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

Democratic Services White Cliffs Business Park Dover Kent CT16 3PJ

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

14 June 2010 Dear Councillor NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT a meeting of the PLANNING Committee will be held in the Council Chamber at these Offices on Thursday, 24 June 2010 at 6.00 pm when the following business will be transacted. Members of the public who require further information are asked to contact Pauline Hodding on (01304) 872305 or by e-mail at [email protected]. Yours sincerely Chief Executive Planning Committee Membership: Councillor S G Leith (Chairman) Councillor A F Richardson (Vice-Chairman) Councillor J M Munt (Spokesperson) Councillor T A Bond Councillor S S Chandler Councillor M S Furnival Councillor C J Meredith Councillor J C Record Councillor R J Thompson Councillor R S Walkden DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

Members are required to disclose the existence and nature of a personal interest at the commencement of the item of business to which the interest relates or when the interest becomes apparent. An explanation in general terms of the interest should also be given to the meeting. If the interest is also a prejudicial interest, the Member should then withdraw from the room or chamber.

1

AGENDA 1. APOLOGIES 2. APPOINTMENT OF SUBSTITUTE MEMBERS To note appointments of Substitute Members. 3. MINUTES (Pages 4-7) To confirm the attached Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 27 May 2010. 4. ITEMS DEFERRED (Page 8) To consider the attached report of the Development Control Manager. (For further

information please contact Tim Flisher, extension 2461.) 5. APPLICATIONS WHICH MAY BE SUBJECT TO PUBLIC SPEAKING (Pages 11-85) To consider the attached report of the Development Control Manager. (For further

information please contact Tim Flisher, extension 2461.) 6. RECOMENDATION FROM CABINET (CAB 140)

At its meeting held on 10 May 2010 the Cabinet agreed to recommend to the Planning Committee and the Policy Advisory Group (Local Development Framework) that weight be given to the Preston Village Design Statement as a material consideration in both the assessment and determination of planning applications, and in the formulation of planning policy as appropriate.

7. APPLICATION NO DOV/09/0873 – ERECTION OF A GP SURGERY, COMMUNITY

CENTRE, 28 FLATS AND 41 HOUSES, RELATED INFRASTRUCTURE AND CAR PARKING – LAND AT GOLF ROAD/CANNON STREET, DEAL (Pages 86-88)

To consider the attached report of the Development Control Manager. 8. ACTION TAKEN IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ORDINARY DECISIONS (COUNCIL

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

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

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

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

2

3

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

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

a limited supply of agendas will be available at the meeting, free of charge, and all agendas, reports and minutes can be viewed and downloaded from our website www.dover.gov.uk. Minutes are normally published within five working days of each meeting. All agenda papers and minutes are available for public inspection for a period of six years from the date of the meeting. Basic translations of specific reports and the Minutes are available on request in 12 different languages.

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

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

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

Agenda Item No 3

Minutes of the meeting of the PLANNING Committee held at the Council Offices, Whitfield on Thursday 27 May 2010 at 6.00 pm.

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

items indicated: Application No For Against DOV/09/0787 Mr R Smyth – DOV/09/1026 Mr J Chambers – DOV/10/0020 Ms J Ashton – DOV/10/0137 & 0138 Ms V Owen – DOV/10/0267 & 0268 Ms S Pearson Mrs Beamish Apologies for absence were received from Councillors M S Furnival, J M Munt and

A F Richardson. 41 SUBSTITUTE MEMBERS It was noted that in accordance with Rule 4 of the Council's Procedure Rules

Councillor J M Smith had been appointed as substitute for Councillor M S Furnival. 42 MINUTES The Minutes of the meeting held on 29 April 2010 were approved as a correct

record and signed by the Chairman. 43 DEFERRED ITEMS The Development Control Manager reported the views of Members who had visited

the sites in connection with Application Nos DOV/10/0104 (46 Cranleigh Drive, Whitfield) and DOV/10/0111 Mer Vista, Chalk Hill Road, Kingsdown).

RESOLVED: (a) That Application No DOV/10/0104 (Erection of a two

storey front extension (existing porch to be demolished) – 46 Cranleigh Drive, Whitfield) be approved in accordance with the recommendation of the

4

Development Control Manager as set out on page 34 of the report to Committee on 29 April 2010.

(b) That, notwithstanding the Officer's recommendation,

Application No DOV/10/0111 (Erection of a detached dwelling and widening of the existing vehicular access – Plot adjoining Mer Vista, Chalk Hill Road, Kingsdown) be approved subject to the addition of conditions to be delegated to the Development Control Manager including landscaping and boundary treatment, for the reason that the impact of the proposed development on the street scene and neighbouring properties would not be sufficiently detrimental to justify refusal of the application.

(The Chairman declared a personal interest in this application, for the reason that a

close relative had given advice in respect of the application, and left the Chamber. In the absence of the Vice-Chairman it was moved, seconded and duly resolved that Councillor Bond take the chair for this item.)

44 APPLICATIONS WHICH MAY BE SUBJECT TO PUBLIC SPEAKING RESOLVED: (a) That the recommendation contained in the report of the

Development Control Manager in respect of Application No DOV/09/1026 (61 Valley Road, River) be approved.

(b) That the following applications be determined as

indicated: (1) Application No DOV/09/0361 – Erection of 7 terraced dwellings and

construction of vehicle access (existing buildings to be demolished) – 156 Gladstone Road, Walmer

Committee was advised that revised plans had been received which addressed the

issues raised by County Highways but some matters remained to be resolved. The Development Engineer KCC confirmed that the parking provision of 1.5 spaces per 3 bedroom dwelling and 1 space per 2 bedroom dwelling was in accordance with current standards.

RESOLVED: That, subject to the resolution of all outstanding matters and

the addition of conditions in respect of sustainable construction and surface water treatment, the application be granted in accordance with the recommendation of the Development Control Manager.

(2) Application No DOV/09/0787 – Erection of two agricultural buildings,

associated access and fencing – Land at Roman Road, Archers Court Road, Whitfield

The Development Control Manager reported receipt of a letter from the applicant

regarding information contained in the report and advised Members that details of fencing were lacking; County Highways had recommended refusal; the Environment Agency had no objections in principle; and the Council's independent agricultural consultant had stated that there were insufficient agricultural grounds to support the application. Further evidence was required to support the business case for ostrich

5

farming at the site. The buildings would be clearly visible from the road and detrimental to the visual amenity, landscape, and the North Downs Way.

RESOLVED: That the application be refused in accordance with the

recommendation of the Development Control Manager. (3) Application No DOV/10/0020 – Erection of seven detached dwellings and

construction of vehicular access – Campbells Garage, Kingsdown Road, Walmer

Committee was informed that County Highways believed the proposal to be

workable but poor and a letter had been sent to all Members by Walmer and Kingsdown Environmental Urban Protection which supported the development. A letter had also been sent by the applicant to Members and a letter expressing disappointment with the recommendation had been received from a local resident. Arising from the previous appeal against refusal of planning permission on this site the Planning Inspector had accepted the principle of development and, on balance, officers had no objection to residential development. However the proposed design fell short of the design principles set out by government.

RESOLVED: That in order to assist Members to assess whether the

proposed development relates satisfactorily in terms of its context, siting, layout, design, size and scale and whether it would have a detrimental effect on the locality and visual amenity, a site visit be held on Tuesday 22 June 2010 and Councillors S G Leith (Chairman), S S Chandler, C J Meredith, J C Record and R J Thompson (reserves: Councillors M J Smith and R S Walkden) be appointed to view this and any other site.

(4) Application No DOV/10/0137 – External redecorations and one new dormer,

comprehensive internal restoration and refurbishment works and minor alterations; and Application No DOV/10/0138 – Erection of a dormer roof extension and pitched roof to rear extension – Deal Cutter, 171 Beach Street, Deal

The Development Control Manager reported that no objections had been raised by

the County Archaeologist and whereas paragraph 3.5 of the report stated that the dormer would not be visible from the front, it would actually be partially visible from the opposite side of Beach Street.

RESOLVED: That the applications be approved in accordance with the

recommendation of the Development Control Manager. (5) Application No DOV/10/0267 – Erection of a detached dwelling (existing

building and demolished) and Application No DOV/10/0268 – Demolition of existing building – 53 High Street, Wingham

Members were informed that a further letter of objection had been received raising

additional points in respect of no on-site parking, the public car park not being available 24 hours a day, obstructing use of the alley, effect on the neighbouring listed buildings and their occupants, overlooking and loss of privacy., character of the existing building and materials not being consistent. The Development Control Manager confirmed that the old wall referred to by third parties would not be harmed.

6

7

RESOLVED: That, in order to assist Members to assess highways issues,

overlooking and the impact on surrounding properties, a site visit be held on 22 June 2010.

The meeting ended at 8.25 pm.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Development Plan

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

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

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

DOVER DISTRICT COUNCIL Agenda Item No 4 REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT CONTROL MANAGER PLANNING COMMITTEE – 24 JUNE 2010 CONSIDERATION OF THE FOLLOWING ITEMS HAS BEEN

DEFERRED AT PREVIOUS MEETINGS

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

1. DOV/10/0020 Erection of 7 detached dwellings and construction of

vehicular access, Campbells Garage, Kingsdown Road, Walmer. (Item 4, 27 May 2010). Deferred pending a site visit.

2. DOV/10/0267 Erection of a detached dwelling (existing building to

be demolished) 53 High Street, Wingham. (Item 6, 27 May 2010). Deferred pending a site visit.

3. DOV/10/0268 Demolition of existing building, 53 High Street,

Wingham. (Item 6, 27 May 2010). Deferred pending a site visit.

Background Papers:

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

8

DOVER DISTRICT COUNCIL REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT CONTROL MANAGER

PLANNING COMMITTEE 24 JUNE 2010

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

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

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

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

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

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

PUBLIC SPEAKING AT PLANNING COMMITTEE

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

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

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

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

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

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

(a) Chairman introduces item.

(b) Planning Officer updates as appropriate.

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

(d) Planning officer clarifies as appropriate.

(e) Committee debates the application.

(f) The vote is taken.

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

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

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

1Index for Planning CommitteeDover District Council

Committee Date: 6/24/2010

Ref. No. 10/00042Location Site Adjoining 44 Nursery Lane, Whitfield

Proposal

DOV/

Erection of a detached dwelling and construction of vehicular access

Item No. 01 RcmDcn GTD

Ref. No. 10/00186Location Casa Mia, John's Green, Sandwich

Proposal

DOV/

Outline application for the erection of a detached dwelling and construction of a vehicular access


Ref. No. 10/00202Location 55 Westcourt Lane, Shepherdswell

Proposal

DOV/

Retrospective application for the widening of the existing vehicular access


Ref. No. 10/00219Location 8 Granville Road, Walmer

Proposal

DOV/

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


Ref. No. 10/00290Location San Pio, Victoria Road, Kingsdown

Proposal

DOV/

Outline application for the erection of 2 detached dwellings


Ref. No. 10/00292Location Land R/O, 40 Sandwich Road, Eythorne

Proposal

DOV/

Erection of a detached dwelling

Item No. 06 RcmDcn DEF

2Index for Planning CommitteeDover District Council

Committee Date: 6/24/2010

Ref. No. 10/00325Location Kingsdown Park Holiday Village, Upper Street, Kingsdown

Proposal

DOV/

Removal of Condition (v) of planning permission DO/78/255 to allow holiday park to open all year round


Ref. No. 10/00326Location Erebus, Dover Road, Guston

Proposal

DOV/

Erection of detached dwelling and construction of vehicular access

Item No. 08 RcmDcn DEF

Ref. No. 10/00336Location Youth Club, Foxborough Hill, Woodnesborough

Proposal

DOV/

Erection of 4 dwellings and construction of a vehicular access (existing building to be demolished)


1. a) DOV/10/0042 – Erection of a detached dwelling and construction of vehicular access, site adjoining 44 Nursery Lane, Whitfield

b) Summary of Recommendation Grant Planning Permission. c) Planning Policies and Guidance Dover Core Strategy (CS): Policies CP5 and DM13 South East Plan (SEP): Policies CC1, CC4, CC6, NRM1, H5 and BE5 Dover District Local Plan (DDLP): Policy HS2 PPS1 and PPS3. d) Relevant Planning History DOV/89/00140 - Pair of semi-detached houses – outline granted. DOV/08/00539 - Erection of a detached dwelling – refused. DOV/09/00706 - Erection of a detached dwelling and

construction of vehicular access – refused. e) Consultee and Third Party Responses County Highways: No objections, subject to conditions. Southern Water: No objections, subject to conditions. Environment Agency: No objection. Whitfield Parish Council: Objects. The proposal would reduce visibility on an

extremely narrow road. There is no footpath and poor lighting at the site, which coupled with the reduced visibility, could prove dangerous for pedestrians. No. 44 Bewsbury Court Lane would be overlooked. The house proposed is too large and too high for this site. Even though there were two houses here in the past, this should not be a deciding factor, as traffic is now much increased. The semi-detached houses on the opposite side of the road are set much further back and do not obscure the line of sight for drivers, so are not comparable to the proposed development.

Public Representations: Nine letters of objection have been received, stating

the following concerns:- Impact on Neighbours

• Interlooking with No. 50 Nursery Lane; • Overlooking into No. 44 Bewsbury Cross Lane; • Disruption to neighbours.

Highways

• Reduced visibility at the junction; • Road safety for vehicles, pedestrians and cyclists;

• The lane is used as a rat run; • The proposed low hedge would grow and restrict visibility.

Impact on Street Scene

• Large property on a small piece of land; • It would dominate the area; • Potential for bank erosion; • Impact of lorry movements on the protected Copper Beech tree; • Out of character with surrounding properties; • Unsightly; • The dwelling would not be in keeping with the natural flow of the land

or in line with other properties. Two letters of support have been received, stating that the dwelling would

enhance the area, which is currently an eyesore. Amended plans are being readvertised at the time of writing this report. Any

further letters raising material planning issues will be relayed at Planning Committee.

f) 1. The Site and the Proposal

1.1 The application relates to a corner plot of land located on the junction

between Nursery Lane, Lenacre Road and Bewsbury Cross Lane. The site lies within the village confines of Whitfield. It is currently quite overgrown and is enclosed by a heras fence and there is a partly gravelled access to its northern boundary. The land is on a slope up to the south-west and the site varies in level by around 2m.

1.2 The site is adjacent to a detached two storey dwelling, No. 44 Nursery

Lane. This property has a red brick finished frontage under a tiled roof, with three rear facing dormers and a flint finished rear elevation. It is set down from the road and is built close to the roadside boundary.

