DOVER DISTRICT COUNCIL REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT …

DOVER DISTRICT COUNCIL

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT CONTROL MANAGER

PLANNING COMMITTEE 17 DECEMBER 2009

NON-DELEGATED APPLICATIONS

The Reports

The file reference number, a description of the proposal and its location are identified under a) of each separate item. The relevant planning policies and guidance and the previous planning history of the site are summarised at c) and d) respectively.

The views of third parties are set out at e); the details of the application and an appraisal of the proposal are set out at f) and each item concludes with a recommendation at g).

Additional information received prior to the meeting will be reported verbally. In some circumstances this may lead to a change in the recommendation.

Details of the abbreviated standard conditions, reasons for refusal and informatives may be obtained from the Planning Administration Supervisor (telephone 01304 872488).

It should be noted, in respect of points raised by third parties in support of, or objecting to, applications that they are incorporated in this report only if they concern material planning considerations.

Each item is accompanied by a plan (for identification purposes only) showing the location of the site and the Ordnance Survey Map reference.

Site Visits

All requests for site visits will be considered on their merits having regard to the likely usefulness to the Committee in reaching a decision.

The following criteria will be used to determine usefulness:

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

• there is a need to further involve the public in the decision making process as a result of substantial local interest, based on material planning considerations, in the proposals.

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

The reasons for holding a Committee site visit must be included in the minutes.

Background Papers

List of background papers: unless otherwise stated, the appropriate file in respect of each application, save any document which discloses exempt information within the meaning of the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985.

The Officer to whom reference should be made concerning inspection of the background papers is Michelle Wallis, Planning & Technical Support Team Leader, Planning, Council Offices, White Cliffs Business Park, Dover (Telephone: 01304 - 872488).

PUBLIC SPEAKING AT PLANNING COMMITTEE

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

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

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

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

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

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

(a) Chairman introduces item.

(b) Planning Officer updates as appropriate.

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

(d) Planning officer clarifies as appropriate.

(e) Committee debates the application.

(f) The vote is taken.

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

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

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

Index for Planning CommitteeDover District Council

Committee Date: 17/12/2009

Ref. No. 07/00802

Location Land off Honeywood Parkway, White Cliffs Business Park, Whitfield

Proposal

DOV/

Erection of non-food retail warehouse units (5,573.6 sqm floor area), 1 restaurant unit (255.5 sqm floor area), construction of vehicular access, together with associated highway works, parking and landscaping

Item No. 01 RcmDcn REF

Ref. No. 09/00234

Location The Old Clubhouse, Princes Golf Club, Sandwich Bay, Worth

Proposal

DOV/

Erection of extensions and refurbishment to existing fire damaged building to enable use as 'golfers accommodation' including 14 self catering flats, gym, bar, lounge, office, together with associated parking and landscaping

Item No. 02 RcmDcn DEF

Ref. No. 09/00298

Location One The Old Fairground, High Street, Wingham

Proposal

DOV/

Erection of a detached dwelling (existing dwelling to be demolished)


Ref. No. 09/00567

Location St Margarets Lodge, Sea Street, St.Margaret's-at-Cliffe

Proposal

DOV/

Erection of a building incorporating 6 flats and 1 link detached bungalow, construction of a vehicular access and associated car parking (existing building to be demolished)

Item No. 04 RcmDcn GTD

Ref. No. 09/00584

Location Land adjoining Miller Close, Staple Road, Wingham

Proposal

DOV/

Erection of 15 rural exception affordable residential units (5 three bedroom houses, 7 two bedroom houses, 1 two bedroom bungalow and 2 two bedroom flats), construction of vehicular access and associated car parking and landscaping


Ref. No. 09/00677

Location Franconia, The Droveway, St. Margaret's Bay

Proposal

DOV/

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




Ref. No. 09/00779

Location Beach Plot 35, The Strand, Walmer

Proposal

DOV/

Retrospective application for the erection of a boat shed


Ref. No. 09/00843

Location 23-27 Church Street St Marys, Sandwich

Proposal

DOV/

Retrospective application for the erection of a detached garage


Ref. No. 09/00873

Location Land at Golf Road/ Cannon Street, Deal

Proposal

DOV/

Erection of a GP surgery, Community Centre, 28 flats and 41 houses, related infrastructure and car parking


Ref. No. 09/00888

Location Gorely Almshouses, Cowgate Hill, Dover

Proposal

DOV/

Installation of replacement windows, sub-cills and doors, alterations to rear fenestration and installation of solar panels to rear roof slope


Ref. No. 09/00900

Location 9 The Ridgeway, River

Proposal

DOV/

Conversion of garage to habitable room


Ref. No. 09/00915

Location Land Between Look Cottage & Rose Cottage, The Forstal, Preston

Proposal

DOV/

Erection of a detached building incorporating a mixed use of residential dwelling and bed & breakfast and an attached garage




Ref. No. 09/00929

Location 18 Chilton Way, River

Proposal

DOV/

Conversion of garage to habitable room and erection of a first floor side extension


Ref. No. 09/00945

Location Old Rectory Residential Home, 45 Sandwich Road, Ash

Proposal

DOV/

Erection of a single storey rear extension to provide 2 independent living units and en-suite bedroom to existing building


Ref. No. 09/00973

Location Land rear of 8 Granville Road, Walmer

Proposal

DOV/

Erection of a detached chalet bungalow and construction of a vehicular access


1. a) DOV/07/0802 – Erection of non-food retail warehouse units (5,573.6sqm floor area), 1 restaurant unit (255.5sqm floor area), construction of vehicular access, together with associated highway works, parking and landscaping, land off Honeywood Parkway, White Cliffs Business Park, Whitfield

b) Summary of Recommendation

Permission be Refused

c) Planning Policies and Guidance

South East Plan (SEP): Policies SP3, RE3, CC1, CC2, CC4, CC6, CC7, NRM11, EKA1, EKA4 and EKA6Dover District Local Plan (DDLP): Policies LE1, LE2, LE3, TR2, DD1 and SP3LDF Core Strategy: Policy DM2PPS1: Delivering Sustainable DevelopmentPPS1 Supplement: Planning and Climate ChangePPG4: Industrial and Commercial Development and Small FirmsPPS4 (draft): Planning for Sustainable Economic DevelopmentPPS6: Planning for Town CentresPPG13: TransportPPS25: Development and Flood Risk.

d) Relevant Planning History

The site forms part of a much larger area forming the first phase of White Cliffs Business Park. Applications specific to the site include:

DOV/88/0543 - Erection of two non-food warehouses – Appeal against non-determination allowed.

DOV/88/0544 - Erection of two non-food retail warehouses –Refused.

DOV/90/1331 - Outline – Erection of 6,591sqm of industrial, distribution and warehousing – Granted.

DOV/94/0115 - Trade and Distribution Centre – Granted.

DOV/00/0609 - Outline application for B1, B2 and B8 uses –Granted.

DOV/03/0706 - Detailed application for access and estate road and Units 1-4 inclusive for the erection of B1 and B8 units – Granted.

DOV/03/0707 - Outline application for erection of B1 and B8 units – Granted.

e) Consultee and Third Party Responses

Highways Agency: Initially made detailed comment and sought further information. Has no objection subject to further details and conditions,

including submission of a Travel Plan, and a S106 Agreement to enable monitoring of the site's trip generation and relating to other transport matters.

County Highways: Seeks further information on parking which appears too low for the size of development. Further details of tracking, retaining walls, vision splays, road construction and safety measures are also required.

Amendments are needed to the off site highway works and questions are raised about the sustainability credentials of the applicant and the potential for Section 106 funding towards public transport and road improvements. Detailed comments are made on the transport assessment.

Further views awaited.

Kent County Council Strategic Planning: Considers that the development is justified in terms of the quantitative and qualitative need by offering scope for retention of retail expenditure in Dover with attendant sustainability benefits. The site lies adjacent to other retail stores and would encourage linked trips. The effect on employment land supply is modest, especially in view of the economic activity and job generation likely to arise from the proposed development. A condition is recommended restricting goods sold to bulky items. Measures should be taken to ensure that a fully detailed travel plan is prepared and contributions are made towards public transport and highway improvements.

Has subsequently confirmed that these conclusions are not affected by the history of the Business Park, in particular the pump-priming history relating to some developments, or the function of White Cliffs as a strategic employment location.

Further views requested but not received.

Ecology Comments: No objections – concerns can be addressed through detailed landscaping design and an informative relating to reptiles.

Environmental Health Comments (Contaminated Land and Noise): No objections. Recommend conditions and an informative.

Regeneration Comments: Retail performance in the Town Centre is limited and fragile. A recent survey of the Dover Town Centre primary and secondary shopping frontages indicated that some 13.5% were vacant. While this is of considerable concern, it falls someway behind one of Dover's near neighbours at Margate which has one of the highest vacancy rates – 25% - in the UK which has been accelerated by the development of the new centre at Westwood Cross.

In order to redress the fragility in the Town Centre, and extend the range and scale of offer, the Council's strategy has been to provide an anchor retail led development within the Town Centre at the St James Street site (know as Dover Town Centre Investment Zone (DTIZ)). As with many schemes in the UK, the current economic circumstances have dictated a review of the proposals at DTIZ. These remain viable and are proceeding through the final stages of legal agreements.

In addition to this, the Council has also included in the LDF two further areas for retail development at Dover. These include strategic allocations at Mid Town, Dover and at Dover Waterfront.

It is evident that the application, if permitted, would significantly extend the range and scale of the retail offer in the Whitfield area. This would conflict with the Council's long acknowledged ambitions to improve the vibrancy and retail/commercial base within the town. As such, it could also have a detrimental effect on both current proposals at DTIZ and emerging proposals at the Waterfront area, while also consuming future employment land.

In conclusion, it is considered that the application should be refused.

Community Safety Comments: Not received.

County Archaeologist: Recommends a condition.

Natural England: No comments, but draws attention to the possibility of protected species on the site. Makes recommendations concerning reptile mitigation.

Southern Water: No comments.

Folkestone and Dover Water Services: No observations.

Environment Agency: Initially objected in the absence of a drainage strategy. Following receipt of a Flood Risk Assessment, has no objections. Recommends conditions.

National Grid: The risk is negligible.

Stagecoach: There is plenty of potential retail development opportunity in the Town Centre of Dover. Granting planning permission outside central Dover for this type of activity inevitably makes it much less accessible to anyone not able to access their own car, as bus connections are always less effective to a peripheral site. Such development also undermines the already fragile Town Centre. The development would not be beneficial to Dover.

SEEDA: This is not a major application which will impact on delivery of the Regional Economic Strategy. Therefore, has no comments.

Dover Pride: The Dover Master Plan outlines key development opportunities for bringing about a prosperous and vibrant town centre. There is a need to focus on developing facilities in the town centre to realise regeneration ambitions. Resists the development unless added value can be strongly demonstrated. The proposal would affect future plans for White Cliffs Business Park which form part of the Dover Pride Regeneration Strategy and Action Plan.

Whitfield Parish Council: No objection.

Public Representations: A letter from a Deal resident expresses support for the application, as it will permit retail facilities which are not currently provided, create jobs and free up space in the town centre.

A letter on behalf of the promoters of the Dover Town Centre Investment Zone (DTIZ) raises objections on the grounds of non-compliance with National Planning Policy and the Regional Strategy, lack of certainty as to the type of retailing proposed and increased conflict with the town centre. Particular points made are:

• White Cliffs will become a competing centre with enhanced attractions including linked trips, free and convenient parking with less walking, accessibility by car and the introduction of high profile and successful retailers not currently represented in Dover.

• Further retail development could follow if the applicant's land marketing justification is accepted, leading to White Cliffs being a major local centre.

• Dover Town Centre is already in decline. The development would be marketed to a wide range of operators, so putting it in direct conflict with the Town Centre and causing further decline. If the development was to open before DTIZ, the Town Centre might not have a chance to recover. This is a "relevant local issue" in the context of PPS6.

• If Dover is to remain as a major retail centre, it must offer higher quality retail premises as proposed in the DTIZ. The proposal is not a solution to the agreed lack of quality town centre premises. Existing retailers might well relocate, especially in the absence of a strict bulky goods limitation.

• There is no formal definition of retail warehousing. Some of the retailers identified in the application have no reason not to be in the town centre. DTIZ could accommodate many of these retailers.

• The preferred location for bulky good retailers could be a site which supports the town centre. DTIZ fulfils this objective and its design does not preclude bulky goods sales. The constraints of DTIZ identified by the applicants, including reference to rental levels, are not agreed. The applicants have not produced evidence to support their assertions. Retail costs in Dover are low and are not deterring retailers.

• While conditions can limit the range of goods sold, there is increased commercial pressure to widen this range. Local Authorities find this difficult to resist, especially if the alternative is vacant units. Any limitation on the goods sold should be the subject of an appropriately worded Section 106 Agreement.

• The applicants have not conducted a thorough enough sequential exercise. Their case about alternative sites is weak and the identified constraints of DTIZ and Bridge Street are not accepted.

• The development is contrary to regional planning guidance and Draft South East Plan Policies which emphasis the role of town centres and the sequential approach of PPS6.

f) 1. The Site and the Proposal

1.1 The site is located on the south side of Honeywood Parkway and comprises a roughly triangular piece of land with a stated area of some 1.54 hectares and a road frontage of some 210 metres. To the north, on the opposite side of the road, are the Tesco and Homebase retail stores. To the east is a strip of vacant ground, beyond which are a car dealership and a large logistics warehouse. Further to the east are a variety of business units within Phase I of the White Cliffs development. Beyond, there is farmed and vacant land within Phase II; adjoining the access link into the A2 is the B & Q retail store.

1.2 The site is currently enclosed by temporary fencing. It is some 2 to 3 metres higher than Honeywood Parkway but is generally level and is becoming increasingly vegetated with natural scrub. To the south and west are the buildings and playing fields of Archer’s Court School.

1.3 The application seeks full planning permission for two retail buildings (described in the Design and Access Statement as “two flexible retail terraces”), indicated to be sub-divided into two and five units respectively and located towards the south and south-east boundaries. At the front of the site, adjoining the new site access, would be a single unit, described in the submission as a landmark building, and accommodating a Class A3 use. Car parking would be provided conventionally on much of the remainder of the site; disabled and covered cycle parking is identified. A detailed planting scheme has been submitted. A new right turning lane and attendant islands would be provided in Honeywood Parkway. Service yards would be located to the rear of the retail units and to the side of the A3 unit.

1.4 The retail buildings would each be on rectangular footprints and of overall heights of some 9.7m (i.e. 2 storey equivalent, to accommodate mezzanine floors) under shallow pitched profile metal roofs and a mixture of brick, profile steel and glazing to the walls, with projecting canopies across the frontages. They would have footprints of some 972²m and 2,800²m respectively. Gross internal floor space is stated to be 5,570²m “inclusive of mezzanine”. Installation of mezzanines (which, at this stage, are intended to cover 50% of each unit – further details have been requested) is proposed to be optional for individual occupants; it is anticipated that these would be non-food retailers. The A3 unit would be single storey and have a part curved metal profile roof with rendered blockwork walls and a maximum height of some 3.5m. It would have a floor area of 296²m and, the applicants state, is designed to complement not only the development itself, but also other uses nearby.

1.5 The Design and Access Statement states that one of the objectives of the proposal is to provide new high quality retail units in a well landscaped setting which responds to the nearby retail outlets and complements the expansion of the Business Park. It describes the proposal as a logical extension to the “substantial” retailing already existing in the immediate area and one which would extend the range of facilities available and encourage linked trips.

1.6 The submission states that the site is ideally suited to retail warehousing for the following reasons:

• It adjoins, or is close to, established retail uses which attract large numbers of people and provides scope for linked trips;

• It is prominently located and benefits from good access by a range of transport types;

• It is well related to the primary road network;

• It is vacant and has been unsuccessfully marketed for employment uses;

• The catchment area fits well with a number of retailers not represented in Dover; and

• There is a lack of retail warehouse provision in Dover and the site would address this deficiency.

1.7 The application is also accompanied by a number of detailed assessments and reports. It is claimed that the proposal accords with DDLP policies SP4 and LE1 (the former has not been saved) in that the site satisfies key policy tests and is served by a range of transport modes and its development for retailing would satisfy the terms of PPS6 and PPG13 and not prejudice the supply of land for other purposes.

1.8 Other benefits claimed for the development include:

• Greater choice for consumers and better to access to retailing;

• Reduced car journeys and, hence, reduced submissions;

• A significant investment (£12 million) in the local economy;

• The creation of some 120 jobs; and

• Retaining expenditure (£8 million per annum) currently leaked to other towns.

1.9 The submission states that the applicants are committed to good and sustainable design, including delivering a very good BREEAM rating or equivalent.

2. Planning Policy

2.1 PPS1 reiterates the Government’s principal aims for sustainable development, which include the maintenance of high and stable levels of economic growth and employment. Planning should facilitate and promote sustainable and inclusive patterns of development by making suitable land available in line with economic, social and environmental objectives, contributing to economic development and ensuring high quality development. Development should support communities,

including access to key services. Emphasis is placed on the plan-led system and the roll of policies in providing an effective framework.

2.2 The Supplement to PPS1 sets out a range of key objectives relating to climate change, including delivering patterns of growth that help secure the fullest possible uses of sustainable transport and reduce the need to travel, especially by car. New developments should reduce vulnerability, and provide resilience, to climate change in ways that are consistent with social cohesion and inclusion.

2.3 PPS6 sets out the Government’s key objective for existing town centres, namely to promote their vitality and viability by planning for their growth and development and promoting their enhancement by focusing development within them and encouraging a wide range of services in a good environment, accessible to all. Allied to this are other objectives which include enhancing consumer choice by making provision for a range of services, supporting efficient, competitive and innovative retailing with improving productivity and ensuring that development is accessible and well served by a choice of means of transport.

2.4 The Government emphasises the need for a plan-led approach which focuses development in existing town centres in order to strengthen and, where appropriate, regenerate them. If growth cannot be accommodated in existing centres, the primary shopping area should be extended to accommodate other retailing. Such extensions may include edge of centre locations. In areas of growth, new centres may need to be identified through the plan making process. If town centres are in decline, local planning authorities should assess the scope for their consolidation and strengthening.

2.5 PPS6 stresses the need for a sequential approach to identifying new retail sites. This requires that locations are considered firstly in existing centres, secondly in edge of centre locations and thirdly on out of centre sites. Applicants are required to demonstrate need for retail development, that its scale is appropriate, that the chosen location is acceptable, that no other more central sites are available and that the proposal would not detrimentally affect the town centre. Developments are required to satisfy all of these considerations.

2.6 PPG13 also places emphasis on reducing the need to travel, especially by car, the role of town centres as preferred locations for new retail development and the sequential test. If there is a clearly established need for out of centre development, it may be appropriate to combine the proposal with existing out of centre development. subject to negotiation over improvements to public transport.

2.7 Draft PPS4 was published in May 2009. In its final form, it will replace PPG4 and PPS6. It promotes the vitality and viability of town centres and states that new economic growth and development should be focused in existing centres. The Government wishes to encourage competition between retailers and enhance consumer choice. As drafted, it includes a number of decision-making policies. Policy EC12 encourages Local Planning Authorities to consider proposals for economic development other than in town centres favourably unless

there is good reason to believe that the social, economic and/or environmental costs of the development are likely to outweigh the benefits. Allied to this is the need to support development enhances the vitality and viability of towns. Policy EC18 retains the need for applicants to submit a sequential assessment, but also requires an impact assessment. Policy EC19 strengthens the need to ensure that all in-centre options have been thoroughly assessed before less central sites are considered. It also highlights the scope for desegregation. In other words, applicants should demonstrate whether specific parts of retail developments could be operated from separate sequentially preferable sites. Policy EC20 requires Local Planning Authorities to consider a range of positive and negative impacts of proposals, including accessibility, size and scale, impact of town centre vitality and viability, catchment area, social inclusion and the impact on the economic and physical regeneration of the area.

2.8 Policy SP3 of the SEP seeks to concentrate development in urban areas. Local policies should ensure, inter alia, that development is well designed and consistent with the principles of urban renaissance and sustainable development. Strategic land availability assessments should be used to identify the scope for redevelopment and intensification of urban areas. Policy CC1 states that the principal objective of the SEP is to achieve and maintain sustainable development. Policy CC2 addresses climate change. Policy CC4 requires sustainable construction standards and techniques. Policy CC6 sets out the requirements for sustainable communities and an attractive environment. Policy CC7 refers to the need to ensure adequate infrastructure to meet the needs of new development. Policy NRM11 addresses energy efficiency and renewable energy in new developments.

2.9 Policy EKA1 sets out the core strategy for East Kent, with Dover identified as a growth point and, together with other coastal towns, as a location for diversification and enlargement of the research and manufacturing base. The supporting text states “The town of Dover has an internationally important heritage but also has major sites and areas in need of regeneration. The economy relies on the ferry industry and there are areas of deprivation and poor quality housing. A new approach to regeneration and economic development is needed providing wider choice of new housing to support population growth and new services. In recognition of this, Dover District has been designated as a growth point. The local development framework needs to deliver high quality regeneration and acceptable development on greenfield land. The scale of growth needs to be supported by employment opportunities, infrastructure and services and managed within the constraints that apply to Dover. Within Dover District, the urban area of Dover has been selected for concentrating growth. However, the capacity of the urban area will not enable all the growth to be accommodated within existing built up areas. There will therefore be a need for substantial urban extension.”

2.10 Policy EKA4 sets out the approach to urban renaissance of the coastal towns. This will be encouraged, inter alia, by regeneration measures to create high quality urban environments and the concentration of employment in small businesses, education, culture

and other services in central Dover. Policy EKA6 states that the Local Development Framework (LDF) should give priority, amongst other things, to completion of major employment sites in Dover. Town centres in East Kent are to be given greater emphasis as locations for regeneration and employment growth in services.

2.11 In the DDLP, Policy LE3 shows the site within a much larger area of land, including White Cliffs Phases II and III, allocated for industrial, business and storage uses. The policy sets out a number of criteria for new development, including limiting it to B1, B2 and B8 uses (i.e. office, research and development, industrial, storage and distribution). Policy LE1 reinforces the latter by stating that permission for other uses will generally not be granted. Policy SP3 states that proposals for convenience supermarkets and superstores in Dover will be permitted only in the town centre or (if no such site is available) anedge of centre location.

2.12 Policy TR2 states that development will not be permitted unless it is served by an appropriate road network and access arrangements. Reference is made to the potential need for legal agreements relating to transport measures.

2.13 Policy DD1 sets out general design criteria relating to new development.

2.14 Policy DM2 of the Core Strategy seeks to protect employment land and presumes against other uses of such land. It takes into account, inter alia, the requirement in SEP Policy RE3 that accessible, well located industrial and commercial sites should be retained where there is a good prospect of employment use.

3. Assessment

3.1 The site is within the urban confines of Dover. It is allocated for business use. Planning permission has been granted for a series of applications, but there is no extant permission for the site. In principle, the development of the land remains acceptable for appropriate uses. The applicants also argue that the site is physically capable of development and that it is well suited to what is proposed.

3.2 The applicants argue that, notwithstanding the site’s allocation, a marketing exercise has demonstrated that it has inherent constraints, such as its shape and its location adjoining retail uses, so that it is unattractive to the business market. Furthermore, it is claimed, alternative and more suitable sites have been available and that, given the continuing availability of such sites, the position is likely to remain unchanged for the foreseeable future. The applicants also claim that there is a sufficient supply of employment land in the Dover area for at least the next 17 years (from 2007). Accordingly, it is stated, the loss of the land to retailing would not materially affect the ability to meet employment land needs in either Dover itself or the wider District. The applicants state that retail warehousing would bring benefits recognised by Policy LE1, but they appear to have misinterpreted this policy and this point is not agreed.

3.3 The applicants also argue that the site is well suited to accommodate the proposal in the context of planning policies. They relate the proposal to the key tests set out in PPS6 and rely on a specific study carried out to support the application which calculates a capacity for a further 21,693²m of comparison floor space in Dover District. This is described as very significant, reflecting growth in population and expenditure and the lack of retail provision in Dover. There is, therefore, a claimed quantitative need. In addition, a qualitative need is identified by reference to the poor retail offer in Dover and the low level of retail warehousing. In particular, there are few national operators and a lack of medium to high quality premises. Space for existing operators is compromised. There is also a lack of comparison and bulky goods outlets and an over supply of small and outdated space which is not suitable for many national firms. This gives rise to leakage to other towns, a consequent negative economic impact on Dover and consequences for car travel and sustainability.

3.4 The applicants further refer to retailer demand which cannot be met due to the limited space available and particularly as much of the demand is from retail warehouse operators. They state that development schemes are required in Dover to provide new accommodation in a variety of forms and that the proposal is well placed to address Dover’s retail needs which they describe as “extensive and pressing”.

3.5 In their sequential analysis, the applicants identify alternative sites at Bridge Street (the former B & Q building) and at St James (DTIZ). Both were discounted due to various constraints, including their marketing for “Open A1” retailers at high street rents which, the applicant’s state, would preclude retail warehouse operators and where other constraints include such matters as site configuration, servicing arrangements and the local retail mix. Specific reference is made to DTIZ where bulky goods retailing is discounted as “highly unlikely”. The wider Mid Town area was also discounted due to its long time horizon, along with a large number of smaller sites which failed suitability, viability and availability tests. The Committee will be aware that planning permission has been granted for the former B & Q building to be redeveloped as a food supermarket (works have commenced) and will be familiar with the DTIZ proposals for which permission has also now been granted. The applicants conclude that neither site is available and that the proposal thus fully satisfies the sequential tests. In any event, they argue, these schemes would meet only part of the identified need which they reinforce with a schedule of retailers who would consider locating in Dover or whose existing stores are too constrained and whose total demand is for at least 30,000m² of floorspace. The proposal, they claim, would cater for a different form of retailing, complement the town centre and otherwise address the benefits set out at para 1.8 above. It is aimed at operators selling "bulky" goods and the applicants confirm that a condition on the goods to be sold (excluding goods predominately sold in town centres such as clothing, footwear, books and stationery) would be "appropriate".

3.6 The applicants claim that their retail assessment demonstrates a very modest impact on Deal and Dover Town Centres owing to the limited

direct trade overlap and competition and that there would be no significant harm to either town centre or their vitality or viability. Notwithstanding, they express a willingness to contribute towards town centre improvements "as a mechanism to help offset any short term minor effects of the scheme". They have stated their agreement in principle to a contribution towards “town centre improvements” of £200,000. They further state that, in appeals elsewhere, the Secretary of State has supported developments which are aimed at stemming leakage.

3.7 It must be noted that the applicants' retail studies have placed emphasis on the 2003 Retail Study commissioned by the District Council. While this was a factor at the time of submission, it has been superseded through further work on the LDF relating to both retailing and employment land and is no longer considered material.

3.8 Indeed, the Council's Consultants have been commissioned to undertake a detailed assessment of the current application, including a critical evaluation of the evidential support provided by the applicants. This work was undertaken initially in December 2007 with an update in April 2009. Copies of the reports are available to view in the Members' Room.

3.9 The Retail Appraisal undertaken in April 2009, recommends against approving the development, taking account of a number of criteria which have included concern about the impact on the town centre and the sequential test. In addition, it is difficult to identify sufficient future growth and retail expenditure to support additional retail floor space in this location until at least 2016. Opportunities in and around the town centre should remain the priority in the short to medium term. The proposal, if permitted, could significantly undermine the delicate balance of securing new retail led investment and development in the town centre. The economic slow down only exaggerates this risk. For these and other reasons, the report recommends that the application should be refused. No case is seen for allowing the proposal and limiting sales to bulky goods.

3.10 The April 2009 Employment Land Review commissioned by the District Council as part of the evidence base for the emerging Core Strategy identifies an over supply of "available" and committed employment land in the district. However, analysis of its quality indicates a mismatch between land type and demand. Among the report's key recommendations are:

• All allocated employment land (including White Cliffs Business Park) should be retained for the period to 2026 to ensure that there is no under supply.

• Investment should be prioritised in employment sites (again, including White Cliffs) that are identified to have specific potential for B1 employment development with observed constraints.

• The protection of White Cliffs Phase 3 for employment purposes.

Overall, therefore, no de-allocation of employment sites is recommended. White Cliffs is identified as a key location for the development of office development. Phase 3 is identified as having potential particularly for B1 and B8 uses. Emphasis is placed on protecting B1, B2 and B8 land against retail warehousing.

3.11 Accordingly, White Cliffs Business Park continues to be regarded in the Core Strategy as the District’s premier employment area – Policy DM2 refers. Furthermore, the expanded settlement at Whitfield is seen as complimentary to the town centre. It is to be supported only by shopping and other facilities which are necessary for the local community and not to serve wider needs. Emphasis is placed on the role of the town centre in meeting the retailing needs of the people of Whitfield. Members will appreciate that some weight can be given at present to the Core Strategy pending receipt of the Inspector’s report after the Examination in Public. Land allocations for particular uses are to be considered through further LDF work.

3.12 The applicants submit that the site is well located for access to frequent bus services connecting to the town centre. Proposed pedestrian crossing improvements, it is stated, would further improve connectivity, while there is clear potential for linked trips, so leading to reductions in the number and length of car journeys. They identify no significant highway impacts. A framework Travel Plan has been submitted. Additional information has been submitted to address highways concerns raised by both the County Council and the Highways Agency. The submitted archaeological evaluation suggests few, if any, features of archaeological significance on the site. The habitat survey (undertaken in May 2007) identified no specific implications, but recommended a reptile survey (which was subsequently undertaken during June 2007). A Phase I site investigation concludes that there is a low risk of residual contamination. A flood risk assessment has also been submitted.

3.13 Prima facie, the proposal runs contrary to those local and regional land use policies which aim to protect employment land against other uses and to concentrate retailing in and around the town centre. Notwithstanding the presence of some retailers at White Cliffs, these policy objectives have been of long standing and are reflected in a number of planning decisions over the years. The Tesco and B&Q stores, approved respectively in 1986 and 2006 and located at opposite ends of White Cliffs, were both integrally connected to key infrastructure investment, namely the spine road linking from Honeywood Road and the A2 junction and its link to Honeywood Parkway. Both had direct and beneficial links with the release of employment land and employment generation and reflected strategic and local policies seeking to promote business development at White Cliffs. They were what the County Council refers to as pump-priming development. Retailing was justified exceptionally in these cases, in terms of its catalytic role and this case was accepted by the Secretary of State when the proposals were referred as departures.

3.14 No such advantages were seen with the Homebase store which (together with a second retailing proposal – DOV/88/0543 – on the current site) was the subject of an appeal against non determination in 1989. The Council had no objection to that proposal in terms of its impact on the town centre and the Inspector placed weight on the appellant's arguments relating to loss of trade to other centres. He saw the main issue to be the potential loss of employment land, but he did not accept that this was overriding and saw advantages to grouping retail warehousing – a point advanced by the current applicants.

3.15 Subsequent to this decision, an appeal against the refusal of permission for a mixed development, including a 12,000 sq metre factory outlet centre on Phase 2 of White Cliffs, was dismissed by the Secretary of State. He did not consider that there was any significant constraint on the site being developed for business use. It was not well located in relation to existing housing or the town centre, was poorly served by public transport (this aspect is likely to change, given the B&Q development and the related contributions to public transport) and the development was likely to exacerbate the decline in the town centre. It did not satisfy the sequential test (by then, the existing factory outlet centre at Western Docks had been approved), neither did it accord with PPG13 in its aim of reducing reliance on the private car.

