$dxrlpcsh - folkestone-hythe.gov.uk … · development control committee 26th october 2010 report...

Created by Neevia Document Converter trial version

DC/10/08

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE

26th OCTOBER 2010

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF PLANNING ON APPLICATIONS

1. Y10/0531/SH LAND ADJOINING 13 SISKIN CLOSE, HAWKINGE, KENT (Page 3) Erection of 50 dwellings together with associated access roads, car parking,

woodland open space and landscaped buffer strips. 2. Y10/0709/SH GREENLOAMING, TEDDARS LEAS ROAD, ETCHINGHILL, (Page 33) FOLKESTONE, KENT, CT18 8AE

Erection of a two storey detached dwelling, together with detached stable and garage building, following demolition of existing building.

3. Y10/0781/SH 36 CHERRY GARDEN LANE, FOLKESTONE, KENT, CT19 (Page 47) 4AS

Change of use and conversion of two attached garages to an office use in connection with the existing dwelling house.

4. Y10/0742/SH 29 EARLSFIELD ROAD, HYTHE, KENT, CT21 5PE (Page 55)

Erection of a part two storey, part single storey rear extension, together with the formation of a balcony.

5. Y10/0699/SH 112 HIGH STREET, DYMCHURCH, ROMNEY MARSH, (Page 63) KENT, TN29 0LD

Part change of use of ground floor from residential (Class C3) to tea rooms (Class A3).

6. Y10/0639/SH STONEWALD, HILLSIDE STREET, HYTHE, KENT, CT21 (Page 71) 5DJ

Erection of first floor side extension and balcony, together with raised platform to facilitate extension to front paved patio area and other external alterations.

7. Y10/0238/SH LAND ADJOINING 76-78 HIGH STREET, DYMCHURCH, (Page 81) KENT

Change of use of land to display and retail use for the sale of sheds.

Created by Neevia Document Converter trial version http://www.neevia.com

http://www.neevia.com

2 Created by Neevia Document Converter trial version http://www.neevia.com


3

Application No: Y10/0531/SH Location of Site: Land adjoining 13 Siskin Close, Hawkinge,

Kent Development: Erection of 50 dwellings together with

associated access roads, car parking, woodland open space and landscaped buffer strips.

Applicant: Mr S Pentecost Siskin Development Ltd Century House Park Farm Road Park Farm Industrial Easte Folkestone Kent CT19 5DW

Agent: Mr A King Michael Cook Associates 11 Goring Road Worthing West Sussex BN12 4AP

Date Received: 28.06.10 Date of Committee: 26.10.10 Expiry Date: 27.09.10 NG REF: 620500 139756 Officer Contact: James Bailey RECOMMENDATION: That planning permission be granted subject to the completion of a legal agreement covering those issues as set out under section titled Developer Contributions and Affordable Housing within the report, with delegated authority given to the Head of Planning Services to negotiate the wording of the agreement and subject to the conditions set out at the end of the report including any revisions or additions that the Head of Planning Services may consider appropriate. 1.0 CONSULTATIONS 1.1 Hawkinge Parish Council – Support. Voting: For: 3 Against: 0 Abstentions: 0 1.2 Kent Highways – No objections in principle to the proposal. My concern lies with the parking

arrangements. In accordance with Interim Guidance Note 3, 3 and 4 bedroom dwellings must have two independently accessible parking spaces as a minimum requirement. The 3 and 4 bedroom dwellings on the proposed layout, where two spaces are provided, are in tandem and some offer a space and a garage. Any garage provision in this location is



4

considered additional to the minimum number of parking spaces since survey results have demonstrated that in areas without on-street controls many people do not use a garage as a car parking space, but use them instead for storage, pushing the second vehicle on to the street. If I was to accept the garages as a parking space, then they must meet minimum size requirements of 2.5m x 5.6m or 5.0m x 3.2m. If cycle parking is also to be accommodated in the garage, then they must increase the garage sizes to 5.5m x 3.6m (single) or 5.5m x 6.0m (double). If cycle parking cannot be accommodated in the garages then it must be provided elsewhere in the curtilage of each individual dwelling house at one space per bedroom and within a secure communal compound for the flats, at one space per unit.

A minimum depth of 5.5m hardstand (of a bound material) must be

maintained fronting the garages for the parking of the second vehicle. 2m x 2m pedestrian visibility splays must be maintained either side of each parking space/new access above a height of 600mm (parking to Plot 1 must not be obscured by the boundary treatment to the adjacent garden).

The site will be subject to a Section 38 Road Agreement to offer the road for

adoption by the Highway Authority. Due to the location of the site, measures should be taken to improve accessibility to public transport. The site is not large enough to request a residential travel plan, however, a contribution should be sought to provide a shelter for the bus stop on Aerodrome Road.

Wheel washing facilities must be provided on site during construction and

provision made within the site confines to accommodate contractor’s vehicles, plant and site personnel vehicles.

I look forward to further information coming forward in respect of parking

arrangements or oppose the layout in its current form. Amended plans -

I have looked at the revised drawing 5402/01 Rev. D. The key still indicates cycle parking below that of minimum requirements. Cycle parking must be provided at one space per bedroom for the dwellings and one space per unit for the flats. The flats will require a communal, secure and overlooked cycle parking area. My previous comments are still relevant where two spaces cannot be accommodated in front of the garage (eg. plots 14-17) then the garage, if it is to incorporate cycle parking, must meet a minimum size requirement of 5.5m x 3.6m.

The rest of my comments still stand as per my e-mail of 15/7/10.

1.3 Arboricultural Manager – No objection to proposals pending the removal of all spoil from the northern

end of the site and installation of adequate fencing to prevent the storing of plant and materials etc. within the woodland section as agreed previously.

In addition to this, we are still awaiting information on how the applicant

proposes to deal with the Japanese Knotweed. Under no circumstance can



5

this be disposed of within the woodland to the north of the site. We still await these assurances.

Additional comments – We are now satisfied with the proposals for Japanese Knotweed removal

following further discussions with the applicant subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions to control its removal and re-instatement of the area.

1.4 Environmental Health Manager –

I would like to confirm sight of a Phase 1 Contamination Risk Assessment. The report does not identify any specific areas of potential concern, however, due to the possible presence of fill materials on site a limited intrusive investigation is recommended. This should be undertaken prior to commencement of development, with any necessary remedial works implemented in full and verified. A munitions Contamination Survey has also been provided. The survey found no evidence of unexploded ordnance (UXO), I would however consider it prudent for the developer to maintain a watching brief for the UXO during site works. Areas of Japanese Knotweed infestation have been identified on site, these are to be treated in accordance with relevant guidance.

1.5 Housing Strategy Manager –

I confirm that I am happy with the proposed proportion (30%) and mix of affordable housing units on this site as well as the proposed locations for the units as set out in the accommodation schedule drawing number 5402/01 dated May 2009. In terms of the phasing of the units, my preference would be for all the affordable units to be built and transferred to one of our RSL development partners prior to the completion and occupation of 50% of the market units in the development. Although the proposal is for 3 x 2 bedroom houses and 2 x 3 bedroom houses to be shared ownership accommodation, we should allow for some flexibility in the S106 agreement, to enable the units to also be provided for affordable rent if prevailing market conditions dictate.

1.6 Natural England – The ecological survey report submitted with the application highlights the need for further species specific ecological surveys, but these have not been submitted. These surveys should be submitted by the applicant before determination of this proposal in accordance with our standing advice.

Additional Comments - Natural England will defer to your interpretation of the findings as a result of the further surveys submitted.



6

1.7 Environment Agency – We have no objection to the planning application. The following conditions are recommended and the following informatives should be passed onto the applicant. Contamination Condition Prior to the commencement of development approved by this planning permission (or such other date or stage in development as may be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority), the following components of a scheme to deal with the risks associated with contamination of the site shall each be submitted to and approved, in writing, by the local planning authority: 1. A preliminary risk assessment which has identified:

• All previous uses. • Potential contaminants associated with those uses. • A conceptual model of the site indicating sources, pathways and

receptors. • Potentially unacceptable risks arising from contamination at the site.

2. A site investigation scheme, based on (1) to provide information for a detailed assessment of the risk to all receptors that may be affected, including those off site.

3. The site investigation results and the detailed assessment (2) and,

based on these, an options appraisal and remediation strategy giving full details of the remediation measures required and how they are to be undertaken.

4. A verification plan providing details of the data that will be collected in

order to demonstrate that the works set out in (3) are complete and identifying any requirements for longer-term monitoring of pollutant linkages, maintenance and arrangements for contingency action.

Any changes to these components require the express consent of the local planning authority. The scheme shall be implemented as approved. Condition Prior to commencement of development, a verification report demonstrating completion of the works set out in the approved remediation strategy and the effectiveness of the remediation shall be submitted to and approved, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority. The report shall include results of sampling and monitoring carried out in accordance with the approved verification plan to demonstrate that the site remediation criteria have been met. It shall also include any plan (a long-term monitoring and maintenance plan) for longer term monitoring of pollutant linkages, maintenance and arrangements for contingency action, as identified in the verification plan and for the reporting of this to the Local Planning Authority.



7

Condition If, during development, contamination not previously identified is found to be present at the site, then no further development (unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority) shall be carried out until the developer has submitted, and obtained written approval from the Local Planning Authority for, an amendment to the remediation strategy detailing how this unsuspected contamination shall be dealt with.

Phase 1 Contamination Risk Assessment We have noted the inclusion of the Phase 1 Contamination Risk Assessment Report, this addresses part 1 of the first condition above. We have the following comments on the report. In general, we agree with the conclusions and recommendations for further work. It is noted that further investigations will be undertaken to ascertain whether any sources of contamination exist on site. Further clarification should be sought from the Local Authority Environmental Health Officer with respect to issues related to harm to human health. The Environment Agency recommends that developers should: 1. Follow the risk management framework provided in CLR11, Model

Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination, when dealing with land affected by contamination.

2. Refer to the Environment Agency Guidance on Requirements for Land

Contamination Reports for the type of information that we require in order to assess risks to controlled waters from the site. The Local Authority can advise on risk to other receptors, eg. human health.

3. Refer to our website at www.environment-agency.gov.uk for more

information. Disposal of Waste Contaminated soil that is excavated, recovered or disposed of, is controlled waste. Therefore, its handling, transport, treatment and disposal is subject to waste management legislation which includes: i) Duty of Care Regulations 1991 ii) Hazardous Waste (England and Wales) Regulations 2005 iii) Waste Management Licensing Regulations 1994 (as amended) iv) Pollution Prevention and Control Regulations (England and Wales)

2000 v) Landfill (England and Wales) Regulations 2002 Developers should ensure that all contaminated materials are adequately characterised both chemically and physically, and that the permitted status of any proposed on or off site operations is clear. If in doubt, the Environment Agency should be contacted for advice at an early stage to



8

avoid any delays. Treatment of any materials, including arisings from de-watering, will require the deployment of a relevant mobile treatment permit.

Drainage Condition No infiltration of surface water drainage into the ground is permitted other than with the express written consent of the Local Planning Authority, which may be given for those parts of the site where it has been demonstrated that there is no resultant unacceptable risk to controlled waters.

Soakaways We have already reviewed proposals for a deep bored soakaways at this

site and provided the applicant with our comments. These are re-iterated as follows:

We have no objection in principle to the construction of deep bored

soakaways for the discharge of surface water drainage at this location.

This is due to the sites location in Source Protection Zone 3 and the depth of the unsaturated zone (between the ground level and the water table). This means the risk to the public water supply abstraction borehole is very small. The soakaways should still be constructed as shallow as possible and no deeper than 3 metres into the chalk formation. Appropriate pollution prevention methods (such as trapped gullies or interceptors) should be used to prevent hydrocarbons drainage to ground from roads, hardstandings and car parks. Clean uncontaminated roof water shall drain directly to soakaways entering after any pollution prevention methods. No soakaway should be sited in or allowed to discharge into land impacted by contamination or land previously identified as being contaminated. There must be no direct discharge to groundwater, a controlled water. There must be no discharge to made ground. Fuel, Oil and Chemical Storage Care should be taken during and after construction to ensure that all fuels, oils and any other potentially contaminating materials should be stored (for exampled in bunded areas secured from public access) so as to prevent accidental/unauthorised discharge to ground. The areas for storage should not drain to any surface water system. Where it is proposed to store more than 200 litres (45 gallon drum = 205litres) of any type of oil on site, it must be stored in accordance with the Control of Pollution (oil storage) (England) Regulations 2001. Drums and barrels can be kept in drip trays if the drip tray is capable of retaining 25% of the total capacity of all oil stored.



9

Flood Risk Annex B of Planning Policy Statement No. 25: Development and Flood Risk (PPS25) suggests rainfall intensities could increase by 30% towards the end of the lifetime of this development. This increase should, therefore, be considered and accommodated at the detailed design stage of the drainage infrastructure. Sufficient storage of excess surface runoff should be available for the critical 100yr rainfall event, which should be investigated for periods of rainfall in excess of the 30min maximum considered in the submitted surface water drainage strategy (eg. up to at least the 6 hour rainfall event, as recommended in the CIRIA SuDS Manual). The publication of Planning Policy Statement No. 1: Delivering Sustainable Development (PPS1) in February 2005, gives weight to inclusion of energy efficient technology, installation of SuDS, rainfall harvesting and/or grey water recycling systems for new developments. In particular, paragraph 22 of PPS1 states: ‘local authorities should promote J. Small scale renewable and low carbon energy schemes in developments; the sustainable use of water resources; and the use of sustainable drainage systems in the management of runoff’. Whilst rainfall harvesting systems only provide a relatively small amount of surface water storage, they reduce the strain on potable water supplies and, therefore, have additional sustainability benefits. The use of permeable paving (as proposed) can allow for a significant storage volume and swales/filter strips can be used to increase attenuation, for conveyance of water through the site and to offer a water quality benefit. The long term maintenance of any SuDS feature should be also considered at this early stage. Permeable paving needs to be swept to ensure the surface does not become clogged and ineffective, swales should be kept clear of debris and any infiltration basin/trench would need to be cleansed of any silt or rubbish which could collect. Further guidance on the use and design of SuDS components can be found in CIRIA document C697: The SuDS manual. Whilst we acknowledge that a draft surface water management scheme has been submitted, it must be ensured that the development and surrounding area will not be affected by the surface water generated by this development. Accordingly, should your Authority be minded to grant permission to this development, the following condition should be attached. Condition Development shall not begin until a detailed surface water drainage scheme for the site, based on sustainable drainage principles and an assessment of the hydrological and hydrogeological context of the development, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall subsequently be implemented in accordance with the approved details before the development is completed. Any detail submitted to discharge this condition should also include information on how the scheme shall be maintained and managed after completion.



10

1.8 Veolia Water –

If permission is granted for this application, we request a condition is attached requiring the developer to agree with this company, prior to commencement of the development, all necessary works and charges, including the preparation and completion of any legal agreements, associated with the provision of a potable water supply.

1.9 Southern Water –

Following initial investigations, there is currently inadequate capacity in the local network to provide foul sewage disposal to service the proposed development. The proposed development would increase flows to the public sewerage system and existing properties and land may be subject to a greater risk of flooding as a result. Additional off-site sewers, or improvements to existing sewers, will be required to provide sufficient capacity to service the development Section 98 of the Water Industry Act 1991 provides a legal mechanism through which the appropriate infrastructure can be requested (by the developer) and provided to drain to a specific location. Should this application receive planning approval, please include, as an informative to the permission, the following requirement: ‘The applicant/developer should enter into a formal agreement with Southern Water to provide the necessary sewerage infrastructure required to service this development. Please contact Atkins Ltd, Anglo St James House, 39A Southgate Street, Winchester, SO23 9EH (tel 01962 858688), or www.southernwater.co.uk.’ The planning application form makes reference to drainage using Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS). SUDS systems usually have a significant land take and it is not clear how the SUDS facilities can be accommodated within the proposed layout. Before the proposed layout is approved, we advise that the applicant/developer give consideration to ensure that the proposed means of surface water disposal can be accommodated within the proposed layout. Under current legislation and guidance SUDS rely upon facilities which are not adoptable by sewerage undertakers. Therefore, the applicant will need to ensure that arrangements exist for the long term maintenance of the SUDS facilities. It is critical that the effectiveness of these systems is maintained in perpetuity. Good management will avoid flooding from the proposed surface water system, which may result in the inundation of the foul sewerage system. Thus, where a SUDS scheme is to be implemented, the drainage details submitted to the Local Planning Authority should: • Specify the responsibilities of each party for the implementation of the

SUDS scheme. • Specify a timetable for implementation.



11

Provide a management and maintenance plan for the lifetime of the development. This should include the arrangements for adoption by any public authority or statutory undertaker and any other arrangements to secure the operation of the scheme throughout its lifetime. The Council’s Building Control officers or technical staff should be asked to comment on the adequacy of soakaways to dispose of surface water from the proposed development.

1.10 Kent Fire & Rescue Service - From the submitted plan(s) it appears that access to the site for the fire and rescue service, as required by Section 53 of the above legislation, is inadequate. I enclose a copy of our Guidance Note 7. In particular, I make the following observations: 1. On the plans the road by building 8 3BH requires a turning circle for the

fire services vehicles. Amended Plans - I confirm that the means of access is considered satisfactory.

1.11 Community Safety Unit Officer - I have visited the area and studied the proposed plans for this development and at this time have no concerns in relation to this application.

1.12 Kent County Council (Archaeology) - The application site lies within an area which has revealed evidence of occupation and settlement since the prehistoric period. Recent archaeological work at Hawkinge Aerodrome, 400m to the south east, has uncovered numerous examples of Roman and Iron Age activity as well as remains relating to the village’s role in the Second World War. The application site lies on a similar geology to the aerodrome itself, of clay with flints and over middle chalk and further archaeological remains may potentially be located at the proposed development site. It is possible that groundworks associated with the proposed development will impact upon archaeological remains. I, therefore, recommend that provision is made in any forthcoming planning consent for a programme of archaeological work. The following planning condition covers what would be required: Condition No development shall take place until the applicant, or their agents or successors in title, has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written specification and timetable which has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority.

The applicant has submitted an archaeological evaluation specification as part of the application details. This specification was produced by this office in response to an earlier outline application for the redevelopment of the site (under planning reference number Y03/1487/SH). The archaeological



12

evaluation of the site would form the first phase of the programme of archaeological works detailed in the above recommended planning condition. Following on from the evaluation further phases of archaeological work may be required. The nature of any subsequent phases of work will be informed by the results of the evaluation trenching.

1.13 Mouchel (on behalf of KCC) - I confirm that we have consulted Kent County Council, for whom we act as Agents, to establish the likely effect of the development (if permitted) upon Kent: Education, Community and Adult Social Services facilities within the area.

In accordance with consistent KCC methodologies, the development as proposed, has been assessed having regard to the new clients generated and local service provision capacities and creates the following KCC Service requirements: • Primary school places – sufficient capacity locally and, therefore, no

current requirement. • Secondary school places – sufficient capacity locally and, therefore, no

current requirement. • Libraries – There is a shortfall in Library provision in Shepway. To

address this currently, KCC will need to provide additional Bookstock, as per the attached calculation, to ensure sufficient resources are available for the new clients arising from this proposed development. Thus a contribution of £2881.59 arises to provide sufficient Bookstock for the new clients from this proposed development.

• Adult Education: There is a current shortfall in accommodation locally in Folkestone as shown in the attached statistics. KCC are addressing this through the provision of additional space and capacity for Adult Education at the new Skills Plus facility at Folkestone Library, this project provides one to one tuition using computers. The costing is £180 per dwelling. This additional capacity is, in accordance with Government policy in Circular 05/2005 Annexe B, a planned new facility to meet both existing deficiencies and provide additional capacity locally and, therefore, no current requirement.

• Youth and Community: Due to the cumulative effect of this and other developments in the area, the Kent Youth Service will have to employ additional Youth Workers to service the accumulating Young people locally. These detached youth workers deliver services both at existing youth centres out on sites, supported by such services as youth buses (see attached) supplying transport and resources in local communities. The cost of a detached youth worker over a five year period is £42,500 and can serve 6.67 you people (3 youth workers can serve 20 young people). Thus as this site development proposal generates 2.5 new youth attendees, the cost is £13,706.25.

• Adult Social Services – temporarily although KCC believe there is legitimate demand arising from this development, which will cause harm to both existing clients and the new Adult Social Services clients arising from this proposal through the dilution of existing services, no Adult



13

Social Services contribution will be sought currently whilst KCC are undertaking further work.

‘Applicable’ meaning the County Council do not seek Kent Youth Service contributions upon 1 bed units of less than 56 sq metres or sheltered accommodation for the elderly over 55 years of age; thus the above figure is, therefore, not applicable to such units where these are to be provided. I would wish to point out that these figures are valid for 3 months from the date of this letter after which they may need to be recalculated due to ongoing planning applications, changes in capacities and forecast rolls and build costs. We look forward to receiving confirmation that your Council will support Kent County Council in their request for the above contribution. Could you please require the developer/landowner to enter into an appropriate Section 106 Agreement relating to the provision of such contributions. The developer/landowner will also be required to pay the County Council’s legal costs, surveyor’s fees and expenses incurred in completing the Agreement.

1.14 Kent Downs AONB Unit – I understand that outline permission was given some time ago. As a general point, we would like to see every effort to enhance the design of both housing, soft landscaping and highways in the Hawkinge area in order to conserve and enhance the Kent Downs AONB and to reflect the fact that Hawkinge is a community in the area. The siting, scale and design of much new housing around urban edges can have an adverse impact on the AONB landscape through change in character in views in and out of the AONB, cumulative loss of landscape features, and erosion of character through use of standardised layouts and design. The Kent Downs Management Plan policies address these issues. Policies LLC1, 2 and 8 and SDT 2, 5, 7 and 12 are most relevant and we would seek that you refer to these in your determination of this application. Siskin Close accesses onto a rural lane the character of which should be retained. We refer you to the ‘Rural Streets and Lanes – a design Handbook’ (available on our website) which gives guidance on high quality detailed design guidance for the conservation and maintenance of the special characteristics of the AONB roads and highway network. The development is on the edge of undeveloped land and although the Siskin Close is developed on the opposite side of the road, there are the remnants of an overgrown hedge line on the Siskin Close (E) side of the proposed development. In line with the guidance of the Kent Downs Landscape Design Handbook (available on our website



14

www.kentdowns.org.uk) we would suggest that a high hedge line along Siskin Close is re-established, augmented and maintained. Chapters 2 and 4 of the Landscape Design Handbook advise on other design features and use of materials which would help soften the impact of this high density development. Generally, as much soft landscaping as possible should be employed both inside and along the boundaries of the site to ensure conservation and enhancement of the rural context. The boundary treatment along Siskin Close suggested above would do much to conserve this particularly as there is little opportunity within this high density site. In line with the Ecological assessment, we would expect the recommendations and enhancements (page 27) to be undertaken.

2.0 PUBLICITY

2.1 Neighbours notified by letter. Expiry date 24.07.10. 2.2 Site Notice. Advertised as a Departure - Expiry date 29.07.10. 2.3 Press Notice. Advertised as a Departure - Expiry date 29.07.10. 3.0 REPRESENTATIONS

3.1 Letters of objection/concern received from Mr and Mrs C Harrison, 1 Oak

Cottage, Paddlesworth Lane; Mr and Mrs M Conroy, 23 St Lukes Walk; Mrs Fenn, 22 St Lukes Walk and Mr J de Ville, The Hut, Paddlesworth Lane objecting and expressing concern on the following grounds: • Importance of maintaining an appropriate buffer strip and ensuring that

this is appropriately landscaped and planted at a sufficient density. The proposals incorporate a much narrower buffer strip than in other edge of settlement development in Hawkinge. If this is considered appropriate, then a much denser and higher planting programme will be required.

• Currently, there is no light pollution, any street lighting proposed should be of a type and nature that will localise its effect.

• The drainage ditch on the western boundary carries away a huge amount of surface water from Paddlesworth Lane and is unlikely to be able to cope with any additional run-off. This regularly becomes full to overflowing in winter months.

• Loss of view of semi-rural aspect. • Loss of area for youngsters to play in. • Loss of tree cover and haven for wildlife.

3.2 Letter of support received from Mr G Williams, 12 Mill Lane, Harbledown, Canterbury.



15

4.0 RELEVANT POLICY GUIDANCE 4.1 The full headings for the policies are attached to the schedule of planning

matters at Appendix 1. 4.2 The following policies of the Shepway District Local Plan Review apply:

SD1, HO1, HO4, LR9, LR10, BE1, BE16, U1a, U2, U4, U10a, U14, SC1, SC3, TR2, TR5, TR6, TR11, TR12, CO2, CO4, CO12, CO24

4.3 The following Supplementary Planning Documents and Government Guidance apply: Manual for Streets Kent Design Guide Building for Life PPS1 - Delivering Sustainable Development and Supplement to PPS1 PPS3 - Housing PPS5 - Planning for the Historic Environment PPS7 – Sustainable Development in Rural Areas PPG13 – Transport PPG17 – Open Space, Sport and Recreation PPS23 – Planning and Pollution Control PPS25 – Development and Flood Risk

5.0 LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION OF SITE 5.1 The application site is located to the western side of Siskin Close and to the

north of the Aerodrome Road/Paddlesworth Lane on the edge of the village of Hawkinge within the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and Special Landscape Area. The site, previously a self-seeded wooded area owned by the Hawkinge Activities and Adventure Centre extends to approximately 2.11 hectares (5.21 Acres) and is partially screened by several large trees and hedgerows along the western and southern boundaries. A significant tree felling programme was undertaken prior to the submission of the application. An open drainage ditch runs adjacent to the western boundary taking surface water run off from Aerodrome Road.

5.2 The site is gently sloping in nature, with a fall from south to north and from

east to west, with a raised section of land toward the middle section of the site. Existing residential development is located to the east, accessed via Siskin Close with open farmland, split into a series of fields surrounded by hedgerows to the west and north of the site. To the south is open land, formerly occupied by the officers’ mess buildings which were recently demolished as part of the purchase agreement for the application site.

5.3 Of the 2.11 hectares forming the application site, approximately 1.015

hectares forms part of the landscape buffer strips and woodland open space area with 1.096 hectares forming the net developable area for dwellings (including car parking and access road). The application site is shown on



16

the Proposals Map of the Shepway District Local Plan Review as partly allocated for housing development (the southern half of the site) with the remaining half protected as open space (by policy LR9). A landscape buffer strip is shown along the western boundary.

6.0 THE PROPOSAL 6.1 This is a detailed application for 50 residential dwellings, comprising 35 open

market and 15 affordable dwellings arranged as 4 No. 1 bedroom flats, 4 No. 2 bedroom flats, 5 No. 2 bedroom houses, 24 No. 3 bedroom houses and 13 No. 4 bedroom houses. The units are principally two storeys in height with some containing accommodation in the roof space and proposed materials such as local stock bricks, plain tile hanging, weatherboarding and render. Access to the site is proposed off Siskin Close via a circular loop road with cycle and car parking provision for each unit based on the unit size.

6.2 The proposals include a 10 metre wide strategic buffer strip to the western

boundary with an additional planting zone of 2 metres within the private garden areas of those units backing onto this western boundary (to accommodate a single specimen tree appropriate to a garden area which will need to be protected from future removal) to help supplement and augment the strategic buffer strip. A 15 metre buffer zone is proposed along the southern boundary, adjacent to Paddlesworth Lane, to help retain the existing landscaping and retain the rural character of the lane.

6.3 The application site includes the designated open space land (as shown on

the Proposals Map to the Local Plan) to the north of the proposed housing land, which together with the landscaped buffer strips extends to approximately 1.015 hectares (2.508 acres). A number of houses are included within the designated open space land and this has resulted in the application being advertised as a departure from the Local Plan.

6.4 The application is accompanied by a number of documents to support the

development proposals and these consist of:

• Design and Access Statement setting out the rationale behind the layout, scale, appearance and design of the scheme.

• Tree Surgery Report setting out the required works to the trees and those worthy of retention and including recommendations for additional tree planting to supplement those trees lost.

• Phase 1 Ecological Survey. • Phase 2 Ecological Survey to expand upon the finding of the Phase 1

Survey. • Japanese Knotweed Report setting out how the Japanese Knotweed

issues will be dealt with on-site. • Foul and Surface Water Drainage Strategy Report. • Existing Infrastructure/Condition Report. • Munitions Contamination Survey. • Phase 1 Contamination Risk Assessment.



17

7.0 PLANNING HISTORY 7.1 78/1082/SH - Use of land for recreational purposes in

connection with Youth Adventure Centre. Approved 16.11.78.

7.2 81/0825/SH - Use of land and buildings for recreational purpose

in the form of a BMX course (south section) and assault course (north section). Approved 25.09.81.

7.3 82/0527/SH - Change of use of old guard room to BMX

commentary box including extension. Withdrawn 12.09.82.

7.4 Y03/1487/SH - Outline application for residential development.

Approved 02.01.07.

8.0 APPRAISAL General Principles 8.1 The principle issues to consider with the application relate to the impact of

the development on the visual amenities and character of the surrounding area, including the impact on the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and Special Landscape Area, the acceptability of housing on part of the allocated open space area, highway safety including the provision of adequate parking within the site to service the development, impact on the amenities of surrounding residents, the acceptability and provision of contributions towards affordable housing, open space provision and future maintenance, child play facilities, KCC contributions and the provision of a new bus shelter on Aerodrome Road and the impact of the development on ecology/trees.

Policy Issues 8.2 Part of the application site (running adjacent to Siskin Close and Aerodrome

Road) is an allocated housing site as set out in the Shepway District Local Plan Review which extends roughly parallel with St Luke’s Walk and towards the western boundary. The remainder of the site (to the north) is allocated as an open space area. A strategic landscape buffer area is identified along the entire length of the western boundary.

8.3 The application has been advertised as a departure from Local Plan policies

because the developable area proposed as part of the current application extends into the area allocated as open space.

8.4 A previous outline planning permission (with all matters reserved for future

consideration) for part of the site (including the allocated housing site and



18

part of the landscape buffer area) and extending to some 1.2 hectares was granted in January 2007, but has since lapsed. This permission established a number of principles for development on the site and included a number of conditions which have informed the submission and detail for the current application. The principle for residential development has, therefore, already been established on the site allocated for housing.

8.5 Notwithstanding the above, policy HO1 of the Local Plan supports residential

development on allocated site whilst policy LR9 seeks to protect areas of open space as defined on the Proposals Map and seeks to resist the net loss of such space unless:

• sufficient alternative open space exists • development does not result in an unacceptable loss in environmental

quality • it is the best means of securing an improved or alternative recreational

facility of at least equivalent community benefit having regard to any deficiencies in the locality.

Policy CO24 seeks to protect the indicative strategic landscape areas as shown on the Proposals Map with their precise nature and extent determined in the context of detailed landscaping proposals for the site to which they relate, whilst policy CO4 seeks to protect or enhance the natural beauty of Special Landscape Areas (SLA) and PPS7 requires the conservation of the natural beauty of the landscape designated as Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB).

Strategic Landscaping 8.6 The strategic landscape buffer to the western boundary is integral to the

development of the site given its edge of settlement location and potential impact on the visual character and appearance of the AONB and SLA. Pre-application discussions were undertaken between officers and the applicant to determine the exact nature and extent of this buffer area. It was noted during these discussions that the majority or a significant part of other strategic buffer areas within Hawkinge are significantly deeper than the 10 metre proposed as part of the current application. However, following an in-depth investigation of the site and its surrounding character, it was concluded that a 15 metre landscape buffer area should be incorporated to the southern boundary running parallel with Aerodrome Road/Paddlesworth Lane to retain the existing boundary treatment/hedgerow features and more importantly, to retain the rural character of the lane and to denote is edge of settlement location. This is not a requirement of policy CO24 (as denoted on the Proposals Map) but an essential part of the character of this part of the site.

8.7 Consequently, this requirement put pressure on the strategic buffer area to

the western boundary, especially given the restrictions due to the allocated open space area to the north of the site and the resultant developable area remaining for a viable housing site. In determining the extent and depth of the buffer area to the west, account has been taken of the existing screening



19

to this boundary, the hedgerows outside the site which run parallel to Siskin Close and create the defined character of the countryside beyond the site as well as the importance of linking these features in with the application site. It was concluded that a 10m deep buffer area with an additional 2m within the garden areas of those properties that back onto this landscaped area, to incorporate the planting of a specimen tree (suitable for an average sized garden) would adequately provide sufficient visual relief to mark the edge of the settlement and protect the undeveloped nature of the countryside beyond.

8.8 The indicative strategic landscaped buffer area as shown on the Proposals

Map to the Local Plan is also shown to extend to the northern part of the site, within the open space allocated area. As no development is proposed in this area and the intention is to leave this as a semi–wild woodland area, with public access, it is not considered necessary that a strategic buffer area is included within this part of the site. The S106, discussed later in the report will deal with management of this area.

Visual Impact 8.9 The scheme has been designed in response to its semi–rural setting, the

landscape features and to respect the local vernacular of the surrounding area. The layout has been devised in accordance with “Manual for Streets” creating two access points and an environment in which vehicle traffic and speeds are reduced and do not dominate the development. As such properties front directly onto the street, creating interesting and active frontages and streets have been designed to be pedestrian-orientated shared surfaces with a mixture of herringbone and tegula block paving to passively reduce vehicle speeds and define the pedestrian priority nature of the scheme.

8.10 The relationship of the proposed houses has been carefully considered to

relate to the scale and density of the surrounding houses, however careful attention has been given to ensuring that the houses fronting Siskin Close create an active frontage with defined entrances, public/private areas and corner features to encourage a sense of place and ease of movement around the site. These features have been carried through into the site to create varied and interesting street-scene views and to create an easily identifiable route and link through to the proposed public woodland area.

8.11 Generally the houses and flats are either semi-detached or in small terraces

of three arranged over two floors with some of the units containing accommodation in the roof space, with parking predominantly positioned either to the side elevations or to the front of the dwellings, limiting the extent of built form and establishing a more historic and rural-style street-scene.

8.12 Houses which have dual frontages, overlook public areas or have been

designed to turn the corner have been specifically included within the scheme to help create natural passive surveillance, create identity to the development with easily recognisable movement routes and create a well structured building layout.



20

8.13 Varying built forms and heights are utilised within the site to create feature

vistas from the access road and to significantly vary the roof-scape within the street-scenes, with gables, barn-hips, ground floor bay windows, chimneys and entrance porches, all utilised throughout the scheme to vary the scale and to establish a sense of individuality to each plot. All dwellings are framed by defined private landscaped areas to front gardens which helps achieve a sense of identity to the dwellings and helps to break up the built form.

8.14 The general design concept has been to keep to the traditional Kentish

vernacular, drawing on influences of building types and materials from the surrounding area to include such materials as a variety of tiles to the roofs with a mixture of local stock facing bricks, plain feature tile handing, weatherboarding and render to walls.

8.15 Give the above assessment, it is considered that the proposals relate well to

the surrounding built form, create an ease of movement around and within the site and a sense of identity to the scheme, create an interesting and varied roof form and street-scene with new vistas within the site and create an acceptable relationship and impact to this edge of settlement location within the AONB and SLA.

Development on Open Space Allocated Land 8.16 As set out above, a small part of the site is proposed to be developed on the

allocated open space area protected by policy LR9 of the Local Plan. As such, the application has been advertised as a departure from the Local Plan. The plans show 5 houses and 6 flats included within this allocated area of which 4 houses are open market dwellings and 6 flats are affordable dwellings. This aspect of the scheme was the result of considerable negotiation prior to the submission of the application. It was considered during these discussions that the arbitrary line drawn on the Proposals Map to denote this open space area did not take into account the character and layout of the surrounding area and would not link in well with the proposed development. Incursion into the designated open space was considered acceptable in this instance given the key importance of landscaping to the scheme, the need to include an additional 15m buffer strip to the southern boundary (not part of the requirements of the Local Plan) and the desire to link the proposed housing scheme with the open space area and provide greater connectivity and passive surveillance to this area and the opportunity of linking in numbers 7-13 Siskin Close which appear isolated in streetscene terms from the rest of the development to the east.

8.17 It is acknowledged that the requirements of policy LR9 as set out in

paragraph 8.5 above, seek to protect open space areas and a net loss of such areas will only be permitted if a number of criteria are met. It is also accepted that the first part of this policy cannot be met as Appendix 9 of the Local Plan shows Hawkinge Parish to be deficient in outdoor sports space. However, the remaining two parts of this policy can be considered to be satisfied by the proposals as the scheme will not result in the loss of environmental quality and the realisation of this application will release this



21

existing private land (currently with no public access) either in public ownership or to a management company with requirements to maintain public access in perputity (to be agreed as part of the S106 negotiations).

8.18 Taking into account the realisation that such land could become publically

accessible and usable for open space recreation within a short time scale, the benefits of linking the application scheme with the open space site and linking the development to the established built form, especially with Nos. 7-13 Siskin Close, the natural surveillance to the open space area created by the close proximity of the dwellings and the restrictions imposed by the additional landscaping to the southern boundary, it is considered that the overall benefits of the scheme outweigh the small loss of open space area and in this instance, given the special circumstances of the site, the proposals are considered acceptable.

Traffic/Transportation 8.19 The scheme has been re-designed since the approval of the outline

permission for the site (Y03/1187/SH) which was designed around a single access point to serve the development. This was based on outdated guidance and the current application has been designed around the latest road/street layout guidance “Manual for Streets” which encourages shared street spaces, active street frontages and natural design led features to reduce the dominance of the car and reduce traffic speeds. Kent Highway Services encourage the use of the proposed layout.

8.20 Concern was initially expressed over the parking arrangements for the site,

which included mostly tandem parking spaces with garages. This has since been resolved by the introduction of car barns/car ports and in those areas which can accommodate the required standards, garages. Conditions can be imposed requiring the car barns and car ports to remain open (without garage doors) thereby keeping these areas reserved for the parking of cars and not for storage purposes.

8.21 The other requirements requested by Kent Highway Services can be

secured by condition, together with the requests for cycle parking on the basis of one space per bedroom and secure compound parking within the flats at one space per unit.

8.22 Concerns initially expressed by Kent Fire Services over the road layout have

been addressed by the submission of amended plans. Residential Amenity 8.23 The site has been allocated as a housing site for a considerable period of

time in the Local Plan and a change in the general character of the site was inevitable. However, the scheme has been designed in such as way as to have no adverse amenity issues for surrounding residents. In fact, the benefits of developing the site and the resultant release of the currently fenced off private open space allocation to the north of the site for use by local residents will significantly benefit the surrounding residents and the



22

residents of Hawkinge as a whole who will be able to use this publically accessible open space area.

8.24 Within the site and for the benefit of future occupiers of the houses/flats,

design measures have been included to limit any potential overlooking to private garden areas with good back to back distances from properties and staggered elevations to create private areas.

8.25 All houses are provided with a reasonable amount of amenity space, with

rear garden areas varying in depth from 8-12 metres and with communal areas provided for the flat units.

Developer Contributions and Affordable Housing 8.26 The application provides for 30% affordable housing as set out under policy

HO4 of the Local Plan comprising 4 No. 1 bedroom flats, 2 No. 2 bedroom flats, 3 No. 2 bedroom houses, 4 No. 3 bedroom houses and 2 No. 4 bedroom houses. The layout within the site and housing tenure have been agreed with the Council’s Housing Strategy Manager who requests that some flexibility be built into the S106 agreement if prevailing market conditions dictate. The details of such affordable housing will be included within the S106 agreement.

8.27 The applicant has also agreed to the following principle contributions

generated as part of the development proposals or required by the Local Plan to be secured through the S106 agreement.

• KCC contributions towards Libraries, Adult Education and Youth and

Community totalling £24,987.84. • Costs of providing a bus shelter on Aerodrome Road as requested by

Kent Highways including replacement parts for a 15 year period totalling £4,448.

• Contribution of £16,000 toward the upgrading of the existing child’s play space at St Luke’s Walk site (instead of new facility on site).

• Measures to either transfer the open space designated land to Shepway Council with a contribution towards future costs associated with this land of £34,969.82 (with all tree surgery works carried out and the site handed over to an agreed condition) OR

• The applicant/management company retaining ownership of the land with Shepway Council agreeing to terms regarding the long term strategy for maintenance of the site which shall include detail of public access to the site being maintained in perpetuity.

• Contribution of £2,000 towards monitoring of the legal agreement. 8.28 The applicants have agreed the principle Head of Terms for contributions

arising from the site, but the finer details of the agreement need to be discussed further. It is recommended that the final details of the agreement are delegated to the Head of Planning Services.

8.29 All developer contributions arising from the development and requested from

the developer have been met in full and the proposals are therefore



23

considered in accordance with policies SC1, HO4, LR9 and LR10 of the Local Plan.

Ecology Issues 8.30 A number of surveys have been submitted as part of the application,

including Phase 1 and Phase 2 ecology surveys. Bats were recorded at the site, principally within the area of trees along the northern and western boundaries. Whilst it is acknowledged that significant tree clearance was undertaken prior to the submission of the application, it has been stated within the latest Phase 2 survey that there is no evidence to suggest that any legal offence resulted.

8.31 The surveys recommend mitigation measures be incorporated into the

scheme which include provision of 12 bat boxes/tubes, careful attention to lighting schemes, especially to those houses backing onto the landscape buffer areas and the supplementing of the landscaping to the northern, southern and western boundaries of the site.

8.32 The reptile survey established the presence of protected reptiles on the

proposed housing part of the site and recommends the translocation of these reptiles to the allocated open space. It further recommends the creation of two habitat piles within this area providing refuge and hibernation opportunities for reptiles together with management of the northern part of the site to maintain these habitats.

8.33 Subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions to secure mitigation

measures as set out in the survey recommendations prior to the commencement of works on site, then it considered that the proposals would meet the requirements of policy CO11 of the Local Plan.

Contamination Issues/Japanese Knotweed 8.34 A number of reports have been submitted with the application providing

advice on the contamination of the site including munitions contamination and Japanese Knotweed. Advice has been sought from the Environment Agency and from the Council’s Environmental Health Officers which is detailed in sections 1.5 and 1.8 above.

8.35 The Environment Agency recommend a number of conditions to secure

further investigation (over an above that already submitted) and the Council’s Environmental Health Officer concurs that further assessment is required, both in relation to the Contamination Risk Assessment and to the unexploded ordnance assessment. It is considered reasonable that the conditions suggested by the Environment Agency and by the Council’s Environmental Health Officer be included.

8.36 A report on Japanese Knotweed was also contained in the application

details, but the recommendations of this report were not agreed with the Council’s Parks and Recreation Manager. However, following discussions on



24

this matter, an approach to deal with this infestation on the site has been agreed and will be secured by condition.

Surface Water 8.37 A surface water drainage strategy has been provided as part of the

development proposals as concerns were raised in pre-applications discussions over how surface water drainage would be disposed of and what implications the scheme would have on the existing informal surface water discharge and drainage from Aerodrome Road/Paddlesworth Lane to the ditch along part of the western boundary of the site. The report recommends the discharge of foul water to the existing foul pumping station located to the north of the development with surface water discharged via a deep bore soakaway and an existing ditch to the western boundary (for the roofs and adoptable areas). Permeable paving will be used to discharge surface water run-off generated by private driveway areas.

8.38 The Environment Agency and Southern Water have provided comments on

the drainage strategy and the preferred option for surface water management. Whilst both raise no objection in principle to such measures, conditions have been recommended to secure an appropriate drainage scheme for the site. It will be essential that a management plan and maintenance schedule is submitted to ensure future maintenance of the system and this can be included as part of a planning condition.

Archaeology 8.39 An archaeological evaluation of the site has been provided as part of the

development proposals, principally as a result of a previous condition on the now lapsed outline permission. KCC have commented on the application (see para 1.13 above) stating that this forms the first phase of the programme for archaeological works but that further phases of archaeological work may be required, subject to the results of the evaluation trenching. The same condition as previously imposed is recommended again to cover these additional works and it is considered reasonable that this is imposed.

Overall Landscaping 8.40 As previously stated, the site has been the subject of pre-application

discussions and the southern part of the site contained a significant number of trees within it. Due regard was had to the Tree Surgery Report and the recommendations contained within this report. Given the structural deficiencies to a large number of trees and the inherent problems of positioning housing in close proximity to these trees, it was considered more preferable to plan for a new landscaping strategy, with landscaping forming an integral part of the scheme and to retain only a limited number of existing trees, principally to the northern area and western and southern buffer areas. Whilst it is accepted that this has resulted in the removal of most of the trees in the southern part of the site which has changed the character of this site,



25

this was considered and agreed by the Council’s Arboricultural Manager as the best long term solution for the site.

8.41 The comments received from the Kent Downs AONB Unit seem to support

the stance taken by officers over the strategic landscaping buffer areas and the general approach to landscaping across the whole site. The additional mitigation measures suggested as part of the ecological surveys will also help to improve the biodiversity of the site.

Sustainability Measures 8.42 The Design and Access Statement accompanying the application states that

the site is within walking distance of local shops and amenities and near to a regular bus stop. As part of the developer contributions for the site the developer has agreed to pay for a new bus shelter at the existing bus stop on Aerodrome Road, thereby increasing its likely use during inclement weather.

8.43 As part of the proposals (and recommended to be secured by condition),

cycle parking is proposed for each dwelling with provision within each unit for composting, recycling and external clothes drying facilities. All dwellings will be fitted with energy efficient appliances and dual flush toilets and flow restrictor taps to reduce water consumption.

8.44 All the dwellings will be designed to meet Level 3 of the Code for

Sustainable Homes with the inclusion of a variety of renewable technologies currently under investigation by the developer.

Human Rights 8.45 In reaching a decision on a planning application the European Convention

on Human Rights must be considered. The Convention Rights that are relevant are Article 8 and Article 1 of the first protocol. The proposed course of action is in accordance with domestic law. As the rights in these two articles are qualified, the Council needs to balance the rights of the individual against the interests of society and must be satisfied that any interference with an individual’s rights is no more than necessary. Having regard to the previous paragraphs of this report, it is not considered that there is any infringement of the relevant Convention rights.

8.46 This application is reported to Committee due to the loss of part of the

allocated open space. 9.0 SUMMARY 9.1 The application site forms part an allocated housing site as set out in the

Shepway District Local Plan Review with a recent history for outline planning permission, with the remaining part of the site allocated as open space and the requirement to provide a strategic landscaped buffer area to the western boundary. A small part of the proposed housing provision is provided within



26

the allocated open space area and this has necessitated the application being advertised as a departure from the Local Plan.

9.2 Given the restraints on the site, the desire to provide an additional

landscaping buffer to the southern boundary to retain the rural character of the lane and the wish to link the existing housing development and the area of open space with the current proposals, it is considered that the small loss of open space is considerable acceptable in this instance.

9.3 The proposed landscape buffer areas together with the general layout and

design of the scheme which includes significant area of landscaping to the frontages of all the development and which seeks to provide a semi –rural character to this edge of settlement location, is considerable acceptable and in accordance with established design principles. Activity and interest and an ease of movement around and through the site are maintained with active corner frontages and an interesting and varied streetscape.

9.4 Affordable housing is provided throughout the scheme to the adopted

standards with the developer meeting all contributions requested by the Local Authority. Public access and maintenance to the currently private open space area will be secured as part of the S106 negotiations and this will benefit the wider community of Hawkinge.

9.5 Conditions are recommended to secure appropriate mitigation measures to

cover such matters as ecology, contamination, surface water drainage, tree protection and highway matters and subject to the completion of the S106 agreement, all matters relating to the application are now considered acceptable and the application is recommended for permission.

10.0 BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS 10.1 The consultation responses set out at Section 1.0 and any representations

at Section 3.0 are background documents for the purposes of the Local Government Act 1972 (as amended).

RECOMMENDATION – That planning permission be granted subject to the completion of a legal agreement covering those issues as set out under section titled Developer Contributions and Affordable Housing within the report, with delegated authority given to the Head of Planning Services to negotiate the wording of the agreement and subject to the conditions set out below including any revisions or additions that the Head of Planning Services may consider appropriate. 1. Time Limit - 3 years 2. Materials to be approved and if phased then details for each phase 3. Plan numbers



27

4. Parking to be retained 5. Retention of car barns/car ports as approved without addition of garage

doors to retain these areas for the parking of cars. 6. Provision of pedestrian visibility spays measuring 2m x 2m either side of

each parking space/new access above a height of 600mm 7. Details of cycle parking provision for each unit based on one space per

bedroom for houses and one space per unit for flats. 8. Wheel washing facilities 9. Parking for site personnel 10. Details of management of the site including working times, delivery routes,

compliance with a considerate constructor’s scheme, disposal of material etc. including existing spoil.

11. Removal of permitted development right for additional hard-surfacing to front

garden areas. 12. Prior to the commencement of development approved by this planning

permission (or such other date or stage in development as may be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority), the following components of a scheme to deal with the risks associated with contamination of the site shall each be submitted to and approved, in writing, by the local planning authority:

1. A preliminary risk assessment which has identified:

• All previous uses. • Potential contaminants associated with those uses. • A conceptual model of the site indicating sources, pathways and

receptors. • Potentially unacceptable risks arising from contamination at the site.

2. A site investigation scheme, based on (1) to provide information for a detailed assessment of the risk to all receptors that may be affected, including those off site.

3. The site investigation results and the detailed assessment (2) and,

based on these, an options appraisal and remediation strategy giving full details of the remediation measures required and how they are to be undertaken.

4. A verification plan providing details of the data that will be collected in

order to demonstrate that the works set out in (3) are complete and identifying any requirements for longer-term monitoring of pollutant linkages, maintenance and arrangements for contingency action.



28

Any changes to these components require the express consent of the local planning authority. The scheme shall be implemented as approved.

13. Prior to commencement of development, a verification report demonstrating

completion of the works set out in the approved remediation strategy and the effectiveness of the remediation shall be submitted to and approved, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority. The report shall include results of sampling and monitoring carried out in accordance with the approved verification plan to demonstrate that the site remediation criteria have been met. It shall also include any plan (a long-term monitoring and maintenance plan) for longer term monitoring of pollutant linkages, maintenance and arrangements for contingency action, as identified in the verification plan and for the reporting of this to the Local Planning Authority.

14. If, during development, contamination not previously identified is found to be

present at the site, then no further development (unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority) shall be carried out until the developer has submitted, and obtained written approval from the Local Planning Authority for, an amendment to the remediation strategy detailing how this unsuspected contamination shall be dealt with.

15. No infiltration of surface water drainage into the ground is permitted other

than with the express written consent of the Local Planning Authority, which may be given for those parts of the site where it has been demonstrated that there is no resultant unacceptable risk to controlled waters.

16. Development shall not begin until a detailed surface water drainage scheme

for the site, based on sustainable drainage principles and an assessment of the hydrological and hydrogeological context of the development, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall subsequently be implemented in accordance with the approved details before the development is completed.

The drainage details submitted in accordance with the details above shall: • Specify the responsibilities of each party for the implementation of the

SUDS scheme. • Specify a timetable for implementation.

And provide a management and maintenance plan for the lifetime of the development. This should include the arrangements for adoption by any public authority or statutory undertaker and any other arrangements to secure the operation of the scheme throughout its lifetime.

17. Watching brief for unexploded ordnance during site works. 18. Removal and treatment of Japanese Knotweed as set out by e-mail dated

27th August 2010 from Simon Pentecost with certificates to be provided to the LPA to show that this material was removed from the site within two years of the commencement of works on site or such time frame as agreed



29

in writing with the Local Planning Authority and re-instatement of this area to an agreed condition.

19. Recommendations as set out by the Phase 2 Ecology Report to cover

installation of:

• Bat Boxes/tubes/bricks with details and location to be agreed with LPA • Translocation of Reptiles – to be undertaken only during the months of

March to September and to be supervised by a qualified ecologist prior to the commencement of development.

• Creation of habitat piles within area of open space to north of site prior to the commencement of development.

20. Details of a lighting strategy scheme for all houses backing onto the

landscaped buffer areas and a scheme to inform all future owners occupiers of the requirements of this scheme, without any further installation of lighting without the agreement in writing of the LPA in order to protect the bats using the site for foraging and feeding purposes.

21. No development shall take place until the applicant, or their agents or

successors in title, has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written specification and timetable which has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority.

22. Tree works to the two retained trees immediately adjacent to units 6-7 as set

out by Keith Tait Tree Surgery Report and works to the remaining trees to be retained. Such works to be carried out prior to first occupation of any of the units hereby approved.

23. Provision of protective fencing to trees and woodland area to the north of the

site and such measures to be provided and in place prior to the commencement of works on site. The existing Herras protective fencing to the western and southern buffer areas to remain in place at all times and not to be removed until the completion of each phase of development (to be agreed with the LPA) with no storage of plant/building materials within these areas.

24. Comprehensive landscaping scheme to include details of all hard and soft

landscaping inclusive of all boundary treatments and details of measures to ensure the 2 metre planting zones with gardens backing onto the western boundary are retained as set out in the landscaping plan. (Consideration may be needed to require a condition to cover the retention of planting within the 2 metre garden areas).

25. Landscape Maintenance and Management of communal areas (not

proposed to be adopted by Shepway Council) and how these are to be managed and maintained for the life-time of the development.

26. Retention of remaining tree and shrubs to southern, western and northern

areas.



30

27. Requirement to meet Code Level 3 of the Code for sustainable Homes. 28. Details of the location and design of bin storage and recycling area to be

submitted to and approved by the LPA. Informatives: 1. Section 106 agreement. 2. Draw applicant attention to comments set out in the Environment Agency’s

letter dated 4th August 2010. 3. Draw application attention to Southern Water letter dated 8th July 2010. In the view of the District Planning Authority, and having taken into account all material planning considerations, there is insufficient demonstrable harm or conflict with policy arising from the proposal to warrant withholding planning permission. In coming to this decision, regard has been had to the following policies: Shepway District Local Plan Review – SD1, HO1, HO4, LR9, LR10, BE1, BE16, U1a, U2, U4, U10a, U14, SC1, SC3, TR2, TR5, TR6, TR11, TR12, CO2, CO4, CO12, CO24 Manual for Streets Kent Design Guide Building for Life PPS1 - Delivering Sustainable Development and Supplement to PPS1 PPS3 - Housing PPS5 - Planning for the Historic Environment PPS7 – Sustainable Development in Rural Areas PPG13 – Transport PPG17 – Open space, Sport and Recreation PPS23 – Planning and Pollution Control PPS25 – Development and Flood Risk Decision of Committee



33

Application No: Y10/0709/SH Location of Site: Greenloaming, Teddars Leas Road,

Etchinghill, Folkestone, CT18 8DA Development: Erection of a two storey detached dwelling,

together with detached stable and garage building, following demolition of existing buildings.

Applicant: Mr W Collins Greenloaming Teddars Leas Road Etchinghill Kent CT18 8DA

Agent: Mr James Dolan 4 Upper Sheridan Road Belvedere Kent DA17 5AP

Date Received: 28.07.10 Date of Committee: 26.10.10 Expiry Date: 27.10.10 NG REF: 617853 139818 Officer Contact: Julian Ling RECOMMENDATION: That planning permission be refused for the reasons set out at the end of this report. 1.0 CONSULTATIONS 1.1 Lyminge Parish Council – No objection. 1.2 Newington Parish Council - No objection in principle but there is concern at the height of the roof and the

east and west elevations are dominant. 1.3 Kent Highway Services -

I note that the applicant has not demonstrated visibility sightlines at the access point, despite indicating that improvements would be made as part of their response to the previous application. Bearing in mind the derestricted nature of Teddars Leas Road, and a possible uplift in vehicle movements at the access, it is important that proposed sightlines are annotated so that they can be conditioned. Achievable sightlines should be demonstrated 2.4 metres back from the carriageway edge, in both directions



34

1.4 Arboricultural Manager - No objections to proposals. All recommendations relating to tree protection, Japanese Knotweed, TPO’d

trees and surface treatments as recorded in Phillip Wilson’s Tree Survey dated 18.11.09 and Martin Newcombe’s Ecological Report dated 15.11.09 should ideally be conditioned.

1.5 Environment Agency –

We have no objection to the application and are pleased to see that the drainage from the stables complex will be discharged to the foul system in line with our advice.

1.6 Natural England- We have checked our records and based on the information provided, we

can confirm that the application site lies close to habitats which form part of the Folkestone to Etchinghill Escarpment Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). This SSSI is part of the Folkestone to Etchinghill Escarpment Special Area of Conservation (SAC).

This reply gives our advice on the requirements of Regulation 61 of the

Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010. Natural England has no objection to the proposed development. It is our

view that, either alone or in combination with other plans or projects, this proposal would not be likely to have a significant effect on the above site(s) and the permission may be granted (subject to other planning considerations) under the terms of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations.

Kent Downs We request that you refer to the Kent Downs Area of Outstanding Natural

Beauty (AONB) Management Plan for detailed guidance on ways in which landscape character and local distinctiveness can be preserved and how this development can be improved so that it is ‘good enough to approve’. We suggest that you also send details of the proposal to the AONB Unit, if you have not done so already in order to ensure that planning issues regarding this proposal take into account the various issues that arise as a result of the AONB designation.

Protected Species We would recommend that for current applications, you refer to the standing

advice to see if it provides you with sufficient guidance and confidence in assessing the impacts associated with the development upon protected species.

Biodiversity Enhancements This application has many opportunities to incorporate features into the

design which are beneficial to wildlife such as the incorporation of roosting opportunities for bats, the installation of bird nest boxes or the use of native



35

species in the landscape planting, for example. As such, we would recommend that should the Council be minded to grant permission for this application, measures to enhance the biodiversity of the site are secured from the applicant. This is in accordance with Paragraph 14 of Planning Policy Statement 9. Additionally, we would draw your attention to Section 40 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act (2006) which states that ‘Every public authority must, in exercising its functions, have regard, so far as is consistent with the proper exercise of those functions, the purpose of conserving biodiversity’. Section 40(3) also states that ‘conserving biodiversity includes, in relation to a living organism or type of habitat, restoring or enhancing a population or habitat’.

1.7 Public Rights of Way Views awaited. 1.8 Kent Wildlife Trust Views awaited. 1.9 Kent Downs AONB Unit – Views awaited. 2.0 PUBLICITY

2.1 Neighbours notified by letter. Expiry date 05.09.10. 2.2 Site Notice. Expiry date 24.09.10. 2.3 Press Notice. Expiry date 09.09.10. 3.0 REPRESENTATIONS

3.1 Letters received from Mrs R Harris Ceol-Na-Mara Teddars Leas Road, Mr N

Howard 15 St John’s Way, Mr R Stacey Teddars Leas House Teddars Leas Road, Mr RU Copping Mill House Canterbury Road Lyminge, and Mrs S Cloake Revendell Teddars Leas Road supporting on the following grounds: • The barn on site is enormous and appears unsightly. It’s removal will be

an enhancement to the area. • The use of the site for residential, instead of a commercial riding school

would result in reduced traffic and car movements and less of a disturbance.

• The site is out of control with Japanese Knotweed. • The existing stables are a danger as well as a rodent problem. • The application proposes a traditional design which will enhance the

local area. • The site has not been used for over ten years and needs developing.



36



SD1, BE1, BE16, BE17, CO1, CO2, CO4, CO9, CO11, U1, U4, TR11, TR12, HO1.

4.3 The following Supplementary Planning Documents and Government Guidance apply: Planning Policy Statement 7 – Sustainable Development in Rural Areas. Planning Policy Statement 23 – Planning and Pollution Control. Kent Downs AONB Landscape Design Handbook

5.0 LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION OF SITE 5.1 The site is located within the rural parish of Newington, outside of any village

settlement boundary and within the open countryside. The site is set high up upon the chalk downland escarpments, within the wider Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and Special Landscape Area.

5.2 The site is located on the south side of Teddars Lane. It currently contains a

large agricultural style building previously used for equestrian purposes and variety of smaller outbuildings and structures within the site. The site is well vegetated, with some hardsurfacing and is very much overgrown with tall trees around its perimeter the subject of TPO No.5 of 1999. Immediately to the south are the open chalk grasslands of the Kent Downs, part of which is designated as an SSSI.

6.0 THE PROPOSAL 6.1 The application seeks planning permission for the erection of a detached two

storey dwelling with a detached stable and garage building following the removal of the existing buildings.

6.2 In this regard, it is first proposed to remove all existing buildings and

structures upon the site and level the land. It is then proposed to erect the two storey detached dwelling and garage and stables building and landscape the remainder of the site.

6.3 The dwelling would be sited centrally within the plot and have a floor area of

430 metres square and a maximum ridge height of 10.5 metres. Externally it would be of a pastiche design and is proposed to be constructed with an oak frame and finished with render, herringbone brickwork, clay tile hanging as well as clay roof tiles and timber fenestration. Internally, on the ground floor there would be a joint family room and lounge, tv/music room, gym, study,



37

kitchen/breakfast and utility room and separate dining room. On the first floor, five bedrooms all with en-suite bathrooms are proposed together with two separate bathrooms.

6.4 It is also proposed for a detached garage and stable block to be erected

upon the south west boundary of the site. This would have a floor area of 196 metres square and a ridge height of 5.8 metres. It is proposed to have a barn hip roof and be constructed with plain clay tiles and facing brickwork and have timber stained garage doors. Internally, the building would have seven stables, a tack room, double garage and tractor store.

6.5 The application has been accompanied by some supporting documents

summarised below:

• Design and Access Statement: A written overview of the development. • Arboricultural Report: A full arboricultural survey has been carried out

which concludes that there are no major arboricultural constraints. • Ecological Survey: This concludes that there are no major ecological

constraints. The survey does identify that the site is heavily colonised by Japanese Knotweed.

7.0 PLANNING HISTORY 7.1 CH/8/67/72 - Use of one room as study. Approved 10.05.67. 7.2 CH/8/72/211 - Construction of a swimming pool. Approved

15.08.72. 7.3 CH/8/73/323 - Extensions and alterations. Approved 10.10.73. 7.4 SH/78/44 - Extension and alterations. Approved 10.02.78. 7.5 SH/86/107 - Erection of a building for agricultural storage and

training horses. Approved 14.04.86. 7.6 SH/87/469 - Erection of stables. Approved 05.08.87. 7.7 96/0227/SH - Erection of an extension over existing stables to

provide residential accommodation. Approved 24.05.96.

7.8 99/0913/SH - Retention of boundary fence and construction of

brick gate piers and gates. Refused 22.11.99. 7.9 99/1067/SH - Temporary siting of a mobile home. Refused

18.01.00. 7.10 Y00/0468/SH - Erection of a replacement 1.3 metre high fence

and entrance gates with brick piers. Approved 31.08.00.



38

7.11 Y00/0545/SH - Erection of a replacement building to provide

residential and stable accommodation. Approved 04.08.00.

7.12 Y00/0829/SH - Retention of a mobile home for a temporary

period of six months. Approved 21.09.00. 7.13 Y05/0565/SH - Renewal of planning permission Y00/0545/SH for

the erection of a replacement building to provide residential and stable accommodation. Refused 15.06.05.

7.14 Y08/0920/SH - Variation of condition 2 of SH/86/0107 and

condition 2 of SH/87/0469 which restrict the use of the barn and stables to the applicant only. Approved 21.10.08.

7.15 Y09/0006/SH - Felling of twelve trees, removal of lower limbs of

an Ash tree and various works to a mixed species group on the southern boundary, including removal of self-set elders and suckers all subject of Tree Preservation Order No. 5 of 1999. Approved 25.02.09.

7.16 Y09/0709/SH - Erection of a two storey detached dwelling,

detached garage and stable block. Refused 10.03.10.

8.0 APPRAISAL Background Information 8.1 As can be seen from the planning history above, the site has a lengthy

planning history. Therefore, in this instance it is worth evaluating the planning history and background to this site and the developments that have occurred prior to this application. The site contains a large agricultural style building which was granted planning permission in 1986 (reference SH/86/107) for the purposes of agricultural storage and training of horses. The permission was granted subject to a condition restricting the use to the applicant and his family only. This was later varied under Y08/0920/SH to enable the building to be used by the owner/occupant of the site.

8.2 A stables building was granted permission in 1987 under reference

SH/87/469 and in 1996 an extension was granted planning permission over the existing stables building to provide residential accommodation, which was restricted by condition to occupation by a person involved with stabling or training horses on the site (96/227/SH). In 2000 planning permission was granted for a stable block with residential accommodation as a replacement for the existing stable building. It was granted on the basis that it was



39

considered essential to the security and operation of the existing facilities on the site and the occupation of the residential accommodation was restricted by condition to a person involved in the stabling and training of horses in the stables and arena. Although this building has not been constructed, conditions were discharged and the development commenced by the construction of the foundations. Therefore, the permission can be implemented at any time. In 2005, an application was submitted to renew Y00/0545/SH however it was refused on the grounds it would be harmful to the amenities of the rural area and there was no special justification as the business activity had ceased.

8.3 The last application was in 2009, (Y09/0905/SH) and was for a two storey

detached dwelling, detached garage and stable block. It was refused on the grounds of the countryside protection policies, overall scale and development within the AONB, risks to ground water sources and design.

8.4 This current application (Y10/0709/SH) is a resubmission of the previously

refused application. General Principles 8.5 As this application is a resubmission of a previously refused application, the

main issue for consideration is whether previous grounds of refusal have been overcome. Other issues to be considered in the determination of this application are ecological matters and protected species, arboricultural matters, highways and the impact upon the amenities of local residents. however these were not raised previously as grounds of refusal.

8.6 The current application differs from the previous scheme in that it is now

proposed to demolish the existing buildings which were previously permitted for equine purposes. Under the previous application these buildings were proposed to be retained.

Countryside Protection Policies 8.7 As with the previous application, the principle issue is the location of the site

outside of any settlement boundary and within the open countryside of the North Downs AONB. It is national planning policy set out in PPS7 that new dwellings should not be permitted in the countryside outside the confines of the major/principal urban areas, rural service centres or smaller rural settlements unless they are replacements for existing dwellings or there is special justification. One of the few circumstances where they may be justified is where the accommodation is demonstrated to be necessary for farm, forestry or other workers where a rural location is essential. Policies CO1 and CO2 of the Shepway District Local Plan Review support this, whereby the principal aim of these policies is to protect the countryside for its own sake and to direct new development to within existing settlements. The proposed development is not a replacement of an existing dwelling and no justification has been put forward with the application that the development is required for farm, forestry or other workers where such a rural location is



40

essential. The site is in an isolated location in the countryside away from any settlements. The proposed is clearly contrary to policy.

8.8 PPS7 seeks to strictly control new house building (including single dwellings)

in the countryside away from established settlements. The Government’s overall aim is to protect the countryside for the sake of its intrinsic character and beauty, the diversity of its landscapes, heritage and wildlife, the wealth of its natural resources and so it may be enjoyed by all.

8.9 The importance of protecting the countryside is further enhanced in this

instance by the fact that the site falls within the North Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and Special Landscape Area. The North Downs AONB is a nationally important protected landscape whose special characteristics include its dramatic landform and views, mixed farmland tranquillity and remoteness. Within its bounds, there is considerable variation in landscape character. Government guidance in PPS7 states that nationally designated areas, including Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, have been confirmed by the Government as having the highest status of protection in relation to landscape and scenic beauty. The conservation of the natural beauty of the landscape and countryside should therefore be given great weight in development control decisions in these areas. In this regard, the development would be harmful owing to its scale, mass and inappropriate pastiche design which would be clearly seen from the north from the road and to the south, from the open escarpment which has footpaths running along the top and bottom within Etchinghill. A case has been put forward by the applicant that the development would involve the removal of the unsightly arena and be replaced with a dwelling and landscaping which would enhance the area and partly justifies this development. However, agricultural buildings such as the arena building are typical throughout the countryside and part and parcel of the character of the countryside and landscape. Due to its size, scale and design the proposed dwelling would be far more visually intrusive and out of keeping within the countryside than the current buildings that relate well to the character and functioning of the countryside. Furthermore, if the applicant wished to remove the buildings and tidy the site, this could be done without the need for planning permission and therefore a replacement dwelling cannot be justified on the basis of the removal of the existing buildings.

Scale, Massing and Design 8.10 The previous grounds of refusal also referred to the unacceptable scale,

mass and design of the house which was considered inappropriate for such a sensitive area and would result in an adverse impact upon the visual amenities of the landscape. In this regard, the current proposal is virtually the same, with a similar scale and mass and the same design. The only significant change has been the change in the siting of the house approximately to the centre of the plot and the removal of the swimming pool section, which has reduced the footprint of the dwelling by a small amount but overall these changes are not considered to have changed the scheme significantly to make it now acceptable. In this regard, the house would have a floor area of 430 metres square with the same ridge height of 10.5 metres



41

and internally would have five large bedrooms all with en-suit bathrooms and therefore the dwelling would still be excessively large and bulky. In addition to the dwelling a very large garage and stables building is also proposed which would have a floor area of 196 metres square with a double garage, tractor store and seven stables which in scale and massing is considered unduly large and in terms of the number of stables is considered excessive for domestic use in connection with the house. These buildings together would create a combined footprint of 627 metres square which as a development would be still be unduly large, prominent and visually obtrusive within the countryside.

8.11 Furthermore, the dwelling is still considered to have a grandiose appearance

which fails to respect the sensitive qualities of the site and wider AONB and Special Landscape Area. The unacceptable form of development is also reinforced by the Kent Downs AONB Landscape Design handbook which sets out clear design principles for rural settlement development, which amongst others seeks to “ensure new development respects and compliments rural settlement form, pattern, character and its landscape setting, reinforcing local distinctiveness”. The proposed dwelling has the appearance of having been dropped on the plot rather than having been designed in response to the complexities and sensitive nature of the site and does not relate to the local distinctiveness. In this location, dwellings should be modest in size and designed to have the minimal impact upon the landscape as possible. As proposed, owing to its sheer size, massing and proposed pastiche design which has a clear absence of local vernacular detail, the development does not reflect nor interrelate to the character of the area, would visually have a significant adverse impact upon the landscape and thus is unacceptable. Although the development will result in the removal of the existing arena and other buildings, due to the design and scale of the proposed dwelling it would be more harmful in the landscape than the existing buildings, which in design and appearance terms are more in keeping with the rural location. Therefore visually, the development is still considered unacceptable within the rural environment and has not satisfactorily addressed previous grounds of refusal.

Controlled Waters and Pollution 8.12 The second ground of refusal related to the protection of controlled waters

and the risk of pollution from drainage. The site is located within a ground water protection zone as classified on the Shepway District Local Plan Review Proposals Map. In addition the Environment Agency has also confirmed it to be within the catchment of a principle aquifer and as such in a Source Protection Zone 3.

8.13 Under the previous application a package treatment plant system was

proposed for the foul and surface water drainage for both the house and stables which was considered by the Environment Agency to be inappropriate for this area and a potential hazard for controlled waters. This has now been addressed by the applicant through a different drainage method, whereby the drainage is proposed to be separated out and split, with the use of a bio treatment package for foul drainage, a rainwater



42

harvesting system for the surface water and a sealed cesspool for the stables block. The Environment Agency considers this to be acceptable and has raised no objection. Therefore, the previous ground of refusal has been addressed.

Ecology 8.14 The application site is well vegetated and overgrown, has old buildings and

is adjacent to a SSSI on the chalk downland escarpment. Therefore the applicant has undertaken an ecology survey by an independent consultant Martin Newcombe. The report concludes that there are no protected or Biodiversity Action Plan species upon the site and as such it is considered that the development would have no adverse impact on protected species. However, the site is heavy invaded with Japanese Knotweed which the applicant is also proposing to remediate as part of the development. This is not considered to be a justification for granting planning permission for an inappropriate development as it can be tackled without the need to develop the site. Therefore the presence of Japanese Knotweed does not justify residential development in this instance and should be controlled independently by the responsible land owner.

8.15 In terms of the adjacent SSSI, the development site is outside of this area

and there would appear to be no works encroaching into it. Natural England has been consulted and raises no objection. Therefore it is considered that on matters of ecology, the development is considered acceptable.

Arboriculture 8.16 The site contains a number of trees protected under TPO No.5 of 1999,

which predominantly are sited around the perimeter of the site and away from the area of proposed development. A full arboricultural BS5837 survey has been carried out by Philip Wilson and concludes that there are no significant arboricultural constraints. The Council’s Arboricultural Manager has raised no objection.

Highways/Transportation 8.17 The previous refusal of planning permission did not include a highways

ground and the current proposal is not significantly different in terms of highways impacts. Kent Highways Services have been consulted and have not raised any objections subject to achieving visibility sightlines at the entrance to the site as before. It is considered that the required sight lines can be achieved and these can be secured by condition. Therefore in highways terms the development is acceptable.

Residential Amenities 8.18 The impact upon the residential amenities of nearby occupiers was not

considered unacceptable under the previous application and similarly this current proposal is not considered to present a significant impact. The site is very wide and a good separation distance of 170 metres would be retained



43

from the occupiers at Shearins Farm to the east. To the west boundary, the property Rivendell is closer, however a reasonable separation distance would still be retained of approximately 25 metres from the garage and stables building and approximately 70 metres from the proposed dwelling. In addition, the site is well screened around its side boundaries to the east and west by tall, mature trees protected under TPO No. 5 of 1999 which creates a visual barrier and would also prevent any detrimental impact and retain privacy.

8.19 Planning permission has previously been granted for residential use on the

site, but this was approved purely on the basis of an equine business which justified an element of residential on the site and was tied to that use by condition. That use has now ceased, the construction of the building has not progressed and the building approved was also significantly smaller in scale and massing to this development and therefore in comparison to this application, it was a different development which has little bearing on this proposal. In fact a later application in 2005 of a similar development was refused in the absence of a business case and a lack of need. No case for a rural business has been put forward in this regard which would justify a rural residential development and therefore it is considered that the previous ground of refusal relating to development within the open countryside has not been overcome and as such this development is still unacceptable.



8.21 This application is reported to Committee at the request of Councillor Philip

Martin. 9.0 SUMMARY 9.1 This application seeks planning permission for the erection of a detached

two storey dwelling house and detached garage and stables building, following removal of all existing buildings as a resubmission of the previously refused application Y09/0905/SH. The site is located outside the settlement boundary and within the Kent Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and Special Landscape Area where government policy seeks to resist residential development and gives priority to the preservation of the landscape quality.



44

9.2 The proposed development is considered unacceptable as it is contrary to

both national and local plan policy and there is no special justification or overriding reason for granting permission. In addition, the scale, mass and design of the development would be unacceptable and harmful to the special qualities of the landscape. The application is, therefore, recommended for refusal.



RECOMMENDATION – That planning permission be refused for the reason set out below: 1. The proposed development by reason of its location outside any defined

settlement boundary and within the open countryside and Kent Downs AONB, together with the overall scale and design would represent an unacceptably harmful and unsustainable form of development within the countryside for which there is no overriding rural necessity or justification demanding a rural location. As such it would be contrary to policies SD1, CO1, CO2, CO3 and HO1 of the Shepway District Local Plan Review and national guidance in Planning Policy Statement 7: Sustainable Development in Rural Areas which seek to restrict unsustainable development in rural Kent, outside the villages and towns unless it is demonstrated that a rural location is essentially required as well as resisting developments which fail to protect or enhance the special landscape character and rural setting of AONBs.

Informative 1. The applicant is advised that this refusal of planning permission is based on

the submitted drawings numbered BB Decision of Committee



47

Application No: Y10/0781/SH Location of Site: 36 Cherry Garden Lane, Folkestone, Kent,

CT19 4AS Development: Change of use and conversion of two attached

garages to an office use in connection with the existing dwelling house.

Applicant: Mr Smith Communic8 39 Bouverie Square Folkestone Kent CT20 1BA

Agent: Mr Roger Joyce Roger Joyce Associates 39 Bouverie Square Folkestone Kent CT20 1BA

Date Received: 06.09.10 Date of Committee: 26.10.10 Expiry Date: 01.11.10 NG REF: 620874 137161 Officer Contact: Robert Allan RECOMMENDATION: That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions set out at the end of the report. 1.0 CONSULTATIONS 1.1 Folkestone Town Council – Views awaited. 1.2 Kent Highways – No objections. 2.0 PUBLICITY

2.1 Neighbours notified by letter. Expiry date 10.10.10. 3.0 REPRESENTATIONS

3.1 Letters received from Mr. and Mrs. Fieldwick, 39 Cherry Garden Lane; Mrs.

A. B. Aphorpe, 40 Cherry Garden Lane; Mr. D. F. Harding MBE, 51 Cherry Garden Lane; Mr. J. P. D. Kennett, 42 Cherry Garden Lane; Dr P. R. Coward, 34a Cherry Garden Lane and Mr. and Mrs. A. Wheaton, 34 Cherry Garden Lane objecting on the following grounds:



48

• The proposed use would be out of keeping with the area; • There is a business park nearby where a unit could be rented; • There would be a change in the character of the area if permission was

granted for an office use; • The office would bring no wider benefit to the community like a doctor’s

surgery; • There would be an unacceptable increase in traffic; • The proposed alterations would not match the existing windows in the

dwelling; • A precedent would be set for future applications; • Property values would be depressed.


matters at Appendix 1. 4.2 The following policies of the Shepway District Local Plan Review apply: SD1, BE1, BE8, TR11, TR12

5.0 LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION OF SITE 5.1 The application property is a two storey detached dwelling with one integral

and one attached garage to the south western elevation. The property is set back from the road and the front of the property has a substantial area of hard standing, giving room for two or three off-street car parking spaces.

5.2 The property is located within a residential area and is accessed from Cherry

Garden Lane. To the north eastern boundary is a residential dwelling; while to the south western boundary is an unmade footway which gives pedestrian access to the playing fields to the rear of the property. Beyond this footway, further to the south west and also on the opposite side of Cherry Garden Lane are more residential properties. The wider area is characterised by a mix of detached and semi-detached properties in spacious plots.

6.0 THE PROPOSAL 6.1 The proposal is for the use of the two existing garages associated with the

dwelling as an office. The applicant is largely ‘on the road’ in connection with his business, but would use the proposed office as a base. Also operating from the proposed office would be a part-time office administrator. It has been stated that the office would be used between the hours of 0900 and 1700, Monday to Friday, with up to three deliveries a week and no visiting clients.

6.2 As part of the proposed use, it is proposed to remove the existing garage

doors and infill the openings with replacement UPVC windows and a door.



49

6.3 While many home-working uses do not require planning permission, the

proposed use is considered to require consent as there would be a member of staff attending the site on a regular basis, as well as regular deliveries being made. An application for a lawful development certificate had been submitted for the proposed use under planning reference Y10/0378/SH, but this was withdrawn following discussion with officers who advised that a planning application would be required.

7.0 PLANNING HISTORY 7.1 CH/3/49/341 - Erection of extension to dining room. Approved

19.12.49. 7.2 CH/3/50/97 - Erection of cycle shed. Approved 17.04.50. 7.3 Y10/0378/SH - Certificate of lawfulness proposed of former

garages as offices. Withdrawn 29.06.10.

8.0 APPRAISAL General Principles 8.1 The main issues to be considered in this case are the impact upon the

amenities of neighbouring uses and the character of the area from the proposed use, the impact upon the character and appearance of the building and the area from the proposed alterations and any highway safety implications.

Impact on Neighbours and Area Character 8.2 The area surrounding the application property is predominantly residential in

character, with the exception of the playing fields to the rear. The nearest neighbours are to the north east, on the opposite side of the property to the garages, and to the south west, separated from the application property by the access track to the playing fields.

8.3 The proposed use would be as an office with one member of staff, the

applicant, using it as a base from which to head out on the road and the other arriving at the property to act as an office administrator. There would also be up to three deliveries a week arriving at the premises.

8.4 It is considered that the proposed use would not be substantially different in

character from the use of the premises as a dwellinghouse, with occupants heading out to work and another person arriving at the premises, much as a childminder may do, on a daily basis. The office use is not in itself a use that would generate much, if any, noise and disturbance and it is stated that no clients would visit the premises, so there would be no noise and disturbance generated in that respect. The hours of use proposed are between 0900 and



50

1700, which are times are when many local residents are either at work and therefore away from their homes, or at the very least, awake. Consequently, it is considered that in these respects, the proposed use is acceptable.

8.5 With regard to the proposed deliveries, it is stated that there would be three

a week, conducted toward the end of the day. With regard to its regularity, this aspect of the proposal is beyond that which may be expected of a purely domestic use, although it is reasonable to say that some level of delivery activity may be associated with a dwelling, from either groceries or other goods being delivered. It is therefore considered that while three, regular deliveries a week could be beyond that expected from a normal, residential use, a low number such as this would be unlikely to cause a significant level of noise and disturbance to be of detriment to the residential amenities. The level of the deliveries, as well as their timing, could reasonably be limited by condition, should permission be granted.

Visual Impact 8.6 The proposal seeks to replace the existing garage doors with, for the integral

garage, a single UPVC window and bricking up the remaining existing opening, and for the attached garage, a UPVC window and door, with the remaining opening bricked up.

8.7 While these works are considered as part of the overall planning application,

the fallback position is that they could be carried out at any time without the need for planning permission. Notwithstanding this, it is considered that the proposed changes would not be significantly detrimental to the established character and appearance of the property and would not result in the garages changing the residential character of the area by them assuming the appearance of a commercial unit. Consequently, the changes are considered to be acceptable.

Highway Safety 8.8 The area is predominantly residential, with Cherry Garden Lane used to

access other uses such as the nearby schools and also the business park beyond. Concern has been raised by local residents with regard to the potential increased level of traffic associated with the change of use.

8.9 As stated previously, the proposed use would generate two additional

vehicle movements per day from the visiting office administrator, which is considered to be within the realms of normal residential use. There is sufficient off-street parking to accommodate this vehicle within the curtilage, even with the loss of the garage spaces. The main change is with the three deliveries that would be likely to be generated and it is considered that these three deliveries, over the course of a week, would not result in a significant increase in vehicular movements to the detriment of the highway safety of the area.



51



8.11 This application is reported to Committee at the request of Cllr McNeice. 9.0 SUMMARY 9.1 The proposal to utilise the existing garages as office space in conjunction

with the dwelling would generate additional vehicle movements associated with the office administrator, but these are not considered to be outside of the character of a normal residential use. Also, it is considered that there would be no significant change in the level of noise and disturbance arising from an office use on this scale between the hours of 0900 and 1700 proposed. The proposal would entail alterations to the existing openings, which are considered to be acceptable and not detrimental to the residential character of the dwelling or the surrounding area. Finally, the dwelling has sufficient off-street parking within the curtilage to accommodate the vehicle of the office administrator and the level of deliveries proposed are not considered to be so significant as to result in any harm to highway safety.



RECOMMENDATION – That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions set out below: 1. Standard time condition C101 2. Approved plans C212 3. Materials to match C202



52

4. The office use hereby approved shall not be open outside the hours of 0900 and 1700, Monday to Friday.

Reason: In the interests of the amenities of nearby residents in accordance with policy

SD1 of the Shepway District Local Plan Review. 5. The use hereby permitted shall be carried out only by Mr. Stewart Smith. Reason: In granting permission the Local Planning Authority has had regard to the

special circumstances of the case and wishes to have the opportunity of exercising control over any subsequent use in the event of Mr. Stewart Smith vacating the premises to ensure that no intensification of the use occurs and that the development complies with the provisions of policy SD1 of the Shepway District Local Plan Review.

6. The number of staff using the site in connection with the business shall be

limited to the applicant and one full time employee or equivalent. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of nearby residents in accordance with policy

SD1 of the Shepway District Local Plan Review. In the view of the District Planning Authority, and having taken into account all material planning considerations, there is insufficient demonstrable harm or conflict with policy arising from the proposal to warrant withholding planning permission. In coming to this decision, regard has been had to the following policies: Shepway District Local Plan Review – SD1, BE1, BE8, TR11, TR12 Decision of Committee



55

Application No: Y10/0742/SH Location of Site: 29 Earlsfield Road, Hythe, Kent, CT21 5PE Development: Erection of a part two storey, part single

storey rear extension, together with the formation of a balcony.

Applicant: Mr J Keesing 29 Earlsfield Road Hythe Kent CT21 5PE

Date Received: 03.08.10 Date of Committee: 26.10.10 Expiry Date: 28.09.10 NG REF: 616889 134805 Officer Contact: Paul Howson RECOMMENDATION: That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions set out at the end of the report. 1.0 CONSULTATIONS 1.1 Hythe Town Council – Recommend refusal on the grounds of loss of light, as well as the

development being overbearing to the immediate neighbours. 2.0 PUBLICITY

2.1 Neighbours notified by letter. Expiry date 09.09.10. 3.0 REPRESENTATIONS

3.1 Letters received from Mr G Clarke-Green, 25 Earlsfield Road; Mr N Barnes,

31 Earlsfield Road; Mr and Mrs Page, 33 Earlsfield Road and Mr and Mrs Colville, 27 Earlsfield Road objecting on the following grounds: • Overbearing • Detrimental to residential amenity • Sense of enclosure • Loss of light • Scale of two storey extension is inappropriate


matters at Appendix 1.



56

4.2 The following policies of the Shepway District Local Plan Review apply:

SD1, BE1, BE8, TR12

4.3 The following Supplementary Planning Documents and Government Guidance apply: Planning Policy Statement 1: Delivering Sustainable Development

5.0 LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION OF SITE 5.1 The site is located within the Hythe settlement boundary. It is in an area

identified as being at risk from flooding. It is a residential road close to the town centre, characterised by mixed styles of both detached and semi detached two storey dwellings, albeit from roughly the same era. The properties have a uniform building line, with frontages close to the road and long narrow rear gardens.

5.2 The application building is a two storey detached house with pebble dash

walls and a front gable with mock Tudor decorative beams. It has an attached garage with a bedroom over. To the rear is a single storey extension abutting the west boundary, used as a store.

6.0 THE PROPOSAL 6.1 The application seeks permission for the erection of a part two storey, part

single storey rear extension, to form an enlarged kitchen/dining room and office at ground floor level. At first floor level it provides two enlarged bedrooms with en-suite facilities, one of which has access to a proposed balcony.

6.2 As the proposal is for a two storey rear extension with a depth greater than

3m, it does not constitute permitted development and planning permission is required.

7.0 PLANNING HISTORY 7.1 None.

8.0 APPRAISAL General Principles 8.1 The principle issues to be considered in this application are whether the

proposed development complies with policies relating to alterations or extensions to existing buildings, visual impact and the impact on the residential amenity of the occupiers of neighbouring properties. Policy BE8



57

of the Shepway District Local Plan Review is the principle policy which considers alterations and extensions to existing buildings. This states amongst other things that; alterations and extensions to existing buildings should not adversely affect the amenity enjoyed by the occupiers of neighbouring properties; and that extensions should not cause undue overshadowing and should be designed so as to fall within a 45-degree angle, in the case of two storey extensions, from the closest quarter-point of the nearest ground floor window of a neighbouring habitable room or kitchen.

Visual Impact 8.2 The main building will screen the development from the streetscene and

therefore, the rear extension will not be visible from the public domain. The original plans submitted with the application indicated an altered first floor window on the front elevation above the garage. This was not considered in keeping with the existing fenestration and the original window is shown reinstated in the amended drawings.

Impact on Neighbours 8.3 The property has a long rear garden of over 40m and, therefore, there would

be no impact on the dwellings to the rear of the application site. In terms of the impact on residential amenity, the principle considerations are the neighbouring properties either side of the application building, the main rear elevations of which are roughly in line with each other. The application building has previously been incrementally extended at the rear with a single storey shed attached to a mono pitch single storey store/utility room, the latter which has a dormer style rooflight. These additions to the building are rather incongruous and abut the west boundary of the application site and are proposed to be removed to make way for the development proposed by this application.

8.4 The closest neighbouring property to the west is a semi detached dwelling

27 Earlsfield Road, which has a two storey gable ended rear projection adjacent to the application site, which is approximately 1.5m forward of the main existing rear elevation of No. 29. The hipped roof two storey part of the proposed extension that side would bring the application building approximately 1.7m forward of the projecting part of this neighbouring property. With approximately 2.3m of separation between the two buildings, the extension complies with the 45-degree guideline in policy BE8 in relation to the closest ground floor window (which is a glazed door) of this neighbouring property. Given this and the orientation of the properties, the overshadowing impact to this neighbouring property would only result in a minimal loss of early morning light. The rear elevation being north facing is currently in the shade of the main buildings for the greater part of the day; and the proposed extension is not anticipated to significantly exacerbate this. Furthermore, the flank wall of the proposed extension projecting forward of the rear line of the neighbouring property is not considered to be significantly overbearing in view of the aforementioned separation between the buildings. If anything it ensures the first floor bedroom windows would



58

have an outlook across the rear part of the neighbouring garden rather than the area immediately to the rear of the house, which would mean less intrusive overlooking than from the existing rear windows, providing the occupiers of No. 27 greater privacy in the use of the decking at the rear of their property. Overall, overshadowing, overbearing and overlooking impacts from the proposal are not anticipated to significantly exacerbate the existing situation and therefore are not considered to have an unacceptable impact on the residential amenity of No. 27 sufficient to justify refusing planning permission.

8.5 The neighbouring property east of the application site, No. 31, has a similar

scenario, with a similar amount of separation between the buildings as the relationship between the buildings the other side. However, being set slightly further back than No.27 the proposed extension would be approximately 2.6m forward of the projecting ground floor part of this neighbouring property closest to the boundary and approximately 4.5m forward of the first floor rear elevation external wall. Notwithstanding this, the proposal would not contravene the 45-degree angle taken from the closest window and the loss of evening sunlight would not be anticipated to be significant and as such is considered acceptable in this regard. Further to this, 2.6m of projecting side elevation wall is not considered unacceptably overbearing or anticipated to give a sense of enclosure to occupiers of this neighbouring property. As with the west side there are no proposed windows in the side elevation of the extension and as there is existing overlooking from first floor windows from the next property along, No. 33, the proposed additional wrap around corner bedroom window would not exacerbate the current situation regarding overlooking to the rear garden of No. 31. The application site has good boundary screening both sides and the proposed balcony being set back within the extensions would not result in overlooking of the private amenity areas immediately to the rear of the neighbouring properties and is considered acceptable.

8.6 Written objections from 25 and 33 Earlsfield Road have been received;

however, it is considered that these are sufficiently far away from the application building to not be directly impacted by the proposed extension.

Highways 8.7 The property would remain a four bedroom house, albeit with the two rear

bedrooms enlarged and would retain the existing garage and two additional off road parking spaces. Therefore, there is no change in parking requirements or parking provision.

Design 8.8 In views from the public domain, the appearance of the house remains

unaltered by the proposal. The proposed rear extension would not be visible from the public domain. Notwithstanding this, the design is considered acceptable and reflects the materials, scale and roofline of the main building and the proportions of the plot. The proposal can be considered to enhance the appearance of the building as it removes the existing incongruous rear



59

extension and squares off the rear of the building, maintaining the existing character of the building, but with a contemporary twist.



8.10 This application is reported to Committee at the request of Cllr Keren

Belcourt. 9.0 SUMMARY 9.1 In conclusion, it is considered that the proposal complies with policy BE8 of

the Shepway District Local Plan Review. Any impact on the residential amenity enjoyed by the occupiers of the neighbouring dwellings either side is not considered significant enough to justify withholding planning permission. The proposal does not conflict with the 45-degree guideline on the west or east side of the building and as it is a north facing elevation the minor amount of overshadowing that would result is not sufficient to refuse planning permission. Furthermore, the depth of the proposed extension is not considered to be so excessive as to be overbearing. As such, the proposal is considered acceptable and is recommended for approval.



RECOMMENDATION – That planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions: 1. Standard Time Condition C101 2. Materials to Match C202 3. Submitted Plans C212 4. No Windows Side Elevations C527 5. Garage/Parking Spaces to be Retained C319



60

In the view of the District Planning Authority, and having taken into account all material planning considerations, there is insufficient demonstrable harm or conflict with policy arising from the proposal to warrant withholding planning permission. In coming to this decision, regard has been had to the following policies: Shepway District Local Plan Review – SD1, BE1, BE8, TR12 Planning Policy Statement 1 – Delivering Sustainable Development Decision of Committee



63

Application No: Y10/0699/SH Location of Site: 112 High Street, Dymchurch, Kent, TN29 OLD Development: Part change of use of ground floor from

residential (Class C3) to tea rooms (Class A3).

Applicant: Mr Nigel Pountney 112 High Street Dymchurch Kent TN29 OLD

Agent: Mr Tom Quaye Design and Building Services Elstree Eastbridge Road Dymchurch Kent TN29 OPF

Date Received: 26.07.10 Date of Committee: 26.10.10 Expiry Date: 20.09.10 NG REF: 610353 129717 Officer Contact: Julian Ling RECOMMENDATION: That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions set out at the end of this report. 1.0 CONSULTATIONS 1.1 Dymchurch Parish Council – No objection Where customers would park was discussed and queried. Ship Close entrance is on the A259 and needs to be kept clear for

emergency vehicles to bungalows at the rear. 1.2 Kent Highways –

No objection

In view of the further information submitted by the applicant and the history of the site I do not wish to recommend the application for refusal. I am satisfied that parking can be accommodated within reasonable walking distances of the site and that patterns of customers will vary across the day and be unlikely to cause a “peak time” parking problem.

1.3 Environmental Health Officer –

With reference to this application Environmental Health have the following comments:



64

Although there is no objection in principle to this application, the applicant is advised to seek further information as stated in the informatives given below. Should permission be granted it is recommended the following conditions are applied to the permission: 1) The hours of opening are as stated on the application form. 2) No cooking of food shall occur on the premises during the opening

times for the business. Informatives: 1) The plans do not show any public toilets. These are required under the

provisions of the Local Government (Misc Prov) Act 1976 for cafes/restaurants/pubs/clubs that provide seating to eat food purchased on the premises. A WC for males and a WC for females/disabled would meet the standard.

2) The applicant is advised to make contact with our Principle Environmental Health Officer (Commercial) Team, Mr. Arthur Atkins, to seek advice regarding food safety requirements for the operation of the tearooms.

2.0 PUBLICITY


3.1 None received.



SD1, BE1, BE4, TR11, TR12, TM1, HO7.

5.0 LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION OF SITE 5.1 The site is located within the coastal village of Dymchurch within the wider

Romney Marsh. The site is within the village settlement boundary, on the



65

eastern edge of the village High Street and on the south side of the A259 main Road. The area has a historic and traditional character being within the village conservation area.

5.2 The building itself is a modest two storey cottage sited upon the corner of

Ship Close and adjoins No. 6 Ship Close. It was formerly used as a retail shop and in 2002 was granted change of use to a residential dwelling and has since been in lawful residential use. The public house known as the Ship Inn stands adjacent and is surrounded by a large pub car park. Directly opposite is St Peters and St Pauls parish church.

6.0 THE PROPOSAL 6.1 This application seeks permission for the change of use of part of the ground

floor of the dwelling to tea rooms (Class A3). The first floor remains unchanged as sleeping accommodation and there would be no external alterations required and only the minor partial removal of a non-structural wall internally.

6.2 It is proposed for the tea rooms to have an approximate seating area of 27

metres square and to be open to customers during the day time hours of 08.00 hrs – 17.00 hrs Monday to Sundays. It is proposed that once the tea room is closed for business, the furniture is removed and the room would be converted back as part of the house and main lounge. It is not proposed to cook or prepare hot food as part of the business and therefore no extraction unit would be required.

6.3 As part of the development, external advertising is proposed in the form of a

small non illuminated hanging sign and a free standing forecourt sign, however this was the subject of a separate application for advertisement consent, under Y10/0700/SH which has subsequently been approved under Officers delegated powers.

7.0 PLANNING HISTORY 7.1 Y02/0285/SH - Change of use from retail to residential together

with the erection of a front extension, increase in roof height and installation of dormer windows. Approved with conditions 24/06/02.

7.2 Y10/0699/SH - Display of non illuminated hanging sign, and one

free standing forecourt sign. Approved with conditions. 07.10.2010



66

8.0 APPRAISAL General Principles 8.1 The principle issues to be considered in the determination of this application

are the impact upon the visual amenity of the surrounding conservation area, partial loss of residential accommodation, tourism, highways matters and the impact upon the residential amenities of local occupants.

Visual Amenity 8.2 In terms of the visual impact, no external alterations are proposed, so there

would be no impact upon the streetscene or the appearance of the conservation area. The proposed mixed use for the building, which is in a high street location, would not be out of place or harmful to the character of this part of the conservation area. As part of the development, an external advertisement is proposed in the form of a small hanging sign and single free standing forecourt sign. However these have already been considered in a separate application (Y10/0700/H) under the Control of Advertisement Regulations and are considered acceptable at this location. Therefore in accordance with section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings & Conservation Areas Act) 1990 the development would preserve the existing appearance and character of the conservation area.

Loss of Residential 8.3 The premises is currently in full residential (Class C3) use therefore the loss

of residential accommodation needs to be considered in the determination of this application. In this regard, Local Plan Policy HO7 seeks to prevent the loss of residential accommodation from the district’s housing stock. In this instance, it is proposed that the property will still remain as a residential dwelling as only part of the ground floor would be used as a tea room and the first floor would stay as sleeping accommodation. It is also proposed that once the business is closed to customers, the property will revert back to a full residential dwelling and the area used for seating and food display would become the domestic lounge and kitchen as before. Essentially such activity is therefore considered to be a mixed use and would not constitute a material loss of a residential unit. The development is therefore acceptable in this regard and presents no conflict with Local Plan policy HO7.

Tourism 8.4 The seaside village of Dymchurch is one the districts key tourism attractions

and has a high degree of tourism related business. In this instance, the creation of such a tea room would be beneficial to visitors as well as the local economy, improving the vitality and viability of the area. In this regard, the site is situated on the main A259 road on the periphery of the village centre and is ideally situated to catch passing trade from the High Street, the beach and promenade, amusements and the wider Romney Marsh. Local Plan policy TM1 supports such developments that add to and contribute towards the upgrading and diversification of the tourism base. It is therefore



67

considered that the development is supported under tourism policy and in this regard considered acceptable.

Traffic/Transportation 8.5 With regard to highways matters, Kent Highway Services formally raise no

objection. Given the small nature of the proposed tea room, its edge of centre location which is close to public services and public car parks, additional parking is not strictly required. Kent Highway Services are satisfied that parking can be accommodated within reasonable walking distance of the premises whereby two large public car parks are situated within the area. Therefore on highways grounds, it is considered acceptable.

Residential Amenities 8.6 The development is not considered to result in a detrimental impact upon the

residential amenities enjoyed by neighbouring occupiers. Whilst it is recognised that neighbouring dwellings immediately adjoin the premises, consideration should be given to the small scale nature of the tea room and the low numbers of customers that it could serve. In this instance, only twelve covers are proposed which amounts to a low key business that will not generate significant activity or noise. Furthermore, there would be no cooking on the premises and thus no unpleasant odours or noise from extraction systems. The proposed opening hours are also considered reasonable, not being at sensitive hours early in the morning or late into the evening. Opening hours can be controlled by condition. The Council’s Environmental Health Officer has raised no concerns and it is therefore considered that due to the scale and nature of the business it would operate in an acceptable manner within the local area and that it would not give rise to significant disturbance to neighbouring occupiers.

Other Matters 8.7 As part of the consultation process, the Council’s Environmental Health

Officer has raised no objection to the development, however has advised that customer wc provision has not been identified on the proposed plans and may be required in accordance with other environmental health legislation. The need to provide wc facilities is not a planning matter. However, the applicant has confirmed that if insisted upon for environmental health purposes, a small facility can be provided on the ground floor.


on Human Rights must be considered. The Convention Rights that are relevant are Article 8 and Article 1 of the first protocol. The proposed course of action is in accordance with domestic law. As the rights in these two articles are qualified, the Council needs to balance the rights of the individual against the interests of society and must be satisfied that any interference with an individual’s rights is no more than necessary. Having regard to the



68

previous paragraphs of this report, it is not considered that there is any infringement of the relevant Convention rights.

8.9 This application is reported to Committee at the request of Councillor Russell

Tillson. 9.0 SUMMARY 9.1 The application site comprises a modest two storey dwelling situated within

the settlement boundary and village confines of Dymchurch as well as the High Street conservation area. This application seeks planning permission for the change of use of part of the ground floor of the dwelling to a mixed use incorporating a tea room.

9.2 It is considered that as no external alterations are proposed there would be

no harm to the conservation area and given the mixed use nature of the proposal there would not be any loss of a residential dwelling. The development would positively contribute to the tourism base and economy of the area and create no significant highways implications nor impacts upon the amenities of neighbouring occupiers. The application is therefore recommended for approval.



RECOMMENDATION – That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions set out below: 1. Standard Time Condition C101 2. Approved Plans C212 3. Use Restriction – Tea Room only. C506 4. Removal of Permitted Development Rights C510 5. The tea room hereby permitted shall only be open to customers during the

times of 8am and 5pm Monday to Saturdays and 10am and 4pm on Sundays and bank holidays and shall not be open to customers outside of these times without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of the residential amenities of nearby occupiers in

accordance with policy SD1 of the Shepway District Local Plan Review.



69

6. During the opening hours of the tea room hereby permitted, there shall be no cooking of food within the premises without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of the residential amenities of nearby occupiers in

accordance with policy SD1 of the Shepway District Local Plan Review. 7. In the event that a mechanical air inlet/outlet is required in the premises, it

shall not be installed until full details of the unit have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the unit shall be installed in accordance with the approved details and maintained thereafter.

Reason: In the interests of the amenities of neighbouring residents in accordance with

policy SD1 of the Shepway District Local Plan Review. In the view of the District Planning Authority, and having taken into account all material planning considerations, there is insufficient demonstrable harm or conflict with policy arising from the proposal to warrant withholding planning permission. In coming to this decision, regard has been had to the following policies: Shepway District Local Plan Review – SD1, BE1, BE4, TR11, TR12, TM1, HO7. Decision of Committee



70



71

Application No: Y10/0639/SH Location of Site: Stonewald, Hillside Street, Hythe, Kent, CT21

5DJ Development: Erection of first floor side extension and

balcony, together with raised platform to facilitate extension to front paved patio area and other external alterations.

Applicant: Mr & Mrs M Maudling Stonewald Hillside Street Hythe Kent CT21 5DJ

Agent: Mr M Barnes 8 Tanners Hill Gardens Hythe Kent CT21 5HY

Date Received: 06.07.10 Date of Committee: 26.10.10 Expiry Date: 31.08.10 NG REF: 616279 134904 Officer Contact: Paul Howson RECOMMENDATION: That planning permission be refused for the reasons set out at the end of the report. 1.0 CONSULTATIONS 1.1 Hythe Town Council – Support. 1.2 KCC Planning (Archaeology) –

Awaiting response. Previously recommended a condition for a programme of archaeological work, under withdrawn application Y09/1144/SH.

2.0 PUBLICITY

2.1 Neighbours notified by letter. Expiry date 13.08.10. 2.2 Site Notice. Expiry date 18.08.10. 2.3 Press Notice. Expiry date 19.08.10.



72

3.0 REPRESENTATIONS

3.1 Letters received from Dr Barnam, Wimblehurst, Church Road raising no objection to the application and Ms T Luthman, Ridgemount, Church Road objecting on the following grounds: • Loss of a sea view. • Devaluation of their property. • Stonewald is a second home and the needs of permanent residents

should take precedence.



SD1, BE1, BE4, BE8, BE12

7.1 The following Supplementary Planning Documents and Government Guidance apply:

Planning Policy Statement 5: Planning for the Historic Environment

5.0 LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION OF SITE 5.1 The site is within the Hythe settlement boundary. It is within the Hythe

Conservation Area and the Area of Special Character. The site fronts a drive serving a handful of properties, which forms an extension of Hillside Street. The front garden is steeply banked up to a level patio area at the front of the house, which is screened by a large hedge. The rear garden boundary abuts Church Road to the north and is enclosed by a 2-3m high ragstone wall. There is no access onto Church Road from the rear. The neighbouring properties in the immediate vicinity are primarily large detached individually styled two storey homes. However, this part of Hillside Street is dominated by the large building opposite the application site, Tynwald, which is a residential care home, accessed via the shared drive. The application site is raised in relation to Tynwald and below the level of Church Road at the rear. It is also raised in relation to the closest neighbouring property Wimblehurst and at an angle with it.

5.2 The application building is a two storey detached dwelling, with an existing

single storey extension on the east side elevation. It can be described as a conventionally styled 1960/70s dwelling with sandy coloured facing brick and tile hanging to the first floor front elevation wall, and a two storey gabled rear projection. There is a detached garage to the side and forward of the property with access onto the road opposite Tynwald. There is an extant permission to replace the garage.



73

6.0 THE PROPOSAL 6.1 The application proposes the erection of a first floor side extension over the

existing single storey side extension, in matching materials, to provide an extended bedroom area which opens out onto a balcony area enclosed by a low level glass balustrade. Furthermore, it proposes a platform supported by 2m high steel posts to provide an extended patio area at the front of the property, enclosed by a 2m high timber fence screen. It also provides a front porch.

6.2 The application is accompanied by a Design and Access Statement, a

supporting letter from the applicant, photographs taken from the existing flat roof on the eastern side of the building, letters raising no objection to the proposal from the Trustees of Tynwald and from the occupiers of Wimblehurst, the sketch of suggested elevations provided by the Council’s Design and Conservation Officer and the existing and proposed plans for the development.

7.0 PLANNING HISTORY 7.1 Y08/0399/SH - Erection of a single garage and retaining wall

following removal of existing garage. Approved with conditions 23.05.08.

7.2 Y09/1144/SH - Erection of first floor side extension and balcony,

together with raised platform to facilitate extension to front paved patio area. Withdrawn 19.01.10.

8.0 APPRAISAL General Principles 8.1 The main issues to be considered in relation to this application; are whether

the proposed development complies with policies relating to alterations and extensions to existing buildings, the impact of the development on the character or appearance of the Conservation Area and crucially whether the proposed development either conserves or enhances the character or appearance of the Conservation Area; and the impact of the development on the amenity of occupiers of adjoining properties.

Policy 8.2 Policy BE1 of the Local Plan seeks a high standard of layout and design for

all new development, policy BE4 is the principle policy relating to the impact and affect of alterations or extensions to existing buildings on the character and appearance of Conservation Areas; whilst policy BE8 is the principle policy relating to extensions and alterations to existing buildings in the built environment and the impact on residential amenity amongst other things.



74

Policy BE12 relates to Areas of Special Character and seeks to protect the character of the area and its existing vegetation. PPS5 provides guidance on Designated Heritage Assets (Conservation Areas).

Background to the Application 8.3 In the application submitted under Y09/1144/SH, the cut-away form of the

roof to provide the balcony gave an incomplete appearance which the Design and Conservation Officer felt had an unacceptable visual impact on the Conservation Area. A full height extension was suggested to balance the building more satisfactorily than that proposed. Furthermore, the suggested alternative allows the south facing front section of the balcony to be able to receive sunlight through the greater part of the day, whilst only having an outlook over the roof top of Tynwald, without any loss of privacy to the occupiers of Wimblehurst by enclosing the side. As a result of discussions with the applicant, his agent and Councillors on site, in which the shortfalls of the scheme were outlined, the application was withdrawn. The preferred option suggested was a continuation of the existing roof to maintain the existing gable end to the side elevation; fully enclosing the entire side of the balcony, with an obscure glazed panel to provide light but prohibit overlooking, balanced by an inset panel for completeness. Drawings to this effect were provided to the applicant by the Design and Conservation Officer. This provided a much simpler roof form and gave both the front and east side elevations a much more satisfactory appearance that would be neither harmful to the appearance of the building or the character of the conservation area. Despite extensive negotiations, the applicant has not heeded the advice given and has submitted plans with this application that do not overcome the concerns that had been discussed.

Visual Impact on Conservation Area 8.4 The visual impact of the proposal on Church Road is limited to views of the

rear elevation, which presents an awkward hipped roof form (in relation to the main gabled elevations of the existing roof), which is considered less visually pleasing. However, given its limited visual impact, the harm to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area is considered to be limited.

8.5 However, in views from the east and the south, the awkward roof form and

design in general is not considered to befit its conservation area setting, exacerbated by the elevated position of the application building and does not relate well in design terms to the existing building. The current application has not taken on board pre-application advice and features a convoluted roof form, unbalancing the appearance of the house and not respecting the existing roof pattern. Therefore, in design terms this revised scheme features an unresolved appearance and is considered less visually satisfactory than the previous proposal as outlined in paragraph 8.3, which had already been considered inappropriate by the Design and Conservation Officer and therefore contrary to policy BE1. It is accepted that the extension is positioned to the rear section of the house and will not appear as visually prominent in the street-scene as the main house, however, policy BE1



75

requires a high standard of layout and design for all new development and policy BE4 requires extensions and alterations to respect the character and appearance of the conservation area. It is therefore considered that the development would fail to preserve or enhance this part of the conservation area and be in conflict with the above policies. Furthermore, when considering proposals, guidance contained in PPS5 advises Local Planning Authorities to ensure that design elements within designated areas contribute positively to the Conservation Area as a whole and this is not considered to be the case with this application.

8.6 The inappropriate design of the extension is considered to be further

compounded by the engineered platform and the removal of much of the existing soft landscaping, which contributes positively to the visual amenity and character of the area. The immediate vicinity around the site can be described as ‘leafy’ and is characterised by frontages with soft landscaping that belie the close proximity to the town centre. The proposed steel structure and associated fencing would be considered to be visually prominent (show on the submitted plans as extending some 4.4 metres high from existing ground levels to the top of the screen) and adversely change the appearance of the site in views from the public domain. As such, the platform would be an alien feature that would visually jar with the existing character and appear incongruous on the hillside and would be considered to neither preserve nor enhance the conservation area at this point contrary to policy BE4; and by reason of loss of existing vegetation, contrary to policy BE12 which seeks to protect the existing character of the area.

Impact on Neighbours 8.7 The principle concern with regard to residential amenity is the neighbouring

property Wimblehurst. Although the proposed extension is not considered to result in any additional overbearing/overshadowing impact, the impact of overlooking from the proposed balcony is considered unacceptably intrusive and would result in significant loss of privacy for the neighbouring occupiers, leaving the southerly rear area of the neighbouring property potentially vulnerable to overlooking. Notwithstanding that the existing elderly residents have written a letter raising no objection to the application, it is considered the orientation of the application building in relation to Wimblehurst, would result in views from the side of the balcony allowing direct views down onto the clear glass rear conservatory roof and down onto and across the rear garden amenity area, (Wimblehurst unlike the application building has its frontage on Church Road). On the day of the site visit, the writer of this report was able, by standing at a height below the proposed height of the balcony, to look straight down into the glass conservatory from above. There is a tree which provides some screening although not sufficient to satisfactorily prevent overlooking. The tree in any case is deciduous and finite and would appear to be under the control of the applicant and not the next door neighbour. As such, the proposal could severely compromise the privacy of future occupiers in the use of the rear garden amenity space, in what would be described as a family sized house, notwithstanding that the present occupiers have raised no objection.



76

8.8 The assertion in the Design and Access statement that the overlooking would be no worse than from existing first floor windows does not hold up as there are no existing first floor windows in the side elevation of Stonewald and due to the orientation of the property the rear elevation windows face away from Wimblehurst. The perceived sense of exposure from overlooking is far greater from people out on an open balcony.

8.9 The proposed balcony screen forming part of the currant proposals is largely

1m in height, allowing overlooking even when people using the balcony are seated. A larger side screen over 1.7m high along the entire side of the balcony could be installed to prevent overlooking, and the applicant has slightly increased its size from that shown on the drawings of the withdrawn application Y09/1144/SH, however, only by a token amount and not enough to prevent overlooking. Furthermore, in design terms the Council’s Design and Conservation Officer does not favour a large side screen.

8.10 Further amenity problems are considered to result from the proposed

platform to the occupiers of Tynwald. The windows on the north elevation of Tynwald, directly opposite Stonewald, which is raised in relation to them, currently have an outlook onto the existing soft landscaping at the front of the application site. The proposed engineered platform and fence would result in a stark, harsh outlook for occupiers of these rooms, being in direct line and only 5m away, (albeit this is reduced by 0.5m from the original proposal).

8.11 Overall, the impact of the proposal to existing and future occupiers of the

closest neighbouring properties is considered to adversely impact their residential amenity, which conflicts with the requirements of policies SD1 and BE8 of the Shepway District Local Plan Review.

Archaeology Issues 8.12 KCC Archaeological have advised that as the site is associated with

Medieval or Roman activity, a programme of archaeological work would need to be undertaken before any development is commenced on this site.



8.14 This application is reported to Committee at the request of Cllr M Lyons.



77

9.0 SUMMARY 9.1 In conclusion, the applicant was advised during pre-application discussions

of concerns regarding overlooking and design when application Y09/1144/SH was submitted. Alternative proposals that may have been supported by Officers were offered and the application was consequently withdrawn. The principle consideration with this re-submitted application is whether it overcomes the concerns raised in relation to the design and the impact on residential amenity. In light of the above, these concerns are not considered to have been satisfactorily addressed and it is considered the design is inappropriate and as such, would not preserve or enhance the conservation area. Furthermore, the proposal would be harmful to the residential amenity of neighbouring occupiers and in particular existing and future occupiers of Wimblehurst in the use of their conservatory and rear garden. Considerable time and effort was afforded to this proposal to seek a mutually satisfactory solution, but the applicant has not heeded the advice given and therefore, the proposal in its current form does not satisfactorily overcome the serious concerns expressed by Officers from its onset at the pre-application stage, upon receipt of the first planning application, and to the current proposals.



RECOMMENDATION – That planning permission be refused for the following reasons: 1. The proposed development, by virtue of its poor design and awkward roof

form would adversely impact the appearance of the building within the Conservation Area; and by virtue of an engineered platform would form an incongruous addition to the streetscene; failing to conserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Hythe Conservation Area contrary to Shepway District Local Plan Review policies SD1, BE1, BE4 and BE12 and Government Guidance contained in PPS 5: Planning for the Historic Environment which seek to protect, conserve and enhance the historic environment and require a high standard and appropriate design for all new development.

2. The proposed development, by reason of its open sided raised balcony, in

close proximity to the boundary of the neighbouring property, would result in an unacceptable level of overlooking and loss of privacy to the adjoining neighbouring dwelling. As such the proposal is considered to be contrary to policies SD1 and BE8 of the Shepway District Local Plan Review, which seeks to safeguard the residential amenities of neighbouring occupants.



78

In coming to this decision, regard has been had to the following policies: Shepway District Local Plan Review – SD1, BE1, BE4, BE8, BE12 The following Supplementary Planning Documents and Government Guidance apply: Planning Policy Statement 5: Planning for the Historic Environment Decision of Committee



81

Application No: Y10/0238/SH Location of Site: Land adjoining 76-78 High Street, Dymchurch,

Kent Development: Change of use of land to display and retail use

for the sale of sheds.

Applicant: Skinners Sheds 161 Bexhill Road St Leonards On Sea East Sussex TN38 8BG

Agent: Mr R Johnstone Johnstones Long Acre St Johns Road Crowborough East Sussex TN6 1SA

Date Received: 10.03.10 Date of Committee: 26.10.10 Expiry Date: 05.05.10 NG REF: 610353 129568 Officer Contact: Caroline Barker RECOMMENDATION: That planning permission be refused for the reasons set out at the end of this report. 1.0 CONSULTATIONS 1.1 Dymchurch Parish Council – No objection. Voting: For: 7 Against: 0 Abstentions: 0 1.2 Kent Highways – Highways abutting and in the vicinity of the site are subject to traffic

regulation orders and some parking provision has been made to accommodate visitors to the site. My experience of similar sales outlets for sheds and cabins has produced low levels of vehicle activity connected to the site. The existing access is being utilised and delivery vehicle arrangements should not prove to be any different than those already delivering to the adjacent car sales.

I do not, therefore, wish to recommend the application for refusal. 1.3 Environmental Health Manager –

No objection. It is recommended the hours of opening area as stated on the application form.



82

1.4 Environment Agency – No objection to this development provided the following planning condition is

imposed: The site lies within tidal Flood zone 3a as depicted by our Flood Risk

Mapping. Zone 3a represents areas where the statistical likelihood of flooding is 0.5% or greater in any one year and is considered to be an area of ‘high risk’.

Planning Policy Statement 25 (PPS25) is the Government’s guidance

regarding Development and Flood Risk. Table D:2 (flood Risk Vulnerability Classification) indicates that the proposal would be classed as ‘less vulnerable’. This development may, therefore, be appropriate for this flood zone, but we would recommend that all appropriate flood resilience measures are incorporated into the building to reduce the impact of any flood damage. As a minimum, we suggest that the electrical supply is brought in at a high level (with all sockets at least 1m from the ground), water resistant surfaces are used wherever possible and that the sales office and sheds are firmly secured to the ground to ensure that they are not dislodged during storm or extreme tidal events.

We would ordinarily request a formal flood risk assessment for development

in areas such as this. However, given the proposed nature and scale of the development in this case, we are prepared to relax this requirement provided the following conditions are imposed should your Authority be minded to grant permission to this development.

Condition No development shall commence on site until a scheme detailing flood

damage prevention measures have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason To reduce the risk of flood damage to the fabric of the building. A guide advising industry how to reduce damage to new buildings in flood

risk areas has been published by Communities and Local Government, Defra and the Environment Agency. It can be found at http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/uploads/br/flood_performance.pdf.

We also suggest that the site owners ensure that they are registered with the

Agency’s Flood Warning Service. This free service aims to provide people with valuable time to prepare for flooding. Further information can be found on our website at www.environment-agency.gov.uk/floodline, or call Floodline on 0845 9881188.

1.5 Southern Water Services Ltd – Please find attached a plan of the sewer records showing the approximate

position of a public sewer in the vicinity of the site. The exact position of the



83

public sewers must be determined on site by the applicant before the layout of the proposed development is finalised. Please note:

No development or new tree planting should be located within 3 metres

either side of the centreline of the public sewer and all existing infrastructure should be protected during the course of construction works.

In order to protect drainage apparatus, Southern Water requests that if

consent is granted, a condition is attached to the planning permission. For example ‘The developer must advise the local authority (in consultation with Southern Water) of the measures which will be undertaken to protect the public sewers, prior to the commencement of the development’.

The application details for this development indicate that the proposed

means of surface water drainage for the site is via a watercourse. The Council’s technical staff and the relevant authority for land drainage consent should comment on the adequacy of the proposals to discharge surface water to the local watercourse.

2.0 PUBLICITY


3.1 None received.



SD1, LR9, BE1, BE4, BE13, TR11, TR12

4.3 The following Supplementary Planning Documents and Government

Guidance apply: Kent Design Guide PPS4: Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth PPS5: Planning for the Historic Environment PPS25: Development and Flood Risk PPG17: Planning for Open Space, Sport and Recreation



84

5.0 LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION OF SITE 5.1 The application site is an open space of grassed land located within the

settlement of Dymchurch. The site has been unused for some time. It is situated in a visually prominent location on the main road through the village. The site is situated within a tidal flood zone and is immediately adjacent to the conservation area which runs along the northern and eastern boundaries. A public footpath also runs around the perimeter.

5.2 There is residential development located to the north, west and east of the

site and an existing petrol station with car sales area located immediately to the south. During one visit to the site, it was noted that some of the cars from the sales were spilling over onto the application site.

6.0 THE PROPOSAL 6.1 The application seeks permission for the use of the land for the display of

domestic sheds to be sold from the site but distributed from the warehouse at the applicant’s Bexhill factory. No storage or deliveries are therefore proposed to or from the site. It is proposed that a static display of 150 square metres are kept at the site with one shed being used as a retail sales office on the site frontage to the western boundary.

6.2 A portaloo and parking area are proposed in the southwest corner at the rear

of the site. 7.0 PLANNING HISTORY 7.1 WE/7/66/113A - Additional underground petrol storage. Approved

12.01.67. 7.2 WE/7/66/113B - On site of demolished cottages – car sales area.

Refused 12.01.67. 7.3 SH/79/228 - Use of land as a caravan display area. Approved

04.05.79. 7.4 SH/82/890 - Erection of calor gas storage compound.

Approved 12.01.83. 7.5 SH/85/815 - Variation of condition 4 attached to permission

SH/79/228 to permit an increase in the number of caravans displayed for sale to 18 and continued use of land for the stationing of 2 caravans for use as office shop and store and use of a fenced area for caravan repairs (as amended by plan received 12th December 1985). Refused 20.01.86.



85

7.6 SH/86/611 - Continued use of land for the stationing of 2 caravans for use as an office a shop for the sale of caravan accessories. Approved 23.07.86.

7.7 SH/86/647 - Variation of condition (iv) attached to permission

no SH/79/228 to increase number of caravans for sale from 15 to 18 (as amended by drawing no. JS/505/2B accompanying letter). Approved 29.07.86.

7.8 SH/86/1143 - Use of land for the stationing of a portakabin for a

temporary period of one year (as amplified by letter dated 20th October 1986 and plans and letter dated 2nd December 1986). Approved 23.12.86.

7.9 92/0744/SH - Use of land for the sale of cars, caravans and

boats. Refused 18.11.92.

8.0 APPRAISAL General Principles 8.1 The main issues to be assessed are the visual impact of the development

having regard to the preservation and enhancement of the conservation area, the impact of the development on the amenities of neighbouring properties, the location of the development within an area identified as being at risk of flooding and whether the proposal is acceptable with regards to highway safety.

Impact on Neighbours 8.2 The application site is situated at the southern entrance to the Dymchurch

village centre where a number of commercial premises are located. The application site directly adjoins a petrol filling station where car movements are frequent. It is not considered that the proposal would lead to any greater level of disturbance than is already created by the adjoining sites. The application states the proposed opening times would be 0900 hours to 1700 hours on Mondays to Fridays, 0900 hours to 1600 hours on Saturdays and closed on Sundays and Bank Holidays. These are considered reasonable opening hours, in line with normal office hours. Environmental Health raise no objection to the development.

8.3 The proposal does not involve the construction of any permanent buildings

but low profile temporary shed structures which will not be occupied. The boundary treatment around the application site adjoining residential properties comprises close boarded timber fencing, breezeblock and brick walls and an attractive rag stone wall. Although there is a variety of materials, an average enclosure height of approximately 2 metres is maintained along these boundaries. The site is open to the south along the



86

boundary with the petrol station. The nature of the buildings to be displayed on the site and the current screening around the site mean the proposed development is highly unlikely to lead to lost privacy, overbearance or overshadowing of neighbouring dwellings.

Economic Principle 8.4 PPS4 requires local planning authorities to adopt a positive and constructive

approach towards planning applications for economic development. Policy EC10 of PPS4 sets out the impact considerations for economic development as follows: a) Whether the proposal has been planned over the lifetime of the

development to limit carbon dioxide emissions, and minimise vulnerability and provide resilience to, climate change;

b) The accessibility of the proposal by a choice of means of transport including walking, cycling, public transport and the car, the effect on local traffic levels and congestion (especially to the trunk road network) after public transport and traffic management measures have been secured;

c) Whether the proposal secures a high quality and inclusive design which takes the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of the area and the way it functions;

d) The impact on economic and physical regeneration in the area including the impact on deprived areas and social inclusion objectives;

e) The impact on local employment. 8.5 The application seeks permission for the display of sales items which would

then be distributed from a central manufacturing location in Bexhill. The structures would be of timber construction and be of a temporary nature and would not be habitable. In light of the nature of the development and use of the site, the carbon emission rate would be low, in accordance with part a) of the policy. The application site is in a sustainable location with direct access to the road network and public transport routes, in accordance with part b). In response to parts d) and e), it is considered that the development would not exclude any members of the community or prejudice regeneration; this is a small village which mainly harnesses the tourist economy and is not considered a strategic commercial centre (the closest being New Romney). The development would create 3 part-time employment positions (the equivalent of 1.5 full time positions) which would create opportunities that do not exist at present, although this is not a significant number.



87

Visual Impact 8.6 Part c) of the policy EC10 of PPS4 as set out above, requires that

consideration is given to the design of the development and the impact on the character and quality of the area. The application site is not situated within the conservation area itself but directly adjoins it and is visible from within it. In accordance with PPS5, a conservation area is a ‘designated heritage asset’ and states that ‘the effect of an application on the significance of such a heritage asset or its setting is a material consideration in determining the application’. In addition, it is the statutory duty and obligation of the Local Planning Authority to pay special attention to preserving or enhancing conservation areas in accordance with Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. The impact of the proposal on the conservation area is therefore the overriding principle for determination.

8.7 The site is in a highly prominent location on the main road and there is no

screening between the highway and application site. It is considered that the site therefore plays a valuable amenity role as an open space which enhances the setting of the conservation area. It is acknowledged that the site is privately owned. However, as set out in Annex 3 of PPG17, ‘even without public access, people enjoy having open space near to them to provide an outlook, variety in the urban scene, or as a positive element in the landscape’. It is therefore desirable to maintain the positive contribution this site plays in shaping the conservation area and general locality.

8.8 The application states that permission is being sought for the display and

sale of sheds. It is acknowledged that other domestic structures of a similar nature, such as log cabins or summerhouses also offered by the company, may also be displayed on the site and the structures displayed are likely to be changed as new ranges are introduced by the company. The application states it is intended to use the site for no more than 150 square metres of regionally manufactured low rise garden sheds and small timber buildings. One of these will serve as the retail sales office. The office has been shown on the submitted drawings as being approximately 12 square metres floor area. If the site were to be filled with structures of a similar footprint, approximately 12 structures could be positioned on the site at one time; judging from the indicative layout shown on the proposed block plan, this would cover most of the application site area.

8.9 The site is adjacent to a petrol filling station and car sales area. The

proposed development would be in keeping with the retail use of the adjoining land. However, this site also forms part of the buffer between the commercial premises further along the High Street to the south, which would be identified as the ‘centre’ of the village, and the prevailing residential development located in a northerly direction along the High Street. The use of the adjoining land as car sales is not considered to contribute positively to the appearance of the conservation area since it is highly visible from the public highway and there is a proliferation of vehicles along the frontage. It is considered that where the proposed use of the application site for the sale



88

of sheds extends right up to the edge of the highway, it would exacerbate the existing visual intrusion at the adjoining site by contributing to the clutter already provided by the car sales and associated paraphernalia such as signage, lighting and bunting etc. in a visually prominent location in the streetscene.

8.10 The application site has a visual value as open space within the

streetscene. As well as the proposed sheds, a proposed fence to the front boundary of the site to provide security would detract further from the value the existing open space contributes to the adjoining conservation area. Although no specific details were submitted with the application regarding the proposed boundary treatment, the agent and applicant confirmed on site that a 2 metre high green chain link fence is proposed and state that it is required in order to secure the site and deter vandalism.

8.11 The applicant entered into pre-application negotiations with a planning

officer who advised that while the proposed use may be acceptable, it should be located towards the rear of the site. This officer advice was, however, not reflected in the subsequent application. The agent for this application was advised of a likely recommendation for refusal if the scheme could not be amended in accordance with the advice originally given. However, the applicant has explained his principle concern is to catch the attention of passing trade and therefore he wishes to utilise the site up to the highway and achieve as much visibility from the streetscene as possible.

8.12 Visibility of the site from the north is obscured by the existing building and

boundary treatment at the adjoining site, 96 High Street. It is therefore likely that the use of sensitive and modestly sized signage (which would require separate consideration under the Advertisement Regulations) could be used to effectively draw the public’s attention to the site whilst also siting the development further back so as to maintain an element of open space and not compromise the special character and appearance of the conservation area. It was also recommended a landscaping scheme was introduced in order to soften the appearance of the development.

8.13 Amended plans have been received showing the fence line set back 5

metres from the edge of the highway. In front of the fence is a line of 4 Silver Birch (Betula Pendula) trees, and in front of the trees are (indicatively) positioned two advertisements between which is positioned a pedestrian access and gate leading along a path from the highway.

8.14 The Council’s Arboriculture Manager was not initially consulted on this

application since there are no trees that would be affected by the development. Since the introduction of a proposed landscaping scheme following negotiations, the Arboriculture Manager has been asked to comment on the proposed screening. His views are awaited and will be reported as supplementary information. It should be noted, however, that Southern Water have identified there is a public sewer in the vicinity of the site and requests that no development or new tree planting should be located within 3 metres either side of the centreline of the public sewer. It is



89

not considered that there would be any planting or built development within 3 metres of the sewer.

8.15 It is acknowledged that the visual amenity is maintained to the north of the

site as in this direction it is obscured by existing landscape features. However, a more comprehensive landscaping scheme would help to soften the proposed development and help screen the proposed sheds when viewed from the street. It is acknowledged that the proposed development constitutes a business venture which is supported by PPS4 on a site that has limited potential being in a flooding area; and some space has been maintained by setting the fence line 5 metres back from the highway. However, 5 metres is a relatively small set back and the development would still result in the loss of open space. From the south and head-on, the site would be highly prominent in the streetscene; there is no landscaping shown to the side (south) boundary which would be visible when travelling from a southerly direction where the proposed 2m chain link fence, which is visually undesirable, would be exposed.

8.16 In conclusion, it is not considered that the proposed development would

preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the adjoining conservation area. The proliferation of unattractive shed type buildings would exacerbate the cluttered appearance of the adjoining car sales and petrol filing station site. While landscaping could alleviate some issues of visual impact, the planting scheme is minimal and overall the development would not preserve or enhance the conservation area.

8.17 On balance, therefore, it is considered the visual impact of the proposed

development would be harmful to the setting of the adjoining conservation area and the application is therefore contrary to policy.

8.18 While the current proposal is not considered acceptable, the reduction of the

sales area so that it is situated much further back in the site, with a suitable landscaping scheme in accordance with officer pre-application advice, would be more appropriate.

Traffic/Transportation 8.19 The proposed development would utilise the existing vehicular access from

the highway which is shared with the adjoining petrol filling station. Kent Highways believe that the existing parking opportunities nearer the site and proposed parking within it would be sufficient to serve the proposed business and therefore raise no objection to the proposal.

Contamination 8.20 It is acknowledged that the application site adjoins a petrol filling station and

planning permission has previously been approved for the installation of petrol storage tanks. The applicant was advised of potential contamination during pre-application discussions. However, since there are no ground works involved in the development due to the nature of the proposed



90

development, it is not considered to be an issue in this instance. Environmental Health raise no objection to the development.

Flooding 8.21 The application site is in close proximity to the seawall and is located within

flood zone 3 as identified by the Environment Agency and in an area of extremely high risk as identified by the Council’s Strategic Flood Risk Assessment. Occupants in these areas are therefore at considerable risk in the event of a breach of the sea wall.

8.22 In accordance with PPS25, the proposed development is classified as being

‘less vulnerable’. In accordance with the Flood Risk Vulnerability and Flood Zone ‘Compatibility’ table set out in PPS25, the proposed development is considered to be appropriate in this location. In this respect, it was not considered a full Flood Risk Assessment was necessary in this instance.

8.23 The Environment Agency raise no objection to the proposal but recommends

that appropriate flood resilient measures are incorporated into the development to reduce the impact of any flood damage.

Other Issues 8.24 The applicant has only a short term lease agreement on the land. However,

it is officer’s recommendation that a temporary permission would be inappropriate since the development is considered harmful to the visual amenity of the area and harmful to the setting of the adjoining conservation area, regardless of any duration of time. In addition, it would be regrettable to encourage applications of a similar nature to be made on this land.



8.26 This application is reported to Committee at the discretion of the Head of

Planning Services. 9.0 SUMMARY 9.1 The application seeks permission for sheds to be displayed and sold from

the site which will then be distributed from a warehouse based in Bexhill. The application site is highly valuable in terms of visual amenity since it



91

provides an open space and visual break in the urban form. Its significance is considered two-fold, firstly in respect of providing a buffer between the residential properties to the north and commercial properties to the south, and secondly, and most importantly, by contributing to the setting of the conservation area which adjoins the site along the northern and eastern boundaries. Since the Local Planning Authority has a statutory duty to have regard to the presevation and enhancement of the conservation area, this is the overriding principle for consideration of the potential impact of the proposed development.

9.2 During pre-application discussions, the applicant was advised that the

development should be located towards the rear of the site in the interests of visual amenity. However, when the application was submitted, this recommendation had not been reflected in the design since the applicant wishes to be as close to the boundary as possible to attract passing trade. Following negotiations, the proposal was amended to include some frontage landscaping.

9.3 It is acknowledged that there is limited potential for development of this site

and the proposal consists of economic development, towards which government guidance encourages local planning authorities to adopt a positive and constructive approach. It is also noted that the applicant has amended the scheme to try and alleviate the concerns raised. However, on balance, it is considered that the proposal would not be of sufficiently high quality and would result in a proliferation of unsightly buildings and fencing, which would exacerbate the cluttered appearance of the adjoining car sales site and most significantly, result in the loss of an open space which has considerable amenity value by developing up to the front boundary. As such, it cannot be said the development would conserve or enhance the setting of the adjoining conservation area and the application is therefore considered to be contrary to development plan policy.



RECOMMENDATION – That planning permission be refused for the following reason: 1. The proposal, by reason of its cluttered appearance and frontage

development in a highly prominent location in the streetscene, would have an unsatisfactory visual impact and result in the loss of urban open space which contributes to the special character and appearance of the adjoining conservation area. As such, the development would not preserve or enhance the setting of the conservation area, contrary to policies SD1, BE1, BE4, BE13 and LR9 of the Shepway District Local Plan, PPS5: Planning and the Historic Environment and PPG17: Planning for Open Space, Sport and Recreation.



92

Informative 1. Your attention is drawn to the fact that this refusal of planning permission is

on the basis of submitted drawing Nos. 1005/01 and 1005/02 Rev B. Decision of Committee

