democratic services dover @dover.govmoderngov.dover.gov.uk/data/planning committee... · associated...

Democratic Services White Cliffs Business Park Dover Kent CT16 3PJ

Telephone: (01304) 821199 Fax: (01304) 872300 DX: 6312 Minicom: (01304) 820115 Website: www.dover.gov.uk e-mail: democraticservices @dover.gov.uk

20 April 2010 Dear Councillor NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT a meeting of the PLANNING Committee will be held in the Council Chamber at these Offices on Thursday, 29 April 2010 at 6.00 pm when the following business will be transacted. Members of the public who require further information are asked to contact Pauline Hodding on (01304) 872305 or by e-mail at [email protected]. Yours sincerely Chief Executive Planning Committee Membership: Councillor S G Leith (Chairman) Councillor A F Richardson (Vice-Chairman) Councillor J M Munt (Spokesperson) Councillor T A Bond Councillor S S Chandler Councillor M S Furnival Councillor C J Meredith Councillor J C Record Councillor R J Thompson Councillor R S Walkden DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST Members are required to disclose the existence and nature of a personal interest at the commencement of the item of business to which the interest relates or when the interest becomes apparent. An explanation in general terms of the interest should also be given to the meeting. If the interest is also a prejudicial interest, the Member should then withdraw from the room or chamber.

1

AGENDA 1. APOLOGIES 2. APPOINTMENT OF SUBSTITUTE MEMBERS To note appointments of Substitute Members. 3. MINUTES (Pages 4−6) To confirm the attached Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 8 April 2010. 4. ITEMS DEFERRED (Page 9) To consider the attached report of the Development Control Manager. (For further

information please contact Tim Flisher, extension 2461.) 5. APPLICATIONS WHICH MAY BE SUBJECT TO PUBLIC SPEAKING (Pages 10−58) To consider the attached report of the Development Control Manager. (For further

information please contact Tim Flisher, extension 2461.) 6. APPLICATION NO DOV/09/0873 − ERECTION OF A GP SURGERY, COMMUNITY

CENTRE, 28 FLATS AND 41 HOUSES, RELATED INFRASTRUCTURE AND CAR PARKING − LAND AT GOLF ROAD/CANNON STREET, DEAL (Pages 59−62)

To consider the attached report of the Development Control Manager. 7. ACTION TAKEN IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ORDINARY DECISIONS (COUNCIL

BUSINESS) URGENCY PROCEDURE To raise any matters of concern in relation to decisions taken under the above

procedure and reported on the Official Members' Weekly News. Access to Meetings and Information • Members of the public are welcome to attend meetings of the Council, its Committees

and Sub-Committees. You may remain present throughout them except during the consideration of exempt or confidential information.

• All meetings are held at the Council Offices, Whitfield unless otherwise indicated on the

front page of the agenda. There is disabled access via the Council Chamber entrance and a disabled toilet is available in the foyer. In addition, there is a PA system and hearing loop within the Council Chamber.

• Agenda papers are published five clear working days before the meeting. Alternatively,

a limited supply of agendas will be available at the meeting, free of charge, and all agendas, reports and minutes can be viewed and downloaded from our website www.dover.gov.uk. Minutes are normally published within five working days of each

2

meeting. All agenda papers and minutes are available for public inspection for a period of six years from the date of the meeting. Basic translations of specific reports and the Minutes are available on request in 12 different languages.

• If you require any further information about the contents of this agenda or your right to

gain access to information held by the Council please contact Pauline Hodding, Senior Democratic Support Officer, telephone: (01304) 872305 or email: [email protected] for details.

Large print copies of this agenda can be supplied on request.

3

Agenda Item No 3

Minutes of the meeting of the PLANNING Committee held at the Council Offices, Whitfield on Thursday 8 April 2010 at 6.00 pm.

Present: Chairman: Councillor S G Leith Councillors: T A Bond S S Chandler M S Furnival C E Kirby C J Meredith A F Richardson J M Smith R J Thompson R S Walkden Officers: Development Control Manager Development Engineer, KCC Principal Solicitor Senior Democratic Support Officer The following persons were also in attendance and spoke in connection with the

items indicated: Application No For Against DOV/09/0234 Mr D Jarman Mr D Harvey Apologies for absence were received from Councillors J M Munt and J C Record. 504 SUBSTITUTE MEMBERS It was noted that in accordance with Rule 4 of the Council's Procedure Rules

Councillors C E Kirby and J M Smith had been appointed as substitutes for Councillors J C Record and J M Munt respectively.

505 MINUTES Subject to the removal of Councillor J C Record's name from the list of those

attending, the Minutes of the meeting held on 11 March 2010 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

506 DEFERRED ITEMS The Development Control Manager advised that further information had been

received that day in respect of Application No DOV/09/1114 (26 Kingston Close, River) and recommended that the matter remain deferred to permit submission of a full report.

RESOLVED: That consideration of Application No DOV/09/1114

(26 Kingston Close, River) remain deferred pending preparation of a further report.

4

507 APPLICATIONS WHICH MAY BE SUBJECT TO PUBLIC SPEAKING (1) Application No DOV/08/1119 – Erection of two 2 bedroom dwellings (existing

garage to be demolished) – Land adjoining 2 Chapel Street Deal The Development Engineer KCC confirmed that the parking provision for the

development was in accordance with current policy. RESOLVED: That the application be approved in accordance with the

recommendation of the Development Control Manager. (Councillor A F Richardson declared a personal interest in the application for the

reason that he was employed by the Canterbury Archaeological Trust and the County Archaeologist had recommended a condition.)

(2) Application No DOV/09/0234 – Erection of extensions and refurbishment to

existing fire damaged building to enable use as golfer's accommodation, including 14 self catering flats, gym, bar, lounge, office, together with associated parking and landscaping – The Old Clubhouse, Princes Golf Club, Sandwich Bay, Worth

The Development Control Manager informed Members that since the report had

been written a further letter had been received from Sandwich Bay (Residents) Limited maintaining their previous objections, referring to traffic generation in contravention of PPG13, requesting a traffic plan, disagreeing with the conclusions about the Appropriate Assessment and referring to the outstanding views of the Environment Agency. Committee was advised that the Agency's views had subsequently been received and that it continued to object to the proposal on the grounds of access and egress in extreme flood conditions, high flood risk, the likely rate of flooding, and unsafe ground floor sleeping accommodation. The Agency had also recommended four conditions, should the application be granted, in respect of higher ground floor levels, resilience to flood risk, surface water drainage and a site-specific plan for flood warnings. The Development Control Manager had contacted the Environment Agency earlier that day and been advised that it maintained the objections in principle to overnight ground floor accommodation on the site, drawing attention to the advice in PPS25 Good Practice Guide about safe development and flood risk. The agents believed that there were good reasons to override the Agency’s objections but this was not agreed by the Agency. As a result the recommendation in the report to defer consideration had been changed to a recommendation for refusal of the development on flood risk grounds.

RESOLVED: That in the exceptional circumstances in this instance of the

previous extant planning permission being less safe in terms of flood risk than that currently proposed and notwithstanding the objections of the Environment Agency, subject to the resolution of conditions including those recommended by the Environment Agency, further consideration of the Appropriate Assessment, any necessary S106 Agreement and any other outstanding matters, the application be approved and all necessary conditions be delegated to the Development Control Manager.

(Councillor T A Bond declared a personal and prejudicial interest in the item for the

reason that his employers were engaged in a similar business, and left the room during the debate.

5

Councillor M S Furnival declared a personal interest for the reason that he was an

officer of a different golf club.) The meeting ended at 7.00 pm.

6

IMPORTANT The Committee should have regard to the following preamble During its consideration of all applications on this agenda 1. Section 70(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 requires that, in dealing with an application

for planning permission, the local planning authority shall have regard to the provisions of the Development Plan, so far as material to the application, and to any other material considerations.

2. Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that "If regard is to be had

to the development plan for the purposes of any determination to be made under the planning Acts the determination must be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise."

3. Planning applications which are in accordance with the relevant policies in the Development Plan

should be allowed and applications which are not in accordance with those policies should not be allowed unless material considerations justify granting of planning permission. In deciding such applications, it should always be taken into account whether the proposed development would cause demonstrable harm to interests of acknowledged importance. In all cases where the Development Plan is relevant, it will be necessary to decide whether the proposal is in accordance with the Plan and then to take into account material considerations.

4. In effect, the following approach should be adopted in determining planning applications:-

(a) if the Development Plan contains material policies or proposals and there are no other material considerations, the application should be determined in accordance with the Development Plan;

(b) where there are other material considerations, the Development Plan should be taken as the

starting point and the other material considerations should be weighed in reaching a decision;

(c) where there are no relevant policies in the Development Plan, the planning application should be determined on its merits in the light of all material considerations; and

(d) exceptionally, a development proposal which departs from the Development Plan may be

permitted because the contribution of that proposal to some material, local or national need or objective is so significant that it outweighs what the Development Plan says about it.

5. Section 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 states that, in

considering planning applications for development affecting a listed building or its setting, special regard shall be had to the desirability of preserving the building, its setting or any special features which it possesses. Section 72 requires that special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of conservation areas when considering any applications affecting land or buildings within them. Section 16 requires that, when considering applications for listed building consent, special regard shall be had to the desirability of preserving the listed building, its setting, or features of special architectural or historic interest which it has.

6. Section 38(6) of the 2004 Act does not apply to the determination of applications for advertisement

consent, listed building consent or conservation area consent. Applications for advertisement consent can be controlled only in the interests of amenity and public safety. However, regard must be had to policies in the Development Plan (as material considerations) when making such determinations.

The Development Plan

7. The Development Plan in Dover District is comprised of:- The South East Plan 2009 Dover District Core Strategy 2010 Dover District Local Plan 2002 (saved policies only) Kent Minerals Local Plan : Brickearth 1986 Kent Minerals Local Plan : Construction Aggregates 1993 Kent Minerals Local Plan : Chalk and Clay and Oil and Gas 1997 Kent Waste Local Plan 1997

Human Rights Act 1998 During the processing of all applications and other items and the subsequent preparation of reports and recommendations on this agenda, consideration has been given to the implications of the Human Rights Act 1998 in relation to both applicants and other parties and whether there would be any undue interference in the Convention rights of any person affected by the recommended decision. The key articles are:- Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. Article 1 of the First Protocol - Right of the individual to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.

Account may also be taken of:- Article 6 - Right to a fair trial and public trial within a reasonable time. Article 10 - Right to free expression. Article 14 - Prohibition of discrimination. The Committee needs to bear in mind that its decision may interfere with the rights of particular parties, particularly under Article 8 and Article 1 of the First Protocol. The decision should be a balanced one and taken in the wider public interest, as reflected also in planning policies and other material considerations. (PTS/PLAN/GEN) HUMANRI

9

DOVER DISTRICT COUNCIL Agenda Item No 4 REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT CONTROL MANAGER PLANNING COMMITTEE – 29 APRIL 2010 CONSIDERATION OF THE FOLLOWING ITEMS HAS BEEN

DEFERRED AT PREVIOUS MEETINGS

A verbal report will be given at the meeting. This will include a recommendation as to whether consideration of individual items should remain deferred. It is possible that a decision to approve or refuse may be recommended.

