SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING SERVICES · 8/16/2007 · Kent Highway Services have no objection to the scheme. Other Representation I have received one letter of objection, which

SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL

PLANNING SERVICES

Planning Items to be submitted to the Planning Committee

16 AUGUST 2007 Standard Index to Contents PART 1 Reports to be considered in public session not included

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

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

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

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

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

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

1995 HRA Human Rights Act 1998 KSP Kent and Medway Structure Plan 2006 SBLP Swale Borough Local Plan (2000) Draft Local Plan (2005) Swale Borough Local Plan First Review Re-Deposit

Draft 2005

INDEX OF ITEMS FOR PLANNING COMMITTEE – 16 AUGUST 2007

• Minutes of last Planning Committee Meeting • Minutes of any Working Party Meetings 2.1 FAVERSHAM SW/07/0618 47 Abbey Fields Pgs 1 – 3 2.2 FAVERSHAM SW/07/0799 Unit 16, North Quay Industrial Pgs 4 – 6 Estate 2.3 MINSTER SW/07/0617 53 Scocles Road Pgs 7 – 9 2.4 FAVERSHAM SW/07/0824 55 Ashford Road Pgs 10 - 14 2.5 MINSTER SW/07/0345 Oak Lane Pgs 15 - 25 2.6 SITTINGBOURNE SW/07/0394 17 and 18 Arthur Street Pgs 26 – 39 2.7 HARTLIP SW/06/1441 Yaugher Farm, Yaugher Lane Pgs 40 - 46 2.8 THROWLEY SW/07/0604 Tong Green Farm Pgs 47 – 52 2.9 NORTON SW/07/0649 Norton Ash Garden Centre, Pgs 53 – 75 Norton Ash Crossroads 2.10 FAVERSHAM SW/07/0069 48 London Road Pgs 76 – 91 2.11 MINSTER SW/07/0602 Parcel 4, Thistle Hill Pgs 92 – 99 2.12 SITTINGBOURNE SW/07/0805 Land r/o 17 Highsted Road Pgs 100 – 107 2.13 FAVERSHAM SW/06/0619 The Old Granary, Standard Quay Pgs 108 – 131 2.14 FAVERSHAM SW/06/0620 The Old Granary, Standard Quay Pgs 108 – 131 2.15 MINSTER SW/07/0097 Phase 1, Land between Thistle Pgs 132 – 138 Hill and Heron Drive

Continued/…

2.16 MINSTER SW/07/0722 Broadview, Whybornes Chase Pgs 139 – 143 2.17 EASTCHURCH SW/07/0359 HMP Standford Hill, Church Road Pgs 144 – 163 2.18 EASTCHURCH SW/07/0360 MP Standford Hill, Church Road Pgs 144 – 163 2.19 MINSTER SW/07/0651 131A Minster Road Pgs 164 – 167 2.20 EASTCHURCH SW/07/0663 Cherry Tree Cottage, Pgs 168 – 171 Warden Road 2.21 QUEENBOROUGH SW/06/1468 Land south of A249, known as Pgs 172 – 202 Neatscourt (Phase 1) 3.1 OSPRINGE SW/07/0768 The Linnets, Hanslett Lane Pgs 1 – 19 3.2 TEYNHAM SW/07/0746 Land adjacent North Quay House, Pgs 20 – 23 Conyer 4.1 QUEENBOROUGH SW/07/0778 Queenborough Castle Site, Pgs 1 - 3 Railway Terrace 5.1 LEYSDOWN ENF/07/006 Land and Buildings at Pgs 1 – 4 30 Shellbeach, Shellness Road 5.2 FAVERSHAM SW/06/1030 & Copton Manor Barns, Pgs 5 – 11 SW/06/1031 Ashford Road 5.3 FAVERSHAM SW/06/0897 87 Preston Park Pgs 12 – 14 5.4 QUEENBOROUGH SW/06/0612 Trafalgar Court, West Street Pgs 15 – 19 5.5 MINSTER SW/06/0924 12-14 Union Road Pgs 20 – 24

1

PLANNING COMMITTEE – 16 AUGUST 2007 PART 2 Report of the Head of Development Services PART 2 Applications for which PERMISSION is recommended

2.1 SW/07/0618 (Case 22722) FAVERSHAM

Location: 47 Abbey Fields, Faversham Proposal: Two storey side extension Applicant/Agent: Catherine Lucas, c/o Peter Hutchinson RIBA, 80

Ospringe Street, Faversham, Kent, ME13 8TN Application Valid: 25 June 2007 and as amended by letter and drawings

07.11-1B and 07.11-4A received 24th July 2007.

SUBJECT TO: Outstanding representations (closing dated 08/08/2007)

Conditions (1) SC4 (2005) and grounds. (2) The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of

the extension hereby permitted shall match those on the existing building in terms of type, colour and texture.

Grounds: To ensure that the appearance of the development is in harmony with the character of the existing building, as supported by Policy G1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan.

Reasons for Approval Having taken all material considerations into account, it is considered that subject to compliance with the attached conditions, the proposal would be in accordance with the development plan and would not cause unacceptable harm to the amenities of the area. In resolving to grant permission, particular regard has been had to the following policies: G1, H8 and E48 of The Swale Borough Local Plan; and QL1 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan.

Continued . . .

2

2.1 (Contd) PART 2

Description of Proposal The proposal seeks planning permission for a two-storey side extension and a small ground floor extension to form a new front entrance. The new additions to the property will be constructed using the same materials to match the existing property. The two-storey extension would provide an extension to the living room at ground floor, and a third bedroom at first floor. The flank wall of the extension would be 1m from the side boundary, but the extension would be well set back from the front elevation. Relevant Site History and Description The property is situated in Abbey Fields in Faversham, amongst a group of 3 similar pairs of semi-detached houses. Abbey Fields itself is a mixture of semi detached, detached and terraced houses. There is no planning history for the site. Views of Consultees The Faversham Town Council have recommended the application be refused, because they feel that the proposal will lead to a terracing effect in the street. No other representations have been received. I have re-consulted the neighbour regarding the amended drawings, and will report any further comments to the meeting. Policies The main policy considerations in determining this application are those of G1, H8 and E48 of The Swale Borough Local Plan; and QL1 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan apply. The Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance SPG ‘Designing an Extension’ is also relevant here. This states ‘Where a two storey side extension to a house is proposed in an area of mainly detached or semi-detached housing, the Council is anxious to see that the area should not become ‘terraced’ in character, losing the sense of openness.’ ‘Residents of such a street have a right to expect that the character should be retained. Houses should not be physically or visually linked, especially at first floor level as the space between buildings is important in preserving the areas character and sense of openness. A gap of 2m between a first floor extension and the side boundary is normally required.’

Continued . . .

3

2.1 (Contd) PART 2

Discussion I have assessed the proposal against the criteria and believe that as Abbey Fields is a very mixed streetscene, predominantly comprised of flats and terraced properties, this proposal would not spoil its character, but rather would be in keeping with the character of the area. The extension is set back from the front of the house, and although the SPG states that this will not normally overcome this problem, in this case I believe that this will preserve the rhythm of the streetscene, and that it is further reason to recommend the application be approved, rather than refused. The application did also involve the bricking up and moving of the front door to the property to create addition storage space inside. However it was felt that this would spoil the street scene and I felt that the proposal would be improved if the front door were to be retained. In response the scheme has been amended to show a bay window to the kitchen, which resolves the problem. Summary and Recommendation Having considered the above points and the comments made by the Town Council I recommend the application be approved, due to the particular circumstances of the streetscene here.

Background Papers 1. Application papers for SW/07/0618. 2. Correspondence relating to SW/06/0618.

4


Location: Unit 16, North Quay Industrial Estate, Faversham, Kent ME13 7DL

Proposal: Change of use from B1 (Business) or B2 (General

Industrial) to use as taxi office. Applicant/Agent: Starlite Taxis Limited, c/c Real Interiors UK Ltd, E5 St

George's Business Park, Castle Road, Sittingbourne, Kent ME10 3TB

Application Valid: 5th July 2007. Subject to: The views of the Town Council and the receipt of any representations (closing dated 13th August 2007).

Conditions (1) The site shall not be used as a location for the picking up or dropping

off of customers.

Grounds: In the interests of the amenities of the area, and in pursuance of Policy B17 of the Swale Borough Local Plan.

Summary of Reasons for Granting Permission

Having taken all material considerations into account, it is considered that subject to compliance with the attached conditions, the proposal would be in accordance with the development plan and would not cause unacceptable harm to the amenities of the area or prejudice highway safety or convenience. In resolving to grant permission, particular regard has been had to the following policies: G1 & B17 of the Swale Borough Local Plan and QL1 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan

Description of Proposal

The application is for the change of use of the unit from B1(Business) or B2 (General Industrial) for use as a taxi office. The unit is Unit 16 of the North Quay Industrial Estate, Faversham Kent. The application seeks to regularise the existing use, which has been on-going since 2004, and has attracted one complaint.

Relevant Site History and Site Description

The unit is located within North Quay Industrial Estate on Upper Brents close to Faversham Creek and Faversham Reach.

Continued….

5

2.2 (Contd) PART 2 When planning permission was granted under SW/87/1109 two parking spaces were provided with the unit and condition (iv) stated that “The units hereby permitted may only be used for purposes within Classes B1 and B2 of the Schedule to the Town & Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 and for no other purpose without the prior permission of the District Planning Authority” Temporary planning permission was granted in 2005 for nearby Unit 14 on this estate to run a part taxi office and part distribution office. Views of Consultees The views of Faversham Town Council are awaited and will be reported at the meeting. Kent Highway Services have no objection to the scheme. Other Representation I have received one letter of objection, which claims that the site is in fact being used as a taxi rank with taxis from various companies using the site. Coaches are also alleged to operate from the site. This is said to lead to traffic nuisance at night and at weekends when the main industrial estate is quiet, and is a particular nuisance for houses close to the entrance to the former shipyard due to lack of traffic calming measures. The writer argues that previous taxi uses have been refused permission, and this application should also be refused. Any representations will be reported at the meeting (closing dated 13th August 2007). Policies Swale Borough Local Plan Policies Policies G1 (General Development Criteria) & B17 (Upper Brents Shipyard) Kent & Medway Structure Plan: Deposit Plan Policy QL1

Continued….

6

2.2 (Contd) PART 2 Discussion The applicant has provided information stating that the office has been in use by Starlite taxis since 2004 and is open from 6am to 11pm on weekdays, 6am to 2am on Saturdays and 10am to 11pm on Sundays and Bank Holidays. They anticipate an increase in vehicle movements from the existing 4 to 6 per day, though no information has been provided regarding staff numbers. When planning permission was granted under SW/87/1109 for the Industrial estate 2 parking spaces were provided with the unit, however the drawings show a larger car parking area provided behind the entrance gates. It might be thought that parking and vehicle movement could become an issue due to the nature of the business. However the business has been running for a while and has not caused serious problems. I consider the proposed change of use is acceptable in this location and I do not consider the amenity of the residential properties in Upper Brents would be adversely affected due to the distance of the unit from them. Furthermore adequate parking appears to be available to the business within the site. Summary and Recommendation The proposed change of use is in my opinion acceptable in this location and I do not consider that the proposal would cause sufficient harm to the nearby residential area to warrant refusal of this application. I therefore recommend that, subject to the views of the Town Council and any other representations, planning permission should be granted. List of Background Papers 1. Application Papers and Correspondence for SW/07/0799. 2. Application Papers and Correspondence for SW/07/1109. 3. Application Papers and Correspondence for SW/05/0409.

7

2.3 SW/07/0617 (Case 22721) MINSTER

Location: 53 Scocles Road, Minster, Sheppey, Kent Proposal: Replacement of existing roof with new roof including

rooms with dormer windows Applicant/Agent: Mr Scott, c/o CA Vaughan Blundell Ltd, 3 Church Farm

Way, Woodnesborough, Canterbury, Kent Application Valid: 24 May 2007 Subject to: Views of Kent Highway Services. Conditions (1) The development to which this permission relates must be begun not

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

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

(2) No development shall take place until details of roofing and hanging tiles to be used on the development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the District Planning Authority.

Grounds: In the interests of visual amenity and in pursuance of policies E48 and G1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan.

Reason for Approval Having taken all material considerations into account, it is considered that subject to compliance with the attached conditions, the proposal would be in accordance with the development plan and would not cause unacceptable harm to the amenities of the area. In resolving to grant permission, particular regard has been had to the following policies G1, H8 & E48 of The Swale Borough Local Plan; E1, E19 & E24 of the Swale Borough Local Plan First Review Redeposit Draft. Description Planning permission is sought for a replacement roof, which would include dormer windows at 53 Scocles Road, Minster. The proposal would involve increasing the ridge height of the roof from 5.9m to 8m and would change the roof shape from a hipped profile to one with gables to both side elevations.

Continued….

8

2.3 (Contd) PART 2 The proposal includes three dormer windows on the front roof slope and they would each be 2.1m in width, 3.3m in height and project a maximum of 1.4m from the main roof slope. The dormer windows would be hipped back towards the roof slope and would be positioned centrally on it. The rear roof slope would have two more of identical dormer windows either side of a pattern of roof lights. The area of roof lights would be 1.8m by 2m and would be central in the roof slope. Site Description and Relevant History The property is a bungalow within the built-up area of Minster. The adjacent dwellings are both bungalows, however the streetscene is very mixed with houses, bungalows and chalet bungalows of differing designs and materials. Most notably No.49 has large flat roof box dormer windows spanning the rear and front roof slopes and No.47, has had a roof extension resulting in the ridge height increased from 5.5m to 8m. There is no relevant history for the property. Views of Consultees Minster Parish Council raise objection for the following reason.

“ The roof appears out of scale with the existing dwelling” No response has yet been received from Kent Highways Services. I hope to report their comments to Members at the meeting. Other Representations No other representations were received Policies Policies G1 (General Development Criteria), H8 (Extensions to, and replacement of dwellings in the built-up area) & E48 (Design of new development) of the Swale Borough Local Plan are of relevance. Policies E1 (General Development Criteria), E19 (Achieving a high standard of design and distinctiveness) & E24 (Alterations and extensions) of the Swale Borough Local Plan First Review Redeposit Draft are also prudent here. Discussion The proposal involves the raising of the roof to provide habitable rooms within the roof space, however there would be no increase in the buildings footprint

Continued….

9

2.3 (Contd) PART 2 nor would the resultant dwelling extend past the rear elevations of the adjacent properties. I also note that the side elevations to both of the adjacent bungalows comprises of either secondary or bathroom windows. I am therefore of the opinion that the increase in roof height would not result in significant loss of light or outlook to either neighbour property. I note the proposed dormer windows are large, however they are vertical in emphasis and have pitched roofs, and in this regard accord with the Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance. The dormer windows would also be hipped which would help to reduce their bulk. In view of the various roof alterations and the varied streetscene along this part of Scocles Road, I am of the opinion that the proposed increase in roof height including the dormer windows would not detract from the character and appearance of the existing dwelling nor would the proposals detract from the visual amenities of the streetscene. Minster Parish Council’s comments are noted but as stated above, due to the mixed nature of the streetscene I do not consider that the proposals would result in significant harm to the streetscene, and in my opinion a refusal would be difficult to defend at appeal. Summary and Recommendation The proposed increase in roof height, dormer windows and roof lights would not, in my opinion, result in significant harm to the character and appearance of the dwelling or the streetscene. Furthermore it is not anticipated that harm would be caused to the residential amenity of either adjacent dwelling. I therefore recommend, subject to the view of Kent Highway Services, that the application be approved.

________ List of Background Documents 1. Application Papers and Correspondence for SW/07/0617

10


Location: 55 Ashford Road, Faversham, Kent Proposal: Physically contiguous residential unit providing supported

accommodation as part of extended family unit Applicant/Agent: Professor A & Mr Netten, c/o Cook Associates, 1 Limes

Place, Preston Street, Faversham, Kent Application Valid: 11th July 2007

SUBJECT TO: The receipt of amended drawings, consultation responses and the views of neighbours (closing date 13th August 2007).

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



(2) Details of external materials and roofing tiles to be used on the

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

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

policies G1 and E48 of the Swale Borough Local Plan, and QL1 of the Kent & Medway Structure Plan.

(3) Details in the form of British Standards or commercial specifications of

the proposed colouring of the render and cladding materials shall be submitted to and approved by the District Planning Authority before the development is commenced and upon approval shall be carried out within three months of the completion of the development.

Grounds: In the interest of visual amenity and in pursuance of policies G1 and E48 of the Swale Borough Local Plan, and QL1 of the Kent & Medway Structure Plan.

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

inserted, placed or formed at any time in the south facing first floor accommodation hereby permitted unless agreed in writing with the District Planning Authority.

Continued….

11

2.4 (Contd) PART 2 Grounds: To prevent the overlooking of adjoining properties and to

safeguard the privacy of their occupiers and in pursuance of policies G1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan, and QL1 of the Kent & Medway Structure Plan.

(5) The new accommodation hereby proposed shall remain ancillary to the

main dwelling house, known as 55 Ashford Road, Faversham and shall be occupied only by persons of the same household and at no time shall it be used or occupied as a separate dwelling.

Grounds: In the interests of residential amenity and in pursuance of policies G1 and E48 of the Swale Borough Local Plan and QL1 of the Kent & Medway Structure Plan

Reasons for Approval Having taken all material considerations into account, it is considered that subject to compliance with the attached conditions, the proposal would be in accordance with the development plan and would not cause unacceptable harm to the amenities of the area. In resolving to grant permission, particular regard has been had to the following policies: G1, E9, E48 & H9 of The Swale Borough Local Plan; and EN1, QL1 & HP5 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan: Deposit Plan. Description of Proposal The application is described as being for a physically contiguous residential unit providing supported accommodation as part of the extended family unit; this essentially describes an annex. The building will be two storey projecting out from the south facing side elevation of the existing main house, and extending beyond the line of the existing rear wall. The design approach contrasts with the existing house in terms of building form, materials and detailing. The ground floor will provide a combined entrance which will serve both the new accommodation and the existing house, a kitchen, WC, living and dining area are also provided. On the first floor a bedroom is provided to the rear and an en suite shower room and study. A lift will provide access to the ground and first floor, and an interconnecting door is shown at first floor level. The extension partly occupies space above the ground floor plan of the existing house, and is therefore wrapped round an intertwined with the main house. The accommodation is to provide residential accommodation for the mother of one of the applicants so she “may live in supported accommodation within the curtilage of her daughter's house and contiguous with the physical and family structure of the existing house with which it is inextricably linked”

Continued….

12

2.4 (Contd) PART 2 The access from Ashford Road is to be widened and 2 parking spaces provided to the front. The existing retaining wall is to be removed and a smaller boundary wall rebuilt to enhance visibility onto the Ashford Road with planting behind. A new retaining wall will be built behind the parking area and steps provided up to the house and the annex. I am awaiting a revised drawing to show the new boundary wall.

The application is supported by a statement indicating the purpose of the proposal, the design approach, and the local streetscene, which consists of detached properties often set close to the boundary. Relevant site history and site description The location of the proposal is 55 Ashford Road, a detached house set centrally in a large plot with a long garden, detached garage and driveway located on the north side of the site. The site is located within the defined countryside. Ashford Road has a character of detached houses set in large plots with long gardens, some are set up to or close to the boundary while others are central to the plot. Planning permission was granted under SW/77/466 for the erection of a porch Views of Consultees I have not received any comments from the Town Council or other consultees but the closing date for comments is 13th August 2007, and I will report further at the meeting. Other Representations

The Faversham Society have recommend refusal because they feel that the design, bulk and materials of the extension fail to respect the idiosyncratic design of the original house, and that it will be over dominant.

Policies Swale Borough Local Plan Policies Policies E9 (Protection of the Countryside), G1 (General Development Criteria), E48 (Design of New Development) and H9 (Rural Extension). Kent & Medway Structure Plan EN1 (Protection of the Countryside), QL1 (Design), HP5 (Rural Housing).

Continued….

13

2.4 (Contd) PART 2 Discussion The application is in essence for an annex to 55 Ashford Road to provide supported accommodation for a relative. The site is located within the defined countryside where rural restraint policies apply. The main issues concerning this proposal relate to the size of the development considering its countryside designation, and the impact of the proposal on the visual and residential amenity of the neighbours and on the character of the area, and design. The proposed accommodation is shown to be linked to the main house with one entrance to serve both the main house and the new area, furthermore first floor accommodation in the main dwelling has been given over to the new accommodation. Access from the landing in the main house is also possible via a “hidden door” in the first floor study. The total floor area for the development is 88.5m2 which translates to a 37% increase in the size of the property. With regard to these issues development plan policy clearly states that the countryside should be protected for its own sake and development should be restricted outside rural settlements in the interests of countryside conservation and sustainability. Policy H9 of the Local Plan and HP5 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan do provide for some limited development outside settlements and the text accompanying the policies suggests that modest can be defined as up to a 60% increase in floor space from original. As such I consider the application to be acceptable in terms of size and scale. The development is proposed to be located on the south side of the property taking the two storey element to within 1.7m of the boundary with no.57. Supplementary Planning Guidance “Designing An Extension: A Guide for Householders” states that in an area of mainly detached or semi-detached housing a gap of 2m between first floor and the side boundary is normally required” to prevent a terracing appearance and the loss of open character. Ashford Road has a character of detached houses, however in this area most are set very close to or on the side boundaries. I do not consider that in the case of this particular streetscene, the proposal would result in the houses appearing any more visually linked due to this, more particularly so as the extension would be set back 4m from the front of the main house. The development would be within 1.7m of the boundary with no 57 which however it is set some distance away from its boundary. The side elevation shows windows at ground floor level, which wouldn’t overlook no 57 due to existing vegetation and a dividing wall. Furthermore the rooflight and high level window to provide light to the first floor en suite would also not overlook

Continued….

14

2.4 (Contd) PART 2 the property. No 55 is set back from the neighbouring property however the ground floor extension to the rear with the flat roof and gap to the boundary would not cause harm to the visual or residential amenity of the neighbours. I therefore consider the proposal would not cause harm to the amenity of the occupiers of this property. The design is contemporary in nature and will provide a modern extension to the property, whilst the cladding and render will ensure it relates to other properties along Ashford Road. Although the design and materials do not match those to the main house the proposal has been given as a modern and well designed appearance. Conditions are suggested to ensure the materials are acceptable and that no further windows or voids are added to the south elevation facing no 57 to protect their amenity. Furthermore a condition to ensure the extension remains as described and for the use as described has also been recommended as this is an acceptable location for an extension but not for a new separate dwelling. Summary and Recommendation The application is essentially for an attached annex. It is proposed that the two storey element is sited to the side of the property and a single storey element to the rear. It is sited close to the boundary with no 57, however being set back 4m from the front of the property and at a similar distance from the boundary to other properties within the road, I do not consider this will produce an unacceptable “terracing” effect. The extension proposed is acceptable in terms of scale and size for its location within the defined countryside and the contemporary design of the extension and the proposed materials provide a high quality appearance, and relates well to other properties within the vicinity. Based on the above I recommend that planning permission be granted, subject to receipt of amended drawings showing the replacement front wall and any comments from neighbours or consultees (closing date 13th August 2007).

List of Background Documents 1. Application Papers for Application SW/07/0824. 2. Correspondence Relating to Application SW/07/0824.

15

2.5 SW/07/0345 (Case 22594) MINSTER

Location: Oak Lane, Minster Proposal: Repositioning of existing un-adopted road Applicant/Agent: Mr Murray & Mr Blunt, c/o Nigel Sands & Associates, 15

Colson Drive, Iwade, Kent, ME9 8TT Application Valid: 17 May 2007 Conditions

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



(2) No development shall commence until details have been submitted and

approved by the District Planning Authority in writing, showing the proposed access road and junctions, including any retaining walls, surface water drainage, vehicle overhang margins, embankments, visibility splays, accesses and carriageway gradients. For this purpose, plans and sections, indicating as appropriate, the design, layout, levels, gradients, materials and method of construction shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority. Upon approval, these details shall be constructed and laid out in accordance with the approved drawings.

Grounds: To ensure that the road is laid out and constructed in a satisfactory manner.

(3) No development shall commence until drawings have been submitted

and approved by the District Planning Authority in writing showing an area to accommodate operatives' and construction vehicles loading, off-loading or turning, and any material storage during construction.

Grounds: In the interests of the amenities of the area pursuant to policy G1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan and to ensure that vehicles can be parked or manoeuvred off the highway in the interests of highway safety.

Continued….

16

2.5 (Contd) PART 2 (4) Provision shall be made within the site for the disposal of surface water

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

Grounds: In the interests of highway safety and convenience.

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

landscape works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the District Planning Authority.

Grounds :In the interests of the visual amenities of the area and in pursuance of policies E49 and G1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan.

(6) All hard and soft landscape works shall be carried out in accordance

with the approved details. The works shall be carried out in accordance with a programme agreed in writing with the District Planning Authority.

Grounds: In the interests of the visual amenities of the area and in pursuance of policies E49 and G1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan.

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

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

Grounds: In the interests of the visual amenities of the area in pursuance of policies E49 and G1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan.

Reason for Approval

Having taken all material considerations into account, it is considered that the proposal would be in accordance with the development plan and would not cause unacceptable harm to the amenities of the area or prejudice highway safety or convenience. In resolving to grant permission, particular regard has been had to the following policies: EN1 and SS8 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan; policies G1, E9, E23 and E49 of the adopted Swale Borough Local Plan; and policies E6 and E13 of the Swale Borough Local Plan First Review Re-Deposit Draft.

Description of Proposal This is a proposal to construct a new roadway off Oak Lane.

Continued….

17

2.5 (Contd) PART 2 The application seeks to link the existing driveway at the house known as ‘The Vines’ with a short length of road at East End Bungalow, making an alternative road which would run diagonally through Hollybush Farm Caravan Park and by-pass the section of road where coastal erosion has occurred. It would give access to the caravan park and residential property without negotiating a sharp bend at the cliff edge. The new surfaced road would be about 150m long, and 3m wide for much of its length, constructed of black tarmacadam, with a 4.2m wide passing place about half way along. At its north eastern end the proposed roadway would link with the track between (what I understand to be) an old barracks building, and a derelict bungalow. Both a supporting statement and Design and Access statement have been submitted with the application, both of which are appended to this report. It will be seen from those documents that the application is submitted as a cooperative effort between a number of affected parties, as a response to the risk of further erosion removing their road access. It is stated that it would be a private road, but with access for everyone, and that the existing road would be left to naturally degrade. It is stated that other routes have been discussed with the highway authority in the past, but these involved greater distances. Site Description and Relevant Planning history Oak Lane is a metalled road for most of its length, but at its northern end becomes unmade and narrower where it passes Arcadia (a cattery), East End Farm and Rose Cottage (both Grade 2 Listed) and The Vines, and rises steeply to approach the cliff edge. Beyond this, the road turns sharply eastwards parallel to the coastline, giving road access to a number of residential properties, a caravan park at Hollybush Farm, and East End House. Public Footpath ZS4 runs along part of the existing road in front of East End Bungalow. From the point where Oak Lane turns sharply from running northwards to eastwards, the land has been subject to cliff erosion, and signs give notice that this danger still exists. The point where the new road would separate from the old one, is the driveway to ‘The Vines’. It would lie about 10m from Rose Cottage and about 15m from East End Farm, but both have the existing road (to be made redundant, but not to be removed) already in front of them.

Continued….

18

2.5 (Contd) PART 2 Whilst properties nearby have been the subject of Planning applications in the past, there is no Planning history relating directly to this proposal. Hollybush Farm Caravan Park was granted seasonally occupied permission by Kent County Council in 1964 (NK/8/63/318). However, most significantly, an application was submitted in 1999 for a replacement dwelling and new access to Hollybush Caravan Park. That proposal showed an access starting at approximately the same point close to The Vines, but terminating at the caravan site itself (SW/99/0586). The application was not determined. Although it has been asserted that alternative routes for a roadway have been discussed with the highway authority, I have been unable to establish the precise nature of these discussions, but may be able to elaborate at the meeting. Views of Consultees Minster Parish Council request a site meeting and go on to request that the Borough Council investigates alternative routes. The Ward Councillor also requests a site meeting before any decision is made. Kent Highway Services have no objections to the proposals in respect of highway matters subject to conditions being attached to any permission granted. Their letter emphasises that any permission does not convey any approval for the required vehicular crossing or any other works within the highway for which permission must be obtained from Kent Highway Services. Swale’s Principal Engineer has advised me on the question of cliff erosion as follows:

'The unadopted section of Oak Lane leading to Hollybush Farm and other properties is at risk from subsidence as a result of the erosion of the clay cliffs that typify the north coast of the Isle of Sheppey. While there have been no significant land slips in recent years, there is always the probability that one may happen. Due to the nature of the ground conditions it is not likely that there would be much warning of a slippage.

Any slippage could put Oak Lane at risk from subsidence which would affect, or even sever, access to the properties on this road. Relocating the road to the south would move it out of the area of risk and secure access to the affected properties.'

Other Representations Letters or emails have been received from nine residential properties in the

Continued….

19

2.5 (Contd) PART 2 area, although each of the four residents of Rose Cottage (a listed building closeby) have written to express their objection by both letter and email, and two other residents have written twice. One writer lives in Plough Road, but walks in the area regularly. One writer claims that they have seen a significant increase in vehicle movements along this part of Oak Lane over recent years, damaging water pipes and the road surface. Another that the existing road, being only 8ft wide, is unsuitable for passing traffic, and constant reversing has caused damage to walls. Caravans have been brought across the fields (by inference) as a result. The general fear of most writers is that this would increase the likelihood of more traffic at this end of Oak Lane, particularly lorries or caravans. The main objections can be summarised as follows:

• Oak Lane is not a through route and a quiet country lane would

be spoilt • The application is made purely for business reasons • Fear of increased volumes of (heavy) traffic • Noise and vibration from traffic during and after construction • Impact on shallow/no foundations of listed buildings • The risk of accidents would increase • Existing access is adequate • Lead to more development/caravans • The impact on horse riders and walkers.

A number of residents request that a site meeting is held before any decision is made. The occupiers of Hollybush Farm Cottage support the application, and explain in detail why they cannot understand others opposing it, since the new length of road will not pass their properties. All construction traffic, they assert, would come across the field from Bell Farm Lane. They question the motives of other residents. Relevant Development Plan Policies

The Development Plan currently comprises the Kent and Medway Structure Plan 2006 and the Swale Borough Local Plan 2000, although Members will be aware that the latter is undergoing review.

In terms of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan EN1 (Protecting Kent’s

Countryside) and SS8 (Development in the Countryside) are of particular relevance.

Continued….

20

2.5 (Contd) PART 2

The area lies outside the defined built up area boundary in the adopted Swale Borough Local Plan. Policy E9 (Protection of the Countryside) is particularly relevant. It also partly runs through the Coastal Zone, where policy E23 of the adopted plan applies. The site lies very close to the cliff stability line on the adopted Local Plan where Policies E26 and E60 apply. These policies are reflected in the Swale Borough Local Plan First Review Re-Deposit Draft as policies E6 and E13 respectively, although there are significant changes in the proposed wording. Policy E5 (Cliff Erosion and Unstable Land is also of relevance). Discussion This is a proposal for an alternative route to gain access to properties close to the cliff edge where erosion has occurred in the past and is likely in the future. The comments of our Principal Engineer regarding the risk of further erosion are of particular relevance. There is no intention to remove the existing roadway. Several writers allude to the fact that the existing road is too narrow to pass at its northern end, creating difficult reversing manoeuvres on a very poor road surface and at a very sharp bend. For those able to gain easier access with long term protection from erosion, this scheme must have considerable merit. In terms of visual impact, the road would start at an existing driveway before it enters a holiday park (Hollybush Farm). At its northern end it would emerge between existing buildings which are very unattractive and lie in an area which has been subject to tipping and industrial storage in the past. It would not therefore lie in an area of attractive open countryside. Although I am mindful of policies which seek to protect rural areas from unnecessary development and for its own sake, the impact on the area would in my view, be greatly mitigated by this fact. I do not believe that a reason for refusal on the basis of harm to the rural environment could be substantiated. A serious consideration is the proximity of the new road to The Vines, even though the owners of that property are party to the application. However, given the likely limited use of the new roadway (ending as it does only a short distance to the north east) and the fact that the existing road runs closeby and traffic would be divided between the two, I do not consider that the impact on this property (which has a conservatory facing the new road) would be sufficient reason for refusal in itself.

Continued….

21

2.5 (Contd) PART 2 Moreover, although development on unstable land is a material consideration to be taken into account (PPG14 makes this clear), there is no suggestion that the road itself is on unstable ground, or that the construction itself would exacerbate the problem. Policy E26 of the adopted Local Plan states that any development adjacent to the designated Coastal Landslide Zone will be accompanied by a slope stability report, but E60 refers to land north of the line and the presumption against developments here. The comments of our Principal Engineer will be noted, and I do not consider that a cliff stability report is necessary for this proposal. The main objection from residents appears to be that it is seen as providing a much easier access for heavy vehicles to the holiday park. This is, in the view of some, the real motivation behind this scheme. This would therefore increase the likelihood of this end of Oak Lane being used for lorries and caravans etc. Whilst I understand this fear, and the desire to keep the lane in its current quiet state, it is not, in my view, acceptable to have caravans taken across agricultural land because the existing road cannot accommodate them. I could not support a refusal which, in effect, simply made access to the affected properties by heavy vehicles more difficult and therefore less likely. Kent Highway Services raise no objection, and the fears of additional accident risk, when compared to the existing road situation, seem to be unfounded. Although the scheme would impact on walkers and horse riders, potentially the existing road might be rendered rather more pleasant if some vehicles were diverted to the new road. I appreciate the fears of noise and vibration. However, the existing roadway already passes close to the two listed buildings. Vehicles attempting to negotiate the road already run close to the properties and potentially awkward vehicle manoeuvring on a narrow road must increase likely problems. In any event the number of increased vehicles is likely to be quite small, when compared to a non-through route elsewhere. The use of the road by construction traffic is an issue in the short term, and does cause me concern. Access across a field, from Bell Farm Lane (itself unmade for part of its length) seems very unsatisfactory. Access from Oak Lane also creates difficulties. Whilst this does not amount to a reason for refusal, I shall be discussing this aspect with the applicants prior to the meeting and hope to report further.

Continued….

22

2.5 (Contd) PART 2 Summary and Recommendation On balance, I believe that this proposal would have benefits to those occupying property in the area and the adverse impacts are not sufficient to warrant refusal. Subject to further consideration of access during construction, I recommend that permission is granted subject to the above conditions.

List of Background Documents 1. Application Papers for Application SW/07/0345 2. Application Papers for Application SW/99/0586

23

APPENDIX A ITEM 2.5

24

APPENDIX A ITEM 2.5

25

APPENDIX A ITEM 2.5

26

2.6 SW/07/0394 (Case 21962) SITTINGBOURNE

Location: 17 & 18 Arthur Street, Sittingbourne, Kent ME10 1BA.

Proposal: Outline application for demolition of 2 dwellings and

construction of 10 apartments. Applicant/Agent: Messrs Roper, Sawyer & Arnold, c/o J B Associates, 13

Morris Court Close, Bapchild, Sittingbourne, Kent ME9 9PL.

Application Valid: 2nd April 2007 and as amended by drawings received

18th and 30th July 2007 and additional information received 30th July 2007.

SUBJECT TO: The further comments of Kent Highways and any further

representations (closing date 14th August 2007). Conditions (1) Details relating to the landscaping of the site shall be submitted to and

approved by the District Planning Authority before any development is commenced.

Grounds: No such details have been submitted.

(2) Application for approval of reserved matters referred to in Condition (1)

above must be made not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date of the grant of outline planning permission.



later than the expiration of two years from the final approval of the reserved matter.


(4) No development shall take place until the applicant, or their agents or

successors in title, has secured the implementation of a watching brief to be undertaken by an archaeologist approved by the District Planning Authority so that the excavation is observed and items of interest and

Continued….

27

2.6 (Contd) PART 2 finds are recorded. The watching brief shall be in accordance with a

written specification and timetable which has been submitted to and approved in writing by the District Planning Authority. Grounds: To ensure that features of archaeological interest are properly examined and recorded in pursuance of policy E43 of the Swale Borough Local Plan.

(5) Details of the existing and proposed site levels in the form of cross

sections through the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the District Planning Authority prior to the commencement of any development on site. The development shall proceed strictly in accordance with the approved details.

Grounds: In the interests of residential and visual amenity and in pursuance of Policy G1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan.

(6) The landscaping details submitted pursuant to condition (1) shall

include existing features, full details in the form of 1:10 elevations of the front facing wall and railings, and of a means of enclosure to be erected between the southern edge of the bin store and the eastern elevation of the flats fronting Arthur Street, together with planting schedules of plants, noting species, plant sizes and numbers where appropriate, means of enclosure elsewhere within the site, hard surfacing materials, and an implementation programme.


(7) All hard and soft landscape works and the erection of means of

enclosure shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. The works shall be carried out prior to the occupation of any part of the development or in accordance with the programme agreed in writing with the District Planning Authority.





Continued….

28

2.6 (Contd) PART 2 (9) No development shall take place until details in the form of samples of

materials to be used on the external surfaces have been submitted to and approved in writing by the District Planning Authority. The agreed details shall then be implemented in full before any part of the development is occupied.

(10) All windows and doors shall be of timber joinery, details of which shall

have been submitted to and approved in writing by the District Planning Authority prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved.

Grounds: In the interests of visual amenity and in pursuance of Policies G1 and E48 of the Swale Borough Local Plan.

(11) Details in the form of 1:50 elevations of the bin store hereby approved

shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the District Planning Authority. The bin store shall be constructed in accordance with the approved details, and shall be provided prior to the occupation of any of the dwellings hereby approved.

Grounds: In the interests of visual and residential amenity and in pursuance of Policy G1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan

(12) No impact pile driving in connection with the construction of the

development shall take place on the site on any Saturday, Sunday or Bank Holiday, nor on any other day except between the following times:-

Monday to Friday 0900 - 1700 hours unless in association with an emergency or with the prior written approval of the District Planning Authority.

Grounds: In the interests of residential amenity and in pursuance of Policy G1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan.

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

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

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


Continued….

29

2.6 (Contd) PART 2 (14) No development shall take place until details of the means of foul and

surface water disposal have been submitted to and approved in writing by the District Planning Authority

Grounds: In order to ensure that the site is correctly drained and in pursuance of Policy G1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan

(15) No development shall take place until a programme for the suppression

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


(16) The areas shown on the submitted plan SAR-0706-01 E as car parking

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

Grounds: In the interests of highway safety and convenience and in pursuance of Policies G1 and IN7 of the Swale Borough Local Plan

(17) Any further conditions requested by Kent Highway Services Reason for Approval Having taken all material considerations into account, it is considered that subject to compliance with the attached conditions, the proposal would be in accordance with the development plan and would not cause unacceptable harm to the amenities of the area or prejudice highway safety or convenience. In resolving to grant permission, particular regard has been had to the following policies: QL1, QL7 and HP4 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan; G1, H1, H3, E43, E48, E49 and IN7 of the Swale Borough Local Plan; E1, E16, E19, H2 and T3 of the Re-Deposit Draft of the Swale Borough Local Plan First Review Description of Proposal This application seeks outline planning permission for the demolition of 2

Continued….

30

2.6 (Contd) PART 2 existing dwellings and the erection of 10 apartments at nos.17 and 18 Arthur Street, Sittingbourne. Matters relating to the scale and appearance of the buildings, and the layout of and access to the site are to be determined here. Landscaping of the site is reserved for future consideration. The proposed dwellings would be arranged in two blocks of development, with 2 apartments located at the rear of the site, abutting the northwest rear and side boundaries of the site with the railway line, and 8 apartments fronting Arthur Street. The flats fronting Arthur Street are designed to have the appearance of a traditional two-storey terrace, measuring 23.3 metres in width, a maximum of 11.5 metres deep, with a ridge height of 8 metres. These flats would be set back by a minimum of 3 metres from the road, and would be a minimum of 10 metres from the existing dwellings fronting Arthur Street, behind a small front garden area. The rearmost windows of this element of the proposals would be a minimum distance of 11 metres from and would be at an oblique angle to the front facing windows of Hawthorn House to the rear. A dwarf wall with railings above is proposed along the front boundary of the site. Access to the site would be taken at the corner of Arthur Street and Laburnum Place, under part of one of the proposed flats. The 2 proposed flats to the rear of the site would also be designed to be traditional in appearance, and would measure 10.1 metres wide, 6.5 metres deep, with a ridge height of 7.8 metres. 12 parking spaces and a turning area are proposed to be provided within the site, with five of these abutting the site boundary with no.1A Laburnum Place. The plans have been amended, setting the dwellings fronting Arthur Street further back into the site than was originally proposed, and altering the parking layout at the request of Kent Highway Services. Relevant Site History & Description This site lies within the built up area of Sittingbourne. The existing semi-detached dwellings are located towards the rear of the site, behind the terraced dwellings fronting Laburnum Place. The site is, in places, raised above the level of Arthur Street. The front gardens of the existing dwellings stretch southwards and have a side boundary with Arthur Street. There are 3 existing accesses to the site, at the southern and northern ends of the boundary with Arthur Street and in the centre.

Continued….