1.3 To the north, Lenacre Lane comprises mainly brick-built/rendered

detached bungalows with gable-fronted roofs, set within well sized plots. The application site is readily visible from along Lenacre Lane.

1.4 A brick built semi-detached pair of properties (Nos 50 and 52 Nursery

Lane) is located on the corner, to the west of the application site, and set well within the site. From a western approach along Nursery Lane, the site is currently well screened by the 2.5m boundary hedging and a large beech tree within the curtilage of No. 50 Nursery Lane.

1.5 There is a mixture of bungalows and two storey dwellings along

Nursery Lane (to the east), with the bungalows generally sited to the northern side of the road, set down on lower ground. The dwellings opposite the site are generally well screened by foliage. The general character is that of a semi-rural area, with the dwellings well spaced, set back from the road and unobtrusive. The application site is less visible from along this road, due to the forward siting of No. 44 Nursery Lane.

1.6 The corner plot to the south of the site, along Bewsbury Cross Lane, is

currently open, as is the plot of land adjacent to No. 55 Bewsbury Cross Lane. The site is again readily visible from the south, along Bewsbury Cross Lane.

1.7 The proposal seeks full planning permission for the erection of a

detached dwelling. It would have a gable-ended roof design, with a gable roof to the front and rear projections and two pitched roof dormers. The dwelling is shown to accommodate a living room, dining room, kitchen and utility room at ground floor and four bedrooms on the first floor.

1.8 The dwelling would have an L-shaped footprint and would follow the

building line of No. 44 Nursery Lane. The proposal has been amended in its siting, to locate it further away from the Lenacre Lane roadside boundary, and reduced in width by 1m. The dwelling is now shown to be sited between 3m and 7.5m from Lenacre Lane and between 5m and 7.5m from Nursery Lane. It is shown to be 1.8m below the road level of Nursery Lane.

1.9 An access would be formed onto Lenacre Lane, to be located

adjacent to the side boundary with No. 2 Lenacre Lane. Parking for two vehicles is shown.

1.10 Plans will be on display.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

creation of sustainable and distinctive communities. 2.6 SEP Policy NRM1 states that water supply and ground water will be

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

2.7 SEP Policy H5 states that positive measures to raise the quality of

new housing, reduce its environmental impact and facility future

adaptation to meet future changes in accommodation needs will be encouraged.

2.8 SEP Policy BE5 sets out that all new development should be subject

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

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

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

2.10 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.

2.11 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.

3. Assessment 3.1 The site is previously-developed land within the urban confines. Its

development is acceptable in principle. The main areas of assessment accordingly are:

• Impact on neighbours and future occupants • Impact on the street scene • Highway implications

Impact on neighbours and future occupants 3.2 The proposed dwelling would be built adjacent to No. 44 Nursery

Lane. It would be orientated to the west of No. 44, so may cast some shadow onto the neighbouring property in the late afternoon. However, it would not project past the rear wall of the neighbouring property, so the level of shadow cast is not considered to be unacceptable. Given its positioning adjacent to No. 44, there would not be any overbearing or enclosing impact on the neighbours. The dwelling would have one side window, serving a hallway. This would not cause any overlooking problems.

3.3 Given the distance between properties and their separation by the

road, it is not considered that the dwelling would adversely affect the occupants at No. 50 Nursery Lane by way of overlooking.

3.4 There would be sufficient garden space provided for future occupants. 3.5 Overall, the proposal is considered to be acceptable in respect of its

impact on surrounding and future occupants.

Impact on the street scene 3.6 From along Nursery Lane (from the south-west of the site), the

application site is clearly visible from about 50m away and contributes to the open character of the area.

3.7 From Bewsbury Cross Lane, to the south of the site, from a point

about opposite No. 55 Bewsbury Cross Lane (about 35m from the site), the corner plot significantly contributes to the character of the area, providing long views of the bungalows in Lenacre Lane.

3.8 The application site provides an important part of the view from the

north, from Lenacre Lane. Clear views of the site can be attained a good 70m away from the site. The corner plot is in a particularly prominent position from this direction and provides an important ‘softening’ role in the character and the appearance of the area. It is considered to be important that the building should be read against the built form visible from this direction (i.e. the properties at 42 and 44 Bewsbury Cross Lane) and should not be too close to the Lenacre Road boundary and project past these buildings.

3.9 The proposal follows two refused schemes, the most recent of which

was refused due to the scale, height, design and location of the property and its impact on the surrounding area; it was considered to be intrusive, cramped and unsympathetic to surrounding properties.

3.10 Overall, it is considered that the proposal is an improvement on the

previously refused applications. During the course of this application, it was suggested to the applicant’s agent that the building should be reduced in width by about 1m, which has been done. In its current form, the dwelling is still relatively large, particularly given the open and prominent position of this corner plot. However, its frontage width of 10.5m is now more comparable to the neighbouring property, which is just less than 10m, not including its single storey addition.

3.11 In respect of its design and form, the dwelling is considered to be

acceptable. Most of the properties surrounding the site are constructed of brick, under tiled roofs, with some instances of render and slate. The more traditional style and design is considered to be an improvement on the modern design previously proposed and the brick/tile finish would reflect that of surrounding properties. The overall design of the property appears more sympathetic to the surrounding area.

3.12 The reduction in height of the dwelling, compared to previous

schemes, would help to reduce its impact within the street scene. It would have a ridge height just 20cm higher than the neighbour at No. 44 Nursery Lane and its eaves would be level with those at No. 44.

3.13 More distance has been provided between the dwelling and the

Lenacre Road boundary compared to the last scheme. The refused scheme had a single storey extension, which was about 0.8m away from the side boundary, whereas this proposal (as amended) shows the two storey building to be set between 3m and 7.7m from the road.

This is considered to be an improvement and would help to reduce its visual impact and prominence within the street scene.

3.14 The site is currently well screened from the north-east of Nursery

Lane, due to the forward siting of No. 44. The road bends slightly just beyond No. 44 (to the front of the application site) and it is considered that as it would follow the building line of No. 44, the dwelling would not appear intrusive from this direction, as it would create a slightly staggered effect and would follow the curve in the road. The siting of the dwelling from the Nursery Lane boundary would be consistent with the forward siting of the properties along this road (No. 4 and the properties to the south-west of Nursery Lane).

Highways implications 3.15 A number of concerns have been raised relating to reduced visibility at

the junction and general road safety. However, County Highways raises no objections to the scheme, subject to the relevant conditions being attached. The normal requirements relating to visibility and on-site parking have been satisfactorily addressed.

Conclusions 3.16 There has been a reduction in the height, scale and bulk of the

dwelling, compared to the previously refused, though the dwelling is still relatively large. A number of objections have been received, relating to the size of the land, the visual impact that the dwelling would have on the area and its relationship with surrounding properties. However, on balance, it is considered that the design and siting of the dwelling are now such that a sense of openness would be retained and the building would not appear unduly intrusive within the street scene from any direction at a level that would justify a recommendation of refusal. Neither of the two previous refusals was concerned with matters of land use or design principle and it is considered that the objectives reflected in the reasons for refusal have been satisfactorily overcome.

3.17 None of the matters raised by third parties, including the reference to

the protected tree on the opposite side of Lenacre Lane, are such as to override the conclusions reached.

g) Recommendation I Subject to no further material planning issues being raised during the

advertisement period, PERMISSION BE GRANTED, subject to the following conditions being attached:- (i) DP08; (ii) DP04 (amended plans); (iii) PA05 (retention of parking); (iv) AC11 (sight lines); (v) PA32 (construction vehicles); (vi) Surface water disposal; (vii) Surface of access; (viii) LA30 (boundary treatment); (ix) LA09 (hard and soft landscaping); (x) MA04 (material samples); (xi) PD02 (no further development); (xii) Details of foul and surface water sewerage; (xiii) LA01 (details of land levels); (xiv) Sustainable construction; (xv) Any amendments to the above conditions or additional conditions to be delegated to the Development Control Manager.

II INFORMATIVES: (i) A formal application for connection to the public sewerage system is required in order to service this development. The applicant should contact Atkins Ltd, Anglo St James House, 39A Southgate Street, Winchester, SO23 9EH (Tel: 01962 858688) or www.southernwater.co.uk; (ii) IPH1 (works to the public highway); (iii) Wheel washing; (iv) Any other informatives to be delegated to the Development Control Manager.

Case Officer Sarah Platts

2.a) DOV/10/0186 – Outline application for the erection of a detached dwelling and construction of a vehicular access, Casa Mia, John’s Green, Sandwich.

b) Summary of Recommendation Grant Planning Permission. c) Planning Policies and Guidance Dover Core Strategy (CS): Policies CP5 and DM13. South East Plan (SEP): Policies CC1, CC4 and H5. Dover District Local Plan (DDLP): Policy HS2. PPS1 and PPS3. d) Relevant Planning History None relevant. e) Consultee and Third Party Responses County Highways: No objections, subject to conditions. Ecology Comments: No objection, subject to condition. The boundary trees

provide a pleasant screen to the proposed dwelling; however, a TPO would not be justified.

Sandwich Town Council: No objection. Public Representations: Three letters of objection have been received,

stating the following:

• Out of character with surrounding properties; • Site too small to accommodate two properties – over-development of

site; • Garage is over-sized and would leave little garden left;

• Loss of light to No. 2; • Surrounding houses have much larger curtilages; • Negative impact on the openness of the Green; • Loss of privacy for neighbours; • Two new kerb crossings would be dangerous; • Parking problems; • Difficulties for surrounding occupants to access their drives; • Insufficient area for children to play; • A further property discharging into the sewer may cause an overload.


1.1 The application site relates to an L-shaped corner plot of land adjacent to No. 2 St. John’s Green and no. 167 Dover Road. There is currently a single dwelling within the plot, Casa Mia, which has a detached garage and fronts St. John’s Green. Casa Mia’s garden extends along the side and rear boundary of no. 167 Dover Road. A 1.5m hedge currently runs along the boundary, with fairly thick tree/ foliage cover at the junction. Some of the site is fairly overgrown.

1.2 Casa Mia is a red brick detached property with a side gabled roof and

tile hanging to the front elevation. The rest of the houses along John’s Green are a mix of detached and semi-detached properties of varying designs. They are mainly brick-built, with some instances of render and tile-hung finishes. The dwellings are generally quite large and are set back a little from the road.

1.3 No. 167 Dover Road is a large, detached property with a rear

conservatory and a detached garage adjacent to the boundary of the application site.

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

detached dwelling, with approval sought for the layout, scale, access and appearance. The remaining reserved matter, not to be considered at this stage, is the landscaping. This is an unusual method of securing permission but appears to be legitimate.

1.5 The proposal has been amended, further to officer concerns about the

height and scale of the dwelling as originally submitted. Amended plans show the dwelling to have the same height and depth as Casa Mia and a reduced frontage width of 10.75m. The front wall of the property would be in line with its neighbour Casa Mia and its side wall would follow the building line of no. 167. The dwelling would have a gable-sided roof, with a two storey front projection, which would have a lower, front facing gable roof design. Accommodation would be provided in the roof, so roof lights would be incorporated in the front and rear roof slopes. The dwelling would be finished in brick and render, with interlocking tiles used for the roof.

1.6 At ground floor, the dwelling would accommodate a kitchen and

breakfast area, lounge, utility room and lobby area. At first floor, there would be three bedrooms and a bathroom and within the roof space there would be two bedrooms with an en-suite.

1.7 A vehicular access would be created off John’s Green, leading to the

garage and the existing dropped kerb would be removed. A double garage would be erected adjacent to Casa Mia and would measure 5.5m by 5.7 and would have a pitched roof with a ridge height of 3.5m. The vehicle access and hard-standing would be constructed using brick paving. A total of six parking spaces are proposed – three for the existing property and three for the proposed property.

1.8 Landscaping is reserved; however, the Design and Access Statement

sets out that the existing trees and boundary treatment would be retained and new planting incorporated.


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

Code for Sustainable Homes level 3.

2.2 CS Policy DM13 states that provision for parking should be a design-led process based upon the characteristics of the site, the locality, the nature of the proposed development and its design objectives, informed by the guidance in the Table for Residential Parking.


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

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

2.5 SEP Policy H5 states that positive measures to raise the quality of

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

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

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

2.7 PPS1: Delivering Sustainable Development states that good design


2.8 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. PPS3 also encourages the efficient use of previously-developed land. As this report was being finalised, PPS3 was revised to exclude private gardens from the definition of previously-developed land.

3. Assessment 3.1 The main areas of assessment are:

• Impact on surrounding area; • Impact on neighbours; • Highways implications.

Impact on Surrounding Area

3.2 This application has been submitted following a previous scheme for the erection of two dwellings. It was advised that the proposed two dwellings would appear cramped, that the site would be over-developed and that the development would not reflect the spatial character of the area and the application was withdrawn.

3.3 The applicant’s agent was advised that a single dwelling may be

achievable within the plot, but that the design, scale and location of the dwelling needed to be carefully considered and thought needed to

be given as to whether it would reflect other properties in respect of design, scale, location and materials.

3.4 This is an important corner plot, which helps to soften the built form

along John’s Green and Dover Road and this contributes to the character and appearance of the area, which consists of mainly well-spaced properties within good sized curtilages. Any development here is likely to have an impact on the visual quality and character of the surrounding area.

3.5 During the course of this application, discussions with the applicant’s

agent have taken place. There were concerns that the originally submitted plans, together with the first set of amended plans, were unacceptable, due to the overall scale, height and impact of the dwelling within the street scene. It was advised that any dwelling on the site should reflect Casa-Mia more closely in footprint and in height.

3.6 The most recent set of amended plans are considered acceptable.

The siting of the dwelling would reflect that of surrounding properties - the dwelling would be set back from the road and would follow the existing building line along John’s Green, so it would not appear unduly prominent within the street scene.

3.7 Viewing the site from the junction at Dover Road, the dwelling would

follow the building line of No. 167 Dover Road and would be set back from its Dover Road boundary by some 15m. The Design and Access Statement sets out that it is intended for the existing planting to be retained and further landscaping can be controlled by way of condition, if required. It is considered that an acceptable level of openness would be retained, given the set-back of the proposed dwelling and its reduced scale and size.

3.8 In respect of design and form, the amendments made to the proposal

have resulted in a much more modest dwelling than was initially proposed. The dwelling would incorporate features that can be found on existing properties in John’s Green, with its side gables, front two storey projection and tile-hung front façade. It would have a slightly wider frontage than Casa Mia, but would nevertheless be of a similar scale and design to its neighbour and would not appear unduly intrusive or prominent within the street scene.