1. DOV/09/1114 Outline application for the erection of a detached

dwelling, 26 Kingston Close, River. (Item 5, 11 March 2010). Deferred pending further information from the applicant. Reported elsewhere on this Agenda.

Background Papers:

Unless otherwise stated, the appropriate application file, the reference of which is stated. TIM FLISHER Development Control Manager The Officer to whom reference should be made concerning inspection of the background papers is Abi Robinson, Planning Technician, Planning Section, Council Offices, White Cliffs Business Park, Dover (Tel: 01304 872471).

DOVER DISTRICT COUNCIL REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT CONTROL MANAGER

PLANNING COMMITTEE 29 APRIL 2010

NON-DELEGATED APPLICATIONS The Reports The file reference number, a description of the proposal and its location are identified under a) of each separate item. The relevant planning policies and guidance and the previous planning history of the site are summarised at c) and d) respectively. The views of third parties are set out at e); the details of the application and an appraisal of the proposal are set out at f) and each item concludes with a recommendation at g). Additional information received prior to the meeting will be reported verbally. In some circumstances this may lead to a change in the recommendation. Details of the abbreviated standard conditions, reasons for refusal and informatives may be obtained from the Planning Technician (telephone 01304 872471). It should be noted, in respect of points raised by third parties in support of, or objecting to, applications that they are incorporated in this report only if they concern material planning considerations. Each item is accompanied by a plan (for identification purposes only) showing the location of the site and the Ordnance Survey Map reference. Site Visits All requests for site visits will be considered on their merits having regard to the likely usefulness to the Committee in reaching a decision. The following criteria will be used to determine usefulness:

• the matter can only be safely determined after information has been acquired directly from inspecting this site.

• there is a need to further involve the public in the decision making process as a result of

substantial local interest, based on material planning considerations, in the proposals.

• the comments of the applicant or an objector cannot be adequately expressed in writing because of age, infirmity or illiteracy;

The reasons for holding a Committee site visit must be included in the minutes. Background Papers List of background papers: unless otherwise stated, the appropriate file in respect of each application, save any document which discloses exempt information within the meaning of the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985. The Officer to whom reference should be made concerning inspection of the background papers is Abi Robinson, Planning Technician, Planning, Council Offices, White Cliffs Business Park, Dover (Telephone: 01304 - 872471).

PUBLIC SPEAKING AT PLANNING COMMITTEE

1. The scheme for public speaking at Planning Committee only concerns mattersrelating to individual planning applications contained in the Planning Committeeagenda and not to other matters including Tree Preservation Orders or Enforcementmatters.

2. Any person wishing to speak at the Planning Committee should submit a writtenrequest using a form provided by the Council and indicating whether the speaker is infavour of, or opposed to, the planning application.

3. The period of notice shall be not later than two working days prior to the meeting ofthe Planning Committee.

4. Speaking opportunities shall be allocated on a first come, first served basis but withthe applicant being given first chance of supporting the scheme. Applicants and thirdparties will be notified of any other requests to speak. The identified speaker maydefer to another at the discretion of the Chairman of the Committee.

5. One person shall be allowed to speak in favour of, and one person allowed to speakagainst, each application. The maximum time limit will be three minutes per speakerand each person to speak once only when the application is first considered, even ifan application is considered on more than one occasion. This does not affect aperson’s right to speak at a site visit if the Committee decides one should be held.

6. The procedure to be followed when members of the public address the Committeeshall be as follows:

(a) Chairman introduces item.

(b) Planning Officer updates as appropriate.

(c) Chairman invites members of the public and Ward Councillor(s) to speak, withthe applicant or supporter last.

(d) Planning officer clarifies as appropriate.

(e) Committee debates the application.

(f) The vote is taken.

7. In addition to the arrangements outlined in 5 above, District Councillors, who are notMembers of the Committee may be permitted to address the Planning Committee forthree minutes in relation to planning applications in their Ward. This is subject togiving formal written notice of not less than two working days and of advising whetherthey are for, or against, the proposals. In the interests of balance, a further threeminutes’ representation on the contrary point of view will be allowed from theidentified speaker, or an additional speaker. If other District Councillors wish tospeak, having given similar notice and with the agreement of the Chairman, thisopportunity will be further extended as appropriate.

8. Agenda items will be taken in the order listed.

9. The Chairman may, in exceptional circumstances, alter or amend this procedure asdeemed necessary.

1Index for Planning CommitteeDover District Council

Committee Date: 4/29/2010

Ref. No. 09/01114Location 26 Kingston Close, River

Proposal

DOV/

Outline application for the erection of a detached dwelling (existing garage to be demolished)

Item No. 01 RcmDcn REF

Ref. No. 10/00024Location 3 Malvern Meadow, Temple Ewell

Proposal

DOV/

Erection of an attached granny annexe

Item No. 02 RcmDcn GTD

Ref. No. 10/00043Location 11 St Georges Road, Sandwich

Proposal

DOV/

Erection of a detached garage and associated access (existing shed to be demolished)


Ref. No. 10/00104Location 46 Cranleigh Drive, Whitfield

Proposal

DOV/

Erection of a two storey front extension (existing porch to be demolished)


Ref. No. 10/00111Location Plot Adjoining Mer Vista, Chalk Hill Road, Kingsdown

Proposal

DOV/

Erection of a detached dwelling and widening of the existing vehicular access

Item No. 05 RcmDcn REF

Ref. No. 10/00125Location Franconia, The Droveway, St. Margaret's Bay

Proposal

DOV/

Erection of two detached dwellings and construction of vehicular access (existing dwelling to be demolished)


2Index for Planning CommitteeDover District Council

Committee Date: 4/29/2010

Ref. No. 10/00130Location Site Adjoining, 93 Campbell Road, Walmer, Deal, CT14 7EF

Proposal

DOV/

Outline application for the erection of a detached dwelling


1. a) DOV/09/1114 – Outline application for the erection of a detached dwelling (existing garage to be demolished), 26 Kingston Close, River

b) Summary of Recommendation Planning permission be refused. c) Planning Policies and Guidance South East Plan (SEP): Policies CC1, H5, BE5 and BE6 Core Strategy (CS): Policies CP5 and DM13 Dover District Local Plan (DDLP): Policy HS2 PPS1 – Delivering Sustainable Development PPS3 – Housing PPS5 – Planning for the Historic Environment Kent Design Guide d) Relevant Planning History DOV/98/0597 - New garage and radio mast – granted. e) Consultee and Third Party Responses Conservation Comments: No comments. River Parish Council: No objection to original submission. Letters and Representation: Five letters of objection have been received,

objecting on the following material grounds:

• Loss of privacy, overlooking of bedrooms and gardens; • The plot is in a Conservation Area; • Problems of congestion, if cars are parking along the road; • Drainage problems; • Little space left on the bank for wildlife.

The proposal was readvertised following receipt of amended plans. One

further letter was submitted by a local resident, referring to the vehicle access being a private road and other detailed matters which are not considered to be material.

f) 1. The Site and the Proposal

1.1 The application site relates to a plot of land adjacent to

No. 26 Kingston Close, which is sited at the end of the cul-de-sac. A vehicular access leads off the cul-de-sac to the northwest, providing access to a few more properties (no’s 15 to 25).

1.2 The whole of Kingston Close is within River Conservation Area. 1.3 No. 26 Kingston Close and the other five properties that are sited off

another vehicle access to the southeast are well spaced within good sized curtilages, sited at angles from the road. The properties on the other side of the road (to the south west of the application site) are

terraced properties, which form an arc, with detached garages located close to the road.

1.4 The dwellings in this area are all of a similar design and finished in a

pale grey/brown brick, with white cladding. The area appears open and spacious, with dwellings set back from the road.

1.5 The application site relates to a triangular plot of land, with a road

frontage of 19m. It stretches back between 39m and 44m. The land slopes steeply to the north-east, with steps and terracing to the north-western side of the plot. There is currently a large, pitched roof, double garage within the site, which was granted planning permission in 1998.

1.6 The application seeks outline planning permission for the erection of a

dwelling with all detailed matters reserved. When the proposal was originally submitted, the existing garage was shown to be retained and converted and extended to be used as a dwelling. Elevations were also provided of the proposed dwelling. The applicant’s agent was advised that the proposed elevations were unacceptable. As the proposal is for outline planning permission with design as a reserved matter, it was advised that the proposed elevations should be removed from the scheme and that instead, indicative parameters for the siting, height and scale of the dwelling should be provided, in line with legislative requirements.

1.7 Amended plans and an amended Design and Access Statement were

received, showing a revised indicative layout without proposed elevations, in an attempt to address representations received.

1.8 The garden curtilage at No. 26 Kingston Close would be subdivided to

form the triangular application site and the existing garage would be demolished to enable the erection of a detached dwelling. The indicative siting shows the property to be about 5m from the front boundary, with an L-shaped footprint, built close to the side boundaries. Two parking spaces are shown to the front of the property. Scale parameters indicate the dwelling to have a width of 9m, a depth of 12m and a ridge height of 7m. Two spaces to the front of No. 26 are also shown for replacement parking.

1.9 The applicant’s agent has also submitted a further letter, stating that;

• The previous Committee report states, at Para.3.5 (Agenda Item 5, 11 March 2010), that normally detailed (rather than outline) applications are sought in Conservation Areas;

• However, this outline application originally set out that the

proposed external materials would be consistent with those used in the construction of the neighbouring properties. The applicant was requested to remove these details from the proposal;

• All matters raised by objectors have been adequately

addressed;

• There are no comments from the Conservation Officer and the

Parish Council raises no objections.

2. Planning Policy 2.1 SEP Policy CC1 states that the principal objective of the plan is to

achieve and to maintain sustainable development. 2.2 SEP Policy H5 sets out that positive measures to raise the quality of

new housing, to reduce its environmental impact and facilitate future adaptation to meet changes in accommodation needs will be encouraged.

2.3 SEP Policy BE5 states that all new development should be subject to

rigorous design and sustainability criteria so that the distinctive character of the village is not damaged.

2.4 SEP Policy BE6 requires that proposals that protect, conserve and,

where appropriate, enhance the historic environment and the contribution it makes to local and regional distinctiveness and sense of place should be supported.

2.5 CS Policy DM13 states that provision for parking should be design-

led, based upon the characteristics of the site, locality and nature of the proposed development, informed by the guidance in the Table for Residential Parking.

2.6 DDLP Policy HS2 states that on unallocated sites within the urban

boundaries, housing development will be permitted, provided housing is the most suitable land use.

2.7 PPS1 states that good design should contribute positively to making

places better for people. Development which is inappropriate in its context, or which fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area and the way it functions, should not be accepted.

2.8 PPS3 emphasizes that good design is fundamental to the

development of high quality new housing, which contributes to the creation of sustainable, mixed communities. The priority for development should be previously developed land, in particular vacant and derelict sites and buildings. Reference is also made to the contribution of brown-field sites in providing new housing.

2.9 PPS5 sets out Government policy on Conservation Areas and

development within them. Policies HE6, HE7, HE9 and HE10 are of particular relevance.

2.10 Kent Design Guide gives advice on how to achieve successful layouts.

It covers aspects such as how to incorporate well-designed parking areas, achieve privacy and provide amenity space.