31

2.6 (Contd) PART 2 The existing dwellings fronting Arthur Street are located at the back edge of the highway. The front facing windows of the majority of these dwellings serve habitable rooms. No.1A Laburnum Place is separated from the application site by its driveway and parking area. The flank of this dwelling faces the application site, and has windows at ground and first floor level facing the application site. Hawthorn House lies to the west of the site – a block of flats which has no flank windows facing the application site. To the south of the site lie dwellings fronting Hawthorn Road. These are sited a minimum of approximately 20 metres from the proposed development. Planning permission was refused, and a subsequent appeal dismissed for the erection of a single house here under application reference SW/01/0087. The house was proposed to be sited a maximum of 8.4 metres from the existing dwellings in Arthur Street. Planning permission was refused for three reasons, relating to the adequacy of the access, the proximity of the proposed house to the existing dwellings in Arthur Street, and the impact of the proposed house on the undeveloped character of the west side of Arthur Street. In dismissing the appeal, however, the Inspector considered that the loss of the undeveloped character of this part of the site would not harm the character and appearance of the streetscene, and that the proposed access was adequate. He did though consider that the proximity of the proposed house to the existing houses in Arthur Street would result in significant overlooking and would amount to an overbearing development. A copy of the appeal decision is appended to this report. Subsequent applications submitted under references SW/06/0444 and SW/05/1161, which envisaged respectively 12 dwellings and 10 dwellings, were both withdrawn prior to determination. Views of Consultees Kent Highway Services have not yet commented on the amended plans. I shall report their comments to Members at the meeting. The Head of Environmental Services raises no objection, subject to conditions in respect of hours of construction and piling. Network Rail has provided a number of general comments, but has not raised objection. The County Archaeological Officer raises no objection, subject to Condition (4) above.

Continued….

32

2.6 (Contd) PART 2 Southern Water raises no objection subject to Condition (14) above. Other Representations 31 letters of objection, together with two petitions bearing a total of 111 signatures have been submitted, the contents of which can be summarised as follows:

• Would cause noise and disturbance; • Proposed parking provision is inadequate, and would give rise to an

increase in on-street parking; • Additional traffic movements and access will cause be a safety issue; • Over-development of site; • Loss of privacy to residents in Arthur Street and Hawthorn Road; • One writer draws comparisons with a recent appeal dismissal in

Tunstall; • Noise and dust during construction; • Would overcrowd the area; • Delivery vehicles will block Arthur Street; • Would be very intrusive development; • Loss of green area would harm the character of the street; • One writer has a disabled child, who would be distressed by noise and

disturbance; • Design of development would not blend with existing; • Loss of value to existing dwellings; • One writer is concerned about the type of people who will occupy the

apartments; • Where will the wheelie bins for the proposed apartments be kept? • How will the drainage system cope? • Blackbirds and thrushes nest in the site;

No other representations have received. However, the closing date for representations on the amended plans expires on 14th August. I will report any further representations to Members at the meeting. Policies The following Policies are pertinent here: Kent and Medway Structure Plan QL1 Quality of development and design QL7 Archaeological sites HP4 Housing: quality and density of development

Continued….

33

2.6 (Contd) PART 2 Swale Borough Local Plan Policy G1 (General Development Criteria) H1(Land for New Housing Development) H3(Redevelopment Sites) E43(Archaeological Sites) E48(Design of New Development) E49(Landscaping of New Development) IN7(New Development and Car Parking Provision) Re-Deposit Draft of the Swale Borough Local Plan First Review Policy E1 General Development Criteria Policy E16 Scheduled Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites Policy E19 Achieving High Quality Design and Distinctiveness Policy H2 Providing for New Housing Policy T3 Vehicle Parking for New Development Discussion The site is located in the built up area of Sittingbourne, and therefore the residential redevelopment of the site is acceptable as a matter of principle. The proposed development would in my opinion make efficient use of what is an awkward site to develop, in accordance with Government guidance, as embodied in Planning Policy Statement 3. I note that Arthur Street is a relatively narrow, one-way street, and I have some sympathy with the concerns of local residents in respect of highway matters. However, I would advise Members that Kent Highway Services has not raised objection to the proposal, but has requested amendments to the width of the turning area within the site and to the size of one of the parking spaces. Subject to these amendments, the proposals are considered to be acceptable in respect of highway matters and significant harm to highway safety and convenience is not envisaged. I am though awaiting the final comments of Kent Highway Services, and will report these to Members at the meeting. I recommend imposing Condition (5), to give the Council control over the finished ground levels at the site, in order to prevent the proposed development being set at a higher level than the surrounding houses. Whilst I note the objections of residents in Hawthorn Avenue in respect of overlooking, I would advise that the separation distance of at least 20 metres between these dwellings, and the orientation of the proposed flats is such that I do not consider significant that overlooking is likely to occur.

Continued….

34

2.6 (Contd) PART 2 The distance between the proposed flats fronting Arthur Street and those at Hawthorn House is, at 11 metres, less than the normal minimum distance the Council seeks in order to avoid overlooking. However – the orientation of the flats proposed here, and the existing flats at Hawthorn House, is such that significant overlooking would in my opinion be unlikely to occur. I agree with the findings of the Inspector, who, in dismissing the 2001 appeal (a copy of the decision is appended) considered that the loss of the undeveloped area fronting Arthur Street would not harm the character and appearance of the area. Furthermore, I consider the design of the proposals to be acceptable, and I believe that the development would blend well with the existing development in the streetscene. I recommend imposing condition (10) above, which requires the windows and doors of the proposed flats to be of timber construction, in order to preserve the character of the proposed dwellings. I also recommend imposing condition (11), which requires details of the bin store to be submitted and approved by the District Planning Authority, and also require it to be built prior to the occupation of any of the flats. I note the objections of local residents in respect of noise and disturbance. However, I note that the Head of Environmental Services raises no objection, subject to conditions limiting the hours of construction and piling. These are recommended to be imposed above. This issue does not amount to a reason for refusal in this instance. I also note that the proposed parking area would be sited on the boundary with No.1A Laburnum Place. Whilst I am mindful that noise and disturbance may arise from the use of this area, I note that it would be separated from No.1A by the driveway and parking area which serves this property. I do not consider that the noise and disturbance generated here would cause demonstrable harm to the residential amenities of the occupiers of the dwelling. I am also aware that the occupier of no.1A Laburnum Place is concerned that excavation adjacent to his site would cause harm to the existing boundary hedge. This though would amount to a private matter rather than a material planning consideration. I consider the main issue here to be the impact of the proposed development on the residential amenities of the occupiers of the existing dwellings in Arthur Street. I note that, in dismissing the appeal in 2001, the Inspector considered that the distance between the facing windows between the proposed house and the existing terrace, at less than 9 metres, would give rise to significant overlooking. Whilst I am mindful that the proposed flats at the front of the site would be relatively close to the existing houses opposite, the separation distance is now a minimum of 10 metres, and the relationship between them

Continued….

35

2.6 (Contd) PART 2 would consequently be similar to that in many urban streets within the Borough. Indeed the corresponding relationship in the adjacent Gibson Street is approximately 10 metres. On balance, I conclude that whilst the proposed flats fronting Arthur Street, would give rise to a degree of mutual overlooking, this would not be so harmful as to justify refusal of planning permission. I note that the maximum distance between the proposed and existing dwellings would be 10.6 metres, and that the roof of the proposed terrace fronting Arthur Street would slope away from the road. The proposed development would undoubtedly give rise to some loss of outlook to the front windows of the existing houses in Arthur Street. However, the separation distance would be very close to 11 metres, the minimum distance the Council normally seeks in order to minimise loss of outlook. Given the above, I do not therefore consider that the degree of harm to outlook would be so marked as to warrant refusal of planning permission here. One writer has compared the development proposed here to a "backland" scheme in Tunstall, (application reference SW/06/0944) which was dismissed at appeal and reported to Members at the June meeting of the Planning Committee. I do not consider these schemes to be comparable. The proposal at Tunstall was for two dwellings located to the rear of a line of frontage development, with an access road running along virtually the entire length of one garden. The development proposed in Arthur Street would involve frontage development, and two flats replacing two existing dwellings to the rear of the site, with a car park and not an access road abutting the boundary with the adjacent dwelling. I do not consider that approval of this scheme would be inconsistent with the refusal of planning permission in Tunstall. Summary and Recommendation This application seeks outline planning permission for the demolition of two dwellings and the erection of ten apartments at 17-18 Arthur Street, Sittingbourne. I do not consider that the proposed development would result in significant harm to highway safety and convenience or to the character and appearance of the streetscene. With regard to the impact of the proposals on residential amenity, I consider this to be a finely balanced decision. Whilst I do not consider that the two proposed apartments to the rear of the site would harm residential amenity, the proposed apartments to the front of the site would give rise to mutual overlooking and some loss of outlook to the existing houses in Arthur Street, and would also give rise to a degree of overlooking to the flats at Hawthorn House to the rear of the site. Having given this consideration, I conclude that

Continued….

36

2.6 (Contd) PART 2 this would not be to such a degree that outline planning permission should be refused. Subject to the comments of Kent Highway Services and any further representations I therefore recommend approval. ______________________________________________________________ List of Background Documents 1. Application papers and correspondence for SW/07/0394 2. Application papers and correspondence for SW/05/116 and

SW/06/0444 3. Application papers and correspondence for SW/01/0087 4. Application papers and correspondence for SW/06/0944

37

APPENDIX A ITEM 2.6

38

APPENDIX A ITEM 2.6

39

APPENDIX A ITEM 2.6

40

2.7 SW/06/1441 (Case 20805) HARTLIP

Location: Yaugher Farm, Yaugher Lane, Hartlip

Proposal: Change of use from agricultural to equestrian, erection of six stables, tack room and store, enclosed manure-stead and hay barn.

Applicant/ Agent: Mrs Gina Batten, c/o Mark Roebuck, 124 Longmead

Drive, Sidcup, DA14 4NZ Application Valid: 22 May 2007

SUBJECT TO: Receipt of amended drawings, and the further views of Kent Highway Services.



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

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

(2) The buildings hereby approved shall be stained black before they are

first brought into use and retained as such thereafter. Grounds: In the interests of visual amenity and in pursuance of policies

E48 and G1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan, E1 and E19 of the Swale Borough Local Plan First Review Re-deposit draft and QL1 of the Kent & Medway Structure Plan.

(3) No external lighting shall be installed without the written approval of the

District Planning Authority. Grounds: In the interests of visual amenity and in pursuance of policies

G1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan, E1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan First Review Re-deposit draft and QL1 of the Kent & Medway Structure Plan.

(4) No external storage of materials or items of any kind including jumps,

caravans, mobile homes, vehicles or trailers shall take place on the site without the express written approval of the District Planning Authority.

Continued….

41

2.7 (Contd) PART 2 Grounds: In the interests of visual amenity and in pursuance of policies G1 and R12 of the Swale Borough Local Plan, E1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan First Review Re-deposit draft and QL1 of the Kent & Medway Structure Plan.

(5) No burning of manure or straw shall take place on the site. Grounds: In the interests of residential amenity and in pursuance of

policies G1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan, E1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan First Review Re-deposit draft and QL1 of the Kent & Medway Structure Plan.


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

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

G1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan, E1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan First Review Re-deposit draft and QL1 of the Kent & Medway Structure Plan.


with the approved details. The works shall be carried out prior to the occupation of any part of the development or in accordance with the programme agreed with the District Planning Authority.

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

pursuance of policies E49 and G1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan.

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

Grounds: In the interests of the visual amenities of the area in pursuance of Policies E49 and G1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan.

(9) The stables hereby permitted shall be used for the stabling of horses or

ponies for the private use of the applicant, Mrs Batten or other persons as may be agreed in writing by the District Planning Authority, and for no other purpose.

Continued….

42

2.7 (Contd) PART 2

Grounds: In the interests of the amenity of the area and in pursuance of Policy G1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan.

(10) No more than six horses and/or ponies shall be grazed and stabled at

the site. Grounds: To prevent overgrazing and in pursuance of policies G1 and

R12 of the Swale Borough Local Plan, E1 and RC9 of the Swale Borough Local Plan First Review Re-deposit draft and QL1 of the Kent & Medway Structure Plan.

(11) Any other conditions recommended by Kent Highway Services. Reason for Approval Having taken all material considerations into account, it is considered that subject to compliance with the attached conditions, the proposal would be in accordance with the development plan and would not cause unacceptable harm to the amenities of the area or prejudice highway safety or convenience. In resolving to grant permission, particular regard has been had to the following policies: G1 and R12 of the Swale Borough Local Plan, E1 and RC9 of the Swale Borough Local Plan First Review Re-deposit draft and QL1 of the Kent & Medway Structure Plan. Description of Proposal A report on this application was prepared for the meeting of March 1st 2007, but removed from the agenda before being considered. This was because it became evident that several people owned parts of the site, and proper notice had not been served on each. Moreover, Kent Highway Services required further information. Planning permission is sought for the erection of an L-shaped range of buildings to provide six stables, tack room and store, enclosed manure-stead and open fronted hay barn to be set behind the existing hedge line to Yaugher Lane, adjoining Windmill Farm to the south beyond which is the M2 motorway. This complex of buildings together with a 20m by 40m manege would be located in the south west corner of the site and a mature hedge would be planted along the western and southern boundaries. The site would be divided up into 12 acres of land to be retained for the grazing of six horses, with the remainder of the site (8 acres) cropped for hay production. The applicant has submitted a detailed supporting case, which is summarised below:-

Continued….

43

2.7 (Contd) PART 2

• Applicant owns 21.4 acres • A local farmer will cut and bale hay on 8 acres in return for a share of

the hay produced. The applicant’s share will be stored in the proposed hay barn, negating the need for hay deliveries

• Grazing of two acres per horse will be provided to prevent land becoming parched. Winter/summer grazing will be rotated.

• The stables are intended to be used for personal purposes only • Traffic movements will comprise one car twice a day • Manure will be cleared daily and stored in the manure-stead. It will be

removed from site by van on a monthly contract basis • Jumps and other equipment will be cleared and stored on a daily basis • It is intended that the site be screened with native hedging • Open rubberised mesh is proposed to mark the route of the access

from the gates on Yaugher Lane Relevant Site History and Description The application site relates to 21 acres (8.7ha) of land and is located on the west side of Yaugher Lane, close to the bridge over the M2. The site has the benefit of an existing access, with a hedge screen along the Yaugher Lane frontage. This site has not previously been subject to any applications for planning permission. Views of Consultees Hartlip Parish Council raise objection to the application for the following reasons:-

• Query whether this is a retrospective planning application • Concerned that the use of the site could not be controlled – is the use

for private or commercial purposes? • Concerned about how security will be maintained • Detract from visual amenities of the nearby AONB • Potential increase in traffic • Request that siting of caravan and erection of fencing in the vicinity be

investigated Kent Highway Services require vision splays at the site entrance (33m x 2.4m to the north and 60m x 2.4m to the south). I have requested amended drawings and hope to be able to comment upon them at the meeting, particularly in respect of the impact on the field edge.

Continued….

44

2.7 (Contd) PART 2 The Head of Environmental Services would wish to see conditions restricting lighting and burning, as set out above. Other Representations Two letters of objection/comment have been received. The issues raised are summarised as follows:

• No objection in principle, but concerned about location of buildings close to the boundary with Windmill Farm

• Works at the adjoining Windmill Farm have resulted in light pollution • There are many other horse establishments in the vicinity and a

significant amount of horse movement on the narrow lane. Even more would increase the risks of accidents

The applicant has served notice on the other owners of the land and no responses have been received as a result of this notification.

Planning Policies Policy QL1 of the Kent & Medway Structure Plan; policies G1 (general development criteria) and R12 (erection of stables and keeping horses) of the Swale Borough Local Plan and policies E1 (general development criteria) and RC9 ( erection of stables and keeping horses) of the Swale Borough Local Plan First Review Re-deposit draft are relevant to the consideration of this application. Advice contained within the Council's Supplementary Planning Guidance NO. 7 (The erection of stables and keeping of horses) is also relevant. Discussion The key issues in the consideration of this application relate to the impact on the character and appearance of the locality (which lies across the motorway from the designated Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), highway safety and residential amenity. With regard to the impact of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the locality, the site does not benefit from any specific landscape designation and is separated from the AONB to the south by the M2. The proposed structures would comprise of a low range of compact buildings to be sited close to the edge of Yaugher Lane, screened by an existing hedgerow that is about 5m high. It is intended that this planting be supplemented with further native hedge species to surround the proposed buildings and surfaced riding area. The buildings themselves would be dark

Continued….

45

2.7 (Contd) PART 2 stained and designed in accordance with the Council's Supplementary Guidance for the erection of stables. With the proposed development concentrated at one corner of the site and the rising land beyond used for grazing and cropping hay, the impact on the wider countryside will be minimal. With respect to views from the south, any potential impact would be mitigated by the buildings being seen against the backdrop of the mature tree screen at the adjoining Windmill Farm/Oak Barn Cottages. In terms of highway safety a vehicular access to this land from Yaugher Lane already exists. The traffic related to the keeping horses will be routed along a surfaced track to the stable complex where a concrete yard will provide adequate space to service the premises and allow for vehicle turning and parking within the site. The application site is located in a rural area. The closest dwelling is at Windmill Farm/Oak Barn Cottages some 75m away from the proposed buildings which exceeds the 30 metres distance required by the SPG on equestrian development. In my opinion with the imposition of appropriate conditions regarding the external appearance of the stables, supplementary landscaping, limitations on external lighting, storage and the number of horses to be grazed/stabled at the site and ensuring that the stables are used solely for the private use of the applicant and not for any commercial purposes, then the residential amenity of the neighbouring properties will be reasonably protected. In terms of the Council’s specific policies for the keeping and grazing of horses there is a requirement to have regard to the cumulative impact of the effect of such use in the local area and the site’s accessibility to the bridleway network. For the reasons given above, I am of the opinion that the small scale nature of the development that is being proposed here, is unlikely to have a significantly harmful impact on the surrounding countryside. With regard to access to the local bridleway network, the site is not close to any off-road hacking facilities/bridleways. Access to such facilities will require transportation by horsebox, or by riding along local lanes. Traffic of this kind is not unusual on rural lanes and with care, I do not envisage any particular reason why horse-related traffic; traffic associated with local businesses and farming operations and that generated by residents in the countryside cannot satisfactorily co-exist. Members will note that this scheme has attracted adverse comments from the Parish Council and local residents. For the avoidance of doubt, I can confirm that this is not a retrospective application. Works have, however, without the benefit of planning permission, recently taken place at the adjoining Windmill

Continued….

46

2.7 (Contd) PART 2 Farm and are being investigated. Summary and Recommendation Planning permission is sought for the erection of a complex of six stables and associated hay store and tack rooms and for the change of use of land to the keeping and grazing of horses. The proposed development would accord with the adopted Local Plan and, in particular, the rural restraint policy (Policy E9). I am awaiting further drawings showing vision splays at the entrance. An additional planning condition relating to this, and possibly replacement hedging may be necessary. However subject to this, I consider that the development would not give rise to significant harm to residential amenity, the character and appearance of the area or highway safety. Therefore, although mindful of the concerns expressed locally, I recommend (subject to the further views of Kent Highway Services) that planning permission should be granted.

List of background documents 1. Application papers and correspondence relating to application SW/06/1441 2. Application papers and correspondence relating to application SW/05/0685

47

2.8 SW/07/0604 (Case 02398) THROWLEY

Location: Tong Green Farm, Throwley, Faversham, Kent, ME13

OHR. Proposal: Free Range Egg Building. Applicant/Agent: H B Reid, Tong Green Farm, Throwley, Faversham, Kent,

ME13 OHR Application Valid: 23 May 2007

SUBJECT TO: Views of Kent Highway Services






Grounds: In the interest of visual amenity and in pursuance of policies G1, B3, B5, B6, E9, E13, E14 and E48 of the Swale Borough Local Plan, and QL1, EN1, EN4, EN5 and EP8 of the Kent & Medway Structure Plan.


with the approved details. The works shall be carried out prior to the occupation of any part of the development or in accordance with the programme agreed in writing with the District Planning Authority.



Continued….

48

2.8 (Contd) PART 2 shrubs removed, dying, being severely damaged or becoming seriously

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


(5) The free-range egg building hereby permitted shall be removed and the

site returned to its original state if, within 10 years from the date of the building's substantial completion, its use for agriculture permanently ceases and no planning permission has been granted for any alternative use within 3 years of cessation of agricultural use.

Grounds: In the interests of local amenity and preserving or enhancing the appearance of the designated area in which the development falls, and in pursuance of policies G1, B3, B5, B6, E9, E13, E14 and E48 of the Swale Borough Local Plan, and QL1, EN1, EN4, EN5 and EP8 of the Kent & Medway Structure Plan.

Reasons for Approval Having taken all material considerations into account, it is considered that subject to compliance with the attached conditions, the proposal would be in accordance with the development plan and would not cause unacceptable harm to the amenities of the area or prejudice highway safety or convenience. In resolving to grant permission, particular regard has been had to the following policies: G1, B3, B5, B6, E9, E13, E14, E48 and IN5 of the Swale Borough Local Plan, and QL1, EN1, EN4, EN5, EP8, TP15 and TP17 of the Kent & Medway Structure Plan. Description of Proposal This application seeks permission for the erection of a free-range egg building at Tong Green Farm, Throwley. The applicant’s design and access statement explains:

“We are a traditional family farm whose output includes producing free range eggs which are audited under the RSPCA ‘Freedom Food’ logo. One of the conditions of Freedom Food is that the maximum stocking density on the grassland is 1000 per hectare. Today we are fully stocked on all our land around the farm buildings north of Pettfield Road which necessitates that any expansion of the free range has to be south of Pettfield Road. We are one of the few family farms remaining in the area and to remain viable we wish to continue to diversify in free range eggs.”

Continued….

49

2.8 (Contd) PART 2 The proposed building measures roughly 103m by 20m, and 5.8m to the ridge, and is sited on the south of Pettfield Road, adjacent to an area of established woodland. Timber weatherboarding and steel profile roofing are proposed for the external surfaces. Associated landscaping and tree planting are also proposed as part of the application – in part to help hide the new building, but also to offer shelter to the chickens and protection from predatory birds overhead. The applicant intends to use a mixture of native species, such as Ash, Oak, Wild Cherry, Hawthorn, Hazel, etc. The design and access statement continues to say that the increase in birds “will only increase the number of vehicle movements by one per week, that is one feed vehicle. There will be no increase in the twice weekly egg collection vehicles because there is sufficient spare capacity on the existing vehicles.” Relevant Site History and Description The application site is to the south of the established farmyard area, on the opposite side of Pettfield Road. The farm is situated on the top of a broad plateau within the AONB and an SLA, and there are long distance views from some surrounding roads and footpaths. The building is to be located roughly 400m south of the road, adjacent to an area of established copse. The location of the building was discussed with the applicant and agreed upon as the best option as the copse provides some screening from surrounding areas. There is no relevant history for the site. Views of Consultees Throwley Parish Council have no objection to the proposal, but make comments regarding use of appropriate screening, and upgrading the access track and water supply to the building. In this respect they suggest that it would be better positioned on the same side of the road as the existing farm buildings. The Kent County Council Public Rights of Way Officer has requested further information regarding fencing around the range, as he is concerned this may block the footpath that runs through the field. I have discussed this with the applicant, who has confirmed that any fencing will be well away from the footpath, and I am currently awaiting written confirmation of this. The Council’s agricultural consultants, comment: “Under RSPCA Freedom Food compliance standards, to which the farm subscribes,

Continued….

50

2.8 (Contd) PART 2 there is a stocking density limit of 1000 birds per ha and a distance limit for ranging the birds of 350m from their house to the range perimeter. Due to the layout of the farm north of the lane, these standards mean the limit for bird numbers has already been reached here, and so further expansion of the enterprise requires the use of land south of the lane… Free-range hen egg production is currently (subject to good management) a viable form of agriculture, and is expanding to meet the planned phasing out of production in cages. The proposal here appears to form part of a natural expansion of an established and successful enterprise, and the building is appropriately sized, designed and located for its agricultural function.” Other Representations One letter from a local resident has been received: “While I have no objection to the erection of the chicken house the application makes no mention of any increase in heavy juggernauts delivering foodstuffs and collecting the eggs. The road past my house is used by all Tong Green farm traffic…I am most concerned about the garden walls as the juggernauts have already eroded the verge to the point that they now brush the wall. It is only a matter of time before the wall is damaged. Would the Council consider as part of this application putting a kerb or some other device to keep the juggernauts away from the wall? Policies Policy B3 of the Swale Borough Local Plan encourages the expansion of existing businesses provided that site access is adequate, the local highway network can accommodate any additional traffic movements and the more general planning aims of policy G1 are satisfied. Policy B5, supported by EP8 of the Kent & Medway Structure Plan, is more specific in respect of this application, stating that proposals for farm diversification will be permitted subject to similar criteria. Policy IN5 (SBLP) states that where there is an identified need the Council will seek the provision of appropriate traffic management measures, including traffic calming. However, to my mind this policy refers to larger development proposals where large amounts of traffic are likely to be generated. In a similar vein TP17 of the Kent & Medway Structure Plan seeks to discourage goods vehicles from using minor roads – although in this instance there is no other option, the only access to the farm is via narrow country roads. It continues on to say that “minor roads will not be widened or realigned unless overriding safety considerations require it and no alternative method to resolve the safety problems is deemed practicable.” Policy TP15 (K&MSP) the aims to prevent development that would generate significant increases in traffic, especially heavy goods vehicles, if it is not well related to the primary and secondary road network. As noted above,

Continued….

51

2.8 (Contd) PART 2 however, the applicant envisages only one additional lorry per week. SBLP policy G1 and K&MSP policy QL1 seek accordance with wider planning objectives relating to layout, highway safety, parking amenity and design. QL1 in particular requires all new development to be to a high standard and to respond to the scale, layout, pattern and character of their surroundings. E48 (SBLP) more specifically requires all proposed development to be of an appropriate design. Policy B6 (SBLP) supports the planting of new woodland on land taken out of agricultural production on a long-term basis. Policies E9, E13 and E14 (SBLP) and EN1, EN4 and EN5 (K&MSP) seek to afford protection to the countryside, the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and Special Landscape Areas respectively. . Discussion The Council’s rural planning consultant has confirmed that the proposed building is of an appropriate size and location, and the use of weatherboarding and steel profile sheet roofing will give it the appearance of a traditional, albeit very low, barn. He has also confirmed that the Parish Council's preference for a location on the same side of the road as the existing farmyard is not possible due to lack of outdoor space. I am confident that with an appropriate landscaping scheme the building could be substantially hidden from view from the surrounding areas. As noted above, the applicant is keen to introduce tree planting as it provides shade and protection for the chickens. The existing copse provides screening from the east, where long distance views are greatest. In regard to the concerns regarding traffic movements; the applicant has confirmed that the proposal will result in one extra lorry per week, which would be delivering the extra animal feed required. No extra lorries are required to remove the additional eggs as the current vehicles have capacity to cope with this. I have requested that Kent Highway Services comment on the issue of vehicle movements, and hope to be able to report further at committee. Summary and Recommendation This application seeks permission for the erection of a free-range egg building at Tong Green Farm, Throwley. The building resembles a traditional weatherboarded barn, albeit with a very low ridge height, and measures approximately 103m by 20m by 5.8m to the ridge.

Continued….

52

2.8 (Contd) PART 2 I have considered issues of amenity, design and traffic but none outweigh the benefits of the proposal in my opinion. Taking the above into account I recommend that planning permission be granted. ______________________________________________________________ List of Background Documents 1. Application papers for SW/07/0604. 2. Correspondence relating to SW/07/0604.

53

2.9 SW/07/0649 (Case 3233) NORTON

Location: Norton Ash Garden Centre, Norton Ash Crossroads,

Norton, Nr Faversham, Kent Proposal: Revised site layout and design of retail and garden centre

to current (implemented) planning permission SW/98/0717 Applicant/Agent: Dulacrest Ltd, C/O HPW Partnership Ltd, Wade Park

Farm, Salisbury Road, Ower, Southampton, SO51 6AG Application Valid: 4 June 2007 and as amended by letter and drawings

received 9 July 2007

SUBJECT TO: Completion of a Section 106 Agreement controlling goods to be sold





successors in title, has secured the implementation of a watching brief to be undertaken by an archaeologist approved by the District Planning Authority so that the excavation is observed and items of interest and finds are recorded. The watching brief shall be in accordance with a written specification and timetable which has been submitted to and approved in writing by the District Planning Authority.

Grounds: To ensure that features of archaeological interest are properly examined and recorded in pursuance of policy E43 of the Swale Borough Local Plan and policy QL7 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan.

(3) The buildings and open air display areas hereby permitted shall be used

only as a garden centre and related retailing and rural experience, selling the range of goods shown in Appendix B to the Design and Access Statement.

Grounds; In order to define the permission and retain control over any further development of the site in recognition that this permission is granted as an enlargement and redevelopment of the existing garden centre on a rural site where other forms of retail development would not be acceptable, and to prevent the development having an adverse

Continued….

54

2.9 (Contd) PART 2

impact on the vitality and viability of Faversham town centre as a traditional local shopping centre, in pursuance on policies S1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan and EP15 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan.

(4) The overall maximum gross retail floorspace on the site shall at no time

exceed 13,503m2, and no internal alterations to the approved buildings, including by way of additional floors, shall be carried out so as to increase the gross retail floorspace on the site to above 13,503m2.

Grounds; In order to prevent the development having an adverse impact on the vitality and viability of Faversham town centre as a traditional local shopping centre, in pursuance on policies S1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan and EP15 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan.

(5) Upon completion of the development no alteration by subdivision or

otherwise of any unit shall take place such that the gross retail floorspace of that unit is less than 464m2.

Grounds; To ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the application, and that it does not change its character from a garden centre with related retailing to the possible detriment of the vitality and viability of Faversham town centre as a traditional local shopping centre, in pursuance on policies S1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan and EP15 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan.

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

materials to be used on the external surfaces have been submitted to and approved in writing by the District Planning Authority.

Grounds; In the interests of the amenities of the area, and in the interests of preserving the character of the area and in pursuance of policies QL1 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan and G1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan

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

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

Grounds; In order to ensure sustainable development pursuant to policies QL1 and NR3 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan and policies E51 and IN26 of the Swale Borough Local Plan.

Continued….

55

2.9 (Contd) PART 2 (8) No development shall take place until a travel plan has been submitted

to and approved by the District Planning Authority. Upon approval, the travel plan shall be implemented and monitored in accordance with the terms of the approved plan.

Grounds: In order to ensure the promotion of alternative transport choices and reduced needs to travel, in accordance with policies Strategic Policy 1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan.


landscape works, including details of proposed fencing to areas for the keeping of livestock, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the District Planning Authority. These details shall include existing features, planting schedules of plants, noting species, plant sizes and numbers where appropriate, means of enclosure, surfacing materials, and an implementation programme.

Grounds: In the interests of the visual amenities of the area, and in pursuance of policies E49 and G1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan.

(10) Details of any mechanical ventilation system that will be installed shall

be submitted to and approved by the District Planning Authority and upon approval shall be maintained and operated in a manner which prevents the transmission of odours, fumes, noise and vibration to neighbouring properties.

Grounds; In the interests of residential amenity, and in pursuance of policies G1 and E2 of the Swale Borough Local Plan

(11) No retail unit or other area of the site the site shall be open to the public

outside the following hours;

Monday to Wednesday 09.00 to 18.00,

Thursday to Saturday 09.00 to 20.00, and

Sundays or Public Holidays 9.00 to 18.00

Grounds; In the interests of the amenities of the area, with special reference to the amenities of residents of the area, and in pursuance of policies G1 and E2 of the Swale Borough Local Plan

(12) No floodlighting, security lighting or other external lighting shall be

installed or operated at the site, other than in accordance with details that have first been submitted to and agreed in writing by the District Planning Authority.

Grounds; In the interests of visual amenity and the residential amenities of occupiers of nearby dwellings, in pursuance of polices G1 and E6 of the Swale Borough Local Plan.

Continued….

56

2.9 (Contd) PART 2 (13) The areas and facilities shown on the submitted plan as loading, off-

loading and parking space, and cycle parking facilities, shall be used for or be available for such use at all times when the premises are in use and no development, whether permitted by the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 or not, shall be carried out on that area of land or in such a position as to preclude vehicular access to this reserved area; such land and facilities, and access thereto shall be provided prior to the occupation of the building hereby permitted.

Grounds; The development, without the provision of parking, loading and off-loading space, would be detrimental to amenity and likely to lead to inconvenience and danger to road users by virtue of vehicles parked on the public highway amenity and in pursuance of policies TP19 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan and IN7 of the Swale Borough Local Plan.

(14) Adequate underground ducts shall be installed before any of the

buildings hereby permitted are occupied to enable telephone services and electrical services to be connected to any premises within the application site without resource to the erection of distribution poles and overhead lines, and not withstanding the provisions of Article 3 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 no distribution pole or overhead line shall be erected other than with the express consent of the District Planning Authority.

Grounds: In the interests of the amenities of the area



Grounds: In the interests of the visual amenities of the area, and in pursuance of policies E49 and G1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan.



Grounds: In the interests of the visual amenities of the area, in pursuance of policies E49 and G1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan.


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

Continued….

57

2.9 (Contd) PART 2

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

Grounds: In the interests of the amenities of the area and in pursuance of Policy E2 of the Swale Borough Local Plan

(18) During construction of the development adequate space shall be

provided on site, in a position previously agreed by the District Planning Authority to enable all employees and contractors vehicles to park, load and off load and turn within the site.


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

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

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

(20) No burning of waste or refuse shall take place on site during either

demolition or construction works.

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

(21) Adequate precautions shall be taken during the period of demolition and construction to prevent the deposit of mud and/or other debris on the public highway.


(22) The access to the site shall be securely gated during the hours when

site opening hours are restricted by condition 11 above, in accordance with details which are first to be submitted to and approved by the District Planning Authority, allowing access only for delivery and maintenance outside these times.

Grounds; In the interests of the amenities of the area, with special reference to the amenities of residents of the area, and in pursuance of policies G1 and E2 of the Swale Borough Local Plan

Reasons for Approval

Having taken all material considerations into account, it is considered that subject to compliance with the attached conditions, the proposal would be in accordance with the development plan and would not cause unacceptable

Continued….

58

2.9 (Contd) PART 2

harm to the amenities of the area or prejudice highway safety or convenience. In resolving to grant permission, particular regard has been had to the following policies: Strategic Policy 1, G1, B4, E9, E2, E6, E9, E10, E49, E51, IN2, IN4, IN7, IN8, IN26, S1, S11, R10, and T2 of the Swale Borough Local Plan, and policies of EN1, EP7, EP10, EP15, TP15, TP19, QL1, QL3, QL7, QL13, QL15 and NR3 of The Kent and Medway Structure Plan.

Description of Proposal This major proposal is to re-develop this currently vacant site to create a garden centre, related retailing, and a rural experience including lakes, a sculpture trail and tree-top walks over rare breed animals. It seeks to amend already approved and implemented proposals, as well as slightly reducing proposed floorspace from 13,675 square metres to 13,503 square metres. The scheme proposes a revised site layout, with a comprehensive and well-designed main building, rather than the approach of separate buildings previously approved. The application is supported by a Planning Statement which describes the scheme; a Design and Access Statement; proposals to broaden the existing Section 106 Agreement that governs what can be sold; and a Traffic Generation Review. The Planning Statement is detailed, but I have included parts 1 to 3, and the Conclusions (part 18) as Appendix A to this item. Between these sections, the statement describes detailed aspects of the proposal including:

• planning policy on retailing, but seeing this scheme as representing no change, over the current permission

• appropriateness to location, based on the mix of indoor and outdoor facilities on offer,

• landscaping strategy, using existing trees and strengthening boundaries,

• lighting, drainage, consultations and sustainability. It states that opening hours would be: Mon – Wed 9.00 am to 6.00 pm Thurs-Sat 9.00 am to 8.00 pm Sundays 10.30 am to 5.00 pm Public Holidays8.00 am to 6.00 pm The Traffic Review concludes that as floorspace is being reduced, the new site access and the A2 would cope well with the anticipated traffic. Parking provision has been increased from 550 spaces as approved, to 723 spaces to cater for peak days and prevent congestion problems on the A2. However nearly 400 of these spaces would be of an overflow design with gravel and grass surfacing rather than tarmac. The proposal comes with a request that the scheme be approved with a

Continued….

59

2.9 (Contd) PART 2

slightly amended version of the existing Section 106 Agreement that limits the nature of goods to be sold. Appendix B to this item includes the approved and proposed schedules of goods to be sold. The most significant differences now are in category A8, and include;

• outdoor and country pursuit equipment • swimming pools, hot tubs and associated equipment • home table top items and kitchen accessories • soft furnishings • farm food shop (up to 743 square metres – 8,000 square feet) • well being/lifestyle offer (up to 557 square metres- 6,000 square feet)

This reflects the applicant’s advice on the right mix of uses to create a viable and attractive destination. These additional sales, where figures are quoted, relate to relatively small areas (each being less than 6 per cent of proposed floorspace), and are intended to complement the main role of the garden centre/rural experience destination. Relevant Planning History and Site Description As a whole, the Norton Ash site extends to some 9.1 ha of generally level ground. Formerly used as a tree nursery, it remains extensively covered in overgrown and un-thinned nursery trees. It abuts the A2 at the junction with Norton Lane (at Norton crossroads) and lies in open countryside. The site has been in the applicant's ownership for many years. One detached private house lies adjacent to the north east tip of the site, but otherwise the site is largely bordered by open agricultural land except along Norton Lane where it is opposite a petrol filling station and other uses around this. A relatively small part of the site is built on, mainly in the form of greenhouses which, until recent closure, served principally as a significant and popular garden centre. One detached wooden bungalow lies within the site but is currently vacant. This is to the rear of the garden centre building and is subject to an agricultural occupancy condition. The site's planning history is extensive, and I summarise as below: The site was a nursery and garden centre as far back as 1967 when two advertisements were approved (NK/9/67/9316). Even at that time the site had an entrance leading diagonally off the Norton Crossroads, but the site was very little developed. It did however, have a second entrance adjacent to the neighbouring house at its north east tip. In 1978, more signs (SW/77/827) were approved, but were soon found to be inadequate to attract significant customers. In 1981 planning permission was sought to sell tropical fish from an existing

Continued….

60

2.9 (Contd) PART 2

store, and this was approved in early 1982, although the permission strictly limited the sales due to the rural nature of the site, and the desire to keep the site primarily a nursery/garden centre. In 1983 the Council resolved to prosecute the site owners regarding the display of unauthorised signage. This resulted in the voluntary removal of some signs. In 1985, the current applicant submitted the first of several planning applications for the significant expansion of the garden centre use. This application (SW/85/132) showed the difficult trading conditions of the existing nursery and proposed a wider garden centre use with new sales and display areas, restaurant and toilets, a garden patio and pool equipment centre, shed and greenhouse displays, a rural craft centre, butterfly centre, pets corner, a bigger car park and a new access road further back down Norton Lane, to ease the difficult junction arrangements. The aim appeared to be to provide a regionally based garden centre offering a higher quality and more extensive range of products, and better leisure related surroundings. Covered floor space over 21,000m2 and 750 parking spaces were shown. The scheme attracted few comments and no objection from the County Planning Officer, who recognised that garden centres have distinct operational characteristics and locational requirements. It was granted planning permission in May 1985, on condition that the existing access was closed and the new side entrance and improvements to the A2 put in place before the development commenced. In 1986, an alternative expansion scheme was submitted as SW/86/881. This originally also showed entrance from Norton Lane, but was amended to show a radically different approach, creating a completely new entrance directly onto the A2 – in common with the current application layout. The mix of proposed uses and internal site layout was much the same as before, with areas of quiet leisure to the rear with pools, display area, a children's play area and a picnic area. However, a far more extensive range of items to be sold included plants and garden items, building and garden tools, building materials and products, gardening furniture, lighting, camping and country clothing and floristry items. In other words the range of goods was broadened considerably, and was clearly a potentially significant retail development. This attracted objection from the County Planning Officer. The applicant took sometime to consider this objection, but he eventually amended the application by focusing the retail elements more in line with the garden centre theme. He did, however, indicate that he felt the retail area proposed would complement "the essential leisure orientated nature of the proposal". He went on to refer specifically to their aim to provide a "venue attractive as a family outing as well as the regular garden shoppers" and compared the idea to Stapeley Water Garden Centre, as a year round destination. This amendment led to the occupier of the only house adjacent to the site

Continued….

61

2.9 (Contd) PART 2

withdrawing their original objection to the application. The County Planning Officer remained concerned about the scale of retailing proposed, and its effect on town centres. The application was considered by Members in June 1988 when delegated authority for approval was given subject to the resolution of access on to the A2 problems. By 1990 the application had still not been determined. The applicant wrote to the Council confirming that he would implement the 1985 scheme, just within its 5 year timescale. He also submitted an application (SW/90/428) to renew the 1985 permission. This was approved in May 1990. In August 1990 Members again considered the 1986 (SW/86/881) application and resolved to approve the scheme with the necessary legal agreements to secure highway and access improvements. Planning permission was eventually granted in December 1991 subject to 12 conditions, two of which specifically restricted the proposed use to that as described in a very detailed schedule of uses, along the lines I have outlined above. This reflected the County Council's concern over the potential retail impact of the proposed floor space, but recognised the need for a garden centre to be free of a locational requirement to be in a town centre. By 1995 the 1990 renewal of SW/85/132 was expiring and another renewal application (SW/95/400) was submitted. This was approved in June 1995 after which (in August that year) the Parish Council wrote to object to the application as it still drew access from Norton Lane as the 1985 scheme had, and did not feature the new A2 entrance. This permission was again renewed in 2000 with the side entrance (SW/00/0594). The permission for SW/86/881 lapsed in 1996 without any renewal. Of more significance however, is a 1998 application for an alternative scheme more along the lines of SW/86/881. This (SW/98/0717) is the implemented scheme with the newly created A2 entrance, which the applicant now sees as the baseline for the current application. This was premised as providing "a major garden centre and family attraction based on a range of open air attractions such as an adventure playground, mini golf, water garden and model train". The application was considered by Members in November 1998 when it was delegated to approve subject to a Section 106 Agreement relating to highway improvements and the disposition of uses within the site. This last part reflected the recognition that "this type of proposal is not appropriate for the centre of town", but the desire to ensure that the retail elements of the scheme properly related to and enhance the "garden centre" principles of the permission. The Section 106 Agreement took some time to negotiate, and planning permission was not granted until May 2001. The Agreement essentially limits the range of goods that can be sold, and requires a certain amount of garden centre buildings to be in place before other sales can take place. This permission has been partly implemented by the provision of the new entrance to the A2 and by the clearing of a large area and the erection of

Continued….