3.16 Continued resistance to retailing has also been reflected in a refusal in 1997 of a new store for MFI, reflecting concerns about the sequential test, the fragility of the town centre, sustainability and loss of employment land. Furthermore, restrictive conditions to prohibit general retailing have been placed on a number of subsequent permissions. The Council's approach to White Cliffs has been consistent. Retail development has been resisted unless a truly exceptional case reflecting wider strategic issues has been proven. Where such a case has been recognised, the Council's conclusions have been shared by the Secretary of State.

3.17 The recommendations of the Council's consultants are clear. Not only would the development run contrary to DDLP Local Employment Policies, in particular Policy LE3, but there is a clear recognition that the land should not be de-allocated and it should remain allocated for employment (B1, B2 and B8) use. There is nothing in the SEP which contradicts these conclusions – indeed, Policy EKA6 is quite clear in the priority it gives to employment. Consequently, the development runs contrary to Development Plan Policies for Employment.

3.18 Allied to these conclusions are those of the Council's Consultants concerning the sequential test and the impact of the development on the town centre. There is clear disagreement with the applicants on these issues. Members will be familiar with the fragility of the town centre, the emphasis on its regeneration through, for example, DTIZ and the developing work on mid-town, and the associated regeneration agenda. This has been of long standing concern, as reflected in previous decisions on White Cliffs. While the Committee must give due consideration to the applicant’s submissions, it would be ill-advised not to accept the advice of the Council's Consultants.

The comments of the Head of Regeneration will also be noted. It is not considered that the development would reflect the SEP's emphasis on regeneration as set out, for example, in Policy EKA4. Members will note the lengthy and detailed objections on behalf of the promoters of DTIZ. There is little doubt that a grant of permission for retailing here would have a negative impact on actual and prospective retailer and investor confidence in the town centre. This would be compounded by what might well be seen as a weakening of both the Council's resolve and its ability to resist any further such development at White Cliffs.

3.19 The applicants have commissioned further studies in response to the concerns raised by the Council’s Consultants. In so doing, they draw attention to the Barker Review (2005), the proposed changes to PPS6 and the draft PPS4 which, they state, make the assessment of need subservient to a wider assessment of ‘impact’. The applicants state that the proposals would “fully accord with the new thrust of Government Policy set out in the draft document”. It is not considered, however, that significant weight can be placed on these documents such as to outweigh the policy consideration set out in this report.

3.20 The applicants continue to place weight on the need to claw back trade lost to other towns, the ability to locate retail warehousing at the site and the ‘major social, environmental and economic benefits’ the development would bring. The proposed development, the applicants reiterate, would not ‘detrimentally impact or threaten future investment confidence in the strategic emergence of Dover’s core strategy’.

3.21 In a separate Employment Land Review, the applicants reiterate that the land has been appropriately marketed, is unattractive for business uses and is likely to remain undeveloped for some time. Additionally, they continue to claim that the site’s development for retail purposes would have no discernable effect on the quantitative or qualitative supply of employment land or premises in the District.

3.22 Notwithstanding the applicant’s latest submissions, there must be concerns about the ability of the scheme to meet the policy requirements of PPS1, PPG13 and SEP Policy CC1 relating to sustainability. There is undoubted potential for the scheme to claw back trade currently lost to other centres. However, trips would not only arise from such diversion. The development would be bound to give rise to new car-borne trips and the applicants have failed to demonstrate that the proposal would, on balance, satisfy the overall policy aims of reducing travel by car. Furthermore, they have indicated that they are not prepared to make a financial contribution to sustainable travel initiatives as they do not consider these to be justified (indeed, they are similarly resisting contributions to off-site highway improvements). Members may recall that the planning permissions for both the Tesco extension and B & Q included contributions towards sustainable/public transport. Clearly, there is conflict with the views of County Highways on this point. Their further views are awaited. Overall, the development does not satisfy sustainability policies.

3.23 In reaching the conclusion to recommend refusal, account has been taken of all other material considerations. Limited weight can be given to the emerging PPS4 but, at this stage, it gives no cause to believe that national policies for such developments are likely to be more favourable. Very little weight can be given to the County Council’s support for the development, as it is based on the policies of the former Structure Plan which is now of no relevance. It is not considered that the objections can be overcome by conditions such as restricting sales to bulky goods as suggested by the applicants. Indeed, in the absence of known occupants, such conditions may often be difficult to agree and not anticipate all possible eventualities.

3.24 Finally, the agents claim that a previous case officer concluded that the application should be approved, particularly taking into account the intention to sell bulky goods and his readiness to draft an appropriately - worded condition. Members are advised that an individual officer cannot give a commitment to a particular recommendation or outcome on an application.

g) Recommendation

I Subject to the further views of County Highways PERMISSION BE REFUSED to the application, as amended, on the grounds:- (i) The proposal would result in the loss of land allocated as employment land in the Dover District Local Plan. This land is considered to form a valuable part of Dover's employment land supply. The proposal would, therefore, be contrary to Policy EKA6 of the South East Plan and Policies LE1, LE2 and LE3 of the Dover District Local Plan. (ii) It is not considered that sufficient attempts have been made to identify an alternative location for the development within a town centre or edge of centre location in accordance with the requirements of the sequential test. Accordingly, the proposal does not comply with PPS6 and is contrary to South East Plan Policy EKA4. (iii) The proposal would fail to satisfy national and regional objectives relating to sustainability and, in particular, would be contrary to PPS1, the associated Supplement, PPG13 and South East Plan Policy CC1.

Case Officer

Tim Flisher

2. a) DOV/09/0234 – Erection of extensions and refurbishment to existing fire damaged building to enable use as golfers' accommodation, including 14 self catering flats, gym, bar, lounge, office, together with associated parking and landscaping, The Old Clubhouse, Princes Golf Club, Sandwich Bay, Worth


Consideration be deferred.


Dover District Local Plan (DDLP) Policies – LE20, LE23, LE29, DD1, CO5, CO1, TR1 and OS7.

South East Plan (SEP) Policies – SP3, CC1, CC2, CC4, NRM4, NRM5, TSR2 and TSR5.

Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA).

Good Practice Guide on Planning for Tourism.

Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 1 – Delivering Sustainable Development.

Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 7 – Sustainable Development in Rural Area.

Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 9 – Biodiversity and Geological Conservation.

Planning Policy Guidance (PPG) 13 Transport.

Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 25 – Development and Flood Risk.


There is a lengthy planning history relating to the whole of this site; however, the most relevant proposals to the determination of this application are as follows:

DO/85/1066 – Demolition of the Old Club house and the erection of 48 flats – two, 3 storey blocks, garages and car parking – Refused.

DO/86/0759 – Demolition of the Old Clubhouse and the erection of 23 flats – Refused.

DOV/93/0429 – Alterations, extensions and refurbishment of the clubhouse including 5 guest bedroom suites, demolition and replacement of the existing dormitory lodges with two blocks totalling 16 flats (14 for golfers and 2 for staff) – Appeal allowed subject to conditions and legal agreement.

DOV/99/416 – Alterations, extensions and refurbishment of the clubhouse, including 5 guest bedroom suites, demolition and replacement of the existing dormitory lodges with two blocks totalling 16 flats (14 for golfers and 2 for staff) – Renewal of DOV/93/429 – Granted for a further 2 year period.

DOV/08/742 – Erection of detached pitched roof building incorporating 14 self contained flats and club house facilities together with associated parking and landscaping (existing clubhouse to be demolished) – Withdrawn.


County Highways: No objections subject to conditions. Further comments awaited.

Ecology Comments: May need to consider Appropriate Assessment under regulation 48 (1) in The Conservation (Natural Habitats &c) Regulations 1994 as amended 2007.

Environmental Health Comments: No objection; the development has reasonable stacking arrangements with the exception around the ground floor area.

Regeneration Comments: Supports the application because golf can provide economic benefits and quality hotel accommodation is required in the district.

Natural England: No objections. Further comments awaited.

Southern Water: No objection.

Environment Agency: Objects as the proposal goes beyond what is considered to be a change of use and therefore the application should be subject to the sequential and exceptions test in PPS25.

It is within the remit of the Local Planning Authority to decide over what area the sequential test should be applied. However, the site already benefits from club house facilities within the limits of the course and this proposal mainly comprises accommodation which should be located outside the course, away from the area at risk from flooding.

With regard to the exceptions test, the ground floor has been set 600mm above the predicted static tide level, but at a location as close to the frontage as this it is likely that there will be an additional element of wave action which could exceed the provided freeboard. There is a risk that the ground floor will be subject to internal inundation which would make it unsuitable for sleeping accommodation.

There are a number of inconsistencies with the existing and proposed levels and threshold levels.

The FRA confirms that the site does not have safe access under a flood condition. Although it is noted that flooding is not likely to be long lasting at this location and that it is proposed to mitigate the risk by providing an evacuation plan, this cannot be agreed to be a safe situation.

County Public Rights of Way: No comment.

Worth Parish Council: Objects due to increase in traffic, noise and disturbance and unnecessary commercial development. Supports the views of the local residents.

Third Parties: 47 letters of objection (including from Sandwich Bay (Residents) Limited) have been received; the material comments are summarized as follows:

• The site is an isolated maritime location and the plans are out of keeping with the reality;

• Would detrimentally change the character of the area forever;

• There would be an increase traffic which raises safety and environmental concerns;

• Commercial activity in this isolated area of natural beauty is most undesirable;

• Together with an existing consent the full scale of the development would be for 30 flats;

• There are already too many non-related golfing activities at this site;

• The development would destroy the wildlife in the adjacent dunes;

• Traffic calming measures throughout the estate have not reduced the speed of the traffic;

• The roads are struggling to cope with the existing traffic;

• The estate roads are tarmac on sand and are not designed to cope with this volume of traffic;

• Late at night golfers cause noise and disturbance with no consideration to the local residents;

• It will be of no benefit to the residents of the estate;

• The Inspector of the appeal heard in 1994 was misinformed, the two small dormitory blocks were only ever used for staff accommodation;

• Since DDC refused planning permission in 1993 nothing has changed;

• There is evidence of a lack of need and commitment to complete such a project since permission was granted in 1994;

• The applicant has not demonstrated a need;

• This development is not ancillary to the golf club but a distinct and separate commercial development, capable of being disposed of as a separate commercial enterprise;

• The applicants should not be allowed to take advantage of some 15 years of procrastination and then seek to rely on a planning consent that was granted in the early 1990s;

• The building went out of use many years ago and appears to be redundant for any useful purpose;

• This proposal would conflict with condition 11 of the renewed permission which requires the clubhouse to be refurbished before the dormitory blocks are occupied;

• The intensification of tourist activity is in an area that is protected from further development. It would be better placed close to other businesses that might also benefit by increasing tourist activity in Sandwich town;

• The proposal is contrary to PPS7; the applicant has failed to provide any evidence that identified needs are not met by existing facilities that the facilities are needed to enhance visitors enjoyment and/or improve financial viability;

• The applicant has not considered the increase in traffic and hides behind the renewed permission. The travel generation predictions have not been updated; the site is now being used for unrelated activities such as weddings;

• PPG13 advises that large scale tourism and leisure developments in rural areas have to be subject to close assessment to weigh up their advantages and disadvantages to the locality in terms of sustainable development;

• PPG for Tourism advises that large scale tourist facilities in rural areas should consider transport implications and rural regeneration;

• If permission is granted a carefully worded condition should be imposed to ensure that the development is only occupied by golfers;

• It is the applicant’s intention to implement this planning permission as an alternative to the renewed 1999 planning permission (in part); therefore the applicant should have been made to submit an application for the whole development to allow full consideration of all of the planning issues;

• Consultees should be made aware that the development would be for 30 units and not just 14;

• The development described in this application is incapable of being implemented and accordingly it would be unlawful for the Council to grant planning permission in the terms sought;

• The extant permission was granted on the back of the Inspector’s decision in 1994. The decision letter assessed the development then proposed as a whole including the lesser development of the Old Clubhouse;

• It is abundantly clear that it would be physically impossible to implement the renewed permission and the development sought under the 2009 application at the same time. Each permission would involve different development of the same site;

• The grant of this permission would be challenged by way of judicial review;

• This development would result in a 43% increase in accommodation from the renewed permission, something the Inspector did not consider;


1.1 Princes golf course is located well beyond any village or urban confines and lies adjacent to the coast. To the north and west it is adjoined by farmland and the River Stour with the industrial area of Pfizer’s beyond. Royal St George’s lies to the south and south-west. Further south is the residential settlement of Sandwich Bay.

1.2 The golf course and much of the area generally is protected by a number of local and national land designations such as Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), Special Area of Conservation (SAC), Statutory Nature Reserve (SNR), Special Protection Area (SPA) and RAMSAR site.

1.3 This part of the District is vulnerable to flooding and falls within flood zone 3 as depicted on the Environment Agency’s flood maps and in the Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA). Flood zone 3 means that there is a high probability of flooding a 1 in 200 or greater annual probability of flooding from the sea (>0.5%) in any year. PPS25 advises that the proposed use falls within the ‘More Vulnerable’ category.

1.4 The application site has an area of 0.238 hectares and is part of the golf club. The site contains the old club house as well as associated car parking. The building has not been in use for many years. It was badly damaged by fire in 2008. The remaining parts of the building are propped up by scaffolding and have been fenced off for public safety. The new (replacement) club house is located some distance to the north.

1.5 Access to the site and the golf course as a whole is via the private Sandwich Bay Estate and toll road.

1.6 At present the site consists of the fire damaged old clubhouse which was a two storey, pitched roof building. Only the shell of the building in part up to the first floor and the chimney stacks remain. Adjacent to the club house are two concrete slabs. One forms the implementation of the 1999 planning permission for one of the dormitory blocks, the other is the remains of a dormitory block which was demolished some time after 1999.

1.7 Planning permission is sought for the change of use and conversion of the existing fire damaged building to provide 14 self catering units for golfers together with a gym, bar/lounge and office. The ground floor would provide 5 flats, gym, bar and offices; the first floor would provide 7 flats; and the second floor 2 flats and part of flats no. 8 and 9.

1.8 The plans show that ground floor would be raised to 6.6m ODN, which would require the construction of an internal raft and significant changes to the fenestration to be made. The applicant states that this provides the opportunity to change the external appearance by revised window design and the introduction of gable features and balconies.

1.9 The 1999 planning permission (DOV/99/0416) was confirmed in writing by an officer in 2001 to be extant (although this does not constitute a formal decision). This permission allows for the refurbishment of the Old clubhouse and included 5 dormitories, staff flat, shop/workshop, health suite, changing rooms, stores, offices, lounge bar, dining room, kitchen, function room and toilets. It also allows for the erection of two separate detached dormitory blocks, totalling 16 units.

1.10 The applicant claims that the extant permission can be implemented in part and therefore the intention is still to construct the two dormitory blocks under the 1999 permission and then convert the old clubhouse in accordance with this application. As such the applicant is of the opinion that further planning permission is not required for the dormitory blocks and therefore they do not form part of this application. A planning condition (number 11) was imposed on the 1999 planning permission which requires the Old Clubhouse to be converted in accordance with the permission before the dormitory lodges can be occupied. As such it would appear necessary for the applicant to vary this condition or apply for planning permission for the whole development. Further legal advice is being sought on this issue.

1.11 Members should note that if it is considered possible for the dormitory blocks and this current application to be implemented together the number of golf holiday units on this site would amount to 30.

1.12 The plans from 1999 showed that 38 car parking spaces existed and the proposed plans show that this would not increase.

2. Planning Policy

2.1 DDLP Policy DD1 states that proposals for development will not be permitted unless they are acceptable in terms of, amongst other things, layout and functional needs of the development, siting,

massing and scale of the new buildings, architectural style and materials, spatial and visual character of the surrounding area and landform and landscaping.

2.2 DDLP Policy CO1 does not permit development if it would adversely affect the countryside or result in the loss of countryside unless it is justified by the following; is required for agriculture; is needed to sustain the rural economy; and is of type that demands a rural location.

2.3 DDLP Policy CO5 will only permit development on the Heritage Coast if; a coastal location is essential; the site is not in an area of eroding cliffs; It would not result in the need for coastal protection works; and there is no adverse off-shore impact. In addition development will not be permitted if it would aversely affect the scenic beauty, heritage or nature conservation value of the heritage coast.

2.4 DDLP Policy TR1 states that development which would generate travel will not be permitted outside the urban areas and village confines unless justified by other development plan policies.

2.5 SEP Policy CC1 states that the principal objective of the plan is to achieve and to maintain sustainable development in the region.

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

2.7 SEP Policy NRM4 considers sustainable flood risk management and directs decision makers towards PPS25.

2.8 SEP Policy NRM5 aims to avoid the net loss of biodiversity and actively pursue the opportunities to achieve a net gain across the region.

2.9 PPG 13 aims to achieve more sustainable transport choices for both people and for moving freight; promote accessibility to jobs, shopping, leisure facilities and services by public transport, walking and cycling, and reduce the need to travel, especially by car.

2.10 The aims of PPS25 on development and flood risk are 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, exceptionally, necessary in such areas, policy aims to make it safe without increasing flood risk elsewhere and where possible, reducing flood risk overall.

3. Assessment

3.1 Since the last planning application on this site was considered there have been significant changes not only on the site and in the physical character of the remains of the building but also in national and local planning policies. The interpretation of some policies will have

fundamental consequences on the decision of whether to grant or refuse planning permission.

3.2 Specifically, the interpretation of policy LE20 of the DDLP requires the planning authority to decide if the building is of a permanent and substantial construction and if it is structurally sound and will not require major or complete reconstruction. If it is considered that this proposal is in accordance with this policy than the principle of this development may be acceptable. However, if it is deemed to be contrary to this policy it would have to be considered that the work proposed is not a conversion but tantamount to a new building within the countryside. It would therefore be necessary to consider if there are any other material planning considerations which would give weight and support to the granting of planning permission contrary to Policy LE20.

3.3 The applicants have sought their own legal advice on the matter and the officers have considered it appropriate to do the same. In addition, the Council’s Structural Engineer has been consulted on the proposal and his advice has been sent to Counsel for consideration.

3.4 Depending if the building is deemed to be structurally sound will influence how other planning policies are applied and interpreted.

3.5 If it is considered that the proposal is in accordance with Policy LE20, in that specifically, the building is a substantial construction, is structurally sound and will not require major or complete reconstruction and that the adaptation will not damage the character or setting, then the principle of the re-use of this rural building for a tourism related use would be in principle considered to be acceptable.

3.6 In accordance with Policies LE23, CO1, CO5 and DD1 of the DDLP, the proposal would have to demonstrate an appropriately high standard of design in sympathy with the local environment and show that it would not have an adverse affect on the countryside or the coastal environment.

3.7 The site is well beyond any urban or village confines and the preamble to Policy CO1 of the DDLP considers such a location to be countryside. Policy CO1 does not permit development if it would result in the loss of or would adversely affect the countryside unless it is justified by one of three criteria. The applicant has not provided any special justification. However the applicant has stated that it is necessary for the tourism industry, although no evidence to support this claim has been supported.

3.8 The proposal would amount to a new hotel; Policy LE29 of the DDLP allows new hotels only within the built up areas of Dover, Deal, Sandwich or villages. The preamble identifies that Policies LE19, LE20 and LE21 (not saved) can permit development of this nature. Policy LE19 is not relevant to the determination of this application and it has not been proven that the proposal is in compliance with Policy LE20. Therefore, as the matter stands, the proposal is contrary to Policy LE29.

3.9 Policy CO5 of the DDLP only allows development on the undeveloped coast if a coastal location is essential and no suitable alternative site exists. The applicant would need to demonstrate that a coastal site is essential in accordance with Policy CO5.

3.10 Counsel has also been asked to advise if the extant planning permission can be implemented in part with this planning application in light of Condition 11. If Counsel deem it is possible then due regard would have to be given to the cumulative impact that this development would have; in total 30 golfers’ units could be constructed. The statutory consultees should be made aware of this.

3.11 To accord with Policy TR1 the applicant would have to demonstrate that this proposal would not generate additional travel beyond the village confines. The applicant may be asked to submit a traffic impact assessment or travel plan.

3.12 The applicant would have to demonstrate whether the proposal would significantly increase the number of golfers using the course over and above the number provided for by the extant permission. If the change is significant then appropriate assessment would be required by virtue of Regulation 48 in the Conservation (Natural Habitats) Regulations 1994 as amended 2007 and as required by Policy NRM5 of the SEP.

3.13 The applicant has not demonstrated sufficiently that the site is not at risk from flooding. The Environment Agency has objected to the application because of its concerns about internal inundation and as the FRA confirms that the site does not have safe access/egress during flood conditions.

3.14 Furthermore, PPS25 would classify a hotel as a ‘more vulnerable’ use and flood zone (FZ) 3 in which the site is located has a high chance of flooding. PPS25 annex D confirms that this use is not compatible with this flood zone. If it is considered that the proposed building is a new construction it would be necessary for the Council to apply the sequential test in accordance with PPS25. The sequential test aims to locate vulnerable development such as this within an area at a lesser risk of flooding, eg. ideally within a flood zone 1. PPS25 advises that the search area for a safer site should be District-wide unless the applicant can justify a smaller search area. The applicant has confirmed in the FRA that the search area for the sequential test would only be the golf course; no evidence to support this view has been submitted. it is necessary for the applicant to demonstrate why the hotel could not be located outside of FZ3. If, however, the development is considered to be a change of use and conversion than the sequential test would not be applicable.

3.15 This is a complex case. The advice of the applicant’s Counsel is to the effect that the proposed development falls within the scope and ambit of the 2001 permission which is extant and capable of further implementation. However, the weight which the Council should give to this advice must depend on the reliability of the instructions and, in particular, the structural report which Counsel considered. There are a number of complex factors which need to be taken into account, such as whether the proposed works materially affect the external

appearance of the building, whether they constitute a re-building operation and how much of the original building remains and is structurally sound, so as to support the original conversion. In view of the complexities involved, Counsel’s opinion has been sought and it is hoped to report further at the meeting. Members will appreciate that, depending on the advice received, considerable further thought may need to be given to the various other issues identified in this report. Members will also note the significant level of third party objection to the proposal, which has included detailed references to case law.

g) Recommendation

I Pending the receipt of Counsel’s advice, CONSIDERATION BE DEFFERED.

Case Officer

Rachel Ellwood

3. a) DOV/09/0298 – Erection of a detached dwelling (existing dwelling to be demolished),One the Old Fairground, High Street, Wingham


Refuse Planning Permission.

Planning Policies and Guidance

Dover District Local Plan (DDLP): Policies DD1, DD7 and HS1South East Plan (SEP): Policies BE1, BE6 and H5Planning Policy Statements and Guidance: PPS1, PPS3, PPS7, PPG15 and PPS25


DOV/05/01446 – Certificate of Lawfulness (LDC) for the existing use of the site as a residential caravan site for the positioning of mobile homes for the purposes of human habitation and associated structures, engineering works and landscaping was granted in part for 2 caravans and refused in part for more caravans.

The appeal against the refused part of the LDC (to enlarge the caravan site) was dismissed in 2007.

The two mobile homes made lawful through the LDC became separate planning units: the land was sold to entirely new occupiers, the land was fenced and the land is used unconnected to the main site – the subject of this application.

An Enforcement Notice was served related to the third mobile building that remained on the land without the benefit of the grant of the LDC. On appeal, the Inspector considered that the mobile building had become lawful and quashed the Notice.

This third building and the surrounding land is the subject of this current application.

There have been many other applications for residential development relating to this and adjacent sites. Those applications and appeals that relate to the current application site have been refused and dismissed on appeal mainly because the land falls outside the village confines, and on grounds of impact.


County Highways: No objections to the amended plan. Conditions PA05 (detailed parking to be laid out as approved) and AC24 (approved turning area to be provided) are recommended should permission be granted.

Licensing Officer: No response received.

Environment Agency: No objections despite the site being considered to be at high risk from flooding and within Flood Zone 3a. Ordinarily the EA would not support the development of residential accommodation in such areas. However, the proposal for the replacement of an existing single storey

dwelling with a two storey house offers a clear betterment over the existing situation with regard to the risk to life from flooding. A condition is recommended should planning permission be granted regarding the terms of the Flood Risk Assessment and mitigation measures. No objections subject to conditions regarding drainage and contamination. Advice is given regarding storage of fuel, oil and chemicals.

Wingham Parish Council: No objections.

Public Representative: One letter of objection has been received. The following material points are made:

• The site is outside the village confines;

• Despite the claim that there is an existing dwelling on the site, it is only a mobile caravan;

• The site is in an area at risk from flooding.

One letter raising no objections has been received, but the writer does not wish to be overlooked.


1.1 The site lies outside Wingham village confines and within an area at risk from flooding. It adjoins the village conservation area.

1.2 It is located to the west of The High Street. It is reached via a compacted gravelled driveway which runs alongside the rear gardens and frontages of a number of properties including that of the recently constructed property, “The House”. There are also two access points to the site from the end of North Court Close. The site is quite secluded and has an open appearance. It is visible from Petts Lane to the north and has Wingham Church and a number of trees in the background.

1.3 The site falls within the open countryside, adjacent to the village confines, the conservation area and a number of residential properties. The other residential properties, with the exception of those on the two newly created plots arising from the LDC, are within the village confines.

1.4 The application seeks full planning permission to replace the existing double unit mobile home with a detached two storey 4-bedroom dwelling. The application is accompanied by a Design & Access Statement, a Flood Risk Statement and correspondence with the Environment Agency

1.5 The design of the proposed dwelling reflects that of “The House” which is situated alongside the gravelled driveway near to the High Street. The proposed front elevation, which faces westward away from the village, would have a traditional two storey appearance with a storm porch/canopy over the front door and vertical clay tile hanging on the first floor with a brick finish on the ground floor. The rear

elevation would have a cat slide roof design with a gabled roof element and two dormer windows. The accommodation comprises living, dining, kitchen, study and utility areas on the ground floor, with 4 bedrooms and bathrooms on the upper floor.

1.6 Little information is provided with the application to show how the site would be laid out, what existing structures on the site might be used for, how much of the land would be garden and how much would remain open meadow. The detail of the application relates mainly to the actual replacement building. This presents a difficulty for officers because the application site as shown on the submitted site location plan does not match with the land associated with the grant of the LDC. The LDC land was divided roughly in two between the land associated with the lawful residential use and open land that was not.

1.7 In terms of the replacement building, the drawings supplied with the application have some discrepancies in the measurements between them which range from 1.5m to mainly 1m.

1.8 The agent has been requested to clarify these matters.

1.9 The existing mobile unit to be replaced is not too dissimilar in footprint to the footprint of the proposed house – it is slightly longer but less wide. The location of the new building would be the same as the existing building. However, the main differences between the existing and proposed buildings are height, scale and design.

2. Planning Policy

2.1 In effect, local and strategic planning policy allow replacement dwellings in the countryside (Policy HS1 of DDLP and Policy H5 of the SEP). In this case, the proposal falls to be considered on the impact of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area (Policies DD1 and DD7 of the DDLP and BE1 of the SEP), including the setting of the conservation area (Policy BE6 of the SEP).

2.2 Local Plan policies require new development to be of a high quality of design that is appropriate in its context; and in this case, a new development should seek to preserve or enhance the setting (including views into and from) of the conservation area.

2.3 The applicant has satisfied the Environment Agency that the resultant development would provide less risk than the existing dwelling. As such, this policy matter need not be further assessed on the basis that standard conditions could be imposed.

3. Assessment

3.1 The proposal falls to be considered mainly in light of policy DD7 (replacement dwellings in the countryside). Policy DD1 echoes policy DD7 in terms of design attributes which should be incorporated into new development.

3.2 The proposed replacement dwelling fails design criteria (iv) and (v) set out in policy DD7, in that the proposal would be harmful to the

character and appearance of the area, and its scale, siting and design (having regard to the existing dwelling) would be inappropriate.

3.3 The proposal would significantly increase the amount of built form on the site. The proposal is for a two storey 4-bedroom house which is intended to replace a modest single storey structure. The proposed building would be 9.5m high whereas the existing mobile home is 3.6m on top of its plinth – which is about 1m). The increase in floorspace proposed is approximately just over 80% (having an upper floor). The subsequent increase in height and scale of the building is substantial.

3.4 Although the proposed design and scale of the proposal is intended to reflect that of “The House’ near to the site, that property falls within the built village confines, and in the context of being among other residential developments of similar scale. The proposal would be sited outside the village confines in a somewhat exposed countryside location. The proposed design does not suit this context. The combination of the isolated location of the proposed house and the bulk of the building along with its scale (particularly its height) and overall style would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area. The result would be a substantial and prominent isolated dwelling in the countryside beyond the village confines. When compared to the modest proportions of the existing home the visual change would be significant.

3.5 The introduction of such a substantial new development in this location would also affect the open appearance of the area, views of the Church and views from other buildings. The setting of the conservation area would also be harmed.

3.6 This application has been reported to the Committee because of the particular circumstances surrounding this case.

3.7 In June 2009 a letter written to the applicant by the then case officer set out his concerns with the proposal, in particular with regard to Policy DD7. It was suggested that the scheme should be amended and that a more ‘bespoke’ design might be more appropriate for the site such as a chalet bungalow.

3.8 In a series of responses, the applicant disagreed with the case officer, setting out his reasons and making reference and comparisons to other developments nearby and elsewhere in the District. This information is available on file. More recently, the applicant has claimed that the former case officer had formed a different view of the proposal, and that he had considered that the proposal was now acceptable. There is no written record such as a draft report or a assessment indicating that he had changed his mind and agreed with the agent. The agent has not been able, to date, to produce any evidence himself of a change of view. Members are advised that, in any event, no one officer can ever commit the Council to a particular outcome on an application.

3.9 Notwithstanding the reference by the agent to other schemes, no two cases are ever the same as each proposal has to be assessed on its

individual merits in the light of planning policies and other material matters pertaining at the time. Consideration has been given to these other cases, but none outweigh the conclusions reached in the current case.

3.10 The replacement dwelling now proposed, with a substantially larger structure, would formalise the site’s current low key appearance. It would be visually intrusive and appear incongruous in this countryside setting. It would be visible across the landscape. Its presence would interrupt views into and from the adjoining conservation area, and harm its setting. It would be contrary not only to the identified Development Plan policies, but also to PPS1 and PPS3 (in particular concerning the need for design to be appropriate in its context) and PPS7 (which refers to the need for replacement dwellings to bring about an environmental improvement in landscape terms).

3.11 The fact that a two storey dwelling would remove sleeping accommodation on the ground floor in the flood risk area does not outweigh the harm to the character and appearance of the area. There is scope in planning policy for a replacement dwelling, but this scheme is not appropriate.

3.12 In assessing the nature of the third party representations received, these are mainly dealt with in the body of the report. In terms of overlooking, there is sufficient separation between the location of the proposed house and the nearest residential properties. As such, there is unlikely to be undue overlooking or loss of privacy as a result of the proposal. However, this does not outweigh the conclusions reached.

3.13 A further letter and plan were received from the agent as this report was being finalised and a verbal report will be made as necessary at your meeting.

g) Recommendation

I PERMISSION BE refused on the grounds:- The proposed replacement dwelling by reason of its scale, siting and design would harm the character and appearance of the open countryside and the setting of the adjacent conservation area and is thereby contrary to policies DD1 and DD7 of the Dover District Local Plan, and policies BE1 and BE6 of the South East Plan.

