested by the appellants, namely that the proposed dwellings would replace the existing mobile homes. However, I have already concluded that the CLEU may still allow the siting of one or 2 mobile homes on the appellants land to the west of the appeal site, so the proposed dwellings would be additional to rather than instead of the mobile homes. If that were to be the case, the cumulative effect of all the development on the appellant land would reinforce the harm from the 2 dwellings suggested in the appellants’ illustrative plans. Furthermore, I note that the appellants previously proposed caravan storage and 4 mobile homes for rent on their land adjoining the appeal site. Although that application was refused, it highlights the uncertainty of assessing the overall impact of the appeal proposal when the future of the remaining land is unresolved.”

Observations An interesting decision. The Inspector, disappointingly, has accepted the

principle of permanent residential development replacing the mobile homes here, but has dismissed the appeal on the basis that no suitable legal agreement was put forward by the appellants to extinguish the lawful use of the appeal site and the adjoining site for the stationing of residential caravans.

Without such an agreement, the Inspector considered that the proposed

dwellings would result in an increase in the number of residential units on the site, unacceptable in principle, and harmful to the character and appearance of the area.

Responsible Officer: Rob Bailey (Area Planning Officer) List of Background Papers 1. Planning Inspectorate Appeal Decision reference: APP/V2255/A/08/2073626 2. Appeal Papers (statements and correspondence) 3. SBC Decision on Application SW/07/0923

Page 169: SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING SERVICES...2008/10/09  · • Minutes of last Planning Committee Meeting • Minutes of any Working Party Meetings 2.1 OSPRINGE SW/08/0784 3 Porters

10

PART 5 5.4 SW/07/1209 (Case 22954) – Detached House - Land adjacent 45 Imperial

Drive, Warden, Isle of Sheppey, Kent, ME12 4SB APPEAL DISMISSED The Inspector commented as follows:

“Procedural Matters 2. Since the planning application was determined the emerging Local

Plan has been adopted. I have therefore dealt with the appeal on this basis.

Main Issues 3. I consider the two main issues to be a) the effect of the appearance of

the proposed dwelling on the character of the streetscene and sense of openness with reference to its form, mass and siting and; b) the effect of the proposal on highway safety.

Reasons Character and appearance 4. The appeal property, 45 Imperial Drive, is a semi-detached dwelling in

a built up residential area comprising mainly semi-detached houses or staggered terraces. The site comprises a prominent corner plot currently occupied by single storey, flat roofed garages and partially enclosed by a concrete fence. Although currently unattractive, the site nevertheless provides a visual break in the built up two storey form of development affording a semi-open aspect.

5. The appellant proposes a two storey, two bedroom detached dwelling

facing Imperial Drive. Two parking spaces, accessed from Emerald View, would be provided for number 78 to the rear of the new dwelling.

6. The proposed dwelling because it would be uncharacteristically

detached, have an unusual three dimension form (resulting from the unequal roof pitch), and the elevational treatment and fenestration pattern, would, in my view appear as an alien form of development here.

7. The removal of the garages and concrete fence is to be welcomed as

this would reinforce the open plan nature of the original development. However, the construction of a two storey dwelling, as proposed, would to my mind be detrimental to the existing sense of openness and thereby the character and appearance of the area. Further, in order to provide a private garden area a high fence is proposed to the Emerald View frontage, thereby further reinforcing the feeling of enclosure.

Continued . . .

Page 170: SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING SERVICES...2008/10/09  · • Minutes of last Planning Committee Meeting • Minutes of any Working Party Meetings 2.1 OSPRINGE SW/08/0784 3 Porters

11

5.4 (Contd) PART 5

8. I saw that there are few if any undeveloped corner plots such as this. However, the openness of the overall development has been retained by the careful positioning of the corner properties, such as the dwelling opposite the appeal site, so as to reinforce the feeling of openness.

9. In respect of the first main issue I conclude that the proposed

development by virtue of its form, design and siting would be an intrusive feature, detrimental to the streetscene and visual amenity of the area and would not accord with the objectives of Policy QL2 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan (SP) and Policy E1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008 (LP), as it relates to the quality of design.

Highway safety 10. From what I saw on the occasion of my visit very few if any properties

currently have on site turning. There has been no evidence advanced in this case to support the contention that lack of on site turning has been detrimental to highway safety in the past and therefore would be here. Furthermore, as access would be across an open area laid to grass and the proposed fence line would be set 4.0 metres or so from the kerb line, I believe that, even having regard to the site’s close proximity to the road junction, there would be adequate forward visibility. I appreciate that parked cars could, at peak times, reduce visibility for those leaving the site. However, they would also have the effect of reducing the road width and therefore forward visibility for road users, making them travel more slowly and with more caution.

11. I conclude in respect of the second main issue that the proposal would

not be detrimental to highway safety and therefore accords with LP Policy E1.

12. A new dwelling here would afford the opportunity of tidying up the area

andmaking it less attractive as a gathering point for young people. However, I consider that these objectives might be achieved in ways, which would not cause the detrimental visual impact of a two storey house as proposed.

13. I have concluded that the proposed development would not adversely

affect highway safety. However, I consider that this factor is outweighed by the unacceptable harm that would ensue to the character and appearance of the area. To my mind this is a compelling objection. I have considered all other matters raised, but none change my overall conclusion, based on the planning merits of the proposal, that the appeal should not succeed.”

Continued . . .

Page 171: SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING SERVICES...2008/10/09  · • Minutes of last Planning Committee Meeting • Minutes of any Working Party Meetings 2.1 OSPRINGE SW/08/0784 3 Porters

12

5.4 (Contd) PART 5 Observations This was always a marginal case, but here the Inspector concluded that the

proposed development would adversely affect the openness of the site, to the detriment of the character of the Estate, although he did not share the Council’s concern over highway safety. The decision on highway matters is consistent with the original advice from Kent Highway Services.

Responsible Officer: Graham Thomas (Area Planning Officer) List of Background Papers 1. Planning Inspectorate Appeal Decision reference:

APP/V2255/A/08/2072156/WF 2. Appeal Papers (statements and correspondence) 3. SBC Decision on Application SW/07/1209

Page 172: SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING SERVICES...2008/10/09  · • Minutes of last Planning Committee Meeting • Minutes of any Working Party Meetings 2.1 OSPRINGE SW/08/0784 3 Porters

13

PART 5 5.5 SW/07/1446 (Case 23036) Detached chalet bungalow – Adjacent 1 Danes

Drive, Bayview, Leysdown, Sheppey, Kent, ME12 4AJ APPEAL DISMISSED The Inspector commented as follows: �

“Procedural Matters 2. Since the planning application was determined the emerging Local

Plan has been adopted. I have therefore dealt with the appeal on this basis.

Main Issues 3. I consider the main issues to be; firstly, the effect of the proposed

development on the character or appearance of the area and; secondly, whether it would provide adequate private amenity space for both the present occupiers of 1 Danes Drive and the future occupiers of the proposed dwelling.

Reasons Character and appearance 4. The property the subject of this appeal is a detached chalet bungalow

located within a built-up suburban area, characterised by detached bungalows and chalets of a variety of styles and dates. All appeared to be set in deep garden plots with some virtually filling their gardens side to side. The site, which although wide is not as deep as that of neighbouring properties, is located on the corner of Danes Drive and Mustards Road.

5. The appellant proposes the construction of a two bedroom detached

chalet with an attached garage to the west of the existing dwelling. The new dwelling has been designed to suit the narrow plot on which it would be located. Having regard to the design of neighbouring dwellings, many of which are eaves on to the street and sit on relatively wide plots, I consider that the dwelling as designed would appear unduly cramped. I believe, therefore, that it would be an inappropriate addition contrary to the established grain of development appearing as an incongruous intrusion into the street scene.

6. I conclude in respect of the first main issue that the proposal would be

detrimental to the character and appearance of the area contrary to the objectives of Kent and Medway Structure Plan (SP) Policy QL1 and Swale Borough Local Plan 2008 (LP) Policies E1 and E19 as they relate to the quality of design and the impact of development on the character and appearance of an area.

Living conditions 7. If the plot were to be divided as proposed the existing property would

retain a narrow rear garden, the majority of which would be used for parking. In addition, there would be two small Continued . . .

Page 173: SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING SERVICES...2008/10/09  · • Minutes of last Planning Committee Meeting • Minutes of any Working Party Meetings 2.1 OSPRINGE SW/08/0784 3 Porters

14

5.5 (Contd) PART 5

garden areas in front of the chalet facing on to Danes Drive and Mustards Road both open to public view. Only a relatively small private side garden would be provided to the west. Although modest in size, I agree with the Council that the existing property has the potential to be a family dwelling and, therefore, having regard to the context of the development, I consider the proposed private garden area to be so unreasonably small as to be likely to impact on the living conditions of residential occupiers.

8. The private garden area of the proposed dwelling is also relatively

small. However, having regard to its modest floor area and limited accommodation proposed, I do not believe that it would be likely to provide family accommodation. Accordingly, in my opinion the garden area would be proportionate.

9. Although I have found the garden area for the proposed dwelling to be

satisfactory and not detrimental to the living conditions of future occupiers, that of the retained dwelling would be inappropriate. Therefore, I conclude in respect of the second main issue that the proposed development would not afford adequate amenity space for future residential occupiers. In this respect this proposal would be contrary to the underlying objectives of the Structure and Local Plan policies to which I have been referred.

10. The appellant has drawn my attention to a number of recently

constructed properties in the Borough, including one nearby at St Clements Close, which also have small gardens. Whatever the background to those cases, they do not justify permitting this development, which for the reasons given I have found to be harmful and thereby contrary to the objectives of the development plan. For the reasons given above and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should not succeed.”

Observations A good decision, where the Inspector agreed that the proposed development

would have a detrimental affect on the residential amenity of the existing property and the character and appearance of the streetscene.

Responsible Officer: Graham Thomas (Area Planning Officer) List of Background Papers 1. Planning Inspectorate Appeal Decision Reference: APP/V2255/A/08/2072081. 2. Appeal Papers (Statements and Correspondence).

Page 174: SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING SERVICES...2008/10/09  · • Minutes of last Planning Committee Meeting • Minutes of any Working Party Meetings 2.1 OSPRINGE SW/08/0784 3 Porters

15

PART 5 5.6 SW/01/0211 (Case 05962) Lawful Development Certificate Application for

residential use of barn – 18 The Courtyard, Seed Road, Newnham, and Enforcement Notice Appeal regarding alterations to the barn

APPEALS DISMISSED The Secretary of State decided as follows:

“TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 - SECTIONS 174 & 195 RE-DETERMINATION OF APPEALS BY MR R LEE LAND AT 18 THE COURTYARD, SEED ROAD, NEWNHAM, KENT 1. I am directed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local

Government to say that, with apology for the delay, consideration has been given to the report of the Inspector, G P Bailey MRICS, who held an inquiry on 22 and 23 May 2007 into your client's appeals against two decisions by Swale Borough Council as follows:

Appeal 1069263 (referred to below as 'A')

(i) the Council's refusal on 3 May 2001 to grant a certificate of

lawful use or development (LDC ) for residential use of a barn; and

Appeal 1099319 (referred to below as 'B') (ii) the Council's issue of an enforcement notice on 15 August

2002 alleging, without planning permission:

(1) the construction at the northern end of the barn-type structure of an extension providing an additional WC cloakroom area, the approximate position of which is shown hatched blue on 'Plan 2' attached to the notice;

(2) the construction of a new wall or wooden panel enclosing the

previously open-fronted aspect of the eastern elevation of the barn-type structure, the position of which is shown edged green on 'Plan 2' attached to the notice;

(3) the inclusion of uPVC windows and doors to the barn-type

structure; and (4) the construction of a new slate roof to the barn-type structure

(front elevation only). Both appeals relate to land at 18 The Courtyard, Seed Road, Newnham, Kent. 2. On 1 February 2006 the appeals were recovered for the Secretary of

State's own determination, in exercise of the powers under paragraph 3(1) of Schedule 6 to the 1990 Act. This was on the ground that the appeals raise significant legal difficulties.

Continued . . .

Page 175: SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING SERVICES...2008/10/09  · • Minutes of last Planning Committee Meeting • Minutes of any Working Party Meetings 2.1 OSPRINGE SW/08/0784 3 Porters

16

5.6 (Contd) PART 5

Inspector's recommendation and summary of the decision 3. A copy of the Inspector's report is enclosed and forms part of this

decision letter. He recommended that appeal A be dismissed, and that appeal B be dismissed and the enforcement notice upheld subject to a correction and variations.

4. The formal decision is at paragraph 17 below. For the reasons given

the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector's conclusions and with his recommendation in respect of both appeals. All references in this letter to paragraph numbers, unless otherwise stated, are to the Inspector's report (IR).

Procedural matters 5. The Secretary of State notes the history of legal challenges to

previous decisions on these appeals (IRl-4) and the way in which the appeals were dealt with at the inquiry and reported (IR5-9). In particular, she notes that, in respect of your client's appeal against the enforcement notice (Appeal B), grounds (c), (d) and (f) were withdrawn at the start of the inquiry, so that this appeal proceeded solely on ground (a), together with the deemed planning application.

Policy considerations 6. With regard to ground (a) of appeal B and the deemed planning

application, the Secretary of State has had regard to section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, which requires that deveiopment proposals be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The development plan for the locality includes the Kent and Medway Structure Plan which was adopted in 2006, after the issue date of the enforcement notice and the last of the previous three inquiries, and the Swale Borough Local Plan adopted in 2000 (IR25). A review of the Local Plan is underway, but relevant policies remain largely unchanged (IR334).

7. The Secretary of State has had regard to the location of the appeals

site within the designated Kent Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and the designated North Downs Special Landscape Area. The site lies adjoining, but just beyond, the designated boundary of the built-up area of the village of Newnham and is therefore considered to be within the open countryside for the purposes of applying national and local planning policies (IR22-26).

8. In terms of national policy guidance relevant to LDCs and enforcement

notices, the Secretary of State has taken into account as material considerations: Planning Policy Guidance Note 18 (PPG18) on Enforcing Planning Control and DOE Circular 10/97 on Enforcing Planning Control: Legislative Provisions and Procedural Requirements.

Continued . . .

Page 176: SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING SERVICES...2008/10/09  · • Minutes of last Planning Committee Meeting • Minutes of any Working Party Meetings 2.1 OSPRINGE SW/08/0784 3 Porters

17

5.6 (Contd) PART 5 9. The Secretary of State notes the site's extensive planning history

(IR27-53). The decision of 4 March 2002 dismissing appeal A was quashed in the High Court by consent on 10 September 2002. A second decision of 20 March 2003 dismissing both appeal A and B was unsuccessfully defended in the High Court and quashed by order on 3 September 2003. A third decision of 10 September 2004 allowing both appeals was successfully defended in the High Court on 4 March 2005 but overturned by the Court of Appeal on 17 November 2005 (IR14).

Reasons for decisions Appeal A 10. The relevant standard of proof in LDC applications and appeals is the

balance of probabilities, and the burden of proof is on the appellant. The appellant has to show that the development would have been lawful at the date, of the application.

11. The Secretary of State notes that throughout the process of the

appeals, both parties have accepted that the relevant time period for the claim of continued use is four years. This has also been the position throughout the three High Court hearings and the hearing in the Court of Appeal. On this basis, and taking into account the Inspector's comment that the relevant period for immunity from enforcement action in the case of use as a single dwellinghouse is four years (IR280-81), the Secretary of State sees no good reason to take a different approach. She is satisfied that the critical date in this case is 6 March 1997, being 4 years prior to the LDC application.

12. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector on his identification

and assessment of the key issues in this case and notes his consideration of the relevant Court judgements and their ramifications (IR287-301). While an authoritative view on a point of law is a matter for the Courts, it appears to her that the Inspector had reasonable grounds for considering that the appellant would be able to rely on the outcome of the High Court proceedings in 2002 in regarding the use of the barn as not being in breach of the extant enforcement notice issued on 3 February 1999 (IR290). She also considers it reasonable, like the Inspector, to attach appropriate weight to the fact that the Council, as codefendant in those proceedings, did not then pursue their argument that the extant 1999 enforcement notice would be binding on caravans kept in the barn. The Secretary of State therefore agrees with the Inspector's reasoning and concludes that it would be inappropriate to revive this issue in the context of redetermining these appeals.

13. The Secretary of State also agrees with the Inspector's view that, in

the light of the High Court decision in 20031 and as a matter of fact and degree, the two caravans in question could reasonably be

1By HHJ Rich QC (sitting as Deputy High Court Judge)

Continued . . .

Page 177: SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING SERVICES...2008/10/09  · • Minutes of last Planning Committee Meeting • Minutes of any Working Party Meetings 2.1 OSPRINGE SW/08/0784 3 Porters

18

5.6 (Contd) PART 5 considered as being permanently stationed in the barn (IR293). That

being so, although the High Court's dismissal of the Council's challenge to the third decision was overturned by the Court of Appeal in 2005, it appears to the Secretary of State that two principles were established, as noted by the Inspector (IR295) and carried forward into his analysis, which should inform her conclusions on appeal A:

• It should be determined whether or not the local planning authority were able to serve an enforcement notice against the residential use of the barn at any time during the relevant period, and • It should be determined whether or not there was a continuing residential use in breach of planning control during the relevant period.

14. The Secretary of State notes the Inspector's summary of the guidance

given by the Court of Appeal (IR296-301) on the application of these principles; and she agrees with the Inspector's approach in IR302-325, leading to his conclusions in IR326-327 on appeal A on the available evidence, as a matter of fact and degree. The Secretary of State therefore concludes, in agreement with the Inspector, that evidence has not been established, on the balance of probabilities, to demonstrate a continuous use of the barn as a single dwellinghouse or for residential use, such that the local planning authority could have taken enforcement action at any point, in the period of four years prior to the date of the LDC application. Accordingly, she concludes that the appeal against the Council's refusal of the LDC application should be dismissed.

Appeal B 15. The Secretary of State endorses the Inspector's view that the

enforcement notice should be corrected so that the requirements of the notice reflect the fact that the windows are wooden and not uPVC (IR328-9) and should refer to the "roof covering" rather than "slate roof". In the light of the decision on appeal A, she concludes that the unauthorised alterations, intended to facilitate the continuation of what is concluded to be an unauthorised residential use of the barn, are contrary to the various policies noted by the Inspector (IR332-337) and contrary to local amenity. In these circumstances she concludes that the enforcement notice should be upheld.

Overall Conclusion 16. The Secretary of State therefore agrees with the Inspector's overall

conclusion (IR341-342) for the reasons he gives, and is satisfied that, subject to the correction and variation of the enforcement notice as recommended by the Inspector, the appeals should be dismissed.

Formal decision 17. For the reasons given above, the Secretary of State accepts the

Inspector's recommendations that:

Continued . . .

Page 178: SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING SERVICES...2008/10/09  · • Minutes of last Planning Committee Meeting • Minutes of any Working Party Meetings 2.1 OSPRINGE SW/08/0784 3 Porters

19

5.6 (Contd) PART 5

• Appeal A should be dismissed and a lawful development certificate should not be granted. • Appeal B be dismissed, the enforcement notice upheld as corrected and varied! as set out in the annex to this letter and that planning permission be refused on the application deemed to have been made under section 177(5) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).

Right to challenge the decision 18. A separate note is attached setting out the circumstances in which the

validity of the Secretary of State's decision may be challenged by making an application to the High Court within twenty eight days or six weeks2 of the date of this letter.

19. A copy of this ietter with the Inspector's report has been sent to Swale

Borough Council and to all interested parties. Annex to decision reference APP/V2255/X/01/1069263 and C/02/1099319 The enforcement notice is hereby amended and varied so that: (1) the breach of planning control alleged at paragraph 3 (3) of the notice

reads: "the inclusion of windows and doors to the barn type structure"; (2) the breach of planning control alleged at paragraph 3 (4) reads: "the

construction of a new roof covering to the barn type structure (front elevation only)";

(3) the requirement of the notice at paragraph 5 (2) of the notice reads:

"remove all windows and doors incorporated in the barn type structure";

and (4) the requirement at paragraph 5 (3) reads: "remove the roof covering

from the front elevation of the barn type structure, and replace with materials similar to that existing on the remainder of the roof of the barn type structure.

2In the case of a challenge under section 289 or 288 (respectively) of the 1990 Act"

Observations These are very long coming but very welcome decisions, following a record

fourth public inquiry held in May 2007. The issues revolved around whether the appellant had occupied the barn as a dwelling for at least four continuous years prior to his Lawful Development Certificate application, and whether as a dwellinghouse, he enjoyed rights to alter its appearance.

Continued . . .

Page 179: SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING SERVICES...2008/10/09  · • Minutes of last Planning Committee Meeting • Minutes of any Working Party Meetings 2.1 OSPRINGE SW/08/0784 3 Porters

20

5.6 (Contd) PART 5 It has been found that continuous residential use was not established, and

that the alterations to the building should be undone. The decision reflects the conclusion of the Inspector’s separate 67 page report, a copy of which has been sent to the Ward Member.

After the first appeal decision we issued two Enforcement Notices, one the

subject of these decisions, and another prohibiting residential use of the barn. We will now be seeking compliance with the terms of both Notices.

Responsible Officer: Graham Thomas (Area Planning Officer) List of Background Papers 1. Secretary of State’s letter dated 10 September 2008 Ref:

APP/V2255/C/02/1099319 and APP/V2255/X/01/1069263. 2. Appeal Statements 3. Lawful Development Certificate application SW/01/0211. 4. SBC Enforcement Notices dated 15 August 2002

Page 180: SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING SERVICES...2008/10/09  · • Minutes of last Planning Committee Meeting • Minutes of any Working Party Meetings 2.1 OSPRINGE SW/08/0784 3 Porters

21

PART 5 5.7 SW/07/0156 (Case 20523) Erection of detached bungalow with integral

garage – Land to rear of 42 Cliff Gardens, Minster, Sheppey, Kent APPEAL ALLOWED The Inspector commented as follows: �

“Decision 1. I allow the appeal, and grant planning permission for a detached

bungalow with integral garage at land rear of 42 Cliff Gardens, Minster, Sheppey, Kent ME12 3QY in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref SW/07/0156, dated 5 February 2007, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the conditions in the Schedule to this decision.

Reasons 2. The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on the

character and appearance of the area, and its effect on highway safety.

Character and appearance 3. The appeal site is in a residential area and consists of part of the large

back gardens of 42 and 44 Cliff Gardens. The existing dwellings are on the outside of a bend and the gardens splay out to the rear, so that the proposed development would lie within a large plot which would still leave sufficient garden space for the host properties. There would be ample separation between the proposed bungalow and nearby dwellings, and the Council raise no issue in relation to overlooking. The site slopes down from Cliff Gardens northwards towards the Thames Estuary, with a fall of about 7m overall, and there is mature tree and shrub screening to the rear and eastern boundaries of the site. The proposed single-storey dwelling could be glimpsed in the gap between Nos.42 and 44 but at a distance and downhill, and I consider that it would not have a significant impact on the street scene or on the appearance of the area. The area is one of frontage development and I recognise that development which is unacceptable in principle is not justified merely by being visually discreet. However in this case I find that the particular location, dimensions and layout of this backland plot would not make development for one bungalow harmful in principle to the character of the neighbourhood. A scheme for more than one dwelling, or on another site in the locality, would be a different matter altogether and would have to be judged on its own merits. I conclude on this issue that the proposed development would not conflict with Policies E1, H1 and H2 of the Swale Borough Local Plan First Review (LP).

Continued . . .

Page 181: SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING SERVICES...2008/10/09  · • Minutes of last Planning Committee Meeting • Minutes of any Working Party Meetings 2.1 OSPRINGE SW/08/0784 3 Porters

22

5.7 (Contd) PART 5 Highway safety 4. The access is the existing drive of No.42, which runs between the

flank walls of Nos.42 and 44 and would be extended to serve the proposed bungalow and a parking area for 2 cars in the reduced back garden of the host dwelling. The access lies on the outside of a bend, and adequate visibility is available for emerging vehicles. Most properties in the road have curtilage parking, though few have turning space on site and most would have to reverse into or out of their property. There was only a moderate amount of on-street parking at the time of my visit. Cliff Gardens is a loop road and the site lies near the apex of that loop, such that only local traffic for the dwellings which it serves is likely to use the road. I recognise that the existing drive is narrow where it runs between the flank walls of Nos.42 and 44, such that two cars could not pass each other there. A driver wishing to enter the access at the same time as an emerging vehicle would have to wait in the road, possibly reversing back out of the entrance to do so. However, the proposed drive would serve only two dwellings. In the light of the relatively low volume of traffic on the road, in which reversing movements out of drives is not unusual, I consider that the frequency of such encounters would not be so great as to give rise to a hazard to road safety. The width of the drive south of the front elevation of No.42, and the size and layout of the parking and turning area for that house as well as for the proposed bungalow, could be a matter for condition. I conclude that the proposed development would not conflict with LP Policy E1.

Conditions 5. The Council suggested a number of conditions to be used should the

appeal be allowed. I have imposed those regarding external materials and landscaping in the interests of the appearance of the area, those concerning the burning of waste and hours of construction work to protect the living conditions of neighbours, and ones requiring details of the access, parking and turning areas and their retention to preserve highway safety. I have amended the suggested conditions as necessary in accordance with advice in Circular 11/95.

Conclusion 6. I saw that there are two secondary habitable room windows in the

flank wall of No.42 but I find that the increased use of the existing drive generated by one additional dwelling would not be such as to give rise to unacceptable noise and disturbance to the occupiers of the host property. I have considered these and all other matters put before me but none outweigh the considerations that have led me to my conclusion that the appeal should be allowed.

Schedule of conditions 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three

years from the date of this decision.

Continued . . .

Page 182: SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING SERVICES...2008/10/09  · • Minutes of last Planning Committee Meeting • Minutes of any Working Party Meetings 2.1 OSPRINGE SW/08/0784 3 Porters

23

5.7 (Contd) PART 5 2) No development shall take place until samples of the materials to be

used in the construction of the external surfaces of the building hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

3) No development shall take place until full details of both hard and soft landscape works and a programme for their implementation have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority and these works shall be carried out as approved in accordance with the programme. These details shall include existing features; planting schedules of plants showing species, plant sizes and numbers; means of enclosure; hard surfacing materials.

4) Any trees or shrubs which within a period of 5 years from the completion of the approved landscaping scheme die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species, unless the local planning authority gives written approval to any variation.

5) No burning of waste or refuse shall take place on site during the construction works other than as may be agreed in writing by the local planning authority.

6) Demolition or construction works shall not take place outside 0730 hours to 1900 hours Mondays to Fridays and 0730 hours to 1300 hours on Saturdays and at no time on Sundays or Bank Holidays.

7) No development shall take place until details of the southern part of the access up to the front elevation of 42 Cliff Gardens, which shall be a minimum of 4.1 metres wide, shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority and these works shall be carried out as approved before the dwelling hereby permitted is first occupied.

8) No development shall take place until details of the areas for parking and turning for the dwelling hereby permitted and for 42 Cliff Gardens shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority and these works shall be carried out, drained and surfaced in accordance with the approved details before the dwelling hereby permitted is first occupied. Those areas area shall not thereafter be used for any purpose other than the parking and turning of vehicles.”�

� Observations A baffling decision, where the Inspector appears to have considered this

backland development, with access via a narrow driveway directly adjacent to a flank wall, comprising two habitable rooms, acceptable. An extremely disappointing result, which should not be treated as a precedent.

Responsible Officer: Graham Thomas (Area Planning Officer) List of Background Papers 1. Planning Inspectorate Appeal Decision Reference: APP/V2255/A/08/2062257. 2. Appeal Papers (Statements and Correspondence). 3. Application Papers and Correspondence for Application SW/07/0156

Page 183: SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING SERVICES...2008/10/09  · • Minutes of last Planning Committee Meeting • Minutes of any Working Party Meetings 2.1 OSPRINGE SW/08/0784 3 Porters

24

PART 5 5.8 SW/07/1194 – Post and rail fencing – Former Keycol Hospital Site, Rook

Lane, Bobbing, Nr Sittingbourne, Kent APPEAL ALLOWED The Inspector commented as follows:

“Appeal Ref: APP/V2255/A/08/2071135 Former Keycol Hospital, Rooks View, Bobbing, Sittingbourne, Kent, ME9 8GB.

• The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission.

• The appeal is made by Taylor Wimpey Developments Ltd against the decision of Swale Borough Council.

• The application Ref SW/07/1194, dated 11 October 2007, was refused by notice dated 11 December 2007

• .The development proposed is to erect rustic post and rail fence along part of Rook Lane frontage.

Decision 1. I allow the appeal and grant planning permission to erect rustic post

and rail fence along part of Rook Lane frontage at Former Keycol Hospital, Rooks View, Bobbing, Sittingbourne, Kent, ME9 8GB in accordance with the terms of the application Ref SW/07/1194, dated 11 October 2007, and the plans submitted therewith, subject to the condition that the development hereby permitted shall begin before the expiration of three years from the date of this decision.

Procedural Matters 2. Since the planning application was determined the emerging Local

Plan has been adopted. I have therefore dealt with the appeal on this basis.

Main Issues 3. I consider the two main issues to be; a) the effect of the appearance of

the proposal on the character and appearance of the area and; b) the effect of the proposal on highway safety.

Reasons Character and appearance 4. Rooks View is a residential development of new detached houses

nearing completion. It fronts on to both Keycol Hill (the main A2) and Rook Lane. However, the area of land forming the corner of Keycol Hill and Rook Lane is occupied by a large depot. The character and appearance of the two frontages are distinctly different and visually separated by the depot.

Continued . . .

Page 184: SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING SERVICES...2008/10/09  · • Minutes of last Planning Committee Meeting • Minutes of any Working Party Meetings 2.1 OSPRINGE SW/08/0784 3 Porters

25

5.8 (Contd) PART 5 5. The Keycol Hill frontage is suburban in character. The original ornate

brick boundary wall, brick gate piers and iron railings have been retained. In my opinion this is an appropriate boundary treatment here, reinforcing the historical use of the site and its relationship to the street scene.

6. The development’s frontage to Rook Lane is, however, rural in character facing over open countryside to the south eastern side of the lane. The land between the access drives and the lane is laid to grass and falls to the lane edge. To the north east of the appeal site is the Demelza House Hospice. That property’s extensive boundary to the lane is formed by a post and rail style fence with chicken wire infill and planting to the rear similar to what is proposed here.

7. A 1.2 metre high rustic post and rail fence, with a galvanised

mesh infill, running along approximately 80.0 metres of the development’s frontage to Rook Lane, is proposed. In my opinion I consider this to be an appropriate form of boundary treatment here, given the design of the fencing, which in my experience is a typical form of fencing in rural areas, the rural character of the lane, the use of a similar style of fencing on the neighbouring site and the fact that the two frontages of the development are not read together. Accordingly, I conclude in respect of the first main issue that the proposed fencing would not detract from the character and appearance of the area. It therefore accords with Kent and Medway Structure Plan (SP) Policy QL1 and Swale Borough Local Plan 2008 (LP) Policies E1, E6 and E19, as they relate to the quality of design and the character and appearance of the area.

Highway safety 8. The Council and local residents are concerned that the proposed

fence would present an insufficient physical and visual barrier between the front of the development and the lane. Accordingly, they consider that there would be an unacceptable threat to road safety, in particular for children using the open space.

9. Rook Lane is narrow and on the occasion of my visit vehicle

movements were limited. From the evidence before me and what I saw on site I have no reason to think that the lane becomes either excessively busy or, because of the nature of the lane, motor vehicles are likely to travel at inappropriate speeds near the development.

10. The grass area between the access drive and the back of the lane is

narrow, sloping and overlooked. Although, therefore, I note from the letters of objection that children who live in Rooks View do, apparently, meet and play regularly here, I am nevertheless surprised. In my opinion, for the reasons given, I would have thought that this area was unlikely to be attractive to children, particularly as it would appear from the appeal papers that a play area is intended at the top of the development. The Council’s Highway Engineer has not raised

Continued . . .

Page 185: SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING SERVICES...2008/10/09  · • Minutes of last Planning Committee Meeting • Minutes of any Working Party Meetings 2.1 OSPRINGE SW/08/0784 3 Porters

26

5.8 (Contd) PART 5

objections in relation to highway safety issues. Further, no evidence has been submitted, in the form of accident records, to support the contention that this particular stretch of the lane has been prone to accidents.

11. Although the area may be used by children, I am not persuaded that

the relationship of the grass area and the lane in itself is one that would raise concerns in respect of highway safety sufficient to justify the need for an impenetrable barrier. I appreciate that the residents would prefer a wrought iron fence to this boundary. However, I do not consider that in any event such a fence would provide any significantly greater barrier than now proposed. Further, in this context formal railings would, in my view, be inappropriate and incongruous in this rural location. The proposed fence would provide suitable visual separation sufficient to define the private and public spaces.

12. In respect of the second issue I conclude that the proposal would not

be detrimental to highway safety and, therefore, accords with the development plan policies to which I have been referred as they relate to highway safety.

13. I am aware that residents understood when purchasing the properties

that wrought iron gates and fencing would be provided here. However, the marketing of the development is not a matter for my consideration. I have determined this appeal on the planning merits of the proposal.

14. For the reasons given above and having regard to all other matters

raised, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed. As the drawings clearly illustrate what is intended, I see no need to attach conditions, other than the standard time condition.”

Observations �

� Members may be disappointed to note this decision. However, the application had been recommended for approval and, as the Inspector observed, the fence will be similar to the front boundary fence to Demelza House, which is located just to the north on Rook Lane.

Responsible Officer: Jim Wilson (Major Projects Officer) List of Background Papers 1. Planning Inspectorate Appeal Decision reference: APP/V2255/A/08/2071135 2. Appeal Papers (statements and correspondence) SW/07/1194