62

2.9 (Contd) PART 2

foundations for the garden centre building. In 2005 an application to amend the approved and implemented layout (SW/05/0202) was submitted. This sought to incorporate a greater sports orientated character to the site, and included the idea of re-locating the Unreal Skate Park to the site. The proposal attracted strong local objection, and I considered that it was an inappropriate location for the skatepark. Members considered the application in August 2005 and refused planning permission. Views of Consultees The Parish Council comment that they believe the scheme represents an improvement over plans currently approved, and feel that in view of the increasing dereliction of the site, should permission be granted, the applicant should be urged to commence work as soon as possible. The Environment Agency have no comments to make. Southern Water do not wish to comment. The South East England Regional Assembly have no substantial comments, beyond seeking sustainable technologies applied to energy use, construction techniques, drainage, transport, and the protection of bio-diversity and prevention of air and noise pollution. Kent Highway Services have no objections, but did request revised drawings to show larger car parking bays and pedestrian links from the car park to the buildings. Revised drawings have since been received. The Head of Environmental Services raises no objection, but recommends conditions to cover hours of construction, dust suppression, approval of ventilation systems, and external lighting. I have recommended suitable conditions. Other Representations The Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) note the improved changes to the site layout. However, they express concern over the number of parking spaces as, although the new site access is adequate, the A2 and surrounding lanes may not be able to cope, and that the development could dominate the surrounding area. Two local residents have written raising the following summarised concerns: 1. The site must be fenced to prevent people, and wild boar, affecting

surrounding farmland. 2. Conifers near the boundary should be set back to avoid shading farmland.

Continued….

63

2.9 (Contd) PART 2 3. Can a 40mph speed limit from Teynham to the site be imposed. 4. The adjacent house should be protected from:

• loss of privacy • light pollution • noise from extra traffic to delivery area, especially outside opening

hours • long opening hours on Thursday to Saturday, with 6.00pm

suggested as closing time, and concern over long opening hours on Public Holidays, which should adopt Sunday hours.

5. The site should be made secure from travellers and abuse of the car

park out of hours. 6. The existing A2 lay-by may be used more, to the detriment of the

amenities of the adjacent house, and road safety, and The agents have responded to points 4 to 6 above, saying that privacy, light pollution, landscaping and noise can be dealt with, but that service area access is further away than in the approved scheme, and that deliveries may be needed before opening time, but especially to the garden centre on the far side of the site. They wish to keep the proposed opening hours. Relevant Planning Policies The site lies in a rural area and policies EN1 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan (SP), and E9 of the Local Plan (LP) relate to rural areas. They seek to protect the countryside for its own sake, and to limit development in rural areas to that which demands a rural location. In terms of retailing, policies seek to permit new development only in town centres, or in the event of no such location being available elsewhere, in built up areas. There is no support for new retail development in the countryside other than that serving local needs such as village shops. Policy S1 of the Local Plan seeks to restrict retailing to town centre locations, while Policy S8 provides for new shops to meet local needs in rural and residential areas. Policy S9 permits farm shops providing access is suitable, and there are no overriding planning objections. The Structure Plan (Policy EP15) also seeks to concentrate retail and leisure development in urban centres in a sequential manner, making sure that they do not undermine the viability or vitality of existing centres, and that out if centre locations must demonstrate that no more central site is suitable. Policy S11 (LP) is specific to garden centres and nurseries, and reads as follows:- “Proposals for new garden centres or retail outlets related to a nursery, or their extension, will be permitted provided that:

Continued….

64

2.9 (Contd) PART 2 (1) they are well located in relation to the main road network and provide maximum opportunity for use by pedestrians and cyclists, and are easily accessible by public transport; (2) where possible, existing buildings are used; (3) the primary use is for the sale of plant material and ancillary garden products; (4) there is adequate landscaping; and (5) appropriate criteria in Policy G1 are satisfied. In the preamble to the policy, it states that proposals for new or extended garden centres will have limits placed on the percentage of floor space given over to ancillary facilities and uses. Leisure and recreation are dealt with in Section 8 of the LP, its "aim" being "to facilitate as wide a range of recreation and leisure interests as possible, but in accordance with the objective of sustainable development." The Plan's relevant objectives are:

• To ensure adequate accessibility to new and existing facilities;

• To ensure that within new developments, provision is made for new recreation facilities in accordance with standards approved by the Local Planning Authority;

• To retain, and encourage the improvement of, existing facilities;

• To provide an adequate level of open space and allotments;

• To provide for the multiple use of recreation and leisure facilities; and

• To maintain, improve and promote the greater use of the public rights of

way network. Policy R10 promotes the provision of land in rural areas for informal open space in appropriate waterside or woodland locations with good access. The Structure Plan promotes cultural development and the arts via Policy QL13, especially where located close to town centres or public transport modes. Open space and recreation in an informal manner is provided by Policy QL15, especially where they are easily accessible and clustered at rural service centres. The Local Plan and Structure Plan promote employment development in the

Continued….

65

2.9 (Contd) PART 2

Faversham area, with the Local Plan having an employment led strategy. Employment in the rural area is provided for by Policy EP7 of the Structure Plan, and sustainable tourism development is encouraged by Policy EP10, with its economic benefits recognised. The Local Plan takes a similar view in Policies B4 and T2. The Deposit Draft Local Plan similarly encourages the continuation of the policy stance of the existing plan in issues most relevant to this application. The application falls within the proposed Faversham and rest of Swale Planning Area where the plan seeks to enhance the special qualities of the area and see its rural market town functions strengthen. The A2 is defined as a secondary route, onto which Policy IN2 seeks to direct all inter-urban traffic, and where Policy IN4 sees new developments as appropriate provided they do not lead to traffic in excess of the capacity of the network or lead to a hazard. Policy IN7 requires adequate car parking to be provided for new developments, with cycle parking being required by Policy IN8. The Structure Plan has similar provisions. Beyond statutory planning documents there is relevant National Planning Guidance in PPS6, PPS7 and PPG13. Discussion This is a significant proposal, but one that is based on an existing implemented scheme, to which it is very similar. Given, the established “fall back” position, I have not dwelt on the matter of retail need or location. The range of goods to be sold is a scale broader than in the approved scheme, but can be controlled via a Section 106 Agreement. I shall return to this point below. I find the revised scheme to represent a much higher quality development than has been approved beforehand. The overall design, use of materials and inclusion of sustainable energy and construction technologies marks the scheme out as exceptional. The mix of indoor and outdoor attractions with over 4 acres of outdoor attractions is what really justifies approval of this scheme in this location. I consider that the scheme has the potential to create something lacking in Swale, and to add considerably to the attractions of the area for residents and tourists. The mix of attractions should appeal to a wide audience, and cater for needs not yet well served within the Borough. The opportunity for access to the countryside is to be welcomed, and the combination of sculpture and wildlife management ought to create a unique and attractive environment associated with the indoor facilities. I note the concerns of the neighbouring residents, and have sought to control landscaping (and privacy) and lighting by conditions. I consider the proposed opening hours to be largely reasonable bar the 8.00 am start on public holidays, which I feel should be set back to 9.00 am. In relation to delivery hours, I do not consider that the relationship between the service yards and the

Continued….

66

2.9 (Contd) PART 2

neighbouring properties to be so close as to warrant restrictions, and in so saying I am conscious that the implemented scheme has no limitations on opening or delivery hours, and that the service area/coach parking access route is far closer to the boundary than that proposed now. I believe traffic issues are acceptable, and that there should be little direct harmful impact on issues such as nature conservation, noise or pollution. In terms of retailing, I am keen to ensure that the rural flavour of the site is preserved, and that it is not seen as an alternative to the High Street. The vast majority of proposed sales are already permitted by the existing Section 106 Agreement. New items such as outdoor clothing and equipment, and swimming pools seem to fit naturally with them. The potentially more contentious areas of additional sales are the farm food shop, home and soft furnishings, and well being/lifestyle. I have discussed the Council’s strongly protective stance towards our town centres and our countryside with the applicant. He has in turn explained that these sales areas are complementary to the overall garden centre/outdoor experience, and in practice I am sure that they would not do well if they were not. However, for these areas of sales, I would welcome Members’ support for limiting the total floorspace of the home accessories. Soft furnishings, and well being/healthy lifestyle sales to the equivalent of no more than one small sales unit (ie a maximum of 557 square metres – 6,000 square feet) each. These will then each represent less than 5 percent of the proposed floorspace, so creating variety without tipping the scales in favour of an inappropriate character. I feel that it will also be necessary, as now, to set an overall floorspace limit on these types of retailing as set out in A7/A8 in the new schedule. I am hoping to discuss these issues with the applicant, and will report further at the meeting. Recommendation The proposal to re-design the approved re-development of this garden centre has attracted little objection, and is a vast improvement over the implemented scheme. It proposes a combination of garden centre, rural shopping and rural experience. I believe that will be a real asset to the Borough, and should be supported, subject only to ensuring that it maintains the site’s rural character by controlling opening hours and the nature of sales. This can be done by a Section 106 Agreement with a schedule in the form presented by the applicant with the addition of upper floorspace limits to those elements which might, at greater volumes, create a discordant and inappropriate use.

Continued….

67

2.9 (Contd) PART 2

I therefore recommend that planning permission be granted subject to the completion of a Section 106 Agreement. List of Background Documents 1. Application Papers and Correspondence for SW/07/0649. 2. Application Papers and Correspondence for all applications referred to

in the Planning History Section of the report.

68

APPENDIX A ITEM 2.9

69

APPENDIX A ITEM 2.9

70

APPENDIX A ITEM 2.9

71

APPENDIX A ITEM 2.9

72

APPENDIX B ITEM 2.9

73

APPENDIX B ITEM 2.9

74

APPENDIX B ITEM 2.9

75

APPENDIX B ITEM 2.9

76


Location: 48 London Road, Faversham

Proposal: Outline permission for erection of eighteen 2-bed

apartments in two separate three storey blocks each of 9 apartments, together with parking and access thereto, following demolition of the existing house and no outbuildings

Applicant/Agent: Mr Colin Strickland, c/o ctm Architects, The Tramway

Stables, Rampart Road, Hythe, Kent, CT21 5BG Application Valid: 18 January 2007 and amended by letter and drawings

received 27 July 2007, and as clarified by email dated 1 August 2007 confirming building heights.

SUBJECT TO: Further views of Kent Highway Services, any

representations arising from re-consultation on amended drawings (closing date 15 August 2007) and to a Section 106 Agreement to secure developer contributions.

Conditions

(1) Details relating to the appearance of the proposed buildings, and the landscaping of the site shall be submitted to and approved by the District Planning Authority before any development is commenced.






later than the expiration of two years from the final approval of the reserved matters or, in the case of approval on different dates, the final approval of the last such matter to be approved.


Continued….

77

2.10 (Contd) PART 2 (4) No development shall take place until the developer 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 in writing by the District planning Authority.

Grounds: To ensure that features of archaeological interest are

properly examined and recorded in pursuance of Policy E43 of the Swale Borough Local plan and Policy QL7 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan.


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

Grounds: In the interests of promoting energy conservation, and in

order to ensure sustainable development pursuant to Policies QL1 and NR3 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan and Policies E51 and IN26 of the Swale Borough Local Plan.

(6) The existing trees on the site frontage which are to be retained must be

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

Grounds: To safeguard the existing trees to be retained and in pursuance of Policy E18 of the Swale Borough Local Plan.

(7) The existing trees on the site frontage which are to be retained shall

not be cut down, uprooted or destroyed, nor shall they be pruned in any manner, be it branches, stem or roots during construction without the written approval of the District Planning Authority. All tree works shall be carried out in accordance with British Standard 3998: 1989 ‘Tree Works’. If these trees are removed, uprooted or destroyed or dies during construction, a replacement tree or trees shall be planted and that tree(s) shall be of such size and species, and shall be planted

Continued….

78

2.10 (Contd) PART 2 at such a time and in a position to be agreed with the District Planning

Authority, as may be specified in writing by the District Planning Authority.

Grounds: To safeguard the existing trees to be retained and in

pursuance of Policy E18 of the Swale Borough Local Plan. (8) No development shall take place until a programme for the suppression

of dust during the demolition of existing buildings and construction of the development has been submitted to and approved by the District Planning Authority. The measures shall be employed throughout the period of demolition and construction unless any variation has been approved by the District Planning Authority

Grounds: In the interests of residential amenity and in pursuance of policies G1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan, and QL1 of the Kent & Medway Structure Plan.

(9) No floodlighting, security lighting or other external lighting shall be

installed or operated at the site, other than in accordance with details that have first been submitted to and agreed in writing by the District Planning Authority.

Grounds: In the interests of visual amenity and the residential

amenities of occupiers of nearby dwellings, in pursuance of Policies G1 and E2 of the Swale Borough Local Plan.



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

Grounds: In the interests of residential amenity and in pursuance of policies G1 and E2 of the Swale Borough Local Plan.

(11) No burning of waste or refuse shall take place on site during

construction works other than may be agreed in writing by the District Planning Authority.

Grounds: In the interests of residential amenity and in pursuance of policies G1 and E5 of the Swale Borough Local Plan.

(12) The areas shown as “Garden” on the approved plans shall be retained

for use by the residents of all the flats. Continued….

79

2.10 (Contd) PART 2

Grounds: In the interests of residential amenity and in pursuance of policies G1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan, and QL1 of the Kent & Medway Structure Plan.

(13) The areas shown as “18 Parking Spaces” and “4 Visitor’s Parking

spaces” on the approved plans shall be retained for the parking of private motor vehicles and no development, whether or not permitted by the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order, shall take place in such a position as to preclude access to these areas.

Grounds: In the interest of highway safety and in pursuance of policies G1 and IN7 of the Swale Borough Local Plan, and QL1 and TP19 of the Kent & Medway Structure Plan.

(14) Adequate underground ducts shall be installed before any of the flats

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

Grounds: In the interests of the amenities of the area. (15) No development shall be commenced until a scheme for the disposal

of surface waters has been approved by the District Planning Authority. Such scheme as is approved shall thereafter be implemented at the appropriate time during the development to ensure that all premises and all hard surfaced areas are adequately drained before first use.

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

pursuance of Policy E4 of the Swale Borough Local Plan.

Reasons for Approval Having taken all material considerations into account, it is considered that subject to compliance with the attached conditions, the proposal would be in accordance with the development plan and would not cause unacceptable harm to the amenities of the area or prejudice highway safety or convenience. In resolving to grant permission, particular regard has been had to the following policies: G1, E2, E5, E6, E18, E47, E48, E50, H1, H2, H3 and IN7 of the Swale Borough Local Plan, and QL1, HP3, HP4, TP3, TP19 of the Kent & Medway Structure Plan.

Continued….

80

2.10 (Contd) PART 2 Description of Proposal This application seeks outline permission for the erection of 18 two-bed flats equally divided between two 3-storey blocks, with associated parking and access and demolition of the existing dwelling at 48 London Road, Faversham. Matters of access, layout and scale are to be determined, but appearance and landscaping are reserved. Notwithstanding this an impression of the intended design has been submitted. The Design and Access (D&A) statement explains:

“…it is proposed that the two blocks of apartments shall be a simple rendered finish with curved bays including curved windows and low pitched roofs of standing seam aluminium in a slate colour and with a generous overhang. This roofing has been chosen to keep the overall height of the buildings to a minimum without resorting to actual flat roofing… The generous overhang of the roof and heavy fascia detail with integral guttering will provide a strong shadow line around the top of the building and also help keep the rendered walls clean. The only other materials involved in the external elevations would be the windows and doors, which are proposed to be in colour coated aluminium to be agreed, but preferably in a strong colour to contrast with the rendering, which should be a light colour…

These buildings will then provide the perfect foil to the existing and proposed landscaping and sit quietly and comfortably in the established street scene.”

The full statement is attached as Appendix A to this item. The application has been supplemented by an ecological report, which concludes that there do not appear to be bats roosting at the property, and by a structural engineer’s report on the condition of the existing house on the site. Finally, a sustainability statement which explains that the high standards of thermal and acoustic insulation will minimise heating needs, and that solar panels will reduce water heating needs, whilst water saving devices and rainwater harvesting will reduce water use. The application has been amended to reduce the impact of proposed car parking on adjacent gardens. This has been done by reducing the parking provision from 27 spaces filling the rear area (1.5 spaces per unit) to 22 spaces, 18 at the rear (1 space per unit) and 4 visitor spaces at the front near the site entrance. Further amendments have been received whereby the blocks of flats have effectively been turned through 180o so that they are brought away from the side boundaries at the rear to mitigate their visual impact and overshadowing of the adjacent properties. Cycle parking has also been moved to the rear of the site and other minor changes made, on the advice of Kent Police in the interests of security.

Continued….

81

2.10 (Contd) PART 2 Finally, the agent has confirmed heights of the buildings as 8m to eaves level and 10.4m overall. Relevant Site History and Description The proposal site is a plot located on the northern side of the A2, opposite the Abbey School and within the built up area of Faversham. The D&A statement explains that “the site is currently occupied by a single dwelling house on what were probably two plots when the layout of this side of London Road was developed in Edwardian times.” The house, along with some outbuildings to the rear, is situated on the eastern half of the plot, whilst the western half is used as garden. The existing dwelling on the site is suffering from subsidence and dry rot, and is in a poor state of repair. The structural defects were made apparent during a site visit with a structural engineer, and mostly stem from the corrosion of early iron wall ties and decades of poor maintenance. The defects include serious movement of front and left elevations and foundations, dry rot, damp and failing timber beams. The building is not incapable of repair, but the cumulative effect of the various works make this an expensive (the applicants have sent an estimate from local builders of £345,000 plus VAT, although I consider this to be high) and, according to the applicant, a non-viable option. There is no planning history for the site. Views of Consultees Faversham Town Council recommends refusal on the grounds that:

1. The proposed development would result in the loss of a single family house of good design appropriate in this location.

2. The proposed new development would be significantly out of character with the surrounding area and neighbouring properties in London Road.

3. The proposed development would result in gross over-development of the site.

4. The proposed new development would be out of scale with neighbouring properties in London Road.

5. The proposed new development would result in a significant increase in traffic movements to and from the site in a location close to an already difficult junction.

The Town Council have also stated that they are concerned at the loss of larger houses in Faversham which ensure a wide mix of housing types in the

Continued….

82

2.10 (Contd) PART 2 town and that this loss often occurs as a result of allowing the dilapidation of larger properties. Kent Highway Services had asked for further amendments:

- The covered cycle rack is not secure and should be relocated to the rear of the site; access to it at present is blocked in by a parking bay.

- The paring space next to the cycle rack will be difficult to manoeuvre into due to the garden wall.

- The aisle widths need to be extended by 1m in each direction to provide the required turning for the end spaces.

Amended drawings showing these revisions have been received, and I will

report further at the meeting, on any response. Southern Water have stated that they can provide foul sewage disposal to service the proposed development, and have requested an informative be attached to the consent, reminding the applicant that a formal application to Southern Water needs to be made for connection to the public sewer. They also comment that the local network is insufficient for surface water disposal, and soakaways or use of an existing surface water system should be investigated. They seek a planning condition to require details of surface water drainage proposals to be submitted and approved. Other Representations

The Faversham Society recommends refusal: “…the proposed development represents an over-intensive use of the site. In

terms of site coverage the proposal would not fit in with the existing group of buildings which constitute individual dwellings on individual plots. The height of the building at three storeys is out of scale with the existing buildings and the fenestration fails to respect the character of the existing buildings. The landscaping is poor and fails to respect the ‘garden character’ along this side of the road. In addition the whole rear garden is laid out as car parking.”

The application has been amended to reduce the impact of car parking on neighbours, and comments have been received both before and after this amendment. 26 objections from local residents and representatives of the local schools and an 89-signature petition have been received in regards to the application, with a further 20 and a copy of the petition being submitted in response to the amended drawings. The petition is headed “We, the undersigned, oppose the above planning application due to its height and density affecting the surrounding properties’ existing privacy (and also parking).” The objections can be summarised as follows:

Continued….

83

2.10 (Contd) PART 2

- Parking is insufficient, but occupies too much of the site; - The development will lead to traffic problems and/or accidents on this

major road, near to the school entrance; - Proposed buildings are too high/out of scale with neighbouring

properties – 2 storey development would be better; - Overlooking of neighbours, especially at Harold Court, which is lower; - Design and inclusion of flats is not in keeping with area and will be

bland; - Loss of trees on site; - Development will have clear views into the nearby infant school; - Local property values will be affected; - This may set a precedent for Faversham; - Noise levels will increase; - There are bats in the existing outbuildings; - Development will block sunlight to existing properties; - Development will be a burden on local infrastructure; - Is the existing attractive house truly beyond repair? - Proposed density is too high; - “Green” issues should be addressed; - Lack of screening between car parking and Harold Court; - The site is between the conservation areas and would be out of

character; - Loss of trees to the rear of the site and poor scope for new

landscaping; - Lack of sewage capacity; - Lack of demand for flats, especially if rail services are cut; - Can hours of construction be limited to allow children to sleep?

1 further letter has been received from a local resident stating that if hardstanding could be reduced, the proposed buildings reduced to two-storey and “green” technologies investigated, he would be in support of the proposal. Latest amended drawings have not had any additional potentially adverse effects on any neighbouring property, but in view of local concerns I have notified adjoining owners again, and will report any fresh concerns to the meeting. The closing date for comments is now 15 August 2007. Agents for the County Council have requested developer contributions of £216.00 per dwelling for libraries, and £165.50 per dwelling for adult education facilities, and these can be secured via a Section 106 Agreement. Kent Police have suggested crime reduction measures, some of which are shown on the amended drawings, and I believe that others can be secured via landscaping proposals, which require a separate application.

Continued….

84

2.10 (Contd) PART 2 Policies

The development plan comprises the adopted Swale Borough Council Local Plan and the Kent & Medway Structure Plan. First and foremost this site lies within a built-up urban area, on previously developed land relatively close to the town centre, railway station and bus stops. It is therefore a sustainable location for redevelopment and not unsuitable for a higher density of development. The site area is approximately 0.16 hectares, giving a rough site density of 108 dwellings per hectare, but such figures can be misleading at such a small scale. Nevertheless, policy HP4 of the K&MSP encourages the effective use of land with densities over 50 dwellings per hectare being advocated in central urban areas and in locations with good public transport links. SS4 and HP2 of the K&MSP target the use of previously developed land within urban areas as a major source of land for development. Being within the built-up area of Faversham the redevelopment of the site accords with K&MSP policy SW1 (prevention of the peripheral expansion of Faversham), and with SBLP policies H1 and H3, subject to normal planning standards being met. These include SBLP policy G1 and K&MSP policy QL1 which seek accordance with wider planning objectives relating to layout, highway safety, parking amenity and design. QL1 in particular requires all new development to be to a high standard and to respond to the scale, layout, pattern and character of their surroundings. Policies of design and enhancement of major routes through the Borough (E47 and E48 of the SBLP) encourage design to enhance the area and reflect local distinctiveness, whilst policy E50 of the SBLP seeks to ensure security through design. Policies IN4, IN7, IN8 and IN18 (SBLP) and TP19 (K&MSP) seek adequate access, parking, cycle parking and respect for the need of pedestrians in all new developments. E2 (SBLP) aims to minimize noise impact between new and existing uses. E18 (SBLP) seeks to protect important trees within the local landscape.. E51 (SBLP) encourages energy conservation in new developments. TP3 (K&MSP) states that planning authorities should ensure that development sites are well served by public transport, walking and cycling.

Continued….

85

2.10 (Contd) PART 2 Discussion I recognise that there are local concerns about the nature and likely impacts of the proposal, however I find that the scheme as a whole meets many of the aims of current planning policy, providing small units on a previously developed site with good access to local amenities and the town centre. The proposal reflects the evolving nature of the architecture in Faversham and, to my mind, has the potential to make a positive impact upon the area. There are local concerns most notably over highway safety and parking, scale and amenity impact upon local residents. In response to concerns regarding highway issues Kent Highway Services have requested minor amendments but are satisfied with the scheme overall. The overall scale of the buildings is not, to my mind, excessive. The use of a low roof means that the two blocks are roughly 1.5m higher than the adjacent dwellings – not an inappropriate difference given the varied scale and design of other properties along London Road. I could see a far more conventional house style easily reaching the same height. The latest amended drawings dramatically reduce overshadowing to properties on either side, so removing an earlier concern of mine, and one shared by some adjoining neighbours. One other major local concern is that the development would give rise to serious overlooking of the properties in Harold Court, to the rear. I do not consider that the views would be as intrusive as has been suggested. The proposed buildings are roughly 21m from the rear boundary, with a further 9m on the other side of the rear garden wall before you reach the closest property on Harold Court – well outside the Council’s prescribed 21m window-to-window distance. The ground levels change quite drastically between the application site and Harold Court, and any views will most likely be of roofs, with perhaps some distance views into upper windows. Further to this the car parking to the rear has been rearranged to allow planting of trees for screening, which will also help reduce noise impacts. I have been reluctant to see demolition of the existing house, although that does not require planning permission, and keen to have regard to the rhythm of detached houses on London Road. This scheme achieves that rhythm, and my own inspection of the existing house, allied to the detailed report and estimate for repairs, leads me to conclude that it is not one that must be saved at all costs. For Faversham to offer the right type of housing, across all sectors, I believe that this scheme, and others like it, is important albeit I recognise that this may seem painful for existing neighbours. As first submitted, the application was not one that I could support and I shared many of the objections raised

Continued….

86

2.10 (Contd) PART 2 by local residents. The application has however subsequently been amended in such a way as to significantly reduce the impact of the development on its neighbours. Although perhaps still somewhat marginal, I consider the scheme is now one which can be recommended for approval. Recommendation

This application seeks outline permission for the demolition of a detached dwelling within the built up area of Faversham, and its replacement with 2 three-storey blocks of flats, each with nine apartments, with associated parking and amenity space.

I have considered concerns about scale, traffic, road safety, overlooking and

the loss of the existing dwelling, but none to my mind individually or collectively warrant the refusal of permission.

I consider that the proposal would sit comfortably in its surroundings, and that

outline planning permission should be granted.

List of Background Documents 1. Application papers for SW/07/0069 2. Correspondence relating to SW/07/0069.

87

APPENDIX A ITEM 2.10

88


89


90


91


92

2.11 SW/07/0602 (Case 22717) MINSTER

Location: Parcel 4, Thistle Hill, Minster, Sheppey Proposal: Application for approval of reserved matters relating to

the erection of new community hall, retail units, and formal sports and changing facilities at the above site, land for a health centre and primary school

Applicant/Agent: Bovis Homes Ltd, The Manor House, North Ash Road,

New Ash Green, Longfield, Kent, DA3 8HQ Application Valid: 21 May 2007 SUBJECT TO: The further views of Kent Highway Services, Lower

Medway Internal Drainage Board and the Recreation and Amenities Officer, and to the receipt of satisfactory amended drawings.

Conditions

(1) The retail units marked A and B on the approved drawings shall be used only for retail purposes falling within classes A1 of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (shops) and shall not be used for any other commercial use whatsoever.

Grounds: In accordance with the terms fo the application, in

recognition of the need for this facility, and as the site lies in an area where other unrestricted uses could prove detrimental to residential amenity contrary to Policy G1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan.

(2) No retail or other commercial premises hereby permitted shall be

open to the public between the hours of 9.30 pm and 8.00 am on any day, and all external illumination serving those properties shall be switched off before 10.00 pm each day and left unilluminated until 7.00 am the following day unless expressly agreed in writing by the District Planning Authority or in case of emergency.

Grounds: In the interests of residential amenity as unrestricted use

could prove detrimental to residential properties above and nearby contrary to Policy G1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan.

(3) No commercial or retail unit hereby permitted shall be occupied until

details of a CCTV camera system (or such other systems agreed in writing by the District Planning Authority) have been submitted to and approved by the District Planning Authority. The CCTV camera system shall be maintained and operational throughout the period that any of the commercial or retail units are occupied.

Continued….

93

2.11 (Contd) PART 2 Grounds: In the interests of amenity, in accordance with Section

17 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and Policy E50 of the Swale Borough Local Plan.

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

materials to be used on the external surfaces, and joinery details of a scale not less than 1:5, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the District Planning Authority.

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

Policies E48 and G1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan. (5) No development shall take place until joinery details and/or cross

sections of all shopfronts, windows, porches and doors, and constructional details of railings, walls, eaves and verges, pilasters, door surrounds, brick arches, lintels, bargeboards, decorative trusses and finials, at a scale of 1:5, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the District Planning Authority. Upon approval, the agreed details shall not be altered except in accordance with details approved by the District Planning Authority.

Grounds: In order that the details reflect the important setting of

the development, and in pursuance of Policy G1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan.

(6) No deliveries of goods to any of the non-residential units at the site

shall take place between the hours of 10.00 pm and 7.00 am on any day, or at any time on Sundays or Bank Holidays.

Grounds: In the interests of residential amenity as unrestricted use

could prove detrimental to nearby residential properties contrary to Policy G1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan.

Reasons for Approval Having taken all material considerations into account, it is considered that

subject to compliance with the attached conditions, the proposal would be in accordance with the development plan and would not cause unacceptable harm to the amenities of the area or prejudice highway safety or convenience. In resolving to grant permission, particular regard has been had to the following policies: H1, G1, E48, E50, E52, IN21, IN7, IN18, IN15, IN17, S16, H25 and H26 of the Swale Borough Local Plan and Policies QL1, QL2, QL3, QL5, QL12, EP18, TP11 and TP19 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan.

Continued….

94

2.11 (Contd) PART 2 Description of Proposals

This application seeks the approval of reserved matters for a mixed use development on part of the village centre for Thistle Hill. In particular layout, scale, appearance, access and landscaping is sought for a community hall of not less than 300m2, 2 separate retail units (not exceeding 1858m2 ), land for a primary school (1.6 ha), land for a health centre/surgery (not less than 0.7ha) and the provision of formal and informal open space, in particular (an association football pitch and a NEAP) play area. A design and access statement has been submitted to explain the rationale for the proposals and amongst other things, to set the proposals in the context of earlier phases of development at Thistle Hill and the parameters set out in the Development Brief for the site. Within the Design and Access Statement under Concept Design Principles it states: “The centre will be focused around a strong pedestrian boulevard running

east-west. The purpose of this axis is both to ensure good pedestrian connectivity between the east and west parts of the site and create a focal central area well fronted by the public buildings and facilities creating a distinct “sense of place”. The western entrance to the boulevard will be well defined by landmark buildings – creating a clear entrance to the village centre. To the east the opportunity exists for a focal space fronted by key shops and/or services – with landmark buildings/elements which again clearly distinguish the start of the village centre.

The proposed accommodation for the Village Centre is dispersed along the

central boulevard with frontage features onto the boulevard. The Village Hall is located adjacent both to the boulevard and football pitch – its hall and associated activities therefore clearly part of the main village spine, its changing rooms servicing the football pitch. The Hall is accessed just off the boulevard whilst the changing facilities have a separate entrance to the north for direct access from the football pitch.

The retail outlets are proposed between the boulevard and the football pitch

allowing the rear retail servicing area to be located away from the public pedestrian realm.

The NEAP will be located halfway along the boulevard, disturbance, and

allows the opportunity for an open side to the boulevard for passing surveillance by pedestrians – view out to the lower parts of Thistle Hill can then be retained and enhanced in the new strategy. Adjacent to the NEAP is the football pitch. This will be continuously fenced around its boundary to prevent unauthorised access to the field and avoid damage to vehicles by stray footballs.

Opposite the NEAP and to ensure a balance of facilities either side of the

Boulevard a site for the a PCT Surgery has been identified. Continued….

95

2.11 (Contd) PART 2 Proposed future residential development to the south of the village centre

fronting the existing access road would be between 2.5-3 storey (this development will be the subject of future planning applications and is not included within the scope of this application). Frontage at this height is appropriate for key routes and spaces throughout the village centre with disposition dependant on urban requirements of specific locations – 3 storey for key frontage/gateways/landmark points with 2-2.5 storey buildings in between.”

The applicant has provided indicative development proposals for those areas of the village centre not covered by this application for approval of reserved matters. These areas are intended for future development mainly for housing. It is important to stress that approval of these areas is not sought under this application. The details are intended simply to show a potential built context into which the application proposals might ultimately fit.

Relevant Site History and Description Most significant in terms of planning history is the granting of outline planning

permission SW/95/0102 in September 1997. This approved the residential and other development of the site and contains numerous conditions relating to access and infrastructure provision, phasing, archaeology, affordable housing, community woodland and significantly, the requirement for the submission and approval of an overall development brief for the site. The brief was prepared and submitted for up to some 1000 houses to be built at the site. It shows the disposition of roads, footpaths and cycleway, housing, community facilities, woodland and public open space and was considered and approved by the Planning Sub-Committee in October 1997.

The outline planning permission Ref: SW/95/0102 phases the entire development of housing at Thistle Hill, and it is important to note that there have been various subsequent applications for amendments to this phasing. Most significantly, planning permission was granted in September 2005 for non-compliance with condition (4) of SW/95/0102 to allow an additional 150 dwellings (above the previous 340 limit) to be constructed prior to the opening of the A249 Road Improvements (Ref: SW/04/1059), which were subsequently completed in 2006. There have of course been numerous applications for housing on various parcels of land at Thistle Hill, which have little direct relevance to the site at issue here. So far detailed approval for 785 dwellings has been granted and some 453 dwellings have been built or are under construction up to January this year. The application site relates to a parcel of land approximately 3.94 hectares in

Continued….

96

2.11 (Contd) PART 2

size, located to the east of the main spine road which serves the Thistle Hill development and adjoins to the west, south and east various phases of residential development.

Views of Consultees Minster Parish Council comment that “the proposed design of the community

hall is an issue. Minster Parish Council’s view is that the design being “60’s style” is not in keeping with the mock Georgian style of the area. Minster Parish Council accepts that the construction is good but the overall view is that the building looks contemporary and is not in keeping with the area.”

Kent Highway Services raise concerns regarding the areas of adoption, the design speed for shared surfaces, the number of dwellings served by shared surfaces, size of turning areas and details regarding lockable bollards. Kent Police's Crime Reduction and Architectural Liaison Officer recommends that all the buildings be built to the Secured by Design specifications and would like to see details of lighting for various areas. She also suggests some minor changes to the seating positions within the main pedestrian boulevard, use of security cameras and mobile CCTV hawkeye system if the need arises. Comments from Lower Medway Internal Drainage Board, and the Recreation and Amenities Officer are still awaited. I hope to report their comments to Members at the meeting.

Other Representations No other comments have been received. Policies The key policies in the adopted Swale Borough Local Plan are as follows:

Policy G1 – general development criteria Policy C1 – New social and community facilities Policy S1 – New retail development. Policy H26 – Thistle Hill Policy E48 – Design Policy E49 – Landscaping Policy E50 – Safety and Security in design Policy IN7 – Parking on new developments. Whilst the key policies in the adopted Kent and Medway Structure Plan including the following:-

Continued….

97

2.11 (Contd) PART 2

Policy QL1 – Quality of development and design Policy QL2 – Priorities for the public realm Policy QL3 – Movement and Accessibility in the public realm Policy QL5 – Mix of uses on site Policy QL12 – Provision for new community services and infrastructure Policy TP11 – Facilities for pedestrians and cyclists Policy TP19 – Vehicle parking standards Discussion As stated above, this application seeks approval of reserved matters for development on the main part of the village centre at Thistle Hill. Although the applicant has provided indicative layout details of possible future residential development on the remaining areas of the village centre site, approval for these is not sought here. The mixed use scheme before Members has been designed to reflect the requirements of the development brief for Thistle Hill and is intended to form a central focus for the community in the vicinity. At paragraph 4.8 of the Development Brief it states that: “A range of social and community facilities as listed above will be provided

by the developer. Centrally located, the centre will leave maximum accessibility by its location next to the Spine Road and at the focus of the footpath and cycleway network and will be served by public transport.”

The community hall has been designed to meet the specifications of the development brief and has been the subject of lengthy negotiations between Council Officers and the developer. The developer argues that both the design of the community hall and that of the retail units are of a contemporary nature and that the selection of external facing materials have been chosen to reflect materials typical of the Kent area. I note the comments of Minster Parish Council regarding design and whilst I do not consider that the proposals put forward for the village centre are unacceptable, I am in discussion with the developer to see whether the designs can be improved. I am of the opinion that to copy traditional styles of housing for the village centre buildings as suggested by the Parish Council would be inappropriate as an architectural style, since the more dense housing around the centre's location helps to act as a definitive change in building form, which allows for an opportunity for a more dramatic style and form of building in the village centre. I consider that to produce distinctive forms of buildings here would offer a perception of interest which will be

Continued….

98

2.11 (Contd) PART 2

inviting and act as a focal point for the Thistle Hill development. I hope to report further on this matter to Members at the meeting. One positive aspect of the proposed layout has been the way that routes have been connected through the site converging at a public space at the centre of the development. These routes have been designed to favour the pedestrian and cyclist rather than the car reflecting objectives of the development brief, and of Kent Design and the input of Officers. In line with the terms of the development brief and Section 106 Agreement land has been safeguarded for a primary school. Similarly land has been set aside for a health centre within the village centre. At present it is unknown whether either of these facilities will be provided as the future plans of both the Education Authority and the Primary Care Trust are uncertain for the Isle of Sheppey. I note that Kent Highway Services raise some concerns regarding the details of the highway infrastructure which I have asked the developer to address. I hope that amended plans will be submitted shortly to address these concerns. I will report further on this to Members at the meeting. Minimising the opportunities for crime is an important objective of the design process. In my view this scheme tries to fulfil this objective. Among other things I consider that the routes through the scheme and other public areas are well overseen. It is also helpful that a range of uses including residential use are envisaged within the village centre as this will mean that people will be moving about in the area throughout a typical 24 hour period, rather than being deserted at certain times and therefore susceptible to anti-social and criminal behaviour. However, I note the Kent Police Crime Reduction and Architectural Liaison Officer has some concerns about detailed issues regarding crime and safety. I have passed these concerns onto the developer to address and I hope to report further on this matter to Members at the meeting. Summary and Recommendations I consider that this proposal envisages an acceptable mix of uses, is of an appropriate layout and shows a good standard of design, albeit I have sought further amendments from the Agent on this issue. As such the proposals are in accordance with the development brief and Section 106 Agreement for Thistle Hill, together with the relevant policies in the Local Plan.

Continued….

99

2.11 (Contd) PART 2

I therefore recommend subject to the further views of Kent Highway Services, Kent Police, LMIDB and the Council’s Recreation and Amenities Officer and the requested amended plans, that the reserved matters be approved.

List of Background Documents 1. Application Papers and Correspondence for SW/07/0602. 2. Application Papers and Correspondence for SW/04/1059 and SW/95/0102

100

2.12 SW/07/0805 (Case 7509) SITTINGBOURNE

Location: Land r/o of 17 Highsted Road, Sittingbourne Proposal: Outline application for 3 bed detached dwelling and

garage Applicant/Agent: Mrs J Standing, c/o J B Associates, 13 Morris Court

Close, Bapchild, Sittingbourne, Kent, ME9 9PL

Application Valid: 6 July 2007 and as clarified by additional information received on 24 July 2007

SUBJECT TO: The receipt of an indicative street-scene plan.

Conditions

(1) Details relating to the scale and appearance of the proposed building(s) and the landscaping of the site shall be submitted to and approved by the District Planning Authority before any development is commenced.








(4) The details submitted in pursuance of Condition (1) shall show a dwelling of no more than two storeys in height.

Grounds: In the interests of the character and appearance of the area, and in pursuance of Policies G1 and E48 of Swale Borough Local Plan.

Continued….

101

2.12 (Contd) PART 2 (5) The details submitted in pursuance of Condition (1) shall show no

windows at first floor level on the south facing side elevation.

Grounds: To prevent the overlooking of adjoining properties to safeguard the privacy of their occupiers in pursuance of Policies G7 of the Swale Local Plan and QL1 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan.

(6) The area shown on drawing number SWY-0307-01 C as vehicle

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

Grounds: Development without provision of adequate accommodation for the parking of vehicles is likely to lead to parking inconvenient to other road users and be detrimental to highway safety and amenity, and in pursuance of Policy G1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan.

(7) The garage hereby permitted shall be used only for the parking of a

private motor car or cars or for uses ordinarily incidental to the enjoyment of the occupiers of the dwelling house and no development, whether permitted by the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 or not, shall be carried out on the site, in such a manner or in such a position as to preclude vehicular access to the garage.

Grounds: In order to ensure that adequate provision is made for the parking of motor vehicles and in order to safeguard the amenities of the area, and in pursuance of Policy G1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan

(8) Pedestrian visibility splays 2 m x 2 m with no obstruction over 0.6 m

above the access footway level shall be provided prior to the commencement of any other development hereby approved and shall be subsequently maintained.

Grounds: In the interests of highway safety, and in pursuance of Policy G1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan.


Continued….