Case Officer

Vic Hester

4.a) DOV/09/0567 – Erection of a building incorporating 6 flats and 1 link detached bungalow, construction of a vehicular access and associated car parking (existing building to be demolished). St Margaret’s Lodge, Sea Street, St Margaret’s


Planning permission be granted


Dover District Local Plan (DDLP): Policies DD1, DD4, HS2 and TR2South East Plan (SEP): Policies CC1, CC4, H5, NRM5, BE6LDF Core Strategy (Submission Document) – Policy DM13PPS1: Delivering Sustainable DevelopmentPPS3: HousingPPG15: Planning and the Historic EnvironmentKent Design Guide (KDG)


DOV/08/0285 - Erection of 2 detached buildings incorporating 10 flats, construction of vehicular access and associated car parking (existing building to be demolished) - Refused for the following summarized reasons: (i) Design, scale and prominent location; (ii) Overdevelopment and lack of amenity space; (iii) Direct and indirect loss of trees; (iv) Increase the concentration of traffic; and (v) Overlooking on to Chapel Lane.


County Highways: No objection subject to conditions and informatives and resolution of concerns about opening windows.

Ecology comments: Views awaited on the tree survey.

Environmental Health comments: No objection.

Environment Agency: No objection subject to conditions.

Southern Water: No comment.

Folkestone and Dover Water: Requires a condition to be attached for the developer to enter into a legal agreement with them to ensure that all works and charges are fully completed.

St Margaret’s at Cliffe Parish Council: Strongly objects for the following summarized reasons:

• Pedestrian and highway safety;• Impact on Queensland Cottage;• Impact on the school; and• What level of the Code for Sustainable homes would be achieved?

CPRE: Objects for the following reasons:

• The scale of the whole project is considered to be over development.• Chapel Lane will feel enclosed.• The sight lines into Sea Street will be affected.

Public Representations: Nine letters of objection have been received and the material comments are summarized as follows:

• Lack of visibility for vehicles and pedestrians coming out from the under pass.

• Is there sufficient space for vehicles to turn with the site and come through the under pass in a forward gear?

• There are over 200 children daily passing this site to go to school.• The proposed development would cause shading of Chapel Lane

which will affect the amenity of the homes opposite.• Chapel Lane will be like looking into a tunnel.• The sight lines into Sea Street have not been made any better.• Queensland Cottage and Marine Cottage will be over looked.• Queensland Cottage relies on daylight from Chapel Lane only and the

new building will restrict daylight.• All delivery vehicles to this site will have to park in the road because of

the under pass.• The density of the housing is 3 times greater than the standard

required by Policy HP4.• The proposal is neither green nor sustainable.• The cumulative impact of recent development is changing the

character of the area.• The existing building should be recognized as an unusual example of

‘Art Nouveau.’• The proposal would have an impact on the appearance of the

conservation area.• Two front doors at the rear of the building are in a hidden corner,

posing a security risk.• The development would create an oppressive street frontage in

Chapel Lane.• Would not protect the integrity of the area.• Would be over development.• Would relate poorly to the pattern and character of the area.• There has been no community involvement.• The nearby public car park is heavily used and should not be relied

upon as an overflow.


1.1 The site is located within the village confines of St Margarets, adjacent to a designated conservation area to the north and within proximity of

listed buildings. The site is on a corner plot, located at the junction of Sea Street and Chapel Lane.

1.2 The site is occupied by a building called St Margaret’s Lodge. It is currently vacant but was last in use as residential nursing home. The building is two storey, with a flat roof and has an art-deco appearance. To the north east of the building there is a car park; the vehicle access to it is from Chapel Lane and pedestrian access from Sea Street.

1.3 Sea Street is the main road through the village into the Bay. It has a mixed character but is generally residential in appearance interspersed by a public house, school, shop and restaurant. Chapel Lane is a narrow residential road, which has a semi-rural feel; Chapel Lane and the buildings opposite the site are within the Conservation Area. Abutting the site to the north east and south east is Portal House School.

1.4 Full planning permission is sought for the erection of a detached building incorporating 6 flats and 1 link detached bungalow, construction of a vehicular access and associated car parking, which would require the existing building to be demolished.

1.5 The proposed building would be predominantly of two storeys, with a hipped roof. It would have a street frontage of 17m to Sea Street and would wrap around the site fronting Chapel Lane for a length of some 18m. Chapel Lane would also have the vehicle access, between the flats and a detached bungalow.

1.6 At present this part of Chapel Lane and Sea Street does not have a pedestrian footway; this planning application proposes to provide a footway alongside the site and with a width of 1m – 1.5m.

1.7 The two storey building would accommodate 4 x 1 bedroom units and 2 x 2 bedroom units together with an integral bin and cycle store. The detached, hipped roof, 1 bedroom bungalow would adjoin the north east side of Chapel Lane; the bungalow would be fully self contained with its own garden area.

1.8 Nine off-street car parking spaces would be provided on a communal basis; this equates to 1 space per unit with 2 visitor spaces.

1.9 Plans will be on display.

2. Planning Policy

2.1 DDLP Policy DD1 seeks to ensure that the development is appropriate in its setting in terms of siting, massing, scale, design and materials, and has no adverse impact on the spatial and visual character of the surrounding area, or on the residential amenity of neighbouring properties.

2.1 DDLP Policy DD4 requires proposals for family dwellings to provide adequate private garden and amenity space commensurate with the size of the dwelling, the character of the surroundings, and seeks the

protection of amenity interests of prospective and neighbouring occupiers.

2.2 DDLP Policy HS2 permits housing on unallocated sites within the urban boundaries and village confines where it would be the most suitable use of land.

2.3 DDLP Policy TR2 requires development to be served by an appropriate road network and an acceptable access arrangement.




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

2.8 Policy BE6 of the SEP aims to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of conservation areas and to protect the setting of listed buildings.

2.9 Policy DM13 of the Core Strategy sets out the residential car parking standards and reiterates the standards in the adopted Kent Design Guide, Interim Guidance Note 3.

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

2.11 PPS3, amongst other things, emphasises the need for good design and encourages residential development in areas which are easily accessible and well connected to facilities and services. It states the Government's key housing policy goal is to ensure that everyone has the opportunity of living in a decent home, which they can afford, in a community where they want to live. It goes on to urge local planning authorities to create sustainable, inclusive, mixed communities in all areas, both urban and rural.

2.12 PPG15 advises that the physical survivals of our past are to be valued and protected for their own sake, as a central part of our cultural heritage and our sense of national identity. They are an irreplaceable record which contributes, through formal education and in many other ways, to our understanding of both the present and the paSt Their presence adds to the quality of our lives, by enhancing the familiar and cherished local scene and sustaining the sense of local

distinctiveness which is so important an aspect of the character and appearance of our towns, villages and countryside. The historic environment is also of immense importance for leisure and recreation.

3. Assessment

3.1 The site is within the village confines and a predominantly residential part of St Margaret’s. The principle of residential development on this site is considered to be acceptable and in accordance with Local Plan Policy HS2 and PPS3.

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

• The impact on the residential amenity of surrounding occupants;

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

• Highway safety issues.

Residential Amenity

3.3 The nearest residential properties to this site are directly to the north on the opposite side of Chapel Lane within the conservation area. The two nearest dwellings are known as Queensland Cottage and Marine Cottage. Queensland Cottage is a two storey, rendered dwelling on the corner of Sea Street and Chapel Lane; its principal elevation faces Chapel Lane. There would be some 7m between the front elevation and the side elevation of the proposed development. Marine Cottage is a part single storey flint building, rising to two storeys, which faces onto Chapel Lane; the front elevation would directly face the proposed building with a separation distance of some 6m.

3.4 Queensland Cottage has a long street frontage of approx. 13m, in which there are six windows, 3 at ground floor level and 3 at first floor level, equally positioned within the elevation. It is unclear what the rooms are used for; however, it would be reasonable to assume that they are habitable rooms as they were dressed with net curtains. The proposed building would be set at an oblique angle to Queensland Cottage and therefore there would not be direct over looking between the windows. Members should note that the existing building also has windows in the side elevation facing this cottage and although it is set off the frontage, it is considered that this proposal would not significantly increase the levels of overlooking.

3.5 Marine Cottage is a part single and part two storey building. The single storey part of the building is an attractive construction of flint. The front elevation is punctuated with three windows, dressed with net curtains. The single storey faces, the proposed two storey building, the vehicle access into the site and the proposed bungalow. The nearest windows, at the narrowest part of the road, in the proposed building would be fitted with obscure glass in order to prevent

overlooking. A condition can be imposed to ensure that the obscure glass remains. Only one window exists in the bungalow fronting Chapel Lane; this would serve the lounge. There is a separation distance of 6.2m between the bungalow and the two storey part of Marine Cottage. It is considered that overlooking would be minimal; in any event, in the street scene situation such as this, overlooking is difficult to avoid completely and could be caused by anyone walking pass the site.

3.6 Therefore, on balance, it is considered that this development would not cause a significant level of overlooking such as to warrant planning permission being refused for this development.

3.7 It is acknowledged that the proposed building would be some 2m closer to the dwellings in Chapel Lane and by virtue of the pitched roof would be taller than the existing building and longer. However, these changes would not be so significant that this proposal would have an unacceptable impact on the amount of natural light received by or outlook from the adjacent dwellings.

3.8 In accordance with policy DD4 of the DDLP 2 bedroom units must be provided with private amenity space, commensurate with the size of the dwelling. The flats have been provided with an area of grass immediately at the rear of the building measuring approx. 5m x 3m. On balance this provision is considered to be acceptable and in accordance with policy.

Visual Amenity and Character of the Area

3.9 The urban grain of this part of St Margaret’s is fairly dense and the character is of a mixed organic growth. The buildings vary in age, size and design but immediately adjacent to the site the dwellings are mostly early Victorian and are constructed from a variety of material including flint, render and brick. These dwellings are important to the character of the conservation area and the setting should be preserved.

3.10 The density of the site would be approximately 100 dw/ha. Whilst this is greater than that recommended level in Policy H5 of the SEP it is not considered to be detrimental to the character of the area and is in accordance with PPS3 which encourages the efficient use of brownfield sites such as this one. The density has also significantly been reduced from that of the previous refused application (153 dw/ha).

3.11 At present, St Margaret’s Lodge presents an unattractive side and rear elevation with an unsightly external staircase to Chapel Lane and the Conservation Area; this does not preserve or enhance the area. The loss of this building is in principle supported subject to a suitable replacement building being agreed.

3.12 The layout of the site would create a strong sense of street enclosure, providing a frontage to Chapel Lane and to Sea Street. A bin and cycle store is proposed adjacent to the vehicle access into the site. They are well concealed and form an integral part of the building; this

is a welcomed feature as they would not impact on visual amenities. The car park is situated at the rear of the site behind the buildings, which provide excellent screening, with just small glimpses being caught from the vehicle access. The existing car park is exposed and forms a harsh feature within this part of Chapel Lane and as such the siting of the new car park is considered to be an advantage and would enhance the character of the conservation area. The bungalow at the rear of the site also provides a form of street enclosure adding character to this part of Chapel Lane and reflecting the scale and proportions of Marine Cottage opposite.

3.13 The elevation fronting Sea Street is considered acceptable in terms of its scale and initial design approach, as it reflects the proportions of other dwellings in Sea Street. However, the applicant has been asked to consider some alterations, such as materials; whilst this could be a condition if planning permission is granted the proposed plans show a mixture of materials and it is considered to be more appropriate for one building to be constructed from one material. A red/pink coloured stock brick is deemed to appropriate. Other alterations include window reveals of 100mm, size of window openings, camber arches to the windows, concrete cills, design of entrance doors and fascia overhangs. The most significant changes would be the step down in the ridge height of the building fronting Sea Street to respect the changes in land level and for the roof of the under pass linking the bungalow with the main building to be omitted. The roof of the under pass is considered to be an unnecessary feature which does not serve a purpose.

3.14 It is considered that, if the applicant agrees to these changes, then the design would be considered to be acceptable in close proximity of the conservation area and the previous design ground for refusal would be overcome. Amended plans are awaited and Members will be verbally updated at the meeting.

3.15 Beyond the site on the school side are a number of significantly sized trees which make a contribution to the street scene. They are quite visible from Sea Street and Chapel Lane and they over hang the site boundary. It is therefore fundamental that this development does not prejudice the welfare of these trees. There are no trees within the site that are worthy of retention. This current application has been accompanied by a tree survey and the proposed plans demonstrate the root protection area of the trees. Subject to tree protection conditions it is unlikely that the trees would not be harmed if permission was granted. Reason 3 on the previous refusal would thus be overcome.

Highways Issues

3.16 Local residents have raised concerns relating to the visibility from the vehicle access of the site and the visibility from the junction of Chapel Lane and Sea Street. Concerns also relate to the number of off street car parking spaces available, maneuvering within the site and the increase in traffic.

3.17 The previous planning application was refused on grounds that the proposed development would lead to an increase in the concentration of traffic. There is however no evidence of this and members should bare in mind the potential number of vehicle movements associated with the nursing home in terms of deliveries, ambulances, visitors, and staff. Further, it should also be noted that the number of proposed units on the site has been reduced by 4.

3.18 Members should also consider that part of the application site has been given to create a pedestrian footway alongside the site which should improve pedestrian safety in this area.

3.19 County Highways consider that the amended site layout is not so user friendly as the original scheme. However, it is still workable and complies with current car parking and highway standards. The visibility at the entrance to the site and at Sea Street is considered to be acceptable and subject to standard planning conditions County Highways do not raise an objection to the application.

Conclusions

Consideration has been given to the views of third parties. The recommendation is a balanced one. It is considered that the development will enhance the street scene and the setting of the adjoining Conservation Area. It is acceptable in highway safety termsand safeguards the adjoining trees. The relationship to nearby properties, on balance, is considered acceptable. The reasons for refusal of the previous application have been addressed.

Subject to the receipt of suitably amended plans and resolution of all outstanding matters, PERMISSION BE GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: (i) DP01 (time limit); (ii) DP04 (amended plans); (iii) LA01 (ground levels); (iv) MA04 (material samples); (v) LA10 (details of hard landscaping, to be permeable within RPA); (vi) LA21 (hard landscaping – 12 months compliance); (vii) LA11 (details of soft landscaping); (viii) LA19 (soft landscaping - 12 months compliance); (ix) PA32 (construction vehicles); (x) The first 6m of the vehicular access shall be surfaced with a properly consolidated material (not loose stone or gravel). Prior to construction, details must be submitted and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be in accordance with approved details. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and convenience; (xi) AC12 – (provision of sight lines); (xii) PA07 – (car parking to be provided); (xiii) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no extensions or out buildings shall be erected within the curtilage of the bungalow other than any expressly authorised by this permission. (Dover District Local Plan Policy DD1 and South East Plan Policy BE6). Reason: In order to protect the character and appearance of the conservation area. (xiv) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no window, door or other opening shall be inserted in the north west elevation of the bungalow other than any expressly authorised by this permission. (Dover

District Local Plan Policy DD1). Reason: In order to avoid unacceptable overlooking. (xv) The bathroom window in the north west elevation of flat 1 and the bathroom and kitchen window in the north west elevation of flat 4 shall be glazed in obscure glass impenetrable to sight and thereafter shall be so maintained. (Dover District Local Plan Policies DD1). Reason: In order to avoid unacceptable overlooking. (xvi) MA28 (rain water goods) (xvii) MA41 (window reveals) (xviii) LA31 (Boundary treatment). (xix) LA43 (Hand excavation) (xx) CO5 (Contamination found during development). Any other conditions or amendments to the above conditions to be delegated to the Development Control Manager.

Case Officer

Rachel Ellwood

5. a) DOV/09/0584 – Erection of 15 rural exception affordable residential units (5 three bedroom houses, 7 two bedroom houses, 1 two bedroom bungalow and 2 two bedroom flats), construction of vehicular access and associated car parking and landscaping, land adjoining Miller Close, Staple Road, Wingham


Planning permission be refused.


South East Plan (SEP): Policies SP3; H3; H4; H5; CC4; CC6 and NRM11Dover District Local Plan (DDLP): Policies; CO1; HS1; H2; HS10, DD1; TR1; TR2; WE1 and OS2Local Development Framework (LDF)Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) Delivering Affordable Housing Through the Planning System Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG): Affordable Housing Rural Exception Scheme (2002)PPS1 Delivering Sustainable Development Supplement to PPS1PPS3 HousingPPS7 The Countryside – Environmental Quality and Economic and Social DevelopmentPPG13 TransportThe Kent Design GuideBy Design (DETR/CABE)Manual for Streets (CLG/Department for Transport)Regional Plan: RPG9


DOV/04/1409 - Erection of 25 affordable exception houses Granted (this site is adjacent to the current application site).

DOV/08/0637 - Erection of 16 rural exception residential units Withdrawn.


County Highways: Comments that most of the earlier points (related to DOV/08/0637) have been addressed, but there are several further detailed issues. Subject to resolution of these, conditions or informatatives regarding sight lines, parking, turning, construction vehicles, surface water and wheel washing are recommended.

Environmental Health comments: Initially recommended that a desk study/walkover report for contamination be submitted (since housing is considered to be a sensitive use) and that a noise assessment should be prepared (since it lies in close proximity to an industrial site comprising several engineering and fabrication companies). Both studies have since been received, and are considered to be satisfactory, provided that (in the

case of the noise report) the mitigation measures in the report are implemented. This would require a condition if permission is granted.

Forward Planning comments: The starting points are considered to be policies HS10 and DD1 of the DDLP, the SPG on rural housing exception sites and the case of need. Concern is expressed about the information on the original register of interest and how the number of people seeking different types of accommodation in Wingham fits with this application. Information on the type of property sought was lacking. The site assessment had not been updated, and was undertaken some years ago. It is important to ensure that there are no other sites in the village worthy of assessment.

The LDF allocations document does not have any material weight at this stage, but it does suggest 3 alterations to the confines of Wingham and this fact should be acknowledged. There may be an issue about concentrating affordable housing with other similar housing nearby.

On specific aspects of the proposal, a topographical survey and a landscape assessment were requested - both have since been received. It is asked why the lower (northern) part of the field was not considered (it now has been included in the applicant's site assessment). Detailed points are made relating to highways issues, foul drainage, and the farm access.

The photomontage submitted with the earlier (withdrawn) application showed then that the site linked with the Wingham industrial units visually, making it very prominent in the landscape. From Staple Road it gives the impression of being larger.

For these reasons the latest application is not supported.

Housing Initiatives Manager: Originally commented that the company (RHT Developments) was thought to be ‘defunct’. There was, in the original submission, no reference to tenure split (normally 70% rented; 30% shared ownership is sought). The split should reflect the local survey. The survey seems to have been carried out in 2001 and the needs analysis is very brief. There is no clear indication of commitment from a Registered Social Landlord (RSL). It is essential that the rented housing is acquired and developed by an accepted RSL and this needed clarification. There was no pre-application discussion about these issues.

Following receipt of additional information, further comments are as follows:

"Action with Communities in Rural Kent, with support from the Parish Council recently carried out a housing needs survey in Wingham to establish the need for affordable housing. The survey found a need for up to 40 homes for local people who are in need of affordable housing. Consequently, there is sufficient evidence of need in the village to support a rural exception site development.

Of the households found to have a housing need, 18 are single people, 8 are couples and there are 14 families. Where demand exceeds the number of homes proposed it is always difficult to formulate a perfect mix of house types and sizes. Based on the household composition information in the survey report the proposed mix broadly reflects the need although I probably would have liked to see a couple more 3 bed houses to better reflect the

composition of families identified in the report, the vast majority of whom have indicated a need for a rented home. One of the issues with rural schemes is that smaller families often outgrow their accommodation and without a steady supply of larger family homes can remain living in overcrowded conditions for some time. In addition, the unit mix doesn’t really reflect the needs of those single person households found to have a need the majority of whom have indicated a need for a social rented home.

While the overwhelming need identified in the report is for social rented homes I will want to see the inclusion of some intermediate tenure, such as shared ownership, so as to try and achieve a more balanced community. I’m not sure whether RHT have proposed a split of unit types in terms of tenure but we would normally look for a split of 70/30 rent/intermediate. It would probably be more appropriate for the intermediate to be 2 bed flats and 2 bed houses as they are more likely to be affordable and will reflect the fact that it is couples who appear to have the greatest aspiration towards home ownership.

My understanding of RHT is that they are no longer actively developing schemes. I am aware that they have had some initial discussions with Southern Housing Group who have expressed an ‘in principle’ interest in the scheme. It is not clear to me whether RHT would look to sell the site to an RSL to develop or develop it themselves with a turnkey agreement with an RSL partner."

Ecology comments: Cross sections have been provided, but these clearly show how on the upper part of the site the street scene would be dominated by housing with an overbearing impact. Approval cannot be recommended on the basis of this layout.

The submitted landscape assessment does not actually question the suitability of development on this site, but simply attempts to provide mitigation of the potential impact. The site boundary was drawn up without respect to landscape form or character and does not reflect what might be described as normal field boundaries. This remains a fundamental problem and because of the prominence of the site, the proposed landscaping remains insufficient to ameliorate the adverse impact on the local landscape.

Kent Footpaths Officer: Public Footpath EE174 forms part of the site boundary. The response raises no objections, but condition and informatives are recommended regarding obstructions to the footpath or fences obstructing views, and no hedging within 0.5m of the public footpath.

Environment Agency: No objection, subject to conditions.

County Archaeologist: No objections subject to a condition that a programme of archaeological work is undertaken.

Southern Water: Confirms its comments in response to the application withdrawn last year (that Southern Water can provide foul sewerage connection). No objections are raised, subject to conditions and informatives regarding means of surface water and protection of public sewers and the water main which crosses the site.

River Stour Internal Drainage Board: Initially requested more information in respect of site drainage, SUDs etc. Subsequently has accepted that the surface water drainage details appear to be appropriate, but the exact location of the discharge into the off-site field ditch is requested. This must be resolved if the development is to be accepted in principle.

National Grid: Negligible risk.

Mouchel: Confirms that no contributions are required, since the site is being put forward as a local needs affordable exception site.

Wingham Parish Council: Fully supports the application, adding that the dwellings are well designed and the site fits well with the surrounding area. There is an urgent need for such development in the village.

Public Representations: 8 letters have been received from local residents, all raising objection because, in summary:

• Outside village envelope;

• Loss of green agricultural field, ‘amazing’ views, and Kent countryside generally;

• Loss of wildlife;

• Increased traffic;

• Light pollution;

• Dambrige is a separate hamlet with own community; would lose its individuality, and be joined to a 'suburban style estate’ or become an ‘urban sprawl’;

• Site is one of highest points in the village; building would dominate the landscape;

• Precedent for further potential ‘infill’ later;

• Should work in partnership with DDC concerning future growth of the village;

• Increased size could lead to social problems and criminal activity;

• Lack of infrastructure: education facilities, doctors, dentist;

• Lack of access to village facilities;

• Dangers of egress of footpath onto Staple Close;

• No play areas proposed; lack of activities for young people will lead tovandalism;

• Objection to concept of open plan front gardens.

It is also contended that RHT gave assurances that there would be no plans to extend the development built nearby. Alternative sites for social housing are suggested (eg Miles Court, St Mary’s Meadow). The earlier application is referred to and the previous Planning Committee report is quoted, particularly where it states that the applicants have always been aware that the site is considered unsuitable for development (as long ago as 2001). It is felt that planned development at Adisham and Aylesham will compensate for the need identified here. One writer asserts that the housing at Miller Close has not in fact been occupied by local people.


1.1 The application site is roughly triangular in shape and lies to the south east of housing at Miller Close, which was built as a development of 25 affordable exception houses about 3 years ago and officially opened in 2007 (ref DOV/04/1409). Both that development and the one proposed here lie beyond the built confines of Wingham as defined in the Dover District Local Plan. The proposal is again being put forward as an exception to normal rural restraint policies because the development is an affordable housing scheme. A very similar application for 16 units on the current parcel of land was recommended for refusal last year (DOV/08/0637 – Item 5, 25 September 2008 and Item 3, 23 October 2008), but withdrawn prior to determination.

1.2 A fire station and the Miller Close development lie immediately to the west, with Staple Road forming the southern boundary of the application site. There is a public footpath running diagonally from north-west to south-east across it, very close to its northern boundary. The site runs for about 135m alongside Staple Road and 100m alongside the access road and rear boundaries of properties in Miller Close. It occupies an elevated position, being around 0.7m -1m above Staple Road which rises from the east.

1.3 The general area, besides Miller Close immediately to the west, is characterised by agricultural land, with some sporadic housing development and industrial units, which can be seen across Staple Road, about 90m to the south. The submitted topographical survey shows that the application site lies at the highest part of a much larger field; the proposed houses in the south west corner would sit about 13m AOD, and the land falls to about 11.5m along much of the public footpath with spot heights of about 11m in the eastern part of the site. This can be seen to contrast with levels of 6.5m outside and beyond the site in the lower part of the same field.

1.4 The plans show that the site has a 3m wide foul sewer easement running alongside Staple Road and diagonally through the site towards the western boundary. There is also a mains water line which bisects the northwest corner of the site and runs down Miller Close. The site has a gross area of around 0.66ha, and the net area is 0.46ha, giving a density of 32 dph.

1.5 The application comprises a set of drawings, floor plans, elevations, some street elevations, a Design and Access Statement and

landscape documents. Also attached to the application is a draft legal agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act, setting out how the local needs criteria would be achieved. A contamination report and noise assessment have been submitted. Other information submitted later includes details of the current position in respect of The Rural Housing Trust (RHT), an updated housing needs study, a landscape impact assessment and topographical and tree surveys. It is anticipated by the applicants that Southern Housing Group will write separately regarding their involvement as Registered Social Landlord (RSL).

1.6 The application proposes the erection of 15 residential units, including one 2-bed bungalow and one pair of 2-bed flats. The other houses (seven 2-bed and five 3-bed) are set out in pairs. The single storey unit would be positioned to the north west of the mains water line, off a separate drive with parking behind four houses, close to the public footpath which runs diagonally through the site. Beyond the footpath, a linear area along the site boundary is devoted to green space and landscaping. Six of the houses face towards a service road, which would be adopted, and which leads into a block paved internal access serving the rear of those properties which present their main frontages to Staple Road (units 12-15), the frontages of those units (10 and 11) which turn their backs towards the main road and two units (8 and 9) which face the turning head.

1.7 The four houses and flats presenting their principal elevations to Staple Road are set back from the highway, as is the rear garden wall of those units backing onto it, avoiding the foul sewer which runs across the site and along the Staple Road frontage; this is subject to a 3m easement on both sides.

1.8 The dwellings closest to the footpath present their side elevations towards this (north eastern) direction, with side garden fences. Parking is provided off the main service roads; some of it is set out in 'tandem' form. Landscaping is proposed with a new hedge supplementing the existing one along the boundary with Staple Road.

1.9 The Design and Access Statement submitted as part of the application explains the status of RHT. It is a 'not for profit' registered charity, specialising in affordable housing for local people in rural areas. The rented properties are then sold to an RSL. RHT retains ownership of a fixed percentage of each shared ownership and 'staircasing' is not allowed. The Trust has built more than 3,000 homes over the last 20 years. An additional letter explains that RHT currently remains active, as the owner of some 430 houses, and has ongoing contracts to manage. The scheme has been modified following discussions with Southern Housing Group, the RSL for the 'first phase' of development built at Miller Close. Discussions with Southern Housing Group continue, and they have 'expressed an interest' in taking over and delivering affordable housing on this site. Positive discussions have also taken place with another unspecified Housing Association/RSL and the applicants maintain that 'there is no doubt that the means exist for this project to be brought to fruition'. Subsequent documentation confirms that the mix of tenure was planned as 13

rented and 2 shared ownership but this may be reviewed by Southern Housing Group.

1.10 The flood risk is assessed, with the site lying about 5m above the level of extreme flood. The site is less than 1ha, and therefore a formal Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) is not necessary. A contamination desk study and walk-over was received on 29 September 2009

1.11 The Design and Access Statement goes on to state that there have long been concerns about the price of open market housing in the parish and that there is a lack of smaller affordable accommodation for local people on lower incomes. In December 2006 RHT completed a development of 25 affordable homes (20 for rent, 5 shared ownership) at Miller Close. The homes were provided in response to a housing needs survey conducted in 2001 and a register of interest which, by 2006, had 91 registrations, 43 from local households already in Wingham and 48 from households with strong local connections. A second register of interest was opened in July 2007. The details of this are listed. The anticipated selling prices of the shared ownership units are given as £135,000 and £153,000. They aim to achieve a balanced mix of dwelling size, type and tenure.

1.12 Planning Policies are set out, with particular reference to PPS3, RPG9 and Local Plan policy HS10. The SPG on Affordable Housing Rural Exception Schemes is cited. The Design and Access Statement states that Village Information Days were held in July 2007 and April 2008 to show proposals for a second affordable housing scheme at the current site and to invite comments. Statutory bodies were consulted. It states that in April 2004, the District Council prepared a report on 10 possible exception housing sites and all have been inspected by RHT. The application site is the only one to satisfy all the relevant criteria.An addendum to the Design and Access Statement stresses that Government policy places great emphasis on the provision of affordable housing and that the SEP includes target figures which Dover should meet. A table in the SEP suggests that if Dover is to meet its longer term housing requirement it must make provision for, on average, 505 dwellings per annum. Based on the provision that 25% of all new housing should be social rented accommodation and 10% intermediate affordable housing (policy H3) it is contended that 126 social rented and 50 intermediate affordable houses should be built each year. Reference is also made to policy NRM11 of the SEP and policy HS10 of the DDLP and the emerging policies in the LDF. A letter confirms that the applicants are not proposing to provide a play area within the site, as required by DDLP policy OS2.

1.13 An updated Housing Needs Study - Registration of Interest dated October 2009 (by 'Action with Communities in Rural Kent') has also been submitted. In September 2009, surveys were posted to all households in the village, which required only those with a housing need to respond. Of 758 surveys posted, 45 were returned. The document assesses the relevant criteria, including local connection, income and current place of residence. Of the 45 respondents, 5 did not meet the criteria for affordable housing, leaving 40 who did. Of those, 18 are single, with 8 couples and 14 families. A need for 1, 2, 3 and possibly a 4 bedroomed house is therefore identified. The full

document is available for Members' inspection and is considered further below.

1.14 It is argued by the applicant's agent that "the site abuts the boundary of the existing settlement and forms a logical extension of the built form" and that it has good road and footpath links to the village and its services. Foul drainage would be connected to the public sewer which was laid to serve the Miller Close development. Sustainable Drainage Systems would be used for the disposal of surface water run-off (although precise details are not given), and about 80% of surface water would be retained on site. The whole scheme would meet Level 3 of the Code for Sustainable Homes and the development meets the principles of 'Secured by Design'. The layout has been the subject of consultation with County Highways. There is a regular bus service and cycle storage is provided for each dwelling.

1.15 The draft Section 106 agreement is elaborated in some detail regarding the mechanisms for ensuring that the rented housing will be transferred to an RSL. Details of house prices (in April 2009) are given. There are few properties for rent. The mix of housing in Wingham is given, and local income levels set out.

1.16 Part of the Design and Access Statement is devoted to assessing the 10 other possible sites which had been looked at as part of the District Council’s report "Affordable Housing - Wingham Rural Exceptions Scheme" in 2004. The most acceptable of these sites was developed to become Miller Close. Brief consideration is given to the lower area of the same field, north of the public footpath. The reasons for discounting this land are that additional dwellings would increase the number of units served by a shared surface above the recommended number; a gravity drain connection could not be provided and a second pumping station was considered undesirable; and 'most significantly', the owner is not prepared to sell this part of the field.

1.17 This has been superseded a by a later addendum which reconsiders alternative sites. Although broadly similar to the previous document (but re-numbering some of the sites) the number of sites identified was reduced to 8, omitting the site which became Miller Close and including the application site and the lower part of the field immediately to the north of it. The sites identified as initial 'preferred options' in the LDF study dated March 2008 are also included in the assessment. The applicant's assessment of alternative sites is examined below.