3.9 The proposed double garage would replace an existing garage, in a

slightly different location. It is considered to be of an acceptable scale and design.

3.10 The principle of a dwelling and more specifically, the layout, scale and

appearance of the proposed dwelling, which are for consideration as part of this outline application, are therefore considered acceptable in respect of its impact on the street scene.

Impact on neighbours

Impact on Casa Mia

3.11 It is considered that the side bedroom window would cause an unacceptable level of interlooking, given its distance under 14m from Casa Mia’s first floor side window. It has been suggested that any window in this location would need to be high-level (or obscure glazed and fixed shut). Instead, the agent has suggested raising the roof of the proposed garage slightly, to act as a screen between the two properties. Plans showing the increased height of the garage have been received and are considered to overcome this problem sufficiently.

3.12 The distance between the two properties would prevent the proposed

dwelling from having any adverse impact by way of overbearing or enclosing impact.

3.13 The proposed garage is shown to be about 2.7m from the side wall of

Casa Mia. The neighbour has one side window at ground floor, which serves a living room. There is, however, also a front window serving the room. It is not considered that it would result in an unacceptable loss of amenity for the occupants at Casa Mia. It is unlikely that the proposed increase in height of the garage would alter this conclusion.

Impact on No. 167 Dover Road

3.14 The dwelling would be sited next to No. 167’s side boundary, with just

under 1.7m distance between the rear wall and the boundary. Given its siting next to the neighbour’s side wall and their garage, it is not considered that the dwelling would have any unacceptable impact on the neighbour’s residential amenity from their rear garden.

3.15 The agent has arranged the floor layout so that the rear facing

windows on the first floor serve only a bathroom and shower room. Both of these windows can be conditioned to be obscure glazed and it is not considered that they would result in an undue perception of overlooking. The rear facing roof-light would also serve an en-suite and is shown to be high level and obscure glazed. This can also be controlled by way of condition. One of the ground floor rear facing windows would serve a kitchen, so this would not be obscure glazed. However, it is considered that boundary treatment would adequately prevent any unacceptable overlooking from this window. In any case, the window would face the neighbour’s garage.

Impact on future occupants 3.16 The proposal is considered to provide plenty of garden space. It is not

clear from the plans which section would be enclosed private garden space, but there is potential for it to be provided on either side of the house, provided that the fencing does not extend to the roadside boundary edge too closely. This can be dealt with when the Reserved Matter application for landscaping is submitted.

3.17 The third party objections received have been carefully considered in

respect of the impact of the dwelling on the neighbours. However, overall, subject to the side window being removed or altered, the proposed dwelling is not considered to have an unacceptable impact on neighbouring properties.

Highways Implications 3.18 Concerns have been raised by third parties relating to parking and

access problems. However, County Highways raise no objections and the proposal shows sufficient parking and access arrangements for both the proposed dwelling and for Casa Mia. These can be controlled by way of conditions.

Conclusion

3.19 The proposal is considered to have sufficiently addressed officer concerns in relation to the scale, height and siting of the dwelling. The proposed dwelling is considered to be an acceptable addition within the street scene and would not result in unacceptable harm to neighbours. It is not considered that the recent changes to PPS3 alter these conclusions. The proposal is also acceptable in highways terms. It is considered that the principle of a dwelling in this location is acceptable, as are the layout, scale, access and appearance of the dwelling. None of the matters raised by third parties overcomes these conclusions.

g) Recommendation I Subject to receipt of acceptable amended plans, PERMISSION BE

GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: (i) OP01 (reserved matter (landscaping) to be approved prior to commencement of development); (ii) OP12 (Time limit for commencement); (iii) OP05 (reserved matter to be submitted within three years); (iv) PA05 (parking); (v) AC14 (sight lines); (vi) (surfaced access); (vii) Tree and root protection during construction; (viii) MA04 (material samples); (ix) LA36 (replacement of trees/ shrubs); (x) MA37 (first floor windows to be obscure glazed and fixed shut up to 1.6m and rear roof-light to be high-level); (xi) SC1 (sustainable homes); (xii) LA31 (details of existing and proposed boundary treatment); (xiii) LA01 (land levels); (xiv) LA29 (Reserved Matter details to include times of planting); (xv) DP04 (amended plans); (xvi) Garage to be erected prior to first occupation of the dwelling, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority; (xvii) Any other conditions, or alterations to conditions to be delegated to the Development Control Manager.

I INFORMATIVES: (i) Wheel washing; (ii) IPH1 (works to the public highway;

(iii) Any further informatives to be delegated to the Development Control Manager.


3. a) DOV/10/0202 – Retrospective application for the widening of the existing vehicular access, 55 Westcourt Lane, Shepherdswell

b) Summary of Recommendation Planning Permission be Granted. c) Planning Policies and Guidance South East Plan (SEP): Policy CC6 Dover District Core Strategy (CS): Policy DM12 PPS1 – Delivering Sustainable Development PPG13 – Transport d) Relevant Planning History DOV/05/1276 – Formation of new vehicle access (involving

excavation works) – granted. DOV/08/0577 – Erection of 4 bedroom detached dwelling –

refused. Appeal dismissed. e) Consultee and Third Party Responses County Highways: Initially concerned at lack of some detail but now have no

objections subject to condition and an informative. Shepherdswell with Coldred Parish Council: Objects to the application on

several grounds. The design fails to meet the desired standard; the aesthetic appearance of the flanking walls is poor and detrimental to the street scene.

Public Representations: 12 letters of representations have been received –

8 against, 1 in favour and 3 making comments. The material planning issues that have been raised are summarised below:- • No evidence has been submitted of a soakaway or drain; if tarmac is

to be laid this could lead to surface water flooding directly onto the lane and adjoining land.

• A suitable time period for the completion of works should be imposed

due to the time that has been spent on the development. • No mention in the application of the felled cherry tree and scots pine,

which were shown as being retained on DOV/05/1276. • The demolition of the lean to garage means it can longer

accommodate vehicles. • Details of landscaping should be required to mitigate loss of rural

amenity. • No details have been submitted showing how the neighbour's bank

will be supported.

• The sight lines cannot be achieved because of the position of the neighbour's bank.

• The application overall lacks sufficient detail, including the finish to the

walls and surfacing. • Submitted plans are inaccurate; it is believed that the drive has been

widened by 1.5m, not 0.4m. • The drive has been extended to the south; this may not be permitted

development. • The proposal results in a loss of residential amenity. • Retaining walls have not been finished as approved under

DOV/05/1276, which showed brick facing walls but now it is proposed to be rough casting on brick.

• Public and highway safety has been sacrificed to save cost. • The block retaining wall on the eastern boundary should be raised by

a further tier to provide support of the exposed earth embankment along the boundary with No. 53.

• The application has caused significant noise pollution. • Traffic has increased speed due to the driveway making the lane

appear wider. • Public safety; vehicles cannot enter and leave steep gradient in a

forward motion. • As the banks have been reduced to provide sight lines this has had a

detrimental impact on the rural amenity of the area. • A change of use has occurred by the long-term storage at the back of

the site of spoil that has been excavated during the works. One letter of support was received stating full support for the application and

that other alterations to drives and buildings have occurred within the village without planning permission.

Some of the letters are lengthy and all are available for Members' inspection.


1.1 The site lies within the village confines of Shepherdswell. ‘Twenty Acre Shaw’, which is designated as a Site of Nature Conservation Interest (SNCI), lies to the southwest corner of the site and extends in a westerly direction away from the site.

1.2 The form and pattern of development along this part of Westcourt

Lane are a mixture of bungalows and two storey dwellings, set about 10m – 15m back from the roadside frontage; the dwellings are sited

within of varying sizes which extend to the rear (south). The boundary of the village confines runs along the rear boundaries of the residential curtilages of the properties either side of Westcourt Lane.

1.3 The plots along the southern side of Westcourt Lane and to the east of

the application site are linear in pattern and uniform in length. All have a plot depth of around 60m. The plots at No. 53 and No. 55 are significantly longer and wider, with depths of about 140m from the edge of Westcourt Lane.

1.4 To the west of the site the form and pattern of development alters,

becoming less uniform with dwellings more randomly laid out and sited at different angles to each other.

1.5 There are some well-established trees along the rear boundary, which

providing a soft edge to the village. The level of the land rises significantly from the road level at Westcourt Lane to the southern boundary of the site. Consequently, the existing dwelling, in common with others nearby, is elevated above the road. There is a succession of sloping drives along the lane with retaining walls of a variety of materials. The drives are of varying widths. There is also a variety of roadside landscaping including walls and grass banks. This part of Westcourt Lane is fairly suburban in character; a short distance to the west it becomes far more rural.

1.6 No. 55 is a two-storey detached dwelling. The site currently has a

driveway to its east side, which is under construction following planning permission granted under DOV/05/1276. This new application has been submitted following an enforcement investigation into claims that the driveway was not being constructed as per the approval. The application seeks retrospective planning permission for the widening of the access as now constructed.

1.7 The original permission (DOV/05/1276) showed the driveway

measuring some 5m at the entrance, reducing to 3m in width and extending some 23m from Westcourt Lane. The access has been constructed differently to the permission; it scales from the plans at 7m wide at the entrance, reducing to 4.6m and then 3.4m when it passes the house. The widened section of the drive is to its west. The length of the drive is not changed.

1.8 The plans previously approved showed two trees to the west of the

drive and at the front of the garden to be retained; these have been removed during construction. This part of the site has also been reduced to 1m in height to form an improved vision splay, reflecting a requirement of the permission. This splay is also shown in the current submission.

1.9 The landscaping strip between the boundary of No. 55 and No. 53 and

the retaining wall to the drive is shown to have been slightly increased to 0.8m from 0.6m previously. A hawthorn tree very close to the boundary is shown to be retained.

1.10 The driveway is proposed to be surfaced with tarmac as originally

agreed under DOV/05/1276 with a drainage gully shown to discharge

to a soakaway located at the entrance to the drive from Westcourt Lane.

1.11 The retaining wall on the northwest side has been altered to be cut

further into the existing bank in order to widen the driveway. It is also now proposed to finish to the retaining walls in rough cast render to match the existing house, with brick on edge capping. This is as opposed to the approved finish, which was shown as brick facing.

1.12 It should be noted that this application is retrospectively seeking

permission for work that has already been undertaken and not for further alterations to the driveway.

1.13 The application is accompanied by a statement from the applicant

explaining the need for a widened access for a caravan and to enable a lorry to remove spoil from the rear of the site.


2. Planning Policy 2.1 Policy CC6 of the SEP states that the development should respect or

enhance an area's character. 2.2 Policy DM12 of the Dover District Core Strategy states that access

arrangements of development proposals will be assessed with regard to the Highway Network set out in the Local Transport Plan for Kent. Proposals should not be permitted if there would be a significant increase in the risk of crashes or traffic delays unless proposal can include sufficient mitigation measures.

2.3 PPS1 supports sustainable development and the protection and

enhancement of the quality of the natural and historic environment in rural and urban areas. It states that good design should contribute positively to making places better for people. Emphasis is placed on good design as a positive contributor. 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.

2.4 PPG13 states that places that work well are designed to be used

safely and securely by all in the community, frequently for a wide range of purposes and throughout the day and evening. Traffic management should be undertaken in a way which compliments wider planning and transport objectives.

3. Assessment 3.1 The principal matters for consideration are:-

• Planning History • Highway Implications

• Impact on neighbouring properties and visual amenity

Planning History

3.2 The access arrangement for the site was established in the granting of planning permission for the formation of a new vehicular access (including excavation works) in 2005 (ref. DOV/05/1276).

3.3 Following concerns regarding the excavation work that was taking

place at the property, an investigation commenced in 2007 and it was apparent that the work was not following the permission that had been granted. The enforcement case was held in abeyance whilst the application for the erection of a dwelling, which would have been served by the access (DOV/08/577), was decided. This application was refused. The resultant appeal was dismissed in early 2009.

3.4 A further planning application was made for the erection of a detached

dwelling, but this was subsequently withdrawn. At length, the current application was submitted.

3.5 The 2005 permission accepted the principle of an access and

driveway in this location. Standard conditions imposed included requirements for sight lines and a maximum gradient. That application, which predated those for new dwellings on the land to the rear, attracted no contrary third party comment.

3.6 The critical issues now, therefore, are whether the proposal is

acceptable in highway and amenity terms. Some of the comments received challenge the applicant's statement about the reason for the widened access and express fears that the proposal, if approved, will lead to pressures for further development. However, while these concerns are understandable, they are not material to the determination of the application.

Highway Implications 3.7 Concerns have been raised by third parties that the nature of the

driveway will increase the risk to public safety as vehicles cannot enter and leave the steep gradient in a forward motion as well as an increase in traffic speed as motorist believe the road to be wider than it actually is.

3.8 A number of concerns were also raised over the soakaway and

potential flooding that the driveway could cause and whether the lane is wide enough to facilitate forward entry to the site without encroachment into neighbouring properties.

3.9 County Highways requested amended plans showing the location of

sight lines and confirming surface material and the surface water drainage. This information was provided by an amended plan and a subsequent email. County Highways now raise no objections to the application, subject to relevant conditions being attached. The principle of the development had already been accepted; the concern was to ensure that the details were satisfactory.

Impact on Neighbouring Properties and Visual Amenity 3.10 The proposal has caused concerns over the impact that it will have on

neighbouring properties and the visual amenity of the wider area. These include the felling of trees, the aesthetic appearance of the area, the proposed finish of the retaining walls and noise pollution that the development is claimed to have caused.

3.11 At present there is a part-finished driveway with breezeblocks put in

place to support the surrounding banks and a driveway which has not been laid as per the previous permission.

3.12 The current application seeks to complete the proposal by finishing

the retaining walls with rough cast render to match the existing dwelling with a brick edge capping. Although not in line with what was originally approved this is considered to be acceptable as it would match the original dwelling. It would not look out of place in the street scene, taking into account the character of nearby development, including driveways. Indeed, one of these which is currently under construction appears to be unauthorised but has attracted no third party comments.

3.13 Once the driveway is completed it is considered that it should not have

an adverse impact on the visual amenity of the wider area. Neither should it have any greater impact on the amenities of the neighbours than that already approved.

Conclusion 3.14 Local residents and the Parish Council have raised significant and

material concerns and objections over the application but it is not considered that its approval would result in demonstrable harm to the wider area or indeed to the residential amenities of the surrounding occupiers. The existing planning permission is an important material consideration.