3. Assessment 3.1 The application site is within the village confines of River, so the land

use principle of residential development is acceptable. The principal planning issues are:- • Status of planning application; • Impact on the surrounding area and Conservation Area; • Impact on neighbours; and • Highways implications.

Status of planning application 3.2 It was previously advised to Members (Para. 3.5 of Agenda Item 5, 11

March 2010) that an important point for assessment is whether the character or appearance of the land can be considered to contribute importantly to the Conservation Area and whether an outline application is acceptable in this locality. It is normally expected that detailed applications will be sought in Conservation Areas; the applicant requested deferment so that he could consider these points.

3.3 At the time of the previous Committee meeting, PPG15 applied and Para.

4.18 stated that it will often be necessary to ask for detailed plans of new development in Conservation Areas.

3.4 PPG15 has now been replaced by PPS5. This sets out in Policy HE6 that

the applicant should provide a description of the significance of the heritage assets affected, the contribution of their setting to that significance and an assessment of the impact of the proposal as part of the explanation of the design concept. PPS5 also advises that Local Planning Authorities should not validate applications where the extent of the impact of the proposal on the significance of any heritage assets affected cannot adequately be understood from the application and supporting documents.

3.5 The application was submitted with all matters reserved, but some

detailed plans were submitted. These would have been taken the form of indicative plans, given that the application is for outline planning permission. The detailed elevations originally submitted (but now removed from the scheme) were not, in design terms, considered acceptable. It was suggested early on that the best way forward would be to withdraw the application and that if the applicant wished to pursue the proposal, to submit a detailed application, which he could then take to Appeal if the proposal was still not considered to overcome the concerns identified.

3.6 The applicant has been advised that the application can be determined in

its present form, but that the recommendation would inevitably be for refusal, as, without full details, it is not possible to make the statutory assessment of whether the proposal would preserve or enhance the Conservation Area within which the site is located.

3.7 Moreover, the applicant’s agent has also been advised that it is unlikely

that a dwelling of any design would be acceptable on this site, taking account of the size and shape of the site itself, the spacing of the surrounding properties and the undeveloped nature of the adjoining land.

3.8 However, the applicant has requested that the proposal be assessed in

its current format. Impact on the surrounding area and Conservation Area 3.9 The indicative plans and details have been altered, to show the erection

of a detached building within the plot, rather than the extension and conversion of the existing garage.

3.10 The garage is now shown to be demolished and the indicative siting of

the dwelling is shown further into the plot, with a 5m distance from the roadside boundary.

3.11 In this case, after due consideration of the outline format of the

proposal, it is considered that there is insufficient information in the form of detailed elevations or other plans to assess whether the proposed dwelling would preserve or enhance the special character or appearance of the Conservation Area.

3.12 The supporting plans originally submitted were detailed in as much as

they showed siting and two elevations. An assessment of the impact of the scheme on the Conservation Area may well have been possible although little reliance could have been based on them in view of the application’s outline nature. However, they were not considered to be acceptable in terms of design, scale and siting and the proposal in its originally submitted format would have been recommended for refusal including reference to its impact on the special character and appearance of the Conservation Area. There were also concerns about is relationship to the structure and neighbours.

3.13 The applicant’s agent mentions that the original plans provided details

such as the finish of the proposed dwelling, but these were removed following officer advice. However, the proposal was for all matters to be reserved and so all such details would have been subject to a subsequent Reserved Matters application.

3.14 Although the road frontage of the application site would be of a width

similar to neighbouring properties, the proposed site is tight and decreases in width to a point, making it an awkward and constrained site for residential development. The surrounding plots to the south-east that front the vehicular access off Kingston Close are about twice as big as the application site and they are well spaced and provide an open and spacious feel to the street scene. Moreover, whilst the plots that form an arc around Kingston Close to the south-west of the plot are of a more comparable size to the application site (although they are still larger), the properties are a row of terraces that are set well back from the road and thereby also retain the open character of the area.

3.15 The application site does not reflect the size or shape of any

surrounding plots and the sub-division of the garden area of no. 26 and the incorporation of a new residential unit in such a small site would not preserve or enhance the spacious character of the area.

3.16 Moreover, the site, together with the grass bank to the northwest, currently contributes significantly to the character and appearance of the area by providing an undeveloped, semi-rural feel to the built development. It is difficult to see how the loss of this open space and the creation of any dwelling could be achieved within the plot that would preserve or enhance the special character or appearance of the Conservation Area.

3.17 There is already a building within the application site. However, the

existing building has planning permission for use as a garage – it is a low-key ancillary building, which is used in conjunction with No. 26 and could not be realistically converted without being extended. Its use as an ancillary building involves a much less intensive use of the land than that of a dwelling.

Impact on neighbours 3.18 A number of concerns were received in relation to the originally

submitted plans regarding overlooking issues. The indicative plans now show a dwelling set further back into the site (ie. no longer involving the extension and conversion of the existing garage) and the agent has confirmed that it would not include a front balcony.

3.19 The indicative plans show a dwelling between 9m and 10m from the

boundary of No. 19 opposite and about 24m from the dwelling. This is considered to be a sufficient distance away from the property opposite to prevent unacceptable overlooking from any front-facing windows. It is considered that, subject to details of the design and form of the dwelling received as a Reserved Matters application being acceptable, a dwelling could be achieved in this indicative siting, without resulting in unacceptable loss of privacy through overlooking.

Highways implications 3.20 The Core Strategy Table for Residential Parking sets out that in

suburban locations, 1.5 or 2 spaces are required per dwelling, dependent upon the number of bedrooms proposed. The application form states that the number of bedrooms is unknown at this stage. However, the plans shows provision of two independently accessible spaces, which complies with Core Strategy Policy DM13 for a four-bedroom dwelling.

3.21 Replacement parking for No. 26 is shown on the plan and is

considered acceptable. Conclusion 3.22 It is considered that the amended scheme in outline format does not

enable a full assessment whether the proposal would preserve or enhance the special character or appearance of the Conservation Area in which it is sited and, therefore, is not compliant with policy or Government guidance. None of the matters raised by the agent or third parties overrides this conclusion.

g) Recommendation I PLANNING PERMISSION BE REFUSED on the following ground: (i) Due to

the constrained shape and size of the site and without sufficient information to adequately demonstrate otherwise, the proposal would not relate well to the existing spatial character of the area, resulting in an unsympathetic development which would fail to preserve or enhance the special character or appearance of the Conservation Area. The proposal would thereby be contrary to South East Plan Policy BE6 and the provisions of PPS5: Planning and the Historic Environment.

Case Officer Sarah Platts

2. a) DOV/10/0024 – Erection of an attached granny annex, 3 Malvern Meadow, Temple Ewell

b) Summary of Recommendation Planning permission be granted. c) Planning Policies and Guidance Core Strategy (CS): Policies DM13 and DM9 South East Plan (SEP): Policy CC6 Kent Design Guide Planning Policy Statements: PPS1 d) Relevant Planning History DOV/09/523 – Erection of detached dwelling and vehicular

access – Granted. e) Consultee and Third Party Responses County Highways: No comments. Temple Ewell Parish Council: No objections. Public Representations: 3 letters of objection have been received, which

raise the following material considerations:

• Traffic levels and safety could be adversely affected. • Insufficient parking. • The cumulative effect of the dwelling granted in 2009 with this

proposal would make the site look cramped if both were built.

f) 1. The Site and the Proposal 1.1 The site is within the urban confines, and the property is a detached

house which fronts the quiet cul-de-sac (Malvern Meadow) to the northeast. The house is surrounded by other residential properties to the sides and rear, and is partially screened from these properties by the fences and vegetation marking the boundaries to the site and which vary in height from around 1.3 – 4m high.

1.2 Planning permission for a new dwelling on the site, to the north side of

the house, was granted last year. This was granted as an independent dwelling, with all the necessary amenities thereof, but was in fact to be used simply as an annex for the applicant's elderly parents.

1.3 The applicant has mentioned in conversation prior to submitting the

current application that she has had some difficulties obtaining the necessary permission from other residents in the street in order to link the dwelling granted in 2009 to the drainage. The current proposal would avoid this problem as their permission would not be required for drainage to an extension.

1.4 The current application therefore seeks permission to create an

extension to use as an annex to house the applicant's parents. The extension would be set back from the front of the house by around 5m, would project from its side by around 4m, and would be around 12m long and around 3.5 – 4.5m high, as the site slopes down from front to rear and is thus slightly lower to the rear of the extension than to the front. The height would match that of the existing single storey element to the house to which it would be attached. Due to the gradient of the site, the extension would sit around 1.5m below road level.

1.5 The annexe would accommodate a dinning/sitting area, a kitchen, a

wc/shower room and a bedroom, together with hall and ancillary circulation space. It would have its own external door and an internal door linking to the existing house via the bedroom.

1.6 Also shown on plan is a new site for the existing garage. However,

this was not included in the description of the proposal by the applicant, and it is likely that it would not require planning permission.

1.7 Plans will be on display.

2. Planning Policy

2.1 SEP Policy CC6 states that decisions associated with the development and use of land should respect or enhance the character and distinctiveness of settlements and landscapes, and use innovative design processes to create a high quality built environment.

. 2.2 Planning Policy Statement 1 requires good design which contributes

positively to making places better for people, and states that although visual appearance and architecture of individual buildings are clearly important, good design goes beyond purely aesthetic considerations. It is considered that this infers that the amenity of adjacent properties is also important.

2.3 Kent Design Guide promotes development with good design which is

sympathetic to the existing or surrounding layout, scale, form and architectural style, and the residential amenity of adjacent properties.

2.4 CS Policy DM9 requires accommodation for independent relatives to

be of a size and design appropriate for the intended occupants and designed and located such as to be able to revert to being part of the principle dwelling once the need as an annex has ceased.

2.5 CS Policy DM13 requires 2 parking spaces for a dwelling with 4 or

more bedrooms in a suburban or village location. 3. Assessment

3.1 The main issues for consideration are:

• Principle of the development • Impact on residential amenity

• Impact on visual amenity • Parking & Highways matters.

Principle of the Development 3.2 Policy DM9 requires any annex for dependant relatives to be

appropriate in terms of size and design, and it is considered that the annex proposed would be appropriate for a dependant couple, being on one level, and not overly large. It is also required that the annex be designed and located such as to be readily converted back to part of the principle dwelling once the need for an annex ceases. The annex would be attached to the house with an internal communicating door via the bedroom. This is a somewhat unusual arrangement, but it would not be difficult for the annex to become an integral part of the principal dwelling.

3.3 It is considered that the annex for the applicant’s elderly parents would

be acceptable in principle, in terms of the requirements of Policy DM9.

Impact on Residential Amenity 3.4 The annex would be nearly 15m from the boundary with 11 Malvern

Meadow to the northwest, and over 30m from that dwelling. It would be partially obscured from this property by the vegetation along the boundary between the two properties. Due to the distance between the annex and this property it is unlikely that the proposed side windows would result in significant overlooking. Due to the distance away and height of the annex it would not be likely to have an overshadowing or overbearing affect on the garden or dwelling to No.11.