1.18 A letter from the owners stating that this is the only section of land which they are prepared to sell is attached to the submission and this is emphasised by the applicants.

1.19 The applicants contend by that the application site meets the criteria set out in Local Plan policy HS10 (see policy section below). The need cannot be met by sites with consent within the village boundary. Infill sites are unlikely to meet the need. The number and mix of dwelling sizes has been based on the needs survey and register of interest.

1.20 The Architect's Design Statement describes the site and surroundings and emphasises the merits of the proposal. The visual relationship of the scheme to the open nature of the existing field, the existing village and Staple Road have influenced the layout, as have the foul sewer line and public right of way. It is described as representing 'the natural traditional growth of a village at its fringes'. In the past, it is argued, form followed function and led to growth along main routes, with numbers reducing and being spaced further apart. The triangular shape, it is stated, lends itself to this approach. The dwellings therefore 'thin out' towards the eastern end, the amount of foliage increases, and the eastern end is left open.

1.21 The architect points out that the layout respects the line formed by the fire station, with a 10-12m set back from the road to give green spaces. The long distance views of plot 12 (that closest to Staple Road) are recognised as a particular issue, and a timber boarded window has been added as a feature. The cul de sac approach ensures accessibility for refuse and fire appliances. Plots 14 and 15 are angled to create an entrance vista. Setting these units behind a green open space creates an impression that this is a rural development rather than an urban extension. Front doors address the street, allowing for plenty of activity. Plots 8 and 9 (flats) have two active frontages. Each has its own private garden. The proposed net density is 32 dwellings per hectare. A mix of wide and narrow fronted dwellings creates variation and interest. The use of chimneys, pitched roof porches and defined changes in materials enhances the scheme's sense of place, in the architect's opinion.

1.22 Plots 8-15 are set back from Staple Road. Tree and hedgerow planting is proposed along the public footpath to soften the impact from the adjoining field. Rear gardens are separated from highly visible public areas and parking courts by brick walls. Elsewhere a mixture of fencing is used. Bird boxes will be provided in gardens. Each house is provided with 2 parking spaces, each apartment with 1.5 spaces. A prefabricated store (1.5m x 2.1m) is shown in each rear garden.

1.23 The site is considered by the applicants to be sustainably located. An ecology report recommends that hedgerows to the south of the site are maintained and protected during construction. If this is not possible, any removal works should avoid the breeding season and take place August to mid-March. Appendix 7 consists of a Site Waste Management Plan which may need to be the subject of a condition,should permission be granted.

1.24 The strip of land lying along the footpath to the north-east would be grassed, with tree planting. The public footpath would have its new boundary formed by the side walls of houses on plots 5, 6, and 8 and the bungalow on plot 3, and the side garden boundaries fronting this direction.

1.25 The flats on the corner plot closest to Staple Road have an arrangement whereby the lower flat (8) has a large hall and direct side access to a private amenity space and the upper floor flat has access from a rear door to a garden running parallel to that of flat 8.

1.26 A Landscape impact Assessment concludes that there is the opportunity by development to enhance the character of the currently open site.

2. Planning Policy

2.1 Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that “If regard is to be had to the development plan for the purpose of any determination to be made under the Planning Act, the determination must be made in accordance with the plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise”.

2.2 The Development Plan currently comprises the South East Plan (SEP) and the saved policies of the Dover District Local Plan (DDLP). Development Plan policy is the starting point for the consideration of any planning application.

2.3 The SEP is the over-arching policy document for the South East. It recognises that the supply of housing in the region falls short of supply and that the affordability of housing has been worsening. Affordability is identified as a concern in the rural settlements in the South East. Policy H2 requires local planning authorities, in planning for the delivery of housing, to take account of the need to provide a sufficient quantity and mix of housing including affordable housing in rural areas to ensure the long term sustainability of rural communities.

2.4 Policy H3 of the SEP refers to the importance of providing affordable housing and encourages working with local communities in rural areas to secure small-scale affordable housing sites within or well related to settlements, recognising that this may involve land that would not otherwise be released for development. Policy H4 requires a range and type of affordable housing.

2.5 Policy H5, in addition to seeking to raise the quality of new housing and promoting adaptability and sustainability, encourages higher densities of housing, specified as an overall regional target of 40 dwellings to the hectare. Policy SP3 encourages good design and seeks to concentrate development on previously developed land within or adjacent to the region's urban areas. Policy NRM11 of the SEP seeks, amongst other things, that 10% of the energy from large schemes comes from renewable resources.

2.6 Policy CC4 requires the design and construction of all new development to incorporate sustainable construction standards and techniques. Policy CC6 states that development will need to respect and where appropriate enhance the character and distinctiveness of settlements and landscapes throughout the region and to create a high quality built environment which promotes a sense of place.

2.7 In the DDLP, policy CO1 states that development which would result in the loss of, or adversely affect, the countryside will only be permitted if it can be demonstrated that it is justified by the needs of agriculture, by an overriding need to sustain the rural economy, or is of a type which demands a rural location. Policy HS1 states that

housing development will not be permitted on land outside the urban boundaries and village confines shown on the Proposals Map unless justified by other Development Plan policies.

2.8 Policy TR1 relates to travel generation, saying that development which would generate travel will not be permitted outside village confines unless justified by Development Plan policies. Policy TR2 refers to the need to make provision for cyclists and pedestrians.

2.9 Local Plan policy WE1 refers to the safeguarding of groundwater protection zones. Policy DD1 refers to the importance of achieving good quality design. Policy OS2 requires the provision of play space.

2.10 DDLP policy HS10 is of particular relevance to this application and states that permission for schemes for affordable housing in the rural area beyond village confines will be permitted provided:

(i) Local needs exist and are documented in a comprehensive appraisal of the parish prepared by the applicant and/or Parish Council, and where appropriate, of adjacent parishes;

(ii) These local needs cannot otherwise be met;

(iii) The development is of a suitable size and type and will be available at an appropriate cost to meet the identified local need - schemes which include cross subsidies between higher priced and affordable housing, or a discounted initial purchase price, will not be permitted;

(iv) The site is well related in scale and siting to a village and its services;

(v) The development is located at a village which has a good range of facilities which must include a primary school and a shop and good access to public transport; and

(vi) Initial and subsequent occupation is controlled through legal agreements to ensure that the accommodation remains available to meet the purposes for which it was permitted.

2.11 The District Council prepared Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) relevant to this application, entitled ‘Affordable Housing - Rural Exception Schemes’, in 2002. This document provides guidance to the Council’s policies on affordable housing in locations beyond the confines of villages. It supplements policy HS10 of the Local Plan (see above). The SPG sets out the key stages and methods in establishing need and identifies criteria for applicants to establish an argument for exception housing and states that the applicants will be expected to provide sufficient justification for their proposals for housing beyond village confines.

2.12 The SPG gives specific advice regarding the requirements necessary to comply with criterion (iv) of policy HS10, quoted above. It states that "it must be demonstrated that the proposed scheme is well related in scale and siting …and does not significantly impact on the countryside, historic environment, natural environment or highway network". In particular the following should be addressed:

• Why the affordable housing needs could not be met within the village;

• How the site was selected and why it is considered an appropriate location for affordable housing in the context of other sites near the village;

• The schemes proposed impact on the village and surrounding area in terms of the impact on the landscape, historic environment, natural environment and highway system.

2.13 Members will be aware that the Local Development Framework (LDF) is in the course of preparation, and the Core Strategy (Submission Document) was published for consultation in January 2009. The Strategy was submitted to the Government for approval in July 2009 and an Examination in Public was held earlier this year. Whilst limited weight can be given to the document at this time, it is considered that there are no proposed policies which contradict the relevant provisions of the Development Plan. The Site Allocations Document 2008, still in draft form and subject to consultation, identifies a potential housing site within the village (adjacent to the primary school) and several others as extensions to the existing village boundary (a builder’s yard off High Street and land north of College Way and at Preston Hill). In addition, as 'Other sites considered', 3 potential small housing sites are identified at Petts Lane, adjacent to Sessions House and at Goodnestone Road.

2.14 Guidance on affordable housing was also adopted in September 2007 as a Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) to DDLP policy HS9. Although relevant only to sites of more than 25 units, meeting the shortfall in affordable housing and providing the quantity and quality of accessible housing that local people require is acknowledged as a major priority for the Council.

2.15 Regional advice in RPG9 emphasizes that the provision of affordable housing in the South East is an important component in the development of mixed and balanced communities, to help meet the housing needs of the whole population. Policy H4 seeks (amongst other things) to ensure that affordable housing is provided where it is needed, in both urban and rural areas, and where appropriate located in mixed use developments, avoiding the creation of large housing areas of similar characteristics.

2.16 In addition to Development Plan policies, the Government gives advice to local planning authorities and this is important to the consideration of any planning application. PPS1, amongst other things, emphasises the need to promote sustainable development and

reduce energy use. It states that planning policies should promote high quality inclusive design and take into account the needs of all the community. It is expected that suitable land will be made available for development that the natural environment and quality and character of the countryside and existing communities will be protected and that enhanced and that high quality development will be achieved.

2.17 PPS3 reflects the Government's intentions to improve affordability and supply of housing in all communities, including rural areas. It focuses on achieving good design, good layouts and high quality new housing which will contribute to the creation of sustainable, mixed communities. In providing for affordable housing at rural locations, it accepts the provision of housing on land outside built confines where there is a proven local need and where, due to other policy restraints, housing would not normally be allowed. Land is expected to be used efficiently although it may be that intensive (or high density) development may not always be appropriate, due to the context and spatial characteristics of the locality.

2.18 PPS7 seeks, amongst other things, to promote sustainable patterns of development by focusing most development in, or next to, existing towns and villages, preventing urban sprawl, discouraging the development of ‘greenfield’ land, and, where such land must be used, ensuring it is not used wastefully. Amongst the document's key principles is the acceptance of good quality, carefully-sited accessible development within existing towns and villages where it benefits the local economy and/or community (e.g. affordable housing for identified local needs), maintains or enhances the local environment, and does not conflict with other planning policies.

2.19 PPS7 goes on to state that new building development in the open countryside away from existing settlements, or outside areas allocated for development in development plans, should be strictly controlled. The Government’s overall aim is to protect the countryside for the sake of its intrinsic character and beauty. New development within the countryside should be sustainable, maintain or enhance the character of the countryside, conserve its natural resources, safeguard the distinctiveness of its landscape and beauty and amongst other things, its historic interest, reduce the need to travel and recognise the interdependence of urban and rural policies.

2.20 PPG13 focuses on sustainability and recognises that the scale, density, design, location and design of development can help reduce the need to travel (in particular by car) and make it easier and safer for people to access facilities by various means of travel options. Design of development is expected to make no more than adequate provision for car parking and is expected to make provision for cycle and motorcycle parking spaces and provide safe and usable pathways for walking and cycling.

2.21 The publication Manual for Streets emphasizes, amongst other things, that good design plays a vital role in securing places that are socially, economically and environmentally sustainable. The documents 'By Design' and the Kent Design Guide also promote good design in all areas.

3. Assessment

3.1 Some Members may recall considering an application for 16 dwellings last September and again at the meeting in October 2008 (DOV/08/637). The initial Committee report recommended refusal. Although accepting the need for further affordable housing at Wingham, in the opinion of officers this did not outweigh the serious harm that would result to the landscape and the edge of the village if the site was developed. Consideration of that application was initially deferred for a site visit and an updated report, but it was withdrawn prior to the site visit and the second (October) Committee meeting. The proposal currently put forward for consideration relates to 15 units rather than 16 and has been amended to reflect some of the criticisms made at that time.

3.2 It must be emphasised from the outset that, without exceptional justification, development in this location would not be acceptable in principle. As the policy section summarises, the presumption against the erection of new dwellings in the countryside outside defined towns and villages has been the subject of longstanding and strongly worded policy at all levels for very many years. Generally, there have been numerous refusals, and unless exceptional justification has been put forward, appeals have almost always been dismissed. This site is being put forward solely as an exception in the context of Local Plan policy HS10, the Council's SPG on affordable housing in rural areas and Government policy in PPS3.

3.3 Before consideration is given to the principle of developing land for housing anywhere outside the village, the need for affordable housing at Wingham must therefore be established conclusively, taking into account the strict policy context for allowing such exceptions in DDLP policy HS10 and the Council's SPG. A local need must exist and this must be fully documented. Interrelated with this is need to demonstrate that the type of unit and the mix of tenure addresses the identified need, that the development is of a suitable size and type and will be available at an appropriate cost to meet the identified local need, and that there is a reasonable prospect of the land being developed for affordable housing.

3.4 If a need to release further greenfield land for affordable housing at Wingham is satisfactorily proven, then it is considered that there are two further matters which must be addressed before permission is contemplated, both relating to criterion (iv) of policy HS10. Firstly, it must be established that the site is well related in scale and siting to the village and its services and that it has been selected in the contextof other sites near the village; it should be demonstrated that there are no other sites available locally which meet the identified need in a more acceptable way. Secondly, whether or not the scheme affects the village and surrounding area adversely, in terms of its potential impact on the landscape, residential amenity, natural environment and highway system, must be assessed.

Need

3.5 Local needs housing schemes are small developments of affordable accommodation for people with a connection to the parish and who are unable to meet their housing needs through open market rent or purchase. Policy HS10 of the DDLP and the Council's SPG require that it is proven that local needs exist and are documented in a comprehensive appraisal of the parish prepared by the applicant and/or Parish Council, and that it is shown that these local needs cannot otherwise be met.

3.6 The applicant has submitted an up to date register of interest. This identifies at least 40 individuals or families who meet the criteria for affordable housing in the village of Wingham. The document has been prepared by an independent body, is up to date, and sets out in a satisfactory way the analysis of need and the rationale for the range of units being built

3.7 The Council's Housing Initiatives Manager concludes that there is sufficient evidence of need in the village to support a rural exception site development. Although, of the households found to have a housing need, 18 are single people, the proposed mix broadly reflects the need identified. He therefore goes on to question the split of tenure envisaged. It seems unlikely that this will cause insurmountable problems, although further discussion may be necessary if it is resolved to grant permission.

3.8 It is concluded that the case of need has been satisfactorily proven in principle and that if permission is granted, the outstanding matters can be secured by an Agreement under Section 106 of the Act and if necessary, appropriate conditions.

3.9 The development is of a suitable size and type, and it can be ensured through a legal agreement if permission is granted, that the scheme will be available at an appropriate cost to meet the identified local need.

Site Selection

3.10 In July 2004 the Council prepared a document entitled "Wingham Rural Housing Exceptions Scheme - Background Paper on the Initial Site Selection Process” which evaluated 10 potential housing sites outside the confines of the village. This did not include the land which is the subject of the current application. None of the sites evaluated was without problems, but the Miller Close site was evaluated from those sites as one which met most criteria, and it has since been developed for affordable housing.

3.11 It is important to emphasise, therefore, that the current site was not assessed against the other sites at that time. On the contrary, the current land was so much less acceptable than the other sites that it was not considered for inclusion in the site selection process.

3.12 Following receipt of the current planning application, the applicants were asked to re-assess all available sites in the locality against the one proposed here. A re-appraisal was submitted which looks at most of the previously examined sites and includes reference to the sites within the village confines identified as initial 'preferred options' in the LDF study dated March 2008. Essentially, the new document repeats the constraints still existing on most of the sites previously identified in the Council's 2004 study. It is not a comparative exercise. The analysis in most cases consists of a photograph and a paragraph and, perhaps predictably, concludes that the application land is the most suitable for development since "the land is available to the applicant, could be developed immediately… and would make a significant contribution" (to the area's affordable housing allocation).

3.13 The availability of the land seems to be the fundamental reason for this site to be considered more acceptable than the others. A letter from the Managing Director of Thanet Packers Ltd., (the owners of the land and the rest of the field) has been submitted with recent papers. It states unequivocally that the only section of land from the Staple Road property that the owners are willing to sell to RHT is the triangular section put forward in this application.

3.14 The applicant's assessment of some of the other sites seems less than robust. This is typified by the analysis of the much more acceptable part of the same field to the north east (rear) of the current site. There is a natural ridge in the field where it falls towards the existing housing in Miller Close. It does not have a frontage to Staple Road. It could have an access from the Miller Close development. Although no site is entirely without problems, it is considered to be much less intrusive in the landscape than the current piece of land, which follows no contour or physical feature on the ground along its long north-eastern boundary.

3.15 In the appraisal submitted with the application, the first reason given for discounting this alternative site was that additional dwellings would increase the number of units served by a shared surface above the recommended number. However, County Highways confirm that there is likely to be no objection in principle to the development of this site for up to 15 units. Secondly, a gravity foul drainage could not be provided and a second foul pumping station was 'considered undesirable'. This point is not explained or evidenced. Thirdly, the landowner was not prepared to sell this part of the field.

3.16 The northern part of the field adjoining Miller Close offers a much better site in visual terms. The foul sewage problems of this land were not put forward as a constraint in September when the re-appraisal of sites was undertaken. Rather, it was contended that Miller Close would need to be upgraded in part from a shared service road by adding a footway and incorporating parts of residential curtilages. County Highways have confirmed that this is also unnecessary. Furthermore, another 15 units, if added to the 25 built at Miller Close would not (unless it is ever proposed to integrate this land with the site at the rear of Miller Close at some time in the future) exceed 50, where a second emergency access would be required.

3.17 With regard to a second alternative area of land immediately to the north of Miller Close itself (referred to as site 5 in the documentation), the applicant's September 2009 alternative sites appraisal states unambiguously that access to this land could be gained only from College Way, a cul-de-sac off South Court Drive; it is wrongly stated again that the increase in numbers of dwellings served by the existing roads would call for a second emergency access. As stated above, an emergency access would only be needed if the numbers served off a single entrance point exceeded 50. Here the number would be 40 (25 existing plus 15 proposed), but in any event an emergency only access via College Way could be a possibility if it was considered to be essential. No reference is made to the possibility of an access point to site 5 through the north western corner of Miller Close, or even via a future development to the north-east of the current site, if it was permitted.

3.18 The above comments are not intended to be any sort of assessment of other sites. It is clearly not possible for a thorough re-appraisal to be made of all possible alternatives as part of the consideration of this application. However, several options have been discounted by the applicants largely because of perceived highway problems, simply in the form of a paragraph or two, without any detailed evaluation to explain why the problems are so insurmountable that they warrant other sites being discounted in favour of the one put forward here. The applicants also identify part of the land to the north of Miller Close, for example, as liable to flooding because of climate change, but no evidence has been put forward to show that the whole site is unsuitable, or that this has been researched through a site-specific Flood Risk Assessment. It may be that some part of the site could be suitable for development and would not be affected by flood risk.

3.19 In summary, it is considered to be highly regrettable, in any circumstances, if a site which is poor by reference to other criteria is accepted for development, solely because it is the only land which the owners are prepared to sell. The constraints of other sites have not been analysed in sufficient detail and the problems associated with them may be less fundamental than is implied in the applicant's site options assessments. A refusal in respect of the current site might, arguably, prompt more fruitful discussions about other parcels of land.

Location, layout and design

3.20 The development at Miller Close was designed by the same architects as are involved in the current one and the quality of that scheme is very high. The layout is built around courtyards and has an attractive, centrally located area of open space. There is only farmland immediately to the east of the Miller Close housing, and (for example) there is no public footpath creating potential security issues between the back gardens of dwellings and open fields. This has meant that timber rear garden fences or walls have been kept to a minimum; the generally open interface between village and countryside at this end of the village has been relatively well retained by the use of simple wire fencing. Furthermore, because the scheme did not propose housing fronting Staple Road, the fire station still acts as a visual 'end-stop' for

this part of the village, where semi-detached housing finishes and the countryside begins.

3.21 In contrast, the proposed development would extend the village eastwards along Staple Road to a disproportionate degree. The site has a road frontage of around 140m. It would occupy a prominent and elevated field which is well seen on the approach from Staple and currently does a great deal to add to the attractiveness of the village and its setting when seen from this direction. Some sympathy is had with the views expressed in representations regarding the potential for the scheme to become an 'urban sprawl' on one of highest points in the village, dominating the landscape.

3.22 The applicant's Landscape Impact Assessment identifies the prospect from the Gobery Hill public footpath network and from Staple Road as being the key public views and this is not contested, although the housing would also be visible from glimpses from between the industrial units at Goodnestone Road and from elsewhere. The development would be clearly visible from the south east along Staple Road from where the site can be seen between gaps in the existing roadside hedgerows and other buildings.

3.23 An attempt has been made to have as many units as possible presenting their 'fair face' towards public viewpoints. Most care in this respect has, understandably, been taken over the elevations towards Staple Road. Even here, however, a substantial part of the boundary would be marked by the rear gardens of units 8 -11 with the necessary paraphernalia (washing lines etc) visible over the rear garden wall. The submitted street elevation from Staple Road shows extensive tree planting to screen the rear of these units. However, effective tree screening would undoubtedly take some years to establish and would not ameliorate the adverse impact on this open rural landscape. Tree planting on the south side of these relatively short rear gardens may itself cause problems of overshadowing later and consequent pressure for tree removal.

3.24 The retention of a strip of landscaping along Staple Road is welcomed, but viewed from longer distances the site would stand out starkly. Furthermore, when viewed from the north, housing would infill and erode an existing visual and physical gap or break between the existing village and the commercial premises to the south east.

3.25 The proposal would also severely impact visually on the enjoyment of the public footpath alongside the site. Instead of walking across an open field, those using the footpath would be presented with the tall flank walls of houses on one side interspersed with the fencing necessary to protect the privacy of those enjoying their rear gardens. It is recognised that a narrow mixed hedge is shown running along the boundary of the houses and that the strip of land on the other side with tree planting would act as a visual buffer from longer views, but this land is not intended to be public open space and its surveillance from the public realm would be poor. The purpose of this land generally is unclear; it could be used for tipping or other anti-social activity. The overall impression for walkers on the footpath would be urban, out of keeping with the general character of this attractive rural

environment. The street scene elevation drawings again show this side of the development obscured by extensive dense tree planting; but in the winter months, and from the closer perspective of the footpath, this would not disguise the buildings behind.

3.26 The predominant and most important feature and characteristic in this location is the surrounding countryside. Unfortunately, the development seems only to perpetuate built development along the Staple Road frontage and turn its blank sides on the countryside to the north east.

3.27 Turning to the internal layout, it is apparent that, despite the best efforts of the architect, the layout has been detrimentally affected by a number of factors, none of which can be changed to any significant degree. Firstly, it is sharply triangular in shape. Secondly, it is crossed by a mains water line, by a foul sewer easement and by a public footpath, all of which reduce the flexibility to position the units in a visually acceptable way. The result is a series of problems which cumulatively result in what is considered to be a poor scheme, inappropriate for this location.

3.28 For example, the bungalow unit is set back from the rest of thedevelopment, because of the position of the water main. This unit replaces the flats put forward as part of the scheme withdrawn last year and overcomes overlooking of houses at the rear, but this property could itself be overlooked to some extent by existing housing fronting Miller Close. Most of the surfaced area in front of this dwelling has been devoted to maneuvering or parking, and the outlook at the front would mainly comprise a view of rear garden walls. Leaving the property on foot to access local facilities, residents of this bungalow would be faced by rear garden fences and a gap between tall buildings, which would be potentially intimidating and unattractive and so would discourage pedestrian movement. The outlook from this bungalow would not be attractive, and the residents would be unlikely to have a sense of inclusion living in this position.

3.29 Elsewhere, inside the site, the visual dominance of the hard surfaced street pattern is emphasised by the shape of the site. The rear garden walls to plots 12 -15, combined with the external parking areas, result in a poor living environment. The applicants have stated that they have no intention of providing play areas in accordance with local plan policy OS2, since there is a recreation area nearby and commuted sums on exception sites should be kept to a minimum. The use of these hard surfaced parking or access areas for play with resulting disturbance for residents is of concern. Neither the mounded landscaped area at the entrance, nor the strips of landscaping along Staple Road or the public footpath are proposed as areas for play.

3.30 Although houses face the main entrance road, the character changes as the internal road leads into the courtyard serving dwellings to the east. The entrance is marked by rear garden boundaries and the side wall of unit 7, giving a less than pleasant walk through the access to Miller Close.

3.31 Within the proposed development, the layout appears to focus on car parking courts and maneuvering areas to serve the back of most of the dwellings. This is still the case, despite the fact that the scheme has been amended from that withdrawn last year, to show more properties facing into the scheme (and so improving the security issues identified in 'By Design')

3.32 Although the layout has been changed in response to criticisms last year and is better it is still not considered that the development would create an attractive entrance vista. Units 14 and 15 are angled towards the corner, but the parking area to the side sets the general impression at the entrance itself.

3.33 It is evident from the details submitted that little account was taken of the landscape in informing the development. The highest (13m) contour line runs through plots 1 and 15, some of the tallest units proposed. The land falls gently towards the north east, but this is not reflected in the layout and no apparent attempt has been made to mitigate the visual impact by reducing the heights of those properties set so high above Staple Road. It is evident from the topography of the landscape, the height of the site above road level and the near and distant views of the site (as well as the fall in the land from the crest of the site to its south east corner) that the resultant visual impact of the development would be negative.

3.34 In terms of individual house designs, the approach is very similar to that employed at Miller Close. This is considered acceptable in principle (although the bungalow on plot 3 is considered to be rather uninspired), but it is important to bear in mind that Miller Close sits back off the road frontage, and reads as a separate entity in the street scene. It is unclear, therefore, how the design approach has been informed by the local context, apart from that set by the applicant's previous development. Nevertheless, it is considered on balance that a refusal for reasons relating to the house designs could not be justified.

3.35 There are some outstanding issues raised by County Highways but these could be addressed through conditions if the scheme is accepted in principle. In this event a section 106 agreement and conditions would of course be necessary to address a variety of issues.

4. Conclusions

4.1 It is accepted that there is a need for further affordable housing in Wingham, as there is a need in other villages in the District. It is considered that the proposal for rural exception housing has been adequately supported in terms of the needs of the local population. Accordingly, in this respect, the proposal is in accordance with Government and Development Plan policies.

4.2 However, there are other important material considerations that have to be taken into account. Wingham is an attractive settlement and its appearance from the approach roads is particularly important. Balanced against making provision for affordable housing must be the

need to protect and enhance the countryside setting of the village and the visual amenities of the area and to ensure that new development does not result in harm to these qualities. Government policy is clear; it requires new development in the countryside to enhance and protect it wherever possible and recognises the importance of protecting the fringes of built-up areas.

4.3 None of the other, more acceptably located, sites are entirely without constraints, but a convincing case has not been made that the constraints are impossible to overcome. The land at issue here has never been considered for inclusion in the Council's site assessment studies, because it was considered to have such a poor visual relationship with the village. Even if no other more acceptable sites in the village are immediately available for purchase, the protection of the countryside and the impact of this development on the surrounding area must be a major priority.

4.4 The proposal does not meet the requirements of criterion (iv) of policy HS10, since it is poorly related to this important eastern edge of the village. It has an awkward shape and two very long and prominent boundaries. It comprises part of a larger arable field, and its north-eastern boundary is drawn with no reference to any feature on the ground such as field boundaries or contours. It is difficult to see how residential development on this particular parcel of land can be set out in a way which would not be at odds with the rural landscape around it. It would be seen as a built-up intrusion, projecting in an incongruous way out from existing development.

4.5 Furthermore, unlike the rest of the field, the site has intrinsic constraints which make a satisfactory layout very difficult. It is roughly triangular, and is set much higher than the rest of the field of which it forms a part. Added to this, it has a number of services running across it. The scale, form and siting of the buildings put forward would not result in the creation of an appropriately soft edge to the village, despite the emphasis on peripheral planting. Instead it would be seen as a recommencement of the linear residential form extending eastwards out from the village development which currently stops, particularly in a visual sense, at the fire station.

4.6 It is not considered that the need for rural exception housing in this case outweighs the serious harm that would result to the landscape at the edge of Wingham village if this development on this site was permitted.

4.7 Careful consideration has been given to the support of the Parish Council and the letters of objection received from local residents. The recommendation is a balanced one and is made in the wider public interest. All matters raised by third parties have been taken into consideration.

4.8 When initially considering the previous application on this site, Members resolved to make a site visit in the first instance to assess the siting of the development, its impact on the landscape and related highway matters (Minute 229). The recommendation in the current case is made without hesitation, but in view of the previous resolution,

Members may wish to visit the site before reaching a decision on this current application.

g) Recommendation

I PERMISSION BE REFUSED as clarified by acoustics report received 26 October 2009, contamination survey received 29 September 2009, addendum, updated register of interest and alternative site assessment, tree survey and other information received 2 November 2009 and landscape assessment received 5 November 2009 on the following grounds: (i) The proposed development of this land, because of its size, shape and prominent location in relation to existing development in the area, would appear poorly integrated into the edge of the village and encroach in an incongruous manner into undeveloped countryside. This would be seriously harmful to the character and appearance of the area, contrary to South East Plan policies H3 and CC6, Dover District Local Plan policies CO1, DD1, HS1 and HS10 and the provisions of PPS1, PPS3 and PPS7. (ii) The layout and design of the development would create an unattractive built edge to the village, particularly when viewed from Staple Road and the public footpath which adjoins the site. Furthermore, the layout gives priority within the site to vehicle movement, giving rise to a poor quality living environment, contrary to Dover District Local Plan policies HS10 and DD1, the provisions of PPG3 and national and strategic design advice.

Case Officer

Phil Taylor

6. a) DOV/09/0677 – Erection of two detached dwellings and creation of vehicular access (existing dwelling to be demolished), Franconia, The Droveway, St. Margaret's Bay


Planning Permission be granted.


Dover District Local Plan (DDLP): Policies DD1, DD4, CO1, HS2 and TR2South East Plan (SEP): Policies CC1, CC4, H5, C3 and NRM5LDF Core Strategy (Submission Document) – DM13PPS1: Delivering Sustainable DevelopmentPPS3: Housing Kent Design Guide (KDG)


DOV/07/1019 - Erection of 2 No. detached dwellings and construction of vehicular access (exiting dwelling to be demolished) – Refused for the following summarised three reasons: (i) siting, height, scale, bulk, mass and design in this prominent location, on the edge of the village confines would result in an unsympathetic form of development; (ii) detrimental to the countryside, heritage coast and the AONB; (iii) lack of space for adequate landscaping. The application was dismissed at Appeal.

DOV/08/0043 - Outline application for the erection of 2 detached dwellings and construction of vehicular access (existing dwelling to be demolished) – Refused for the following summarised three reasons: (i) cramped, dominant and visually intrusive development; (ii) detrimental to the countryside, heritage coast and the AONB; (iii) lack of space for adequate landscaping. This application was dismissed at Appeal.


County Highways: Comments awaited.

Ecology comments: No objection, subject to a condition and an informative.

KCC Public Rights of Way: Comments awaited.

Southern Water: Comments awaited.

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

Kent Wildlife Trust: Comments not received.

St Margarets Parish Council: No comment; is ambivalent.

Public Representation: Three letters of objection have been received; the comments can be summarised as follows:

• Bedrooms underground would have poor daylight and outlook;

• The lower courtyard would act as a sump and would flood in bad weather;

• The lower courtyard makes it a target for criminal activities;

• There are no other such designs and therefore would lower the quality of the area;

• The ecological study is a charade; the site has been stripped of trees and shrubs, secluded wildlife habitats and a badger sett;

• The dwellings would occupy a much larger footprint than the present bungalow and will detract from the street scene;

• The Droveway is not a through road and is the only way to a working farm; the dwellings would cause more congestion on this road;

• The development will have a visual impact on the skyline because it is larger than the existing building;

• The buildings are essentially two storey because they have a room below ground level and a bathroom in the roof space;

• Concerns that the drainage system will not cope; blockages may occur on Upontop.