3.15 Consideration has been given to all of the matters raised. A number

of details omitted from the original plans have now been included. The trees which have been removed were not protected or safeguarded by a condition on the previous planning permission and so the Council had no control over their removal. There was no landscaping condition on the previous permission, but such a condition is now considered to be justified. None of the other matters raised, including noise and highway safety, are such as to outweigh the conclusions reached.

g) Recommendation I Subject to resolution of details, PERMISSION BE GRANTED, subject to the

following conditions:- (i) DP08; (ii) DP04v (amended plans and subsequent email); (iii) AC13 (Detailed commencement of use); (iv) Surface water disposal; (v) Surfaced access; (vi) AC39v (Gradient); (vii) Landscaping/planting scheme.

II IPH1 (works to the public highway).

III The Development Control Manager be authorised to resolve all outstanding

matters. Case Officer Kerri Bland

4. a) DOV/10/0219 – Erection of a detached chalet bungalow, detached garage and construction of a vehicular access, 8 Granville Road, Walmer

b) Summary of Recommendation Planning permission be granted. c) Planning Policies and Guidance Core Strategy (CS): Policy DM13 South East Plan (SEP): Policy CC6 PPS1 – Delivering Sustainable Development PPS3 – Housing Kent Design Guide Walmer Design Statement: Design Principles WDS2, WDS3 & WDS5 d) Relevant Planning History DOV/04/858 – Outline application for the erection of a single

storey building – Granted. DOV/06/364 – Erection of detached chalet bungalow and

vehicular access – Granted. DOV/08/493 – Erection of detached chalet bungalow and

vehicular access – Granted. DOV/09/973 – Erection of detached chalet bungalow and

vehicle access – Granted. e) Consultee and Third Party Responses County Highways: No objections subject to conditions and informatives. Ecology comments: No objections subject to a condition. Fire Officer: Access shown would not conform to British Standard of

Approved Document B of the 2000 Building Regulations; however the application would be acceptable if a domestic sprinkler system is installed.

Walmer Parish Council: Objects; the application is contrary to the principles

of the Walmer Design Statement and CS Policy CP4. The following material considerations are raised:-

● The proposal is contrary to the terms of the original outline permission;

• The size, form and style would be out of character and have a negative impact on visual amenity;

● The building will be prominent when seen from adjoining properties;

• The dormers to the rear of the bungalow which would replace the

rooflights previously approved would result in overlooking.

Reference is also made to discrepancies in the plans and a site visit is requested “so that the full impact of the proposals can be accurately appreciated”.

Public Representations: 8 letters of objection have been received, which raise

the flowing material considerations:

• The proposal would be detrimental to visual amenity in terms of: - siting, massing and scale - overly prominent - spatial pattern and character of development - visibility from adjoining dwellings.

• The proposal would be detrimental to the amenity of adjacent

dwellings in terms of: - Overlooking - Overshadowing - Sense of enclosure - Noise and disturbance - Gravel drive beside 8A Granville Road is likely to be noisy when

vehicles drive along it – request has been made for it to be a quieter material;

• The dwelling would have insufficient amenity land;

• Over-extensive car parking;

• Proposal could cause a loss of trees on the site; ● Conditions on the outline permission have been disregarded and the

development strays even further from the original proposal through additional incremental changes.


1.1 The site is within the urban confines, and is a backland plot with an

existing but unfinished access between 8 and 8A Granville Road. Planning permission for a dwelling has been granted several times over the last 6 years, and works have begun on site to create the footings of a dwelling, in accordance with the plans approved in 2008. In order to do this, the site was first levelled, reducing the ground over much of the site by around 1.5m, and creating a large bund of loose earth towards the rear of the site, which the applicant states to be a temporary measure. Once work re-commences, he states, he will arrange to dispose of the earth.

1.2 Being a backland site, the plot is surrounded by other residential

properties. To the northeast are 8 and 8A Granville Road, to the southeast, the rear garden to 10 Granville Road, to the southwest is 6 Greenacre Drive, and to the northwest 5 and 7 Knoll Place.

1.3 The site is partially screened from its surroundings by fences, hedges

and other vegetation, which vary in height from around 1.6 to 8m.

1.4 The application seeks full planning permission for the erection of a detached dwelling with a vehicle access and a detached garage. The dwelling would be a chalet bungalow, with rooms in the roofspace lit by rooflights and dormers.

1.5 There is a long planning history to this site. The most recent

application was granted only last year (DOV/09/0973). The current application is very similar to this previous application and may be summarised as follows:-

• The siting, size, height and overall form of the dwelling itself

would be the same, though a conservatory would be added on the south west side. A detached garage is proposed to the south.

• The style and materials would be different from those

previously indicated, with a slightly more traditional style now proposed, and the materials to be brickwork with clay roof tiles, instead of cedar boarding and slate tiles as previously approved.

• Some changes to the internal layout are proposed. In

particular, the previous integral garage and roofspace above would be changed to a library and gym/store respectively.

• The doors and windows are of different design, but located in

much the same places as the previous application. The large rooflights to the rear (southwest) elevation would be replaced with two large pitched roof dormers. There are minor changes to the other window arrangements to the first floor rooms.

● The drive is of similar width and its position along the south

east side is unaltered. With the changes to the garage arrangements, it is extended along the south east side of the house, but reduced in length to its north east, where it previously served the integral garage, to provide a turning area.

● Altered arrangements for outdoor paving, including patios, and

retaining walls.

1.6 The previous application, which is still extant, is a material consideration when considering this application, being the fall-back position for the applicant, should this application be refused.

1.7 Plans of both the current proposal and the most recently approved

scheme will be on display.

2. Planning Policy 2.1 SEP Policy CC6 states that decisions associated with the

development and use of land should respect or enhance the character and distinctiveness of settlements and landscapes, and use innovative design processes to create a high quality built environment.

2.2 CS Policy DM13 states that parking for residential development is

guided by the table for Residential Parking. This table requires suburban dwellings to have a minimum of 2 spaces for a 4 bedroom house.

2.3 PPS1 and PPS3 require good design which contributes positively to

making places better for people, and states that although visual appearance and architecture of individual buildings are clearly important, good design goes beyond purely aesthetic considerations. It is considered that this infers that the amenity of adjacent properties is also important. PPS3 encourages the effective use of land, particularly previously-developed land, the definition of which until very recently included private residential gardens.

2.4 Kent Design Guide promotes development with good design which is

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

2.5 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 3.1 The principle of development of the site has been accepted with the

grant of planning permission. There have been no changes to Development Plan land use policies. However, the provisions of PPS3 have recently changed such as to exclude gardens from the definition of previously-developed land. This is not considered to be material as not only has planning permission been granted previously but the development has commenced and the land is no longer part of a garden. Accordingly, the main issues for consideration are:- • Impact on residential amenity • Impact on visual amenity

Impact on Residential Amenity 3.2 Members will note that various objections have been raised relating to

the impact on residential amenity of the adjacent properties. However, in comparison to the previous 2009 application, the height of the dwelling is the same in terms of finished ground floor level, ridge and eaves heights and the overall roof form. In terms of its physical presence, therefore, the dwelling is not likely to have any additional material effects. The important differences involve the addition of a conservatory, a detached garage and rear dormers. There are slight differences in terms of size, design and exact placement of windows.

Apart from the dormers, the overall level and positions of windows and rooflights is such that no new overlooking would be likely to result. The main differences in fenestration are the dormers to replace the large rooflights to the rear (southwest) roofslope, the glazing to the new conservatory, and the windows to the library and gym above, which were previously not habitable rooms (windows to these rooms previously could not therefore have caused overlooking previously).

3.3 The dormers would be around 17m from the boundary and over 25m

from the dwelling to the southwest, 6 Greenacre Drive. At this distance it is unlikely that any significant overlooking would occur, particularly as the property to the southwest is largely screened by tall trees and other vegetation within both sites.

3.4 The conservatory would be slightly closer to the rear boundary than

the previous rear windows, but would still be around 11m from the boundary and around 21m from the dwelling at 6 Greenacre Drive. The distance and boundary treatment between the two properties is considered to be sufficient to prevent any significant overlooking. The rising levels towards the boundary also assist.

3.5 The small window to the northwest side of the ground floor library

would face the bank and boundary fence between the site and the properties in Knoll Place. The bank is around 1.5m high, due to excavations on the application site, which is now lower than the properties in Knoll Place, and the boundary fence is around 1.8m high. These circumstances would prevent overlooking. The glazed doors to the southeast side of the library would face the garden to 10 Granville Road at a distance of around 18m, which would be sufficient to prevent overlooking. The boundary treatment between the two properties, which consists largely of vegetation, would also help to prevent overlooking.

3.6 The dormers on the southeast of the first floor gym/store room above

the garage would be around 18m from the boundary, and unlikely to cause overlooking at this distance; the high level rooflight to the northwest would be above eye level and unlikely to cause overlooking towards Knoll Place.

3.7 The minor alterations to the rest of the fenestration would not be

significantly different in impact to the doors and windows granted as part of the 2009 application. The ground floor windows would not overlook adjacent properties through a combination of distance and boundary treatment, the rooflights to the northwest elevation would be high level and unlikely to cause overlooking, the first floor windows to the southwest elevation would be too far from the boundary and dwelling to the southwest to be likely to cause overlooking, there are no windows to the northeast elevation at first floor level, and the first floor window to the master bedroom would face the rear garden of 10 Granville Road as did the previously approved window in this elevation, but would overlook only the vegetable garden area of the site, the main private garden being screened by a high hedge across the garden of No. 10.

3.8 It is therefore considered that the proposal would not be likely to result in significant overlooking.

3.9 Objections have also been raised against the proposal in terms of

potential loss of light and sense of enclosure to the adjacent properties.

3.10 The siting, size and height of the main building are largely unaltered

compared to the last application of 2009, other than the addition of the dormers to the southwest and the conservatory. The dormers and conservatory would be too far from the nearest boundaries to be likely to cause significant overshadowing or sense of enclosure. The detached garage, being immediately adjacent to the boundary with 10 Granville Road, would be likely to cause some loss of light to the garden, although since the garden to 10 is to the south of the application site it is unlikely that the loss of sun light would be significant. The size and height of the garage is likely to have some impact on the garden land immediately adjacent to it in terms of sense of enclosure, but due to the size of the garden, the impact on the garden overall would be minimal, and the limited potential impact on this area of garden would not be likely to significantly harm the residential amenity of the property.

3.11 A concern is raised over the possible disturbance through noise from

the driveway if a loose material is used to surface it. The driveway is within around 1m from the side of 8A Granville Road, and within around 5m of 8 Granville Road. It is therefore close to the windows to No. 8, and whilst the noise from cars on the driveway would not be likely to result in significant harm to the amenity of this property, if Members consider it necessary, a condition requiring the driveway to be constructed from a consolidated material (not loose stone or gravel) could be imposed to reduce noise levels. The hard surfaced areas within the private curtilage of the site are shown to be of bound gravel.

Impact on Visual Amenity 3.12 In terms of comparison to the previous application granted in 2009,

the addition of the garage and conservatory and the relatively minor alterations to the design and materials, would not significantly change the appearance of the dwelling or its impact on the street scene.

3.13 Members will note that various letters of objection from both the public

and from the Parish Council have been received which relate to the visual impact of the dwelling. The design principles of the Walmer Design Statement are acknowledged and account has been taken of the objections of the Parish Council and members of the public. However, due to the variety of dwelling styles and sizes surrounding the site and on Granville Road, the proposed chalet bungalow and garage would not appear incongruous. Moreover, due to the siting of the dwelling (over 60m from Granville Road and surrounded by other properties) the dwelling would not be noticeable from the street, and the even the garage, which would be visible at a distance from the entrance to the site, would not be particularly noticeable. Glimpses of the dwelling might be had from Knoll Place and Greenacre Drive.

However, due to the distance from these streets and the context in which it would be seen, behind the existing dwellings surrounding the site, it would not be likely to have a prominent or obtrusive appearance.

3.14 It is considered that, in terms of the spatial pattern of the street scene,

the visual impact of the new dwelling on this backland site would be negligible, and it would not be likely to have a detrimental impact on the visual amenity of the street scene.

Other Matters and Conclusions 3.15 The Fire Officer raised some concerns regarding the existing access

arrangements, but stated that if a domestic sprinkler system is installed, or if the driveway and turning area are widened to 3.7m and can be constructed to have a carrying capacity of 12.5 tonnes, it would be acceptable. At the time of writing, the agent has agreed to provide further information to explain how the development would comply with the British Standard regarding access for Fire and Rescue vehicles.

3.16 The proposal includes parking for two cars within the garage, which

together with ancillary parking, would be sufficient to comply with Policy DM13 and would provide adequate parking for the site.

3.17 One of the concerns raised in the letters of representation was that

trees could be lost due to the development. The plan submitted shows the loss of only one tree, compared to the previously approved plan, in order to be able to erect the proposed garage. The loss of this tree is considered to be unlikely to affect the visual amenity of the area, and the other trees on the site are to be protected during works to reduce further losses. Additional trees could be planted if necessary to replace any loss during construction as part of the landscaping details required by condition. The majority of trees around the site are situated on adjacent properties and are not within the control of the applicant.

3.18 In summary, the principle of a dwelling on this site has been accepted

previously. When outline permission was initially granted in 2004, the view was taken that the applicants had not satisfactorily demonstrated that a two storey dwelling could be built on the site without causing undue overlooking and loss of privacy. Conditions were therefore attached to the outline permission limiting subsequent details to single storey only and prohibiting dormers and rooflights. Subsequently, the 2006 application demonstrated that a two storey dwelling could be satisfactorily accommodated. The later detailed applications took these considerations into account. Development has been commenced. The current proposal involves changes to the scheme approved in 2009 but its essential characteristics remain unchanged. Members will note the Parish Council request for a site visit. However, having taken into account all matters raised and all material planning considerations, it is considered that the proposed development is acceptable, and a favourable recommendation is made. Discrepancies in the plans have been addressed.

g) Recommendation I Subject to resolution of any outstanding details, PERMISSION BE GRANTED

subject to the following conditions: (i) DP08; (ii) MA04; (iii) DP04 – The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the submitted application as amended by Drawing 10/19/02 Rev C received 07/05/10 unless otherwise approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and to ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans and details; (iv) AC04; (v) PA05; (vi) AC32; (vii) PA32; (viii) AC27; (ix) Prior to the commencement of the development details of the material to be used to surface the vehicle access and parking area (which shall be a properly consolidated material (not loose stone or gravel) shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be constructed in accordance with the approved details, and maintained as such thereafter Reason: In the interests of highway safety and convenience; (x) LA31; (xi) PD03; (xii) The high level rooflights on the northwest facing roofslope shall have a sill height of not less than 1.70 metres above finished internal floor level and, 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 modifications), they shall not be altered. Reason: In order to avoid unacceptable overlooking; (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 roof of the dwelling other than any expressly authorised by this permission. Reason: In order to avoid unacceptable overlooking; (xiv) LA07; (xv) LA36; (xvi) LA01; (xvii) No development shall take place until full details of existing and proposed finished ground levels of the garden have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The works shall be carried out as approved. Reason: To ensure that the development is carried out at suitable levels in relation to adjoining land and buildings and in the interests of amenity and highway requirements; (xviii) LA40; (xix) Any other conditions or amendments to the above conditions to be delegated to the Development Control Manager.

Case Officer Catherine Todd

5. a) DOV/10/0290 – Outline application for the erection of 2 detached dwellings, San Pio, Victoria Road, Kingsdown

b) Summary of Recommendation Planning Permission be granted. c) Planning Policies and Guidance Dover District Core Strategy (CS): Policies DM13 and CP5 South East Plan (SEP): Policies CC1, CC2, CC4, SP3, H5 and C3 PPS1 – Delivering Sustainable Development PPS3 – Housing Kent Design Guide (KDG) d) Relevant Planning History DOV/06/01458 - Outline application for the erection of

2 detached dwellings (existing dwelling to be demolished) – granted.

e) Consultee and Third Party Responses County Highways: No objection subject to conditions. Ecology Comments: Comments awaited. Public Rights of Way (KCC): No comment. Ringwould with Kingsdown Parish Council: Ambivalent; although a small plot

for two properties and the two neighbours have differing views, it would not look out of place with the bungalow to the north.

Public Representations: 3 letters of objection have been received and the

comments are summarised as follows:

• The current bungalow fits well with the current style;

• Two new houses would be inappropriate;

• It may have an impact on the bridleway behind the property, which is important for recreation purposes;

• Would be over development of the site;

• Would lead to cars being parked on the highway;

• Would set a precedent;

• All of the dwellings have individual architectural features.


1.1 The application site lies within but at the edge of the village confines of Kingsdown and within a designated Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). Victoria Road has a suburban appearance, characterised by large dwellings in generally spacious plots situated back from the edge of the highway and screened in most parts by large mature hedgerows.

1.2 The application site is situated on the west side of the road within a

ribbon of development. The boundary for the AONB is located down the centre of the road, thus the east side (also continuously built-up) is not within it. The village confines boundary is coincident with the rear garden boundary. To the west (rear) of the site there is a public bridleway and beyond is agricultural land, thus countryside.

1.3 The site is occupied by a chalet bungalow called ‘San Pio’ and has an

area of some 35m x 30m. 1.4 Outline planning permission is being sought for the erection of two

dwellings on this site following the demolition of San Pio. All matters including landscaping, layout, scale, appearance and access have been reserved for future consideration.

1.5 However, the applicant has provided an indicative site plan to

demonstrate how two dwellings might fit on the site. It shows the site to be approximately divided into half so that each plot would have a street frontage of between 16m – 14m. The dwellings would be sited on a similar footprint to the existing bungalow thus roughly sharing the same building line as the adjacent dwelling ‘Takapuna’ and situated approximately 16m back from the edge of the highway.

1.6 This indicative plan also indicates that the existing vehicular access

would be retained and utilised by one of the proposed dwellings and that a new vehicular access is proposed for the second dwelling.

1.7 The applicant is obliged to advise on the envisaged proposed scale of

the dwellings. The site plan and the design and access statement confirm that the footprint of each dwelling would be approximately 11m x 9m. The site plan indicates that the dwellings would each have a hipped roof and the design and access statement confirms that the ridge height would be 5m. The application form indicates that dwellings may be provided with four bedrooms; however the plans have not demonstrated how four bedrooms could be accommodated within the floor space proposed. This information at this stage is just indicative.

1.8 Based on the information provided it is likely that the dwellings would

be chalet bungalows or dwellings with first floor accommodation in the roof space.

1.9 Members should be aware that this proposal is very similar to the

outline planning permission (DOV/06/1458) which was granted under delegated powers in January 2007 and has since expired.


2. Planning Policy 2.1 CS Policy DM13 sets out the maximum required car parking provision

for new dwellings. 2.2 CS Policy CP5 requires all new residential development to meet Code

for Sustainable Homes level 3. 2.3 SEP Policy SP3 aims to ensure that new development is concentrated

in the urban areas in order to foster accessibility to employment, housing, retail and other services, and avoid unnecessary travel.

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

achieve and to maintain sustainable development in the region. 2.5 SEP Policy CC4 requires all new development to adopt and

incorporate sustainable construction standards and techniques. 2.6 SEP Policy H5 requires positive measures to raise the quality of new

housing. In conjunction with the delivery of high quality design and in order to make good use of available land and encourage more sustainable patterns of development, high housing densities will be encouraged at 40 dwellings per hectare.

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

conservation and enhancement of natural beauty in the region’s AONB and planning decisions should have regard to their setting.

2.8 One of the key principles of PPS1 is to ensure high quality and

inclusive design for all development, including individual buildings, public and private spaces and wider area development schemes. Good design should contribute positively to making places better for people. PPS1 advises that design which is inappropriate in its context, or which fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area and the way it functions, should not be accepted.

2.9 PPS3 echoes the advice in PPS1 and states that good design is

fundamental to the development of high quality new housing, which contributes to the creation of sustainable, mixed communities and encourages the efficient use of previously developed land.

2.10 The Kent Design Guide (KDG) is adopted Supplementary Guidance

advocates good design informed by a detailed urban design analysis of the surrounding environment.

3. Assessment Principle of the development 3.1 The proposal constitutes the residential redevelopment of a site within

the village confines. PPS3 has recently been amended and now excludes garden land from the definition of previously developed land.

However, the two new dwellings would each be situated partially on the footprint of the existing dwelling, albeit that together they would cover a slightly larger area. The site is not exclusively garden land and can legitimately be regarded as previously-developed land. Furthermore, this development would be unlikely to result in a significant loss of garden land such as to warrant refusal. It would not undermine the Government’s aim to ensure that housing development is provided with amenity space and green open areas. As such this proposal is considered to be in accordance with PPS3. Accordingly, the principle of the proposed development complies with national, regional, county and local policies which seek to encourage such development within the confines of existing settlements to meet housing targets, reduce pressure for the release of greenfield sites and encourage more sustainable and integrated communities.

3.2 However, development will only be considered appropriate where it is

acceptable in terms of more site-specific factors including context, relationship with surrounding buildings, landscaping, topography etc. Therefore it is important to consider the following issues: • The visual impact of the dwelling; • The impact on residential amenities; and • Highway Safety

Visual Amenities

3.3 From the indicative information provided it is possible to assess the visual spatial impact that this development would be likely to have. The size of the plot at present is comparable to others in Victoria Road. The widest plot is 35m and the narrowest is some 12m – 15m. The proposed plots would each have a comparable street frontage to others nearby. The illustrative plans suggest that the new dwellings could have a separation distance between them of approximately 2.2m and separated from their flank boundaries by 1m. These relationships are considered to be acceptable, reflecting the character of development nearby, including dwellings which span their entire plots. It is advised that the indicative layout of the site would reflect the existing spatial character of the area.

3.4 The proposed height of the dwellings at 5m is likely to be acceptable.

However, this would be dependent on ground levels and sections through the buildings be submitted with the reserved matters application. The topography of the site is varied, steeply increasing in height from the road to the rear of the site.

3.5 The appearance of the dwellings is reserved for future consideration

as is the landscaping of the site. The applicant should be reminded that the site is within a sensitive location in the AONB therefore the design and landscaping proposed would have to enhance the natural beauty of the area.

Residential Amenities 3.6 The nearest residential dwellings are ‘Takapuna’ to the south and

‘Rocklands’ to the north. One of the proposed dwellings would at it closest be 2m from the side flank elevation of ‘Takapuna’ according to the indicative plan. This also indicates that the nearest new dwelling would have a smaller footprint and would not intrude beyond the front or rear building line. Furthermore, ‘Takapuna’ is situated to the south of the site such that that neither the outlook nor the amount of natural light would be harmed.

3.7 To the north is ‘Rocklands’ which is situated further forward than ‘San

Pio’ and the indicative sitings of the proposed dwellings. The rear building line would therefore potentially extend beyond ‘Rocklands’. However, from the indicative plans, it is unlikely that the closest new dwelling would impinge on the 45 degree line (this is a general rule of thumb used to judge the impact in terms of out look and natural light) and as such the indicative sitings of the dwellings are considered to demonstrate that the development would be acceptable and not harmful to residential amenities.

3.8 Window positions and the potential for overlooking would be

considered at the detailed stage when the design of the building has been submitted. However, the applicant should be advised that side windows and balconies are unlikely to be acceptable due to the close proximity of the adjacent dwellings.

Highway Safety 3.8 County Highways have not raised an objection to this proposal and

have recommended that standard conditions be imposed if outline planning permission is granted. In order to comply with the residential car parking standard, (Policy DM13) two independently accessible car parking spaces would have to be provided for each dwelling. Whilst this has not been specifically indicated on the plans it would appear possible to achieve. The car parking details and the access are reserved for future consideration.

Other Matters and Conclusions 3.9 Regional and local planning policy requires all new developments to

consider sustainable development and construction methods. Therefore, in order to comply with Policy CP5 of the CS a condition should be imposed to ensure that this dwelling is built to Sustainable Homes Code Level 3.

3.10 In conclusion, the principle of this development is considered to be

acceptable due to its location within the confines and within a predominantly residential area. The recent revisions to PPS3 do not affect this conclusion.

3.11 The views of the third parties have been taken into consideration and

do not outweigh the merits of granting planning permission. There is no reason why the development should impact on the bridleway or set a precedent.

g) Recommendation I Outline Planning Permission be granted, subject to the following conditions:-

(i) OP01; (ii) OP03; (iii) OP12; (iv) MA04; (v) LA02; (vi) LA11: (vii) LA36; (viii) LA10; (ix) LA30; (x) AC06; (xi) AC39; (xii) PA02; (xiii) PA32; (xiv) PD03; (xv) PD20; (xvi) SC1; (xviii) UN01-Street scene elevation; (xviii) Any other conditions to be delegated to the Development Control Manager.

II The applicant BE ADVISED that a detailed scheme based on the indicative

details submitted with the application is likely to be acceptable, but that it should avoid the use of side windows or balconies.

Case Officer Rachel Ellwood

6. a) DOV/10/0292 – Erection of detached dwelling, land rear of 40 Sandwich Road, Eythorne.

b) Summary of Recommendation Consideration be deferred. c) Planning Policies and Guidance Dover District Core Strategy (CS): Policies DM13 and CP5

South East Plan (SEP): Policies CC1, CC2, CC4, SP3 and H5 PPS1 – Delivering Sustainable Development PPS3 – Housing Kent Design Guide (KDG) d) Relevant Planning History

No relevant planning history.

e) Consultee and Third Party Responses County Highways: No comments. Fire Service: No objection. Eythorne Parish Council: Objects for the following reasons:

• Emergency access and egress; • Sandwich Road is exceptionally busy with poor sight lines for

emergency vehicles;

• Inadequate parking; • The slope of the site poses problems for overlooking and loss of

privacy; • This is not a brown field site; • Measurements and statements relating to the hedge are inaccurate.

Public Representations: Twelve letters of objection have been received and

the comments are summarised as follows:

• Sandwich Road is already congested, it is the main route to the school;

• The parking provision for the existing dwelling would be reduced; • The sightlines cannot be improved, as the boundary fence is not within

the ownership of the applicant; • The driveway narrows to 2.45m, which is not wide enough for

emergency vehicles;

• The proposal conflicts with paras 2.67, 3.27, 3.42 and 3.6 of the Core

Strategy which relates to social issues, green infrastructure, and provision of homes for the working age group;

• The proposal would set a precedent, leading to the potential for all

houses from 36 to 56 Sandwich Road to apply for the same thing; • The Design and Access Statement is incorrect; the dwelling at No. 34

is not a new house and has been on this site for the last 40 years; • It would be detrimental to the character and setting of surrounding

buildings; • The character of the village should be retained; • Will ruin the view; • Will create noise and disturbance; • Will cause overlooking; • The site is an essential part of Green Infrastructure; • The proposal is a one and half storey property, not a bungalow; • The height of the hedge has been misrepresented, it is actually only

waist height; • The flat roofs could be used for amenity space; • The 'Retreat' would overlook the new dwelling; • It would not blend into the local architectural style of adjacent

properties; • It would impact on wildlife; • Capacity to absorb rainfall will be greatly reduced.


1.1 The application site lies within the village confines of Eythorne. The

site is surrounded by residential properties and their curtilages. The area is wholly residential and is characterised by an eclectic mix of dwellings sizes, styles and periods.

1.2 The site forms the severed part of the rear garden belonging to

No. 40 Sandwich Road, which is an end of terrace, two storey dwelling situated on the west side of Sandwich Road. The site would have an area of approximately 30m (long) x 14m (wide), leaving No. 40 with a plot of 4m (wide) x 25m (long).

1.3 Full planning permission is sought for the erection of a detached bungalow. The building would have a footprint of some 10m x 10m and accommodate 2 bedrooms, 1 bathroom, a utility room and an open plan kitchen/dinning room/sitting room.

1.4 The topography of the site and the surrounding area is varied, the land

level decreases in height from the Sandwich Road through to the ‘Retreat’ at the rear of the site, thus the proposed dwelling would be situated at a higher land level.

1.5 To accommodate the proposed development it is proposed to

excavate the site in order to reduce its overall height. The design of the building does, however, reflect the changing topography by creating split levels within it and a staggered roof height. The dwelling would have a flat sedum roof. The maximum height is shown to be 3.5m above the excavated land level, suggesting that the land would need to be excavated up to a depth of 0.5m. In the absence of a site survey showing proposed and existing land levels above ODN the exact measurements are not known.

1.6 There would be separation distances of some 20m from the front

elevation of the proposed dwelling to the rear elevation of No.40 and some 22m between the rear elevation of the new dwelling and the rear elevation of “The Retreat” which lies to the west.

1.7 The dwelling would be accessed by the existing driveway serving

No. 40 Sandwich Road; this drive would be approximately 4m wide and 25m in length and would lead to 3 off-street car parking spaces.





in the urban areas and on previously developed land. 2.4 SEP Policy CC1 states that the principal objective of the plan is to



housing. In conjunction with the delivery of high quality design and in order to make good use of available land and encourage more sustainable patterns of development, high housing densities will be encouraged.

2.7 One of the key principles of PPS1 is to ensure high quality and inclusive design for all development, including individual buildings, public and private spaces and wider area development schemes. Good design should contribute positively to making places better for people. PPS1 advises that design which is inappropriate in its context, or which fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area and the way it functions, should not be accepted.


fundamental to the development of high quality new housing, which contributes to the creation of sustainable, mixed communities and encourages the efficient use of previously developed land. The definition of the latter now excludes private residential gardens.



3. Assessment 3.1 The proposal constitutes the residential redevelopment of part of a

garden with the built confines. Accordingly, the principle of the proposed development complies with regional, county and local land use policies, which seek to encourage such development within the confines of existing settlements. As this report was being finalised, PPS3 was revised to the effect that the site cannot now be regarded as previously-developed. There is thus no automatic presumption in favour of development and a need to address other factors.

3.2 More particularly, development will only be considered appropriate

where it is acceptable in terms of more site-specific factors including context, relationship with surrounding buildings, landscaping, topography etc. Therefore it is important to consider the following issues:

• The visual impact of the dwelling; • The impact on residential amenities; and • Highway safety.

Visual Amenities

3.3 It is acknowledged that the dwelling would not have a street frontage

because it would be situated behind No. 40 which fronts onto Sandwich Road. This is similar to No. 34 which is situated to the rear of Nos. 34a and 34b. Although No.34 is a relatively new dwelling it replaced a dilapidated bungalow which stood on the site for many years, in fact No. 34a and 34b were built in front of this dwelling. Local residents have stated that No.34 should not set a precedent. This is true and it is well established in planning law that all planning applications must be judged on their own merits. Nevertheless, it is a contributing factor to the overall spatial character of the locality which is otherwise of a frontage nature. This current application should also

be determined on its merits and it should not set a precedent for the development of other garden sites.

3.4 The grain of the area is a material consideration and it is clear that the

dominant pattern of development is for the buildings in Sandwich Road to have a linear street frontage. However, “The Retreat’, which is a two storey dwelling, is situated at the rear of the site as part of a group of dwellings served via an access from Chapel Hill. In the wider area, therefore, development is not exclusively of a frontage nature.

3.5 Due to the modest height of the dwelling and the changes in

topography, it would not be visible from a public vantage point. Therefore in terms of the impact on the character of the street scene the proposal may be acceptable and no harm can be identified. However, the building would be clearly visible from the rear of a number of surrounding dwellings.

3.6 The proposed appearance of the dwelling does not reflect the

architectural style of any of the surrounding buildings, but this is varied. The architect has explained that the design of the dwelling has evolved to reflect the topography of the site, by creating a split level, and reflects the green garden appearance by the use of a sedum roof. In addition, its design has been dictated by the site constraints such as the topography, size and the proximity of adjacent buildings.

3.7 It is advised that the simplistic design of the dwelling may be

acceptable and the general design ethos of the architect is supported. It is considered that the construction of this dwelling would not harm the visual amenities if the street scene.

3.8 The existing vehicle access is constructed of black broken tarmac; the

plan indicates that the driveway would be resurfaced with tarmac, thus having a neutral impact on the appearance of the area. The use of tarmac for the whole of the car parking area is considered to be unacceptable as it would have a dominant and urbanising effect. If planning permission is granted a condition should be imposed requiring details of the hard surfacing to be submitted for approval.

3.9 The application forms indicate that the boundaries would be a mix of

hedge and fencing. However, the plans do not indicate exactly where these treatments would be used. As such, the details of the boundary treatment should be reserved by a condition if planning permission is to be granted.

3.10 The landscaping and specifically the hedge around the boundaries

add to the character of the site and therefore the applicant should be required to provide details of the method by which he intends to protect the hedgerow during the construction of this development. A landscaping scheme should also be required by a condition is permission is granted.

3.11 A condition should be imposed to remove permitted development

rights for any further outbuildings or extensions in order to safeguard the character of the area and its amenities.

Residential Amenities

3.12 The nearest residential dwelling is “The Retreat”. The first floor windows of this dwelling have a clear view of the existing rear gardens and thus would continue to have a view over the proposed new dwelling. The future occupants of the dwelling would be aware of the proximity of the site to “The Retreat” and would be able to make a balanced judgement. It is considered that the proximity of “The Retreat” to the boundary of the application site, at some 12m, is an adequate separation distance to avoid overlooking and loss of privacy.

3.13 The proposed dwelling would be some 11m from the common

boundary shared with “The Retreat”. For a single storey property, this separation distance is normally considered to be acceptable in terms of mitigating the effects of over looking. However, it has to be noted that the land level of the application site is somewhat higher than “The Retreat”. Without detailed knowledge of the land levels, the impact of overlooking cannot be fully assessed. The applicant has been asked to provide a survey detailing the existing and proposed heights in relation to ODN.

3.14 The side elevations (north and south) have no windows and therefore

overlooking would not occur to No. 38 or to the rear garden of No. 46. The entrance door to the dwelling is, however, proposed in the south elevation, but this would only lead to a limited amount of overlooking and is not a worthy ground for refusing planning permission.

3.15 The windows in the east elevation of the dwelling would not cause

overlooking to No. 40 due to the change in topography, their height and the boundary treatment. Conversely, the occupants of No. 40 would not be able to over look the private area of the new dwelling due to the separation distance to the boundary which is some 18m, together with the erection of the boundary treatment.

3.16 The height of the dwelling and the separation distance from the

surrounding buildings is considered to be sufficient and would not lead to a loss of a light or out look.

3.17 A condition should be imposed to prevent any further windows or

doors from being inserted into the building.

Highway Safety

3.18 It is considered that the use of the access by one additional dwelling would not be so significant as to increase the risk to highway safety. In order to comply with the residential car parking standard, (Policy DM13), the plan shows that two independently accessible car parking spaces can be accommodated for the new dwelling. Policy DM13 requires a maximum of 1.5 spaces to be provided for a two bed dwelling in this location. The third car parking space shown on the plan should be allocated to the use of the existing dwelling, No. 40. A planning condition could be imposed to secure this.

Other Matters and Conclusions 3.19 Planning policies require all new developments to consider

sustainable development and construction methods. Therefore, in order to comply with Policy CP5 of the CS, a condition should be imposed to ensure that this dwelling is built to Sustainable Homes Code Level 3. The agent confines that Code 3 is intended.

3.20 In conclusion the principle of this development may be acceptable due

to its location within the confines. Further consideration is being given to the proposal in the light of the very recent changes to PPS3. A further report will be made at the meeting.

3.21 The views of the third parties need to be taken into consideration prior

to a decision being made. Members will note references to wildlife`, sight lines and noise and disturbance (the latter may be relevant to the access arrangements in particular). A balanced decision is required.

g) Recommendation I CONSIDERATION BE DEFERRED. Case Officer Rachel Ellwood

7. a) DOV/10/0325 – Removal of Condition (v) of Planning Permission DOV/78/255 to allow holiday park to open all year round, Kingsdown Park Holiday Village, Upper Street, Kingsdown

b) Summary of Recommendation Grant Planning Permission. c) Planning Policies and Guidance Dover Core Strategy (CS): Policies DM1, DM3, DM13 and DM15 South East Plan (SEP): Policies TSR5 and CC1 PPS1 and PPS4: Policies EC6, EC7, EC10 and EC12 Good Practice Guide on Planning for Tourism 2006. d) Relevant Planning History DO/78/255 - 145 chalet units in detached and semi-detached

form – granted. DO/92/01041 - Temporary permission to extend holiday period

from 31/10/92 to 19/12/92 – refused. DOV/06/01042 - Variation of Condition (v) of Planning

Permission DO/78/255 to open 48 weeks of the year – refused.

07/00746 - Variation of Condition 3 of Planning Permission

DOV/94/1031 to allow function room to be used 52 weeks of the year by residents and the public – refused.

e) Consultee and Third Party Responses County Highways: No objection to the park being open all year, provided that

the site still stays as a holiday village and limits the occupation of any unit to less than 52 weeks of the year, therefore, safeguarding the site from becoming a residential development. Further views awaited.

Environmental Health comments: No observations. Ringwould with Kingsdown Parish Council: Objects. The proposal is

inconsistent with the stated business aims and is more in keeping with parks used as permanent residences. The application would in effect change the status of the on-site chalets to permanent housing, for which they are unsuitable. In addition, there would be a considerable increase in traffic using the access road, which is unsuitable and would have a detrimental impact.

Kent Footpaths: No comments received. Public Representations: 148 letters of objection have been received,

including an objection from Kingsdown Park Chalet Owners' Association, stating the following:

• It would facilitate permanent residential accommodation;

• It would lead to further applications to construct more housing in an inappropriate site;

• The village does not have the infrastructure to cater for more permanent houses;

• It would decrease the number of chalets for holiday use and would reduce tourism in the area;

• It would become a chalet park, rather than a holiday park; • The chalets were not designed for more permanent usage. The

buildings do not have central heating or modern insulation and suffer from heat loss in the winter;

• The development was tailored to meet the demand for short-term holiday accommodation;

• It would be detrimental to the chalet owners; • It would be contrary to policy; • An application to extend the holiday period has already been refused; • It would bring more traffic into the village. Upper Street is already

clogged up with traffic; • There is not enough space for parking; • Noise; • Environmental Issues; • The existing break in occupation enables maintenance works to be

carried out; • The Goodwins Suite, located within the holiday park, is used as a

party venue and its availability is restricted to the 15 weeks of the year when the park is shut, due to insufficient parking for both uses.

Two letters of support were received, stating that:

• Opening for the rest of the year would not do any harm; • The additional four months opening would improve the local economy; • Visits and stays would be a lot more flexible.


1.1 The application site relates to Kingsdown Holiday Village, located

outside and to the south the village settlement. It currently provides seasonal accommodation for occupiers and does not provide any permanent residential accommodation.

1.2 The proposal seeks the removal of Condition (v) of DO/78/255, which

was for the erection of 145 holiday chalet units. The removal of the condition would enable the site to be open 52 weeks of the year and is sought to maximise economic development, tourism, leisure and investment opportunities, which the applicant sets out would be in line with PPS4.

1.3 The condition to which this application relates states: "The residential accommodation herein permitted shall not be used for

human habitation between 1 November and 28/29 February (except for two weeks at Christmas – 20 December to 2 January inclusive) in each year and a copy of any lease shall be supplied to and approved by or on behalf of the District Planning Authority.

Reason: to ensure that the accommodation is used only for holiday residential purposes".

2. Planning Policy 2.1 CS Policy DM1 states that development will not be permitted outside

the rural settlement confines unless specifically justified by other development plan policies, or if it functionally requires such a location, or it is ancillary to existing development or uses.

2.3 CS Policy DM3 sets out that permission for the expansion of an

existing business in the rural area will be given, provided that it is within the rural settlement confines, unless it can be demonstrated that no suitable site exists, in which event it should be located adjacent to the settlement.

2.4 CS Policy DM13 states that provision for parking should be a

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

2.5 CS Policy DM15 sets out that development that would adversely affect

the character or appearance of the countryside will only be permitted if it can be justified by the needs of agriculture, to sustain the rural economy or community, cannot be accommodated elsewhere and does not result in the loss of ecological habitats.

2.6 SEP Policy TSR5 states that local planning authorities should facilitate

the upgrading and enhancement of existing un-serviced accommodation.


maintain sustainable development. 2.8 SEP Policy CC6 sets out that decisions will actively promote the

creation of sustainable and distinctive communities. 2.9 PPS1: Delivering Sustainable Development states that good design


2.10 PPS4: Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth states that local

planning authorities should support sustainable rural tourism that benefits rural businesses, communities and visitors and which utilises and enriches, rather than harms, the character of the countryside. It states that local planning authorities should support extensions to existing tourist accommodation where appropriate to its location and where the extension may help to ensure the future viability of such businesses and that they should ensure that expanded chalet development are not prominent.

2.11 Good Practice Guide on Planning for Tourism 2006 seeks to ensure that planners and the tourism industry work together effectively to facilitate, promote and deliver new tourism developments in a sustainable way.

3. Assessment 3.1 The main areas of assessment are:

• Principle of extension of tourism use; • Potential for permanent residential accommodation and

suitability of condition attached; • Impact on surrounding area; • Impact on neighbours; • Highways implications.

Principle of extension of tourism use 3.2 The application sets out that the proposal, by increasing the number of

weeks the chalets can be occupied, seeks to maximise economic development, tourism, leisure and investment opportunities, which would be in accordance with PPS4.

3.3 Planning policy is generally supportive of enhancement and upgrading

of tourist accommodation and PPS4 states that local planning authorities should support extensions to existing tourist accommodation, where it is appropriate to its location and where it may help to ensure the future viability of such businesses. It states that local planning authorities should ensure that expanded chalet developments are not visually prominent.

3.4 This proposal would enable the existing business to be expanded

without requiring any further development, so there would not be any additional visual harm on the surrounding countryside. In principle, therefore, the expansion of the business, by removing the condition that restricts its use to certain months of the year, is considered acceptable by reference to Tourism policies.

Potential for permanent residential accommodation 3.5 The main issue raised by objectors relates to concern that the removal

of the condition would result in the use of the site for permanent residential accommodation and that it would result in the loss of tourist accommodation.

3.6 When the application for the chalet units was granted, the reason for

attaching condition (v) was to ensure that the accommodation is used only for holiday residential purposes. In light of this, two applications to extend the holiday period by varying condition (v) were refused in 1992 and 2006.

3.7 It was considered in the 2006 application that the proposal would

“effectively enable the owners of individual chalets to use them for residential purposes, spending the remaining four weeks of the year

elsewhere” (para 3.2) and that the use of the site would then be “tantamount to a residential use”, which would be contrary to policies that seek to restrict such a use outside the confines.

3.8 Moreover, it was considered that the loss of the chalets from holiday

use would be unacceptable, as there would have been no replacement for good quality accommodation that would have been lost as a result.

3.9 Although policy has altered significantly since the application was

determined in 1978, the policy presumption against residential development in this location remains.

3.10 Nevertheless, in light of current policy and Government guidance, the

wording of the condition is considered to be onerous and, whilst it achieves its intended aim, (to ensure that the units are used solely for holiday accommodation) it does this by placing heavier restrictions on the business than are necessary.

3.11 The condition to which this application relates is known as a “seasonal

occupancy” condition, in that it restricts the site from being used during certain times of the year.

3.12 Case law generally indicates that a condition that requires the units to

be occupied for holiday accommodation only, together with a requirement that a register of occupiers giving arrival and departure dates (known as a “holiday occupancy” conditions) achieves the same end and is more suitable, given the change in holiday patterns, as holidays are now more frequently taken throughout the year.

3.13 Moreover, Circular 11/95 “The Use of Conditions in Planning

Permissions”, specifically refers to the need to control the use of chalets/ other holiday accommodation by way of condition. It states that holiday occupancy conditions would be more appropriate in circumstances where holiday accommodation is acceptable, but where conversion to residential dwellings would not be permitted (as is the case here).

3.14 This advice is reiterated in Annex B of the Good Practice Guide on

Planning for Tourism 2006. It sets out that the aim of a holiday occupancy condition is generally to ensure that the premises are used only by visitors and do not become part of the local housing stock (para 3).

3.15 Circular 11/95 states that a seasonal occupancy condition, (i.e. the

condition to which this application relates) should be used in cases where it is necessary to prevent the permanent residential use of holiday chalets which by the character of their construction or design are unsuitable for continuous occupation. Annex B of the Good Practice Guide on Planning for Tourism 2006, suggests another appropriate use for a seasonal occupancy condition to be if the use of the premises or the site might affect an important species of bird during its breeding season (para 4). That is not the case here.

3.16 Concern has been raised by objectors that the chalets were not designed for more permanent usage, as the buildings do not have central heating or modern insulation and suffer from heat loss in the winter. However, there is nothing that would particularly indicate that the chalets are not suitable for habitation during the winter months, or if they are, that they could not be adapted without Planning implications. As such, the retention of the seasonal occupancy condition would not meet with current Government guidance or meet the tests set out in Circular 11/95 for attaching conditions.

3.17 Concerns raised about the potential for the site to be used for

permanent residential use have been taken into account. However, notwithstanding the previous refusals relating to this site for similar proposals, it is considered that the removal of the seasonal occupancy condition would be in accordance with Planning policies and Government guidance, provided that a holiday occupancy condition is attached in its place. This would enable the site to be used all year round, but only for holiday purposes and not as a main/ sole place of residence.

Impact on surrounding area

3.18 Objectors have raised environmental issues as a concern. However, it is not considered that the occupation of the existing chalets during the winter months would have a significant or detrimental impact on the surrounding area.

Impact on neighbours

3.19 Objectors have also raised concern that the proposal would be detrimental to the chalet owners and local residents. The occupation of the chalets is not considered to raise any harm to the residential amenities of occupants that would differ to the situation that currently exists in the permitted months of occupation.

Highways implications

3.20 A number of concerns have also been raised relating to the potential the proposal would have for bringing more traffic into the village and in terms of parking. There can be little doubt that additional traffic movements would potentially arise during the winter months. However, the scale of these should be no greater, and would almost certainly be less, than the movements arising from the existing seasonal use. On this basis, no reason is seen in traffic terms to oppose the application. County Highways raise no objections to the park being open all year, provided that the site remains as a holiday village and occupation of any unit is limited to less than 52 weeks of the year, to safeguard the site from becoming a residential development.

3.21 This application would enable the units to be occupied for throughout

the year. However, as mentioned above, the alternative condition is considered sufficient to prevent the site from being used for permanent residential purposes.

3.22 The Goodwins Suite, located within the holiday park, is used as a party venue and its availability is restricted to the 15 weeks of the year when the park is shut, due to insufficient parking for both uses. A planning application was refused for the variation of a condition to extend its use and two of the reasons for refusal related to parking problems. County Highways objected to the scheme, as the function room, when granted, was restricted by condition so that it could only be used by the public when the holiday park was not in use, to prevent the doubling up of the car-parking area. At the time of writing this report, further advice from County Highways regarding parking provision is being sought.

Conclusions

3.23 It is considered that a holiday occupancy condition would be more in line with Government guidance than the existing seasonal occupancy condition. A holiday occupancy condition would enable the business to expand, without resulting in undue harm to the surrounding countryside or to the residential amenities of neighbouring occupants. This is considered to be in line with PPS4 and current policy which has changed materially since the previous decisions.

3.24 Seasonal occupancy conditions could be perceived to be more readily

enforceable by means of a spot inspection during the specified period of non-occupation (ie. in this case, between 1 November and 28/29 February, with the exception of 20 December to 2 January), whereas a condition specifying that a unit only be occupied for holiday purposes is potentially more difficult to enforce, due to lack of precision.

3.25 However, this can be overcome, by requiring the owners/operators to

maintain an up-to-date register of the names of all owners/occupiers of individual chalets within the site, together with their main home addresses. This is a routine requirement of planning permissions for holiday accommodation. Given this safeguard, there is no reason to believe that the chalets would become permanent dwellings or that a permission would lead to further development.

3.26 Provided that this is done, it is not considered necessary to require

that a copy of any lease is supplied to and approved by or on behalf of the District Planning Authority (a current requirement of condition (v)).

3.27 It is considered appropriate that conditions originally imposed in 1978

should be retained, amended or removed with other conditions added on any new permission. Any condition should be imposed only if it could lawfully have been imposed upon the original permission in the sense that it does not amount to a fundamental alteration of the proposal in the original application.

3.28 The relevant conditions from the original permission should be

reviewed and restated in the new permission in their original or amended form, rather than relying on cross-referencing to the original permission.

3.29 This proposal relates to a historic permission, granted in 1978 and the conditions, therefore, take a very different format to those used today. The remainder of the conditions of DO/78/255 refer (in summary) to:

● Condition 1 - The retention of parking, as shown on the

approved plan.

● Condition 2 - The tree planting scheme to be carried out within 12 months of the commencement of the development and to be retained for ten years.

● Condition 3 - Any dead/removed trees to be replaced within

the first ten years of planting. ● Condition 4 - The area to the west of the main chalet area to

be retained as an open space amenity area.

● Condition 5 - The existing chalets to be demolished prior to completion of the scheme.

3.30 It is considered that conditions 2, 3 and 5 are no longer applicable,

should Members be minded to grant this application. 3.31 At the time of writing the report, it is not clear as to exactly which

amenity area the condition refers to. This will be looked into further and if necessary, an appropriate condition can be attached.

3.32 A condition for retention of parking would need to be attached and

advice from County Highways is sought on this, for amended appropriate wording.

3.33 If an application was submitted today for a scheme similar to that

granted in 1978, then doubtless, there would be a number of further requirements/ controls placed by way of condition. However, given the age of the approved application and as the development has been in place for a number of years, it is not considered necessary or reasonable to impose any further conditions, other than that relating to the holiday use of the chalets.

3.34 Consideration has been given to all matters raised by third parties, but

none are such as to override the conclusion that permission may be granted.

g) Recommendation Subject to further clarification from County Highways concerning parking,

PERMISSION BE GRANTED, subject to the following conditions being attached: (i) The chalets shall be occupied for holiday purposes only and shall not be occupied as a person’s sole or main place of residence. An up-to-date register of the names of all owners/ occupiers of the chalets on the site, together with their main home addresses, shall be kept and maintained at all times. This information shall be made available at all reasonable times to the Local Planning Authority (South East Plan Policy TSR5 and Dover District Core Strategy Policy DM1). Reason: To ensure that the holiday accommodation is not used for permanent residential occupation; (ii) Parking

provision; (iii) Any alterations to the above conditions or further conditions to be delegated to the Development Control Manager.


8. a) DOV/10/0326 – Erection of a detached dwelling and construction of and vehicular access, Erebus, Dover Road, Guston

b) Summary of Recommendation Consideration be deferred. c) Planning Policies and Guidance Dover District Core Strategy (CS): Polices DM13, DM15 and CP5 South East Plan (SEP): Policies CC1, CC2, CC4, SP3, H5, NRM1, NRM2

and NRM5 PPS1 – Delivering Sustainable Development PPS3 – Housing Kent Design Guide (KDG) d) Relevant Planning History No relevant planning history. e) Consultee and Third Party Responses County Highways: No objection subject to conditions. Environment Agency: No objection subject to a condition. Guston Parish Council: No objection, but requires the concerns of local

residents in terms of traffic impact and visual amenity to be considered. Public Representations: Three letters of objection have been received and

the material comments are summarised as follows:

• The access road is unstable, narrow and unmade; • The trees should not be cut down or disturbed; • The new building would occupy more than one quarter of the original

plot.


1.1 The application site lies within but adjacent to the edge of the urban confines. Immediately to the south of the site is Frith Farm, a large working farm holding. To the east of the site on the opposite side of the road is the curtilage of The Duke of York’s Royal Military School, which is well screened from the public highway by dense mature vegetation. North and east of the site are two small clusters of dwellings; further north and west is agricultural land which is designated in the Local Plan (saved Policy LE3) for employment purposes for the expansion of the White cliffs Business Park. All of this latter land is within the urban confines.

1.2 The site is formed by a severed part of the rear garden belonging to

Erebus, which is a detached chalet bungalow situated on the west side of Dover Road. The site would have dimensions of

approximately 21m x 16m, leaving Erebus with a plot of some 16m (wide) x 38m (long).

1.3 Due to the position of the site adjacent to the open countryside,

including the farm and the narrow surrounding roads bounded by vegetation the site and the surrounding area has a strong rural character.

1.4 Full planning permission is sought for the erection of a detached

chalet bungalow and a detached single garage. The dwelling would have a footprint of some 12m x 9m and a ridge height of 6m. It would accommodate 3 bedrooms and 2 bath/shower rooms within the roof space. The garage would be situated some 6.5m from the east elevation of the dwelling, adjoining the new boundary with Erebus, and would have a ridge height of 4m. There would be a separation distance of some 27m from the side flank elevation of the proposed dwelling to the rear elevation of Erebus.

1.5 The dwelling would be accessed by a new vehicular access onto

St. Martin’s Road, which is unadopted, and herringbone block paving has been demonstrated in front of the garage for off-street car parking. The private garden area would be to the side and rear of the dwelling.


2. Planning Policy 2.1 CS Policy DM13 states that provision for parking should be a design

led process based upon the characteristics of the site, the locality, the nature of the proposed development and its design objectives.

2.2 Provision for residential development should be informed by the

guidance in the preamble to this policy. 2.3 CS Policy DM15 does not permit development if it would result in the

loss of or would have an adverse affect on the character of the countryside unless it there is special justification.

2.4 CS Policy CP5 requires all new residential development to meet Code





incorporate sustainable construction standards and techniques. 2.8 SEP Policy NRM5 seeks to avoid a loss of biodiversity and actively

pursues opportunities to achieve a net gain.

2.9 SEP Policy H5 requires positive measures to raise the quality of new housing. In conjunction with the delivery of high quality design and in order to make good use of available land and encourage more sustainable patterns of development, high housing densities will be encouraged at 40 dwellings per hectare.

2.10 SEP Policy NRM1 and NRM2 have somewhat similar aims in that they

seek to ensure the protection of ground water supplies from adverse effects of development.




fundamental to the development of high quality new housing, which contributes to the creation of sustainable, mixed communities and encourages the efficient use of previously-developed land. As this report was being finalised, PPS3 was revised to exclude private gardens from the definition of previously-developed land.


which advocates good design informed by a detailed urban design analysis of the surrounding environment.

3. Assessment 3.1 The proposal constitutes the residential redevelopment of part of a

garden within the urban confines. The principle of the proposed development complies with regional, county and local policies, which seek to encourage residential development within the confines of existing urban settlements. As this report was being finalised, PPS3 was revised to the effect that the site cannot now be regarded as previously-developed. There is thus no automatic presumption in favour of development and a need to address other factors.

3.2 More particularly, development will only be considered appropriate

where it is acceptable in terms of more site-specific factors including context, relationship with surrounding buildings, landscaping, topography etc. Therefore it is important to consider the following issues:

• The visual impact of the dwelling; • The impact on residential amenities; and • Highway safety

Visual Amenities 3.3 The building is designed on an ‘L’ shaped footprint and has a large

front projection, measuring approximately 5m in length and set some 1.5m back from the highway. It is considered that that in this form it presents a dominant and obtrusive feature which would be visible from Dover Road and would appear out of scale with Erebus which is a smaller dwelling situated in a larger plot.

3.4 Policy DM15 of the CS states that the development which adversely

affects the character or appearance of the countryside will only be permitted if, amongst other things, it is required for an agricultural purpose or is required to sustain the rural economy. As the dwelling is currently designed it is advised that the proposal would adversely harm the character and appearance of the countryside setting of the site and does not have any special justification. It is advised that in its current form the proposal is contrary to Policy DM15 of the CS. It also runs contrary to the design provisions of PPS1 and PPS3.

3.5 The applicant has been asked to amend the plans and reduce the

depth of this projection from 5m to 3m, thus setting it back approximately 3.5m from the edge of the highway. It is considered that this amendment would improve the visual appearance of the building; by reducing its bulk, the building would be more in keeping with the scale of the surrounding dwellings and the plot and would be in accordance with Policy DM15.

3.6 Local residents have expressed concerns relating to the scale of the

building in relation to the size of the plot. It is acknowledged that the severed plot would be smaller than those of the immediate surrounding dwellings; however, this is considered not to be detrimental to the visual amenities of the area as the plots in close proximity to the site vary in size and shape.

3.7 The design and access statement confirms that, where possible, all of

the existing shrubs and trees on the site would be retained. This is considered to be a positive feature. However, no particular tree or shrub is worthy of retention in its own right and subject to a landscaping scheme which is sensitive to the rural location, there would be no objection. Furthermore, with the suggested reduction on the front projection a larger garden area at the front of the dwelling would be provided and additional vegetation could be provided to soften the appearance of the dwelling. A condition requiring a landscaping scheme should be imposed if Members are minded to grant planning permission.

3.8 The plans do not indicate what the boundary treatment would be. The

application form refers to a 2m high close-boarded fence. However, there is no indication of where this fence would be erected. It would be considered unacceptable if the close boarded fence was to be erected along the front boundary. Therefore, details of the boundary treatment should be reserved for future consideration by a planning condition if Members are minded to grant planning permission.

3.9 The application form and the design and access statement describe the proposed materials intended for use; the roof would be antique red plain clay tiles, the elevations would be Ibstock Ainsdale Weathered brick and there would be oak coloured cladding to the gable ends. The windows and doors would be uPVC. There is no objection to the principle of using such materials; however, material samples should be submitted for approval. The final appearance of the building is ultimately dependent on the materials and the quality of the build. In order to help ensure the final appearance of the building in this rural location is adequate it is advised that a condition be imposed requiring all windows to be set in 100mm reveals.

Residential Amenities 3.10 The nearest residential dwellings to the site are Erebus some 27m

away and Frith Close (approximately 35m away to the east). These are considered to be sufficient distances for the development not to impact on the amount of natural light received or the out look from these dwellings.

3.11 Thus the main issue to consider is overlooking. The rear elevation of

the proposed dwelling has been provided with three roof lights; two would serve the bedrooms and one the bathroom. These are considered to be acceptable if the cill height is not less than 1.7m above the finished floor level. This height is required to prevent over looking from the windows onto the end of the garden of Frith Close. A planning condition should be imposed to ensure this.

3.12 Each of the bedrooms served by the roof lights would also have a

window in a side elevation. The bedroom window proposed in the west elevation is considered to be acceptable as it would have an outlook over what appears to be disused agricultural land. The bedroom in the east elevation would look towards Erebus. The agent has demonstrated on plan that the line of sight from the window would be blocked by the ridge of the proposed garage. Nonetheless, the window would be 10.5m from the boundary and some 27m from the rear elevation of Erebus. It is therefore considered that any overlooking from this bedroom window is considered not to be so significant and detrimental to residential amenities as to warrant a refusal.

Highway Safety 3.13 County Highways have not raised an objection to this application but

require the plans to demonstrate the visibility splays to the vehicular access and that, in order to comply with Policy DM13, two independently accessible car parking spaces (not including the garage) should be accommodated.

3.14 Local residents have raised concerns relating to the use of St Martins

Road, which is narrow and unmade. However, it is not considered that the traffic generated by a single dwelling is likely to be such as to justify objection. Some of the detailed concerns relate to damage to the road and underground services and obstruction of the road during the construction period. These matters are beyond the remit of the

planning system and ultimately would be a civil matter between the parties involved.


consider sustainable development and construction methods. Therefore, in order to comply with policy CP5 of the CS, a condition should be imposed to ensure that this dwelling is built to Sustainable Homes Code Level 3.

3.16 The Environment Agency’s Source Protection Zone identifies the site

and most of Guston to be located within the ‘Total Catchment’ area. The Environment Agency has advised a condition be imposed requiring works to cease if land contamination is found. Otherwise, the Agency comments on the proposed rainwater drainage which can be addressed under the Building Regulations.

3.17 Members are advised that the proposed dwelling would not harm the

residential amenities of surrounding neighbours and, subject to conditions, would not jeopardise highway safety. Consideration has been given to the matters raised by third parties. The site is adjoined by countryside and, therefore, Members must be satisfied that the appearance of the dwelling would not adversely affect the character or appearance of the countryside as required by Policy DM15.

3.18 The principle of this development may be acceptable due to its

location within the confines. Further consideration is being given to the proposal in the light of the very recent changes to PPS3. A further report will be made at the meeting.

g) Recommendation I Pending further consideration of PPS3 CONSIDERATION BE DEFFERED. Case Officer Rachel Ellwood

9. a) DOV/10/0336 – Erection of 4 dwellings and construction of a vehicular access (existing building to be demolished), Youth Club, Foxborough Hill, Woodnesborough

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

South East Plan (SEP): Policies CC1, CC2, CC4, SP3 and H5 PPS1 – Delivering Sustainable Development PPS3 – Housing Kent Design Guide (KDG) d) Relevant Planning History DOV/09/0829 - Erection of 4 dwellings and a detached four bay

garage (existing to be demolished) – Withdrawn.

e) Consultee and Third Party Responses County Highways: No objection, subject to conditions and informatives. Environmental Health comments: No objection; however concerns have been

raised relating to the demolition of the building as it is known to contain asbestos materials. Therefore, a condition is required to ensure that a refurbishment and demolition survey is carried out to identify asbestos- containing material (ACM) before any demolition work is commenced. It must be demonstrated that all ACM is removed safely from site, unless the removal would cause a greater risk than if the asbestos had been left in place.

Ecology comments: No objections. KCC Archaeology: No objection subject to a condition. Southern Water: No objection subject to a condition requiring details of foul

and surface water disposal to be submitted and approved in writing.

Woodnesborough Parish Council: Objects; the design and height of the proposed building will be over powering and have an adverse effect on the street scene. Public Representations: 3 letters of objection have been received; the material comments are summarised as follows:- • Cramped appearance; • Little space for private amenity; • The style is not in keeping with the existing surroundings;

• They would over look each other and surrounding dwellings; • The car parking area would cause noise and disturbance; • The visibility splays are not accurate; • If all spaces were occupied a car could not leave the site in a forward

gear; • No refuse storage facilities at the front of the dwellings; • The change in land level is not shown on the plans and is misleading; • Steps would have to be introduced but are not shown on the plans; • Car parking is too remote from some of the dwellings and would lead

to parking on the road.


1.1 The application site lies within the village confines of Woodnesborough. To the north, north east and west the site is surrounded by residential properties and their curtilages. To the south is a graveyard and to the south east of the site is St. Mary’s Church. The site is close to the edge of the village confines and, therefore, the surrounding area has a semi-rural feel. The dwellings in the immediate proximity of the site in Church Farm Way are fairly modern, large detached buildings situated in small plots.

1.2 The site is located on the west side of Foxborough Hill and is occupied

by a vacant large single storey building, last used by the youth club. The site frontage to Foxborough Hill is screened by a large mature hedge row and views into the site can be gained through the vehicular access gates. The site is mostly covered by broken hard standing and clearly has been poorly maintained; it currently detracts from the character of the area. The site has a street frontage of 45m and a depth of 22m.

1.3 Full planning permission is sought for the erection of a terraced row of

4 two storey dwellings, following the demolition of the existing youth club building. The new building would have a footprint of 22m x 10m and would be equally divided into the four dwellings. The dwellings would have a ridge height of approximately 8m; however, the height of the eaves on the rear elevation would be approximately 2.5m above ground level thus creating a sloping cat slide roof, the eaves at the front being 4.5m high.

1.4 The dwellings would each have a kitchen, lounge/dinner at ground

floor, two bedrooms, two bathrooms and one box room on the first floor and a third bedroom in the roof space. Each dwelling would be provided with a small garden area at the rear of the property.

1.5 A communal car parking areas is proposed to the north of the building

and the applicant has allocated the front of the site (1.8m wide) to the

provision of a new public footway. The dwellings would be set back some 2.5m from the new boundary and would have pedestrian accesses leading off from the footway.









housing. In conjunction with the delivery of high quality design and in order to make good use of available land and encourage more sustainable patterns of development, high housing densities will be encouraged at 40 dwellings per hectare.




fundamental to the development of high quality new housing, which contributes to the creation of sustainable, mixed communities and encourages the efficient use of previously developed land.



3. Assessment Principle of the development 3.1 The proposal constitutes the residential redevelopment of a previously

developed site within the village confines. PPS3 confirms that such a site would be considered as previously developed land. Great

emphasis is put on the re-development of previously developed land before any other is considered. Accordingly, the principle of the proposed development complies with national, regional, county and local plan policies, which seeks to encourage such development within the confines of existing settlements to meet housing targets, reduce pressure for the release of greenfield sites and encourage more sustainable and integrated communities.

3.2 However, development will only be considered appropriate where it is

acceptable in terms of more site-specific factors including context, relationship with surrounding buildings, landscaping, topography etc. Therefore it is important to consider the following issues:-

• The visual impact of the dwellings; • The impact on residential amenities; and • Highway Safety.

The Visual Impact of the Dwelling

3.3 It is acknowledged that there are no other rows of terraced dwellings in the immediate vicinity of the site. However, the pattern of development in the area has an organic feel which has developed over time. As a consequence, there is no uniform plot or building size in the area. It is advised that this terrace row of dwellings would not detract from the spatial character of the area.

3.4 The design of the building is considered to be acceptable. The

fenestration rhythm is regular and creates a balanced and symmetrical terraced row and the solid to void ratio is proportionate. The proposed materials, specifically clay tiles for the roof and clay hanging tiles to the first floor elevation and the proposed timber doors and windows, are considered to be appropriate within this semi-rural setting. If Members are minded to grant planning permission conditions should be imposed requiring materials to be submitted and for the windows to be set in 100mm reveals.

3.5 The car parking area would be set back 6m from the public highway

and situated behind a brick wall, the appearance of which would be softened by areas of soft landscaping. On balance, the communal car parking area is considered to be acceptable and not harmful to the visual amenities of the street. Conditions should be imposed requiring the maintenance of the landscaping and for details of the brick wall and the hard surfacing to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority.

3.6 The loss of the hedgerow along the street frontage is regrettable.

However, in order to provide a new public footway, its removal is necessary. In mitigation the applicant has identified on the plans a replacement hedgerow in front of the dwellings.

3.7 The existing trees along the south and west boundary have been

numbered on the landscaping plan; however, there is no accompanying key and no explanation of what may happen to the

identified trees. Additional information has been sought from the agent.

Residential Amenities 3.8 The nearest residential dwellings to the site are Nos. 2 and 3 Church

Farm Way to the west of the site and Meadow House to the north. 3.9 The new building would be some 17m from the common boundary

with Meadow House and 26m from the rear elevation. These are considered to be adequate separation distances such as not to cause an impact on outlook or natural light received. No windows are proposed at first floor level in the side elevations and therefore this development would not overlook Meadow House. A planning condition should be imposed to prevent further doors and windows from being inserted.

3.10 The new building would run nearly the length of the side curtilage of

No. 3 Church Farm Way. It would, however, be set 8m from the boundary and the tallest part of the building (the ridge) would be set 14m away. Together with the separation distance and the orientation of the development to the east it is advised that the proposal would not harm the amount of natural light received. In addition the rear aspect of No. 3 is south facing and therefore natural lighting would not be impacted by this development together with the outlook.

3.11 The rear of the dwellings has been designed with the cat slide roof to

mitigate any potential over looking which may arise towards Nos. 2 and 3. Roof lights have been proposed to allow natural light to the bathrooms and the box rooms; the applicant has confirmed that the sill height would not be less than 1.7m above the finished floor levels in order to prevent overlooking. A condition will be imposed to ensure that the dwellings are constructed in this way.

3.12 Plot 1 would be sited 16m away from No.2, it is advised that this is an

adequate separation distance that would prevent a loss of light and would maintain a sense of outlook.

3.13 The car park would be located 6m from the rear elevation of No. 2.

Between the car parking and the boundary a landscape buffer strip of 2.5m wide and a boundary fence are proposed. These are considered adequate to prevent noise and disturbance from the use of the car park. The relationship of the car park to Meadow House to the north is also acceptable. In addition, it is considered that the lawful use of the site as a youth club would have potentially generated a greater level of disturbance (when in use) than four dwellings.

3.14 Pinetum House is opposite the site to the north east. This dwelling is

situated at an oblique angle to the development site and over 34m away. The proposed dwellings would be 12m from the rear garden of Pinetum House. However, the rear garden is 37m long and it is reasonable to conclude that that this development would not lead to a significant level of overlooking such as to warrant a refusal of planning permission.

3.15 A local resident has raised a concern relating to the fact that the plans do not show a bin storage area. However, because each dwelling would have its own rear garden a communal store is not considered necessary. The waste would be put out on collection day in front of each dwelling.

Highway Safety

3.16 The residential car parking standard (Policy DM13) requires a maximum of 2 spaces to be provided for a three/four bed dwelling in this location. The plan indicates that two independently accessible car parking spaces for each dwelling can be accommodated within the site.

3.17 County Highways have been consulted on this application and have

not raised an objection. It is advised that the car parking spaces are sufficiently close enough to the dwellings to encourage the occupiers to use them rather than to park on the highway, that there is adequate turning on the site and that the width of the access allows a vehicle to pull off the highway whilst a car is leaving the site. The visibility splays are also considered to be adequate. Subject to conditions there are no highway objections.


consider sustainable development and construction methods. Therefore, in order to comply with Policy CP5 of the CS, a condition should be imposed to ensure that this dwelling is built to Sustainable Homes Code Level 3.

3.19 The existing building is known to contain asbestos. Environmental

Health have requested that a condition be imposed requiring that a refurbishment/demolition survey be carried out and that any asbestos material be removed from the site. Such action is required under the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006 and a condition is not therefore required to duplicate this legislation. The applicant should, however, be reminded through an informative.

3.20 In conclusion the principle of this development is considered to be

acceptable due to its location within the village confines and on previously developed land. It is of an acceptable design.

3.21 The views of third parties have been taken into consideration and on

balance do not outweigh the merits of granting planning permission.

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

(ii) DP04; (iii) MA04; (iv) MA41; (v) LA02; (vi) UN01, Landscaping; (vii) LA36; (viii) LA31; (ix) LA10, Foul and Surface Water Disposal; (x) AR01; (xi) SC1; (xii) PA07; (xiii) AC12; (xiv) AC24; (xv) AC27; (xvi) PA32; (xvii) Any other conditions to be delegated to the Development Control Manager.

II Informative re. asbestos in the building. Case Officer Rachel Ellwood

DOVER DISTRICT COUNCIL Agenda Item No 7 REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT CONTROL MANAGER PLANNING COMMITTEE – 24 JUNE 2010 APPLICATION NO DOV/09/0873 – ERECTION OF A GP SURGERY, COMMUNITY

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

Recommendation

Members note that planning permission has been granted. Contact Officer: Lesley Jarvis, Extension 2466 1. At the meeting held on 17 December 2009, Members considered a full report on this

application and resolved that, subject to all outstanding matters being resolved by the Development Control Manager, in consultation with the Chairman of the Planning Committee, the application be approved and that a further report on the outcome be brought to Committee in due course (Item 9, Minute 358 (8)).

2. Members will also recall that further representations were made by local residents

which resulted in the proposal being reported back to Committee on 29 April 2010 for further consideration. Members agreed that the Committee’s original decision to grant planning permission, be confirmed and the Development Control Manager, in consultation with the Chairman of the Committee, be authorised to resolve any fresh issues which might arise prior to the issue of the decision notice. (Agenda Item 6, Minute 543).

3. Amongst other things, the report to Members identified that amended car parking

layout plans had been negotiated with the applicant and that County Highways were satisfied with car parking provision and its layout.

4. At the time of the meeting, conditions and a legal agreement were being finalised.

The legal agreement includes certainty for timely provision of the Community Centre and GP surgery buildings. These buildings are due to be provided before first occupation of Unit 25, which is expected to be around March 2011. Contributions towards the provision of a play area and equipment at the North Deal Playing Field have also been required and payments are due to be made at 4 various stages throughout the life of the development. The first payment is due on commencement of development. The staging of payments is necessary as they are based on cash flow generated by the development.

5. No further issues arose subsequently and, pursuant to the Chairman’s agreement

that all matters had been satisfactorily addressed, the legal agreement was finalised and the planning permission was issued on 12 May 2010.

86

87

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

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

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

Documents