102

2.12 (Contd) PART 2 subject to compliance with the attached conditions, the proposal would be in accordance with the development plan and would not cause unacceptable harm to the amenities of the area. In resolving to grant permission, particular regard has been had to the following policies: G1, H1, H4, H5, E48 of The Swale Borough Local Plan; and QL1 and HP5 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan. Description of Proposal The application is for outline planning permission for the erection of a 3 bedroom detached house and garage on land to the rear of 17 Highsted Road, Sittingbourne which will face and access onto Grayshott Close. The house is shown to be 9m in depth and 6.5m in width set 1m, at the closest point, from the boundary with No. 2 Grayshott Close and 1.6m to the rear boundary of the site and the rear garden of 19 Highsted Road. The garage is set 1.6m from the front boundary with Grayshott Close, hard to the boundary with 17 Highsted Road and is 2.6m by 5.2m in floor area. Garden space is provided to the side of the dwelling and is 10m in depth. Approval is sought for the 'layout' and 'access'; 'scale', 'appearance' and 'landscaping' are reserved for future consideration. This application follows pre-application enquiries by the applicant’s agent. A supporting statement has been provided by the applicant's agent which accompanied a picture of the most likely design for the dwelling. The agent describes that "the final design will be similar …. the design also allows us to include a catslide roof to the front in order to reflect the style and direction of the pitch of semis in Grayshott Close…". Furthermore, he comments that having visited the two adjoining properties he is aware of objections and considers that although No 19 are concerned the value of their property may fall he states that it is not a valid planning objection and that values "in Sittingbourne is not affected by new development, on the contrary the opposite tends to occur". Also regarding the concerns of the owner of No. 2 Grayshott Close on the impact on "her rear conservatory and the problems of parking in the close. This proposed development will have little or no impact on her amenities and certainly not her right to light" He finally addresses the parking issues in the Grayshott Close by stating "the problems are not caused by residents, who all have adequate off road parking, but by non-residents inconsiderate parking when bringing their children to the local school".

Continued….

103

2.12 (Contd) PART 2 Relevant Site History and Site Description The application site is currently part of the rear garden of 17 Highsted Road and access to the site is shown from Grayshott Close. The plot has an 18m frontage to Grayshott Close and is18m in depth. To the rear of the proposed site is the rear garden of no 19 Highsted Road. The proposed house is shown to be adjacent to no 2 Grayshott Close. The site is located within the built up area boundary of Sittingbourne. Previous planning history for the site shows SW/83/1243 outline application for a single dwelling refused on 24th January 1985 and the subsequent appeal dismissed. Views of Consultees Kent Highway Services offered no objection provided that conditions were imposed regarding sight lines and retention of car parking areas. Other Representations A 26 signature petition against the proposal and 15 letters of objection have been received from neighbours their comments are summarised below: 1. No. 19 will be more directly affected than No. 17 as the proposed

dwelling is 4m closer to their house 2. No. 19 will suffer over shadowing, loss of privacy 3. The submitted plans do not show the lean to brick built greenhouse

which will be overshadowed by the proposed dwelling 4. A two storey house will overlook No. 19 property and garden due to

close proximity of house to boundary wall 5. Rear window of kitchen on ground floor will be 17 not 22m from new

dwelling 6. Permission was previously refused on this site for a bungalow 7. Proposal will create additional traffic and parking congestion on

Grayshott Close and Highsted Road (all 10 objectors commented on this)

8. The proposed development is not in accordance with best practice and recommendations

9. Rear conservatory at No. 2 Grayshott Close is not shown on submitted plans

10. The proposal impinges on the light and privacy to the rear of No. 2 Grayshott Close

11. Concerned that access is onto Grayshott Close a very narrow road and will add to current traffic and parking problems

12. Will result in loss of view of trees from rear gardens on Highsted Road Continued….

104

2.12 (Contd) PART 2 13. Reasons for the previous refusal still exist 14. Proposal will spoil the pleasant character of Grayshott Close 15. Will increase overlooking between dwellings 16. Significant reduction in openness and visual impression of space 17. Small garden will be out of place with others in the road 18. Overlooking to garden of No. 21 19. Loss of amenity to all properties 20. Grayshott Close consists of semi detached dwellings, the new property

will not sit well within its surrounding.

Policies Government advice in PPS3 draws attention to the importance of the re-use of previously-developed land, which, if good design and layout of new development can be achieved, the Government's objectives of making the best use of previously-developed land and improving the quality and attractiveness of residential areas can be met. It states that Local Planning Authorities should avoid the inefficient use of land. To do this, Local Authorities should:

• Avoid developments that make inefficient use of land – (those of less than 30 dwellings per hectare net).

• Encourage housing development which makes more efficient use of land (between 30 and 50 dwellings per hectare net

• Seek greater intensity of development at places with good public transport accessibility such as city, town, district and local centres or around major nodes along good quality public transport corridors.

PPG13 (2001) - Transport – reiterates the message of PPS3 that “to promote more sustainable patterns of development and make better use of previously developed land, the focus for additional housing should be existing towns and cities.” Swale Borough Local Plan Policies The following policies are relevant here.

• Policy G1 (general development criteria). • Policy H1 states that permission for new residential development will

be granted for sites within the built up area boundary in accordance with policies H4 and H5 (residential infilling).

Policy H4 permits the development of small sites for up to four dwellings within defined built-up areas, provided they meet certain criteria, including they provide a beneficial use for derelict, disused or waste land, they do not have a detrimental impact on residential amenity, they have adequate access

Continued….

105

2.12 (Contd) PART 2 and car parking provision; and the appropriate criteria in Policy G1 are satisfied. Policy E48 of the Swale Borough Local Plan is also relevant, it states that all new development to be of a high standard of design appropriate to its surroundings and reflecting local distinctiveness. Kent & Medway Structure Plan: Policies QL1, (quality of development and design), HP4 (housing: quality and density of development) are also relevant. Discussion As the application site lies within the built up area, residential development is acceptable in principle, I therefore consider that the main issue in determining this application is the effect on the residential amenities of the occupiers of adjoining residential properties. I do note that a conservatory to the rear of No. 2 Grayshott Close and a greenhouse to the rear garden of No. 19 Highsted Road do not appear on the submitted drawings. Neighbours have expressed concern over a number of issues such as loss of views and disturbance during construction, which cannot be dealt with through the planning system and cannot constitute reasons for refusing this application. With regard to the siting of the development, I feel that the proposed dwelling is located within the site so as to retain the strong building line on Grayshott Close and to provide the necessary amenities for the plot. In this case, the site is surrounded by twentieth century developments, and I do not believe a refusal could be justified in relation to the principle of development for this site. In relation to residential amenity, I note the comments about the existing parking and congestion problems on Grayshott Close and Highsted Road. However these are caused to some extent by visitors to the hospital and the nearby school and I consider the erection of an additional dwelling in Grayshott Close would not exacerbate the situation. In relation to the possibility of additional traffic congestion due to the development, the parking for the proposed dwelling would consist of one parking space within a garage and a second space on the driveway. This meets the Kent Vehicle Parking standards for the proposed dwelling and Kent Highways Services raise no objection.

Continued….

106

2.12 (Contd) PART 2 The most affected properties will be those adjoining the site and both raise concerns of overlooking and loss of privacy. Although the siting does mean that the strong building line on Grayshott Close is retained, this in turn results in the dwelling being closer to the rear gardens of the neighbouring properties. It is accepted that the dwelling will have a limited impact on the two adjoining properties. However Members will note the orientation of the proposal, with the rear elevation facing the rear gardens of the dwellings in Highsted Road. In addition, the dwelling would be a minimum of 19 metres from the closest part of the adjacent property in Highsted Road, No. 19. This separation is sufficient to preclude significant overlooking. I also consider that conditions imposed at the reserved matters stage concerning landscaping and location of windows would further mitigate any impact. I am awaiting an indicative sketch from the agent to show how the property will fit within the established street-scene of Grayshott Close which consists of semi detached housing. I will update Members at the meeting. As noted above, a planning application was refused and the subsequent appeal dismissed for the erection of a single dwelling on the site. The reasons for refusal related to harm to the amenity of the residents of the proposed dwelling and the amenity of the neighbours. This application had been made in outline with all matters reserved; that is to say the application plan consists solely of a red edge drawn around the site. In my opinion, the current application demonstrates that a dwelling can be accommodated on the site without significant harm to residential amenity to existing neighbours, nor would residents of the application property suffer a poor level of amenity. This previous refusal in no way amounts to a reason for refusing the current application. Moreover, the development makes good use of existing urban land to provide an additional dwelling in a sustainable location close to Sittingbourne town centre. Summary and Recommendation This outline application seeks planning permission for the erection of a detached two-storey dwelling with a detached garage and parking, within the built-up area and of Sittingbourne. I believe that the proposed dwelling will sit comfortably in its surroundings without overriding harm to the amenities of adjacent residents. As such, I believe that it will represent an opportunity to meet housing need on a site within the built-up area in an acceptable way.

Continued….

107

2.12 (Contd) PART 2 I therefore recommend, subject to the receipt of an indicative street-scene plan, that planning permission be granted.

List of Background Documents 1. Application Papers for Application SW/07/0805 2. Correspondence Relating to Application SW/07/0805 3. SW/83/1243 and appeal decision.

108


Location: The Old Granary, Standard Quay, Faversham, Kent Proposal: Alterations to the existing building involving a change of

use to wine bar, offices and shop including demolition of part and erection of a single storey extension containing kitchen and toilets etc

Applicant/Agent: Quayside Properties (Faversham) Ltd, CTM Architects,

Chartered Architects, The Tramway Stables, Rampart Road, Hythe, Kent, CT21 5BG

Application Valid: 26 January 2007, and as amended by letters and

drawings received 15 and 22 May 2007

SUBJECT TO: Amended drawings showing a reduction in the number of car parking spaces

Conditions



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

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

(2) No development approved by this permission shall be commenced

prior to a contaminated land assessment (and associated remediation strategy if relevant), being submitted to and approved in writing by the District Planning Authority, comprising:

a) A desk study and conceptual model, based on the historical uses of

the site and proposed end-uses, and professional opinion as to whether further investigative works are required. A site investigation strategy, based on the results of the desk study, shall be approved by the District Planning Authority prior to any intrusive investigations commencing on site.

b) An investigation, including relevant soil, soil gas, surface and groundwater sampling, carried out by a suitably qualified and accredited consultant/contractor in accordance with a Quality Assured sampling and analysis methodology.

c) A site investigation report detailing all investigative works and sampling on site, together with the results of analyses, risk assessment to any receptors and a proposed remediation strategy

Continued….

109

2.13 (Contd) PART 2 which shall be of such a nature as to render harmless the identified contamination given the proposed end-use of the site and surrounding environment, including any controlled waters.

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

in pursuance of policy E1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan. (3) Before any part or agreed phase of the development is occupied, all

remediation works identified in the contaminated land assessment and approved by the District Planning Authority shall be carried out in full (or in phases as agreed in writing by the District Planning Authority) on site under a quality assured scheme to demonstrate compliance with the proposed methodology and best practice guidance. If, during the works, contamination is encountered which has not previously been identified, then the additional contamination shall be fully assessed and an appropriate remediation scheme agreed with the District Planning Authority.

Grounds: To ensure any contaminated land is adequately dealt

with, in pursuance of policy E1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan. (4) Upon completion of the works identified in the contaminated land

assessment, and before any part or agreed phase of the development is occupied, a closure report shall be submitted which shall include details of the proposed remediation works with quality assurance certificates to show that the works have been carried out in accordance with the approved methodology. Details of any post-remediation sampling and analysis to show the site has reached the required clean-up criteria shall be included in the closure report together with the necessary documentation detailing what waste materials have been removed from the site.

Grounds: To ensure any contaminated land is adequately dealt

with, in pursuance of policy E1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan.

(5) The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out otherwise than in complete accordance with the approved plans.

Grounds: To ensure that special regard is paid to the interests of protecting the special character and architectural interest of the building in pursuance of policies E39 of the Swale Borough Local Plan and QL8 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan.


successors in title, has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written specification and

Continued….

110

2.13 (Contd) PART 2 timetable which has been submitted to and approved in writing by the

District Planning Authority.

Grounds: To ensure that features of archaeological interest are properly examined and recorded in pursuance of policy E43 of the Swale Borough Local Plan and policy QL7 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan.

(7) No development shall be commenced until a programme of building

recording and analysis has been undertaken by a person or body approved by the District Planning Authority and that programme shall accord with a written scheme submitted to and approved in writing by the District Planning Authority.


(8) Before any development hereby permitted is commenced, a schedule

of works and specifications for all repairs and alterations to the historic building including alterations necessary for the attachment of the extension to the south side of the building shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the District Planning Authority. Such repairs shall be completed prior to the commencement of the uses hereby approved.


(9) Detailed drawings at a scale of 1:20 and 1:1 of all new external and

internal joinery work and fittings together with sections through glazing bars, frames and mouldings shall be submitted to and approved by the District Planning Authority before any development takes place.


(10) All new rainwater goods to be used in the development hereby

permitted shall be constructed of cast iron.

Continued….

111

2.13 (Contd) PART 2 Grounds: To ensure that special regard is paid to the interests of protecting the special character and architectural interest of the building in pursuance of policies E39 of the Swale Borough Local Plan and QL8 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan.

(11) Any hidden historic features revealed during the course of works shall be retained in-situ. Works shall be suspended in the relevant area of the building and the District Planning Authority notified immediately. Provision shall be made for their retention and/or proper recording, as required by the District Planning Authority.


(12) Before any work hereby permitted is commenced, a structural

engineer’s report detailing the safety and stability of the building fabric to be retained throughout the period of demolition and reconstruction shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the District Planning Authority. Development shall be conducted in accordance with the approved details.


(13) A 1m2 sample of the proposed brickwork restoration showing the

proposed brick types, colour, texture, bond and pointing mortar mix and finish profile shall be provided and approved in writing by the District Planning Authority before any development hereby permitted is commenced and carried out accordingly.


(14) Details of all finishes to be used on the external materials shall be

submitted to and approved in writing by the District Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Grounds: To ensure that special regard is paid to the interests of protecting the special character and architectural interest of the

Continued….

112

2.13 (Contd) PART 2 building in pursuance of policies E39 of the Swale Borough Local Plan and QL8 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan.

(15) Before any development hereby permitted is commenced the position,

type and method of installation of all new and relocated services and related fixtures including the installations of telephones and information technology systems wherever these installations are visible or where any ducts or other methods of concealment are proposed. These details shall be specified and agreed in writing by the District Planning Authority; development shall be conducted in accordance with the approved details.


(16) No new plumbing, pipes, soilstacks, flues, vents, ductwork or wires

shall be fixed on the external faces of the building other than those shown on the drawings hereby approved.


(17) The area shown on the submitted layout as vehicle parking space shall

be retained for the use of the occupiers of, and visitors to, the premises, and no permanent development, whether permitted by the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order), shall be carried out on that area of land so shown or in such position as to preclude vehicular access to this reserved parking space.

Grounds: Development without provision of adequate accommodation for the parking of vehicles is likely to lead to parking inconvenient to other road users and be detrimental to highway safety and amenity, and in pursuance of policies IN7 of the Swale Borough Local Plan and T19 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan.

(18) Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 3 and Part 9 of Schedule 2 to

The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995, no resurfacing of existing areas of hardstanding shall be carried out, without the prior permission in writing of the District Planning Authority.

Continued….

113

2.13 (Contd) PART 2 Grounds: In order to preserve the special character of the

conservation area and in pursuance of Policy E36 of the Swale Borough Local Plan and Policy QL6 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan.



Monday to Friday 0730 – 1900 hours, Saturdays 0730 – 1300 hours

unless in association with an emergency or with the prior written approval of the District Planning Authority.

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

policies E2 and G1 of the Swale Borough Local. (20) No impact pile driving in connection with the construction of the

development shall take place on the site. Grounds: In the interests of residential amenity and in the

pursuance of policies E2 and G1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan. (21) Prior to the opening of the wine bar premises details of any mechanical

ventilation system that shall be installed into the kitchen shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the District Planning Authority and upon approval shall be installed, maintained and operated in a manner which prevents the transmission of odours, fumes, noise and vibration to neighbouring premises.

Grounds: In the interests of residential amenity and in the

pursuance of Policy G1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan. (22) No external lighting shall be installed or operated on the site other than

in accordance with a scheme of lighting which has been submitted to and approved by the District Planning Authority.


pursuance of Policies G1 and E6 of the Swale Borough Local Plan. Reasons for Approval Having taken all material considerations into account, it is considered that subject to compliance with the attached conditions, the proposal would be in accordance with the development plan and would not cause unacceptable harm to the amenities of the area or prejudice highway safety or convenience, and would preserve or enhance the special character or appearance of the Conservation Area. In resolving to grant permission, particular regard has

Continued….

114

2.13 (Contd) PART 2 been had to the following policies: G1, S5, SS1, IN7, E1, E2, E6, E36, E39, E40, E43, E48 and E49 of the Swale Borough Local Plan and TP19, QL1, QL6, QL7 and QL8 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan.


Location: The Old Granary, Standard Quay, Faversham, Kent Proposal: Listed Building Consent for alterations to the existing

building involving a change of use to wine bar, offices and shop including demolition of part and erection of a single storey extension containing kitchen and toilets etc

Applicant/Agent: Quayside Properties (Faversham) Ltd, CTM Architects,

Chartered Architects, The Tramway Stables, Rampart Road, Hythe, Kent, CT21 5BG

Application Valid: 26 January 2007, and as amended by letters and

drawings received 15 and 22 May 2007 THE PROPOSAL MUST BE REFERRED TO GOSE Conditions (1) The works to which this consent relates must be begun not later than

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

Grounds: In pursuance of Section 18 of the Listed Building Act 1990 as amended by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

(2) The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out otherwise

than in complete accordance with the approved plans.


(3) No development shall be commenced until a programme of building

recording and analysis has been undertaken by a person or body approved by the District Planning Authority and that programme shall accord with a written scheme submitted to and approved in writing by the District Planning Authority.

Continued….

115

2.13 & 2.14 (Contd) PART 2 Grounds: To ensure that special regard is paid to the interests of

protecting the special character and architectural interest of the building in pursuance of policies E39 of the Swale Borough Local Plan and QL8 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan.

(4) Before any development hereby permitted is commenced, a schedule

of works and specifications for all repairs and alterations to the historic building including alterations necessary for the attachment of the extension to the south side of the building shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the District Planning Authority. Such repairs shall be completed prior to the commencement of the uses hereby approved.

Grounds: To ensure that special regard is paid to the interests of


(5) Detailed drawings at a scale of 1:20 and 1:1 of all new external and

internal joinery work and fittings together with sections through glazing bars, frames and mouldings shall be submitted to and approved by the District Planning Authority before any development takes place.



(6) All new rainwater goods to be used in the development hereby

permitted shall be constructed of cast iron. Grounds: To ensure that special regard is paid to the interests of


(7) Any hidden historic features revealed during the course of works shall

be retained in-situ. Works shall be suspended in the relevant area of the building and the District Planning Authority notified immediately. Provision shall be made for their retention and / or proper recording, as required by the District Planning Authority.



Continued….

116

2.13 & 2.14 (Contd) PART 2 (8) Before any work hereby permitted is commenced, a structural

engineer’s report detailing the safety and stability of the building fabric to be retained throughout the period of demolition and reconstruction shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the District Planning Authority. Development shall be conducted in accordance with the approved details.



(9) A 1m2 sample of the proposed brickwork restoration showing the

proposed brick types, colour, texture, bond and pointing mortar mix and finish profile shall be provided and approved in writing by the District Planning Authority before any development hereby permitted is commenced.



(10) Details of all finishes to be used on the external materials shall be

submitted to and approved in writing by the District Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.



(11) Before any development hereby permitted is commenced the position,

type and method of installation of all new and relocated services and related fixtures including the installations of telephones and information technology systems wherever these installations are visible or where any ducts or other methods of concealment are proposed. These details shall be specified and agreed in writing by the District Planning Authority; development shall be conducted in accordance with the approved details.



Continued….

117

2.13 & 2.14 (Contd) PART 2 (12) No new plumbing, pipes, soilstacks, flues, vents, ductwork or wires

shall be fixed on the external faces of the building other than those shown on the drawings hereby approved.



Reasons for Approval Having taken all material considerations into account, it is considered that subject to compliance with the attached conditions, the proposal would be in accordance with the development plan and preserve the special architectural or historic interest of the listed building. In resolving to grant consent, particular regard has been had to the following policies: E39 and E40 of the Swale Borough Local Plan and QL8 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan. Description of Proposal These applications seek planning permission and listed building consent for alterations to the Old Granary (sometimes referred to as The Monk’s Granary) building, which involve a change of use to wine bar, offices and shop including demolition of a modern rear extension and erection of a single storey extension containing kitchen and toilets. The last use of the premises was as a pet food supplies and garden centre (approved in 1992), but it has fallen vacant recently. The applicants have explained their proposal in more detail in their supporting statement, which I have included as Appendix A to this item. Relevant Site History and Description The Old Granary is a 17th Century warehouse building constructed with a timber frame, and brick nogging over a stone ground floor, and was constructed by reusing medieval fabric, both stone and timberwork, which had almost certainly been reclaimed following the dissolution of Faversham Abbey. The wealth of reused materials offers the most extensive archaeological record of the monastic establishment and it is for these reasons that the building is grade II* listed. Historically, Standard Quay was a quay in the port of Faversham, and is today the town’s only traditional working, waterside environment, where the repair of traditional craft still takes place in the 18th to 19th Century workshops. The site lies in a key part of the Faversham Conservation area.

Continued….

118

2.13 & 2.14 (Contd) PART 2 Views of Consultees The Faversham Town Council have twice deferred a formal recommendation but have made the following summarised comments:

• The Town Council welcomes the re-use of the building, but does not believe that the application contains enough information to recommend approval.

• There should be a detailed archaeological survey, (although they accept this could be done after planning permission is granted).

• The proposed new uses could have an effect on traffic conditions and residential amenity, especially late in the evening, and on the listed building

• Concern over certain detailed changes, and lack of evidence of a previous opening, which it is intended to replace.

• There is insufficient information outlining the proposed repair to the building, or the impacts on the internal character of the building

• The application could be detrimental to the character of the creek. • The potentially damaging effect of car parking on the setting of the

listed building The Town Council’s consultant architect has been involved in an internal inspection of the building, and I have tried to resolve issues he has raised. English Heritage supports the proposal in principle, but has recommended that the Council proceed with caution with particular regard to the following:

• The repair work, however minor, may have a significant impact on the building

• Details of repairs should be recorded • More appropriate means of insulation should be sought • The link between the extension and the granary requires further

thought • The existing uses of the wider area may not mix well with the proposed

uses for the Old Granary. • The current layout of the parking spaces is likely to have a negative

impact on the character of the area. Kent Highway Services have no objection to the application subject to a condition safeguarding the parking spaces. The Head of Environmental Services has no objection to the proposal but has suggested conditions safeguarding against contamination, noise, odour, residential amenity, construction hours, light disturbance, restriction of uses, and has highlighted that the wine bar will need to be licensed separately. I

Continued….

119

2.13 & 2.14 (Contd) PART 2 have recommended suitable conditions, but do not consider it necessary to restrict opening or delivery hours, especially as the former is more properly dealt with by the licensing system. Other Representations Kent County Council’s Public Right of Way Officer has stated that he would require confirmation that the proposed car parking spaces would not infringe on the width of the path otherwise; otherwise he has no objection to the proposal. The Faversham Society has recommended the application be refused for the following reasons:

• The proposed uses would conflict with the existing craft/industrial uses on the Creek.

• The proposed car-parking layout would conflict with the use of the black sheds and would encroach onto the official route of the public footpath.

• The rear extension is poorly proportioned and would relate badly to the Grade II* listed building.

• Subdivision of the building would affect its historic character and be likely to result in loss of historic fabric.

• The use of the building needs to be considered in light of the wider aspects of creek side uses and in the context of on-going discussions through the Creek Management Group.

The Friends of Faversham Creek have objected to the proposal on the following grounds:

• The Monk’s Granary is one of the most important listed buildings in Swale, which is shown by the fact that it is Grade II* listed.

• The proposed use is inappropriate for the setting of the building and could involve inappropriate alterations to the fabric.

• The Faversham Conservation Area appraisal states that the Creek’s character is of crucial importance to the special character of the town.

• The application should not be determined without taking the whole area into consideration. Individual planning applications should not be considered without an overall master plan for the area.

• The repair works to the Old Granary should be undertaken regardless of planning permission being granted.

• Many of the proposed car parking spaces will lie on what is now a designated footpath and will block rear access to the buildings on the

Continued….

120

2.13 & 2.14 (Contd) PART 2

creek. The suggestion of parking cars on the creek side is also not appropriate. • The suggested one-way traffic flow is not appropriate for the creek side

and could disrupt the ‘working areas’. This is further evidence of why a master plan for the area is important.

• The proposed wine bar is uninspiring, when the building could be used for as a centrepiece for the regeneration of the area as a whole.

The Abbey Street Residents Association has not objected to the application in principle but feel that it would be unwise to grant permission or change of use while there is a consortium currently consulting on the development of the Creek. However, they wish to offer the following comments:

• Consideration should be given to the existing workshops and the barges and the effect that the change of use would have on them.

• Traffic in Abbey Street is considerably heavier due to the continuing development of residential properties down Abbey Road. The current proposal will increase this further.

• As there is no agreed plan for the creek it would seem appropriate for this application to be refused until the future of the creek has been decided.

• All planning applications should be held up until an integrated plan has been agreed, otherwise the Consortium will be undermined.

Standard Quay Limited who occupy the buildings and quayside have the following comments to make:

• The applicant (and landlord) did not consult the occupants before submitting the application.

• If approved the proposed use impairs activities on the Creek. • The proposed parking spaces prevent access to rear openings of the

workshops and stores and could prohibit the occupants from working effectively. This is also in the lease agreement the occupants have with the landlord, in which he is required to keep the area of land surrounding the workshops clear of cars. (This however is a legal issue between the landlord and his tenants and is not a matter for the Council to intervene).

NOTE: Amended drawings show doorways kept clear of parking bay use of bollards I have received 4 letters of objection from local people and operators of Standard Quay who have raised the following points:

• Standard Quay is an attractive site in the Swale Area and should not be developed piecemeal.

Continued….

121

2.13 & 2.14 (Contd) PART 2

• Plans should be submitted for the whole area before specific

developments are approved. • Standard Quay is first and foremost a working environment and there

are potential health and safety and security issues concerning maintenance and operation of traditional craft. Should persons wonder freely about the unlit quay under the influence of alcohol, there is potential for harm to both people and the historic vessels on the Quayside. The Anchor public house does not directly face the Quay therefore this issue does not arise.

• The Quayside is a heritage site and any developments should retain the area as an amenity for the residents of Faversham and visitors. The proposed uses would turn the area into a car park rather that a local attraction; at the moment the Quayside is a quiet area where visitors can wander and sit looking at the boats in piece.

• How is traffic to be managed? • Will lines for car parking and road signs spoil the area? • More details are needed on the development e.g. is the proposed shop

going to be a chandlery or will music be heard from the wine bar during the summer.

• The building is historically one of the most important in the country, and should be preserved; proposals to demolish parts of it are unacceptable.

• There could be issues of noise coming from the wine bar. • The proposal could restrict the large number of people visiting both

Abbey Street and the Creek. • The most appropriate and sympathetic use for the Old Granary would

be as a tea room and gift shop and /or workshops for local craftsmen and women, which would appeal to a wider range or people.

Policies The main considerations in determining this application are those of G1 (General Principles), S5 (Food and Drink Establishments), SS1 (Faversham Creekside), IN7 (Parking), E1 (Land Contamination), E36 (Conservation Areas), E39 (Listed Buildings), E40 (Change of Use and Listed Buildings), E43 (Archaeology) and E48 (Design) of the Swale Borough Local Plan and Kent and Medway Structure Plan policies TP19 (Parking), QL1 (Design), QL6 (Conservation Areas) QL7 (Archaeology)and QL8 (Listed buildings) are all relevant here. Planning Policy Guidance Note (PPG) 15 paragraph 2.18 states ‘new uses may often be the key to a building’s preservation and … planning matters should be exercised sympathetically where this would enable a historic building or area to be given a new lease of life.’

Continued….

122

2.13 & 2.14 (Contd) PART 2 Paragraphs 3.8 to 3.11 explain that that the best way to secure the upkeep of the historic building is to keep it in active use, and that this is often a balance between economic viability of possible uses against the effect that any changes will have on the building. This is reinforced at local level by policies QL8 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan and policies E39 and E40 of the Swale Borough Local Plan, which seek to protect listed buildings against harmful alterations and changes of use. They emphasise that listed building consent should only be granted when it is seen to be the most effective way of preserving the building. PPG 15 states that ‘conservation areas should be protected from all development which does not enhance or positively preserve it’, this is backed up by policies QL6 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan and policy E36 of the Swale Borough local Plan. Policy S5 of the Swale Borough Local Plan states that proposals for new wine bars will be permitted in appropriate locations subject to there being no overriding highway or amenity objection and the appropriate criteria in policy G1 are satisfied. Policy SS1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan is a site specific policy for the Faversham Creekside. It states:

“At Faversham Creekside, as shown on the Proposals Map, the existing listed buildings will be retained, and the remainder of the land will be redeveloped to provide housing, employment, a creekside promenade, public car parking, and public open space subject to: (1) The extension and improvement of Belvedere Road to form the only

access in to the site; (2) The carrying out of necessary junction improvements outside the site

boundary; (3) The downgrading of the Abbey Street access to Standard Quay for

use as an emergency access only; (4) The provision of landscaping to a standard agreed with the Borough

Council; (5) The provision of open space to a standard agreed with the Borough

Council; (6) New buildings being of a high standard of design; (7) There being no detriment to the environment and amenity of

neighbouring areas; (8) Full consideration being given to land contamination; (9) The retention and repair of existing creekside wharves, where

appropriate; and (10) Provision being made for the investigation and rescue of

archaeological and historical finds during redevelopment. Continued….

123

2.13 & 2.14 (Contd) PART 2

These provisions will be secured by the use of appropriate planning conditions and legal agreements. Consideration will also need to be given to other general and site-specific policies in this Local Plan.”

In the guidance notes that accompany this policy, paragraph 3.11.5 states that the Borough Council will be examining with developers how proposed uses will knit together. In particular it will pay attention to key points along the creekside, the public areas between buildings and open spaces. The area’s relationship with the adjoining historic areas will be a major consideration. On car parking paragraph 3.11.16 of the Local Plan, in relation to Policy SS1, states the following, ‘car parking for the proposed housing and commercial development will be provided within the site, to the appropriate Kent County Council standard, and well related to the development areas.’ In the Deposit Draft Review of the Local Plan, the rejuvenation of creekside character is an important objective. This site lies within the boundary of the creekside action area Policy AAP2, which aims to limit further housing on the creekside, and to provide stronger support for retaining employment sites, and permitting appropriate new uses. For Standard Quay itself, the Plan advocates safeguarding the enclave of water-related and business activity, encouraging commercial uses to sensitively occupy historic buildings, and encouraging new employment uses. It discourages housing, but supports the continuation of the historic boat repair uses. The full text of the Policy says: “An Area Action Plan is designated for Faversham Creekside, as shown on

the Proposals Map. Within this area the Borough Council will seek to ensure that it continues to function as a place of special interest and activity with strong associations with the water. Planning permission will not be granted for proposals that would result in the loss of land or buildings suitable for employment uses or, on appropriate sites, would not involve active use or management of the creek itself. All development proposals shall:

1. maintain or enhance a mix of uses and activity that respect the

maritime, industrial and residential character, as appropriate to the varied parts of the AAP area;

2. maintain or enhance an environment appropriate to enable traditional

waterside activities to flourish, including, where appropriate, financially contributing toward maintaining the creek channel and its infrastructure; and

3. preserve or enhance the area’s special architectural or historic

character. The Borough Council will expect development to:

Continued….

124

2.13 & 2.14 (Contd) PART 2 a. preserve or enhance landmark and other important buildings,

waterside structures and details; b. preserve and create access to the waterside, including wharfage and

moorings, and where appropriate provide for a creekside walk; c. by use of its grain, scale, form and theme of materials, be creekside in

character; d. retain existing greenspace; and e. retain or enhance existing townscapes, including those in the views of

higher ground.” The Faversham Conservation Area Character Appraisal has the following paragraphs on the area; “Standard Quay and Iron Wharf 4.35 Standard Quay, for centuries a principal quay in the Port of

Faversham, is today the town’s only traditional, working, waterside environment where spirtsail barges, once commonplace in the Thames and Medway estuaries, still visit. C18 and C19 weatherboarded warehouses-cum-workshops still stand on the quay, distinctive for their gables, loft and loading doors, and battered-looking corrugated iron roofs. A C17 warehouse on the eastern edge of the quay is stone based, then brick, then half-timbered and infilled with various patterns of red brick noggin; it is now used for the sale of animal feedstuffs and garden products, its rugged working character having survived with minimal adaptations.

4.36 Visiting boats are no longer commercial craft but used for pleasure, for

chartering and as living accommodation. Still, however, they depend on a range of traditional quayside facilities and trades being available. Consequently the quay is characterized by the traditional sounds and smells of waterside activities: of timber being sawn and shaped, of ironwork being fashioned and repaired, of the smell of varnish and paint, and also the aroma of old ropes and Stockholm tar. Alongside the yellow brick fronted quay lie visiting barges with evocative names such as Lady of the Lea, Raybel and Remercie, their transoms decorated with scroll work and name ribbons. Pitch pine timber masts, braced with their distinctive rig, are topped with colourful pennants. But most nostalgic of all are the brick-red sails that, even though here tightly furied, are still most obviously the hallmark of the Thames and Medway sailing barges.”

Discussion The Council’s prime consideration in determining these applications is its duty under S66(1) and S16(2) of the Planning (Listed Building & Conservation Areas) Act 1990 “to have special regard to the desirability of preserving the (listed) building or its setting or any features of architectural or historic interest which it possesses” and under S72 of the Act “that special attention shall be paid in the exercise of planning functions to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the conservation area”.

Continued….

125

2.13 & 2.14 (Contd) PART 2 The key issues for discussion here are whether or not either the proposed uses or proposed alterations to the listed building are acceptable; whether or not the application will have a detrimental effect on the character and appearance of the conservation area and of the Creek itself; the possible traffic implications; and issues regarding amenity. Relevant to the consideration of all applications for listed building consent is the importance of the building in architectural and historic terms; its physical features; its setting, the contribution it makes to the local scene; and the extent to which the proposals bring benefits to the local community through economic regeneration or environmental enhancement. The need to have special regard to the desirability of preserving the listed building is particularly relevant here due to its high listing grade (falling within the top 6% of LBs). The proposals have been designed with regard to the spatial and architectural features of the listed building. Sub-division has been kept to a minimum in order to preserve the openness of the barn-like spaces and modern services, the toilets, bottle store and kitchen have been designed in a new extension to avoid conflicts with the historic fabric. The new extension is set apart from the listed building by a glazed link, serving as an entrance lobby, which allows the original rear elevation to be left untouched and open to view. The extension is designed as a weatherboarded structure under a corrugated metal roof echoing the block sheds of Standard Quay. It replaces a very poor quality structure, which detracts from the main building. With the exception of the extension and cross walls inserted between the various new uses, the proposals avoid invasive changes. There is an inevitable requirement to upgrade insulation levels, escape facilities, services and fireproofing to comply with fire and building regulations all of which are detailed as part of the application. Restoration and conservation of the historic fabric is an important element of the proposals. I note that the Town Council consider that details are inadequate. However, I have carefully examined the details of the proposal with regard to the proposed alterations to the listed building and believe that these details are either acceptable, or could be very carefully conditioned in order to protect the special architectural interests of the listed building. Any harm to the building or its setting needs to be balanced against the benefits of achieving a future sustainable use for the building which allows public access and contributes to economic regeneration. I do not therefore see this as a reason to refuse permission/consent.

Continued….

126

2.13 & 2.14 (Contd) PART 2 I have considered the impact of the proposal on the character of both the Faversham Creek and on the Conservation Area. The proposed new uses will inevitably impact on the character of the place and a key concern in granting permission will be to ensure that existing uses at Standard Quay which make a valuable contribution to that character are not threatened. The proposed use of the building is relatively intensive and this could have an impact on the surrounding area. The buildings most recent use has been as a garden centre/country store, but the nature of sales was not restricted by any planning condition. This is not well related to the creekside, but had a low-key and untidy character befitting the area. This has been fortunate for the area, but could be altered without the need for planning permission. By contrast, the wine bar use might have a more intensive (at times) character, and be a more “polite” use. However, I see no real tension between a wine bar which trades on its creekside location, and the retention and enhancement of the area’s character. Whilst there may be potential for conflict between barge repairs and the wine bar, I think it equally likely that they may each benefit from proximity to the other. Overall, I find the change of use from a retail use to a wine bar neutral in terms of the area’s character. I am also mindful that the wine bar is just one, albeit the largest, of the various uses now proposed, which include office and retail (possibly chandlery) use. I do not believe that the possibility of a rise in drunken behavior is of such magnitude that it is likely to threaten the existing businesses, to the detriment of the area’s character. Another concern which features strongly in the representations received, including from the Faversham Town Council, is the issue concerning increased traffic flows and parking around this part of Faversham. This development has the potential to increase traffic flows, but I believe that this is true of many new uses which will aid the economic regeneration of this part of the town. However, I do not see any likelihood of significant traffic issues arising, especially as peak evening trading hours will not conflict with existing uses. I have serious reservations about the layout of the parking spaces, which does have the potential to dominate the creekside and not be in keeping with the current, informal layout of the area. The previously approved application (SW/92/456) did contain a parking layout that is similar to the current proposal. Nevertheless, in view of current policy for the area, I am exploring with the applicant a less dominant parking arrangement, and I hope to report further at the meeting.

Continued….

127

2.13 & 2.14 (Contd) PART 2 Other issues that have arisen include the impact on residential amenity and the impact on the working environment of Standard Quay. I have noted above my view regarding the compatibility of the proposed uses, and the current uses on Standard Quay. I do not believe that the proposal will have a significant adverse effect on residential amenity, given that the Anchor Public House is situated closer to residential properties, (the use is therefore established in this part of Faversham). I do feel that it is prudent to control the applicant’s permitted development rights to lay down areas of hardstanding, as I believe the current informal nature of the hardstanding around the Old Granary contributes much to the quay’s creekside character. I have therefore suggested a condition to remove permitted development rights for improving this area. On balance I am happy to support the application as I see the benefits of the proposal being the re-use of this important grade II* listed building which could also attract more people to the Faversham Creek, outweighing the possible impact that the proposal could have on the surrounding area. I do not believe that residential amenity will be adversely affected should consent be granted. I have requested that the applicant reduces the number of car parking spaces, in order to reduce the impact on the surrounding area, and will update Members on this at the meeting. Summary and Recommendation I have considered all the points raised above, and I welcome proposals to re-use this important grade II* listed building. I therefore, on balance, support the applications and recommend that planning permission and listed building consent be granted. The application for listed building consent will have to be referred to GOSE.

Background Papers 1. Application papers for SW/06/0619. 2. Correspondence relating to SW/06/0620 3. Application papers for SW/92/456. 4. Correspondence relating to SW/92/456.

128

APPENDIX A ITEM 2.13 & ITEM 2.14

129


130


131


132

2.15 SW/07/0097 (Case 22500) MINSTER

Location: Phase 1, Land between Thistle Hill Way & Heron Drive, Minster, Isle of Sheppey, Kent.

Proposal: Phase 1, approval of reserved matters of outline planning

permission SW/04/1059 for erection of 93 dwellings and associated highways and public open spaces.

Applicant/Agent: Mr David Newberry, c/o Mr James Galpin, 75 High Street,

Tunbridge Wells, Kent TN1 1XZ.

Application Valid: 23rd January 2007 and as amended by additional drawings received on 27th June 2007 and amended drawings received on 4th July, 5th July and 10th July 2007.

SUBJECT TO: The receipt of amended drawings regarding safety,

highway and design issues

Conditions (1) No development shall take place until details in the form of samples of

materials to be used on the external surfaces have been submitted to and approved in writing by the District Planning Authority.


(2) No gate, fence, wall or other means of enclosure shall be erected

forward of any wall of a house which fronts a highway (including a footpath) or open space, otherwise than in accordance with the details submitted in the application particulars.

Grounds: In the interests of visual amenities of the locality and in pursuance of Policy E50 of the Swale Borough Local Plan.

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

Continued….

133

2.15 (Contd) PART 2

Grounds: To ensure that the development is served by an adequate means of access and in pursuance of Policy IN7 of the Swale Borough Local Plan.

(4) The proposed roads, including footpaths and turning spaces where applicable, shall be constructed in such a manner as to ensure that each dwelling before it is occupied shall be served by a property consolidated and surfaced footpath and carriageway to at least base course level between the dwelling and highway.

Grounds: To ensure that the development is served by an adequate

means of access and in pursuance of Policy IN7 of the Swale Borough Local Plan.

(5) During construction, any facilities for the storage of oils, fuels or

chemicals shall be site on impervious bases and surrounded by impervious bund walls. The volume of the bunded compound shall be at least equivalent to the capacity of the tank plus 10%. If there is multiple tankage, the compound should be at least equivalent to the capacity of the largest tank, or the combined capacity or interconnected tanks, plus 10%. All filling points, vents, gauges and sight glasses shall be located within the bund. The drainage system of the bund shall be sealed with no discharge to any watercourse, land or underground strata. Associated pipework should be located above ground and protected from accidental damage. All filling points and tank overflow pipe outlets should be detailed to discharge downwards into the bund.

Grounds: In order to prevent pollution of underground water

courses and in pursuance of Policy E4 of the Swale Borough Local Plan.

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

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

Grounds: In order to prevent pollution of underground water

sources and in pursuance of Policy E4 of the Swale Borough Local Plan.


the District Planning Authority and approved in writing, which set out what measures have been taken to ensure that the development incorporates sustainable construction techniques such as recycling facilities, water conservation, renewable energy and energy efficiency. Upon approval, the details shall be incorporated into the development as approved.

Continued….

134

2.15 (Contd) PART 2 Grounds: In order to ensure sustainable development pursuant to

Policy QL1 (iii) (e) of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan. (8) Any other condition recommended by Kent Highway Services. Reason for Approval Having taken all material considerations into account, it is considered that subject to compliance with the attached conditions, the proposal would be in accordance with the development plan and would not cause unacceptable harm to the amenities of the area or prejudice highway safety or convenience. In resolving to grant permission, particular regard has been had to the following policies: H1, G1, E50, E51, IN21, H2, H10, IN7, H25 and H26 of the Swale Borough Local Plan; Policies E1, E19, H2, H8 and T3 of the Swale Borough Local Plan First Review Re-Deposit Draft and Policies QL1, HP4 and TP19 of the Kent & Medway Structure Plan. Description of Proposals This reserved matters application proposes matters of detail for 93 residential units pursuant to outline approval reference: SW/04/1059. The development would comprise of 4 different dwelling types and would include 2 bedroom flats, 2 bedroom semi-detached and terraced houses, and 3 bed semi-detached and terraced houses. All properties would be two or three storey in height and would have 2 parking spaces allocated either on or off curtilage. The application is accompanied by a Design and Access Statement in which it states under "The Design" section that:-

“Design of streets and spaces. The creation of routes within the site set up important visual axes which should be responded to by the built form and by the emphasis of visual nodes. In town square locations the built form should provide a visual bookend. In avenue routes the buildings at the end of the route should form focal points. In mews streets the buildings should deviate from the linear to provide interest to the streetscape within the length of the blocks. In less dense areas the built form will allow glancing views within the site to encourage the continuation of movement around the housing."

Continued….

135

2.15 (Contd) PART 2 Site Description and History

The application relates to the parcel of land approximately 1.94 hectares in size, located to the north of the main spine road which serves the Thistle Hill development and to the east of Heron Drive. Immediately to the north is a vacant parcel of land beyond which is the social housing at Lapwing Close, to the south beyond the spine road is land allocated for a school and village centre, and land allocated for another residential development. To the west, north and east of the site is currently open land allocated for residential development forming part of the Thistle Hill development. Most significant in terms of planning history is the granting of outline planning permission SW/95/0102 in September 1997. This approved the residential and other development of the site and contains numerous conditions relating to access and infrastructure provision, phasing, archaeology, affordable housing, community woodland and significantly, the requirement for the submission and approval of an overall development brief for the site. The brief was prepared and submitted for up to some 1000 houses to be built at the site. It shows the disposition of roads, footpaths and cycleway, housing, community facilities, woodland and public open space and was considered and approved by the Planning Sub-Committee in October 1997. The outline planning permission ref: SW/95/0102 phases the entire development of housing at Thistle Hill, and it is important to note that there have been various subsequent applications for amendments to this phasing. Most significantly, planning permission was granted in September 2005 for non-compliance with condition (4) of SW/95/0102 to allow an additional 150 dwellings (above the previous 340 limit) to be constructed prior to the opening of the A249 Road Improvements (Ref: SW/04/1059), which were subsequently completed in 2006. It should also be noted that the period to submit all the outstanding reserved matters was extended to 11th September 2010 under application ref: SW/04/1058, which was granted permission also in September 2005. So far detailed approval for 853 dwellings has been granted and some 453 dwellings have been built or are under construction up to January this year. The number of units to be considered under this planning application still falls under the 1,000 units referred to in the adopted Development Brief for Thistle Hill. Views of Consultees Minster Parish Council (MPC) object as they consider "the density is inappropriate in a rural location. The height is predominately three storey which is not in keeping with the area. The buildings look like prisons. MPC also has concerns regarding the green spaces in front of dwellings with

Continued….

136

2.15 (Contd) PART 2 reference to access and parking. They also note that the emergency access point as shown on future phase is NOT permitted under Condition 8 of SW/95/102." The Environment Agency raised no objection to the application. The Kent Police Crime Reduction and Architectural Liaison Officer has no major issues to raise regarding the proposals and offers some advice relating to hawkeye camera system, routes and overlooking of footpaths and car parking areas, fencing to rear gardens, location of bin storage areas and secure by design building scheme. Lower Medway Internal Drainage Board raise objection due to the number of developments put forward for this part of Thistle Hill, the Board are not satisfied that surface water drainage aspects of the development have been designed thoroughly. However I understand amended plans and designs for surface water drainage have recently been submitted to and approved by the Board who no longer raise objection provided the system is regularly maintained. I will advise Members further on this issue at the meeting. Other Representations Five letters of objection have been received raising the following issues:-

• The capacity of the road between Cowstead Corner and Bartons Hill is not sufficient to accommodate the additional traffic.

• Lack of infrastructure on the Island to accommodate even more people

including lack of school places, hospital beds, play areas etc.

Planning Policies The site is shown as a site with planning permission for residential development by virtue of Policy H25 of the Swale Borough Local Plan. The provision of affordable housing on the development, as required by Policy H10 of the Local Plan, is tied into the original approval of the development and to the accompanying Section 106 Agreement. Planning Policy Statement 3 Housing, seeks to ensure that everyone has the opportunity to live in a decent home, which they can afford in a community where they want to live, amongst other things. Other relevant policies from the Swale Borough Local Plan include H1 (Housing development) and H25 (Large housing site with planning permission), G1 (General Criteria), E50 (Design), E51 (Landscaping) and E52 (Security of Design), IN21 (disposal of foul and surface water), H10 (affordable housing), IN7 (car parking), IN7 (cycle provision), IN15 (link to public transport), IN17 (cycle routes) and IN18 (Pedestrians).

Continued….

137

2.15 (Contd) PART 2 Kent Design has been adopted as a Supplementary Planning Document. The applicants state that they have planned this phase to accord with the objectives of Kent Design, whilst also having regard to the approved Development Brief for the site. In terms of the emerging Swale Borough Local Plan First Review Re-Deposit Draft, Policy H2 states that:-

"All proposals for new residential development including renewal and reserved matters applications, will be expected to make the most efficient use of land and provide a range of house types and sizes appropriate to the location and nature of the site and reflecting the identified need in the area. In designing new residential development the objective should be to create more sustainable forms of development in accordance with the other policies in the Local Plan."

With this in mind Policy H8 (Thistle Hill) states that:-

Under Policy H5(4) the remaining part of the Thistle Hill site, as shown on the Proposals Map, is reallocated for an additional 500 dwellings of which 30% will be provided as affordable dwellings. The precise number of additional dwellings to be provided will be determined by a revised Development Brief and the Master Plan for the site, which must be agreed by the Council before reserved matter approval will be granted for more than the original 1,000 dwellings intended for the site."

Discussion This proposal is in accordance with the terms of the outline planning permission and approved Development Brief for this important site. Members have previously agreed that to meet Local Plan housing requirements this land should be developed. They have also agreed the precise boundaries of the development and agreed to the broad layout of housing, woodland, open space and community facilities. This application seeks to give details of the build form without changing the principles which have been agreed. Members will be aware that earlier phases of housing at Thistle Hill are well under way. The scheme comprises a mixture of housing types, and is intended to continue the style and form of the earlier developments elsewhere at Thistle Hill. With regard to the design of the dwellings and the proposed layout itself, as a result of negotiations between Council Officers and the Agent, particularly at the pre-application stage, the development has been developed to reflect traditional house designs. Furthermore the layout has been developed to allow buildings to properly address spaces and to provide more interesting and varied streetscenes, particularly facing the open spaces and main access roads through the development. However I note the Parish Council's

Continued….

138

2.15 (Contd) PART 2 comments and I have sought further amendments to the design of the dwellings and street elevations. I hope to report further on this at the meeting. In respect of the issues raised by the Crime and Reduction and Architectural Liaison Officer, the agent is aware of these matters and is in discussions with them to try to address some of their concerns. I will hope to report further on this to Members at the meeting. I am aware that Members have raised concerns about new developments and methods of energy efficiency in the past and I note in the developer's Design and Access Statement that it states:-

"Sunlight and Energy Efficiency The orientation of the site, the gentle south-westerly facing slope and the 'protective' nature of the blocks in the development all contribute to an essentially economic layout which will accept well designed and insulated houses which perform well without reliance on expensive alternative sources. The house types can accommodate passive solar collectors such as single or double height conservatories and the orientation of each dwelling will maximise the available daylight. Although the dwellings will meet current energy standards, the form of the development utilising terraces is inherently energy saving as it minimises external walls."

I am satisfied that all the issues regarding the wider Thistle Hill site have or are being satisfactorily addressed. There are still a number of detailed points as stated above but these are relatively minor and I hope to have addressed these in time for the meeting. Summary and Recommendation This is an acceptable scheme in accordance with the Local Plan and the Development Brief for the site. Subject to the submission of appropriately amended drawings and the above conditions, I recommend that approval of reserved matters be granted. ______________________________________________________________ List of Backgrounds Documents

1. Application paper for Application SW/07/0097. 2. Correspondence relating to Application SW/95/0102, SW/02/1018,

SW/04/1059, SW/04/1058 and SW/96/1446.

139

2.16 SW/07/0722 (Case 22768) MINSTER

Location: Broadview, Whybornes Chase, Minster, Sheppey, Kent Proposal: Demolition of existing bungalow and erection of two

detached chalets Applicant/Agent: G H Builders, c/o D J Hobbs, 73 Marine Parade,

Sheerness, Kent Application Valid: 20th June 2007 and as amended by plans 4493/2A and

4493/3A received 25th July 2007. SUBJECT TO: The further views of Kent Highway Services, Minster

Parish Council and adjoining occupiers (closing date 8th August 2007).

Conditions

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


(2) No development shall take place until details of facing materials, facing bricks and roofing tiles to be used on the development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the District Planning Authority.







Continued….

140

2.16 (Contd) PART 2 Grounds: In the interests of the visual amenities of the area and in pursuance of policies E49 and G1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan.






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

Grounds: In the interests of residential amenity and in pursuance of policies E2 and G1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan.

(7) Any conditions recommended by Kent Highway Services Reason for Approval Having taken all material considerations into account, it is considered that subject to compliance with the attached conditions, the proposal would be in accordance with the development plan and would not cause unacceptable harm to the amenities of the area or prejudice highway safety or convenience. In resolving to grant permission, particular regard has been had to the following policies: G1, H4, H5, H41, E48, E49 & IN7 of the Swale Borough Local Plan; E1, H2, E19 & T3 of the Swale Borough Local Plan First Review Redeposit Draft. Description Planning permission is sought for the demolition of the existing bungalow and the erection of two detached chalet bungalows at Broadview, Whybornes Chase, Minster. The proposed properties would be similar in design and would be a maximum of 9.6m in length, 10m in width and a height of 7m. The properties would be identical in footprint but are mirror images of each other. They both have a 2 storey front projection and two dormer windows within the front roof slope.

Continued….

141

2.16 (Contd) PART 2 The proposed dwelling on plot 1 would be positioned parallel with Whybornes Chase and the front elevation would be in line with the adjacent property “Cedar Lodge” whilst the dwelling on plot 2 would be at an angle of 25 degrees from the road and face the junction with Whybornes Chase and Brecon Chase. The dwelling on plot 1 would be set 6m back from the front of the site and positioned 1m from the northern boundary. The dwelling on plot 2 would also be set a minimum of 6m from the road and 2.4m from the southern boundary. There would be a gap of 2m between the two properties. The properties each have a minimum plot frontage of 12m. Each of the properties has an integral garage with two parking spaces to the front and a rear garden in excess of 10m in depth. Site Description and Relevant History The site in question is within the built-up area boundary and just within the Minster Cliffs area. The site currently comprises of a large detached bungalow in a poor state of repair positioned centrally on the plot. The site has mature hedgerow to all boundaries and is screened from Whybornes Chase. The site is on the brow of a rise in the road and the roads to the front and rear slope away from the site. This part of Whybornes Chase is an unmade road and slopes steeply to the south. The site is opposite an open piece of land. The adjacent property to the north, Cedar Lodge is a detached bungalow which is set back and heavily screened by soft landscaping. The rest of the streetscene comprises mainly of chalet bungalows with a variety of designs and materials. A nearby property “The Warren” is of a similar but larger design to those proposed here. Views of Consultees No response has yet been received from Minster Parish Council. Kent Highway Services raise objection due to the size of the proposed garages. I have received amended plans from the agent showing an increase in garage sizes and I hope to consult Kent Highways Services on these. I will report further at this meeting. Other Representations Three letters of objection have been received from residents. Their comments can be summarised as follows:

• Contractor vehicles may make the unmade road worse and should use Brecon Chase which is made up and has a dead end right next to the site.

Continued….

142

2.16 (Contd) PART 2

• The proposed properties have their vehicular access onto Whybornes Chase at a point where it is in a poor state of repair and difficult to pass in bad weather. Vehicles picking up or dropping off to the school also clog this part of the road. It would be better if the new accesses were onto Brecon Chase.

Policies Policies G1 (General Development Criteria), H4(Small Sites), H5(Infilling), H41(Minster Cliffs Area), E48(Design of New Development), E49(Landscaping of New Development), IN7(New Development and Car Parking Provision) of the Swale Borough Local Plan are relevant. Policies E1 (General Development Criteria), H2 (Provision of New Housing), E19 (Achieving High Quality Design and Distinctiveness) & T3 (New Development and Car Parking Provision) of the Swale Borough Local Plan First Review Redeposit Draft are also relevant. Discussion The site is within the built-up area and as such the replacement of one dwelling with two can be considered acceptable in principle. The site is also within the Minster Cliffs area and I note that both properties would have a plot frontage in excess of 12m and would therefore fulfil the criteria for policy H41 of the adopted Local Plan. The immediate streetscene is made up predominately of bungalows and chalet bungalows and I do not consider that the scale of the proposed dwellings would cause significant harm to the character and appearance of the streetscene. The design of the properties is similar to those found in the area and in the immediate streetscene. I therefore consider the design and materials to be appropriate. The proposed properties would be positioned approximately 13m from their nearest neighbour in Whybornes Chase and 15m from the nearest property in Brecon Chase to the rear. I therefore do not anticipate harm to residential amenity by way of overlooking or overshadowing. I note the concerns raised by residents and will try to address them. Where the contractors choose to deliver materials to the site is unfortunately not a material consideration, however access to the site from Brecon Chase would negate the use of unmade roads and this could easily be brought to the applicant’s attention. The access to the properties appears to have been positioned along Whybornes Chase as it does not appear from the location plan that two access would fit along the boundary with Brecon Chase without causing

Continued….

143

2.16 (Contd) PART 2 inconvenience to vehicles using the existing access serving No. 34 Brecon Chase. In response to Kent Highway Services objections to the application, amended plans have now been received showing the size of the integral garages being increased to meet the Highway Authority standards. I have re-consulted on these amended plans, and the period for consultation expires on the 8th August 2007. Summary and Recommendation The principle of development on the site is acceptable and I do not consider that the proposed chalets would cause harm to the character and appearance of the streetscene or cause any significant harm to residential amenity. I therefore recommend subject to the further views of Kent Highways Services, Minster Parish Council and adjoining owners that this application be approved subject to conditions.

________ List of Background Documents 1. Application Papers and Correspondence for SW/07/0722

144

2.17 SW/07/0359 (Case 22601) EASTCHURCH

Location: HMP Standford Hill, Church Road, Eastchurch Proposal: Restoration and minor alterations to the listed hangers,

and the creation of a new building which encapsulates the listed building, all associated with their conversion to a cultural, aviation visitors attraction and together with car parking, landscaping and associated works

Applicant/Agent: Sheppey Heritage Trust & Company, c/o Walker &

Martin Architects, Morelands Building, 9-15 Old Street, London, EC1V 9HL

Application Valid: 29 March 2007 SUBJECT TO: The views of Kent Highway Services, Highways Agency,

and County Archaeological Unit and additional information from the agent.




(2) No development shall take place until details of facing materials,

facing bricks and roofing finishes to be used on the development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the District Planning Authority.





Continued….

145

2.17 (Contd) PART 2

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

Grounds: In the interests of the visual amenities of the area and in pursuance of Policies E49 and G1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan.



Grounds: In the interests of the visual amenities of the area in pursuance of Policies E49 and G1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan.

(6) No development approved by this planning permission shall be

commenced until: a) A desktop study has been carried out which shall include the

identification of previous site uses, potential contaminants that might reasonably be expected given those uses and other relevant information. And using this information a diagrammatical representation (Conceptual Model) for the site of all potential contaminant sources, pathways and receptors has been produced.

b) A site investigation has been designed for the site using the

information obtained from the desktop study and any diagrammatical representations (Conceptual Model). This should be submitted to, and approved in writing by the District Planning Authority prior to that investigation being carried out on the site. The investigation must be comprehensive enough to enable:

- a risk assessment to be undertaken relating to groundwater

and surface waters associated on and off the site that may be affected, and

- refinement of the Conceptual Model, and - the development of a Method Statement detailing the

remediation requirements.

c) The site investigation has been undertaken in accordance with details approved by the District Planning Authority and a risk assessment has been undertaken.

Continued….

146

2.17 (Contd) PART 2 d) A Method Statement detailing the remediation requirements,

including measures to minimise the impact on ground and surface waters, using the information obtained from the Site Investigation has been submitted to the District Planning Authority. This should be approved in writing by the District Planning Authority prior to that remediation being carried out on the site.

Grounds: To ensure that the proposed site investigations and remediation will not cause pollution of controlled waters, the environment or harm to human health.

(7) 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 District Planning Authority) shall be carried out until the developer has submitted, and obtained written approval from the District Planning Authority, details of how this unsuspected contamination shall be dealt with.

Grounds: To ensure that the development complies with approved

details in the interests of protection of Controlled Waters. (8) Details of the siting, substances proposed and the installation method

of the ground source heat pumps shall be submitted and approved in writing by the District Planning Authority prior to the commencement of any works on site.

Grounds: In the interests of any potential contamination and in

pursuance of Policies E2 of the Swale Borough Local Plan. (9) The details of an Interim Travel Plan shall be submitted to and

approved by the District Planning Authority and then implemented, as far as is possible, prior to the occupation of use of the development hereby approved. Within six months of the date of occupation a Final Travel Plan shall be submitted to the District Planning Authority for approval, and the approved plan shall be implemented in accordance with details to be agreed with the District Planning Authority at the time of approval. The company shall monitor and update the travel plan, in accordance with details to be agreed with the District Planning Authority at the time of approval of the Final Travel Plan. The Travel Plan shall cover staff travel patterns with the aim of reducing car travel and encouraging other forms of transport. The following modes of transport shall be included in the plan: walking, cycling, public transport; private car; and motorcycle. The plan shall include modal split targets, proposed timescales and outline monitoring methods.

Continued….

147

2.17 (Contd) PART 2 Grounds: To promote an environmentally sustainable

development and in pursuance of Policies TP1 and TP3 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan.

(10) No development shall take place until details of any external

illumination of the site and any internal illumination of the new “wing” building have been submitted to and approved by the District Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and maintained thereafter.

Grounds: In the interests of the visual amenity of the area and in

pursuance of Policies G1 and E6 of the Swale Borough Local Plan. (11) Details of any mechanical ventilation system that is to be installed

shall be submitted to and approved by the District Planning Authority and upon approval shall be installed, maintained and operated in a manner that prevents the transmission of odours, fumes, noise and vibration to neighbouring premises.

Grounds: In the interests of residential amenity and in pursuance

of Policy G1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan. (12) No development shall take place until full details of the disposal of foul

and surface waters have been submitted to and approved by the District Planning Authority. The approved details shall be implemented before the first use of the development hereby permitted.

Grounds: In order to prevent pollution of water supplies and in

pursuance of Policy E4 of the Swale Borough Local Plan. (13) Any facilities for the storage of oils, fuels and chemicals shall be sited

on impervious bases and surrounded by impervious bund walls. The volume of the bunded compound shall be at least equivalent to the capacity of the tank plus 10%. If there is multiple tankage, the compound should be at least equivalent to the capacity of the largest tank or the combined capacity of interconnected tanks plus 10%. All filling points, vents, gauges and sight glasses must be located within the bund. The drainage system of the bund shall be sealed with no discharge to any water course, land or underground strata. Associated pipework shall be located above ground and protected from accidental damage. All filling points and tank overflow outlets should be detailed to be discharged downwards into the bund.

Grounds: In order to prevent the pollution of water supplies and in

pursuance of Policy E4 of the Swale Borough Local Plan. Continued….

148

2.17 (Contd) PART 2 (14) Detailed elevational drawings at a scale of 1:20 and sectional

drawings at a scale of 1:1 of all new external and internal joinery work and fittings together with sections through glazing bars, frames and mouldings shall be submitted to and approved by the District Planning Authority before any development takes place. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Grounds: In the interests of the special character of the listed

building and in pursuance of Policies E48 and E39 of the Swale Borough Local Plan.

(15) No development shall take place until a programme for the

suppression of dust during the demolition of existing buildings and construction of the development has been submitted to and approved by the District Planning Authority. The measures shall be employed throughout the period of demolition and construction unless any variation has been approved by the District Planning authority.


pursuance of Policy G1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan. (16) No construction work in connection with the development shall take

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

Monday to Friday 0730-1900 hours, Saturdays 0730-1300 hours

unless in association with an emergency or with the prior written approval of the District Planning Authority.

Grounds: In the interests of residential amenity and in pursuance

of Policies E2 and G1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan. (17) Prior to any development taking place a report shall be prepared and

submitted by a competent person and approved by the District Planning Authority detailing the specification, schedule of works and method of the restoration and conservation proposals for the listed buildings as outlined on Plan No. (PL) 11. All work shall be carried out in accordance with the approved report.

Grounds: In the interests of visual amenity and preserving the

Listed Buildings and in pursuance of Policies G1, E48 and E39 of the Swale Borough Local Plan.

(18) Prior to any development taking place full details shall be submitted

and approved in writing by the District Planning Authority of the proposed roller shutter door system and fixing details for the listed

Continued….

149

2.17 (Contd) PART 2 buildings which shall be based on surviving photographic and

archaeological evidence which shall be surveyed, measured, documented and agreed by the District Planning Authority.


Listed Building and in pursuance of Policies G1, E39 and E48 of the Swale Borough Local Plan.


subject to compliance with the attached conditions, the proposal would be in accordance with the development plan and would not cause unacceptable harm to the amenities of the area or prejudice highway safety or convenience. In resolving to grant permission, particular regard has been had to the following policies: G1, E39, E48 of the Swale Borough Local Plan; QL1, QL6 and TP19 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan.


Location: HMP Standford Hill, Church Road, Eastchurch Proposal: Listed Building Consent for restoration and minor

alterations to the listed hangers, and the creation of a new building which encapsulates the listed building, all associated with their conversion to a cultural, aviation visitors attraction and together with car parking, landscaping and associated works

Applicant/Agent: Sheppey Heritage Trust & Company, c/o Walker &

Martin Architects, Morelands Building, 9-15 Old Street, London, EC1V 9HL

Application Valid: 28 March 2007 SUBJECT TO: (1) The works to which this consent relates must be begun not later than

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

Grounds: In pursuance of Section 18 of the Listed Building Act 1990 as amended by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

Continued….

150

2.17 & 2.18 (Contd) PART 2

(2) No development shall take place until details of facing materials, facing bricks and roofing finishes to be used on the development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the District Planning Authority.


(3) Detailed elevational drawings at a scale of 1:20 and sectional

drawings at a scale of 1:1 of all new external and internal joinery work and fittings together with sections through glazing bars, frames and mouldings shall be submitted to and approved by the District Planning Authority before any development takes place. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Grounds: In the interests of the special character of the listed

building and in pursuance of Policies E48 and E39 of the Swale Borough Local Plan.

(4) Prior to any development taking place a report shall be prepared and

submitted by a competent person and approved by the District Planning Authority detailing the specification, schedule of works and method of the restoration and conservation proposals for the listed buildings as outlined on Plan No (PL) 11. All work shall be carried out in accordance with the approved report.


Listed Buildings and in pursuance of Policies G1, E48 and E39 of the Swale Borough Local Plan.

(5) Prior to any development taking place full details shall be submitted

and approved in writing by the District Planning Authority of the proposed roller shutter door system and fixing details of the listed buildings which shall be based on surviving photographic and archaeological evidence which shall be surveyed, measured, documented and agreed by the District Planning Authority.


Listed Building and in pursuance of Policies G1, E39 and E48 of the Swale Borough Local Plan.

Reasons for Approval Having taken all material considerations into account, it is considered that subject to compliance with the attached conditions, the proposal would be in accordance with the development plan and preserve the special architectural or historic interest of the listed building. In resolving to grant consent,

Continued….

151

2.17 & 2.18 (Contd) PART 2

particular regard has been had to the following policies: EN1, QL1, QL6 and TP19 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan and G1, E9, E39, E48 of the Swale Borough Local Plan.

Description of Proposals

This development comprises Planning and Listed Building Consent applications for the restoration and minor alterations to the Grade II Listed hangers and the creation of a new building (which would encapsulate the Listed Building). This would all be associated with their conversion to a cultural aviation visitors attraction along with car parking, landscaping and associated works. A number of former farm buildings and various outbuildings would be demolished. The developer, the Sheppey Heritage Trust intends to encompass the original listed workshop buildings, the old aircraft hanger and the space between under one roof, one giant wing. The building’s footprint would be approximately 152m x 100m with a floor area of 10,400m2 and would be 34m high to the west falling to 0m to the east. In terms of the design concept and construction it states with the supporting planning statement that: “By adopting this responsible approach it is not then necessary to restore

the old buildings. Their original life span has now been far exceeded and to meet current building standards of weather protection and health and safety requirements would be economically unviable. More importantly they will now become physical markers to a past history, they are the only main surviving artefacts from that period and as such become celebrated as exhibits within the new building.

The new space created between the existing buildings now becomes an

important venue for community engagement. It can provide a mixed and flexible facility for theatre, music concerts, pantomime, sports, exhibitions and celebrations of aviation. The old buildings become venues for education and exhibition, a place to see, learn and experience the manufacture of early flying machines.

The main structure of the roof is timber, using low grade or recycled timbers

laminated together with a top and bottom stressed skin of ply, not unlike the construction of an aircraft wing. Timber is a sustainable material and low grade or recycled timbers are a more responsible choice for the designer. The roof will be clad in metal, again akin to an aircraft wing. To provide a natural source of light and an inspiring back drop a large Texlon ETFE foil cushion roof light has been developed. The main elements of the facades are 5 wall poly carbonates and glass, this will make the structure seem light and airy and reinforce the image of a building and roof as wing like and about to take off. This is part of the signature of the building. It becomes an iconic emblem of early flight.”

Continued….

152

2.17 & 2.18 (Contd) PART 2

The existing Mill House building at the site would be maintained and would be converted to form space for small business units, a café/bistro and cycle hire on the ground floor with an exhibition gallery to the upper floor. The overall development would be used for the following uses: 1. Visitor attraction for tourism with exhibition and events. 2. Education and training facilities. 3. Meetings and Conference Venue. 4. Restaurant and Café. 5. Leisure and Recreation Facilities. These uses are described in more detail in Appendix A to this report. The new building would comprise from the main eastern entrance the “main street” or hall space which regardless of weather conditions could be used for a variety of events on one level. The main aircraft hanger and auditorium buildings would flank one side of the “street” and on an upper level accessible via a ramp would be the workshop buildings, learning area and WC facilities. It is proposed to construct a large car park in the south-east corner of the site close to its entrance off of Brabazon Road. Approximately 250 car spaces would be provided together with 14 spaces for the disabled and 8 coach parking spaces and a bus/coach drop off area. It is intended that picnic and landscape areas would be located between the car park and the new building’s entrance. The hardstanding area in front of the entrance and at the eastern end of the building wing would be used for outside events. Members should note that whilst a 70m high wind turbine is shown within the application particulars, it does not form part of the applications for consideration here. The application is accompanied by a transport assessment, an environmental statement and non-technical summary, and a planning statement.

Relevant Site History and Description This application relates to an area on the southern side of Standford Hill

Open Prison approximately 8 hectares in size. The site comprises of a Continued….

153

2.17 & 2.18 (Contd) PART 2 collection of mostly modern farm buildings formerly used as part of a working

farm and training facility for inmates of HMP Standford Hill. Currently some of the buildings are used by the prison for sorting recyclable waste.

The site also contains a number of buildings constructed during its use as an

airfield and military site, in particular 4 Grade II Listed aircraft hangers dating from World War I.

The prisons of Standford Hill, Swaleside and Elmley lie to the immediate

north and east of the site while to the west and south the site is bordered and has wide expansive views over Eastchurch Marshes, which form part of a much wider network of marshes that make up the Swale Ramsar site, the North Kent Marshes Special Landscape Area, (a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and Special Protection Area (SPA) as well as Elmley RSPB Reserve.

The site is approximately 1.5km to the south of Eastchurch Village and the

B2231 Leysdown Road. The site is currently accessed via Wrights Way leading from Brabazon Way/Church Road.

There is no relevant planning history for this site. Views of Consultees The Royal Society for Protection of Birds raise no objection to the application

on ecological grounds and support the project’s aspirations to create a landmark building for cultural, aviation and visitor attractions and to develop potential for ecotourism on Sheppey.

Southern Water have no comment to make on the application. Eastchurch Parish Council support the application, however they raise

concern regarding the traffic issues associated with the project. The Parish Council states:

“We have yet to see what the new road facilities will be and what road

improvements are to be made

• Church Road already has “pinch points” with existing visitor traffic. • The studies on traffic have not come through yet. • The footpath access is badly maintained and in a poor state.

With the publication of the Jacobs Report in particular Eastchurch Parish Councillors whilst supporting the applications would like to express their concerns on the highway issues.”

The Environment Agency raise no objection subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions relating to surface and foul water drainage details to

Continued….

154

2.17 & 2.18 (Contd) PART 2 be submitted, desktop study for any potential contamination together with

methods to deal with such contamination, details of ground source heat pump and storage of any fuels/chemicals to be submitted and approved.

The Council’s Head of Environmental Services raises no objection subject to

no light aircraft being flown to or from the site. Kent Wildlife Trust raises objection as it considers the application does not

include sufficient information to show that there will be no significant negative impacts of the proposed development on the nature conservation interest of the area. The lack of such information in the EIA means that insufficient information is provided on which to base an assessment of this application and its compliance with planning policies. The Trust considers that the Environmental Statement should include the results of surveys, carried out according to best practice guidelines for breeding birds, bats, great crested newts and reptiles; together with strategies to avoid or mitigate any adverse impacts on these species.

Natural England also raise objection to the application for the same reasons

as Kent Wildlife Trust and conclude that the current information submitted with the application is inadequate and advises that additional survey information should be obtained from the applicant before determination of this application.

English Heritage welcome the retention of the most significant surviving

airfield buildings but note that the approach to two of these, including the Listed structures, is to place them within the volume of the large new building. This is similar to treating them like large museum objects and the issue is whether this is appropriate. There is a lack of information relating to the condition of the Listed Buildings, their repair needs, how the interiors would be used and what impact this might have on their historic interest.

On balance English Heritage conclude that the proposal would have a

detrimental impact on the setting of the listed buildings. However the key is whether this negative is more than offset by other benefits to the site. English Heritage also consider that they have some concern that the new building would be too prominent within the historical landscape.

Comments are still awaited from both the Highways Agency and Kent

Highway Services and I would hope to report their views to Members at the meeting.

Other Representations No other comments have been received.

Continued….

155

2.17 & 2.18 (Contd) PART 2 Relevant Planning Policies The site lies in a rural area and Policies SSS8, EN1 and EN3 of the Kent and

Medway Structure Plan (SP), and E9 of the Local Plan (LP) relate to rural areas. They seek to protect the countryside for its own sake, and to limit development in rural areas to that which demands a rural location.

Policies TP1, NR3 and NR5 of the SP states that local authorities will seek to

achieve a sustainable pattern and form of development which will reduce the need to travel, facilitate energy conservation and minimise pollution.

The supporting text stresses the need to support and improve the standard

of environment and quality of life, and to ensure that new development brings about improvement. This is to be achieved by seeking high quality new development, and by seeking over time to shape the form of development to reduce energy consumption and enhance the urban and rural environment ie to sacrifice short term gains today in favour of long term aims.

In terms of Special Landscape Areas, Policy EN5 of the SP seeks the

protection, conservation and enhancement of the quality of their landscapes, whilst having regard to the need to facilitate the social and economic well-being of the communities situated within them.

With respect to biodiversity Policy EN8 states that: “Development likely to have an adverse effect, directly, indirectly or

cumulatively on important habitats or species will not be permitted unless:

- there is an overriding need for the development that outweighs adverse impact on nature conservation and

- adverse impact on an important nature conservation resource can be adequately mitigated and/or compensated.

Other important Structure Plan policies include QL1 (Quality of Development and Design), QL8 (Buildings of Architectural or Historic Importance), QL12 (Provision for new Community Services and Infrastructure), QL13 (Cultural Development and the Arts) and EP10 (Sustainable Tourism Development).”

With respect to International and National Wildlife Designations, Policy EN6

of the SP states that development will not be permitted where it would directly, indirectly or cumulatively, materially have the scientific or nature conservation interests of such areas.

In terms of transportation, Policy TP19 of the SP seeks that new

development should provide vehicle parking in accordance with County standards.

Continued….

156

2.17 & 2.18 (Contd) PART 2

The Swale Borough Local Plan reflects much that the Structure Plan states. Policy E9 reflects Policies SSS8 and EN1, whilst Policies E2 and E6 regarding noise and light pollution accord with Policy NR5. For smaller scale leisure facilities, Policy R2 recognises the need to protect the countryside, and essentially suggests that development outside built-up area should really only be to serve the needs of local communities, with proper road, cycle, pedestrian and public transport access. Whilst Policy C1 relating to new social and community facilities encourages such developments in compliance with other policies provided that are appropriately located. PPS7 (“Sustainable Development in Rural Areas”) states that most developments which are likely to generate large numbers of trips should be located in or next to towns or other centres that are accessible by public transport, walking or cycling, and that new building in the open countryside away from settlements should be strictly controlled with priority given to previously developed sites. In terms of tourism and leisure, the guidance states that any proposal for large scale facilities should weigh up their advantages and disadvantages in terms of sustainable development objections, especially where high volumes of traffic are expected. The objective of sustainable development is repeated in PPS1 (“Delivering Sustainable Development”), and the plan-led system for certainty and predictability of planning decisions to this end is called for, aimed at achieving an efficient and appropriate pattern of development for the lifetime of the development. Equal opportunities for all is pivotal, and this refers as much to location of development as to the type, advocating focusing leisure, retail and other developments in existing centres. PPG13 (“Transport”) promotes accessibility to major facilities by a range of means of transport and, for those without the use of a car, promoting social inclusion. In rural areas, the advice is again to site leisure, tourism and other developments at the most accessible locations where existing public transport or improvement thereto can be best utilised. Finally, PPG24 (“Planning and Noise”) seeks to minimise conflict between developments, and gives advice on how to assess likely impacts. It advises that methods of engineering, layout and management can be utilised to minimise conflict, and that planning conditions can be employed to allow otherwise unacceptable development to proceed.

Continued….

157

2.17 & 2.18 (Contd) PART 2

With respect to the impact on Listed Buildings the Council is required (by the 1990 Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Area) Act) when considering such applications to have special regard to the desirability of preserving listed buildings or their settings or any features of special architectural or historic interest which they possess; also, to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the conservation area. The criteria for assessing applications for Listed Building Consent and Conservation Area applications are contained in PPG15. Some of the advice contained in PPG15 is summarised below:

• Protecting Listed Buildings from unsuitable or insensitive alteration is the prime consideration for authorities in determining applications for consent. This reflects the great importance which society attaches to Listed Buildings.

• Active use of historic buildings and areas is to be encouraged as the best way of securing their upkeep. It points to the fact that new and even continuing uses will often necessitate some degree of adaptation. In principle, the aim should be to identify the optimum viable use that is compatible with the historic building. This may not necessarily be the most profitable use.

• It lists the issues generally relevant to the consideration of all applications for consent as: the relative importance of the buildings; the importance of physical features; the building’s settings and its contribution to the local scene particularly where it forms an element in a group, park, garden or townscape, or where it shares architectural details with other buildings nearby; and the extent to which the proposals would bring substantial benefits to the community, in particular through economic regeneration or environmental enhancement.

• In new developments special regard should be had for such matters as a scale, height, form, massing, respect for the traditional pattern of frontages, vertical or horizontal emphasis, and detailed design (eg the scale and spacing of window openings and the nature and quality of materials).

Discussion This is clearly a development which has drawn significant comment and a range of viewpoints. However in terms of the principle of the development being acceptable, the site lies in a rural area, where new development should not be approved unless it demands a rural location.

Continued….

158

2.17 & 2.18 (Contd) PART 2

Clearly this development raises many significant issues which need to be addressed such as the benefits to tourism, to the economy of Sheppey, to the community together with the costs such as the impact on traffic along local roads, the impact on the Listed Buildings, the visual impact on the surrounding countryside and nature conservation interests. It is important to note that despite Sheppey’s unique place in Aviation history, maritime heritage and sites of national ecological importance, there is no focal point on the Island for tourism and events and training. Clearly the provision of such a facility would help regenerate the Island’s economy. The applicant states in support of the application that the project will provide: “A working visitor attraction on the Isle of Sheppey to celebrate the birth

of flight, to generate new tourism and thereby adding value to other tourism development in the area associated with maritime and natural heritage. Successful completion of the project will provide a national visitor facility which will increase the number of visitors to Sheppey and their spend. It will provide a hands on tour through the history and science of flight. It will complement other attractions on the Island, in particular the RPSB reserves.

A large indoor venue that will provide an indoor covered facility designed to

be flexible. It can be used as a concert/theatre venue, a conference facility, and as an exhibition space capable of hosting events and helping to develop the local economy. The proposed facility would provide the first such venue within reach of the large population areas in Kent and south-east London in the Thames Gateway area.

Structured skills training and learning opportunities for the local

community. It will also provide learning opportunities for the wider community through the use of the site for education, training and other activities. The development and operation of the site will provide a comprehensive range of skills development and employment opportunities for offenders held within the adjacent HMP complex. To meet the project’s key activities the original workshops and hangers will be rejuvenated to become living workshops providing skills training opportunities for the local population and offenders in the reconstruction of full scale aircraft, models, prop scenes, etc. There will also be opportunities associated with building maintenance and renovation. The facility will provide a valuable educational exhibition space demonstrating how these early aircraft were constructed using original materials and craftsmanship.

An innovative design which will provide a landmark to celebrate the birth

of flying in the UK and will bring a sense of pride, place and identity to the community. Our proposal is to provide a 21st Century building to enclose the existing aircraft hangers and workshops. This will be an iconic landmark wing-shaped building complex that will inspire community cohesion, not only locally and regionally but also nationally. We also intend to power the building, as far as possible, from renewable sources.

Continued….

159

2.17 & 2.18 (Contd) PART 2

A community centre. The development will provide access to a heritage site now closed to visitors and transform historical buildings which are now neglected into a visitor and community centre providing recreational space and a range of facilities for local people, voluntary groups, etc, and a focal point for local development generally. The central space or ‘piazza’ between hangers will accommodate up to 1000 people and the innovative nature of the building materials and form will provide an exciting and original destination for community meetings, well being and entertainment. The complex will also have a café/restaurant, bookshop and visitors’ centre that will connect with other destinations of interest (eg providing bicycles to hire in order to tour other parts of the Island – a RSPB reserve is close by as are SSSIs.”

The visual impact of the building on the landscape will clearly be significant especially when viewed from long distance views from the south. The building with a footprint of 152m x 110m, a floor area of 10,400m2 and a height up to 34m will make a statement and is intended to be seen as a landmark and iconic building for the area. The scale of the building has largely been determined by the concept to house the existing workshops and Listed Buildings under one roof. Furthermore the building has been laid out on a east-west axis derived from the existing buildings on the site and site constraints themselves such as levels. I am of the opinion that the design of the building is both bold and ambitious. It is intended to take its inspiration from flight as it appears about to leave the ground as it points to the sky signifying its use. The roof takes its arc from the shape of a delta wing, however most of the roof (apart from the 50m x 75m texlon foil cushions rooflight) will be clad in metal which unless treated appropriately could cause significant glare over the surrounding area due to the sun shining off it. I have sought further clarification from the architect on this matter. It has to be recognised that due to the very open low lying nature of the landscape to the south the building will have significant visual impact on the wider landscape in an arc from the west through south to east because of the building’s sheer scale. This impact on its own could be argued be so significant as to warrant refusal of the application, however one has to consider the other costs and benefits of this project before reaching such a conclusion. It should be noted that the building will be seen from public footpaths and viewpoints to the south with the backdrop of the 3 prisons together with Standford Hill itself which would screen the building from Eastchurch to the north. In terms of traffic generation as a result of this development and its impact on the highway network, this has been analysed in the accompanying transport assessment undertaken by Jacobs. The report recognises that the

Continued….

160

2.17 & 2.18 (Contd) PART 2 site is located in a rural area with limited public transport accessibility, but that the Flying Start Project aims to attract some 200,000 visitors per annum to the site, including 40,000 to the adjoining RSPB site. Whilst such numbers of visitors would appear to generate significant levels of traffic, Members should be aware that the attractions and activities envisaged for this site are unlikely to be in operation simultaneously and at full capacity. Furthermore I note that the accompanying Transport Assessment concludes that the Flying Start project will not have a significant impact on the local highway network. The Assessment considers that proposal would provide local employment opportunities and a regional tourist attraction in addition to safety and local sustainable access improvements (such as a Travel Plan and integration with the local community Sheppey Wheels initiative). The Assessment also concludes that transport benefits of the proposal would outweigh the resulting traffic implications. I note the Parish Council’s views on this application and I would remind Members that the views of Kent Highway Services in terms of the impact of the proposal on the local highway network and those of the Highways Agency regarding the impact of the potential traffic from this development on the A249 are still awaited. I hope to report their views to Members at the meeting. With respect to the impact of the development on the setting of the Listed Buildings, I note the comments of English Heritage however the development provides an opportunity to see the Buildings fully restored which is unlikely to present itself again. The development would have the benefit of facilitating the restoration of the buildings, providing a sustainable future for them with a link to the aviation history and allowing public access to them. Apart from the construction of the new building around the listed buildings the proposed alterations are not considered significant as they would mostly involve limited repair and restoration. However the setting of the Listed Buildings will be changed beyond all recognition. The relationship of the hangars to the airfield has been lost due to the development of Stamford Hill prison however one might argue that the encapsulating of them within a larger new building makes the situation worse. However one has to balance this against the significant benefits to the buildings including: their long term protection against the elements and further deterioration; their full restoration; long term re-use with strong links to their aviation history and long term preservation. If the buildings were able to be preserved without such radical intervention then I would be concerned about the principle of the new building but without its protection the hangers’ lifespan is limited and their future in doubt. I therefore can only conclude in terms of the historic conservation issues that

Continued….

161

2.17 & 2.18 (Contd) PART 2 the proposals would be of significant benefit. Members should be aware that the development proposals also involve significant sustainable energy sources which have been embodied within the design concept. It is intended to install one 70m high wind turbine (the subject of a separate planning application). Geothermal ground source energy will be used to provide heating and cooling elements to the floor constructions throughout the building complex whilst a new plant room with roof collectors will harness solar energy to provide hot water. Rainwater would be collected from the roof as part of a grey water recycling system. With regard to nature conservation issues I note the comment of both Natural England (NE) and Kent Wildlife Trust (KWT). I also note that the EIA shows that there is potential for the development to have large adverse impacts on nature conservation in particular indirect impacts on the protected sites to the south of the sites and on protected species such as barn owls and bats. The EIA recognises before construction started on site. The need to update the current survey, to conduct further bat surveys, relocate existing barn owl nestbox conduct bird surveys and conduct reptile surveys to ascertain what species are using the site and in what numbers. The findings of the EIA on these issues are in line with the comments of KWT and NE, the only difference is the timing. Both KWT and NE require these surveys to be done before the decision on this application is made whilst the agent due to financial constraints and time with respect to his lottery bid wishes such matters to be carried out as part of the discharging of any conditions attached to a planning permission. The agent is aware of both NE and KWT objections to the development and will come back to me with further comments, which I will hope to report to Members at the meeting. The lighting of this building both internal and external is very important within this countryside location I therefore suggest a condition should be imposed to control the amount of lighting at the site in order to minimise the impact on the night sky and nearby wildlife. Summary and Recommendations The proposed development located in the countryside seeks to justify a rural location for this range of attractions and facilities which are seen as lacking on the Island. Whilst the protection of the countryside is an important issue, I consider that the benefits that this project brings in terms of regeneration and tourism benefits for the community, the securing of the future of listed buildings will provide an extraordinary facility and attraction which will outweigh the harm such a development will have on the visual impact on the countryside and on nature conservation interests. Although I would point out that with respect to this last issue I am awaiting further comments from the agent on this matter and subsequently possibly the further views of KWT and NE.

Continued….

162

2.17 & 2.18 (Contd) PART 2

I therefore recommend that these applications, subject to the further comments of the agent and the views of the Highways Agency and Kent Highway Services, should be approved subject to conditions.

List of Background Documents 1. Application Papers and Documents for applications SW/07/0359 and

SW/07/0360.

163


164

2.19 SW/07/0651 (Case 22269) MINSTER

Location: 131A Minster Road, Minster, Sheppey, Kent ME12 3JH.

Proposal: Outline application for demolition of existing bungalow

and erection of a pair of houses. Applicant/Agent: Mrs V Neervoort c/o D Hobbs, 73 Marine Parade,

Sheerness, Kent ME12 2BE Application Valid: 5th June 2007

Conditions

(1) Details relating to the appearance of the proposed building(s), and the landscaping of the site shall be submitted to and approved by the District Planning Authority before any development is commenced.







Grounds: In pursuance of Section 92 of the Town and Country planning Act 1990 as amended by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

(4) The area shown on the submitted layout as vehicle parking spaces

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

Continued….

165

2.19 (Contd) PART 2

Grounds: Development without provision of adequate accommodation for the parking of vehicles is likely to lead to parking inconvenient to other road users and be detrimental to highway safety and amenity, in pursuance of policies G1 and IN7 of the Swale Borough Local Plan.

Reason for Approval Having taken all material considerations into account, it is considered that subject to compliance with the attached conditions, the proposal would be in accordance with the development plan and would not cause unacceptable harm to the amenities of the area or prejudice highway safety or convenience. In resolving to grant permission, particular regard has been had to the following policies: G1, H4, H5, E48, E49 & IN7 of the Swale Borough Local Plan; E1, H2, E19 & T3 of the Swale Borough Local Plan First Review Redeposit Draft, QL1, HP2 and HP3 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan. Description Outline planning permission is sought for the demolition of the existing bungalow and the erection of a pair of semi detached two storey houses. Appearance and landscaping matters are reserved for future consideration as just access, layout and scale are under consideration here. The submitted drawings show the design of the properties as having the appearance of a large detached single dwelling and includes a catslide roof over the garage with a dormer window for the dwelling on Plot one, whilst the dwelling for Plot two would be two storey only. The house for Plot one would have an integral garage and two front parking spaces whilst the house for Plot No. 2 would have one parking space to the front and a driveway to the side with 2 parking spaces beyond. Both properties would have long rear gardens in excess of 24m. The pair of houses would measure in total 11.3m in width, 12.7m in depth and 5m to eaves height and 8.5m to ridge height. The pair would be set further back from Minster Road than the existing bungalow on the site and would therefore be set 3m back from the front elevation of the adjacent property’s (No. 133) garage. The proposed houses would project 4m rearward of the adjacent property and would be 1m from the side boundary. The proposed houses would be positioned over 14m from the front boundary with Minster Road and 2.5m from the western boundary which abuts the access for Minster College. Site Description and Relevant History The site is within the built-up area of Minster and is located on the south side

Continued….

166

2.19 (Contd) PART 2 of Minster Road adjacent to the main access to Minster College. The site itself slopes steeply up from the highway and comprises of a detached bungalow which is partially visible from the street. The adjacent property (No. 133) is a chalet bungalow with a conservatory and an attached garage abutting the side boundary with the application site. The streetscene is mixed with two storey houses and chalet bungalows on both sides of Minster Road. Relevant planning history includes an outline application for the erection of three detached dwellings which was refused permission on the 19th March 2007 as it was considered to constitute backland development under reference SW/06/0083. This decision is the subject of a current appeal. An application, under reference SW/04/0059, was granted for blocks of flats on land adjacent No. 131 Minster Road. This site is on the opposite side of the access to Minster College. Views of Consultees Minster Parish Council raise objection stating:

“This is over-intensive development of the site” Kent Highways Services raise no objection Other Representations No other representations have been received. Policies Policies G1 (General Development Criteria), E48(Design of New Development), H4(Small Sites), H5(Infilling), IN7(New Development and Car Parking Provision) of the Swale Borough Local Plan are relevant here. Policies E1(General Development Criteria), E19 (Achieving High Quality Design and Distinctiveness), H2 (Provision of New Housing) and T3 (new Development and Parking Provision) of the Swale Borough Local Plan First Review Redeposit Draft are also prudent. Policies QL1 (Quality of Development and Design), HP2 (Housing Provision) and HP3 (Contribution of Previously Developed Land) of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan (2006).

Continued….

167

2.19 (Contd) PART 2 Discussion The site is within the built-up area and as such the principle of the redevelopment of the site with two semi-detached houses is considered acceptable. The layout of the site would involve the proposed properties being sited 4m rearward of the adjacent neighbour’s garage due to the intervening garage and the distance to the rear windows of No. 133, which is a minimum of 8m, and I do not consider that the proposal would result in significant harm to residential amenity by way of loss of light or overshadowing to the rear windows of the adjacent property. The streetscene in this part of Minster Road is varied, however there are a number of large detached properties within the area. I therefore consider that a pair of semi-detached houses with the appearance and design of a detached house would not cause demonstrable harm to the streetscene. The proposed access to the site would be as existing with the driveway branching off to the front of plot one and a driveway to the side of property two with turning facilities for both dwellings. I consider that the proposed access arrangements would be acceptable and note that Kent Highway Services raise no objection. I note the objection raised by Minster Parish Council however I do not consider that the replacement of a dwelling with a larger detached building comprising of two properties on a plot 8m in width, widening to 22m to the rear would have a cramped appearance and would not represent an overdevelopment of the site. Summary and Recommendation I am of the opinion that the principle of the development is considered acceptable and the layout and scale of the proposal would not result in any significant harm to the appearance and character of the streetscene or harm to residential amenity. The detailed appearance of the properties and landscaping will be addressed in the reserved matters application. I therefore recommend approval of the application subject to the above conditions. Background Documents 1. Application Papers and Correspondence for SW/07/0651 2. Application Papers and Correspondence for SW/04/0059 3. Application Papers and Correspondence for SW/06/0083

168


Location: Cherry Tree Cottage, Warden Road, Eastchurch, Isle of Sheppey, Kent ME12 4HA.

Proposal: Change of use from cattery to canine rehabilitation and

care centre. Applicant/Agent: A Lewis, Cherry Tree Cottage, Warden Road,

Eastchurch, Isle of Sheppey, Kent.

Application Valid: 7th June 2007 and as clarified by additional information received 26th July 2007

SUBJECT TO: The further views of Eastchurch Parish Council.


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


Reason for Approval Having taken all material considerations into account, it is considered that subject to compliance with the attached conditions, the proposal would be in accordance with the development plan and would not cause unacceptable harm to the amenities of the area or prejudice highway safety or convenience. In resolving to grant permission, particular regard has been had to the following policies: G1, B3, B10 & IN7 of the Swale Borough Local Plan; E1 & B1 of Swale Borough Local Plan First Review Redeposit Draft; QL1 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan. Description Planning permission is sought for the change of use of an existing outbuilding from a cattery to a canine rehabilitation and care centre incorporating a hydrotherapy pool at Cherry Tree Cottage, Warden Road, Eastchurch. The outbuilding is to the rear of the main dwelling house and was granted change of use from a domestic outbuilding to a cattery in 1987 under reference SW/87/1523 and was used as a cattery until as recently as the mid 1990’s.

Continued….

169

2.20 (Contd) PART 2 The existing outbuilding measures approximately 5.2m in width and a maximum of 15m in length and has a flat roof. The applicant has recently carried out some maintenance to the outbuilding including re-cladding it in timber. There are no external changes to the outbuilding proposed. The rehabilitation and care centre would involve a hydrotherapy pool which has recently been positioned within the rear part of the outbuilding. The pool’s dimensions are 2.2m in width, 3.9m in length and 1.2m deep. The applicant has submitted supporting information with the application which can be summarised as follows:

• There would only be one dog in the pool at a time • The type of dog that would use the pool would typically have been

injured or have recently undergone surgery so would not be running around or causing a nuisance.

• There is good access and parking at the site from its use as a cattery. Additional details regarding wastewater have recently been received and can be summarised as follows

• The pool is like a normal swimming pool and the water is chlorinated and constantly filtered and does not need to be emptied.

• The existing drains around the outbuilding have not been altered and they collect rainwater leading to the drainage ditch in the field behind the house.

Site Description and Relevant History The application relates to a large detached dwelling within a ribbon of development on the north side of Warden Road. The rear garden of the dwelling comprises of a swimming pool and 2 outbuildings, one of which is the subject of the application. The dwelling is outside of the built-up area and is adjacent to the Wheatsheaf Inn public house with open fields to the rear. The adjacent dwelling to the west ‘Clover Lodge’ is located 10m from the western side boundary of the application site and would be a minimum of 45m from the outbuilding housing the proposed canine hydrotherapy pool. Previous planning history for the property relates to its previous use as a cattery but none of this is recent or of particular relevance to this application. Views of Consultees Eastchurch Parish Council raise objection stating that:

“There are no details regarding the disposal of waste contents of the hydrotherapy unit. The plans do not state whether this will return to the main

Continued….

170

2.20 (Contd) PART 2 drain/sewer system or whether it will be “run off” to farm ditches bordering the property. The Parish Council feels that although in principle the change of use is acceptable, until these matters are addressed, planning should be refused.”

Kent Highways Services raise no objection. Other Representations No other representations have been received. Policies Policies G1 (General Development Criteria), E9 (the Countryside), B3 (Expansion of Businesses), B10 (Working from Home), IN7 (New Development and Car Parking Provision) of the Swale Borough Local Plan are relevant here. Policies E1 (General Development Criteria), E6 (the Countryside) and B1 (Expansion of Businesses) of the Swale Borough Local Plan First Review Redeposit Draft and Policy QL1 (Quality of Development and Design) of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan are also pertinent in the consideration of this application. Discussion The proposed change of use would not involve any external changes to the outbuilding and would internally involve the insertion of the pool within the rear part of the outbuilding. I consider these works would be minor in nature, which would not result in harm to the visual amenities of the property or the surrounding countryside. I note that the outbuilding is currently well screened from public view by existing hedgerows to the front and side boundaries. The property has ample parking and access from its use as a cattery and I do not envisage significant harm to highway safety or inconvenience to road users. The applicant's submitted information states that only one dog can use the pool at once and I therefore consider that this level of activity would be less intensive than the former cattery use as only one or at the most two visitors will be at the premises at any one time. I consider this level of activity acceptable and that harm to residential amenity would not be significant. I note the Parish Council’s objections and I have therefore sought from the applicant details of the required drainage for the pool. I have subsequently received the relevant information and reconsulted the Parish Council on the details. I hope to report the Parish Council’s further comments to Members at the meeting. I am of the opinion that the submitted additional details are now

Continued….

171

2.20 (Contd) PART 2 sufficient to address their concerns regarding the disposal of water into the ditches to the fields at the rear of the property. Summary and Recommendation The principle of the change of use is considered acceptable and I do not envisage a significant increase in activity at the property from its former use as a cattery. There is only one residential property within the immediate vicinity, however due to the distances involved I do not envisage harm to residential amenity by way of noise or general disturbance. I therefore recommend subject to the further views of Eastchurch Parish Council that the application should be granted permission. _____________________________________________________________ List of Background Documents 1. Application Papers and Correspondence for SW/07/0663 2. Application Papers and Correspondence SW/87/1523.

172

2.21 SW/06/1468 (Case 15383) QUEENBOROUGH

Location: Land south of A249, known as Neatscourt (Phase 1),

Queenborough, Sheppey, Kent. Proposal: Outline application for commercial development including

office, industrial and warehousing, petrol filling station, restaurant, hotel, Rushenden Relief Road Stage 1 and other highway, servicing, site levelling and infrastructure works.

Applicant/Agent: South East England Development Agency, C/o Andrew

Martin Associates c/o J B Planning Associates Ltd, Chells Manor, Chells Lane, Stevenage, Herts, SG2 7AA.

Application Valid: 31 January 2007 and as amended by additional

information and plans received on 5 June, 3 July, 4 July and 25 July 2007.

SUBJECT TO: The views of Kent Highway Services and the Highways

Agency. Conditions Section A – Time Limits and Reserved Matters Outline Plots

A1 No part of the development hereby permitted on Plots 1A, 1C, 1D or 1E

shall be commenced until details of the layout, scale, appearance, access and landscaping for that plot or part of the development (hereinafter called "the reserved matters") have been submitted to and approved in writing by the District Planning Authority, and the development shall not be carried out otherwise than in accordance with the details so provided.


A2 Applications for the approval of the Reserved Matters relating to Plots 1A, 1C, 1D and 1E shall be made to the District Planning Authority before the expiration of 10 years from the date of this permission, unless an alterative period is otherwise agreed in writing by the District Planning Authority.


Continued….

173

2.21 (Contd) PART 2 A3 Commencement of development on Plots 1A, 1C, 1D and 1E shall be

begun within 2 years of the date of final approval of the Reserved Matters in relation to that part of the development.


Plot 1B, Strategic Earthworks, Highways and Drainage and Port Land Development A4 The development hereby permitted shall be begun within 3 years of the

date of this permission.


Section B – Pre-commencement Conditions Relating to the Application Site Off-site Ecological Mitigation Measures B1 Prior to commencement of development on any part of the application

site (with the exception of the Port land development), a scheme setting out the programme scope of works, and subsequent management (for a period not less than 10 years) of not less than 13 hectares of replacement grazing marsh shall be submitted to and approved by the District Planning Authority. The scheme shall thereafter be implemented in strict accordance with the programme and details approved, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the District Planning Authority.

Grounds: In the interests of nature conservation and in pursuance of policies E28 and E32 of the Swale Borough Local Plan.

B2 Prior to the commencement of development on any part of the

application site (within the exception of the Port land development), a scheme setting out the programme, scope of works and subsequent management (for a period of not less than 10 years) of not less than 13 hectares of enhancement land within either The Swale or Medway Estuary and Marshes SSSIs shall be submitted to and approved by the District Planning Authority. The scheme shall thereafter be implemented in strict accordance with the programme and details approved, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the District Planning Authority.

Continued….

174

2.21 (Contd) PART 2

Grounds: In the interests of nature conservation and in pursuance of policies E28 and E32 of the Swale Borough Local Plan.

The Southern Bund B3 Prior to the commencement of any development (other than the

strategic earthworks and drainage, or the Port land development), the bund to the southern boundary of the site hereby approved shall be constructed to the height and specification shown in the approved plans, and shall thereafter be retained.

Grounds: In the interests of the visual amenity of the area and in pursuance of Policy G1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan.

Construction and Management and Ecological Mitigation B4 Prior to the commencement of development on any plot or part of the

application site, a Construction Management Plan in relation to that plot or part of the development shall be submitted to and approved by the District Planning Authority, and development shall thereafter proceed only in accordance with the approved Construction Management Plan, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the District Planning Authority.

Grounds: In the interests of nature conservation and in pursuance of Policies E28 and E32 of the Swale Borough Local Plan.

B5 Prior to the commencement of the development on any plot or part of

the application site, an Ecological Management Plan in relation to that plot or part of the development shall be submitted to and approved by the District Planning Authority , and development shall therefore proceed only in accordance with the approved Ecological Management Plan, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the District Planning Authority.

Grounds: Grounds: In the interests of nature conservation and in pursuance of Policies E28 and E32 of the Swale Borough Local Plan.

Surface Water Drainage B6 Connectivity of watercourses on the proposed site must be maintained.

Prior to any development on the site which results in the severance of an existing watercourse, replacement surface water drainage (in accordance with the strategy hereby approved and in accordance with the details required under Condition B7 below) shall first be constructed and brought into use.

Continued….

175

2.21 (Contd) PART 2

Grounds: In the interests of land drainage and in pursuance of Policies E3 and E4 of the Swale Borough Local Plan.

B7 Prior to the commencement of any part of the strategic drainage works,

details in relation to the ditch profile, outfalls, weirs, fencing, structures and pollution prevention measures associated with that part of the strategic drainage network shall first be submitted and approved by the District Planning Authority , in consultation with Southern Water and the Environment Agency.


B8 No existing waterbodies shall be stopped up or filled in until any existing fish populations have been translocated to a waterbody as close as possible in both habitat type and distance from origin of the relevant waterbody, in accordance with the approved Ecological Management Plan required under condition B5.


Archaeology B10 With the exception of the Port land, no part of the development hereby

approved shall be commenced until:

(a) A specification and written timetable for a programme of archaeological field evaluation works has been submitted to and approved by the District Planning Authority; and

(b) Following on from that evaluation, any safeguarding measures to

ensure preservation in situ of important archaeological remains and/or further archaeological investigation and recording (in accordance with a further specification and timetable) have been submitted to and approved by the District Planning Authority.

Grounds: To ensure that features of archaeological interest are properly examined and recorded in pursuance of Policy E43 of the Swale Borough Local Plan.

Section C – Pre-Occupation Conditions Relating to the Application Site

Management

C1 No part of the development hereby approved (with the exception of the Port land development) shall be first occupied until details of the long

Continued….

176

2.21 (Contd) PART 2 term management and maintenance of the public realm (and the

associated strategic earthworks, highways and drainage infrastructure) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the District Planning Authority. The approved management and maintenance structure shall be brought into operation in accordance with a timetable to be submitted as part of these details. The details submitted should include consideration of: (a) The structure and funding of any overall management company; (b) Procedures for the management of the surface water drainage

network; (c) The management of areas of communal landscaping; (d) The methods to be used to encourage non-car travel; (e) The means of encouraging and maintaining biodiversity. Grounds: In the interests of amenity and in pursuance of Policy G1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan. Section D – Additional Conditions Relating to Plot 1B (Aldi)

Design

D1 The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the design, siting, layout, access arrangements and levels shown on the approved plans.

Grounds: As it is considered essential that no departure is made from the approved details.

D2 Construction of the building hereby permitted on Plot 1B shall not be commenced until details of the materials to be used on the external appearance of the building hereby approved have been submitted to and approved by the District Planning Authority, and the development shall thereafter be undertaken in accordance with those approved details. Grounds: In the interests of visual amenity and in pursuance of Policies E48 and G1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan.

D3 Construction of the building hereby permitted on Plot 1B shall not be commenced until details of the location and design of external plant and equipment have been submitted to and approved by the District Planning Authority, and the development shall thereafter be undertaken in accordance with those approved details.

Grounds: In the interests of visual amenity and in pursuance of Policies E48 and G1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan.

Continued….

177

2.21 (Contd) PART 2 D4 Construction of the building hereby permitted on Plot 1B shall not be

commenced until details of foundations and/or a piling method statement has been submitted and approved by the District Planning Authority, and the development shall thereafter proceed in accordance with those approved details. Grounds: In the interests of visual amenity and in pursuance of Policies E48 and G1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan.

D5 Prior to the erection of the truck wash facility hereby approved, details of the design and external appearance shall be submitted to and approved by the District Planning Authority, and the development shall thereafter be undertaken in accordance with those details. Grounds: In the interests of visual amenity and in pursuance of Policies E48 and G1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan.

D6 No air conditioning, mechanical ventilation, or refrigeration equipment shall be installed until details of its siting, discharge points, and predicted acoustic performance have been submitted to and approved by the District Planning Authority. Grounds: In the interests of amenity and in pursuance of Policies E2 and E4 of the Swale Borough Local Plan. Pollution Prevention

D7 No underground storage tanks shall be installed until details of the structures (including the tanks, their surround, associated pipework and monitoring system) have been submitted to and approved by the District Planning Authority, and any installation shall thereafter proceed in accordance with those details. Grounds: In the interests of satisfactory drainage provision and in pursuance of Policies G1, E3 and E4 of the Swale Borough Local Plan.

D8 Prior to any use of the vehicle wash facility hereby approved, details of the method of discharge to the foul sewage system shall be submitted and approved by the District Planning Authority, and the facility shall only be used in accordance with the approved details.

Grounds: In the interests of satisfactory drainage provision and in pursuance of Policies G1, E3 and E4 of the Swale Borough Local Plan.

D9 No sewage or trade effluent (including vehicle wash or vehicle steam cleaning effluent) shall be discharged to any surface water drainage system.

Continued….

178

2.21 (Contd) PART 2 Grounds: In the interests of satisfactory drainage provision and in pursuance of Policies G1, E3 and E4 of the Swale Borough Local Plan.

Restriction on Access to Ecologically Sensitive Areas

D10 Prior to occupation of the development, details in relation to the means by which access will be prevented and/or controlled to the bund to the south of the site and the adjoining Medway Estuary and Marshes SSSI shall be submitted and approved by the District Planning Authority, and the details as approved shall be implemented prior to occupation and thereafter maintained for the duration of occupation of the site. Grounds: To safeguard nature conservation interests and in pursuance of Policies EL8 of the Swale Borough Local Plan and EN6 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan.

Landscaping

D11 Construction of the building hereby permitted on Plot 1B shall not be commenced until details of the location and design of external plant and equipment have been submitted to and approved by the District Planning Authority, and the development shall thereafter be undertaken in accordance with those approved details. Grounds: To safeguard nature conservation interests and in pursuance of Policies EL8 of the Swale Borough Local Plan and EN6 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan.

Vehicle Parking

D12 The vehicle parking shall be laid out in accordance with the details hereby approved, and shall thereafter be retained for vehicle parking and not used for any other purpose. Grounds: In the interests of highway safety and in pursuance of Policies G1 and IN7 of the Swale Borough Local Plan and TP19 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan.

D13 No occupation of the development hereby approved shall be undertaken until the vehicle parking shown on the approved plans has been laid out and is available for use. Grounds: In the interests of highway safety and in pursuance of Policies G1 and IN7 of the Swale Borough Local Plan and TP19 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan.

Continued….

179

2.21 (Contd) PART 2

Lighting

D14 The external lighting of the building shall be carried out in accordance with the details hereby approved, and no additional external lighting shall be erected without the prior written agreement of the District Planning Authority. Grounds: In the interests of visual amenity and in pursuance of Policies G1 and E6 of the Swale Borough Local Plan.

Drainage

D15 No occupation of the building hereby permitted shall be undertaken until foul drainage has been provided in accordance with the details hereby approved. Grounds: In order to prevent pollution of underground water sources and in pursuance of Policy E4 of the Swale Borough Local Plan.

D16 Surface water drainage shall be implemented and maintained in accordance with the details to be approved under Condition B7. Grounds: In the interests of land drainage and in pursuance of Policies E3 and E4 of the Swale Borough Local Plan.

Travel Plan

D17 The submitted Interim Travel Plan shall be implemented as far as is possible, prior to the occupation of the use of the development hereby approved. Within six months of the date of occupation a Final Travel Plan shall be submitted to the District Planning Authority for approval, and the approved plan shall be implemented in accordance with details to be agreed with the District Planning Authority at the time of approval. The company shall minor and update the Travel Plan, in accordance with details to be agreed with the District Planning Authority at the time of approval of the Final Travel Plan. The Travel Plan shall cover three staff travel patterns with the aim of reducing car travel and encouraging other forms of transport. The following modes of transport shall be included in the plan: walking, cycling, public transport, private car and motor cycle. The Plan shall include modal split targets, proposed timescales and outline monitoring methods. Grounds: To promote an environmentally sustainable development pursuant to Policy SP1 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan, Strategic Policy 1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan and Strategic Policy 1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan First Review Redeposit Draft.

Continued….

180

2.21 (Contd) PART 2 Section E – Additional Conditions Relating to the Strategic Earthworks

Excavation and Deposit of Material

E1 Any controlled waste that is to be removed from the site shall only be

undertaken by a registered waste carrier and disposed of at an authorised facility. Grounds: To ensure that any contaminated land is adequately dealt with, in pursuance of Policy E1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan.

E2 No excavated material shall be retained on site unless it is suitable for and required for any of the works specified in this planning permission, and shall only be used in connection with such works. Grounds: To ensure that any contaminated land is adequately dealt with, in pursuance of Policy E1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan.

E3 No material shall be deposited at the site other than clean, uncontaminated naturally occurring material, brick and concrete rubble only. Grounds: To ensure that any contaminated land is adequately dealt with, in pursuance of Policy E1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan.

Southern Bund Landscaping E4 The soft landscaping works shall be carried out in accordance with the

details hereby approved, and shall be implemented within the first planting season following completion of the works in accordance with Condition B3. Grounds: In the interests of the visual amenities of the area and in pursuance of E49 and G1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan.

Section F – Additional Conditions Relating to the Strategic Highway and

Drainage Works F1 Within 3 months of the commencement of the Strategic Highway or

Drainage works, details of the proposed soft landscaping within the boundary of the works (as defined on the submitted plans) shall be submitted for the approval of the District Planning Authority. The soft landscaping works shall include details of the future maintenance and management of the works, including provisions for the replacement of any plants dying or requiring to be removed within the first 5 years. The approved landscaping scheme shall be implemented within the first planting season following the approval of the landscape details.

Continued….

181

2.21 (Contd) PART 2

Grounds: In the interests of the visual amenities of the area and in pursuance of E49 and G1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan.

Design

G1 The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the design, siting, layout and access arrangements shown on the approved plans. Grounds: In the interests of the visual amenities and in pursuance of Policies E48 and G1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan.

G2 Construction of the buildings hereby permitted on the Port land shall not be commenced until details of the materials to be used on the external appearance of the building hereby approved have been submitted to and approved by the District Planning Authority, and the development shall thereafter be undertaken in accordance with those approved details. Grounds: In the interests of the visual amenities and in pursuance of Policies E48 and G1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan.

Pollution Prevention

G4 No sewage or trade effluent (including vehicle wash or vehicle steam cleaning effluent), shall be discharged to any surface water drainage system. Grounds: To ensure that satisfactory drainage provision is provided for the development and in pursuance of Policy E4 of the Swale Borough Local Plan.

Lighting

G5 The external lighting of the Port land (ie, that part of the existing facility contained within the application boundary) shall be carried out in accordance with the details hereby approved, and no additional external lighting within this part of the application site shall be erected without the prior written agreement of the District Planning Authority. Grounds: In the interests of visual amenity and in pursuance of Policies G1 and E6 of the Swale Borough Local Plan.

Drainage

G6 No occupation of the building hereby permitted shall be undertaken Continued….

182

2.21 (Contd) PART 2 until foul drainage has been provided in accordance with the details

hereby approved.

Grounds: To ensure that satisfactory drainage provision is provided for the development and in pursuance of Policy E4 of the Swale Borough Local Plan.

G7 Surface water drainage shall be implemented and maintained in accordance with the details to be approved under Condition B7.

Grounds: To ensure that satisfactory drainage provision is provided for the development and in pursuance of Policy E4 of the Swale Borough Local Plan.

Section H – Additional Conditions Relating to Outline Plots 1A, 1C, 1D and 1E.

Design

H1 Unless otherwise agreed with the District Planning Authority, the Reserved Matters to be submitted pursuant to Condition A1 will be expected to be generally in accordance with, and show how they have taken account of:

• The access strategy set out in Section 6 of the submitted Design and Access Statement;

• The land use, quantum, and scale parameters set out in Sections 7 and 9 of the design and Access Statement;

• The strategy for design, landscaping and external appearance set out in Sections 7 and 9 of the Design and Access Statement

• The strategy for sustainable development set out in Section 8 of the Design and Access statement.


H2 No development shall occur on any plot or part of the development until details in relation to the boundary treatment to be used in relation to that plot or part of the development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the District Planning Authority, and thereafter implemented in accordance with the approved details. Grounds: In the interests of visual amenity and in pursuance of Policies E48 and G1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan.

H3 No building shall be constructed until details of the external materials to be used on that proposed building have been submitted to and approved by the District Planning Authority, and the development shall

Continued….

183

2.21 (Contd) PART 2 thereafter be undertaken in accordance with those approved details.


H4 No building shall be constructed until details of the location and design of external plant and equipment in relation to that proposed building have been submitted to and approved by the District Planning Authority, and the development shall thereafter be undertaken in accordance with those approved details. Grounds: In the interests of visual amenity and in pursuance of Policies E48 and G1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan.

H5 No building shall be constructed until details of foundations and/or a

piling method statement for that building until details of its siting, discharge points, and predicted acoustic performance have been submitted to and approved by the District Planning Authority. Grounds: In the interests of amenity in pursuance of Policies G1 and E2 of the Swale Borough Local Plan.

H6 No air conditioning, mechanical ventilation, or refrigeration equipment shall be installed in any building until details of its siting, discharge points, and predicted acoustic performance have been submitted to and approved by the District Planning Authority. Grounds: In the interests of amenity in pursuance of Policies G1 and E2 of the Swale Borough Local Plan.

Restriction on Access to Ecologically Sensitive Areas

H7 Prior to occupation of any development on site 1C, details in relation to the means by which access will be prevented and/or controlled to the bound to the south of the site and the adjoining Medway Estuary and Marshes SSSI shall be submitted and approved by the District Planning Authority, and the details as approved shall be implemented prior to occupation and thereafter maintained for the duration of occupation of the site. Grounds: To safeguard nature conservation interests and in pursuance of Policies E28 of the Swale Borough Local Plan and EN6 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan.

Pollution Prevention

H8 No underground storage tanks shall be installed until details of the structures (including the tanks, their surround, associated pipework and

Continued….

184

2.21 (Contd) PART 2 monitoring system) have been submitted to and approved by the

District Planning Authority, and any installation shall thereafter proceed in accordance with those details. Grounds: In the interests of satisfactory drainage provision and in pursuance of Policies G1, E3 and E4 of the Swale Borough Local Plan.

H9 No sewage or trade effluent (including vehicle wash or vehicle steam cleaning effluent) shall be discharged to any surface water drainage system. Grounds: In the interests of satisfactory drainage provision and in pursuance of Policies G1, E3 and E4 of the Swale Borough Local Plan.

H10 Prior to any use of vehicle wash facilities that may be approved for Plot 1E, details of the method of discharge to the foul sewage system shall be submitted and approved by the District Planning Authority, and the facility shall only be used in accordance with the approved details.

Grounds: In the interests of satisfactory drainage provision and in pursuance of Policies G1, E3 and E4 of the Swale Borough Local Plan.

Section I – General Conditions Relating to Construction

Flood Risk

I1 No building permitted as part of this development shall have a finished floor level set lower than +3.0 AOD. Grounds: To reduce the risk to life in the event of a flood and in pursuance of Policies G1, E23 and E24 of the Swale Borough Local Plan.

Contamination

I2 If during the construction of the development, contamination not previously identified is found to be present on site, then no further development (unless otherwise agreed with the District Planning Authority) shall be carried out until the developer has submitted, and obtained written approval from the District Planning Authority, details of how this unsuspected contamination has been dealt with. Grounds: To ensure any contaminated land is adequately dealt with, in pursuance of Policy E1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan.

Continued….

185

2.21 (Contd) PART 2 Management Plans

I3 All construction works shall accord with the Construction Management

Plan and Ecological Management Plan in relation to that plot or part of the development, in accordance with Conditions B4 and B5. Grounds: In the interests of protecting and enhancing biodiversity and in accordance with Policies E30 of the Swale Borough Local Plan and EN8 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan.

Reason for Approval Having taken all material considerations into account, it is considered that subject to compliance with the attached conditions, the proposal would be in accordance with the development plan and would not cause unacceptable harm to the amenities of the area or prejudice highway safety or convenience. In resolving to grant permission, particular regard has been had to the following policies: E1, E2, E3, E4, E5, E6, E14, E30, G1, B21, IN7, IN33 and IN39 of the Swale Borough Local Plan; E1, B14 and AAP6 of the Swale Borough Local Plan First Review Redeposit Draft; and NK3, FP3, QL1, NR10, NR5, TP19, QL12, EP2, EP4, TP3, EN5, EN6, EN8 and TP15 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan. Description of Development This application is primarily in outline form with most matters reserved for further approval. However, full details have been provided for the means of access up to the individual plot boundaries, the replacement facilities for the Port Authority and the proposed headquarters building for Aldi. Such an application is known as a "hybrid". Overall the proposed application comprises the following elements:- (i) Stage 1 of the A249 to Rushenden Relief Road (detailed planning); (ii) Plot 1A: B1(a) Office development, comprising of up to 5,000 sq m of

gross floorspace together with associated serving, parking and utilities (outline);

(iii) Plot 1B: B1(a)/B8 Regional Headquarters and Distributing Centre,

comprising of around 56,300 sq m gross floorspace, together with associated ancillary structures, serving, parking and utilities (detailed planning) – separate documentation is provided in respect of the details of Plot 1B, including a separate Design and Access Statement, Green Travel Plan, and detailed specifications for the floorspace areas and design, prepared by RGP Architects on behalf of Aldi Stores Ltd.

Continued….

186

2.21 (Contd) PART 2 (iv) Plot 1C: B1(c)/B2 and B8 mixed employment uses comprising of up to

25,000 sq m of gross floorspace, together with associated servicing, parking and utilities (outline).

(v) Plot 1D: Petrol Filling Station (including kiosk building) and restaurant

(use Class A3, A4 or A5) and car wash facilities, together with associated servicing, parking and utilities (outline).

(vi) Plot 1E: up to 80 bed hotel with associated conference facilities,

servicing, parking and utilities (outline). (vii) 1.2 hectares of replacement land for Port Authority in lieu of displaced

land, providing replacement car storage, revised site entrance, relocated site office, security lodge and revised drainage and utilities servicing, along with new/relocated security cameras, lighting and other services (detailed planning).

(viii) Associated highway, infrastructure and site preparation works, including

revised site levels, re-profiling and bunding (detailed planning). Other Important factors to note are that: (a) The first link of the proposed Rushenden Relief Report running from the

A249 to the second roundabout west of A249 is important for the operation of the proposed development of Neatscourt Phase 1 as it provides the main access into the site and therefore also forms part of this application.

(b) The proposed office development on Plot 1A, some 3.3 acres in size is

indicated on the proposals with a maximum of 3 storeys or 13m in total height, excluding a weather vane and ventilation, and would be sited between the A249 and the new Rushenden Relief Road. Parking would be provided adjacent to the office building.

(c) On Plot 1B which represents 13.1 hectares 32.47 acres in size detailed

permission is sought for a regional headquarters and distribution centre for Aldi. The building would have a maximum depth of 90m and length of 355m with a maximum height of 12m. There would be parking for 37 lorries at the "goods in" on the western side of the building which would have 31 delivery bays and parking for 17 lorries on the eastern side of the building. The site would also include a vehicle washing facility which would recycle water on the eastern side of the building. Three below ground fuel tanks would be provided also on the eastern side of the site.

The site will also house approximately 3,424m2 of offices for a regional

headquarters building for Aldi. Approximately 157 car spaces and Continued….

187

2.21 (Contd) PART 2 cycle parking would be provided for this building. The office building 2

storey in height would be attached to the north west corner of the distribution building and measure 90m x 25m.

The distribution and regional headquarters building would be

constructed of a steel frame clad mainly in a sinusoidal composite metal panel system which will be metallic silver in colour. The roof will be constructed from a single ply PVC membrane light grey in colour.

An 8m high earth bund would be constructed along the southern end of this site and the bund would be continued eastwards along the southern edge of Plot 1C.

(d) On Plot 1C, approximately 13.7 acres in size, it is proposed to construct a number of commercial units for a mix of B1(c)/B2 and B8 uses. The maximum height of these buildings will be 12m and access to the site will be via the site access road which runs along the northern side of Plot 1B and parallel to the A249.

(e) On Plot 1D, approximately 1.36 acres in size, which is located to the

north of the overall Phase 1 development between the proposed hotel and the Rushenden Relief Road, it is proposed to erect a petrol filing station which would have a maximum height of 6m and 10 pumps. It is also proposed to construct a drive through restaurant situated to the rear of the main forecourt to the petrol filling station, which would have a maximum roof height of 5m.

(f) On Plot 1E, to the south of the office development on Plot 1A and

adjoining the main access road and the A249, it is proposed to erect an 80 bedroom hotel including conference facilities. The building would have a maximum of 4 storeys of 18m high on its northern elevation and 3 storeys to its southern side.

(g) The alignment of the first 2 sections of the Rushenden Relief Road go

partly through the car storage compound to the west of the application site. It is therefore proposed to provide 1.2 hectares of compensating land to Medway Ports Ltd for car storage purposes. It is also proposed to provide a new site entrance to the car storage area, together with an associated gatehouse/office building, security barriers, new drainage ditches and security fencing.

(h) It is also proposed to carry out some re-profiling of the site to create

level areas for the proposed developments. This would involve lowering the levels of the site (cut) and raising the levels (fill) across the whole development. Some of the material from the cut and fill operation will be used in the construction of a bund along the southern edge of Plots 1B and 1C.

Continued….

188

2.21 (Contd) PART 2 When the site levels, drains and earthworks have been undertaken,

infrastructure for the individual plots will be carried out which would include internal access roads and services (gas, water supply, foul drainage and electricity).

The application is accompanied by an Environmental Statement and an

Addendum to the Environmental Statement, a transport assessment, a design and access statement, a surface water drainage and flood risk assessment and an Appropriate Assessment.

Relevant Site History and Description This application relates to an area of land approximately 28.9 hectares in size and comprises mostly of grazing marsh, grassland and drainage ditches at present. The site is flanked by the Medway Estuary and Marshes SSS1/SPA/Ramsar site along the southern boundary, the new A249 along its northern boundary and by either the Sheerness-Sittingbourne railway line or Medway Ports Ltd hardstanding on its western side, whilst to the east is the former public footpath ZR11 and agricultural land. Beyond the site to the north/northeast is the former A249 and several residential dwellings including Neatscourt Manor and Neatscourt Cottages beyond which are Furze Hill and Barrows Hill, 2 of the highest points on the Isle of Sheppey. Land to the south and south east is mainly open grazing marsh with isolated farms and residences between the site and the Swale. To the west of the site beyond the railway lies Rushenden, with land between comprising a range of commercial uses and open expanses of hardstanding for the storage of motor vehicles. Between Rushenden and Queenborough the land is predominantly industrial, commercial or derelict with Queenborough itself to the north and north west of the application site. In terms of relevant planning history, Members resolved to grant planning permission in July 1995 for industrial, warehousing and distribution uses comprising approximately 90,000m2 of floorspace (36,000m2 B2 and 54,000m2 B8 uses) on 64 hectares of land, with a buffer area on the northern side to safeguard the amenities of nearby residents in Queenborough. (Ref. SW/95/100). Views of Consultees Minster Parish Council comment "that adequate flood protection must be in place to ensure continuity of flood defence. The southern boundary needs treatment so that it blends in with the marshes. The Council welcomes the employment opportunities the proposal will bring to the locality." Queenborough Town Council make the following comments:

Continued….

189

2.21 (Contd) PART 2

"(a) Members have drawn attention to problems that have become apparent in respect of the roundabouts on the A249, where several accidents have occurred in less than a year. Concern was expressed over the very likely possibility of further incidents closing this section of the road and the effect this would have on the flow of vehicles to and from the depot. It is felt that a contingency plan should be worked out in advance in readiness for any future incidents.

(b) The plans appear to show landscaping and other measures to mitigate disturbance to the existing residential properties sited along the old road. Previous experience indicates that such proposals do not always come to fruition and the planning authority is urged to include conditions in any approval to ensure that these measures are put into effect. (c) While it is accepted that the main warehouse building is functional, some disappointment was expressed that its design is not more aesthetically pleasing. It is hoped that the above comments on the proposal, which, in general, is to be welcomed as a source of new employment for the area, are of interest. No doubt the planning officers will keep the Town Council appraised of progress/developments as the application proceeds."

The Environment Agency object to the application due to the significant loss of grazing marsh contrary to PPS9 and Policy B14 of the emerging Local Plan. The Agency acknowledge that the applicant intend to provide compensatory habitat however as submitted the application does not provide the necessary degree of certainty that such suitable compensation will be forthcoming or even possible and therefore permission should not be granted. Kent County Council Archaeological Unit raise no objection and recommend imposition of conditions relating to securing appropriate archaeological elevation and mitigation measures. Southern Water Services raise no objection and recommend imposition of conditions relating to details of foul and surface water sewerage to be submitted and approved. The Head of Environmental Services raises no objection and recommends imposition of conditions relating to the details of mechanical ventilation systems and exterior lighting to be submitted and approved, restriction on hours of construction and restrictions on any impact pile driving, and details of a dust oppression programme to be submitted and agreed. EDF, which has 2 overhead powerlines passing over the site, raise no objection provided all clearances to overhead power lines are maintained and that no building takes place under or close to the conductors.

Continued….

190

2.21 (Contd) PART 2 Kent Wildlife Trust raise objection due to the lack of information in the EIA in which to base an assessment of the impact of this application on nature conservation interests in the area and its compliance with relevant policies. In particular the Trust considers that there are no details of the effects of lights, noise, vibration or visual disturbance to the birds of the SPA/SSS1/Ramsar sites either during operational or construction phases in the Environmental Statement (ES), or the detrimental effects of the construction process on nature conservation, interests of the site, the ES dos not fully address the potential risks of contamination of surface water run off. The Trust also considers that they are not confident that appropriate compensation can be provided compensating habitat must be identified and appropriate agreements shown to be secured before any planning decision. However, in order to resolve these outstanding issues Kent Wildlife Trust accept that a Grampian condition be imposed to secure the provision of compensatory habitat, provided that the wording has been agreed by Natural England to ensure compliance with the Habitats Regulations. The Trust understands also that further discussions are taking place between the applicant and Natural England to agree the enhancement strategy. The Trust has some concerns regarding the detail of the enhancement strategy but would accept one that Natural England and Environment Agency had agreed to. The Trust also suggest the applicant should provide a more vigorous assessment of the potential impacts and ensure that the proposed investigation is sufficient to address these impacts. RSPB raise objection pending the outcome of further discussions surrounding the Appropriate Assessment, mitigation for impacts on the European sites in the area and provision of compensatory grazing marsh habitat. Natural England have similar concerns to RSPB and KWT regarding the proposals and raise objection as they do not believe the ES adequately address all of their natural conservation concerns including provision of compensatory grazing marsh habitat and the Appropriate Assessment. Comments from Kent Highway Services and the Highways Agency are still awaited and I hope to report their views to Members at the meeting. As a result of the above comments in particular from the nature conservation bodies, the developer has produced an Addendum to the Environmental Statement which the Council has reconsulted the various bodies upon, seeking their further views. Queenborough Town Council made some detailed comments about the use of the former Caradon site as parking area for HGVs which would mean they would reach the area via Queenborough's narrow roads something they hoped would be avoided and disappointed no steps are mentioned to tidy up the tidal pond.

Continued….

191

2.21 (Contd) PART 2 The Environment Agency, whilst welcoming the contents of the Addendum, raise objection because of their serious concerns of loss of grazing marsh habitat and no firm proposals to enhance land within SSS1, SPA and Ramsar have been provided. These issues need to be resolved before determining the application. The RSPB, KWT and NE all raise similar objections to the Addendum and the proposals and note that the applicant is to provide further information on replacement and enhancement land shortly together with an Appropriate Assessment, and trust these objections need to be resolved before granting planning permission. Other Representations Three letters of objection, two from the same writer have been received raising the following issues:-

• This is the wrong location for such a large building when coming onto Sheppey which will put people off wanting to live here.

• Concern over large areas of hardstanding leading to flooding.

• Impact on flora and fauna and setting of Listed Building.

• Increase in car journeys, limited encouragement of cycling or walking.

• Should encourage a train system or more buses to the site rather than

more cars.

• Concern if business fail or circumstances change in next few years and there is no demand for such development, what happens then?

• Designs of proposals are mediocre, should be dramatic and significant

structures.

• Harmful impact on views from surrounding areas, footpaths, viewpoints etc.

• Lack of highway information for Phase 2 and 3 regarding traffic

analysis.

Continued….

192

2.21 (Contd) PART 2 Relevant Planning Policies National Policy PPS1: Sustainable Development Sustainable development is acknowledged as a core principle underpinning the planning process. PPS1 sets out the Government's key aims for sustainable development and suggests that these should be pursued in an integrated way through a sustainable, innovative and productive economy, with social inclusion, sustainable communities and personal well-being. PPG4: Industrial and Commercial Development PPG4 takes a positive approach to the location of new business developments and assisting small firms through the planning system. The guidance encourages continued economic development in a way which is compatible with the Government's stated environmental objectives. PPS9: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation PPS9 sets out the planning policies on protection of biodiversity and geological conservation through the planning system. PPS9 states that the aim of planning decisions should be to prevent harm to biodiversity and geological conservation interests and if significant harm to these interests cannot be prevented, adequately mitigated against, or compensated for, then planning permission should be refused. The guidance stresses the importance of international sites (eg SACs and SPAs), SSIs, regional and local sites, ancient woodland, networks of natural habitats and species of principle importance in conserving the diversity of the UK's natural environment. In taking decisions, local planning authorities should ensure that appropriate weight is attached to designated sites of international, national and local importance, protected species; and to biodiversity and geological interests within the wider environment. PPG13: Transport PPG13 emphasises the need for people to be able to travel safely, whatever their chosen method of transport. While the guidance suggests that alternatives to private car transport should be proposed wherever possible, it also recognises that in rural areas the potential for utilising public transport, non-recreational walking and cycling is more limited. Local air quality is also a key consideration for local authorities in the integration between planning and transport assessment.

Continued….

193

2.21 (Contd) PART 2 PPS23: Planning and Pollution Control The overall aim of planning and pollution control policy is to ensure the sustainable and beneficial use of land (and in particular encouraging reuse of previously developed land in preference of greenfield sites). Within this aim, polluting activities that are necessary for society and the economy should be so sited and planned, and subject to planning conditions, that their adverse effects are minimised and contained to within acceptable limits. PPG24: Planning and Noise PPG24, published in September 1994, sets out the Government policy with respect to noise related planning issues and gives advice to local authorities on the use of their planning powers to minimise the impact of noise. PPS25: Development and Flood Risk PPS25 aims to ensure that flood risk is taken into account at all stages in the planning process to avoid inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding and to direct development away from areas at highest risk. Where new development is needed in such areas then it aims to make it safe without increasing flood risk elsewhere and if possible reduce flood risk overall. Regional Planning Policy RPG9a: Thames Gateway Planning Framework The regeneration of the Isle of Sheppey falls under the Thames Gateway Planning Framework. RPG9a states that whilst the emphasis of planning policies should be to support economic regeneration, particularly focused on distribution and transhipment uses near the port of Sheerness, there is also a need for housing to support this development and the need for a second Swale crossing. Local Policy Adopted Kent and Medway Structure Plan (2006) Policy NK3 of the structure Plan identified Queenborough and Rushenden as a strategic development area with the objective of supporting economic regeneration and diversification. It identifies the area for mixed-use development for housing, employment and community facilities in conjunction with environmental improvements and transport measures, including the Rushenden Relief Road.

Continued….

194

2.21 (Contd) PART 2 Policy FP3 of the Structure Plan specifically identifies Neatscourt (including the Phase 1 application site) as a strategic employment location and a priority for delivery. The Structure Plan also emphasises that the delivery of such strategic employment sites are crucial to the success of the plan. Other important Structure Plan policies which need to be considered including the following are:- EN5 (Special Landscape Areas), EN6 (International and National Wildlife Designation), EN8 (Protecting, Conserving and Enhancing Biodiversity), QL1 (Quality of Development and Design), QL12 (Provision for New Community Services and Infrastructure), EP2 (Employment Land Provision), EP3 (Location of New or Replacement Employment Land), EP4 (Locations of Strategic Importance for Business, Distribution or Industrial Uses), TP1 (Integrated Transport Strategy), TP3 (Transport and the Location of Development), TP19 (Vehicle Parking Standards), NR5 (Pollution Impacts) and NR6 (Development Sensitive to Pollution). Adopted Swale Borough Local Plan Key matters associated with the submission of planning applications are considered together by the Borough Council under Policy G1, (General developed criteria) although the plan acknowledges that this policy is not comprehensive in all the matters that will need to be taken into account, and therefore must not be considered in isolation. With respect to land contamination, Policy E1 states that the applications for new development on land suspected or known to be contaminated shall include a detailed site investigation of all likely contaminants, and appropriate measures to deal with any unacceptable risks to heath or the environment, taking into account the actual or intended use of the land. When considering applications with the potential to increase ambient noise levels, the Borough Council will seek to use Policy E2 to minimise the impact of noise between new and existing uses and its introduction into already developed areas in accordance with the standards given in Planning Policy Guidance Note 24. Development proposals will require the submission of appropriate details to enable a full judgement of the impact of the development to be made. With respect to the protection of the water environment, Policy E3 prevents the granting of planning permission for development that will have an unacceptable effect on water supply sources, would prevent or reduce replenishment of groundwater aquifers, or would lead to changes in local hydrology which would adversely affect flora and fauna. Policy E4 precludes the granting of planning permission for development which would lead to the pollution of surface or groundwater.

Continued….

195

2.21 (Contd) PART 2 The Adopted Plan recognises that air pollution does not respect administrative boundaries and hence the air quality of the Borough will be influenced by sources outside it. This acknowledgement notwithstanding, Policy E5 seeks to minimise the potential for adverse effects to local air quality within the Borough by precluding new development where the proposed use would have an unacceptably adverse effect on the air quality of the area. With respect to light pollution, the Adopted Plan suggests that the impact within and upon residential areas is generally the most important but that regard should also be given to the impact of illumination on rural areas and bordering areas of nature conservation interest. Policy E6 requires that where planning applications include external lighting, details are provided with the application, and that the proposed lighting minimises potential pollution from glare or spillage. An area of the eastern side of the Phase 1 site falls within a Special Landscape Area (SLA) designated within the Kent and Medway Structure Plan. With respect to SLAs, Policy E14 sates that these will be afforded long-term protection. The Borough Council will give priority to the conservation and enhancement of the landscapes over other planning considerations, whilst having regard to the economic and social well being of the areas. The Phase 1 site is also set in the context of a Local Landscape Area at Rushenden Hill to the west of the site, which is of importance as it forms the western extremity of the Sheppey Hills and is therefore important in the wider landscape. Flooding is an important issue both at national and local policy level and Policy E24 states that development will not be permitted within areas at risk of fluvial or tidal flooding (ie below 5.58m Ordnance Datum Newlyn) unless it is otherwise acceptable to the District Planning Authority in the context of the other relevant policies in the Plan, and suitable measures are incorporated regarding flood containment and public safety. With respect to nature conservation, Policy E28 gives long term protection to sites designated as having national and international importance for nature conservation, including SSSIs, SPAs and Ramsar sites. Protection is also provided within the Adopted Plan under Policy E29 for sites of importance at County level, including sites of Nature Conservation Interest (SNCI) and Local Nature Reserves (LNR). Beyond the aforementioned designated areas, the Borough Council will also seek to protect other features that have a nature conservation interest. Policy E30 states that development proposals involving such areas will normally only be permitted if there is a need for the development which outweighs the nature conservation interest and, where appropriate, the development incorporates or retains as much of the conservation interest as possible. Where possible, development proposals should include provision for the repair, creation and management of features. Where nature conservation management is proposed, Policy E32 suggests that the Borough Council will use, where appropriate, planning conditions

Continued….

196

2.21 (Contd) PART 2 and/or management agreements to ensure its future management, although it is recognised that this management may not be directly undertaken by the developer. In terms of specific policies for this site, Members should note that: Policy B21 states that 'planning permission has been agreed for approximately 64 hectares of land at Neatscourt, Queenborough… for industrial, warehousing and distribution uses, comprising approximately 90,000 square metres of floorspace (36,000 square metres B2 and 54,000 square metres B8 type uses), together with a buffer are on the northern side to safeguard the amenities of nearby residents in Queenborough.' Policy IN33 states that 'the Borough Council will seek the provision of a new direct road link between the A249 and Rushenden at the earliest possible opportunity. The land shown for the provision of the route on the Proposals Map will be safeguarded from any built development until such time as a new line is approved.' Policy IN39 states that the new cycle and footpath links will be provided at a number of locations around the Isle of Sheppey. These include links between Borough Road and the Neatscourt employment site. Swale Borough Local Plan First Review Re-Deposit Draft Many of the policies outlined above have been carried into the emerging Local Plan. However an area action plan for Queenborough and Rushenden has also been identified. This area action plan covers over 165 hectares of land and buildings on both sides of Queenborough Creek and includes the employment land allocation at Neatscourt under Policy B14. The area has been identified as a major strategic opportunity for regeneration (primarily housing and employment with associated social provision) of the Island. Under Policy AAP6 it states:- "Within this area, planning policies and proposals will aim to ensure a coordinated and phased development that maximises benefits to the existing and new communities; the removal of unsightly industry and its traffic; and the creation of a healthy living and working environment that improves quality of life." The policy further goes on to state:- "As appropriate and depending upon the level of public funding, developer contributions will be required towards the provision of the Rushenden Link road from all developments within the Area Action Plan area."

Continued….

197

2.21 (Contd) PART 2 Neatscourt itself is allocated primarily for class B2 (General Industrial) and B8 (Storage and Distribution) uses under Policy B14 of the plan which states that:-

"Policy B14

The Borough Council will grant planning permission for the use of 54 hectares of land at Neatscourt as shown on the Proposals Map for a range of employment uses, primarily within use classes B2 and B8. All development should accord with the adopted Development Framework for the wider Area Action Plan area, and with a more detailed Master Plan to be submitted to and agreed by the District Planning Authority. Key issues to be addressed in relation to this site include: (i) Access to the site, including the provision of part of the Rushenden

Link Road. (ii) Mitigation and compensation for loss of grazing marsh. (iii) The safeguarding of residential amenity. (iv) The impact on landscape. (v) The retention, protection and upgrading of existing flood protection

measures. (vi) The phasing of development within the site.

Given the role of this site in relation to the wider regeneration proposals for the Queenborough and Rushenden area, the development will be expected to contribute proportionately to the new and improved highway, social and community requirements identified to serve the site, as to be set out in the agreed Developer Contributions Strategy as part of the Master Plan to be prepared for the Area Action Plan."

Comments This application site offers one of the few large areas of land on Sheppey close to major transport routes and local workforce. It is recognised in the emerging and adopted Local Plans and the Kent and Medway Structure Plan as a site of strategic importance for employment uses and forms part of the Queenborough and Rushenden Regeneration Scheme under Policy AAP6. The development potential of this site has been triggered by the recent completion of the A249 Improvement Scheme and the provision of the Rushenden Relief Road. The site is recognised in the development plans as being suitable for a range of industrial, warehousing and distribution uses. However, in the consideration of this application there are a number of key issues to consider as set out below:- Employment Swale as a whole and Queenborough and Rushenden are classed as being

Continued….

198

2.21 (Contd) PART 2 relatively deprived when compared to the rest of the country. Rates of unemployment within Queenborough and Halfway Ward are higher than either for the South East or for England. With this in mind, I note that the Environmental Statement predicts that the proposed development would provide 43 full time construction workers for the first two years of the initial infrastructure phase and 290 full time workers for approximately 10 years for the construction of the various employment uses. The ES predicts the proposed Aldi building would create some 200 jobs and the rest of the developments in Phase 1 could employ between 873 and 1294 jobs. This site forms part of the Area Action Plan for Queenborough and Rushenden, the Master Plan for which has yet to be adopted by the Council. Nevertheless, the approval of this development would be the key start for Area Action Plan and the Rushenden Link Road. The proposed development will clearly provide major new employment opportunities for the Isle of Sheppey and will help to address the current decline in the area's industrial base. Cultural Heritage The assessment of effects on cultural heritage includes both buried archaeology and above ground features such as monuments and Listed Buildings. Effects can be both direct, such as loss of a resource, and also indirect effects to the setting of a feature. The closest Listed Building to the site is at Neatscourt Manor located on the former A249 to the north east. The majority of the potential effects are predicted to take place during the construction phase, and in particular during the site reprofiling exercise when the ground will be disturbed and excavated over large areas of the site. There are a very few known archaeological features that will be affected by these activities but the presence and importance of any unknown archaeology present on the site is by its nature uncertain. The County Archaeological Unit raise no objection to the application and suggest imposition of appropriate conditions. Predicted effects during the post construction phase of the proposed development are predominantly associated with the effect of the built development on the change in the setting of the Listed Neatscourt Manor and the change in the character of the historic landscape. Although the setting of the Listed Building has already been affected by the presence of the new A249 corridor to its south, hedgerow planting within the developer's proposed landscape strategy will provide a degree of mitigation to the change in setting by helping to filter views of the proposed development from this building.

Continued….

199

2.21 (Contd) PART 2 Impact on Nature Conservation Interests This issue has been a major concern for many of the consultees on this application. It is important to note that major nature conservation interests lie immediately to the south and west of the site in the form of the Medway Estuary and Marshes SSSI/SPA/Ramsar and further to the south and south east is the Swale SSSI/SPA/Ramsar. The predominant ecological interest of these designated areas is for birds but the SSSI and Ramsar designations also reflect the importance of other plans and animals within this area. The Neatscourt Phase 1 site includes an area of grazing marsh, which is identified as a Priory Habitat within Biodiversity Action Plans at both County and national level. A range of ecological surveys have been undertaken by the applicant which has determined the importance of certain areas for wintering birds, breeding birds, water voles, reptiles, amphibians, invertebrates and plants. Nevertheless, the proposed development will result in the removal or disturbance of much of the existing grazing marsh and grassland on the site and the loss of approximately 1.6 kilometres of existing ditches on the site, areas of which are of importance for water voles, amphibians and invertebrates. There is also the potential for disturbance to birds using the designated area to the south of the site during both the construction and post-construction phases. The predicted effects of the proposed development with respect to ecology are therefore considered to be potentially significant. The applicant argues that the design and layout of the site has attempted to minimise adverse effects where possible, for example by construction of a bund along the southern edge of the site as a buffer to the SSSI/SPA/Ramsar and by maintaining wildlife corridors through the site, with connections to habitats adjacent to the site. The applicant has been in lengthy negotiations and consultations with National England; the EA and KWT to determine the need for replacement habitat for the habitats which will be lost as a result of the development proposals. This replacement habitat requires to be sufficiently close to the development site and with suitable characteristics such that it can be used by species displaced as a result of the proposed development. These negotiations are still ongoing between the developer and nature conservation bodies as there is still some uncertainty about when and where the compensatory habitats will be provided. I hope to report further on this to Members at the meeting. The developer has however suggested that some 3.3 kilometres of replacement ditches will be constructed within the application site and these are to be of a design agreed with nature conservation bodies and once

Continued….

200

2.21 (Contd) PART 2 established it is hoped these will provide an increased area of suitable habitat for the species using the existing ditches on the site. Impact on Landscape The application site lies on gently rising ground, characterised by a lack of hedges or trees, reflecting the open character of the marshes to the south and east. The importance of this wider marshland landscape setting is acknowledged in the Thames Gateway Planning Framework and in the Structure and Local Plan policies. Part of the site also lies within the North Kent Marshes Special Landscape Area. Members have already determined in their consideration of responses to the emerging Local Plan to override this designation. Furthermore, it is important to recognise that this land at Neatscourt has been allocated for employment uses for many years and has been identified as such since the Sheerness, Queenborough and Minster Local Plan adopted in 1988 and then carried on into the adopted Swale Borough Local Plan. Nonetheless, it will remain important for any scheme of development whether for buildings or for use as open storage that the potential effects are mitigated against, particularly when viewed from the south or east, and that a high standard of design, layout, external lighting schemes and choice of materials is achieved within the site when viewed from the north or west. This can be achieved through the use of appropriate conditions. A scheme of bunding, fencing and water features has been provided for the Aldi development and Plot 1B. It is considered that this is the most suitable treatment along this sensitive southern boundary in the landscape, as the planting of trees would be alien to the marshland setting. The proposed features will help to soften the effects of development within the wider setting. Nevertheless, the proposed development will have urbanising effects and is of a substantial scale, particularly when viewed in relation to the surrounding land uses, that despite the various landscaping strategies put forward by the developer, there will be changes in a number of views and changes to the character of the local landscape. Impact on Land Drainage Being low-lying and adjacent to the river Swale, the site has historically experienced periods of characteristic flooding. There is a network of water bodies, both natural and man made across and adjacent to the site which collectively form an extensive system of land drainage. The existing site surface is predominantly permeable (grazing marsh and grassland) and the majority of rainwater falling on the site will either enter the ground, drain across land surfaces to watercourses relatively slowly or evaporate. The proposed development will change the characteristics of the

Continued….

201

2.21 (Contd) PART 2 land to become a site that is predominantly impermeable. The main effect associated with this change being that there will be a substantial increase in the volume of rainwater to be managed on the site, and an increase in the rate at which this water will enter ditches. If unmanaged, this increase in surface water has the potential to change the drainage characteristics on land adjacent to the site or potentially result in flooding. The proposed development will also remove approximately 8 hectares of existing flood storage area, on the basis of predictive mapping provided by the Environment Agency. However, the proposals ensure that all storm water generated from the Aldi Stores Ltd site (Plot 1B) will be stored within its boundary and this will be discharged to the surrounding drainage network at a controlled rate equivalent to the existing rate at which the land drains to ditches. A network of new ditches has been provided within the wider development site, and these are required to fulfil three key functions; to store storm water generated by the impermeable surfaces from other areas within the site, to provide replacement habitat (as discussed above) and to provide replacement for the loss of flood storage. The applicant states that the extent and design of the ditch network has been agreed with the Environment Agency and that there are no adverse effects predicted with respect to off-site receptors. I note that the Environment Agency do not raise objection to the application regarding matters of land drainage or flood risk. Traffic Generation and Transportation The application is accompanied by a transport assessment which acknowledges that there are limited public transport services within Queenborough and Rushenden and a similarly limited range of pedestrian and cycle routes. The completion of the A249 improvements has relieved traffic flow along the old A249 and have provided a junction into the Neatscourt site but there are no pedestrian or cycle facilities along this stretch of important road. The application includes the construction of the first two sections of the Rushenden Relief Road, providing a connection with the A249 for road traffic. These links have been designed in association with Kent Highways and the Highways Agency in order to cater for the predicted traffic flows and hence there will be no capacity problems within the site. Predicted changes in traffic flow on local roads are relatively low, with the majority of traffic arising from the proposed development likely to use the A249 north and south of the site. There are no formal means of accessing the site on foot, by cycle or public transport, however, facilities have been incorporated into the design of the site such that these means of transport can access the site once the Relief Road is completed.

Continued….

202

2.21 (Contd) PART 2 I would remind Members that neither Kent Highway Services or the Highways Agency have commented on the application and I hope to have their views for the meeting. Summary and Conclusion The suitability of this site for employment has been explored and tested through previous Local Plan inquiries and in terms of its strategic importance through the review of the Structure Plan. These decisions and policy statements confirm the importance of this site as a key element in the economic strategy for the area. The application therefore has the support of strong strategic and local policy backing. The site forms part of the Area Action Plan for Queenborough and Rushenden as it is seen as a major strategic opportunity for regeneration through the introduction of new employment opportunities supported by new housing to address both the current decline in the area's industrial base and acknowledged issues of social exclusion and physical isolation. It would clearly have been preferable for the wider Masterplan to have been adopted before this application is determined but I am persuaded that the benefits of an early permission for the first stages of the road and the employment development are such that the application should be supported. With regard to nature conservation, interests which are raised by KWT, NE, EA and the RSPB, the applicant has gone a long way to ensuring a sustainable development package. This is assuming that the current discussions between the various parties, regarding the provision of compensatory habitats are successfully concluded. I hope to report further on these issues at the meeting. I therefore consider that subject to the conditions and legal agreements suggested therefore, and to the successful resolution of the outstanding issues, to the views of Kent Highway Services and the Highways Agency that planning permission should be granted. List of Background Documents 1. Application papers and correspondence for application SW/06/1468. 2. Application papers and correspondence for applications SW/95/100

and SW/98/509.

1

PLANNING COMMITTEE – 16TH AUGUST 2007 PART 3 Report of the Head of Development Services PART 3 Applications for which REFUSAL is recommended

3.1 SW/07/0768 (Case 4150) OSPRINGE

Location: The Linnets, Hanslett Lane, Ospringe, Faversham Proposal: Conversion and re-building of part of former woodshed to

provide on site foresters and night-watchmans cottage Applicant/Agent: Mr J Mackrill & Mrs E Jansen, c/o J B Associates, 13

Morris Court Close, Bapchild, Sittingbourne, Kent Application Valid: 28 June 2007

SUBJECT TO: Views of the Parish Council and other representations (closing date 6 August 2007)

Reasons (1) The provision of residential accommodation on this rural site will be an

intrusive and undesirable development detrimental to the character and amenities of this Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. This site is outside the defined built-up area of any settlement and, as such, the development would be contrary to Policies EN1, EN3, EN4 and EN5 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan and Policies G1, E9, E13 and E14 of the Swale Borough Local Plan, which seek to protect the countryside for its own sake and which specify that development will not be permitted in rural Kent except in certain specified circumstances. The Council has carefully considered the justification put forward for the proposal, but does not consider this sufficient to override policies designed to protect rural areas from unnecessary and intrusive development. In the opinion of the District Planning Authority there are no such circumstances which justify the granting of planning permission in this case.

Description of Proposal This application proposes the erection of a timber clad bungalow, to the proportions of part of a building which formerly stood (and has been partly re-built) on this site. The bungalow would have a living room, kitchen, utility room, bathroom, two bedrooms and an office.

Continued….

2

3.1 (Contd) PART 3

The bungalow would serve the twin needs of site security and a base for managing 50 to 60 hectares of local coppiced woodland, although none of this is attached to the site. The application is supported by a lengthy Design and Access Statement which I have included as Appendix A to this item.

Relevant Site History and Description

The site is a wood yard and base for chestnut fence manufacture, located off Well Lane at Ospringe. It is now divorced from surrounding land, but was formerly attached to wider land which included a permanent dwelling. Land ownership was severed a few years ago, and this site no longer enjoys any residential accommodation. The nearby house has been sold to others, and has recently been replaced by a new house further up the hillside.

When the current applicants bought the site it was largely derelict and a long

(47m in length) workshop had collapsed. They have re-built the eastern half and this is now in use again for fence manufacture. At the western end of the base of this workshop (the site of the proposed bungalow) stands a residential mobile home. This is subject to an Enforcement Notice, and is due to be removed from the site by 26 September 2007. Since purchasing the site from the former owner, for whom the applicants had previously worked on the site, one or both applicants have submitted three planning applications to occupy a mobile home on the site.

In October 2001 Mr Mackrill applied (SW/01/1105) to site a mobile home on the appeal site to enable charcoal burning. Mr Mackrill stated his address as 14 St Nicholas Road, Faversham. This is just a few miles from the site, and is a permanent home. The Council consulted the Parish Council and a professional rural planning consultant on the application. The Parish Council understood that such a proposal was contrary to relevant Development Plan policies. The Council’s consultant visited the site and provided a full letter assessing the case. This letter indicated that Mr Mackrill was a fencing contractor who operated, at that time, from a yard he rented elsewhere. My understanding is that this yard did not and does not have any residential accommodation associated with it. Mr Mackrill presumably ran it whilst living in Faversham. The consultant’s conclusion was that Mr Mackrill wanted to live on the site permanently, in excess of the times necessary to manage the charcoal production, and that he did not have a sound business plan. The application was refused in January 2002. In May 2003 Mr Mackrill and Ms Jansen applied (SW/03/1416) to station a mobile home on the site. The application was introduced by a letter from the agent which stated that “there is now no intention to carry on any charcoal burning or other quasi industrial use on the site”. Rather the stated intention was to utilise the site as a smallholding, demolishing existing buildings. Mr Mackrill was stated as still residing in Faversham and running his fencing business. The Council’s consultant again reviewed the case. He found the case to be too insubstantial to merit the granting of even a temporary permission. The application was refused in January 2004.

Continued….

3

3.1 (Contd) PART 3 In February 2005 the current applicants applied (SW/05/0252) to station a mobile home for occupation by those engaged in the existing use of the site as a wood yard. This simply argued the need to live on site to prevent theft and harm to thieves from sharp, powerful equipment. When dealing with the application it became clear that the applicants had moved on to the site in a mobile home. I did not consider this need could justify a mobile home in the light of rural planning policies. Planning permission was refused in April 2005, and following correspondence regarding the mobile home an Enforcement Notice was served. Both were the subject of appeal. Following a public inquiry in September 2006 planning permission was refused, and the Enforcement Notice was confirmed, although the Inspector gave 12 months to remove the mobile home. The appeal decision is attached as Appendix B to this item. In my view the decision turned on four issues: 1. Obvious harm to policy and rural character from residential use of this

rural site within the Kent Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (paragraphs 16-19).

2. Lack of any functional need to live on site, with site security not being

enough alone (paragraphs 13, 14, 20 and 22). 3. Lack of exploration of alternative site security solutions by the applicants

(paragraphs 20 and 21). 4. Lack of evidence of a proper search for other sites to run the business

from (paragraph 15). It is these issues which this application seeks to address. Views of Consultees I have not yet received views from the Parish Council, or from Kent Highway Services. Nor have I received any comments from local residents. The closing date for comments is 6 August 2007, so I will be able to report further at the meeting, allowing the Council to determine the application within the statutory eight week period ending on 23 August 2007. The Council’s Rural Planning Consultant (who has very usefully commented on the applicants’ previous applications) has stated that the applicants' evidence on site security needs and charcoal burning and their proposed business plan are inadequate to justify a new residential dwelling, and that the 60ha of chestnut coppice woodland are local to the proposed housing site but are not adjoining it. He concludes by stating that management of coppiced woodland "would only amount to an argument that the occupiers should live somewhere in the general area: the management of woodlands some distance away cannot give rise to any essential functional need, day or night, to live at this particular site".

Continued….

4

3.1 (Contd) PART 3

Relevant Planning Policies The key issues involved in this case are the potential harm to the openness of the countryside, landscape quality and the natural beauty of the area, and the question of need for permanent on-site accommodation. The most relevant policies to consider are Policies EN1, EN3, EN4, EN5 and HP5 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan and Policies G1, E9, E13 and E14 of the Swale Borough Local Plan. These all essentially aim to protect the countryside and this protected landscape from unnecessary development to allow its natural beauty and unspoilt nature to be appreciated. These aims neatly dovetail with issues regarding sustainability in terms of focusing new development at existing centres, and reducing the need for travel. It is clear to me that a very clear justification would need to be presented to override these issues. At a national level Planning Policy Statement 7: Sustainable Development in Rural Areas (PPS7) contains Annex A, which relates to dwellings for rural workers. This emphasises the need for a functional requirement to live on a particular site, as well as a sound financial platform for any rural business. It indicates that site security needs alone will not be sufficient to justify a rural dwelling, and that it will often be as convenient and more sustainable for workers to live in nearby towns or villages, so avoiding potentially intrusive development in the countryside. In addition to forestry dwellings, paragraph 14 of Annex A to PPS7 states that "under conventional methods of forestry management, which can involve the use of peripatetic workforce, new forestry dwellings may not always be justified, except perhaps to service intensive nursery production of trees." PPS7 further advises that the replacement of non-residential buildings with residential development should be treated as new housing development.

Discussion I set out above the four factors which I believe led the Inspector to dismiss the applicants’ recent appeal, and indicated the planning issues of most importance here. I believe that a good basis for considering this application is the extent to which it overcomes those obstacles, and any other merits which it has. Issue1: Development in the Countryside In paragraphs 16-19 of his decision the Inspector pointed to the provision of a residential curtilage, use of the site outside working hours, visual impact and the effect on a landscape remarkably free of built development as reasons to dismiss the appeal. This proposal replaces the poor appearance of a mobile home with a building akin to part of the former workshop. This is a better design approach, but is one which is necessarily of a domestic appearance. I do not find that this does anything to overcome any of the Inspector’s concerns, not least those concerned with policy conflict and basic undesirability of residential occupation of the site.

Continued….

5

3.1 (Contd) PART 3

Issue 2: Lack of Functional Need The previous application was explained simply on a need to provide security to the site. The case now advanced is more complex in that it is based on a need to live on this site to manage local coppiced woodland. It is not stated where these woodlands are, but I understand them to be around the Faversham and Ospringe areas. I appreciate the proper management of coppiced woodland is beneficial to the character of this area, and that the applicants have long-term connections with coppicing and are genuine in their intentions. However, I do not consider that it is normally necessary for workers to live in the woodland concerned, especially as the various woodlands are necessarily coppiced on a rotational basis, and they would not all be lived in; nor can I see any reason to suppose that it is necessary for anyone to reside at this site in order to effect the proper management of various woodlands in the area. To this extent I do not believe that the current application provides a clear functional need to live on this site, or overcomes the Inspector’s concerns. I believe this view is entirely consistent with advice on PPS7, and the comments made by the Council’s Rural Planning Consultant. Issue 3: Alternative Site Security Solutions The applicants have explained their estimates of costs for alternative site security solutions (see Appendix A) – Section 3.0). This goes a long way to filling the gap in their previous case, although in no way do they state that these alternatives are impractical, just too costly. In combination with a functional need to live on the site, I could see how these costs could be avoided by deriving security via on site residence. However, on their own, I remain convinced that they cannot justify new residential development. Issue 4: Site Search The Inspector made it very clear that he felt that the appellants’ choice of site was based principally on personal preference rather than any extensive search for a suitable site (see Appendix B, paragraph 15). He added that he would have expected a suitable site to become available as a result of farm diversification, probably with built-in supervision, as had been the case in the past. This matter has not been addressed now by the applicants, and I am bound to conclude that it still stands.

Continued….

6

3.1 (Contd) PART 3

Recommendation Whilst I do not yet have the views of the Parish Council available to me, I find no convincing case of a need to provide a dwelling on this rural site which overcomes strong rural restraint policies, or overcomes the conclusions of the Council’s Rural Planning Consultant or the Inspector who recently refused planning permission for residential use of a mobile home for site security purposes. I recommend that planning permission is refused.

______________ Background Papers 1. Application Papers and Correspondence for SW/07/0778 2. Application Papers and Correspondence for all applications referred to in the

report.

7

APPENDIX A ITEM 3.1

8

APPENDIX A ITEM 3.1

9

APPENDIX A ITEM 3.1

10

APPENDIX A ITEM 3.1

11

APPENDIX A ITEM 3.1

12

APPENDIX B ITEM 3.1

13

APPENDIX B ITEM 3.1

14

APPENDIX B ITEM 3.1

15

APPENDIX B ITEM 3.1

16

APPENDIX B ITEM 3.1

17

APPENDIX B ITEM 3.1

18

APPENDIX B ITEM 3.1

19

APPENDIX B ITEM 3.1

20

3.2 SW/07/0746 (Case 22774) TEYNHAM

Location: Land adjacent North Quay House, Conyer, Nr Sittingbourne, Kent ME9 9HL.

Proposal: Change of use of land for the siting of a mobile home.

Applicant/Agent: Mr & Mrs E W Spears, c/o Woodstock Associates, 53

Woodstock Road, Sittingbourne, Kent ME10 4HJ. Application Valid: 22nd June 2007 Subject to: The views of Teynham Parish Council.

Reasons for Refusal (1) The proposal to station a mobile home on this site which lies outside

the defined built up area boundary of Conyer and within the countryside would represent an inappropriate form of development, detrimental to the amenities of the rural location and of harm to the Special Landscape Area. The Council considers that the protection of the countryside outweighs the case presented for justification of need by the applicants. As such the proposal is considered to represent an undesirable form of development contrary to policies EN1 and EN5 of the Kent & Medway Structure Plan and policies G1, E9, and E14 of the Swale Borough Local Plan.

Description of Proposal The application is for the stationing of a mobile home as residential accommodation for the applicants, who have been residents in the locality for over forty years, and who currently live in a modern house close to the site. The mobile home is to be located to the northern edge of the Conyer Quay site, adjacent to North Quay House and is to measure approximately 6m by 11m. The applicants' agent describe the site as well screened by existing trees and shrubs, however it is in an elevated position overlooking the quay. Information has been provided by the applicants as to their need for this temporary accommodation. The full statement is available for inspection but can be summarised as follows:-

“Mr & Mrs Spears are now both 84 and due to health and mobility problems are finding it impossible to live in their two storey house” Haven Lichen on the quayside “They are becoming more reliant on the help of their son and daughter-in-law who reside in North Quay House adjacent to their own property. Mr Spears still has day to day involvement in the running of the marina and needs to reside in close proximity.

Continued….

21

3.2 (Contd) PART 3

They have considered trying to convert their existing house or find suitable accommodation within the village but neither is a viable alternative. My clients are prepared for the planning permission to be personal to them both and for the mobile home to be removed when no longer required for their use.”

One letter of support has been submitted with the application highlighting the applicants' forty year attachment to the site specifically and the area generally and Mr and Mrs Spears contribution to the local community over this time. Additional confidential information in support of the application from the applicants' doctor and in the form of a report from KCC Occupational Therapy is available for Members' inspection. Relevant Site History and Site Description The site is close to the current home of the applicants, Haven Lichen and the adjoining property North Quay House, home to the applicants' son and daughter-in-law. The family's land stretches to the north along Conyer Quay away from the other residential properties. There is a gradual incline from the quay side up past these two properties to the proposed site for the mobile home which is the highest point in the vicinity. The site is screened to some extent from the creek to the west by existing vegetation and also, but to a greater extent to the north and east by tall trees. It is located within a Special Landscape Area and a Coastal Zone. Planning permission was granted under SW/97/707 for the erection of 21 dwellings on the banks of the creek, to replace the family boatyard. Views of Consultees Teynham Parish Council will respond after its meeting on 30th July 2007. Tonge Parish Council have said that only essential developments should be permitted in this rural area, and that if permission is to be granted restrictions should be placed on the permission limiting occupancy. Natural England note that the site lies adjacent to the Conyer Pits Site of Nature Conservation interest, and close to The Swale SSS1. However, they do not anticipate any significant effect on these sites, and make no comments, aside from possible flood risk. Kent Highway Services offered no objections subject to the use being for the applicant only. The Head of Environmental Services offered no adverse comments or observations. Continued….

22

3.2 (Contd) PART 3 No response to date from The Environment Agency. No response to date from Kent Wildlife Trust. Other Representation The Faversham Society state they have no objection, provided that the permission is only temporary and personal to the applicant. Fourteen letters of objection to the application have been received from local residents. Their comments are summarised as follows: • Application is a ploy to obtain full planning permission for a chalet

bungalow. • As the site is outside the built up boundary of Conyer any development

would be against planning policy and guidelines. • Internal alterations should be made to the applicants' home as other

residents have done, and the applicants have family living nearby. • The siting of a mobile home would not be in keeping with the award

winning designs of the other properties in the quay. • Would add to the overloading of the sewer system. • The need for the mobile home has not been demonstrated. • The commercial use of the site has not had planning permission. • The mobile home would be unsightly and out of proportion to the

surrounding properties. • Understand the consent for housing at North Quay was contingent on

there being no further development. • Permission could set a precedent and result in submission of further

applications. • Mobile home would detract from the amenities of the area as a whole. • Trees would need to be felled. Policies Kent and Medway Structure Plan Policies EN1, EN3 and EN5 Swale Borough Local Plan Policies E9, E14, E23 and G1 Discussion The application relates to the stationing of a mobile home on land adjacent to North Quay house. The site is located within a Special Landscape Area and

Continued….

23

3.2 (Contd) PART 3 Coastal zone and is in an elevated position overlooking Conyer Creek. The Council's consideration of this application needs to balance the need of the applicant with the harm the proposal would create. The applicants have lived in the locality for the last forty years, more recently in Haven Lichen a house built with the main North Quay development , a few metres from the site. They feel a connection to the area and wish to remain close to immediate family who also reside in North Quay. With advancing years both are finding it hard to live in their two storey house, required to be in close proximity to the marina, as Mr Spears is still involved in its day to day running. Additional confidential evidence has been provided to substantiate this argument from their doctor and a report from the Occupational Therapist regarding Mrs Spears. However I do not consider this to be sufficiently compelling to justify overriding long established countryside protection policy. The proposed site for the mobile home is within the designated countryside where policies of rural restraint apply. Furthermore the site is in an elevated position and hence the mobile home would be highly visible within the site and to the surrounding countryside and Special Landscape Area. I note vegetation exists to the west of the site and it would provide some screening, but this does not alter my view. Furthermore the North Quay development, an award winning scheme, has a distinctive character, which, I believe would be adversely affected by the proposal. I note the applicants state that “trying to convert their existing house or finding suitable accommodation within the village” is not “a viable alternative” but I do not consider this to be adequate justification for the siting of the mobile home in the countryside. Local residents have objected strongly to the applications and I note that there has been no sign of significant local support for the proposal. Summary and Recommendation Refusal is recommended for the stationing of a mobile home at North Quay Conyer as it is proposed to be located within the designated countryside and Special Landscape Area and sufficient justification has not been provided to create exceptional circumstances to warrant approval of the application. List of Background Documents 1. Application Papers & Correspondence for SW/07/0746.

1

PLANNING COMMITTEE – 16TH AUGUST 2007 PART 4 Report of the Head of Development Services PART 4 Swale Borough Council’s own development; observation on County Council’s development; observation of development by Statutory Undertakers and by Government Departments; and recommendations to the County Council on ‘County Matter’ applications.

4.1 SW/07/0778 (Case 17954) QUEENBOROUGH

Location: Queenborough Castle Site, Railway Terrace,

Queenborough, Isle of Sheppey.

Proposal: Provision of Equipped Children’s Play area Applicant/Agent: Amenities Unit, Swale Borough Council, Swale House,

East Street, Sittingbourne, Kent ME10 3HT Application Valid: 4th July 2007

SUBJECT TO: The views of English Heritage and the County

Archaeological Officer and any further representations (Closing Date 24th August 2007).

Conditions

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


Reason for Approval

Having taken all material considerations into account, it is considered that subject to compliance with the attached conditions, the proposal would be in accordance with the development plan and would not cause unacceptable harm to the amenities of the area or prejudice highway safety or convenience. In resolving to grant permission, particular regard has been had to policies E36, E42 and G1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan, policy E1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan First Review Re-deposit Draft, and policy QL6 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan.

Continued….

2

4.1 (Contd) PART 4

Description of Proposal

This is an application by the Borough Council's Amenities Unit to erect a play area on the green space within the grounds of Queenborough Castle. The site lies within the Conservation Area, and Queenborough Castle is a Scheduled Ancient Monument.

Four items of play equipment including swings, slides and two wooden benches would be enclosed by a low hooped fence with gate, in a rectangular area measuring 15m x 15m. It would be located in the south western corner of the open space, about 5m from the edge of the pay and display car park adjoining the community centre, and intended to be in a position which avoids any long term conflict with possible future development proposals there.

The scheme is the subject of an application for Scheduled Monument Consent and the approval of English Heritage is necessary before work can commence. However, this is independent of any approval by the District Planning Authority. A Design and Access Statement also explains that an assessment will also be made in accordance with section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act. Relevant Planning history

There is no directly relevant Planning history associated with this application.

Views of Consultees

Queenborough Town Council is “fully supportive of this initiative to supply a much needed facility in this part of the town”, but goes on to draw attention to the possibility of an abandoned underground air raid shelter from the Second World War in the vicinity, which should be investigated. I have discussed this matter with the applicant and hope to report further at the meeting. I am awaiting the comments of English Heritage and the County Archaeological Unit and I hope to report their views at the meeting.

Other Representations

Nearby residents have been consulted and a site notice posted. Any representations will be reported at the meeting

Continued….

3

4.1 (Contd) PART 4 Relevant development plan policies

Policies E36 of the Swale Borough Local Plan and QL6 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan are relevant, relating to the character of Conservation Areas. Policy E42 seeks to prevent development which would adversely affect a Scheduled Ancient Monument.

Discussion and Recommendation

I do not believe that this development will have a significant adverse visual impact on the Conservation area or the Castle itself.

I agree with the views of the Town Council that this play area will provide a much needed facility in the area. I believe that discussions have taken place between the relevant parties on the merits of this scheme. The location is as far on the site from the castle itself as is possible, and ground disturbance is likely to be minimal.

I await the views of the English Heritage and County Archaeological Officer and any further representations, but subject to this I recommend that permission is granted. ______________________________________________________________ List of Background Documents

1. Application Papers for Application SW/07/0778

1

PLANNING COMMITTEE – 16 AUGUST 2007 PART 5 Report of the Head of Development Services PART 5 Decisions by County Council and Secretary of State, reported for information 5.1 ENF/07/006 (Case 14633) – Land and Buildings at 30 Shellbeach, Shellness

Road, Leysdown, Kent, ME12 4BS APPEAL DISMISSED The Inspector commented as follows:

“Appeals Ref: APP/V2255/C/07/2038544 and 2038547 Land and buildings at 30 Shellbeach, Shellness Road, Leysdown, Kent ME12 4BS

• The appeals are under section 174 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by the Planning and Compensation Act 1991 (the Act).

• The appeals are by Mr and Mrs J O’Shea against an enforcement notice issued by Swale Borough Council.

• The Council's reference is LEY 14/03. • The notice was issued on 24 January 2007. • The breach of planning control as alleged in the notice is without

planning permission the construction of a raised wooden decking to the property, the approximate position of which is hatched blue on the plan.

• The requirements of the notice are: (1) remove the raised wooden decking to the property, making

good where necessary, and; (2) remove from the land all debris, bricks and other material

occasioned by complying with 5(1) above. • The period for compliance with the requirements is 3 months from the

date that this notice takes effect. • The appeals are proceeding on the grounds set out in section

174(2)(f) and (g) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended. Since the prescribed fees have not been paid within the specified period, the application for planning permission deemed to have been made under section 177(5) of the Act as amended does not fall to be considered.

Summary of Decision: the appeal is dismissed Procedural Matters 1. Relevant Government policy in regard to enforcement matters is set

out in the then Department of the Environment Circular 10/97, Enforcing Planning Control: Legislative Provisions and Procedural Requirements (Circular 10/97). This is a public document which is relevant in the determination of these appeals.

Continued . . .

2

5.1 (Contd) PART 5 Ground (f) Appeals 2. This ground is that the steps required by the notice are excessive and

that lesser steps would overcome the objections. Section 174(2)(f) of the Act sets this out more fully stating that the steps required by the notice to be taken…exceed what is necessary to remedy any breach of planning control which may be constituted by those matters or, as the case may be, to remedy any injury to amenity which has been caused by any such breach…

3. The appellants’ case is that the requirements should be varied to allow some of the decking to remain (as shown on a plan attached to the completed appeals forms). The Council have made it clear that this is not acceptable to them because the development is objected to in principle. In support of the notice the local planning authority asserts that unacceptable harm has been caused to the character and appearance of this rural coastal area and refers to development plan policy objections to the development carried out.

4. A similar conclusion to that expressed by the Council has already

been reached by another Inspector, Roy Foster, in regard to a planning appeal for this site (reference APP/V2255/A/06/2024086, decision dated 3 January 2007) where the case in regard to the retention of some decking was dismissed. At even earlier enforcement appeals for No 30 (references APP/V2255/C/04/2000462 and 2000463, decision dated 31 August 2005) yet another Inspector, Mr F M Cherington, noted that the decking referred to in his appeal required planning permission and that it would not be appropriate to grant such a permission under ground (f). I have no reason to disagree with the conclusions of these earlier Inspectors which are material considerations in these appeals.

5. Since the objections to the appeals works go beyond simply being

harmful to amenity I do not find that the Act can sensibly be interpreted as allowing any submissions under the second branch of ground (f), that is the …or, as the case may be,… amenity considerations. Thus the only valid approach in these appeals is whether, as a matter of fact, the requirements of the notice exceed what is necessary to remedy the breach of planning control.

6. The notice requirements indicate all the decking should be removed.

The alternative proposals put forward by the appellant would leave rather more than half of the decking in place, around three sides of the chalet. This alternative proposal would not address the harm to the character and appearance of the rural coastal area, perceived by the Council and the two earlier Planning Inspectors. This is because the majority of the decking, which is damaging to interests of acknowledged importance, would remain in place.

Continued . . .

3

5.1 (Contd) PART 5

7. Rather than be a legitimate part of appeals under ground (f), it seems to me that the appellants’ alternative proposals are effectively a request for a modified planning permission. I cannot accept this approach, in the absence of any ground (a) appeals, because to grant any such alternative planning permission without the deemed planning applications could be perceived as being an attempt to circumvent the necessary payment of the appropriate planning fee. This would be against Government policy.

8. To date there has been no grant of an appropriate planning

permission for the retention of the existing raised timber decking at the appeal property. Indeed, an application made to the Council was refused as recently as the 24 April 2007.

9. Bearing all these points in mind the requirements of the notice are not

excessive because they do no more than remedy the breach as described in the allegation; that is restore the land to its condition before the breach took place. This is the legitimate purpose of the notice. No lesser steps would be appropriate. The appeals under ground (f) fail.

10. In forming this opinion I have taken into account the possibility that

some limited amount of original decking might remain under the appeal development (Mr O’Shea referred to such possible earlier decking at the site visit). But this matter does not impact on my decision because the notice requires only the removal of any decking which has been executed within the 4 years preceding the issue of the notice.

Ground (g) Appeals 11. This ground is that the time given to comply with the notice is too

short. 12. The Council have allowed 3 months for the requirements of the notice

to be carried out. The dismantling of the decking and its removal from the site does not appear to me to be a difficult operation. It should be capable of being done by a competent builder, without the need for any specialist demolition equipment, in a matter of hours or days so the time stipulated is not too short. That the appellants want to do the work themselves, at weekends (and I am told that they do not visit the site every weekend), is a matter of personal choice. It is not a good reason to increase the time specified in the notice. The appeals under this ground fail.

Conclusions 13. For the reasons given above and having regard to all other matters

raised, I conclude that the appeals should not succeed. Continued . . .

4

5.1 (Contd) PART 5 Formal Decision 14. I dismiss the appeals and uphold the enforcement notice.”

Observations A welcome decision. The Inspector considered that the appeal under ground

(f) (that steps required by the Notice were excessive) was incorrectly made and could not be considered here, and that three months was a reasonable period of time in which to remove the decking.

List of Background Documents 1. Planning Inspectorate Appeal Decision reference: APP/V2255/C/07/2038544

and 2038547. 2. Appeal Papers (statements and correspondence) 3. SBC Enforcement Notice reference ENF/07/0006.

5

PART 5 5.2 SW/06/1030 & SW/06/1031 (C20016) – Planning permission and listed

building consent for conversion of redundant farm buildings to two dwellings - Copton Manor Barns, Ashford Road, Faversham LISTED BUILDING CONSENT APPEAL ALLOWED AND PLANNING APPEAL DISMISSED The Inspector commented as follows:

“Main Issues 2. I consider the main issues to be:

• In both Appeal A and Appeal B, the effect of the proposals on the architectural and historic interest of listed buildings and their setting.

• In Appeal B only, the effect of the proposals on the aims of Development Plan policies and national guidance on the location of development and the preservation of the countryside.

Planning Policies 3. The Development Plan includes the Kent and Medway Structure Plan

2006 and the Swale Borough Local Plan July 2000. Structure Plan Policy QL1 seeks development that is well designed and of a high quality and Policy QL8 seeks the preservation of listed buildings and their setting. Changes of use will be permitted where these will provide the best reasonable means of conserving the character, appearance, fabric, integrity and setting of listed buildings. Housing in the countryside is strictly controlled under Policy HP5. Local Plan Policy G1 states that development is expected to be well sited and of a scale, design and appearance appropriate to the location, and Policy E9 seeks the protection of the countryside for its own sake. Policy B7 provides for the conversion of rural buildings to appropriate alternative uses provided that for historic buildings, Policies E39 to E41 have been taken into account. Listed buildings are the subject of these policies which seek the preservation of the building and its setting, including in any re-use. The policies on listed buildings are in line with the requirements of Sections 16(2) and 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 which require that special regard is to be had to the desirability of preserving the listed buildings or their setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which they possess.

4. There is also emerging policy in the Swale Borough Local Plan First

Review Re-Deposit Draft of July 2005, and Policy RC1 requires the re-use of buildings not to detract from their historical, architectural or landscape interest, character or appearance. Policy RC6 states that planning permission will not be permitted for the conversion of buildings in the rural area to residential use unless the applicant has made a reasonable and sustained effort to secure alternative reuse for

Continued . . .

6

5.2 (Contd) PART 5

employment or community purposes, or, the building would be unsuitable for such use, or, a residential use is the preferred way in which a historic building could be retained and/or restored. There are then further requirements as to conversion.

5. The Council has published Supplementary Planning Guidance “The

Conservation of Traditional Farm Buildings” and “Listed Buildings, a Guide to Owners and Occupiers”. I shall also have regard to advice in Planning Policy Statement 7 “Sustainable Development in Rural Areas” (PPS7) and Planning Policy Guidance Note 15 “Planning and the Historic Environment” (PPG15).

Reasons Listed Buildings 6. There was a previous application which led to a planning permission

and listed building consent for the conversion of the listed South Barn to offices and the unlisted North Barn to a residential use (Ref;SW/05/0339 and SW/05/0340). The present proposal envisages similar physical alterations to the North Barn. Although the proposed use of the South Barn is different to that previously permitted, the Council states that the current scheme for conversion of the South Barn is largely unaltered from the consent for office use, and the Council has no objection to the physical works proposed. I have considered the detail of the works, the addition of openings and the changes to the character and appearance of the buildings. The result would, in my view, be a more attractive presentation of the South Barn’s open area. I conclude that, subject to conditions to clarify certain matters, the physical works would satisfy the tests in the 1990 Act and would accord with the aims of Development Plan policies as well as advice in PPG15 on the preservation of listed buildings

Location and Countryside 7. It appears to be common ground that the barns are redundant, and

therefore in the terms of Local Plan Policy E40, the future use of the listed South Barn is unlikely to be that for which the building was originally constructed and that the original use is not practicable or appropriate. There is however a difference of view over the value of the North Barn. My view is that the barn forms a part of the setting of the listed building and the history of the group, is therefore within the definition of a traditional farm building in the Supplementary Planning Guidance and that efforts should be made to retain it through re-use as set out in Local Plan Policy B7.

8. However, the site lies within the open countryside where policies of

restraint apply, and these apply with particular regard to the formation of new residential units. Permission has been granted for a residential use of the North Barn, linked to office use of the South Barn. The Council states that the decision to grant this permission was contrary to policy but a form of enabling development to ensure the preservation of the South Barn. The appellant disputes this interpretation.

Continued . . .

7

5.2 (Contd) PART 5

9. I am aware that there are strict tests for enabling development, but I have been supplied with little information about the financial side other than the figures which show that repair and refurbishment of the South Barn for commercial uses is unviable. I acknowledge that the substantial benefits of reinstating the roof profile to the South Barn, among other improvements, comes at significant cost, and I consider this work desirable. The repair and refurbishment costs supplied by the appellant indicate a conservation deficit, but the appellant asserts that the conversion of the North Barn to residential is not contrary to policy and that there is therefore no enabling development.

10. It certainly appears that the Council saw a link between the North and

South Barn’s conversions, and I consider that they took a balanced view evidenced by the planning permission with Condition 14. The appellant criticises this condition, but it appears to me that whether this was true enabling development or the result of a balancing exercise, there would need to be some mechanism to ensure that the benefits accrued. Nevertheless, whatever the doubts over the aims and intentions of the previous grant of permission, it is clear that the appeal before me does not rely on enabling development and that the appellant considers both proposed conversions to residential use to be within policy.

11. With regard to the conversion of the South Barn, it is my opinion that

marketing has been carried out in line with reasonable requirements to show whether or not there is a demand, and that even with the possibility of profit from the North Barn, there have been no substantial interest. I note that marketing is referred to in emerging Policy RC6 which gives three alternatives meaning that marketing would not be a requirement if one of the other alternatives was shown to be appropriate. I note also that whilst the Supplementary Planning Guidance ‘The Conservation of Traditional Farm Buildings’ makes reference to Annex D of PPG7 the more recent PPS7 acknowledges at paragraph 17 the possibility of residential re-use.

12. It appears to me therefore that the position has been reached where a

residential use of the South Barn should be considered as being the optimum viable means of ensuring its retention and repair, as sought in PPG15 and the only means of ensuring its future beneficial use. Although I attach limited weight to the emerging policy in view of its status, I find that a residential use should now be regarded as being the preferred way in which this historic building could be retained and/or restored. I am satisfied as to the physical effects, as set out in the first main issue, and consider the car parking and options for use of the land around to provide benefits to the setting. I conclude therefore that residential use of the South Barn would accord with the aims of Structure Plan Policy QL8, Local Plan Policies B7, E39 and E40 together with emerging policies, Supplementary Planning Guidance and advice in PPG15 and PPS7.

Continued . . .

8

5.2 (Contd) PART 5 13. Turning to the North Barn, I am not persuaded that it follows that

residential use is appropriate. I attach weight to the link provided by Condition 14. It appears to me that the Council took a balanced view that by allowing such residential use, the larger and more important South Barn would be repaired and retained in an acceptable, viable use. With the conversion of the South Barn to residential use now justified, I do not find that link to be necessary and it is my judgement that the merits of residential use of the North Barn have to be considered afresh.

14. Residential conversion of the North Barn would be contrary to the

general policies of restraint due to the location, and justification is required. The text to Local Plan Policy B7 provides for the possibility of uses other than business where that is the only means of preventing the loss of the building. Whilst I consider the North Barn of interest, albeit not listed, and consider that its loss should be prevented, I am not convinced on the information before me that the residential use is the only means to that end; there does not appear to have been any recent consideration of alternative uses or uses ancillary to the residential use of the South Barn. In addition I consider residential use would cause harm to the aims of policies on sustainable patterns of development and access to services and would introduce further residential activity and paraphernalia into the rural area. I conclude that residential use of the North Barn would be contrary to Structure Plan Policy HP5, Local Plan Policy E9 and advice in PPS7, and that no justification has been put forward sufficient to outweigh the general presumption against such development and the harm identified.

Conditions 15. In addition to the conditions suggested by the Council, covering

building recording and archaeological works, details, finishes, prevention of inappropriate items being affixed, together with, in the case of the planning application, requirements for landscaping and permitted development rights, I consider that the anomaly of the Carpenter’s Shed roof should be addressed.

Conclusions 16. I concur with the view of the Council that the physical works to the

South Barn are acceptable and in line with Development Plan policies and the test in the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, and conclude that listed building consent may be granted. In addition, I have come to the conclusion that, within both adopted and emerging policy, Supplementary Planning Guidance and Central Government guidance, the use of the South Barn for residential uses is now justified as an exception to the general policies of restraint on the formation of new dwellings in the countryside in order to secure the repair and a viable future for the listed building. However, I also attach weight to the link previously established between the residential use of the smaller North Barn and the Council’s preference for a commercial use of the South Barn, and find that, with residential use

Continued . . .

9

5.2 (Contd) PART 5

of the South Barn, there is no justification proved for the North Barn’s residential use contrary to those policies of restraint, and on sustainable development, together with the harm to the character and appearance of the countryside caused by there being two domestic uses on the site.

17. I have therefore considered the possibility of issuing a split decision,

allowing the change of use of the South Barn but refusing planning permission for the domestic use of the North Barn. It is my view however that the two buildings and the land are functionally and visually linked and should be considered as a whole in order to secure the proper planning of the area, the setting of listed buildings and the long term well being of both the listed South Barn and the North Barn which, although unlisted, I find to be worthy of retention as part of the group.

18. For the reasons given above and having regard to all other matters

raised, I conclude that Appeal A should be allowed and Appeal B should be dismissed.

Formal Decisions Appeal A: APP/V2255/E/07/2035387 19. I allow the appeal, and grant listed building consent for conversion of

redundant farm buildings to two dwellings at Copton Manor Barns, Ashford Road, Faversham, Kent ME13 0DL in accordance with the terms of the application Ref SW/06/1031 dated 16 August 2006 and the plans submitted with it, or as amended, subject to the following conditions:

1) The works hereby authorised shall begin not later than three

years from the date of this consent. 2) The works hereby authorised shall not be carried out otherwise

than in complete accordance with the approved plans and specifications or as subsequently approved by the Local Planning Authority.

3) Notwithstanding the information shown on the drawings, full

details of the roof finish to the Carpenter’s Shed shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before works are carried out and the works shall be carried out in accordance with those details.

4) No works shall carried out until the applicant, or their agents or

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

Continued . . .

10

5.2 (Contd) PART 5

5) No works shall be carried out until a detailed schedule of timber frame repairs and re-instatement, with the schedule keyed to timber frame survey drawings and indicating the position and type of all repairs to be undertaken, and the size, species and cut of any new timber, (including the new roof structure) and the type of proposed jointing methods has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority and the works shall be carried out in accordance with those details.

6) Detailed drawings of all new external and internal joinery work

together with sections through glazing bars, frames and mouldings shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority before the works are carried out and the approved details shall be implemented.

7) No works shall be carried out until the applicant, or their agents

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

8) No meter cupboards, overhead cables, vents, satellite dishes,

trickle vents, flues, ducts, tile vents, ridge vents, extract grilles, external gas cylinders, oil tanks or burglar alarm boxes shall be affixed to the exterior of the buildings without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority.

9) The roof shall not be thatched other than in long straw using

details and techniques which are part of the long straw tradition in Kent, in accordance with details to be submitted and approved by the Local Planning Authority.

10) All those parts of the existing building which are not shown to

be replaced shall be retained in place at all times and the works hereby approved shall not be implemented unless the said parts are in place at the time of commencement.

11) All external weatherboarding on both barns is to be finished in

barn tar.

Appeal B: APP/V2255/A/07/2035389 20. I dismiss the appeal and refuse planning permission for conversion of

redundant farm buildings to two dwellings.” Continued . . .

11

5.2 (Contd) PART 5 Observations A very welcome decision to refuse planning permission in which the Inspector

agreed with the Council that whilst the proposed conversion works themselves were not harmful to the Grade II listed south barn, the proposal for residential conversion of the north barn had been submitted before other possible uses for it had been fully explored. This reflects the fact that the Council had previously only permitted residential conversion of the north barn as a means of assisting a sympathetic business conversion of the far more important southern barn. The Inspector considered the revised and less beneficial proposal contrary to established policies of rural restraint and the appeal was therefore dismissed.

The decision to grant listed building consent reflects the fact that the Council

has previously approved very similar works. List of Background Documents 1. Planning Inspectorate Appeal Decision reference: APP/V2255/E/07/2035387

and APP/V2255/A/07/2035389. 2. Appeal Papers (statements and correspondence)

12

PART 5 5.3 SW/06/0897 (C22023) – Two storey side extension - 87 Preston Park,

Faversham APPEAL ALLOWED The Inspector commented as follows:

“Main Issue 1. I consider the main issue to be the effect of the proposal on the

character and appearance of the Preston Park area of Faversham. Planning Policy 2. The Development Plan includes the Kent and Medway Structure Plan

2006 and the Swale Borough Local Plan July 2000. Local Plan Policy G1 sets out requirements for development to have regard to the characteristics of the locality and be of a scale, design and appearance appropriate to the location among other things. Policy H8 states that extensions to dwellings will be permitted subject to complying with other policies. The Council has adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance “Designing an Extension: A Guide to Householders” and this includes guidance on the positioning of two storey side extensions 2m from the side boundary, stated to ensure that the area does not become terraced in character, losing the sense of openness.

Reasons 3. The proposed side extension would be approximately 1.8m from the

boundary at the front wall, but slightly less at roof level due to the overhang of the gable soffite. Further back into the site the proximity would reduce to two points of 1m distance as the boundary is at an angle. The Supplementary Planning Guidance is clear as to its aim to avoid physical or visual linking and states that residents of the street have a right to expect that the character should be retained. The risk stated is of a terracing effect. However, this is guidance and each situation should be considered on the merits of the site, surroundings and other relevant matters. This approach appears to have been taken with regard to the house at number 90 Preston Park, where a two storey extension has been built closer to the boundary. In that case the Council informs me that the personal circumstances of the applicant were taken into account. Be that as It may, I consider that other extension visually acceptable.

Continued . . .

13

5.3 (Contd) PART 5 4. The appellant refers to PPG3, now superseded by PPS3 ‘Housing’

which emphasises the need to make better use of land, particularly in urban areas. This advice is aimed primarily at the provision of new housing. Whilst that provision may include terraces, and closer spaced detached and semi-detached houses, it appears reasonable to me that Supplementary Planning Guidance should seek to retain attractive aspects of established areas.

5. A feature of the relationship between number 87 and its neighbour at

number 89 is the angle of the buildings as they turn the bend in the road. That feature is also evident between number 90 and its neighbour. I acknowledge that in any requirement to avoid a terracing effect, it should be borne in mind that there is the possibility that the neighbour might want to do something similar. It would, in my view, be wrong to operate on a ‘first-come-first-served’ basis. However, in the particular circumstances of this case, I consider that the advice in the Supplementary Planning Guidance that a 2m gap is normally required can be reduced to that proposed without causing the harm that the guidance identifies. It is my judgement that the proposed development could be put in place without upsetting the openness of the established area and would not introduce a terraced effect due to the angle of the buildings.

6. It is clear from the reasons for refusal that the Council are concerned

about this type of proposal being repeated, but my decision is based on the particular circumstances of the appeal property and its neighbour, and I do not consider that this decision would undermine the Council’s ability to utilise the Supplementary Planning Guidance’s normal requirement where appropriate.


raised I conclude that, with a condition regarding materials, the proposal would not harm the character and appearance of the Preston Park area of Faversham, and would accord with the aims of Local Plan Policies G1 and H8, and of Supplementary Planning Guidance on domestic extensions and that the appeal should be allowed.

Formal Decision 8. I allow the appeal, and grant planning permission for two storey side

extension at 87 Preston Park, Faversham, Kent ME13 8LH in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref SW/06/0897, dated 12 July 2006, and the plans submitted with it, namely CHL-0406-01B, subject to the following conditions:

1) The development hereby permitted shall begin before the

expiration of three years from the date of this decision. Continued . . .

14

5.3 (Contd) PART 5

2) The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the extension hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building in terms of type, colour, texture and method of construction.”

Observations A clear decision from the Inspector in which he allowed the appeal, and in

which he broadly supports the Council’s policy, but where he noted the particular circumstances of the appeal property. The Inspector commented that, as the property was on a corner, the proposal would not result in a terraced effect due to the angle of the dwelling and the neighbouring property.

List of Background Documents 1. Planning Inspectorate Appeal Decision reference: APP/V2255/A/07/2037202. 2. Appeal Papers (statements and correspondence) 3. SBC Decision on Application SW/06/0897

15

PART 5 5.4 SW/06/0612 (case 13437) Retrospective application for change of use to

sales, repairs and MOT’s of scooters and for erection of temporary building – Trafalgar Court, West Street, Queenborough, Sheppey, Kent

ENFORCEMENT NOTICE APPEAL UPHELD IN PART PLANNING APPLICATION APPEAL DISMISSED The Inspector commented as follows:

“Two appeals relating to land at West Street Scooters Limited, Trafalgar Court Business Centre, West Street, Queensborough, Kent ME11 5AD

• The appeals are made under sections 78 and 174 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by the Planning and Compensation Act 1991.

• The appeals are made by Mr Jason Moss against an enforcement notice issued by Swale Borough Council, and against a refusal of planning permission by the same Council.

• The Council's references are ENF/06/042 and SW/06/0612. Appeal Ref: APP/V2255/C/06/2027468 – enforcement notice appeal

• The notice was issued on 21 September 2006. • The breach of planning control as alleged in the notice is without

planning permission, the material change of use of the Land from its current uses as a shop, showroom, storage, office and workshop to one including the sales, repairs and MOT’s of scooters.

• The requirements of the notice are (i) Cease using the Land or any part thereof for the sales, repair or MOT’s of scooters; (ii) Remove from the Land all scooters there for the purposes referred to in (i) above.

• The period for compliance with the requirements is three months. • The appeal is proceeding on the grounds set out in section 174(2)[g]

of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended. Since the prescribed fees have not been paid within the specified period, the application for planning permission deemed to have been made under section 177(5) of the Act as amended does not fall to be considered.

Summary of Decision: The appeal succeeds in part and the enforcement notice is upheld as varied in the terms set out below in the Formal Decision. Appeal Ref: APP/V2255/A/06/2029651 – planning application appeal

• The application Ref SW/06/0612, dated 1/5/2005, was refused by notice dated 7 August 2006.

• The development proposed is retrospective application for change of use to sales, repairs and MOTs of scooters and for erection of temporary building.

Summary of Decision: The appeal is dismissed.

Continued….

16

5.4 (Contd) PART 5 Preliminary matters 1. As stated in the headnote above, there is no deemed application

before me in relation to the appeal against the enforcement notice, which is made on ground (g) only. The planning merits of the change of use and erection of a temporary building are, however, to be dealt with in the planning application appeal. I will therefore deal with this appeal first.

The planning application appeal 2. The site is within the Queensborough Conservation Area, where well

established planning policies reflect the statutory requirement to give special attention to the desirability of conserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the area. Swale Borough Local Plan 2000 policy G1 in part also expects that all development will cause no demonstrable harm to residential amenity. Policy E2 in part seeks to minimise the impact of noise between new and existing uses. These concerns are reflected in an emerging first review of the Plan, and in the adopted Kent and Medway Structure Plan 2006.

3. From my inspection of the site and area, and from consideration of the

representations made I have concluded that the main issues in this case are the effect upon the character and appearance of the Conservation Area, and whether there would be material harm to the amenity of adjoining residents.

4. As to the first issue, the Council states that the temporary building is

an alien feature in the Conservation Area. I note however that despite this objection and the withholding of planning permission, the enforcement notice does not strike at the temporary building. It could have required the removal of the building as part of action against the use which the temporary building was built to facilitate. It did not do so. There is no evidence that the Council is intending to take separate enforcement action against the building. Nor is there evidence that if the appeals fail and the appeal business ceases, the temporary building will be removed.

5. Turning to the merits of the building, the appeal site is within an area

of varied architecture and uses where a listed building divided into flats, a modern infill two storey terrace, a private car park, an engineering site, older Victorian buildings, and single storey commercial buildings evidently long extant and originating in dockside uses are in close association with each other. The building on the appeal site is itself a composite built round a courtyard. Within this courtyard the temporary building has been built extending the original structure. I record the conclusion of an officer report that the said building “…matches well with … the existing timber clad buildings …

Continued….

17

5.4 (Contd) PART 5 (and is not)… a prominent structure that harms the character and

appearance of the conservation area… I agree with this conclusion. 6. The Council also refers to the visual effect of open storage associated

with the appeal use, but this is within the courtyard and I consider it to be both unobtrusive and not out of keeping with the commercial uses within the area, or the previous commercial use of the site. Scooters were initially displayed on the highway, but this has ceased following an approach from the Highway Authority. I have concluded on the first issue that the appeal development has a neutral effect upon the conservation area and in that sense preserves its character and appearance.

7. As to the effect upon residential amenity, the appeal use started in

October 2005. In July 2006 an internal consultation response by the Council’s environmental services section raised no objections subject to conditions restricting the activities and days and hours of use. At about this time in June 2006 two occupiers of nearby dwellings expressed concerns, but both did so in terms that indicated the then effects were not substantial variously referring to “…the current tranquil environment…” and access blocking/scooter revving as “…just starting to become a nuisance…”. A third resident was, however, clear that there was actual rather than envisaged harm, due to petrol fumes from revved scooters, noise from scooters and customers, and Sunday working. These and related concerns have been reiterated in a consultation response on the present appeals, and supported by another resident who also refers to an echo/reverberation effect from within the courtyard.

8. There are thus clearly expressed complaints at the effect upon

residential amenity from the occupiers of two nearby dwellings. A vehicle movements survey made in January 2007 by the Appellant whose findings were not challenged by the Council tends to suggest that passing traffic associated with other industrial/commercial premises may contribute to the harms, but the specific nature of the complaints suggests that this cannot account for all the effects experienced. I recognise that as the area is a mixed one, the prevailing levels of noise and disturbance are necessarily higher than they would be in an exclusively residential area. Nevertheless a use which involves the running and revving/tuning of scooter engines carries with it an inherent likelihood of harm from disturbance and fumes if it is situated close to dwellings, and representations strongly suggest that this harm occurs.

9. The Appellant invites the imposition of conditions, and I have

considered whether a temporary planning permission would be appropriate, to allow a trial of whether such conditions can sufficiently reduce the harms which I have identified. Conditions suggested by the Council could prevent all harm from the appeal use on Sundays and Bank Holidays, and reduce the period of potential harm on

Continued….

18

5.4 (Contd) PART 5 Saturdays. Conditions could not, however, prevent noise, disturbance

and fumes on weekdays without unduly restricting the benefit of any permission. Given the proximity of dwellings to the appeal use, I have concluded that a temporary permission would not sufficiently reduce the harm to residential amenity.

10. Though I have concluded on the first issue that the proposal would

have a neutral effect upon the Conservation Area, this does not affect my conclusion on the second issue that the appeal use would cause material harm to the amenity of adjoining residents. Having regard to the planning policies for the protection of amenity referred to, I have concluded that planning permission should be refused.

The appeal on ground (g) against the enforcement notice 11. The Act at S174(2) defines an appeal on ground (g) as one alleging

that the period for compliance with the notice “…falls short of what should reasonably be allowed”. The Council considered that 3 months was reasonable. The Appellant sought a compliance period of 6 months. Planning Policy Guidance. Note 18 Enforcing Planning Control (PPG18) in part seeks “… a reasonable time-limit within which relocation should be completed. What is reasonable will depend on the particular circumstances…”

12. In this case there is no detailed analysis from either side as to the

particular circumstances affecting relocation, and there is no indication that the Council has had a discussion with the Appellant on this matter as is advised in PPG18. The Council refers to the harm to residential amenity but the three additional months will extend the use into the last part of the year when windows are more likely to be closed and gardens least used. In these circumstances, and having regard to my experience and the relatively short periods involved, I consider that on the balance of probability three months is likely to be less than is reasonably required. The appeal on ground (g) succeeds to that limited extent.

FORMAL DECISIONS Appeal Ref: APP/V2255/C/06/2027468 – enforcement notice appeal 13. I allow the appeal on ground [g], and direct that the enforcement

notice be varied by the deletion of three months and the substitution of six months as the period for compliance.

14. Subject to this variation I uphold the enforcement notice. Appeal Ref: APP/V2255/A/06/2029651 – planning application appeal 15. I dismiss the appeal.”

Continued….

19

5.4 (Contd) PART 5

Observations This appeal decision deals with both the refusal of a retrospective application seeking to regularise the use of the building for the sale and repair of scooters and the erection of a temporary building (which was recommended for approval at the meeting of this committee in July 2006) and the enforcement notice requiring the use to cease within 3 months. Both appeals were decided in the Council's favour, but the Inspector varied the enforcement notice to allow 6 months for the appellant to comply. The Inspector gives full support to the action taken. The situation will be monitored to ensure compliance at the end of the required period.

List of Background Documents 1. Planning Inspectorate Appeal Decision reference APP/V2255/C/06/2027468 and APP/V2255/A/06/2029651. 2. Appeal Papers (statements and correspondence) 3. SBC Decision on Application SW/06/0612.

20

PART 5 5.5 SW/06/0924 (Case 12777) Outline application for 5 houses – 12-14 Union

Road, Minster, Sheerness, Kent

APPEAL ALLOWED The inspector commented as follows:

Procedural Matters 1. The application was in outline with landscaping only as a reserved

matter. The planning history of the site includes an appeal for four houses dismissed in 1998 and an application for three houses granted in 1999.

Main Issue 2. I consider the main issue to be the effect of the proposal on the

character and appearance of the Union Road area of Minster. Planning Policies 3. The Development Plan includes the Kent and Medway Structure Plan

2006 and the Swale Borough Local Plan July 2000. Structure Plan Policy QL1 concerns the quality of development and design and Policy HP4 details requirements for housing development to secure efficient use of land and a high quality of design with specific reference to densities according to location. Local Plan Policy G1 sets general development criteria which include having regard to the characteristics and features of the site and locality. Housing Policies H1, H4 and H5 set requirements for the development of small sites and infill sites. Policy E48 seeks a high standard for all development. The emerging Local Plan First Review Re-Deposit Draft is at an advanced stage and Policies E1, E19 and H2 would carry forward the thrust of adopted policies with regard to this appeal.

Reasons 4. I consider it appropriate to look at the planning history of the site, as

there is an established principle of residential development of some sort. It appears that development of three dwellings has been approved previously, but the 1998 appeal for four houses was dismissed. However, since that date, Planning Policy Guidance Note 3 “Housing” (PPG3) has been published which set out the Government’s aims to make better use of land, particularly urban and previously developed land. That document has been replaced with Planning Policy Statement 3 (PPS3) of the same name, which further states the need for new homes and better use of resources. In addition, the Council’s Housing Needs Survey has identified the need for smaller units of accommodation. As a result, I attach only limited weight to an appeal decision which was taken some time ago and against a

Continued….

21

5.5 (Contd) PART 5 different policy background. As set out above in the main issue

however, I shall consider the effect of the development and PPS3 states the need for housing to be of a high quality, well designed and to be in suitable locations, and which is well integrated with, and complements the neighbouring buildings and the local area.

5. In terms of the width across the site, the proposed development would

occupy the same extent as that approved in February 2000 (Ref; SW/99/1224), but that approval was for three houses with a gap between a semi-detached pair and a detached building. Each house was to be in the order of 4.8m wide. The appeal proposal before me is for five houses approximately 3.6m wide as a single terrace. Neither scheme appears to have any detrimental effect on the protected tree.

6. The surroundings of the site are varied, with new dwellings being

constructed to the south, a more enclosed street scene to the north but with the openness of the cemetery, and of the car park to the club opposite. I find the street frontage in the vicinity of the site poorly resolved with the club and its car park not contributing to the street scene. The previously permitted scheme for three houses would have added enclosure to the benefit of the area, and I consider that the appeal scheme would have a similar beneficial effect. The lack of the gap and the consequent placing of a terrace across the same width would not cause harm in my view. It is my judgement that the design of the houses and car parking is a suitable response to the levels and shape of the site. I conclude that the proposed terrace of five dwellings would make good use of land, would not appear over developed and would not cause harm to the character and appearance of the Union Road area of Minster and hence would accord with advice in PPS3, and with Structure Plan Policies QL1 and HP4, and Local Plan Policies G1, H1 and E48.

Other Considerations 7. Reference has been made by neighbouring residents to likely

problems with noise and disturbance through the arrangement of the parking. I note that the previously approved scheme for three units utilised a similar arrangement, and I do not consider the reduction in the size of the units and the increase in the number would significantly affect the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers. Other concerns including those regarding crime, parking and services are, no doubt, serious concerns, but the Council and the relevant authorities do not back these claims and again, I consider that the site is suitable for development and find no substantial harm through development for five units.

Continued….

22

5.5 (Contd) PART 5 Conditions 8. I have considered the conditions attached to the Council’s committee

report and find them necessary to ensure the quality of the development and to protect the tree and the interests of neighbours. In addition there are conditions submitted by the highway authority which I also consider are required to safeguard highway safety.

Conclusions 9. The site is in an urban area and is previously developed land.

Development for five houses in a terrace as proposed would make better use of the land without causing harm to the character and appearance of the area or other proper planning considerations. Hence the proposal would accord with Development Plan policies identified and Central Government planning policy.


raised, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed. Formal Decision 11. I allow the appeal, and grant outline planning permission for 5 houses

at 12 - 14 Union Road, Minster, Sheerness, Kent ME12 2HW in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref SW/06/0924, dated 25 July 2006, and the plans as amended, namely 4425/1A and 2A, and subject to the following conditions:

1) Details of the landscaping (hereinafter called "the reserved

matters") shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before any development begins and the development shall be carried out as approved.

2) Application for approval of the reserved matters shall be made

to the Local Planning Authority before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

3) The development hereby permitted shall begin before the

expiration of two years from the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters to be approved.

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

5) No construction work in connection with the development shall

take place on any Sunday, or any Bank or Public Holiday, nor Continued….

23

5.5 (Contd) PART 5 on any other day except between the following times: Monday

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

6) No burning of waste or refuse shall place on the site other than

may be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. 7) The existing Sycamore, shown on the approved plans shall be

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

8) No development shall take place until constructional details of

any part of any retaining wall which would be constructed within 6 metres of the existing Sycamore tree in the north eastern corner of the site has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be constructed strictly in accordance with the approved details.

9) The area allocated for parking and/or turning on the submitted

plan shall be kept clear of obstruction and shall not be used other than for the parking of vehicles in connection with the development hereby permitted.

10) No dwelling within the development hereby approved shall be

occupied until 2 dedicated parking spaces specific to that dwelling have been provided within the curtilage of the site.

11) The proposed access shall incorporate splays on both its sides

to the rear of the existing footway based on co-ordinates of 2m x 2m and which shall be kept free of obstruction above a height of 600mm.

12) Before the dwellings hereby approved are first occupied, a

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

13) Provision shall be made within the site for the disposal of

surface water so as to prevent its discharge onto the highway

Continued….

24

5.5 (Contd) PART 5 details of which shall have been submitted to and approved in

writing by the Local Planning Authority.

14) The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the visibility splays shown on the submitted plan have been provided with no obstruction to visibility at or above a height of 1.05m above the nearside carriageway level. The visibility splays shall thereafter be maintained free of obstruction at all times.”

Observations The Inspector concluded that the development proposal would make better use of the land without harm to the character and appearance of the area, and so allowed the appeal. Some Member will recall that this application was reported under part 2 of the agenda, at the meeting held on September 14th 2006.

List of Background Documents 1. Planning Inspectorate Appeal Decision reference APP/V2255/A/07/2035083 2. Appeal Papers (statements and correspondence) 3. SBC Decision on Application SW/06/0924