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

1.2 The site comprises a plot of land of approximately 0.17 hectares which currently accommodates a small, detached, hipped roof bungalow. The site has a frontage width of approximately 25.8 metres and a depth of 59.6 metres measured along its north eastern side boundary and 50 metres along the south western side boundary.

1.3 The existing bungalow is sited centrally within the plot, set back 9.6 metre from the front boundary measured at its closest point and 12 metres measured at the furthest point from the front boundary. The site is not level, as is a common feature in respect of many properties in St Margarets Bay, given its cliff top location and undulating

landform. The site levels slope away from the north eastern boundary across to the south western boundary.

1.4 To the rear of the site the properties fronting Salisbury Road are set down at a lower level given the natural topography. 43 Salisbury Road has a large flat roof dormer window in the rear roof slope overlooking the site.

1.5 Adjacent to the site, to its south west is a small detached, hipped roof, two storey dwelling, known as ‘Upontop’; this is the only two storey dwelling on this side. Adjacent to this is a detached bungalow, with further bungalows along this side of the street, with some modest two storey dwellings further along. On the opposite side of The Droveway, are larger, detached properties. A main feature of the opposite side of the street, near to the site, is the established mature hedge along the front boundary that screens the front gardens. There are few trees within the street and regrettably the site has recently been substantially cleared of trees and shrub growth.

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


2. Planning Policy

2.1 DDLP Policy DD1 seeks to ensure that the development is appropriate in its setting in terms of siting, massing, scale, design and materials, and has no adverse impact on the spatial and visual character of the surrounding area, or on the residential amenity of neighbouring properties.

2.2 DDLP Policy DD4 requires proposals for family dwellings to provide adequate private garden and amenity space commensurate with the size of the dwelling, the character of the surroundings, and seeks the protection of amenity interests of prospective and neighbouring occupiers.

2.3 DDLP Policy CO1 prevents development which adversely affect or would result in the loss of countryside unless it has exceptional justification.

2.4 DDLP Policy HS2 permits housing on unallocated sites within the urban boundaries and village confines where it would be the most suitable use of land.

2.5 DDLP Policy TR2 requires development to be served by an appropriate road network and an acceptable access arrangement.




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

2.10 Policy C3 of the SEP states that high priority will be given to conservation and enhancement of natural beauty in the region’s AONBs.

2.11 Policy DM13 of the Core Strategy sets out the residential car parking standards and reiterates the standards in the adopted Kent Design Guide, Interim Guidance Note 3.

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

2.13 PPS3, amongst other things, emphasises the need for good design and encourages residential development in areas which are easily accessible and well connected to facilities and services. It states the Government's key housing policy goal is to ensure that everyone has the opportunity of living in a decent home, which they can afford, in a community where they want to live. It goes on to urge local planning authorities to create sustainable, inclusive, mixed communities in all areas, both urban and rural.

3. Assessment

3.1 The site is within the village confines and a predominantly residential part of St Margarets. The principle of new residential development on this site is considered to be acceptable and in accordance with Local Plan Policy HS2 and PPS3.

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

• The impact on the residential amenity of surrounding occupants;

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

• Highway safety issues.

Residential Amenity

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

3.4 The proposed units would be of a similar height as Upontop with hipped roofs. Upontop is situated to the south of the site and therefore this development would not have a significant impact on the amount of natural light received or outlook from this property.

3.5 No windows are proposed in the side elevations; there is, however, a roof light in the south west elevation of unit 1 which would face Upontop; however the roof light would be over the staircase and, therefore, there would not be any overlooking.

3.6 The nearest dwellings at the rear of the site are in excess of 30m away and this is considered to be sufficient distance to prevent overlooking or loss of privacy, natural light or outlook. This proposal would not cause any harm on the amenities of surrounding neighbours and thus in the respect would be in accordance with Policy DD1 of the DDLP.

3.7 The proposal complies with Policy DD4 of the DDLP in that both dwellings are provided with a sufficiently sized rear garden which provides adequate private amenity space and is commensurate to the size of the proposed dwellings and is in keeping with the grain of the surrounding area.

Visual Amenity and Character of the Area

3.8 It is acknowledged that the site is situated in an extremely sensitive location, adjacent to the open countryside, the AONB and Heritage Coast. Furthermore, a public right of way adjacent to the north east boundary allows clear views from these sensitive locations into the site.

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

3.10 It is clear that consideration has been given by the applicant to the Inspectors’ comments and as such the proposal takes on the form of two hipped roof bungalows, which have an overall ridge height equal to Upontop. The height of the dwellings is considered to be acceptable due to the fact that when viewed from the adjacent footpath they would be seen against the site and therefore would not dominate the skyline. Furthermore, the bungalows each have only a modest dormer window in the front roof slope, so being less incongruous and visible than in the 2007 scheme.

3.11 The footprint of the units is slightly larger than the adjacent dwelling. However, the plot in which they would be sited is also larger and, therefore, the dwellings are commensurate with the plot size. It could be said that the density in this location, adjacent to the edge of the confines should be less than the surrounding area. However, in this instance, the density of The Droveway does not decline towards the edge of the confines and there are dwellings on the opposite side of The Droveway, extending further eastwards. Therefore, it is considered that the footprints of the dwellings and the density of the site would be in keeping with the spatial character of the area in accordance with Policy DD1 of the DDLP.

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

3.13 The overall design of the dwellings is simple and non obtrusive, fitting in with the over all character and appearance of surrounding dwellings. The proposed materials would be plain tile and white rendered elevations; a condition should be imposed to require samples to be submitted and approved.

3.14 The layout of the front gardens is in part dictated by highway requirements; however the applicant has managed to retain landscaping between the plots and to the front. Full details of soft landscaping should be submitted together with details of the hard surfacing.

3.15 It would appear that the amended design has overcome in principle the concerns relating to the visual impact on the AONB and Heritage Coast.

3.16 However, the landscaping scheme adjacent to the north east boundary is considered to be weak and does not take the opportunity to fully soften the visual impact of the new development. This was a critical point with the previous appeals. It is also known that the site has been cleared of vegetation prior to the submission of this latest planning application and as such may have had a detrimental impact

on biodiversity. Policy NRM5 of the SEP advises local planning authorities to avoid a net loss of biodiversity and actively pursue opportunities to achieve a net gain. Accordingly, the applicant has been asked to provide a detailed landscaping plan showing native species, numbers and sizes and to make the landscaping more robust on the east side of the site.

3.17 There is also concern relating to the amount of proposed excavation. The plans show that each dwelling would have a basement accommodating two bedrooms, bathroom, w/c and a stairwell each with a total floor area of 55sqm, together with an excavated court yard and area around the building. The applicant has provided no information relating to the predicted volume of material that would be excavated or how and where it would be disposed of. It is possible that it could be spread across the site which would inevitably increase the height of the surrounding land. The applicant has been asked to provide further details and clarification.

3.18 The visual impact that these dwellings would have and the amount of spoil excavated are dependent on the existing and proposed land levels. The site plan indicates some spot heights, labelled as ‘temporary datum’. These clearly show the variation in the surrounding land levels. However, the applicant has not provided any information relating to the proposed land levels and due to the aforementioned issues it is necessary that proposed spot heights and sections through the site are submitted and agreed prior to the determination of this application.

Highways Issues

3.19 County Highways have been consulted on this proposal and at the time of writing their comments are awaited.

3.20 Each dwelling has been provided with two off street car parking spaces which are independently accessible this provision is considered to be acceptable and in accordance with the new standard in policy DM13 of the Core Strategy. Visibility splays have not been demonstrated on the plan; however it is considered that, subject to condition, adequate vision from the site can be provided.

3.21 A local resident has expressed concerns that this development would lead to additional car parking and congestion on the road. However, it is considered that one additional dwelling would be negligible and that no harm would arise.

Conclusion

3.22 Subject to the receipt of satisfactory plans showing a detailed landscaping scheme, levels and sections through the site, the development is considered to be acceptable and would preserve the natural beauty of the adjacent Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and the wider countryside. In addition it would not harm the character and appearance of the street scene or residential amenities.

3.23 Consideration has been given to the matters raised by objectors, but none are such as to outweigh the conclusions reached. The decisions of the Inspectors on the previous appeals are also material and have been taken into account.

g) Recommendation

I Subject to the receipt of satisfactory and suitably amended plans showing a detailed landscaping scheme, sections and spot heights, PERMISSION BE GRANTED, subject to the following conditions:- (i) DP08 (time limit); (ii) DP04 (amended plans); (iii) LA01 (ground levels); (iv) MA04 (material samples); (v) LA10 (details of hard landscaping); (vi) LA21 (hard landscaping – 12 months compliance); (vii) LA11 (details of soft landscaping); (viii) LA19 (soft landscaping – 12 months compliance); (ix) PA32 (construction vehicles); (x) The first 6m of the vehicular access shall be surfaced with a properly consolidated material (not loose stone or gravel). Prior to construction, details must be submitted and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be in accordance with approved details. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and convenience; (xi) AC12 – (provision of sight lines); (xii) PA07 – (car parking to be provided); (xiii) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no window, door or other opening shall be inserted in the south west elevation of unit 1 other than any expressly authorised by this permission.(Dover District Local Plan Policy DD1). Reason: In order to avoid unacceptable overlooking; (xiv) LA31 (Boundary treatment); (xv) Erection of reptile fencing to the boundaries; (xvi) Any other conditions or amendments to the above conditions to be delegated to the Development Control Manager.

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

Case Officer

Rachel Ellwood

7. a) DOV/09/0779 – Retrospective application for the erection of a boat shed, Beach Plot 35, The Strand, Walmer


Planning permission be granted.


Dover District Local Plan (DDLP): Policies DD1 and OS1South East Plan (SEP): Policies NRM4 and BE6PPS25 – Development and Flood RiskWalmer Design Statement


None.


Environment Agency: No comment.

Walmer Parish Council: Positively supports.

Public Representations: 6 letters of objection have been received, raising the following material issues:-

• Object to beach huts that are used for personal leisure and entertainment;

• Each beach hut blocks the view of the seashore from houses on The Strand and of promenaders and cyclists;

• They attract vehicles onto the front to ‘load and offload’, resulting in danger to pedestrians, cyclists and dogs. This also pollutes the grass and shingle;

• Huts form a physical barrier and prevent public access to the beach;

• Adverse impact on the Conservation Area and the settings of its buildings;

• A majority of the huts are not used as boat stores or working huts;

• Northern part of the Site of Nature Conservation Interest (SNCI) will be degraded.

• Cumulative and permanent loss of open space contrary to Policy OS1;

• Development is in breach of the Human Rights Act 1998;

• Private parties take place, leave litter and mess and also cause a noise disturbance;

• Beach huts are visually obtrusive; and

• Contrary to the Walmer Design Statement and core Local Plan environmental and sustainability objections.


1.1 The site relates to a beach plot along Walmer Beach, southeast of the Deal Memorial Bandstand and northeast of the Lifeboat Station. There are a number of small sheds, beach huts and fisherman’s huts within the area. Most are fairly small in scale and size, although there are a couple of sheds, which are slightly larger, along the Beach to the south. The sheds are close to The Promenade and are all finished in white cladding, with pitched roofs.

1.2 The proposal seeks retrospective full permission for the erection of a boat shed. The shed measures 3.3m in depth and 2.4m in width and has a ridge height of 2.3m. It is finished in timber shiplap cladding with a felt roof and is painted white, with the bottom boards painted black. The beach hut is used for the storage of boat(s) and boat equipment. The applicant also uses the boat shed for the safe storage of her father’s wheelchair when the boat is in use.


2. Planning Policy

2.1 Policy DD1 of the DDLP sets out general design criteria, to enable development to protect, enhance and create an attractive built environment. Policy BE6 of the SEP sets out the policy for the historic environment, including Conservation Areas.

2.2 Policy NRM4 of the SEP states that inappropriate development should not be allocated or permitted in flood zones 2 and 3, as set out in PPS25.

2.3 DDLP Policy OS1 states that development will not be permitted within an open space if it would lead to a deficiency.

2.4 Design Principle WDS2 of the Walmer Design Statement states that development should reflect the origins, character, appearance and design details of Character Areas (in this case, Walmer Seafront Conservation Area). WDS3 encourages harmonious variety in design details to maintain the tradition of interesting streetscapes. WDS7 refers to the need for development to respect the open character of Walmer Seafront and public access to the beach.

3. Assessment

3.1 The principal planning consideration in this case is the impact of the development on the special character and appearance of the Conservation Area.

3.2 The hut is of a similar size to those surrounding it and retains gaps either side. The design and finish of the hut matches those nearby.

3.3 The hut includes all of the typical features of similar buildings situated along the beach, including the timber cladding, the pitched roof and the colour scheme. It is considered that these features have become part of the special character of the Conservation Area.

3.4 The hut is already in place and has been made to match the surrounding beach huts. It is not considered that its retention would have a significant impact on the visual amenity of the surrounding area. It would not detract from the character of the Conservation Area. It does not conflict with Local Plan objectives, design or heritage policies, or the principles of the Walmer Design Statement.

3.5 Members will note the objections raised. None of these are of such significance as to outweigh the conclusion that the development is acceptable. One objector has submitted photographs which show claimed unauthorised ancillary development such as paved areas associated with other huts. The current proposal indicates no such developments. The hut is not within the SNCI or a defined area of open space. Policy OS1 applies, but the proposal does not give rise to an evidenced deficiency of open space and is acceptable in visual and heritage terms. The Walmer Design Statement refers to "the working beach". Members will note the Parish Council's support.

g) Recommendation

I PERMISSION BE GRANTED.

II The applicant (i) to note that the plot is on Council-owned land; (ii) be informed that this permission does not give authority for any ancillary development such as paving.

Case Officer

Kerri Bland

8. a) DOV/09/0843 – Retrospective application for the erection of a detached garage, 23 to 27 Church Street St Mary's, Sandwich


Permission be given


Dover District Local Plan (DDLP): Policy DD1South East Plan (SEP): Policy BE6PPG15 – Planning and Historic Environment


DOV/08/0479 - Erection of detached garage – approved.


County Highways: No objections, subject to conditions and an informative.

Conservation comments: As indicated on the submitted plans, the currently proposed garage is a relatively small, simple structure under a pitched slate roof. The pitch of the roof is rather shallow in appearance, particularly when seen in relation to the steeply pitched roofs of the properties behind it. However, it would be difficult to insist on an entirely new roof being constructed so as to create a stepper pitch. The roof is clad in slate, which is a material often used for shallower pitched roofs and on outbuildings.

The garage would not look out of place in this particular context and would not detract from the special character of the Conservation Area.

No objections are raised to the materials used. However, the metal up and over door is not entirely appropriate and a timber garage door would be an improvement.

As the proposed structure would be independent of the listed wall, listed building consent would not be required. There would be no loss of historic fabric and the wall would remain as existing. Although part of it would be hidden from public view, being inside the garage, this would be insufficient justification for refusing the proposal. It is not an uncommon occurrence with rear boundary walls and outbuildings. The wall would remain visible, albeit not from the public realm, from the north.

Sandwich Town Council: No objections.

Public Representations: 3 letters of objection raise the following material points:

● The development is supported by a historic wall and should thus have listed building consent - it is unclear how the revised proposal would affect the wall; it would create an unsightly and uneven gap;

● The wall is obscured by the garage. Such walls are a feature of Sandwich;

● The garage is unsightly and out of character with its surroundings - the previous garage was smaller and sited further back;

● The garage obscures views of the rear of buildings in Church Street St. Mary’s, diminishing their heritage;

● The materials used, including the garage door, are modern, inappropriate and out of keeping;

● There is a detrimental effect on light to the neighbours; and

● Manoeuvring in this part of School Road is more difficult.


1.1 The garage occupies part of the curtilage of a dwelling which is Listed Grade 2 and forms part of a terrace of building fronting the west side of Church Street St Mary's. It faces School Road at a point where the road turns a 90º bend.

1.2 The garage has been constructed of a mix of stock bricks and stained weather boarded elevations with a black painted up and over door under a slate roof. Rain water goods are of PVC. It adjoins a block paved hardstanding to its south, this being served by a pedestrian gate adjoining the garage.

1.3 The garage has been partially built onto a garden boundary wall which itself is listed.

1.4 To the south, adjoining gardens are enclosed to School Road by brick walls. On the opposite side of School Road is Sandwich Infants School and its associated car park, also enclosed by a wall.

1.5 The application seeks full planning permission for a garage of different detailing to that previously approved. The garage is of the same footprint, but it is of reduced height with a roof of shallower pitch and altered such that it is no longer shown to be supported by the boundary wall. The side wall of the garage is shown to have a wall plate between the end wall and a new front pillar, with intermediate support posts. In her Design and Access Statement, the applicant refers to the application including complete removal of the side wall where it currently affects the listed wall and the subsequent cleaning of the wall.

1.6 Changes have also been made to the facing brickwork and weather boarding compared to what was previously approved. The up and over door is no longer specified to be of vertical cedar boarding. Although it does not form a specific part of the application, the position on the pedestrian gate leading from the hardstanding to the garden has been altered to reflect the "as built" circumstances.

1.7 The applicant also refers to a previously existing garage having been demolished some three years ago and claims that the new garage will fit with its surroundings, with no visible impact upon neighbours.

2. Planning Policy

2.1 Policy DD1 of the DDLP sets out general design criteria so that development protects, enhances and creates the environment.

2.2 SEP Policy BE6 is concerned with supporting proposals which protect, conserve and, where appropriate, enhance the historic environment.

2.3 PPG15 gives guidance on development proposals which affect Conservation Areas and Listed Buildings, including their settings.

3. Assessment

3.1 The background to this application is that planning permission was granted last year under reference DOV/08/0479 for a detached garage. It was not appreciated at that time that the garage might be physically attached to the listed wall to its north side, although the plans were not completely clear on this point. No application for listed building consent was made. The garage, which has been built and is attached to the wall, consequently does not have the necessary listed building consent. It constitutes an unauthorised alteration to the listed wall. An offence has been committed. Furthermore, the garage as constructed does not comply with the approved plans in terms of various elements of its detailing, including its roof form and pitch and the disposition of the materials used. As built, therefore, the garage is wholly unauthorised under the Planning Acts.

3.2 The garage has been the subject of third party criticism which is reflected in the representations now received on this application and summarised at e) above.

3.3 Apart from the physical effects on the listed wall (which are unacceptable), the alterations undertaken to the approved plans and now reflected in the current submission are not ideal. The statutory requirement for development in locations such as this are for the Council, inter alia, to have special regard to the desirability of preserving the settings of nearby listed buildings (including, in this case, the listed wall and the buildings in Church Street, St Mary’s) and to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the conservation area.

3.4 The planning permission granted last year clearly implied acceptance of the garage in principle in this location. The important point is whether the revised design satisfies the statutory requirement set out above.

3.5 The submission follows earlier discussions with the applicant following the erection of the garage, in particular to identify ways in which it might be altered to ameliorate its physical affects on the listed wall and to obviate the need for listed building consent. The application now submitted reflects those discussions. Listed Building consent would not be required if the garage is altered as now proposed. The application also seeks to retain the garage otherwise as built. It is not considered that the changes are such as to have any significantly

greater effect on the setting of the nearby listed buildings than did the approved garage. Neither do the changes, particularly those to the roof pitch and the disposition of the materials, affect the appearance or character of the conservation area sufficiently to lead to the conclusion that clear harm arises. However, it is considered that the metal garage door should be replaced by a timber or a timber clad door, as indicated on the original plans. No action is justified over the use of PVC rainwater goods, as these were indicated on the approved plans. There was initial officer concern about the appearance of the bricks, but these have now been toned down and are considered acceptable.

3.6 Accordingly, subject to the garage door being amended, the application may be recommended for approval. The report and recommendation have taken into account the views of third parties. It is not considered that the proposal gives rise to sustainable objections relating to loss of light to neighbours or highway safety and nothing raised by third parties overrides the conclusions reached.

g) Recommendation

I Subject to satisfactory resolution of all details PERMISSION BE GIVEN subject to conditions to be delegated to the Development Control Manager.

Case Officer

Tim Flisher

9. a) DOV/09/0873 – Erection of a GP Surgery, Community Centre, 28 flats and 41 houses, related infrastructure and parking, land at Golf Road/Cannon Street, Deal


Subject to the resolution of all outstanding matters, Planning Permission be granted.


South East Plan (SEP): Policies SP3, CC1, CC2,CC3, CC4, CC5, CC6, CC7, H1, H2, H3, H4, H5, T1, T2, T4, T5, NRM1, NRM2, NRM4, NRM5, NRM9, NRM10, NRM11,W2, M1, BE1, S1, S6, EKA3 and EKA4.

Dover District Local Plan (DDLP): Policies LE1, TR1, DD1, DD4, HS2, HS3, HS9, HS11, OS2, CF1, CF3, and WE1.

Core Strategy: Policies CP1 CP2, CP3, CP4, CP5, CP6, DM2, DM5, DM11, DM12, DM13 and DM17.

PPG/PPS: PPS1, PPS3, PPS9, PPG13, PPG16, PPG17, PPS22 and Companion Guide, PPG23, PPG24 and PPS25.

SPG/SPD: Affordable Housing SPD (adopted 2007), Kent Design Guide (adopted as SPD against saved policy DD1 of DDLP).

SHMA (Strategic Housing Land Assessment).

SHLAA (Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment).

SFRA Strategic Flood Risk Assessment.

Circular 05/2005 – Obligations.

Other Documents: Safer Places, the planning system and crime prevention, By Design – better places to live – a companion guide to PPG (S)3 and By Design – urban design in the planning system, Protecting Quality in planning, By Design, Manual for Streets.


DOV/05/569 – Removal of conditions relating to personal use and retail sales and construction of a new access – Hutchings Timber, Albert Road – this application is fairly close to being resolved in respect of outstanding negotiations over conditions and a legal agreement. It is the applicant’s intention to agree to cease the use of the Golf Road/Cannon Street site for industrial and associated uses and activities etc once planning permission and the S106 in respect of the Hutchings Road site has been agreed.

DOV/97/0550 – Renewal of earlier planning permission for 92 dwellings.

DOV/97/0552 – Outline planning permission granted for 10 flats, 28 houses, parking and garages.

DOV/97/554 – Outline planning permission granted for the erection of 32 houses.

DOV/07/0722 – Screening opinion for mixed use development –EIA not required.

DOV/08/1331 – Prior approval notification for demolition of warehouses sheds offices and outbuildings –prior approval required.

DOV/09/006 – Decontamination and remediation of land and demolition of buildings – planning permission granted.


County Highways: Concern expressed over:

• limited number of parking spaces for the doctor's surgery and community centre and how, when provided, use of them would be controlled;

• limited number of and location of parking spaces in some cases away from the dwelling they serve, and which in some cases could result in on-road parking especially in Golf Road. A solution has been identified to solve on-road parking problems in Golf Road, which would mean the introduction of a waiting restriction order. A contribution for its provision would be required and it may mean moving a bus stop;

• use of residents' parking spaces by people using the community centre/doctor’s surgery;

• sight lines;

• cycle parking provision;

● narrow internal roads unsuitable for HGVs (further evidence required on whether and how vehicles can manoeuvre within the site).

Forward Planning Comments: The area's social issues have been identified and need has been identified for GP and community facilities including children and adult learning and indoor recreation. In addition the North Deal area is deficient in open space. The Council has sought that any redevelopment should bring forward the provision of open space but not necessarily on-site.

SEEDA, the District Council and North Deal Community Partnership undertook preliminary master planning during 2006/2007. However, the owners of the site decided to progress redevelopment themselves.

The application proposes significantly less floor space for the community building than has been identified to meet the existing shortfall at 36% of identified need. The reason for this is given as economic viability. The application is, however, supported by a letter from the North Deal Community company which sets out its support for the application.

While falling short of meeting identified need the application does make a positive contribution towards improving community facilities requirements to the point of apparently satisfying expressed need.

Justification for the lack of 2 bed houses is not included within this application (this matter has been raised with the applicants). However, the skew towards 2 bed flats is understandable for this site and the development otherwise satisfies the aims of the Core Strategy which is seeking to attract larger families. Assuming the proposal is satisfactory in terms of design and flood risk, the housing provision for this site is in itself acceptable.

However, the application remains deficient with regards to Policy OS2, Open Space, PPS3 and Policy HS9 (Affordable Housing).

The applicant has submitted a viability study which appears to show a negative land value which generally accords with previous SEEDA assessments. This factor would also have been accepted by the HCA in order to make the Kickstart funding offer. The applicant states that they are only able to meet KCC requests for additional library and adult social service provision, which is the stated reason for not meeting open space and affordable housing provision.

Community Development Manager: Has been working with the North Deal Community Partnership (now Company) for many years. They have taken a key role in working with the community and partners in bringing the application together. The community centre and doctor’s surgery should be provided as early as possible. The application is fully supported.

Housing Initiatives Manager: The proposal does not provide for Council's policy or strategic aims for provision and delivery of affordable housing and does not meet the objectives of the Government or the Regional Housing Strategy to deliver affordable housing.

The East Kent Strategic Housing Market Assessment highlights a significant need for more affordable housing and refers to the SHMA findings which identify a significant need for affordable homes in Deal.

Advises that any economic viability case should be vigorously tested.

This matter will be updated at your meeting.

Environmental Health comments: No objection subject to suitable conditions which would link to the permission for decontamination and remediation (referred to above under history).

Ecology Officer: No objection subject to the retention of reptile fencing until completion of the development.

Leisure Services Manager: Advises that as the development proposes more than 50 dwellings of 2 or more bedrooms, a LEAP is normally required in accordance with Policy OS2 of the DDLP.

The development would normally be expected to provide a LAP and a LEAP on site; however, this does not. Contributions towards off-site provision are, therefore, sought.

Head of Regeneration: Supports the application.

Community Safety Manager: No response at time of writing the report.

County Archaeologist: No objection subject to condition.

Environment Agency: Further survey work had been carried out by the applicant and submitted to the EA. The EA has no objection to the proposals, subject to condition.

SWA: No objections subject to suitable SUDs and drainage provision.

HSE: No comment.

KCC (Mouchel): Is seeking around £89,000 towards libraries and adult social service provision. Further evidence and justification has been sought from KCC over requested levels of contribution. A response has now been received which indicates a need to provide a lift to access the first floor at Deal library and adult changing facilities at the library.

PCT: No response at time of writing this report.

Stagecoach: Objects; although they have no objection to the principle of development, are concerned over potential for on-road parking which could interfere with the operation of bus services and the possibility of the bus service not continuing past the site.

The North Deal Community Company: Has confirmed they are satisfied with the provisions made by the proposal for community facilities.

Deal Town Council: Objects, unless the following issues are satisfactorily resolved:-

● Building traffic follows the same route as demolition and remediation traffic;

● The provision of the Doctor's surgery and community hall are covered by S106 agreement;

● The Doctor’s surgery and community hall are completed first;

● The whole development is completed within 18 months;

● The development complies with EA requirements;

● Dover District Council maintains its policy on affordable housing; and

● The Doctors surgery is built to the deadline set by the PCT.

Third Party Representations: 3 letters raise objections for the following reasons:

● Flooding problems which the application does not appear to overcome;

● Inadequate parking;

● Dangerous link from Halcrow Drive to Golf Road; and

● Dangerous drop-off point for surgery.


1.1 The application site is located within Deal's urban confines. The site has been used formerly for industrial activities. According to the application it was previously used as a gas works and then a builder’s merchants and timber yard with an element of retail sales. There are a number of semi-derelict buildings on the site (at the time of writing this report). There is an existing consent for the demolition of these buildings. There is also an extant permission for remediation and decontamination works.

1.2 The surrounding area is primarily residential with a school to the south west and a (now disused) gas holder lies to the north. The site is currently enclosed along part of its western boundary by a significant height wall (around 4m). It has residential properties to its southern boundaries, a factory and garage block alongside its east boundary and primarily residential dwellings to its northern boundary as well as a further length of enclosing wall.

1.3 The residential development surrounding the site comprises a variety of architectural types. Dwellings in Cannon Street to the north and in College Road to the east are mainly modest terraced house rows. There is a more modern factory building to the south east of the site, a recent modern purpose built nursing home lies to the south and a short terraced row of houses lies to the south west corner of the site at the junction of Ark Lane and Golf Road. A corner shop lies opposite. To the west of the site opposite there are two rows of houses. One row is probably around 100 years old; the other row of 4 are more modern. A landmark pub building stands on the corner of Golf Road and Cannon Street to the north west corner. Parking in the area is mainly on street. The site is around 2km north of Deal town centre.

1.4 The Local Plan shows the site as being within an area liable to tidal flooding and a flood risk zone, which would be subject to rapid inundation. The Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) indicates that the Cannon Street site is within a flood zone area 3a, which is under normal circumstances only suitable for water compatible and less vulnerable land uses, such as shops, cafes, assembly and leisure, professional services etc. Dwellings, health services, etc, are classified as more vulnerable and considered to be better sited in less vulnerable locations. The site is also liable to tidal flooding and at risk from over-topping. The SFRA identifies that constraints to

development in such areas are likely to be significant and that advice should be sought from the Environment Agency.

1.5 The Core Strategy allocation document identifies the application site for a mixed use/community use/residential use (20 dwellings), subject to the Environment Agency being satisfied relating to ways of dealing with the potential flooding problems. If the method of dealing with potential flooding is unacceptable to the Environment Agency it is likely that the site will be reallocated for a more compatible less vulnerable use. The Environment Agency has responded to the consultation on the Site Allocations proposals document in 2008 as follows: “This allocation should be removed from the site allocations document. The recommendation in the SFRA is that alternative sites should be explored in lower flood risk areas. Other residential sites outside the flood risk area were considered. The site is not suitable for residential use. The likelihood of the site passing the Exception Test is low and safe access and egress cannot be achieved”.

1.6 Prior to submission, proposals for the design and layout of the site were discussed with officers over a lengthy period. The application includes details of how the final scheme was developed. It is understood that proposals for the site have also been discussed with local stakeholders. Accordingly a Statement of Community Involvement (SCI) is included as part of the application. Having said that, limited discussions appear to have been held with officers in respect of the policy principles for development. It is understood that discussions were held between the applicants and external bodies, such as the EA.

1.7 The proposal now seeks a mixed community use building, doctor’s surgery and residential development scheme.

1.8 The Community Building would provide some 409 sq m of floor space. It would be a single storey building. It would provide 3 “halls of various sizes”, with offices, café and social spaces. Hours of opening would be between 9am and 9pm every day. A small outside terrace area is proposed to serve the community building. The application sets out that the building would be leased by the North Deal Community Company.

1.9 It would be an irregularly shaped purpose built building and would have a shared main pedestrian access with the Doctor's surgery from Golf Road. Parking spaces would be to the rear of the building and accessed from within the site.

1.10 The Doctor's surgery would provide 442.5 sq m of floor space, 2 GP consulting rooms, 2 nurses rooms, reception and waiting facilities, dispensing pharmacy, staff facilities, offices and storage on the first floor. Hours of opening proposed are 8am to 6.30pm Monday to Friday. Correspondence from the PCT identifies their interest in providing a new GP surgery at Cannon Street, which would replace the existing surgery at Allen House in Middle Street. Parking spaces would be provided to the rear of the building and accessed from the internal access road.