3.5 The annex would be around 13m from the boundary with 1 Malvern

Meadow, and around 25m from the dwelling. Due to the distance between the properties and the fact that the window to the annex lounge would be further from the boundary than the existing side window to the house, it is unlikely that the annex would have a significantly adverse affect on the amenity of 1 Malvern Meadow in terms of overlooking, loss of light, or overbearing impacts.

3.6 The annex would be around 8m from the rear boundary, facing the

roofs of the dwellings to the rear of the site, which are at a lower level than the application site. Between the annex and these properties is an existing outbuilding which would screen the rear windows from the dwellings to the rear of the site, and due to the distance between the annex and the boundary, it would not be likely to result in a loss of light or have an overbearing effect on the properties to the rear.

Impact on Visual Amenity 3.7 The annex would represent a modest extension to the house in terms

of size and scale, particularly as it would be set back from the street and below road level. It would not be likely to harm the character or appearance of the street scene.

3.8 Members will note that objections have been received regarding the cumulative effect of the proposed extension with the dwelling granted in 2009. However, due to the limited size of the front elevation to the extension, which would not be significantly larger than the existing garage that it would replace, it is considered that should both be erected, the cumulative impact would not be likely to have a significantly different visual effect on the street scene from the proposed dwelling alone. Should Members be minded to approve the application, it is considered that it would not be likely to create a cramped or overcrowded site, or to harm the character or appearance of the street scene. Nevertheless, the applicant has indicated that, should permission be given, she would accept a condition prohibiting the implementation of both permissions, and Members may wish to consider the addition of such a condition.

Parking and Highway Matters 3.9 Members may note that letters of objection have been received

regarding the parking at the site and the potential impact on traffic and road safety. The annex would require the loss of the existing garage. However, the garage to be removed is located several metres further forward than the proposed annex would be, and its removal would improve parking at the site by opening up a wider and longer parking area to the front of the house. Thus, despite the removal of the garage, the site would retain space to park at least 2 cars, which would comply with the requirements of Policy DM13 for a dwelling of this size in this location.

3.10 With regards to traffic safety, no new access would be created, and

the creation of an annex for an elderly couple would not be likely to significantly increase vehicle movements to and from the site. It is considered that the proposed annex would not be likely to significantly affect highway safety.

Conclusion 3.11 In summary, having taken into account all material planning

considerations, it is considered that the proposed development is acceptable, and a favourable recommendation is made.

g) Recommendation PERMISSION BE GRANTED subject to the following conditions:- (i) DP08;

(ii) MA01; (iii) OC01; (iv) Any other conditions to be delegated to the Development Control Manager.

Case Officer Catherine Todd

3. a) DOV/10/0043 – Erection of a detached garage and associated access (existing shed to be demolished), 11 St Georges Road, Sandwich

b) Summary of Recommendation Planning permission be granted. c) Planning Policies and Guidance South East Plan (SEP): Policy CC6 Kent Design Guide Planning Policy Statements: PPS1 d) Relevant Planning History None relevant. e) Consultee and Third Party Responses County Highways: No objections. County Archaeologist: No objections. Sandwich Town Council: No objections, but raises concerns regarding sight

lines and road safety for the new access which is on a bend. Public Representations: 3 letters of objection have been received, which raise

the following summarised material considerations:

• The new access could adversely affect road safety; • The garage would be out of proportion to surrounding properties in

terms of size and have a detrimental impact on the visual amenity of the area;

• The garage would have an adverse affect on residential amenity.


1.1 The site is within the confines of Sandwich, and the property is a

detached house, set at a 45 degree angle from the road within a roughly square plot. To the front the site faces St Georges Road, to the west side and rear are other residential properties, and to the east is a high hedge, footpath and beyond these, a grassed field (the latter in the Conservation Area). The site is separated from its neighbours by fences 1.8-2m high, and from the road to the front by a hedge around 1.8m high.

1.2 The proposal seeks full planning permission to erect a detached

garage with a new vehicle access to serve it. The garage would be L shaped, and around 3.5m high, with a maximum width of around 5.5m, and maximum length of just over 10m. A hardstanding could be constructed, but as this could be constructed under permitted

development rights, details of this are not included within this application.

1.3 Plans will be on display. 2. Planning Policy



positively to making places better for people, and that although visual appearance and architecture of individual buildings are clearly important, good design goes beyond purely aesthetic considerations. It is considered that this infers that the amenity of adjacent properties is also important.



3. Assessment 3.1 The main issues for consideration are:

• Impact on residential amenity; • Impact on visual amenity; • Highways Issues.

Residential Amenity 3.2 The garage would be adjacent to the north and west boundaries, and

around 8m from the nearest dwelling. It would be around 3.5m high and would project above the boundary fences by around 1.5m. This is a reduction in height from the original plans which showed the garage at around 5m high, which would have projected above the fence by around 3m.

3.3 Objections to the proposal on grounds of the possible impact on

residential amenity have been taken into account. Although the garage would be in close proximity to the adjacent properties, it is considered that due to its relatively limited height as shown on the amended plans it would not be likely to result in a significant loss of light to the adjacent gardens or dwellings, or to create an overbearing sense of enclosure to the adjacent properties. The amenity of the adjacent houses and their gardens would not be significantly harmed.

Visual Amenity 3.4 The garage would be set back from the road by around 8m and would

be partially screened from wider views by the boundary hedge along

the road and the fence and vegetation around the rest of the site, as well as by the house itself.

3.5 The design and materials would be sympathetic to the host dwelling

and the street scene, and the amended height would make the garage of a reasonable size and bulk, particularly for a building set so far back from the road and screened and softened in impact by the surrounding boundary treatment and houses.

3.6 Members will note the objections raised regarding the appearance of

the garage. These seem to mainly relate to the size of the garage as shown on the original plans, which would have created an overly high and bulky structure. However it is considered that the amended plans , with the reduced height proposed, would produce a garage of acceptable size, which would be in keeping with the character and appearance of the street scene, and unlikely to harm the visual amenity of the area.

3.7 The new vehicle access would require the loss of a section of the front

boundary hedge around 5m long to allow for adequate access width and site lines. This would slightly reduce the enclosed character of the site, but would not have an adverse effect on the appearance of the site and would not be likely to significantly affect the overall character of the street scene.

Highways Issues 3.8 Objections have been received regarding the potential impact of the

new access on road safety. County Highways have been consulted on the matter and the plans amended to include sight lines to the east side of the access as recommended to maintain road safety.


considerations, including those raised by third parties, it is considered that the proposed development is acceptable, and a favourable recommendation is made.

g) Recommendation I PERMISSION BE GRANTED subject to the following conditions:- (i) DP08;

(ii) The materials to be used on the external surfaces of the garage hereby approved shall be brick and tile to match the existing house (11 St Georges Road), unless otherwise approved in writing by the local planning authority. Reason: In the interests of visual amenity; (iii) The sight lines shown on the approved plans shall be provided prior to the first use of the access and thereafter shall be so maintained. No structure, tree or plant within the approved sight lines shall exceed 0.60 metres in height. Reason: In the interests of road safety and convenience; (iv) DP04; (v) Any other conditions to be delegated to the Development Control Manager.


4. a) DOV/10/0104 – Erection of a two storey front extension (existing porch to be demolished), 46 Cranleigh Drive, Whitfield

b) Summary of Recommendation Planning permission be granted. c) Planning Policies and Guidance South East Plan (SEP): Policy CC6 Kent Design Guide Planning Policy Statements: PPS1 d) Relevant Planning History None relevant. e) Consultee and Third Party Responses Whitfield Parish Council: Objects on ground on the impact on the street

scene. County Archaeologist: No objections. Public Representations: 2 letters of objection have been received, which raise

the following material considerations:

• The extension would not be in keeping with the street scene; • The extension would have an overbearing and overshadowing effect

on the adjacent dwelling (44 Cranleigh Drive); • Surface water from the roof of the extension could overflow onto the

neighbour’s land (44 Cranleigh Drive).


1.1 The site is within the settlement confines. The property is a semi-detached house, set back from the road to the front by around 10m. The other half of the semidetached property is 44 Cranleigh Drive to the northeast. To the southwest is 48 Cranleigh Drive.

1.2 The street scene consists of houses of similar original design and

form, built in the 1960s and 70s, which have evolved over time such that various extensions to the fronts or sides have erased the original uniformity of the street, to create a greater variety of forms and designs.

1.3 The application seeks full planning permission for a two storey

extension to the front of the house. This would be the width of the front of the house, and would project from the existing house by around 2m, replacing the existing porch of the same depth. The extension would be finished with materials to match the existing house and would be hipped with a lower ridge than the house.


2. Planning Policy



positively to making places better for people, and that although visual appearance and architecture of individual buildings are clearly important, good design goes beyond purely aesthetic considerations. It is considered that this infers that the amenity of adjacent properties is also important.



3. Assessment 3.1 The main issues for consideration are:

• Impact on the visual amenity of the street scene; • Impact on residential amenity.

Visual Amenity 3.2 The proposed extension would be subordinate to the existing house in

terms of size and scale, and the extension would be sympathetic in terms of design and use of materials, repeating the panel of timber weatherboarding with brick surrounds, and the height and proportion of the windows, which lends much of the existing character to the house. As such it would retain the overall character of the house, and would be in keeping with the neighbouring properties.

3.3 The extension would project no further past the front of the house

than the existing porch, and due to the layout of the houses in this part of the street (which have a staggered effect rather than being level), would not be likely to significantly disrupt the building line of the houses, or create an unduly prominent or incongruous extension.

3.4 Members will have noted that third party objections have been made

on grounds of the impact on the street scene. However, whilst it is acknowledged that the proposal would change the front elevation of the house, it would do so in a sympathetic manner, and due to the variety of extensions to the sides and fronts of the houses in the street, it would not look out of place within the street scene, and would be unlikely to significantly affect the visual amenity of the area.

Residential Amenity 3.5 Objections have been raised regarding the potential impact on the

amenity of 44 Cranleigh Drive. However, the extension would project past the front of the house by only around 2m (the same as the existing porch), and due to the layout of the houses adjacent, it would not be close enough to the windows of neighbouring properties to be likely to overshadow them, or cause an overbearing sense of enclosure or loss of outlook. A 45 degree line drawn from the nearest windows to 44 would not be breached by the extension, and it is considered that the residential amenity of this property would not be likely to be harmed.

Other Matters 3.6 Objections have also been raised regarding the possibility of surface

water from the roof of the extension running onto the neighbours land, due to a lack of adequate drains to the front of the existing property. However the applicant has provided plans submitted for Building Regulations which show that this would be dealt with adequately, and would not be likely to cause flooding problems for the neighbours, or water run-off to the road. Surface water and sewerage from the extension would normally be dealt with as part of the Building Regulations application.


considerations, it is considered that the proposed development is acceptable, and a favourable recommendation is made.

g) Recommendation I PERMISSION BE GRANTED subject to the following conditions:- (i) DP08;

(ii) MA01; (iii) Any other conditions to be delegated to the Development Control Manager.


5. a) DOV/10/0111 – Erection of a detached dwelling and widening of the existing vehicular access, plot adjoining Mer Vista, Chalk Hill Road, Kingsdown

b) Summary of Recommendation Planning Permission be refused. c) Planning Policies and Guidance Dover District Core Strategy (CS): Policies CP5, DM13 and DM15 South East Plan (SEP): Policies CC1, CC4, H5, C3 and NRM5 PPS1: Delivering Sustainable Development PPS3: Housing Kent Design Guide (KDG) d) Relevant Planning History Planning Permission was granted in outline form for the erection of a dwelling

in 1975. Details were subsequently approved in 1978, however, the permission lapsed.

DOV94/0388 - Erection of a detached bungalow (outline) –

Appeal dismissed. DOV/03/0065 - Erection of a detached dwelling (outline) –

Refused. DOV/04/1502 - Erection of a detached, two-storey

dwellinghouse - Refused on the grounds that: (1) the development would appear cramped and congested within the site, detrimental to semi-rural character of the village; (2) the dwelling would result in an unacceptable sense of enclosure to the adjacent property Mer Vista, and; (3) inadequate provision had been made for the parking and manoeuvring of vehicles.

DOV/05/00539 - Erection of a detached bungalow – Refused on

the grounds that: (1) the restricted plot width will not accommodate a dwelling comparable to the existing pattern and character; and (2) is not well designed or sympathetic to its setting.

e) Consultee and Third Party Responses County Highways: No objection subject to amendments and conditions. Ecology comments: Comments awaited. Ringwould with Kingsdown Parish Council: Objects for the following reasons:

• The plot size is just within the recommendations relating to density of development but it is very tight and potentially out of keeping;

• The rear terrace would have a detrimental impact on the neighbouring property resulting in loss of privacy.

Public Representations: 10 letters of objection have been received; the

material comments are summarised as follows:

• The plot is significantly smaller in area and frontage compared to existing properties;

• It is not acceptable in terms of visual and spatial character; • A further access onto a busy road is not appropriate; • The proposal for three cars and no garage is not in keeping with the

area; • The north elevation is too close the boundary and will increase; • There is a concern that he soakaway would have a detrimental

impact; • Infilling has a detrimental impact on the character of an area; • The lay-by is maintained by Kent Highways and is used as vehicle

passing space therefore it is not available for a vehicle access into the site;

• There is no public footpath and pedestrians walk through the site; • The mansard roof is more solid in appearance than the surrounding

roof forms; • The construction would be noisy and disturbing; • The excavation of the basement could cause subsidence and or

drainage problems; • Loss of privacy; • Will over shadow and result in a loss of light; • The vehicle sight lines are totally inadequate; • A small dwelling could become a holiday let which would increase the

volume of traffic; • Chalk Hill Road is very narrow at this point, only one vehicle can pass,

often cars have to reverse. 7 letters of support have been received; the relevant comments are

summarised as follows:

• It is a clever and attractive design;

• The site has been unused for too long; • It is unsightly waste ground; • The plot is small but the dwelling has been designed effectively; • Would not appear cramped; • There is a shortage of thermally efficient houses in Kingsdown; • It appears to be in accordance with modern planning principles; • Blends in well with the surrounding area; • Provides good quality living environment; • Provides adequate off-street car parking; • The pine trees will be preserved; • The applicant has sought to involve many professional people and the

local community in the design of this dwelling.


1.1 The site is located within the village confines of Kingsdown, within an established residential area, with a semi-rural character. The site lies at the extreme edge of the confines on the main approach road to the village of Kingsdown. To the west of the site the land is designated as an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB).

1.2 This application relates to a vacant plot of land approximately 8.2m

(width) x 30.5m (depth). The land level drops gradually away from the road level down to the rear of the site, giving a site level difference of approximately 1.5m – 2m. The front boundary of the site comprises a low level hedge approximately 1m in height.

1.3 To the south east of the site is a row of 4 semi-detached bungalows,

immediately to the north west is an access strip approximately 4m wide leading to the rear of properties in Upper street with the large detached bungalow of Whisperwood to the northeast of this access. Within the curtilage of Whisperwood adjacent to the south east boundary there is a line of mature pine trees which are highly prominent within the street scene.

1.4 Full planning permission is sought for the erection of a two storey

detached dwelling. The building would be 6m (width) x 10.5m (depth) with a ridge height of 5.5m above the ground level at the front of the dwelling; due to the sloping shape of the land the ridge would be approximately 6.8m above the land level at the rear of the building.

1.5 The proposal also comprises a raised terrace at the rear of the

building some 4.2m in length and 1.2m above ground level; below this

terrace the site would be excavated to create a basement area to be used as a workshop and garden store.

1.6 At ground floor level the dwelling would provide an open plan

living/kitchen room and W/C and at first floor would provide two bedrooms and two en-suite bathrooms. The dwelling would be provided with one off street car parking space in front of the building which would be accessed via the adjacent lay-by.

1.7 The supporting documents include an Arboricultural Report and

Impact Assessment. 1.8 Plans will be on display.

2. Planning Policy 2.1 CS Policy CP5 requires all new dwellings to meet Code for

Sustainable Homes level 3. 2.2 CS Policy DM13 requires the provision of car parking to be a design

led approach but to be informed by the adopted car parking standard. 2.3 CS Policy DM15 states that development which would result in the

loss of or adversely affect the character or appearance of the countryside will only be permitted if it meets one of four criteria; it is an allocated site in the development plan documents; justified by the needs of agriculture; justified by a need to sustain the rural economy or community; and it cannot be accommodated elsewhere.

2.4 SEP Policy CC1 states that the principal objective of the plan is to

achieve and to maintain sustainable development in the region. 2.5 SEP Policy CC4 states that the design and construction of all new

development will be expected to adopt and incorporate sustainable construction standards and techniques.

2.6 SEP Policy NRM5 aims to avoid the net loss of biodiversity and actively

pursue the opportunities to achieve a net gain across the region. 2.7 Policy H5 of the SEP sets out that positive measures to raise the quality

of new housing, reduce its environmental impact and facilitate future adaptation to meet changes in accommodation needs will be encouraged.

2.8 Policy C3 of the SEP states that high priority will be given to conservation

and enhancement of natural beauty in the region’s AONBs. 2.9 PPS1 emphasises the need to promote sustainable development and

reduce energy use. Planning policies should promote high quality inclusive design and take into account the needs of all the community. Design which fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area should not be accepted.

2.10 PPS3, amongst other things, emphasises the need for good design and

encourages residential development in areas which are easily accessible and well connected to facilities and services. It states the Government's key housing policy goal is to ensure that everyone has the opportunity of

living in a decent home, which they can afford, in a community where they want to live. It goes on to urge local planning authorities to create sustainable, inclusive, mixed communities in all areas, both urban and rural.

3. Assessment 3.1 The site is located within the village confines of Kingsdown and within

a predominantly residential area. The land use principle of new residential development on this site, therefore, is not contested and is considered to be acceptable and in accordance with PPS3. However, the aim to make the best use of land within existing village confines for residential purposes must not be pursued at the expense of the environmental quality or visual amenities or to the detriment of the residential amenities of neighbouring occupants. Therefore the main issues to consider are as follows:-

• The impact on the residential amenity of surrounding

occupants; • The impact on the visual amenity of the area and character of

the AONB and countryside; and • Highway safety issues.

Residential Amenity 3.2 The nearest residential property, Mer Vista to the south, has several

windows within its north-west side elevation serving (from front to back) 1 x hall; 2 x bathroom; 1 x bedroom (only window to this room) and 1x dining room (linked through to the lounge which benefits from rear windows).

3.3 The proposed dwelling would be 2.2m from the flank elevation of

Mer Vista and would extend beyond the rear building line. By virtue of the proximity of the dwelling to Mer Vista, its height and depth it is likely to result in an unacceptable sense of enclosure and corresponding loss of outlook, together with a loss of light; for this reason planning permission should be refused.

3.4 No side windows are proposed in the dwelling and therefore there

would not be any over looking from the dwelling itself. However the raised terrace area would be over 1m above the ground level and therefore would lead to direct over looking of the adjacent dwelling Mer Vista and to a lesser extent Whisperwood.

3.5 The applicant is considering amending the proposal to omit the terrace

from the plans; this would be a welcome change and would prevent over looking. However, at the time of writing this report, the amended plans had not been received and it is unlikely that the amendment would overcome the other harm identified above.

3.6 The proposed dwelling may reduce some of the natural light received

at Whisperwood due to its siting to the south; however it is considered

not to be so significant as to warrant a reason for refusing planning permission.

Visual Amenity and Character of the Area 3.7 In considering the appeal in 1994, the Planning Inspector firmly

rejected the proposal as it would cause material harm to the semi-rural character of the village, adversely affecting the amenities of its residents. It was further noted that a visually important green break in the built-up frontage would be filled by a cramped form of development, out of scale with its small plot in terms of the general pattern and character of development in the area. The Inspector noted that the application was in outline form with all details reserved for future consideration. However, he stated that a bungalow designed to modern standards would have to occupy almost the entire width of the plot, and bearing in mind the constraints of the site which include the sloping profile and the need to take account of existing windows in the side of Mer Vista, it was also probable that the dwelling would be sited towards the front of the plot, thereby increasing its impact on the streetscene. The Inspector confirmed that the development would conflict with KSP Policy RS1 (the policy at the time) and was of the opinion that this represented a 'sound and clear cut reason for the refusal of planning permission'.

3.8 The planning application submitted in 2004 for a two storey dwelling

was refused on the grounds of its bulk and massing, which was considered to create a congested and cramped form of development detrimental to the semi-rural character of the village. The subsequent application in 2005 sought permission for a single storey bungalow with a similar sized footprint. This application was refused because it was considered that the restricted width of the site would not accommodate a dwelling of a standard comparable with the existing pattern and character of the immediate locality, and the proposal would result in a cramped and congested form of development.

3.9 Although the Core Strategy and the South East Plan have been

adopted since the Inspector’s decision and the 2004 and 2005 decisions, it is not considered that there has been significant change in the policy context of this application site or the physical characteristics of the site since these decisions, such as to materially affect the conclusions reached by the previous Case Officer and Planning Inspector.

3.10 The plot width is approximately 8.2m and remains at odds with the

existing pattern of development within the area, which comprises housing plots of between 11.4m (Mer Vista) and 16m (Whisperwood).

3.11 The KDG advises that the surrounding scale, grain, street patterns,

massing, landscape, materials, colours, styles and detailing should be respected. PPS1 advises that design which fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area should not be accepted. This proposal is for a dwelling of greater scale and height from that previously proposed (DOV/05/539) and therefore does not overcome the objections raised in the 2004 planning application. Neither does it overcome the principle objection

to this development, being that the site is not capable of accommodating a dwellinghouse without causing harm to the rural and spatial character of the area.

3.12 Furthermore, the design of the proposed dwelling has not been

informed by the general character of existing properties in the area and would appear as an incongruous form. The design and access statement explains that a mansard roof allows for two stories of accommodation. Thus it would appear that the functional requirements of the applicant have been given weight over the design and appearance of the dwelling and the wider street scene.

3.13 The application states that materials would be slate roof, rendered

walls and painted weatherboarding. The applicant claims that this is entirely in accordance with the local pallet, but has not explained where these materials are used. The choice of materials do not reflect the buildings immediately adjacent to the site and as such the proposed dwelling would form an alien feature within this part of the street.

3.14 The site is in close proximity to the countryside and the AONB. Policy

C3 of the SEP advises that high priority will be given to conservation and enhancement of natural beauty, planning decisions should have regard to countryside setting and proposals should be considered in context. Policy DM15 of the CS states that development which would adversely affect the countryside should not be permitted. It is considered that the dwelling would harm the spatial character of the area; as such, it does not conserve or enhance the setting of the AONB and it would adversely affect the countryside, contrary to the aims of these policies.

3.15 The applicant and the local residents in support of this proposal state

that it makes the most efficient use of the site which is currently untidy. The site has the character and appearance of a residential curtilage and at present is not detrimental to the street scene. Furthermore, PPS3 advises that good design is fundamental to using land efficiently and advises that design which is inappropriate in its context, or which fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area and the way it functions, should not be accepted.

3.16 As described above the adjacent row of pine trees are important

features within the street scene and their preservation is desirable. The applicant has submitted a tree survey to assess the impact the dwelling would have on these pine trees. This is being considered and the outcome will be reported verbally at meeting.

Highways Issues 3.17 County Highways have been consulted on this application and,

subject to an amendment and standard conditions, have raised no objection.

3.18 Concern of local residents relating to congestion on this local road is

acknowledged; however it is considered that the addition of one, 2

bedroom dwelling would not exacerbate this current situation such as to warrant a refusal of planning permission.

Other Matters and Conclusion 3.19 The applicant’s design and access statement does not acknowledge

that the CS now forms part of the Development Plan and therefore has not specifically addressed current planning policy. The applicant has described this building as an ‘eco’ dwelling but has not provided any supporting evidence. Nonetheless, if planning permission were to be forthcoming a condition would require this dwelling to be built to Code for Sustainable Homes level 3 as required by policy CP5 of the CS.

3.20 The development of this site to provide a detached two storey dwelling

house would have a detrimental impact on the residential amenities of Mer Vista and would appear as a cramped and congested form of development, unrelated to the existing pattern of development in the locality, to the detriment of the semi-rural character of the area.

3.21 It is acknowledged that PPS1 and PPS3 encourage making the best

use of land within existing residential confines for residential purposes. However, the material harm that would be caused to the visual and spatial character of the area and to residential amenities would outweigh the benefits of re-using this land.

3.22 In reaching this conclusion, regard has been had to matters raised by

third parties. None are such as to outweigh the recommendation.

g) Recommendation Subject to consideration of the adjoining trees, PERMISSION BE REFUSED,

for the following reasons: (i) By reason of its restricted width, the site would not accommodate a dwelling of a standard comparable with the existing pattern and character of the immediate locality. The proposal, if permitted, would result in a cramped and congested form of development to the detriment of the semi-rural character and visual amenities of the locality, contrary to Dover District Core Strategy Policy DM15, South East Plan Policy C3, and the provisions of Kent Design Guide, PPS 1 and PPS 3; (ii) The design of the proposed development does not pay sufficient regard to its setting and would not complement the architectural character of the area, contrary to Dover District Core Strategy Policy DM15, South East Plan Policy C3 and the provisions of Kent Design Guide, PPS 1 and PPS 3; (iii) The proposed dwelling, by virtue of its height and proximity to and relationship with the adjacent property of Mer Vista, would result in the creation of an unacceptable sense of enclosure and corresponding loss of outlook from that adjacent property which, together with loss of daylight to that property, would be to the detriment of the amenities enjoyed by the occupants thereof, contrary to the provisions of PPS 1; (iv) Any reason relating to the adjoining trees.

Case Officer Rachel Ellwood

6. a) DOV/10/0125 – Erection of two detached dwellings and construction of vehicular access (existing dwelling to be demolished), Franconia, The Droveway, St Margaret's Bay.

b) Summary of Recommendation Planning Permission be granted. c) Planning Policies and Guidance Dover District Core Strategy (CS): Policies CP5, DM13 and DM15

South East Plan (SEP): Policies CC1, CC4, H5, C3 and NRM5

PPS1: Delivering Sustainable Development

PPS3: Housing

Kent Design Guide (KDG) d) Relevant Planning History

DOV/07/1019 - Erection of 2 No. detached dwellings and construction of vehicular access (exiting dwelling to be demolished) – Refused. Dismissed at Appeal.

DOV/08/0043 - Outline application for the erection of 2

detached dwellings and construction of vehicular access (existing dwelling to be demolished) – Refused. Dismissed at Appeal.

DOV/09/0677 - Erection of two detached dwellings and creation

of vehicular access (existing dwelling to be demolished) – Granted.

e) Consultee and Third Party Responses County Highways: No objection subject to conditions Ecology Comments: No objection, subject to a condition and an informative.

KCC Public Rights of Way: Comments awaited.

Southern Water: Comments awaited.

Natural England: Has no comments to make but refers to standing advice.

St Margaret's Parish Council: No comment; is ambivalent. Public Representations: Five letters of objection have been received; the

comments can be summarised as follows: • The sheer size and bulk of the roof extension would have a visually

detrimental impact.

• Would be highly visible from the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty

(AONB). • The large windows would directly over look the houses at the rear. • The ridge height would be increased. • The roof form looks complicated. • The conversion of the garage to a study brings the residential building

line forward. • Two dwellings higher and deeper than the existing bungalow would

change the character of the area. • They should be no higher than Upontop. • What will ensure that the solar panels are actually installed on the

finished buildings? • The ecology study is a charade; the site was stripped of trees, shrubs

and secluded habitats. There was a badger sett in the garden.


1.1 The application site lies within the village confines of St Margaret's, albeit at the edge. The Droveway is a long residential street, characterized by a variety of styles of properties set in well proportioned plots. Immediately to the north west of the site the land is designated as an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB).

1.2 The site comprises a plot of land of approximately 0.17 hectares which

currently accommodates a small, detached, hipped roof bungalow. The site has a frontage width of approximately 25.8 metres and a depth of 59.6 metres measured along its north eastern side boundary and 50 metres along the south western side boundary.

1.3 The existing bungalow is sited centrally within the plot, set back 9.6

metres from the front boundary measured at its closest point and 12 metres measured at the furthest point from the front boundary. The site is not level, as is a common feature in respect of many properties in St Margaret’s Bay, given its cliff top location and undulating landform. The site levels slope away from the north eastern boundary across to the south western boundary.

1.4 To the rear of the site the properties fronting Salisbury Road are set

down at a lower level given the natural topography. 43 Salisbury Road has a large flat roof dormer window in the rear roof slope overlooking the site.

1.5 Adjacent to the site, to its south west is a small detached, hipped roof,

two storey dwelling, known as ‘Upontop’; this is the only two storey dwelling on this side. Adjacent to this is a detached bungalow, with

further bungalows along this side of the street, with some modest two storey dwellings further along. On the opposite side of The Droveway are larger, detached properties. A main feature of the opposite side of the street, near to the site, is the established mature hedge along the front boundary that screens the front gardens. There are few trees within the street and regrettably the site has recently been substantially cleared of trees and shrub growth.

1.6 Immediately adjoining the site along the north eastern boundary is a

public right of way, linking The Droveway to Salisbury Road to the south east and to the wider footpath network. The existing bungalow, is inconspicuous due to the low profile of its roof. As it is on slightly higher ground than the adjacent two-storey dwelling, these two roof lines appear to be at the same height. The public footpath is on even higher land and from it the whole of Franconia can be immediately viewed; however from a few metres back only the roof top can be seen.

1.7 Full planning permission is sought for the erection of two detached

dwellings and the creation of vehicular access. The existing dwelling would be demolished. The dwellings would appear from the street scene to be hipped roof bungalows. However, the site would be excavated and two bedrooms and a bathroom would be provided at basement level. The ground level would accommodate an open planned lounge/dining/kitchen room and a study; within the roof space a third bedroom, bathroom and seating area would be provided.

1.8 The dwellings would be sited approximately 11m from the back edge

of the public footpath and would have a separation distance of some 2m from each side boundary. They would have a long rear garden and would be some 30m from the rear boundary. Both dwellings would be provided with two off-street car parking spaces at the front of the site.

1.9 Members may recall considering a similar planning application at the

meeting held on 17 December 2009 (Item no. 6; reference no. DOV/09/0677) and resolving to grant planning permission. The significant differences with the current proposal are:

• The approved plans provided an integral garage within each

dwelling; this has now been omitted and is identified on the plans as being a study/work from home area.

• The roof projection on the approved plans shows an area of

flat roof behind what appears to be a pitched hipped roof. Planning permission is now being sought to create a full hipped roof (thus omitting the flat roof). The ridge height of the hipped roof would extend up to the ridge of the host dwelling. Within the rear roof slope a roof light window would be inserted. The applicant states that this modification to the plans is desired to maximize sea views from the dwellings.

1.10 The plans have been amended since the original submission which

proposed a fourth bedroom in the roof space and a much larger roof extension. This was considered to be unacceptable and thus amendments were sought. It should be noted that the amended plans

are available to view on the website but third parties have not been notified of this amendment; therefore, the objections listed above are based on the original submissions.


2. Planning Policy

2.1 CS Policy CP5 requires all new dwellings to meet Code for Sustainable Homes level 3.

2.2 CS Policy DM13 requires the provision of car parking to be a design

led approach but to be informed by the adopted car parking standard.

2.3 CS Policy DM15 states that development which would result in the loss of or adversely affect the character or appearance of the countryside will only be permitted if it meets one of four criteria; it is an allocated site in the development plan documents; justified by the needs of agriculture; justified by a need to sustain the rural economy or community; and it cannot be accommodated elsewhere.

2.4 SEP Policy CC1 states that the principal objective of the plan is to

achieve and to maintain sustainable development in the region.

2.5 SEP Policy CC4 states that the design and construction of all new development will be expected to adopt and incorporate sustainable construction standards and techniques.

2.6 SEP Policy NRM5 aims to avoid the net loss of biodiversity and actively

pursue the opportunities to achieve a net gain across the region.

2.7 Policy H5 of the SEP sets out that positive measures to raise the quality of new housing, reduce its environmental impact and facilitate future adaptation to meet changes in accommodation needs will be encouraged.

2.8 Policy C3 of the SEP states that high priority will be given to conservation

and enhancement of natural beauty in the region’s AONBs.

2.9 PPS1 emphasises the need to promote sustainable development and reduce energy use. Planning policies should promote high quality inclusive design and take into account the needs of all the community. Design which fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area should not be accepted.

2.10 PPS3, amongst other things, emphasises the need for good design and

encourages residential development in areas which are easily accessible and well connected to facilities and services. It states the Government's key housing policy goal is to ensure that everyone has the opportunity of living in a decent home, which they can afford, in a community where they want to live. It goes on to urge local planning authorities to create sustainable, inclusive, mixed communities in all areas, both urban and rural.

3. Assessment 3.1 The site is within the village confines and a predominantly residential

part of St Margaret’s. The principle of new residential development on this site is considered to be acceptable and in accordance with PPS3.

3.2 The main issues to consider, therefore, are as follows:

• The impact on the residential amenity of surrounding occupants;

• The impact on the visual amenity and character of the AONB

and countryside; and • Highway safety issues. Residential Amenity

3.3 The nearest residential dwelling to this site is Upontop. There would

be a separation distance of approx. 3.2m between the flank elevation of Upontop and unit 1, with an existing single storey flat roof garage in-between. The two proposed dwellings would be situated on similar front and rear building lines.

3.4 The proposed units would be of a similar height as Upontop with

hipped roofs. Upontop is situated to the south of the site and therefore this development would not have a significant impact on the amount of natural light received or outlook from this property.

3.5 No windows are proposed in the side elevations; there is, however, a

roof light in the south west elevation of unit 1 which would face Upontop; however the roof light would be over the staircase and, therefore, there would not be any overlooking.

3.6 The nearest dwellings at the rear of the site are in excess of 30m

away and this is considered to be sufficient distance to prevent overlooking or loss of privacy, natural light or outlook. This proposal would not cause any harm on the amenities of surrounding neighbours. The new roof lights would face the dwellings at the rear of the site; however, because of the distance they would not result in a loss of privacy and would still allow the occupiers distant sea views.

3.7 Both dwellings are provided with a sufficiently sized rear garden which

provides adequate private amenity space and is commensurate to the size of the proposed dwellings and is in keeping with the grain of the surrounding area.

Visual Amenity and Character of the Area

3.8 It is acknowledged that the site is situated in an extremely sensitive

location, adjacent to the open countryside, the AONB and Heritage Coast. Furthermore, a public right of way adjacent to the north east boundary allows clear views from these sensitive locations into the site.

3.9 Two previous proposals have been considered on this site by the Planning Inspectorate. The first application in 2007 sought full planning permission for two, 2 storey dwellings with an overall height some 1.9m higher than the adjacent building (Upontop). The second application in 2008 sought outline planning permission, again for two, 2 storey properties, this time with a ridge height equal to that of Upontop. In both appeal decision the Inspectors concluded that the landscaping along the north east boundary was fundamentally important and in the first case concluded that the height of the building was unacceptable and in the second case the overall bulk was unacceptable. In both circumstances the proposals were considered to be detrimental to the visual amenities and setting of the AONB, countryside and the Heritage Coast and as such both appeals were dismissed.

3.10 It is clear that consideration has been given by the applicant to the

Inspectors’ comments and as such the proposal takes on the form of two hipped roof bungalows, which have an overall ridge height equal to Upontop. The height of the dwellings is considered to be acceptable due to the fact that when viewed from the adjacent footpath they would be seen against Upontop and therefore would not dominate the skyline. The extended hipped roof at the rear of the dwellings is obviously larger than that shown on the approved plans, however it does not extend any higher than the ridge of the approved dwellings and the hipped roof reduced the visual bulk. It is considered that this extension would still respect the character of the area and would not harm views into the site from the AONB. Furthermore, the bungalows each have only a modest dormer window in the front roof slope, so being less incongruous and visible than in the 2007 scheme.

3.11 The footprint of the units is slightly larger than the adjacent dwelling.

However, the plot in which they would be sited is also larger and, therefore, the dwellings are commensurate with the plot size. It could be said that the density in this location, adjacent to the edge of the confines should be less than the surrounding area. However, in this instance, the density of The Droveway does not decline towards the edge of the confines and there are dwellings on the opposite side of The Droveway, extending further eastwards. Therefore, it is considered that the footprints of the dwellings and the density of the site would be in keeping with the spatial character of the area in accordance with PPS1.

3.12 The north east elevation of unit 2 would be visible from the

surrounding countryside; however the visual bulk of the building would be reduced by the hipped roofs and the ‘L’ shape projections to the front and to the rear which would be set away from the north east boundary. In addition the perceived height of the units would be reduced by the excavation of the site; the street elevation shows a retaining wall to a height of some 1.5m. In addition the visual impact of unit 2 would be further softened by an existing Sycamore tree and a mixed hedge.

3.13 The overall design of the dwellings is simple and non obtrusive, fitting

in with the over all character and appearance of surrounding dwellings. The proposed materials would be plain tile and white

rendered elevations; a condition should be imposed to require samples to be submitted and approved.

3.14 The layout of the front gardens is in part dictated by highway

requirements; however the applicant has managed to retain landscaping between the plots and to the front. Full details of soft landscaping should be submitted together with details of the hard surfacing.

3.15 The amended design has overcome in principle the appeal concerns

relating to the visual impact on the AONB and Heritage Coast.

3.16 A robust landscaping scheme of native planting has been proposed along the full length of the north east boundary. This was a critical point with the previous appeals. The site has been cleared of vegetation prior to the submission of this current application and as such may have had a detrimental impact on biodiversity. Policy NRM5 of the SEP advises local planning authorities to avoid a net loss of biodiversity and actively pursue opportunities to achieve a net gain. Accordingly, this proposed landscaping is a welcome feature and a condition should be imposed to ensure it is carried out and maintained as shown.

3.17 The visual impact that these dwellings would have and the amount of

spoil excavated are dependent on the existing and proposed land levels. The plans indicate ODN spot heights showing proposed basement, ground and ridge height levels and the land level adjacent to Upontop. This will ensure that the height of the proposed dwellings would not exceed the height of Upontop as indicated on the indicative street scene elevation.

Highways Issues

3.18 County Highways have been consulted on this proposal and have not

raised an objection subject to standard conditions being imposed.

3.19 Each dwelling has been provided with two off street car parking spaces which are independently accessible this provision is considered to be acceptable and in accordance with the new standard in policy DM13 of the Core Strategy.

3.20 In the previous planning application a local resident had expressed

concerns that this development would lead to additional car parking and congestion on the road. However, it is considered that one additional dwelling would be negligible and that no harm would arise. It is acknowledged that the garages have been omitted from the plans; however policy DM13 states that garages are provided in addition to the number of off road car parking spaces required. As such the proposal still complies with policy DM13 and there is no requirement for the applicant to provide a garage.

Conclusion

3.21 The development is considered to be acceptable and the proposed

alterations to the approved scheme would not harm the natural beauty

of the adjacent Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty or the wider countryside. In addition it would not harm the character and appearance of the street scene or residential amenities.

3.22 Consideration has been given to the matters raised by objectors, but

none are such as to outweigh the conclusions reached. The decisions of the Inspectors on the previous appeals are also material together with the approval earlier this year and have been taken into account.

g) Recommendation I PERMISSION BE GRANTED, subject to the following conditions:- (i) DP08

(time limit); (ii) DP04 (amended plans); (ii) MA04 (material samples); (iv) LA10 (details of hard landscaping); (v) LA21 (hard landscaping – 12 months compliance); (vi) LA11 (details of soft landscaping); (vii) LA19 (soft landscaping – 12 months compliance); (viii) PA32 (construction vehicles); (ix) The first 6m of the vehicular access shall be surfaced with a properly consolidated material (not loose stone or gravel). Prior to construction, details must be submitted and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be in accordance with approved details. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and convenience; (x) AC – (provision of sight lines); (xi) PA07 – (car parking to be provided); (xii) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no window, door or other opening shall be inserted in the south west elevation of unit 1 other than any expressly authorised by this permission.(Dover District Local Plan Policy DD1). Reason: In order to avoid unacceptable overlooking; (xiii) LA31 (Boundary treatment); (xiv) Erection of reptile fencing to the boundaries; (xv) SCI – Sustainable Construction. Code level 3; (xvi) Any other conditions or amendments to the above conditions to be delegated to the Development Control Manager.

II The applicant BE ADVISED that, if the dwelling has not been demolished within 1 year, a further bat survey would be required.

Case Officer

Rachel Ellwood

7. a) DOV/10/0130 – Outline application for the erection of a detached dwelling, site adjoining 93 Campbell Road, Walmer

b) Summary of Recommendation Grant planning permission. c) Planning Policies and Guidance Dover Core Strategy (CS): Policies CP5 and DM13 South East Plan (SEP): Policies CC1, CC4, CC6 and NRM1 Dover District Local Plan (DDLP): Policy HS2 PPS1, PPS3 and PPS5. d) Relevant Planning History None relevant. e) Consultee and Third Party Responses County Highways: No parking is shown and the proposal would require one

parking space. However, the site is restricted and as the parking standard is for one parking space, which is a maximum, it would be difficult to substantiate an objection based on the argument that one additional car parked on the road would cause demonstrable problems.

Conservation Comments: Raises no objection regarding the impact on the

setting of the nearby listed building and adjacent Conservation Area. Suggests windows to be incorporated into the side elevation at Reserved Matters stage.

Walmer Parish Council: Positively supports the application. Public Representations: Three letters of objection have been received,

stating the following:

• The existing property needs the garden retained to balance the size of the house;

• Building a second dwelling with the same frontage will overcrowd that

end of the road and would be out of keeping with the terrace appearance of the rest of Campbell Road;

• Lack of parking; • Problems with using the rear access, which at times is blocked by

parked cars.


1.1 The application relates to a plot of land on the junction at North Barrack Road and Campbell Road. The land currently forms the side garden of no. 93 Campbell Road and is enclosed by a brick wall. The North Barracks residential site lies to the west, separated by an

access track, which provides rear access to the terrace properties in Campbell Road. The opposite side of Campbell Road forms the rear garden boundary of the terrace of properties in York Road. Directly opposite of the site (to the east), there is a two storey, white rendered property.

1.2 The site is to the west of the Walmer Seafront Conservation Area and

is to the south of a listed building, The Old Post Room, which is at the entrance to the North Barracks site.

1.3 The proposal seeks outline planning permission for the erection of a

one bedroom detached dwelling. All matters are reserved, although indicative plans and elevations have been submitted. These show the dwelling to have a rectangular footprint, to be built in line with the existing row of properties and right up against the side roadside boundary. The dwelling would be finished in rendered bricks and block-work under a clay tile roof, matching No. 93 and would have a similarly designed frontage to No. 93. The proposed rear garden is shown to be triangular in shape and would measure about 18 square metres.

1.4 Indicative plans show the dwelling to have a lounge area and kitchen

at ground floor and a bedroom and bathroom at first floor. 1.5 The Design and Access Statement sets out that there would be

parking for two vehicles via the rear unadopted access, though this has not been shown on plan. There would not be room within the plot for any off-street parking.

1.6 The indicative plans will be on display.

2. Planning Policy 2.1 CS Policy CP5 states that new residential development should meet

Code for Sustainable Homes level 3. 2.2 CS Policy DM13 states that provision for parking should be a

design-led process based upon the characteristics of the site, the locality, the nature of the proposed development and its design objectives, informed by the guidance in the Table for Residential Parking.

2.3 SEP Policy CC1 states that the principal objective is to achieve and to

maintain sustainable development. 2.4 SEP Policy CC4 states that the design and construction of new

development will be expected to adopt and incorporate sustainable construction standards and techniques.

2.4 SEP Policy CC6 sets out that decisions will actively promote the

creation of sustainable and distinctive communities. 2.5 SEP Policy NRM1 states that water supply and ground water will be

maintained and enhanced through avoiding adverse effects of development on the water environment.

2.6 SEP Policy BE6 sets out that proposals that protect, conserve and,

where appropriate, enhance the historic environment and the contribution it makes to local and regional distinctiveness and sense of place should be supported.

2.7 DDLP Policy HS2 states that on unallocated sites within the urban

boundaries, housing development will be permitted, provided housing is the most suitable land use.

2.8 PPS1: Delivering Sustainable Development states that good design

should contribute positively to making places better for people. Development which is inappropriate in its context, or which fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area and the way it functions, should not be accepted.

2.9 PPS3: Housing emphasises that good design is fundamental to the

development of high quality new housing, which contributes to the creation of sustainable, mixed communities.

2.10 PPS5: Planning for the Historic Environment states that the

government’s overarching aim is that the historic environment and its heritage assets should be conserved and enjoyed and sets out objectives to achieve this. Policies HE6,HE7, HE8, HE9 and HE10 are particularly relevant.

3. Assessment 3.1 The main areas of assessment are:

• Impact on neighbours and future occupants; • Impact on the setting of the Conservation Area, Listed Building

and the street scene; • Highways implications.

Impact on neighbours and future occupants 3.2 Due to its indicative siting adjacent to no. 93 Campbell Road, it is

considered that a dwelling could be achieved within the plot without resulting in harm to the neighbouring occupants by way of unacceptable overlooking, loss of outlook or any enclosing, overshadowing or overbearing impact.

3.3 The proposed rear garden is very small, triangular in shape,

measuring around 18 square metres. The proposed dwelling is shown to have just one bedroom and this proposed garden area is considered sufficient to provide the future resident/s with enough outside private amenity space such as to be in accordance with advice set out in PPS3, which requires the incorporation of amenity space within proposed residential developments.

Impact on the setting of the Conservation Area, Listed Building and the street scene

3.4 The existing development in this area is that of dwellings built close up

against the road and tight up against the corners of junctions. The site, whilst small, is considered to enable a dwelling to be erected that would be of a similar scale, height and design as surrounding properties without giving the appearance of cramped over-development of the site. Its siting up against the side (northern) boundary is not considered to be unacceptable.

3.5 The erection of a detached dwelling in this location would be visible

from a northern approach along Campbell Road and would be read in relation to the existing terraces and the detached property no. 93. It would not appear prominent or intrusive from this direction and would not result in harm to the setting of the Conservation Area to the west.

3.6 The dwelling would also be visible from the junction to the north of the

site, looking south. The junction provides a visual break in what is otherwise quite tight-knit development. Although the dwelling would be built up against the front and side boundaries, views of The Old Post Room (listed building) on the corner and Marine Terrace within the North Barrack site would be retained and it is not considered that the dwelling would appear overly dominant or intrusive from this direction. The setting of the listed building to the north of the site and the Conservation Area to the west of the site would be preserved from this direction.

3.7 It is, however, suggested that at Reserved Matters stage, the

applicant should consider adding some fenestration detailing to the flank elevation, which at the moment is shown indicatively to be a blank wall. The incorporation of windows would add interest to this elevation, which would be clearly visible from within the street scene.

3.8 Objections have been raised stating concerns that the dwelling would

overcrowd the end of the road and would be out of keeping with the terrace appearance of the rest of Campbell Road. However, as mentioned above, it is not considered that the dwelling would appear cramped or result in an overcrowded appearance. It would be of a similar design and appearance to the neighbouring property, which is also detached and would be in line with the existing terrace properties and is not considered to detract from the terrace properties.

3.9 The proposal would result in the loss of the brick wall. Its loss is not

considered unacceptable in respect of its contribution to the street scene and the setting of the Conservation Area, provided that the proposal is conditioned to control the type and finish of all new external materials to the proposed dwelling and any new boundary treatment. Overall, based on the indicative plans provided, the proposal is considered to preserve the setting of the Conservation Area and is, therefore, in accordance with the objectives of PPS5.

Highways implications 3.10 The proposal does not show provision of any off-street parking and it

would be difficult to provide a parking space within the site, due to its restricted dimensions. The parking standard requires only one parking space for a one-bedroom property and this is a maximum standard. As on-street parking is available surrounding the site, and given that it is within the centre of Walmer and close to amenities, it would be difficult to justify a recommendation of refusal on the lack of one parking space.

3.11 The rear access road lies outside the application site and its use is not

really an issue for the assessment of this application. No concerns have been raised by County Highways regarding its use in relation to this application.

3.12 On balance, the proposal is considered acceptable in highways terms

and would not result in harm to highway safety. Conclusion 3.13 It is often the case that a development which potentially affects a

Conservation Area or a Listed Building, or the setting of either, cannot be properly assessed in outline form. In this case, however, and given the indicative details provided, your officers are satisfied that an outline permission is acceptable. The third party concerns have been considered but none outweighs the conclusions reached.

g) Recommendation I PLANNING PERMISSION BE GRANTED, subject to the following conditions

being attached: (i) OP05 (Time limit for reserved matters); (ii) OP03 (Submission of reserved matters); (iii) OP12 (Time limit for commencement); (iv) LA10 (Hard landscaping); (v) LA11 (Soft landscaping); (vi) LA36 (Replacement planting); (vii) LA31 (Boundary treatment); (viii) MA04 (Material samples); (ix) PD02 (No further development); (x) Surface water disposal; (xi) Dwelling to achieve Level 3 of the Code for Sustainable Homes); (xii) Joinery details (timber); (xiii) Any further conditions or amendments to the above conditions to be delegated to the Development Control Manager.

II The applicant BE ADVISED of the need to consider windows in the flank

elevation at the detailed stage. Case Officer Sarah Platts

DOVER DISTRICT COUNCIL Agenda Item No 6 REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT CONTROL MANAGER PLANNING COMMITTEE - 29 APRIL 2010 DOV/09/0873 - ERECTION OF A GP SURGERY, COMMUNITY CENTRE,

28 FLATS AND 41 HOUSES RELATED INFRASTRUCTURE AND CAR PARKING, LAND AT GOLF ROAD/CANNON STREET, DEAL

Recommendation

Members adhere to the previous resolution. Contact Officer: Lesley Jarvis, extension 2466. 1. At the meeting held on 17 December 2009, Members resolved that subject to all

outstanding matters being resolved by the Development Control Manager, in consultation with the Chairman of the Planning Committee, the application be approved in order that the funding deadline should not be compromised and that a further report on the outcome be brought to Committee in due course.

2. Since then amended car parking layout plans have been negotiated with the

applicant. Amended plans have now been received and KHS are now satisfied with car parking provision and its layout.

3. The legal agreement will include certainty for timely provision of the community

centre and GP surgery buildings as ensuring contributions towards the provision of a play area and equipment at the north Deal Playing field. This and conditions are currently under discussion with the applicant.

4. Recently, however, a number of local residents have written to the Local Planning

Authority raising fresh concerns over the development. A petition has also been received. The petition includes extracts from a draft Masterplan which was in preparation a number of years ago, but was never pursued, an unscaled block plan extract identifying the proximity of a row of dwellings to the rear of 7 Cannon Street and an extract from a drawing which shows the appearance of a row of dwellings (units 33 to 36). Matters raised must be taken into consideration before a final decision can be issued.

5. The main areas of concern appear to be the appropriateness of the 3 storey buildings

size and scale and the effects on daylight and sunlight to neighbouring occupants, effects on outlook and the layout of the development.

6. Matters in respect of the “status” of the application, publicity, levels of community

involvement and sewage and drainage concerns have also been raised. 7. The majority of dwelling houses proposed are 3 storey. The exception is the row

immediately south of the doctors’ surgery building fronting Golf Road, which are two storey. There is a 4 storey block of flats within the site.

60

8. The Committee report refers in detail to the design and layout of the proposal as well as amount of development, density and dwelling types at paras 3.16 to 3.35. It refers to the relationship of the new dwellings to those dwellings and other buildings in the surrounding area. There are no significant changes to the design and layout of the scheme, nor unit numbers and types following revisions to car parking arrangements. It is not considered the development would be out of scale with the built form of the surrounding existing development, which comprises a Public House of a significant scale and form, the gas holder and its expansive site, industrial buildings and flats, as well as a variety of two and three storey dwellings.

9. Concern has been expressed over the effect of the three storey dwellings (unit 36) –

particularly to the rear of 7 and 9 Cannon Street. It is understood that no's 7 and 9, which are two storey houses, both have single storey kitchen nibs to their rear, with rear facing kitchen windows. Their main rear or south facing elevations are around 18m north from unit 36. The rear facing nibs would be around 9m from unit 36.

10. The impact of the development in respect of daylight and sunlight has been revisited

in the light of recent local resident comments. Due regard has been paid to the technical formula set out in the “Guide to Good Practise for Site layout planning for daylight and sunlight” in re-assessing the effects of the development in particular on the rear kitchen window of no 7 Cannon Street, which is the nearest living room window to the development (I have referred primarily to no 7 as it is the dwelling most likely to be affected). The formula involves the use of charts and graphs to plot effects of a development.

11. The Good Practise Guide advises that provided skylight received (by a window) is

greater than 27% then the effect of a new building would not be noticed. In this case there would be around 25% of skylight available – so the effect of the new building would be noticeable – however, the margin of difference is small. .

12. The Good Practise Guide refers to the importance of occupant’s interiors receiving at

least one quarter (25%) of their annual sunlight hours, including 5% of annual sunlight during the winter months. It would appear from my calculations that the rear kitchen window to no 7 would receive 62% of its annual unobstructed sunlight hours with around 17% during winter months. The calculations would appear to show that the potential loss of sunlight would therefore fall within an acceptable range.

13. Having said that – it has to be borne in mind that the other primary windows to the

dwelling are at least 18m from the flank of the new dwelling and are not likely to be affected. It is accepted that there would be an interruption to sunlight to the garden area of no 7 (and no 9) but only for a short time of day, with effects mostly experienced during mid-day in winter months.

14. Outlook from neighbouring occupant’s properties across and through the site will

change once the site is developed. But this cannot be avoided when an urban site is redeveloped. The extent of harm in this respect is minimal and is considered acceptable.

15. Elsewhere there are considered sufficient distances between the new and existing

dwellings so as not to result in a loss of amenity 16. Local residents have raised concerns over flooding, drainage and sewage. These

matters are addressed in the original committee report and where necessary will be addressed by condition.

61

17. As far as the Local Planning Authority is concerned – the application has been advertised in the correct manner. A total of 6 site notices were erected around the perimeter of the site and the development was advertised in the local newspaper. More than two months passed between the application being advertised and it being reported to Committee.

18. The applicant submitted a Statement of Community Involvement with their application

and it is noted that some of the signatories on the petition had responded to the pre-submission publicity carried out by the applicants.

19. It is usually the case that development will have effects on townscape and

neighbouring occupants. Careful consideration has to be given to assessing the extent of those effects especially where there is the potential for harm to residential amenity. Where there is any harm, its level has to be weighed against the wider benefits that a development might bring. In this case, as set out in more detail in the original committee report, it is not considered that the effects on neighbouring occupants are so significant to justify a refusal.

20. In this case the Committee is recommended to confirm its previous decision. It is

further recommended that should any fresh issues arise prior to issue of a decision, the Development Control Manager be given delegated authority to resolve those issues in consultation with the Chairman of the Planning Committee.

Background Papers Applicant file ref: DOV/09/0873 Tim Flisher Development Control Manager The Officer to whom reference should be made concerning inspection of the background papers is Abi

Robinson, Planning Administration Planning Section, Council Offices, White Cliffs Business Park, Dover (Telephone: 01304 872488).

62

democratic services dover @dover.govmoderngov.dover.gov.uk/data/planning committee... · associated...

Documents