1.11 Altogether it is envisaged that 25 full time jobs and 8 part time jobs would be created. Although the application has not referred to timing for provision of the community centre/GP surgery it is expected that they would be provided fairly early on in the development. This should be able to be achieved through an appropriate condition requiring submission and approval of a phasing programme or plan or through the legal agreement. It should be borne in mind that the applicant is building the community buildings and it would appear that a cash flowis, therefore, necessary to generate funds to pay for the provision of the community buildings. It is likely therefore that the community facility and doctor’s surgery would be provided during construction of the development – but not at the beginning.

1.12 The residential element would total 69 units and create 6 x 1 bed apartments, 16 x 2 bed apartments, 6 x 2 bed duplexes (assume apartments), 26 x 3 bed houses and 15 x 4 bed houses. All houses would have their own private amenity areas, some would have private balconies and the use of communal semi-private areas and some would have their own gardens. Flats would have small semi-private communal areas and some would have private balconies.

1.13 There would be 5 parking spaces for the community building; the doctor’s surgery would have 12 spaces. It is proposed to provided 1 space for each 1 and 2 bed flat/apartment, 1.5 spaces for 3 bed houses and 2 spaces per 4 bed house. Each house would have its own parking space. Other spaces are proposed on-road or in communal parking court areas. A secure bicycle parking space is proposed for each flat. Houses would have their own cycle parking areas.

1.14 A single vehicle access is proposed into the site from Cannon Street. This would be located at an existing access point. A pedestrian link from Golf Road would be provided. The community building and surgery would have vehicle access from an internal road. It is proposed to provide turning within the site for the community centre/doctor's surgery vehicles.

1.15 All the houses would be 3 storeys. Flats are part 3 storey and part 4 storey buildings. The flats would be internal to the site. All dwellings on main road frontages would be 3 storeys.

1.16 Dwellings along the main road frontages would be of a contemporary design, but incorporate features and finishes which would in most cases reflect the architectural detail of surrounding buildings. It is proposed to use mainly brick finishes to buildings but to occasionally utilize a contrasting material finish to some buildings which will be detailed later in this report. Four storey flats would have flat roofs and part glazed top floor penthouses.

1.17 It is proposed to create a landscaped square in the heart of the development. Other streets would be simply laid out with tree planting. These landscaping details have yet to be detailed. The intention is that the streets would have a traditional, but contemporary urban appearance.

1.18 The applicants have submitted much evidence in support of the proposal including letters from NDCC, the PCT and Dover District Council's Head of Regeneration.

1.19 A Heads of Terms document has been prepared and a draft S106 agreement accompanies the application; this is currently being considered.

1.20 The applicants have provided lengthy extracts from many relevant documents, such as the Local Plan, SEP and Core Strategy and have sought to amplify the contents of the accompanying Design and Access Statement in support of the application.

1.21 A bid for Kickstart funding has been put forward by the applicant. This is the Government initiative to pump prime funding for stalled development, which is being rolled out by the Homes and Communities Agency (HCA). At the time of writing this report, it would appear the bid for funding towards this development has been accepted, which the applicants have advised would primarily be used to off-set the decontaminations costs. It would appear the application has to be determined by the end of March 2010 to satisfy HCA funding requirements. HCA funding is dependant on the provision of housing, not on the provision of community facilities/doctor's surgery.

1.22 Officers have sought external professional advice over the applicant’s assertions that the development is unable to bear the cost of providing affordable housing or contributions towards open/play space provision and Kent Adult Social Service (KASS) facilities.

1.23 Prior to this report going to print the views of County Highways had only just been received. The gist of their concerns is included within this report and their comments have been passed direct to the applicants. It is understood that the applicants are now considering revisions to the scheme which may result in alterations to the design and layout, provide additional parking spaces for the community building and doctor's surgery and may be considering the inclusion of affordable housing. A meeting to discuss these issues had yet to be arranged prior to print. However, any such changes would be likely to impact on the financial viability appraisal and may affect levels of contributions and timing of provision for the community facility and doctor’s surgery. These matters have yet to be resolved and it is hoped an update can be provided at your meeting

2. Planning Policy

2.1 Development Plan policies, Government guidance and other material considerations are summarised as follows.

2.2 The Development Plan comprises the Dover District Local Plan and the South East Plan. The Core Strategy is not part of the Development Plan, but given that the Core Strategy has been considered by the Inspector and is due for a decision shortly, it is of some materiality to the consideration of this application.

Residential Development

2.3 PPS3 sets out that the best use should be made of previously developed land and seeks for new development to achieve a density of dwellings normally in excess of 40 per hectare, although this is dependant on the surrounding context of the site.

2.4 The SEP identifies that the prime focus for development and support services should be within urban areas, with the aim of achieving 60% of new development on brownfield sites. It also identifies that a sufficient quantity and mix of housing types (including affordable housing) should be supplied and that delivery capacity should be unlocked by infrastructure investments at the earliest opportunities.

2.5 The DDLP allocates sites for housing developments, setting out that housing development should be contained within the urban confines. The Core Strategy document reinforces the aims of the SEP and identifies that housing provision for the District within the lifetime of the plan is set at some 14,000 new homes.

2.6 The Core Strategy identifies Deal as a District Centre which is suitable for urban scale development. It also identifies Deal as being suitable to provide around 1,600 new homes as part of the Council's overall District Allocation up to 2026; this figure is subject to the outcome of investigations into suitability of land at North and Middle Deal (in terms of potential dangers from flooding).

Flooding

2.7 Preference is given to locating all new development in Flood Zone area type1 which means they are those at the lowest risk of suffering from flooding. Where none are available, Zone 2 then Zone 3 areas are considered. Zone 3 sites are those most at risk of flooding. Local Authorities are expected to ensure that all new development in flood risk areas is appropriately flood resilient and resistant, including providing safe access and escape routes where required and that any residual risk can be safely managed.

2.8 Development is required to take account of flooding. PPS25 and the SEP encourage measures such as SuDS, water retention methods and flood storage measures and to minimise direct surface water run-off and prevent development increasing the risk of flooding to neighbouring land.

2.9 Sites in flood risk areas are expected to be subject to rigorous testing when being considered for allocation purposes. The Cannon Street site has not been specifically allocated in the Local Plan or Core Strategy for redevelopment. Therefore, the onus is on the applicant to establish the suitability of the site for development as an exception.

2.10 PPS25 sets out that those proposing development are responsible for:-

● Demonstrating that it is consistent with the policies in this PPS and those on flood risk in the Local Development Document;

● and providing a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) demonstrating:-

● whether any proposed development is likely to be affected by current or future flooding from any source;

● satisfying the LPA that the development is safe and where possible reduces flood risk overall;

● whether it will increase flood risk elsewhere; and

● the measures proposed to deal with these effects and risks;

● any necessary flood risk management measures should be sufficiently funded to ensure that the site can be developed and occupied safely throughout its proposed lifetime;

● designs which reduce flood risk to the development and elsewhere, by incorporating sustainable drainage systems (see Annex F) and where necessary, flood resilience measures (see Annex G); and

● identifying opportunities to reduce flood risk, enhance biodiversity and amenity, protect the historic environment and seek collective solutions to managing flood risk.

2.11 These matters can affect the value of land, the cost of developing it and the cost of its future management and use. They are required to be considered as early as possible in preparing development proposals.

2.12 The SFRA sets out that developers should liaise with the Environment Agency when considering developing sites in at risk areas. The SFRA identifies in respect of sites in 3a zones that mitigation measures are unlikely to be feasible.

Community Facilities

2.13 The SEP refers to the approach taken in the provision of infrastructure as a three stage "Manage and Invest" approach, as follows:-

• Delivering efficiency through better use of existing infrastructure;

• Reducing demand through promoting behavioural change; and

• Providing additional capacity by extending or providing new infrastructure.

2.14 Infrastructure, as well as referring to roads and utilities such as gas and water, includes the provision of facilities necessary to the functioning of an urban area and the SEP’s aims are reflected in the Core Strategy.

2.15 The Local Plan identifies that development places additional burdens on local community facilities and that where such facilities are provided then they are expected to be secured by a legal agreement or condition.

2.16 The North Deal area has long been recognised to fall short in terms of its community and health facilities. In support of their application the applicants have identified a number of processes which took place over a number of years prior to the submission of this application, as follows (summarised):-

● SEEDA commissioned a “North Deal Community Infrastructure Study” in 2006 which found the Cannon Street site would be the best location in the provision of health facilities, community facilities and nursery and children’s facilities which would serve the local population.

● Dover District Council instructed GVA Grimley to undertake a land search and delivery appraisal to explore the feasibility of providing a mixed use community (and small scale employment) development within the North Deal Ward in 2008. Project partners were SEEDA and English Partnerships. The investigation found that there were 3 sites that might be suitable, including the application site.

● The subsequent SHLAA (Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment) study (2009) identified the Cannon Street site as being a key site in the provision of social infrastructure, although with flood risk problems. An employment land review did not identify the Cannon Street site as being suitable for employment uses.

Design Principles

2.17 By Design (2001) and Manual for Streets (2007) highlight the importance of achieving high quality design in enhancing the environment so that places can be enjoyed by all who use them. PPS3 reflects the Government’s intentions to improve the affordability and supply of housing in all communities. It focuses on making the most efficient use of previously developed land within existing urban confines and on the aim of achieving high quality designs and layouts, which will contribute to the creation of sustainable, mixed communities.

2.18 PPS1 and PPS3 encourage good design in connecting people with places, integration with existing urban form and the natural and built environments and be integral to ensuring safe and inclusive environments.

2.19 Policies CC6 and H5 of the SEP encourage innovative design to create a high quality built environment, in support of sustainable development objectives. Policies BE1 and BE4 of the SEP further echo this by encouraging design to provide significant improvements to the built environment, taking into account context, local character and sense of place and enhance the character and appearance of

areas. The Local plan requires development to meet specified design criteria and gardens of family dwellings to be commensurate to the size and character of the dwelling. Policy DD1 of the Local Plan sets out design principles and also sets out that new development is expected to blend in well with its surroundings and that there should be no harm caused to residential amenities of neighbouring occupants.

Amount of housing, density of Development and range of House Types

2.20 PPS3 sets out that where possible densities should exceed 40 dwellings per hectare, as set out in the Core Strategy. The SEP encourages higher overall regional densities at 40 dwellings per hectare, but recognises that this cannot be applied uniformly, taking into account local development patterns, constraints and the spatial vision for an area. This requirement is tempered by identifying that proposals also have to take into account the spatial context of its surroundings. House types are expected to comprise a mix of sizes and tenures.

2.21 The SHMA (2005) identified the Cannon Street site as having potential as a housing site.

2.22 The size of gardens for family dwellings is expected to be commensurate to the size and character of the dwellings, in line with Policy DD4 of the Local Plan. An element of one and/or two bedroom housing is expected to be provided to secure a mix of dwelling sizes and types, in line with Policy HS11 of the Local Plan and policies H2 and H4 of the SEP and contributing to the objective of social sustainability.

2.23 The Core Strategy sets broad splits of demand based on the profile of newly forming households in the district and requires applicant to provide clear explanation of how the following figures have been used to justify the proposed mix: 1 bed homes – 35%, 2 bed homes – 40%, 3 bed homes – 20% and 4 bed homes – 5%.

Affordable Housing

2.24 One of the core objectives of the SEP is to deliver a sufficient level of affordable housing. In accordance with the requirements of PPS3, the Affordable Housing Supplementary Planning Document (AH SPD, adopted on 3 September 2007) sets out the requirements for affordable housing provision in the district for all applications received or validated after 2nd January 2008. The AH SPD effectively supersedes policy HS9 of the Local Plan, although this policy still carries weight and the SPD is supported by policies in the SEP and the Core Strategy, that both set a target of 30% of housing to be affordable. The AH SPD seeks to (i) secure 30% of the total number of new housing as affordable housing (on qualifying sites), unless material considerations indicate otherwise; (ii) ensure the type of affordable housing provided will meet an identified local need; (iii) ensure the end cost of housing remains genuinely affordable in the longer term, and; (iv) encourage the involvement of a RSL in the

future management of the affordable housing. In respect of tenure of the affordable housing, the SPD seeks a mix of 30% shared equity and 70% social rented.

2.25 The DDLP identifies that housing schemes in excess of 25 dwellings should make provision for 30% affordable units.

2.26 Core Strategy policy identifies that the exact amount of affordable housing or financial contribution to be delivered will be determined by economic viability having regard to individual site and market conditions.

Open/Play Space

2.27 PPG17 sets out the Government’s objectives for recreation and supports the objectives of supporting social inclusion and community cohesion, promotion of health and well being and sustainable development for all in the community. The SEP promotes the provision of play areas that will contribute to the vision of the Plan to achieve a healthy region.

2.28 DDLP Policy OS2 identifies that children’s play space (ie. LAPs and LEAPS) is expected to be provided where development comprises 15 or more dwellings or, with an alternative of off-site provision by way of a contribution. The Site Allocations document identifies a deficiency in open space provision in the North Deal Area.

Renewable Energy and sustainable construction

2.29 The contribution that can be made by incorporating renewable energy technologies such as photovoltaics into development, and re-cycling and re-using water, to meeting the national targets of reduction in greenhouse gases, is highlighted in PPS25. The supplement to PPS1 encourages the use of such technologies and identifies the need to consider the resource use needs of the development over its lifetime. This is in line with one of the Core Objectives to achieve sustainable development benefits, and policies in the SEP to consider the development in light of current and forecast climate change. In promoting a more sustainable pattern of development, one of the aims of the Local Plan is to provide more energy-efficient development, to enable the generation of energy from renewable sources.

2.30 Policy CC4 of the SEP expects developments to incorporate sustainable construction standards, water efficiency measures and a proportion of energy to be secured from renewable or low carbon sources and Policy NRM11 requires that at least 10% of the energy needs of the development are to be met from decentralised or renewable or low carbon sources, unless it is not feasible or viable given the type of development. Policy CC3 seeks to reduce the ecological footprint of the South East. Policy M1 encourages sustainable construction practices. The Core Strategy requires dwellings built after adoption of the strategy to be built to Code for Sustainable Homes standards.

2.31 PPS1, PPS3, PPG13 and PPS25 require development to meet sustainable development objectives, including sustainable transport measures and development that is well designed and inclusive to create sustainable mixed communities. Objectives and policies in the DDLP, the Core Strategy and the SEP support the need to secure acceptable transport links, improve sustainability, facilitate all modes of transport, including improved public transport and routes for pedestrians and cyclists, and ensuring community access to parks and open spaces in promoting healthy communities.

Utilities

2.32 One of the objectives of the SEP requires that adequate infrastructure, including utility services, keeps pace with development.

2.33 Policies in the DDLP, the Core Strategy and SEP require measures to be taken to ensure that groundwater protection zones are protected from contamination and that where demands for water supply exceed the current capacity, provision is made for necessary infrastructure.

Highways

2.34 PPG13 provides guidance on integrating planning and transport at all levels of governance and promoting more sustainable transport, reducing reliance on the car, encouraging walking and cycling, and use of public transport and ensuring choice of such modes. Policy T1 of the SEP encourages development that is designed and located to reduce average journey lengths, including provision for cyclists and pedestrians, the enhancement of communities and improvements to levels of accessibility. Policy T5 requires travel plans for developments that generate major travel.

2.35 One of the objectives of the SEP is to ensure key transport links providing access for all. Policy TR1 sets out that development will only be permitted in the urban area in locations which are well served by, or can be, by appropriate alternative means of transport other than the car. TR2 states that permission will not be granted until improvements to the infrastructure to meet demands have been secured.

2.36 Parking spaces are normally expected to be provided at a maximum rate of 1 space per 1, 2 and 3 bed dwelling (including flats) and 1.5 spaces per 4 bed dwelling (for this development, this means 76.5 spaces).

Employment

2.37 Regional Economic Strategy (RES) reflects the aims of central Government, set out in PPG4 to achieve economic prosperity, employment provision and training and economic growth that is supported by a high quality environment and vice versa. This is essential to achieving the sustainable development objectives of PPS1.

2.38 The SEP envisages an economically strong region, with the objective of achieving a sustainable balance between economic, environmental and social benefits, with policy focus not only the supply of employment land but making efficient use of existing or underusedsites by making them accessible to the existing and proposed labour supply, promoting education and training to ensure a good skills base in the local population and achieving a balance between housing and new jobs commensurate to the size and character of the town (Policy EKA4). In considering applications, it highlights the need to take into account other evidence, such as relevant market and other economic information, where there is not specific policy support for a development, as well as environmental and social information and other relevant evidence in determining the application. This is echoed in one of the objectives of the Core Strategy that emphasises the need to address localised needs.

2.39 Policy LE1 of the DDLP seeks to ensure employment sites are protected, subject to criteria which set out that changes to other uses will only be permitted where the change would not prejudice availability in the area and District as a whole and alternative use or development would bring with it significant social or environmental benefits or the land has been appropriately marketed without success.

Noise and Pollution

2.40 PPG24 (Noise) and PPS23 (Pollution and Planning Control) are key considerations in the development. They are echoed at a regional level in policies NRM9 and NRM10 in respect of ensuring that measures are taken during the construction and operational stages to protect residential and other amenities and secure appropriate mitigation.

Landscape/Ecology/Public Realm Management and Maintenance

2.41 PPS9 sets out the benefits that biodiversity and geological conservation has in spatial planning. Policy NRM5 of the South East Plan highlights the important role that planning can have in protecting and enhancing biodiversity, not only on designated sites.

Environmental Statement

2.42 Under the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 1999, the Local Planning Authority issued a scoping opinion identifying that an Environmental Impact Assessment would not be required.

Developer Obligations/Contributions

2.43 Circular 05/2005 advises that contributions to be made in respect of infrastructure and the inclusion of an element of affordable housing (where it is provided) should to be secured through S106 agreements.

2.44 Contributions whether financial or in kind can only be sought where, as quoted in the circular, they are:

(i) relevant to planning;

(ii) necessary to make the proposed development acceptable in planning terms;

(iii) directly related to the proposed development;

(iv) fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the proposed development; and

(v) reasonable in all other respects.

2.45 The circular advises that planning obligations should never be used purely as a means of securing for the local community a share in the profits of development, i.e. as a means of securing a "betterment levy".

2.46 The principal objective of the planning system is to deliver sustainable development, through which key Government social, environmental and economic objectives are achieved.

2.47 One of the core objectives of the SEP is to ensure that adequate infrastructure is provided that keeps pace with development. Infrastructure is, amongst other things, defined as affordable housing, health services and facilities, social infrastructure and flood defences.

2.48 Where contributions are sought, Policy CC7 of the SEP sets out a “Manage and Invest” approach in directing how infrastructure should be delivered. This means a three tier approach is necessary by firstly considering whether efficiency can be delivered through better use of existing infrastructure. If this cannot be achieved, then consideration is given to whether demand can be reduced by promoting behavioural change and only then is consideration be given to providing additional capacity by extending or providing new infrastructure. Accordingly, it is essential that an evidence-based approach is taken in identifying whether or what new infrastructure is required and how it can realistically be delivered.

3. Assessment

3.1 The main issues for consideration are whether:-

• The principles of the proposals are acceptable on this site;

• The design and layout is suitable;

• There would be any harm caused to residential amenities of surrounding residents;

• The development would result in highways problems;

• The lack of open space provision is acceptable;

• The lack of affordable housing is acceptable;

• A suitable planning obligation and appropriate level of contributions can be agreed;

• All other matters have been satisfactorily addressed.

Principle of Development

3.2 Employment sites are normally protected by policy. The Inspector’s Report (1999) into the Local Plan identified that a B1 use for the site may be suitable. He considered due to the extant (at the time) permissions for either a residential development or employment use that there was no need to allocate the site,– since if the permissions did not proceed then the site would have to be assessed under Policy LE1. In this case the change to a different use would not prejudice availability in the area and redevelopment would certainly bring significant social and environmental benefits. There would be a limited amount of employment opportunities at the community centre and surgery.

3.3 The site has been the subject of efforts over a considerable period to redevelop the site, which amongst other things would bring this long-standing derelict site back into use, to improve the appearance of the area and help address some of the social issues affecting North Deal. The original idea was to provide much needed community facilities here, the provision of which would be supported by some residential development.

Allocation

3.4 The site is within the urban confines and is a brownfield site. It is contaminated and surrounded by primarily residential properties. In respect of PPS3, therefore, which sets out that the best possible use of already developed land within the built confines should be made to protect undeveloped or Greenfield land, subject to the necessary remediation measures it should be suitable for redevelopment. PPS3 identifies that the best use should be made of already developed sites in the confines in providing new residential development. Local Plan (Policy HS2) identifies that provided residential use is the most suitable use in the built confines, then planning permission should be granted.

3.5 The site is unallocated in the existing local plan due to it being identified as likely to be affected by flooding and due to previous objections to its allocation for residential use by the Environment Agency.

Flooding

3.6 The applicants have submitted a FRA and have carried out additional work at the Environment Agency's request to support their assertion that the development would not exacerbate existing flood risk and would not be sufficiently vulnerable to new and existing surrounding residents.

3.7 Although the site has been identified as being at risk from tidal flooding and over-topping, where mitigation measures are likely to be unfeasible, the Environment Agency appear to be mainly concerned with the effects of surface water disposal and that surface water disposal methods have not shown to be sufficiently managed without having detriment on other properties. This clearly is an important factor as the area is within a highly vulnerable area.

3.8 There have been historic concerns in respect of this particular site and the implications of its suitability for allocation as housing which are reflected in the site allocation document. The Environment Agency's concerns in respect of this particular site now appear to have been addressed by the recent submissions.

Community Facilities

3.9 The North Deal Regeneration Land Search and Delivery Development Appraisals were concluded in September 2008. They verified the need for a GP facility and community facilities. The GP facility in this location is supported by the PCT as part of their wider plan. These needs are reflected in the Core Strategy. In this instance, it is considered that the provision of new facilities at least for part of the infrastructure for which there is an identified need is justified due to the lack of existing facilities in North Deal. The total floor space identified as being needed was around 1150 sq m. This application proposals some 850 sq m floor space. This includes 442 sq m for a GP surgery and 409 sq m in the community centre, which includes space for 3 halls, offices, cafe and social space.

3.10 It is assumed that leisure courts identified in the survey refer to badminton/squash courts. Buildings containing this type of facility are usually expansive. The proposal does not include provision for leisure courts. It is assumed that such community facilities were not included in these proposals as an operator could not be found. It is also likely that such leisure courts would in any case result in a significant demand for parking spaces, something that would be difficult to provide on a fairly small urban site within a constrained primarily residential area. Leisure Courts are better placed on a site which would not be so constrained by surrounding residential streets and properties.

3.11 If the amount of leisure court space is deducted from the overall total of floor space proposed there is little difference between the floor space proposed in the application (850 sq m) and the appraisal (830 sq m). Indeed, the proposed floor space to provide needed community facilities and a doctor’s surgery here is greater. The North Deal Community Company has confirmed that the submitted proposals are sufficient to meet the immediate needs of the surrounding community.

3.12 The Core Strategy identifies the need for community facilities and a Doctor's surgery in North Deal. Policy CP6 refers to the importance of providing needed community infrastructure, such as community facilities and doctor’s surgery. The applicants have submitted letters of support from the EKPCT in respect of the provision of a doctor’s

surgery and North Deal Community Company in the provision of the community facilities. The Community Development Manager is satisfied that the current proposal is satisfactory, and sufficiently meets identified needs providing there is certainty over its provision

3.13 There is no existing capacity in the vicinity of the site to meet the needs of the existing community. As there is an acknowledged deficit, there is no potential to reduce demand which would be sustainable in promoting behavioural change. Therefore, the only alternative is to provide new infrastructure. The deficit of leisure courts is not considered to outweigh the significant benefits that the community centre and doctor’s surgery would bring. The provision of these facilities is enabled by the provision of the residential development element of the scheme.

3.14 It is a long standing aim of the Council to have the site remediated and regenerate the site to meet the identified community use and GP surgery needs of the surrounding residents.

3.15 The provision of a high density development here would be in accordance with current Development Plan policies and Government aims. The use of brownfield land for residential development, at a suitable density, where the context is appropriate, is considered to be the best use of land, relieving pressure on greenfield sites. The provision of dwellings on this site also contributes towards the District's housing allocation targets for Deal. Equally the provision of community facilities and the GP surgery would make a very positive contribution towards the infrastructure provision available in the North Deal area. It is therefore considered that the proposals to provide dwellings and community facilities and the GP surgery are acceptable in policy terms.

Design and Layout of Development, Street Scene and Built Environment

3.16 PPS1 and PPS3 refer to the importance of achieving qualitative and good design as it contributes towards the creation of sustainable and mixed community aims to make places better for people. Development is, therefore, expected to be designed to take into account the context of its surroundings and provide improvement to an area. Manual for Streets identifies that traditional street patterns strengthen a community where links and connectivity contribute significantly to the quality of the built environment. The Local Plan expects development to create a locally appropriate sense of place which has variety in design, is energy efficient and avoids standard estate layouts.

3.17 It was originally intended to retain part of the existing perimeter wall and use it as a feature of the development as it is such a strong and prevailing feature here. However, after due consideration and consultation, it was concluded that the development needed to reflect a more compatible and contextual form by creating a more traditional terraced dwelling form. The proposal, therefore, includes demolition of the wall.

3.18 The community and doctor’s surgery building would be located on a key frontage to the site in Golf Road. They are for the most part single storey. It is of concern that the entrance to these facilities is slightly set back from the road front as this presents are rather weaker face to these buildings which have an important community function.However, the design reason for this is so that a gentle ramped access can be provided from street level to the slightly higher than street level internal floor area. Nonetheless, the overall finish and detail to these buildings are fairly well integrated into the street front here and relate well to the attached and neighbouring dwellings. The neighbouring houses have a stronger presence facing onto the street. A more contemporary designed and detailed row of houses will lie to the south, but this row relates well to the community buildings in terms of features. Beyond this row further south it is proposed to provide a three storey terrace of dwellings which are of a more traditional appearance and relate well to the neighbouring existing terraced row beyond. Vehicle access is to the rear from the internal road. All these houses have rear gardens.

3.19 A pedestrian link between the community buildings and contemporary row to the south will provide connectivity from Golf Road into the site through to Cannon Street.

3.20 Buildings to the north of the community buildings graduate in height and provide houses incorporating the traditional appearance of a terraced row of three storey dwellings towards the corner of Cannon Street. Roofs are a mix of parapet and gable to those dwellings with a more traditional finish and the more modern row incorporates hips. Buildings along the entire street front are designed with gaps, articulation and a variation of height and roof form which reflects the variety of form and scale of existing buildings along this street front. Overall, the proposal integrates the development into the surrounding street scene in terms of its scale, form and appearance.

3.21 The scheme turns the corner into Cannon Street with 3 storey gable roof buildings creating two large dwellings. There is a short gap between these buildings, in-filled with a 2m high brick wall and then a further two 3 storey terraced houses. Vehicle access into the site is sited in the existing site access position. A short row of three storey houses and then a two storey double fronted house finish off this row. The row is successful in its form and scale and has strength in its appearance, graduating down to a comparable height to the neighbouring existing dwelling to the east. Cannon Street itself has a mix of building types of varying scales at its western end, but the simple and traditional form of the new buildings would ensure a satisfactory and sympathetic integration.

3.22 Parking for this “block” of dwellings is integral and communal and is accessed off the internal street from Cannon Street. Communal gardens are proposed to the rear of this block, but all houses would have a private balcony area. This layout and amenity space provision is unusual and not in strict accord with Policy DD4 which requires family houses to have private amenity space. But, it is considered, the innovative combination of semi-private space and private balconies will compensate.

3.23 At present the site is enclosed by a high brick wall which would be demolished. The loss of this wall is a pity as it is a “historic” feature here. However, the new buildings themselves, which are only slightly set back from the pavement edge, would provide a strong perception of enclosure to the site. The perimeter design, function, scale and features of the new buildings are largely considered to be successful.

3.24 The development turns the corner from Cannon Street by a development of flats which run alongside the eastern edge of the access road and rises to four storeys in height. The four storey buildings have glazed penthouse top floors. An arch straddles private access to a rear parking and semi private courtyard area. This row curves around the internal corner following the street alignment. The row falls to three storey houses as it runs eastwards. The development fans out into small terraced rows with parking courts and a large square towards the eastern end of the development. The southern edge of the street is lined with further terraced rows with parking accessed to the rear through a further gated arch. Two dwellings are located to the rear of the main terraced row. A further two dwellings are located alongside the western side of the access road from Cannon Street. The varied scale and form of buildings, when viewed from the interior of the site, would give variety to the streetscape.

3.25 Raised pavements have been incorporated into parts of the development, effectively raising the thresholds of dwellings by some 300 – 700mm. The applicants have sought to introduce this feature to overcome effects of flooding on residents within the site. This feature has introduced an interesting and innovative solution as a design concept to the development and also includes railings that would run alongside pavement edges.

3.26 A couple of bin and cycle stores have been incorporated into the development. These have been sympathetically designed and located and would not be significant features in the street.

3.27 A small area of amenity space is provided to the rear of the community buildings. This would provide a small overlooked children’s play area for the community building.

3.28 Proposed materials and finishes will incorporate primarily brick, render, clay tiles and slate to most residential buildings, although there is some reference to the introduction of timber boarding. The applicants have advised that any boarding would be used sparingly and in key locations. Whilst the use of traditional materials and finishes are appropriate in this location, as they will help the development blend in with the context of the surroundings better, the use of timber boarding will have to be carefully controlled with regards to its specification. However, it is considered that the appropriate use of conditions will allow a sufficient level of control over the resultant finishes. In addition a variety of finishes, if appropriate, can contribute to a development.

3.29 The scale of openings, windows and doors would reflect traditional sizes, rhythms and scale and would be in proportion with the dwellings/buildings they serve.

3.30 Overall, the development revolves around traditional street patterns, which is entirely appropriate in this location. It does, however, include areas of interest in the form of spaces/squares, gaps and detailing, materials and finishes which contribute to the sense of the place. Buildings are generally of a vertical proportion but of varying heights which adds to the perception of traditional street enclosure. The pedestrian link from Golf Road through the development to Cannon Street will ensure that the development is permeable and contributes towards the connectivity of the area in providing the link. The pedestrian link will be an added benefit and would be likely to encourage pedestrians through the development, further integrating the new development into the existing urban fabric. A single vehicle access onto Cannon Street is considered appropriate. Car parking areas are, for the most part, located so they will not be a dominant feature. On-road parking for casual visitors again reflects the traditional street function and due to street design and scale will add to the calming function.

3.31 The drawings submitted are not especially detailed and conditions can be attached to require more detailed drawings to be submitted with regards in particular to window and door finishes and building edge treatments.

3.32 It is considered that the development is acceptable in design and layout terms. It would create its own distinct sense of place, but would not be out of place in the surrounding context.

Amount, Density and Dwelling Types

3.33 Government policy requires the best use to be made of development land. New development, therefore, is expected to provide some 40 dwellings per hectare as a minimum. This figure is reflected through the SEP and Core Strategy. The DDLP was adopted in 2002, before PPS3 was issued and does not set a specific density level. In this case, the development proposes 61 dwellings per hectare. This has been achieved by providing a high density of flats in the centre of the site, due to the well-considered layout of the scheme and the use of four storey buildings. However, the high density level has not resulted in the perception of “too much” development. It still relates well to the grain of the surrounding area and includes open spaces and importantly incorporates space around buildings.

3.34 PPS3 identifies that a development should provide a good mix of dwelling types to meet the varying needs of a community. It also sets out that justification for the numbers of house types should be justified. The recent SHMA (Strategic Housing Market Assessment) sets out that there is a market demand in the District for 35% 1 bed units, 40% 2 bed units, 20% 3 bed units and 5% 4 bed units. This development proposes 6 x 1 bed apartments (8%), 16 x 2 bed apartments and 6 x 2 bed duplexes (assume apartments) (33%), 26 x 3 bed houses (37%)

and 15 x 4 bed houses (22%). The proposal does not include any affordable units.

3.35 There is a deficit of 2 bed houses – for which the core strategy has identified there is a 40% need. At the time of writing this report, the applicant has not submitted evidence to show why 2 bed houses are not being provided. However, there is a good mix of dwelling types within the development and some 31% are 2 bed units which would overall provide accommodation for a wide spread of types of occupants. There are one and two bed flats, as well as 3 and 4 bed houses. It is considered overall the mix would contribute towards variety in the resultant community which is an aim of PPS3 and the SEP. The numbers and types of dwellings are at the time of writing this report, however, subject to change.

Renewables/Sustainable Construction

3.36 All residential development is expected to meet the Code for Sustainable Homes level 3 and non-residential buildings (with a floor area in excess of 1000sq.m) are expected to comply with BREEAM very good rating, in accordance with the appropriate policies in force. The aim is also for development to ensure there is a reduction in the consumption of resources. The proposal intends to achieve code level 3 for the residential element and identifies that as the non-residential building is less than 1000 sq m, the BREEAM requirement would not apply.

3.37 Certificates can be required to ensure the residential development meets code level 3. It is disappointing that there seems to be little attempt to meet the BREEAM rating. However, as the scheme overall seeks to employ modern methods of construction, utilize natural ventilation, heating and lighting opportunities and is considering the use of ground source energy and solar panels (subject to the necessary consents), overall the development is acceptable in terms of complying with current policy requirements.

3.38 The application includes reference to the provision of SUDs as part of the drainage strategy which would contribute towards the sustainable credentials of the application.

Effects on Residential Amenity

3.39 The development has been so designed and laid out deliberately to avoid harmful effects on neighbouring residents. The scale of development, in particular along the main Cannon Street and Golf Road frontages, generally reflects the character and scale of the existing street. The development within the site would not result in any undue or adverse overlooking due to adequate privacy distances being provided and would be without windows overlooking neighbouring occupants. The layout of the development would ensure a sense of spaciousness and provide physical distances between buildings and neighbouring buildings.

3.40 The community facilities and GP Surgery would occupy a more central space along the main road frontage, which would not affect the residential amenities of existing occupants.

3.41 Vehicle access to the site would be through an existing access onto Cannon Street. Vehicle parking would be contained within parking courts and on-street. Parking for the community building and surgery is provided within the site. It is likely, due to the location of the community building and surgery within the site, that any additional parking would be contained within the site alongside new roads.

3.42 Accordingly, once the building works are complete, the development and related activity would not cause harm to the residential and visual amenities of the street scene and neighbouring occupants.

Highways

3.43 There would be 5 parking spaces for the community building, the doctor’s surgery would have 12 spaces. It is proposed to provide 1 space for each 1 and 2 bed flat/apartment, 1.5 spaces for 3 bed houses and 2 spaces per 4 bed houses. Each house would have its own parking space. Other spaces are proposed on road or in communal parking court areas. A secure bicycle parking space is proposed for each flat. Houses would provide their own cycle parking areas.

3.44 98 spaces are proposed overall for the residential development which is 14 spaces more than would be required under the Core Strategy. 17 spaces are proposed for the community facility and GP surgery. However, this is subject to change

3.45 The expectation is that local people who use the community centre and GP surgery would be within walking distance.

3.46 County Highways have expressed concern over the inadequacy of car parking spaces within the site for the community facility and doctor's surgery. They are also concerned at the location in some cases of allocated car parking spaces to the dwellings they would serve. There is added concern over the road width through the development in allowing adequate access to service vehicles such as pantechnicons and the emergency services.

3.47 Additional concerns are those of the effects of car parking in Golf Road and the siting of the existing bus stop and over provision of cycle storage facilities. County Highways appear to be seeking a contribution towards providing waiting restrictions in Golf Road and to re-site the bus stop.

3.48 At the time of writing this report it appears that these matters will be addressed at a meeting scheduled to take place in early December as the applicants now appear to be considering a redesign of the scheme. At present they are unresolved.

3.49 Having said that, some contradiction is apparent as it is understood that Stagecoach is considering stopping the service along Golf Road.

If this is the case, there is no provision made in the application to deal with this issue and indeed it may be a that a waiting restriction order and resiting of the bus stop would not be required.

3.50 These matters will be updated where possible at your meeting.

Open Space/Play Space Provision

3.51 PPG17 refers to the contribution that open space makes on a whole range of life qualities and advises they are multi-functional with regards to the environment, health and visual amenity. Open space contributes towards providing opportunities for both informal and formal sports, recreational uses and activities.

3.52 Where a development cannot provide sufficient open space on a development site, a contribution is normally sought.

3.53 It has been established that the North Deal area is deficient in the amount of open space it currently provides to residents. The original master plan proposed an area of open space within the development site, although it is not clear exactly how much, but it appears to have been around 400 sq m (ie. the size of a LEAP). This would amount to a play space

3.54 This has not been carried through into this application. In this case the applicant sets out that there are insufficient funds to meet the normal requirements for open/play space.

3.55 Where off-site provision can be made a contribution which equates to the needs generated by the development is normally sought. The North Deal playing fields have been identified as being a suitable location for the provision of at least improved facilities. At the time of writing this report, the Leisure Services Manager has confirmed that an initial contribution of around £68.000 would be required to make adequate play provision/facilities available for the 0-8 year old age group which is where the shortage of facilities lies. The maintenance costs for a 15 year period would be around £51,000.

3.56 It has to be borne in mind in considering the issue of suitable contributions, that there has to be an evidenced need generated by the development for whatever purpose a contribution is sought, as well as complying with the other tests as set out above. It is recognised that there is an overall open space/play space deficit for the North Deal area, but there is also the need to ensure that contributions in the first place are geared towards improving facilities that already exist (in accordance with the “Manage and Invest” aims of the SEP) rather than providing new infrastructure. As there are facilities at the existing playing field, a financial contribution towards their improvement may be a proportionate approach in achieving qualitative and quantitative improvements and enhancements to existing infrastructure.

3.57 In considering the estimates set out by the Leisure Services Manager it is accepted that there would be deterioration and associated management and maintenance costs over the next 15 years, but it is

difficult to evidence this effect being directly related to the development here. Overall, if there are funds available it is only the provision and improvement of facilities that are likely to be supported by the development, not its management and maintenance for 15 years.

3.58 Advice is being sought through an assessment of the applicants' financial appraisal as to whether there is sufficient headroom within the development to make a contribution to much needed provision.

3.59 Unless sufficient funds can be found, at present the development is deficient in this respect and, therefore, contrary to policy OS2 of the DDLP and the aims of PPS17.

3.60 If there is identified headroom for contributions towards related facilities then this matter will be the subject of further negotiations with the applicants. If there is no headroom as such then it will be necessary to consider the best use of contributions that are on offer. The applicant has confirmed that the existing sum of £89,000, currently allocated in the S106 towards KASS (Kent Adult Social Services) can be utilized if the Council so decides towards whatever area of need it sees fit. This is something to bear in mind and which will also have to be considered alongside the outcome of the financial viability appraisal and the potential changes that the applicant has suggested might be made to the proposals.

3.61 An update on this matter can be given at your meeting where possible.

Affordable Housing

3.62 The Housing Initiatives Manager is concerned that a need for affordable housing has been identified in North Deal, but that the proposal makes no provision.

3.63 The Regional Spatial Strategy Affordable Housing Policy 2011-2016 seeks 30% of total housing completions to be affordable. This equates to at least 3,030 affordable homes by 2026 and 4,200 in relation to the Strategy's total provision of 14,000 homes for the District.

3.64 The Strategic Housing Market Assessment shows that need for affordable housing has grown and at 2008 there was a need to provide around an additional 1,450 affordable homes per year for 10 years to remove the backlog of need (which accounts for around 60% of total need).

3.65 The Council would, to fulfil an evidenced need, normally look for development to provide a minimum of 30% affordable homes which reflects Government advice in PPS3. Failing that the expectation would be for a suitable financial contribution to be made for off-site provision. However, as set out in the Core Strategy, the exact amount of affordable housing, or financial contribution, to be delivered from any specific scheme will be determined by economic viability having regard to individual site and market conditions.

3.66 The Core Strategy policy allows for negotiation to be carried out in the provision for affordable housing on a site which can be determined by the viability of a proposal. An appraisal of the financial viability of the scheme in all respects is now under consideration. It may be that the appraisal will show the site can afford to accommodate some affordable units. This, however, may result in changes being made to the design and layout of the development. If the conclusions of the viability assessment shows there is some headroom for a “contribution” (rather than physical provision on site) towards off-site provision the Council currently has no policy basis for collecting, pooling and directing such contributions. At present there is no mechanism or method for any contribution to be made towards a “pool” of funds for off-site affordable provision. A Delivery Plan for affordable housing is being developed which in the future will show where affordable housing can be provided. It is hoped the SPD in respect of contributions will be setting out a suitable mechanism for the collection of and pooling of contributions so that there is some evidence or policy basis on which the Council can base its approach. At present, however, this is not in place. Without this and without a proper evidence-based approach or policy it is not considered there is sufficient justification, in this instance to require a contribution to be sought. Alternately, if the viability appraisal shows that there is sufficient headroom to make provision on site for some affordable units on the site, and if the applicants are now considering providing affordable units on the site, then further negotiations with the applicants will be necessary.

3.67 If the evidence is lacking conclusively on this point, the application as it stands is considered to be contrary to PPS3, the SEP, Local Plan Policy HS9 and other Council housing strategies. In conclusion on this matter, however any lack of provision has to be balanced against other policy criteria and the benefits the application would bring, such as other contributions the applicant is offering and the provision of and financial support for community facilities and whether these benefits outweighs this need.

3.68 This matter is however subject to change and an update can be given, where possible at your meeting.

Contributions and Obligations/Legal Agreement

3.69 Mouchel has made a request for around £89,000 towards deficiencies in adult social services. Clarity and evidence has been sought from Mouchel to show that their requests can be supported and that the contributions they are seeking comply with the tests set out in the Circular.

3.70 Mouchel have requested £227 from each eligible dwelling as a contribution towards library facilities (£14,000) and £1201 per dwelling towards adult changing facilities (£75,000). There is no request for contributions towards education.

3.71 They have supported their request by saying that the library contribution would be towards a lift at Deal library which would enable

access to an existing first floor and that the adult changing facility would also be provided at Deal library.

3.72 It is apparent that there is existing floor space capacity at the library. Mouchel have confirmed that the works to provide the lift are already anticipated to commence in February 2010, and it is therefore not clear how the costs of provision of a lift can be said to be a need reasonably generated from the proposal, which has yet to be determined. This contribution is therefore not considered to be justified even proportionately as the lift is to be provided in any case (and therefore must already be accounted for). This request does not meet the tests set out in circular 05/05.

3.73 The adult changing facility would also be provided at Deal library. There is however, no evidence to show that this facility would serve a need directly related to and generated by this development, even proportionately

3.74 As set out above the Circular says that “Planning obligations should never be used purely as a means of securing for the local community a share in the profits of development, i.e. as a means of securing a "betterment levy". It would seem that the requests from Kent Adult Social Services would also fall into this category.

3.75 Whilst the aspirations and aims of Kent Adult Social Services are recognised, in this case it is not considered justified to require contributions from the development towards their requirements or towards facilities at the Deal library. Further discussion on this issue can be undertaken with the County Council but any level of contribution is dependant on the outcome of the financial viability appraisal and consideration of where any contributions can be best directed.

3.76 The issue of contributions towards the North Deal Playing field play equipment and facilities is discussed above. It is considered that,as the provision of those facilities can potentially be evidenced and justified by the development proposals, any contributions made should be directed towards this provision in the first instance.

3.77 A draft S106 Agreement has been submitted with the application. It is being discussed with the applicants by your officers. However, changes are likely to be made in respect of redirected contributions. In addition, the outcome of the financial viability appraisal will give a clearer picture with regards to potential for contributions to be made towards, for example, affordable housing and open/play space – as set out above.

3.78 It is also intended that the S106 Agreement will identify timing for the provision of the community facilities and doctors’ surgery. A cash flow is likely to have to be generated before they can be provided. Your officers can ensure through appropriate wording in the legal agreement that facilities are provided as early as possible, although it will be necessary to use the resultant financial appraisal results to understand when these services can be provided. This would also be

something that will have to be discussed with the applicants once all matters and/or changes to the scheme have been clarified.

3.79 A contribution of £10,000 a year for a period of 10 years is also currently offered towards the running and up-keep of the community facilities.

Other Matters for Consideration

Employment

3.80 The development will provide a limited number of job opportunities within the community centre and GP surgery. The new uses would not seriously prejudice the availability of employment land and they would bring significant environmental and community benefits. In this instance, it is considered that any conflict with employment policies would be outweighed by the benefits the community facilities within the development would bring. Thus, the development would be Policy LE1 compliant.

Noise and Pollution

3.81 There are no implications. The site once remediated will be returned to an acceptable condition to enable its use for an alternative purpose. Conditions can be attached which would satisfactorily link the development to the earlier extant remediation consent, to ensure continuity and certainty in remediation works. Environmental Health and the Environment Agency are satisfied with this approach

Ecology

3.82 The application has been accompanied by a bat survey which is satisfactory. There are no other ecology implications.

Management and maintenance of public realm

3.83 Details of how the public realm will be managed and maintained can be required by condition.

Conclusion

3.84 The Environment Agency has confirmed it has no objection to the development. The development proposals seek to make best use of brownfield land and would contribute towards the housing allocation for Deal. The proposal would make a positive contribution towards community facilities for the wider North Deal area. The redevelopment of the site would certainly make a contribution to towards enhancing the visual and residential amenities of the area by improving a currently derelict site whose condition currently detracts from the area. The remediation and decontamination that are underway would result in environmental improvements.

3.85 Taking into account Government and Development Plan policies and in recognition of local aspirations, the development for residential use and for the provision of the community facilities and doctors surgery is

acceptable in principle. However there remain a number of areas of concern.

3.86 At the time of writing the report and apparently due to the late receipt of County Highways comments the applicant is now seeking to amend the proposals. A meeting is scheduled to be held prior to the Committee meeting to discuss their requirements. It is understood that this may mean a loss of a number of units to provide additional car parking for the community and doctor's buildings, and may also include the provision of some affordable units. However no clear detail has yet emerged.

3.87 Any alterations to the scheme which changes the number of units and type will potentially affect the potential viability of the scheme. This may well affect the results of the financial appraisal and the contributions offered. Fewer units and a different type of unit (such as affordable houses) could well mean less funds would be available. Important Consultees may have to be consulted as changes may affect their responses. If affordable housing was included then the amount and unit type would have to be considered by the Housing Initiatives Manager. If Members decided that contributions should be directed towards open/play space provision then this contribution amount might be affected.

3.88 The financial viability appraisal conclusions are in any case still awaited. They would otherwise inform the direction that should be taken on any contribution towards affordable housing provision. The issue of how to provide for open space, which is a key area of need, is still to be resolved. At this stage, the contributions sought by the County Council have not been justified in accordance with SEP policy and the advice in Circular 05/05.

3.89 The applicants have advised they are satisfied for the Council to determine what type of infrastructure the contributions can be used towards. It would seem, therefore, that subject to the Leisure Service Manager's requirements and evidence which must show that any contribution which can be directly linked to the development such as open /play space, then the contribution identified by the applicants can be re-directed accordingly.

3.90 It may be that a contribution towards open space improvements and enhancements would be available, and the results of the financial viability appraisal will show whether there is any headroom to make on-site affordable housing provision. However, if it is shown there is no available funding then it is considered that the overall benefits brought by the development outweigh this deficiency.

3.91 Members will appreciate that a number of important issues remain outstanding. It is hoped to report further at the meeting. However, at this stage, your officers are confident that, subject to these being resolved satisfactorily, the application can be recommended for approval. Consideration has been given to all third party comments. This is an important development on a site which has long been recognised as being a blot on the local environment and requiring redevelopment and in an area where there is an acknowledged

community need. This is unlikely to be achieved if an over-purist approach is taken on all elements of the scheme. A balancing decision is therefore required.

g) Recommendation

I Subject to the satisfactory resolution of all outstanding matters (including the design and content of the final scheme, the identification of what contributions are available and what they should be put towards, the negotiation of a suitably worded legal agreement to secure appropriate timing for provision of the community facilities and doctor's surgery, parking and the results of any subsequent re-consultations on any amended scheme, the Development Control Manager be authorised to grant planning permission, subject to conditions which will include the following issues and any others which are necessary in the light of resolution of the outstanding matters:-

Time.

Phasing plan or programme.

Public Realm Management and Maintenance.

Materials.

Details showing door and window recesses and building detail – such as string courses and returns.

Hard/soft landscaping including boundary treatments.

Surface materials to street/parking areas

Removal of permitted development rights where appropriate, ie. for the insertion of windows.

Bin and cycle stores.

Construction vehicle routing.

Parking provision and protection.

Flooding – permeable materials for surfaces and other mitigation measures.

Case Officer

Lesley Jarvis

10. a) DOV/09/0888 – Installation of replacement windows, sub-sills and doors, alterations to rear fenestration and installation of solar panels to rear roof slope, Gorely Almshouses, Cowgate Hill, Dover


Refuse planning permission.


Dover District Local Plan (DDLP): Policy DD1South East Plan (SEP): Policies BE6 and CC4Planning Policy Guidance (PPG) 15: Planning and the Historic Environment Planning Policy Guidance (PPG) 16: Archaeology and PlanningPlanning Policy Statement (PPS) 22: Renewable Energy


DOV/09/0663 - Conversion of Flats 1A, 1B, 20A and 20B to two dwellings – Granted.


Environmental Health comments: Awaited.

Conservation Comments: This is an important building in the Conservation Area, prominent when viewed from above on the Western Heights. With regards to the windows and proposed doors, no objection subject to appropriate detailing. An objection is raised to the proposed solar panels –they would be very large features on the roof slope and would be out of scale with other features on the building. Fails to see how they will preserve or enhance the character or appearance of this part of the Conservation Area, but will detract from it. In view of this cannot support this part of the scheme.

County Archaeologist: Views awaited.

Dover Town Council: Views awaited.

Public Representations: A Member has raised objection to the scheme –cannot see how the proposal is detrimental to the building; the roof line will not be seen from the small footpath which runs behind the properties and does not impinge on the cemetery. Suggests a site visit may be required.


1.1 The site is located on Cowgate Hill, fronting Albany Place. It is occupied by 24 self contained flats on the ground and first floors, providing accommodation for elderly people.

1.2 The site is in the designated Western Heights Conservation Area and is close to two Scheduled Ancient Monuments. The topography of the site is varied and slopes from east to west. It is accessed off a narrow road, Cowgate Hill. A row of terrace properties are sited to the side of Gorley House, on the opposite side of Cowgate Hill and to the rear lie a footpath and a cemetery.

1.3 The building is of flint under a slate roof. It is one of a few sites owned by the Municipal Charities of Dover which also include the nearby Albany House, Battle of Britain Homes and numbers 1-7 Cowgate Hill, which are all sited to the east of the site. In total the charity provides approximately 88 flats for elderly people.

1.4 The application seeks full planning permission for the installation of replacement windows, sub-sills and doors, alterations to the rear fenestration and the installation of solar panels to the rear roof slope. Other alterations are internal only.

1.5 The windows are proposed to be replaced by timber double glazed units to match the existing. Similarly, the replacement front doors are proposed to be of painted timber and frames to match the existing doors. To the rear of the site each ground floor flat has a rear facing window; it is proposed to replace these with timber painted doors, each with a sidelight. The door sub-sills would be of reconstituted stone to help resolve dampness.

1.6 The proposed solar panels to the rear roof slope would measure 3.2 metres in width and 1.7 metres in depth. There would be a total of 5 panels running across the whole building. The panels would be black and located on the artificial slate covering.


2. Planning Policy

2.1 DDLP Policy DD1 states that proposals for development will not be permitted unless they are acceptable in terms of, amongst other things, layout and functional needs of the development, siting, massing and scale of the new buildings, architectural style and materials, spatial and visual character of the surrounding area and landform and landscaping.

2.2 SEP Policy CC4 addresses sustainable design and construction including design to increase the use of natural heat.

2.3 SEP Policy BE6 that proposals which protect, conserve and where appropriate enhance the historic environment and the contribution it makes to local distinctiveness and sense of place should be supported.

2.4 PPG15 advises that planning decisions in respect of development proposed to be carried out in a Conservation Area must give a high priority to the objective of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the area. PPG16 has somewhat similar advice on the setting of Scheduled Ancient Monuments.

2.5 PPS22 states as a key principle “The wider environmental and economic benefits of all proposals for renewable energy projects, whatever their scale, are material considerations that should be given significant weight in determining whether proposals should be granted planning permission.”

However, this advice goes on to state as a further key principle:-

“Development proposals should demonstrate any environmental, economic and social benefits as well as how any environmental and social impacts have been minimized through careful consideration of location, scale, design and other measures.”

2.6 PPS22 also states that, at sites with nationally recognized designations such as Conservation Areas, planning permission for renewable energy projects should only be granted where it can be demonstrated that the objectives of designation will not be compromised by the development, and any significant adverse effects on the qualities reflected in designation are clearly outweighed by the environmental, social and economic benefits.

3. Assessment

3.1 The principal planning consideration here is whether the proposals have any adverse impact upon the character of the Conservation Area or setting of nearby monuments.

3.2 The scheme proposes various alterations to the Almshouse, which are detailed above. The proposed replacement windows, doors and sills are acceptable in principle. However, it is not considered that the solar roof panels are acceptable. The agents have been asked to consider removing them from the application but have stated that they would like them to be considered as part of the scheme.

3.3 The scheme proposes alterations to the rear roof slope of the property to provide five panels of collectors, each of some 5.4 square meters. The rear elevation of the terrace faces towards the Cowgate Cemetery, the remaining part of the Conservation Area and one of the Scheduled Ancient Monuments. The property is clearly visible from the Western Heights and the size of the panels proposed will make them very apparent in these views. As large individual features, they would be out of scale with the building and a jarring element when seen from the rear.

3.4 The proposed solar panels would have little impact upon the amenities of neighbouring properties. However, policy considerations and Government advice are that sources of renewable energy should be encouraged but not at the expense of nationally recognised designations such as Conservation Areas.

3.5 In this particular form and being located on the roof of the property, the solar panels would fail to preserve or enhance is the character or appearance of this part of the Conservation Area; indeed, they would detract from it.

3.6 The recommendation reflects a balance of considerations; it is considered that Conservation Area factors should prevail. The views of the County Archaeologist on the setting of the Scheduled Ancient Monuments are awaited.

g) Recommendation

I PERMISSION BE REFUSED on the ground:- The proposed solar water heating collectors, by virtue of their size and siting on the west facing roof slope, would appear as prominent and incongruous features which would fail to preserve or enhance the appearance and character of the Conservation Area. The proposal is accordingly contrary to Policy DD1 of the Dover District Local Plan and Policy BE6 of the South East Plan.

II The applicant BE ADVISED that it may be appropriate to resubmit the application omitting the solar panels and to seek an alternative for renewable energy, such as ground source heat pumps.

Case Officer

Abi Robinson

11. a) DOV/09/0900 – Conversion of garage to habitable room, 9 The Ridgeway, River


Grant planning permission.


Dover District Local Plan (DDLP): Policy DD1


None.


County Highways: If approved recommends condition to secure parking (PA18).

River Parish Council: No objections.

Public Representations: A Ward Member objects. The site is on a bus route and a hill. There are already problems with parking as many people do not park off-road. Parking in River is getting out of hand.


1.1 The application site comprises a detached property, which has a part brick and part cream rendered finish to the front elevation. The dwelling is situated within a residential area. There is an integral garage to the west of the property which is set back from the road and has a driveway that runs direct to the highway.

1.2 The garden to the front of the property is predominately paved and is used for parking, with little hedgerow, which is the norm within the street scene.

1.3 The proposal seeks planning permission for the conversion of the garage to a habitable room. It is proposed to change the garage door to a window and matching brickwork. Three parking spaces are to be provided to the front of the house on the existing hardstanding.


2. Planning Policy

2.1 DDLP Policy DD1 seeks to ensure that development is appropriate in terms of siting, massing, scale, design and materials, and has no adverse impact on the visual character of the surrounding area, or on the residential amenity of neighbouring properties.

3. Assessment

3.1 The principal consideration here is whether the proposal respects the visual character of the area.

3.2 The proposed development is not the norm within the street scene, as no other garages have been converted. However, it is considered that, with three parking spaces provided, no adverse harm will be caused by the conversion.

3.3 The conversion would not have any adverse impact on the residential amenities of the neighbouring properties; no extensions are proposed and the neighbouring property to the west is set at a higher level.

3.4 It is not considered that the granting of this proposal will necessarily create a precedent within the street scene for garage conversions, partly due to the already varying styles of dwellings that differ in size and colour. There would be sufficient parking space to the front of the property once the garage has been converted, which would help to alleviate any issues with on street parking.

3.5 As such, it is considered that the conversion will not have a detrimental impact on the character or appearance of the public realm.

g) Recommendation

I PERMISSION BE GIVEN, subject to the following conditions:- (i) DP08; (ii) MA01.

Case Officer

Kerri Bland

12. a) DOV/09/0915 – Erection of a detached building incorporating a mixed use of residential dwelling and bed and breakfast and an attached garage, land between Look Cottage and Rose Cottage, The Forstal, Preston


Planning permission be refused.


Dover District Local Plan (DDLP): Policies LE19, TR1, TR2, CO1, DD1, DD4 and HS1South East Plan (SEP): Policies CC1, CC4, CC6, NRM5, C4, TSR2 and TSR5PPS1, PPS3, PPS7 and PPG13


None relevant.


County Highways: The site lies outside the confines of the village and the development would therefore be contrary to Policy TR1 of the Local Plan and Planning Policy Guidance 13, both of which promote sustainable transport. Had the application been acceptable in policy terms, would have requested improvements to the sight lines on the driveway. The present entrance has poor visibility and would not have generated the level of movements likely from the proposal.

Ecology Comments: The local wildlife site is some distance away, without connection to the proposed development site.

Environment Agency: No comments.

Southern Water: No comments.

Preston Parish Council: No objection.

CPRE: Objects to the scheme, stating that the claim that the site is a brown-field site is tenuous and the appearance of the land suggests that it is former farmland. The proposed building is very large and would have an effect on the adjacent historic thatched cottage to the east.

Public Representations: One letter of support has been received, stating that the dwelling is consistent with the varied mix of properties in The Forstal. The scale of the house and its spacing from the adjacent properties matches the density of housing in The Forstal in general and at this end of the road in particular. The applicants have also planted a number of new trees on the boundaries of the site. The architect intends to use sustainable natural materials in the construction of the building. The house would provide enhanced disability access, meet a wider range of need in local tourism and contribute to the local economy. The application is consistent with the Parish

Council's support for appropriate housing development to help sustain local services, shops, the pub and local employment opportunities.


1.1 The application site relates to a plot of land just outside the village confines of Preston. The site has a road frontage onto The Forstal of about 57m and there is a row of trees along part of the front boundaries of the site and Rose Cottage to its east. The application site is about 50m in depth, wrapping around the rear of the residential curtilage of Rose Cottage and forming part of the side boundary of Forstal House.

1.2 Rose Cottage, adjacent to the site, is a cream painted, brick cottage under a thatched roof. Look Cottage, to the west of the site, is a painted brick building under a tiled roof, currently being extended and on slightly raised ground.

1.3 There is an apple orchard to the north of the site, with a hard-standing area and a corrugated barn opposite Rose Cottage.

1.4 Fields lie to the south of the application site and views of the plot can be attained across the field from along Court Lane to the south.

1.5 The site itself contains a number of small weather-boarded buildings, including stables, hay stores and tack rooms, dog kennels, an open barn and the remains of a greenhouse.

1.6 The proposal seeks full planning permission for the erection of a large two storey detached dwelling. The dwelling would have a double-pitched roof and a pitched roof attached garage, which would be built to the front of the property, at an angle. The dwelling would be 7.5m in height, 18m in width and 10.5m in depth, but would also have two single storey additions to the side, as well as a conservatory to the rear. Solar panels would be incorporated on the roof slopes. The dwelling would be finished in yellow stock bricks, with painted render and slate cladding, under a slate roof.

1.7 The dwelling would be sited some 15m back from the road, 30m from the side boundary with Look Cottage and 10m from the side boundary with Rose Cottage. The Design and Access Statements sets out that the dwelling has been sited almost equidistant between Rose Cottage and Look Cottage, with the garage intended to relate to the outbuildings of Rose Cottage. It states that the proportions and materials of the proposed dwelling have been chosen carefully to resonate with existing buildings in the vicinity and that the density and spacing of the proposal is consistent. Boundaries of the site would remain unchanged, apart from adjacent to the vehicle access point, so that pedestrian visibility splays can be provided.

1.8 Internally, the dwelling is shown to have a dining room, sitting room, kitchen, guest sitting area and bedroom as well as various utility rooms on the ground floor. At first floor level, there would be three bedrooms, a conservatory and a studio/office, together with associated bath and shower rooms.

1.9 The Design and Access Statement sets out that the applicants provide a bed and breakfast facility from Forstal House and wish to continue this business, but the house has a number of disadvantages, including high heating costs, insufficient provision for guests with disabilities and poor insulation standards. The bed and breakfast use is proposed to continue from within the new dwelling.

1.10 The house would achieve a standard in excess of level 3 of the Code for Sustainable Homes.

1.11 The application has been called-in by a Member, on the grounds that the application represents an excellent and positive contribution to the Council’s economic development in terms of green tourism and as there are no other bed and breakfasts in Preston at present. The design and appearance of the development has been extremely well-thought and fits into the street scene, as the majority of the properties in The Forstal are large houses, so will blend in with its surroundings. The relatively large site has been laid out so that the position of the proposed dwelling lies well back from the neighbouring properties. The design has many sustainable technologies.

2. Planning Policy

2.1 SEP Policy CC1 states that the principal objective is to achieve and to maintain sustainable development in the region.


2.3 SEP Policy CC6 sets out that decisions will actively promote the creation of sustainable and distinctive communities.

2.4 SEP Policy NRM5 states that Local Planning Authorities shall avoid a net loss of biodiversity and shall seek to ensure that damage to locally important wildlife sites is avoided.

2.5 SEP Policy C4 states that positive and high quality management of the region’s open countryside will be encouraged and supported and planning authorities should aim to protect and enhance the diversity and local distinctiveness of the region’s landscape.

2.6 SEP Policy TSR2 states that opportunities to promote tourism should be encouraged where they provide jobs for local residents and are of a scale and type appropriate to their location.

2.7 SEP Policy TSR5 sets out that planning authorities should facilitate the upgrading and enhancement of existing un-serviced accommodation, including extensions where this will not harm landscape quality or environmental assets.

2.8 DDLP Policy LE19 states that the on-site expansion of existing businesses in rural areas, by way of extension or redevelopment, will be permitted provided it is within the existing site curtilage, appropriate

in scale and setting and any new buildings are grouped with existing development.

2.9 DDLP Policy TR1 sets out that development which would generate travel will not be permitted outside the urban areas and village confines unless justified by development plan policies.

2.10 DDLP Policy TR2 states that proposals for development will not be permitted unless they are served by an appropriate road network and an acceptable access arrangement.

2.11 DDLP Policy CO1 sets out that development that would result in the loss of, or adversely affect, the countryside will only be permitted if it can be demonstrated that it is justified by the needs of agriculture or it is justified by an overriding need to sustain the rural economy and is of a type which demands a rural location.

2.12 DDLP Policy DD1 provides design criteria for new development and requires, amongst other things, that it is acceptable in terms of layout of development, siting, massing and scale of new buildings, architectural style and materials and spatial and visual character of the surrounding area.

2.13 DDLP Policy DD4 states that amenity space shall be provided commensurate with the size of the dwelling, the character of its surroundings and the protection of amenity interests.

2.14 DDLP Policy HS1 states that housing development will not be permitted on land outside the urban boundaries and village confines.

2.15 PPS1: Delivering Sustainable Development supports sustainable development and emphasizes the need to protect and enhance the quality of the natural environment in rural areas. It states that good design should contribute positively to making places better for people. Development which is inappropriate in its context, or which fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area and the way it functions, should not be accepted.

2.16 PPS3: Housing emphasises that good design is fundamental to the development of high quality new housing, which contributes to the creation of sustainable, mixed communities. A key objective of PPS3 is for Local Authorities to make effective use of land be re-using land that has been previously developed.

2.17 PPS7: Sustainable Development in Rural Areas seeks to promote more sustainable forms of development and states that new housing development in the countryside (including single dwellings) should be strictly controlled.

2.18 PPG13: Transport states that housing should be accommodated principally within existing urban areas and states that in order to promote more sustainable patterns of development, the focus for additional housing should be existing towns.

3. Assessment

3.1 The principal planning issues are:-

• The principle of residential development and a Bed and Breakfast use;

• The impact of the proposal on the surrounding area;

• The impact of the proposal on the residential amenities of neighbours; and

• Highways implications.

The principle of residential development

3.2 The site is located outside of the village confines. Policy sets out thatresidential development is not acceptable on plots outside the confines, unless justified in a way that overrides these policies. PPS7 also sets out that isolated new houses in the countryside require special justification.

3.3 The applicant’s Design and Access Statement acknowledges that the site is outside the village confines as currently designated, but states that the Parish Council in its response to the Draft LDF Core Strategy consultation and in the Preston village Design Statement (2008) has advocated an extension of the confines in view of the LDF Core Strategy’s recognition of Preston as a village suitable for a modest scale of development.

3.4 Preston Parish Council made representations to the Preferred Options Core Strategy and Site Allocations Document in 2008, but did not make any comments for the Core Strategy Submission Document this year. Its objections related to the non-allocation of residential sites in the village and it suggested that the confines should be altered to accommodate this. The Parish Council did not state where in Preston this should happen, other than to refer to the Preston Design Statement.

3.5 In the Preston Draft Design Statement (2008), there is a section which states that, ‘the importance of resisting ribbon development northwards and southwards of the village limits is recognized. However, some measure of back-land development or of linkage between the village and its dependant hamlet of Elmstone would allow for a degree of sustainable organic growth consistent with the settlement hierarchy and enable more young families to remain or join a thriving village community’.

3.6 However, the Preston Design Statement is not part of the Development Plan, has not been approved or adopted by the District Council and cannot take precedence over policies and proposals in the adopted Local Plan.

3.7 Any changes to the settlement boundaries will be dealt with through the Site Allocations Document. However, in the Preferred Options Site Allocations Document, there are no changes that relate to Preston.The Forward Planning section will be reviewing comments that were put forward at the Preferred Options stage and reporting back in due course. In advance of this, the planning application is premature, as the correct procedure to alter the village confines is through the Site Allocations Document.

3.8 Due to its location outside the village boundary of Preston, the proposed development is not considered to comply with policy and would not be an effective or efficient use of the land. It would thereby be contrary to PPS3.

3.9 Moreover, it is not considered that the provision of a bed and breakfast use would override the policy presumption against the erection of a new dwelling in this location.

3.10 SEP Policy TSR5 sets out that planning authorities should facilitate the upgrading and enhancement of existing un-serviced accommodation, where this will not harm landscape quality or environmental assets.

3.11 The proposal would not involve the up-grading or enhancement of existing accommodation, but would instead be the replacement of existing bed and breakfast accommodation in a new building.

3.12 DDLP Policy LE19 enables on-site expansion of existing businesses in rural areas by way of extension or redevelopment, provided that it is within the existing site curtilage, appropriate in scale and setting and any new buildings are grouped with existing development.

3.13 The proposal is not for the expansion of an existing business, but rather the re-location of an existing bed and breakfast use. In any case, even if the existing business from Forstal House were to be retained, it is not considered that the proposal would comply with policy. Although the application site is owned by the applicants and is partly adjacent to the residential curtilage of Forstal House, the application site is not considered to be within the site curtilage of Forstal House and the proposed building would not be grouped with the existing development. Moreover, the proposal is not considered to be of an appropriate scale or setting. The proposal therefore falls short of the criteria set out in DDLP Policy LE19.

3.14 This proposal is for the erection of a new dwelling in the countryside and it is not considered that it would comply with policies relating to on-site expansion of existing businesses and the up-grading of un-serviced accommodation.

The impact of the proposal on the visual amenities of the street scene and the spatial character of the area

3.15 The spatial character of this part of The Forstal is that of well-spaced dwellings within large residential curtilages. This loose-knit development defines the end of the built settlement of Preston and the

start of open countryside. The semi-rural character and visual appearance of this part of The Forstal reflects this and is particularly noticeable when compared with the more tight-knit development further east.

3.16 The existing buildings surrounding the application site - Look Cottage, Rose Cottage and Forstal House - are currently very well spaced along The Forstal, forming the loose-knit grain. The erection of a dwelling in between two existing plots would begin to erode the sense of spaciousness and would not relate well to the surrounding spatial character of the area.

3.17 Moreover, the scale, design and proportions of the dwelling are considered unacceptable. Although Look Cottage is a large dwelling currently being extended, it is set further back from the road, so its impact on the surrounding area is reduced. The majority of properties along The Forstal are a mixture of modest sized two storey dwellings and bungalows. A building of this width would appear badly proportioned by comparison and would not reflect any of the properties in the near vicinity. The height, width and depth of the proposed building would make it appear as an unduly large and prominent building, which would fail to respond to the character of its surroundings.

3.18 In addition, the design and finish of the dwelling do not appear to reflect any of the surrounding properties. The proposed dwelling would not be of an acceptable design and scale in this location and would not relate well to the nearby buildings, most of which are simply designed red brick properties. It is unclear how the particular design proposed was arrived at, in respect of taking account of the context of the surrounding area.

3.19 The dwelling would be in a prominent location and would be easily visible from the surrounding countryside. It would detract from the loose-knit and semi-rural character of the area and would result in harm to the character and appearance of the surrounding countryside.

The impact of the proposal on the residential amenities of neighbours

3.20 The proposed dwelling would be in a substantially sized plot and would be a good distance from both side boundaries. It is not considered that the proposal would result in any unacceptable loss of residential amenity for neighbouring occupants in terms of overlooking, overshadowing or overbearing impacts.

Highways implications

3.21 The proposal is outside the village confines of Preston and would therefore be contrary to DDLP Policy TR1, which sets out that development which would generate travel will not be permitted outside the village confines unless justified by Development Plan policies. It is not considered that the development can be justified by any other policies and it would therefore fail to comply with this policy, which, alongside PPG13, seeks to achieve sustainable development.

3.22 The proposal is also considered to provide inadequate sight lines on the driveway. Whilst this is something that could have been amended, as it stands, the present entrance has poor visibility. However, County Highways does not recommend refusal on this ground, as the land either side of the access belongs to the applicant, so acceptable sight lines are therefore likely to be achievable.

Conclusion

3.23 For the reasons set out above, the application is recommended for refusal. Consideration has been given to views made by third parties, but none outweigh the conclusions reached. The proposal is not considered to unduly affect the setting of the nearby Listed Building (Forstal House).

g) Recommendation

I PERMISSION BE REFUSED for the following reasons: (i) The proposed dwelling, if permitted, due to its siting outside the confines of Preston, would result in additional sporadic residential development in the countryside, for which no special justification has been adequately demonstrated. The proposal would thereby be contrary to South East Plan Policy CC1, Dover District Local Plan Policies CO1, HS1 and HS3 and the provisions of PPS1, PPS3 and PPS7; (ii) The proposed dwelling, if permitted, due to its siting, bulk, scale, design and location, would result in an unduly prominent and intrusive form of development, which would appear unrelated to and out of keeping with the surrounding properties and would create an undesirable, sporadic residential development, which would detract from the established loose-knit, semi-rural character of the area. The proposal would result in inappropriate domestic intrusion into the open landscape, harming the character and appearance of the countryside. The proposal would thereby be contrary to South East Plan Policy C4, Dover District Local Plan Policies DD1 and CO1 and the provisions of PPS1 and PPS3; (iii) The proposed development, being outside the village confines of Preston, would be contrary to policy objectives relating to sustainable development and in particular South East Plan Policy CC1, Dover District Local Plan Policy TR1 and the provisions of PPS1, PPS3 and PPG13; (iv) The proposed bed and breakfast use would be outside any defined village settlement and would not involve the up-grading, enhancement or on-site expansion of an existing business. The proposal would not be appropriate in scale and setting and would be contrary to South East Plan Policies CC1, TSR2 and TSR5, Dover District Local Plan Policies LE19, TR1 and CO1 and the objectives of PPS7 and PPG13.

II The Development Control Manager BE AUTHORISED to resolve any outstanding matters.

Case Officer

Sarah Platts

13. a) DOV/09/0929 – Conversion of garage to habitable room and erection of a first floor side extension, 18 Chilton Way, River




Dover District Local Plan (DDLP): Policy DD1


None.


County Highways: Although the proposal will result in the loss of the garage, the driveway is sufficiently long to accommodate two vehicles. A condition is recommended.

River Parish Council: No objection.

Public Representations: A Ward Member has raised objection to the garage conversion. The property is at the end of a no-through road, but people park here as it is adjacent to Kearsney Abbey Gardens. Conditions should be imposed requiring that all vehicles be parked off the road.


1.1 The application site relates to a site within the urban confines of River. The dwelling is a semi-detached property located at the end of a no through road, which borders onto Kearsney Abbey Park. The property was built in the 1960s and is typical of the type of dwelling to be built in this era. It is red brick with a garage to the side and a fairly large garden to the rear.

1.2 The proposal seeks full planning permission for the conversion of the existing garage to workshop, WC and kitchen and the erection of a first floor side extension.

1.3 Alterations to the garage would involve minor alterations, comprising the removal of the garage door and the insertion of two uPVC windows, blocking up the side door and inserting a replacement uPVC to the side elevation.

1.4 The first floor extension would accommodate a new bedroom with shower room. It would have a pitched roof and would be set in 1.5 metres from the dividing boundary. The extension is shown to be finished in brickwork, render and tiles to match the existing house.


1.6 The application is reported at the request of a Member.

2. Planning Policy

2.1 DDLP Policy DD1 states that development should be acceptable in terms of its design, scale, materials and the spatial and visual character of the surrounding area.

3. Assessment

3.1 The principal considerations in this case are:-

• The impact on the street scene;• The impact of the proposal on neighbours; and • Highway issues.

Impact on the Street Scene

3.2 The proposed side extension is considered to be of a modest scale and design. It would be in proportion to the main dwelling and would be built in materials to match the house. It is considered that its design and scale would result in a subservient addition to the property that would not appear prominent or intrusive within the street scene.

3.3 The conversion of the garage would involve minor alterations, comprising of alterations to the fenestration. It is considered that the proposed windows would be of a scale and design in keeping with the existing fenestration and would be acceptable within the street scene.

Impact of the Proposal on Neighbours

3.4 It is not considered that any adverse harm would be caused to neighbouring properties as the proposals will adjoin Kearsney Abbey Park.

Highway Issues

3.5 Concerns have been raised with regard to the loss of the garage and that this would result in on-street parking. However, County Highways raise no objection to the scheme as a sufficient length of drive would be retained for off-street parking – which is the requirement in Kent Design Guide Review, Interim Guidance Note 3 Residential Parking for a four bedroomed property.

Conclusion

3.6 It is considered that the application is acceptable in terms of its impact on the residential amenities of neighbours within the street scene and in highway terms. As such, the proposal is in accordance with policy.

g) Recommendation

I PERMISSION BE GRANTED subject to the following conditions:- (i) DP08; (ii) MA01 – materials; (iii) PA18.

Case Officer Abi Robinson

14. a) DOV/09/0945 – Erection of single storey rear extension to provide 2 independent living units and en-suite bedroom to existing building, The Old Rectory Residential Home, 45 Sandwich Road, Ash




Dover District Local Plan (DDLP): Policies DD1 and HS12South East Plan (SEP): Policy CC6


DOV/05/712 - Erection of a two storey rear extension to provide 4 independent dwelling houses –Refused.

DOV/07/88 - Erection of a two storey rear extension to provide 4 independent living units – Refused. Appeal Dismissed.


County Highways: No objections.

Ecology comments: No objections, on the basis that protected trees are not affected.

Environmental Health comments (Contaminated Land): No objections subject to conditions.

Ash Parish Council: Objects to the application on the material ground that it could affect the amenity of 2 Gardners Close through overshadowing.

Third Party Representations: Two letters of objection have been received, which raise the following material concerns:

• The extension would make the site appear overdeveloped;

• The extension would be visually intrusive;

• The extension is similar to the refused schemes and would have a detrimental impact on the amenity of adjacent properties by particular reference to its height, siting and sense of enclosure;

● The changes to the scale of the extension are insubstantial and do not address the shortcomings previously identified. In particular, the key issue of height has not been addressed.


1.1 The site is located on the corner of Sandwich Road and Cherry Garden Lane, with these roads to the north and east respectively, and residential properties to the south and west. The property is a large building which has been used as a residential care home for people with disabilities for nearly 30 years. The owner has recently purchased one of the houses to the west, 2 Gardners Close. This is being converted into a semi-independent living unit which will form part of the care home.

1.2 The proposal seeks full planning permission to erect a single storey extension to the rear of the existing care home. This would be at a similar level to the care home, which at present is just over 1m below the ground level of the garden. This level would be reduced to accommodate the proposed building which would be around 2.3m high to the eaves level and 4.3m to the ridge. The extension would be around 14m long (including an open glazed passageway between it and the existing building) and 8m wide, and would be just over 1m from the boundary with 2 Gardners Close, and between 1m and 6m from the rear boundary with 14 Gardners Close.

1.3 Previous applications for larger units have been refused in the past due to their impact on neighbouring properties, in terms of overshadowing and overbearing impacts.

2. Planning Policy

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

2.2 DDLP Policy DD1 states that proposals for development will not be permitted unless they are acceptable in terms of layout and functional needs of the development, siting, massing and scale of new buildings, architectural style and materials, spatial and visual character of the area and privacy and amenity.

2.3 DDLP Policy HS12 states that proposals for residential institutional uses will only be permitted if they do not involve land outside urban or village boundaries, would not result in the loss of tourist accommodation, would not have an adverse impact on residential amenity, have access to local amenities such as shops, meet parking standards and include amenity space for residents.

3. Assessment

3.1 The main issues for consideration are:

• The visual impact of the extension;

• The impact on residential amenity;

• Whether the proposal would conflict with Policy HS12, which relates to residential institutional uses.

Visual Impact

3.2 The extension would be subordinate to the host building in terms of size and scale, and the design and materials would be in keeping with the existing building. It would be screened from Sandwich Road and Cherry Garden Lane by the host building and the high hedges alongthe east and south boundaries, which are considerably higher than the proposed extension. From the public realm to the south it would be screened by the boundary hedge and the properties in Gardners Close. From the west it would be partially visible above the boundary fences to 2-5 Gardners Close, but it would appear as a subordinate extension, partially obscured by the boundary fences and over a distance of 30m from the cul-de-sac which forms part of Gardners Close. It would be seen against the context of the existing houses and the background of the trees around the site and would not be likely to appear obtrusive or to create a cramped or overdeveloped appearance. It is considered that it would be unlikely to have an adverse affect on the visual amenity of the area.

Residential Amenity

3.3 The extension would be within around 1m of the boundary with 2 Gardners Close to the east. Previous applications have been refused due in part to the effect of higher two storey extensions on the amenity of this property. However, since that time, this property has ceased to be a separately-owned independent dwelling. The effects of the development on its residents no longer carry such material weight.

3.3 The extension would also be within 1- 6m of the rear boundary of 14 Gardners Close. The northeast corner of the garden of 12 Gardners Close would be within 3m. The ground level to these properties is around 1.5 higher than the garden to the care home (around 2.5m higher than the level at which the extension would be built ), and they are separated from the application site by a retaining wall and fence with a combined height of around 2.5 - 3m above the existing garden level of the care home.

3.4 Due to the relatively low height of the extension, the difference in land levels, and the distance between the extension and the boundaries with these properties, it is considered that the extension would be unlikely to harm the amenities of these properties through loss of light or outlook, or through overshadowing or overbearing impacts. The boundary fence would prevent overlooking. This conclusion is reinforced by the location of the detached garage in the rear garden of 14 Gardners Close.

Acceptability in terms of Policy HS12

3.5 The site is within the village confines and the residents have access to the amenities of the village, which are within walking distance. As the care home use is existing and the site of the extension is within its

garden, the extension would not result in the loss of tourist accommodation.

3.6 The extension would take up a small proportion of the existing garden, would leave intact a large community amenity space and, would create new private areas for residents since it would create semi-independent units.

3.7 The proposal would not create additional parking requirements, and would therefore conform to current parking standards.

3.8 The impact on adjacent residential properties has been discussed above, and it is considered that the extension would not be likely to have an adverse impact on residential amenity.

3.9 It is therefore considered that the proposal conforms with Policy HS12.

Other Matters and Conclusions

3.10 Account has been taken of the representations made against the proposal. The proposal is considered to be acceptable in visual and residential amenity terms. Third parties have also referred to drainage, but this is normally considered under the Building Regulations. In any event, it is non-specific and no evidence is provided of either drainage implications or the possibility of subsidence arising from the reduced ground levels. These are matters also for the applicant to take into account under his general duty of care.

3.11 The appeal decision in April 2008 against the refusal of the 2007 proposal is also material. That development was in a similar position to what is now proposed, but of a larger footprint, closer to the south and west boundaries and essentially of two storeys with accommodation in the roof and a higher ridge level presenting a far bulkier appearance to its neighbours. The Inspector was particularly concerned about its relationship to 2 Gardners Close. He did not consider that its impact on other properties warranted dismissal of the appeal. It is also noteworthy that he was content that adequate drainage and retaining walls would be ensured under other legislation.

3.12 In summary, having taken into account all material planning considerations, it is considered that the proposed development is acceptable, and a favourable recommendation is made. Circumstances have changed since the previous appeal decision.

g) Recommendation

I PERMISSION BE GRANTED subject to the following conditions:- (i) DP08; (ii) MA02; (iii) Conditions recommended by Environmental Health.

Case Officer

Catherine Todd

15. a) DOV/09/0973 – Erection of a detached chalet bungalow and construction of a vehicular access, land rear of 8 Granville Road, Walmer




Dover District Local Plan (DDLP): Policies TR1, TR2, DD1, DD4 and HS1South East Plan (SEP): Policies CC1, CC4 and CC6PPS1 and PPS3Walmer Design Statement: Design Principles WDS2, WDS3 and WDS5


DOV/04/0858 - Outline application for the erection of a single storey dwelling – granted.

DOV/06/0364 - Erection of a chalet bungalow and formation of a new vehicle access – granted.

DOV/08/0493 - Erection of detached chalet bungalow and construction of vehicular access – granted.


County Highways: Notes that the turning area has slightly changed compared to the previous approval, but it is still acceptable.

Ecology comments: No concerns regarding trees.

Walmer Parish Council: Strongly objects on the grounds that:

• The proposal appears to flout the conditions for the outline planning permission for the erection of a single storey dwelling;

• The application is for a chalet bungalow, which constitutes a two-storey house;

• The footprint is greater than the footprint for four-bedroom houses in Knoll Place;

• It represents an overbearing mass, which is out of character in terms of size, shape and style within the plot and contravenes Design Principles WDS2, WDS3 and WDS5 of the Walmer Design Statement and Policy DD1 of the Local Plan;

• The increased height and the size of the roof windows would result in unacceptable overlooking;

• It is believed that the developer has now cleared the site of vegetation, which would result in a complete lack of privacy for rear gardens in Knoll Place and Greenacre Drive;

• Discrepancies have been noticed regarding scale, annotation and orientation of adjacent properties;

• Requests a site visit in order to view the development site from adjacent rear gardens in Knoll Place and Greenacre Drive so that the full impact of the proposal on neighbouring properties can be appreciated.

Public Representations: Six letters of objection have been received, stating the following:

• An evergreen hedge along the boundary with properties in Knoll Place has been removed;

• Concerns about the existing works, including the earth heap, noise pollution, disturbance and the removal of landscaping;

• Many of the trees and shrubs shown are on adjoining properties;

• The proposed loss of trees, increased height of the dwelling and the intention to not erect a fence between the site and no. 10 Granville Road, will all intensify the level of overlooking and dominance;

• Inter-looking into properties along Greenacre Drive, because of the slope of the land and the loss of landscaping;

• The windows will be larger than previously approved and the occupants will be able to look out of them;

• The building would be overbearing and intrusive;

• The building would be double in size and about twice the size of the houses in Knoll Place in a much smaller site;

• External materials fail to reflect the local context;

• It will be out of character with surrounding properties;

• Access and parking will be detrimental to neighbours;

• There is no need for the ground floor to be raised, as the connection to the public main foul sewer has already been done.


1.1 The application site relates to a backland plot, accessed between Nos. 8 and 8a Granville Road. The plot has had planning permission granted for a dwelling and works on the site have commenced, although not all of the conditions have been discharged. Foundations have been dug and the dwelling has begun to be built and is currently about three blocks high. It appears that this has involved a level of excavation, as there are recently formed banks around the footprint of the dwelling, as well as a large heap of soil to the rear of the site.

1.2 The site is adjoined by large detached properties along Granville Road, detached and semi-detached properties in Greenacre Drive to the south and two storey detached dwellings in Knoll Place to the north-west.

1.3 The site is divided from No. 8 Granville Road by a 1.8m high close-boarded fence. The rear gardens of Nos. 8a and 10 Granville Road, sited to the south-east of the site are divided from the site by a low fence, hedge and foliage. The rear gardens of properties in Greenacre Drive back on to the site to the rear boundary, which comprises a close-boarded fence and a row of trees. The rear gardens of two storey detached properties in Knoll Place also adjoin the site.

1.4 The application seeks full planning permission for the erection of a detached dwelling. The dwelling is proposed to be finished in cedar boarding and render, under a slate tiled roof. It would have timber framed windows and doors. The access would be finished in concrete aggregate strips.

1.5 The proposal is similar to that previously approved under DOV/08/00493. The floor level would be raised by up to 0.9m, which the Design and Access Statement sets out is in order to link services to the dwelling, to prevent the need for a retaining wall to the rear of the site, to make better use of the slope of the land and to improve the level of light to the rear garden area.

1.6 Since submission of the application, the applicant’s agent has provided further plans for clarification. These show the outline of the previously approved dwelling over-layed onto the proposed plans. The agent has also confirmed that the building would still be 7.25m from ground level to the top of the roof, which is the same as previously approved. However, the ground level of the building has been raised by 0.9m.

1.6 The south-west elevation and north-east facing elevations are shown to be 0.9m higher than the previously approved dwelling. A change in roof design is also shown to the south-west elevation and two sets of four-paned roof-lights and two sets of two-paned roof-lights would replace the originally approved two roof-lights on this elevation. The roof-lights would serve the master bedroom and the downstairs living room.

1.7 The north-west and south-east elevations are similar in design and appearance to those approved, but would be 0.4m higher.

1.8 The application also provides additional details, which were previously required under the conditions attached to DOV/08/00493. The dwelling is proposed to be constructed using the same materials as approved under the previous application. The siting of refuse and the parking of construction vehicles and plant are shown on plan and plans have also been provided to show grounds levels, trees and landscaping. Planting would be carried out in the first recognized

planting season, between November and March, immediately following the completion of the ground works.

1.9 Plans will be displayed.

2. Planning Policy

2.1 SEP Policy CC1 states that the principal objective is to achieve and to maintain sustainable development.

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

2.3 SEP Policy CC6 sets out that decisions will actively promote the creation of sustainable and distinctive communities.

2.4 DDLP Policy TR1 sets out that development which would generate travel will not be permitted outside the urban areas and village confines unless justified by development plan policies.

2.5 DDLP Policy TR2 states that proposals for development will not be permitted unless they are served by an appropriate road network and an acceptable access arrangement.

2.6 DDLP Policy DD1 provides design criteria for new development and requires, amongst other things, that it is acceptable in terms of layout of development, siting, massing and scale of new buildings and architectural style and materials.

2.7 DDLP Policy DD4 states that amenity space shall be provided commensurate with the size of the dwelling, the character of its surroundings and the protection of amenity interests.

2.8 DDLP Policy HS1 states that housing development will not be permitted on land outside the urban boundaries and village confines.

2.9 PPS1: Delivering Sustainable Development states that good design should contribute positively to making places better for people. Development which is inappropriate in its context, or which fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area and the way it functions, should not be accepted.

2.10 PPS3: Housing emphasises that good design is fundamental to the development of high quality new housing, which contributes to the creation of sustainable, mixed communities.

2.11 The Walmer Design Statement notes that the area has individually designed properties, including some substantial bungalows, among mature trees and large gardens. Principle WDS2 states that development should respect the origins and strongly reflect the character, appearance and design details of the Character Area. Principle WDS3 states that the scale, materials and boundary treatments should be appropriate to their surroundings and Principle WDS5 states that the density of new development should have regard

to that prevailing in its locality and to the local pattern of streets and spaces.

3. Assessment

The principal of residential development

3.1 The principle of a dwelling in this location has already been accepted by the Committee on 31 July 2008 (Item 8) under reference DOV/08/00493 and prior to that on 27 July 2007 (Item 3) under reference DOV/06/00364. Outline permission had previously been granted for a single storey dwelling (DOV/04/0858 – Item 8, 9 September 2004).

3.2 The principal planning consideration here is whether the proposed amendments to the approved scheme, relating to the size and design of the dwelling and the alterations to the land levels and landscaping would cause harm to the neighbouring residents and surrounding area.

The impact of the proposal on the visual amenities of the street scene

3.3 Concerns have been raised about the design and form of the proposed dwelling. However, the design is very similar to that previously approved. The property does not form part of the street scene in Granville Road due to its back-land position and would not be seen from any public areas such as to make a significant contribution to the visual character and amenity of the area. The property is not considered to conflict with policy or the Principles of the Walmer Design Statement.

3.4 The dwelling is intended to be constructed using the materials as approved in the previous application and this can be worded into a condition.

3.5 The landscaping condition attached to the previous application was not discharged and it is understood that the site has been partly cleared since the granting of the previous application. Concerns have been raised by third parties regarding the loss of some of the trees and shrubs within the site.

3.6 A landscaping plan has been submitted. Four elders, a cypress, a yew and an ash tree that are sited around the boundaries are shown to be removed. Many of the trees shown on the plan are in fact off-site and so their retention cannot be controlled. The cypress trees along the rear boundary are shown to be retained. This provides some level of screening from the properties to the rear. Four new trees are proposed to be planted – three along the boundary with No. 8 Granville Road and one along the boundary with No. 10 Granville Road. Hedgerows are also proposed part-way along the two side boundaries.

3.7 The landscaping plan (essentially showing boundary hedge and tree planting) is considered acceptable. No trees within the site are

covered by a Tree Preservation Order and the loss of some is not considered to justify a refusal of this planning application.

The impact of the proposal on the residential amenities of neighbours

3.8 No. 10 Granville Road has a large L-shaped garden and the area of garden closest to the proposed dwelling is some distance from the dwelling at No. 10. It is not considered that the proposed building at its increased height of 0.4m would have an adverse overbearing affect on the occupants of No. 10 Granville Road. No alterations to the design of the dwelling are proposed to the south-east facing elevation, compared to that previously approved.

3.9 The north-west elevation would face onto Nos. 5 and 7 Knoll Place. The rear gardens of these properties are shown on plan to be 28m and 20m in depth respectively. The proposed dwelling would be sited about 4m from the dividing boundary with these properties and would be on lower ground. The velux windows are still shown to be high-level and can be controlled to be retained as such. Although they would be slightly higher than those previously approved (due to the proposed 0.4m raised height of the dwelling), it is not considered that the perception of overlooking would be significantly different and is not considered that this would justify a recommendation of refusal. Again, no alterations are proposed to the design on this elevation.

3.10 In respect of its height and scale, whilst the dwelling at an increased height would potentially have more of an impact that that previously approved, it is unlikely that the increased height would result in an unacceptable overbearing impact on the neighbours at Knoll Place, given its distance away and that the overall height increase at this point would only be 0.4m.

3.11 The increased height of the proposed dwelling is not considered to have an unacceptable overbearing impact on the residential amenities of No. 8 Granville Road, given the length of No. 8’s garden and the distance of the proposed property away from the dwelling at No. 8.

3.12 The previously approved application (DOV/08/0493) did not require the approved roof-lights to be high-level by way of condition. Reference was made in the Committee report to the existing boundary screening in assessing the level of overlooking from the previously approved windows on the south-west elevation, into No. 6 Greenacre Drive. The dwelling would be between 15m and 17m from the dividing boundary with No. 6. This is considered to be a reasonable distance from the neighbouring plot to prevent any unacceptable overlooking, regardless of whether there is landscaping along the boundary. In the same way, given the distance of over 25m between back-to-back windows, there would be no unacceptable interlooking. In any case, the cypress trees are shown on plan to remain.

3.13 Whilst the existing trees and hedges would provide some level of screening of the property and this was taken into account in the previous application (DOV/08/0493), they are not considered to be fundamental in preventing an unacceptable impact on the neighbouring properties. There is in any case no guarantee that they

will be retained in the future, so the dwelling has to be acceptable, regardless of existing landscaping.

Highways implications

3.14 The proposed turning area has slightly changed compared to the previous approval, but is still considered acceptable. The area for construction vehicles is shown on plan and can be incorporated into a condition. There have otherwise been no material changes and the proposal remains acceptable in highways terms.

Conclusions

3.15 The principle of development of this site has already been agreed. The changes now proposed are considered to be acceptable. The objections raised locally have been taken into account.

g) Recommendation

I PERMISSION BE GRANTED subject to the following conditions:- (i) DP08; (ii) DP04v (further plans); (iii) AC32 (access); (iv) AC24 (turning); (v) PA05 (parking); (vi) AC27 (gates); (vii) AC12 (sight lines); (viii) PA32v (constructionvehicles); (ix) MA01v (materials); (x) LA31 (Boundary treatments); (xi) PD03 (Removal of PD rights for extensions or other buildings); (xii) PD01 (High-level windows to the north-west roof-slope); (xiii) PD12 (No further openings within the roof-slopes); (xix) LA13v (Landscaping in accordance with plans); (xx) LA26 (Replanting of trees/ shrubs); (xxi) Any further conditions or alterations to the above conditions to be delegated to the Development Control Manager.

II Informatives: - (i) Wheel washing; (ii) IPH1 (works to the Public Highway).

III The Development Control Manager BE AUTHORISED to resolve all outstanding matters.

Case Officer

Sarah Platts

DOVER DISTRICT COUNCIL REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT …

Documents

Transcript of DOVER DISTRICT COUNCIL REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT …