Subject: Director/Head of Service: Decision Issues: Decision: Classification: Planning Appeals - Decisions Head of Planning and Regeneration These matters are within the authority of the Committee. Non-key. This report is open to the public. Sturry North Mr Jamie Rose CA/09/00790/FUL Erection of detached annexe and replacement garage 1 Park View, Sturry Hilary Lock Planning permission was refused for a brick built annexe with adjacent garage under delegated powers; by virtue of the size of the proposed annexe and the replacement garage the proposal would result in the overdevelopment of this limited site in detriment to the character of the locality. The Inspector stated that although the depth of the annexe would be similar to that of the existing garage and workshop, its additional width, height and bulk would result in a materially larger building. This would have an increased visual impact on the site and its surroundings that would be intrusive in the street scene. Whilst sympathetic to the circumstances of the appellant s parents, this does not outweigh the visual harm to the street scene. The Inspector concluded that the proposal would result in material harm to the character and appearance of the site and street scene. Herne & Broomfield Mr Christopher Baron CA/09/00662/OUT Demolition of existing buildings and the erection of 2 bungalows, 4 flats, 13 houses (total 19 units) with associated access/parking (Outline application) 36 Broomfield Road, Herne, CT6 7BA Jeremy Youle This appeal was made against the decision to refuse outline planning permission for the demolition of all existing buildings and the erection of 19 units of residential accommodation and the formation of a new access road and footpath and the provision of 34 car parking spaces.
The Inspector considered the effect of the proposed development on the open character and appearance of this edge of village location and concluded that the amount, scale and layout of the proposed development would significantly erode the spacious character of the area. The development would appear as an overly prominent and incongruous addition to the built-up area that would result in an unacceptably abrupt edge to the settlement. The Inspector also concluded that the proposal would conflict with the Council s Guidelines to Control Residential Intensification which seek to resist proposals that would be out of character with the adjoining area and which would harm the surrounding context. The Kent Highway Engineer advised as part of the application that 43 metre visibility splays either side of the access would be required. The Inspector concluded that as the land falling within the visibility splay to the left side of the access was not within the applicant s control the retention of this splay could not be achieved by condition. Wider highway circumstances, such as narrowness of Broomfield Road and frequency of existing traffic users to straddle the central white line had been observed by the Inspector which led to his view that adequate site lines are necessary. The Inspector concluded that without being able to secure visibility to the left side of the access this would lead to a significant risk of accidents occurring. With regard to residential amenity in respect of existing and future occupiers the Inspector concluded that subject to careful attention being given to the detailed design at the reserved matters stage, the proposal need not result in unsatisfactory living conditions resulting form loss of light in respect of existing occupiers. Nor did the Inspector conclude that noise and disturbance from vehicle movements within the site would be of a level to harm the amenities of existing neighbours and the future occupiers of properties toward the front of the proposed site. Development contributions had been sought by the Council in respect of library and youth services and transport infrastructure. The Inspector was not convinced that the additional use generated by the development of the scale and nature proposed would significantly increase the strain on existing library or youth services or that it would cause any significant harm to their delivery. In terms of highway infrastructure the Inspector did not consider the amount of traffic likely to be generated by the proposal to be significant. Nor that the proposal had a direct relationship with the schemes on which this contribution might be spent or that the development would materially increase congestion or worsen other traffic problems locally or within the district. In the Inspector s view the proposal did not satisfy the 5 tests set out in Circular 05/2005 and that the contributions sought would be directly related to the proposed development or that the contributions would be fairly and reasonably related in scale to the development proposed. The applicant put forward the development to be 100% affordable housing although provided no legal mechanism in which this would be secured. Notwithstanding this, the Inspector could see no reason why this matter could not be satisfactorily addressed my means of a condition, although this has never been the Council s approach. Given the complexity and number of parties normally involved in such matters the Council would normally only secure this by means of a legal agreement. The Inspector also concluded that cycle parking to serve the development could be provided, as could an acceptable form of foul and surface water drainage even though a SUD system would involve clay soils.
North Nailbourne Mr R Pettman CA/09/00670/FUL Erection of two dwellings with associated parking Land at the junction of Bifrons Road and Station Road, Bekesbourne, CT4 5DE Hilary Lock The Inspector found the appeal site to be located within a cluster of houses in a rural location, on the outskirts of the village of Bekesbourne, which offers limited services and facilities. Accordingly, it was considered that future occupiers of the proposed dwellings would be likely to be reliant on the use of the private car. As such the proposal was found to be contrary to national and local policies of sustainable development. In respect of the appearance of the proposed development, the Inspector concluded that the character and appearance of the adjacent conservation area would be preserved and that there would be no harm to the wider Area of High Landscape Value. However, it was considered that the single-storey form of the dwellings would be out of keeping with the local pattern of two-storey dwellings and that the development would appear unacceptably cramped. Accordingly, the proposal would be contrary to Policy BE1 of the Local Plan. Although the development incorporated satisfactory parking for the proposed new dwellings, it would remove the existing parking spaces for the occupants of No. 1 Bifrons Road. This would be likely to exacerbate local parking congestion and create additional highway hazards. Furthermore, the Inspector raised concerns in respect of the provision of adequate visibility splays, again rendering the proposal contrary to Policy BE1. The Inspector also found the amount of external amenity space to future occupants of plot 2 to be unduly limited and that enclosure to the proposed roadside gardens to conflict with the more open character and appearance of the street scene. Finally, the submission of a letter from the appellant s solicitor confirming that the requested development contribution would be paid should the appeal be successful was not considered an appropriate mechanism for securing the payment towards transportation infrastructure. Little Stour Mr John de Graft-Johnson CA/09/00499/FUL Installation of dormer window, roof lights and windows to first-floor of garage The Parsonage, 7 Ickham Court Farm, Ickham, CT3 1QQ Simon Poole Appeal allowed The appeal was upheld with conditions relating to standard time limit, development to be carried out in accordance with the approved plans and the use of matching materials. The Inspector did not agree with the Council s position that the installation of additional glazing on the balcony part of the proposal would result in any greater level of overlooking than
already present, particularly into the immediate rear garden area of the adjacent dwelling (No. 3). As such the Inspector allowed the appeal. Appellants: Little Stour Mr & Mrs S Foster CA/10/00071/FUL Erection of two bay cart shed Little Stour Farm, Nargate Street, Littlebourne, CT3 1QJ Graham Dudley Little Stour Farm contains a large detached dwelling with attached garage to the side. A double garage was proposed. The application was refused on the basis that the visual impact of the building, in addition to the existing buildings, would have constituted an overintensive development of the site causing harm to the character and appearance of the rural area and failing to neither preserve nor enhance the character and appearance of the Ickham, Wickhambreaux and Seaton Conservation Area. The inspector dismissed the appeal on these grounds. The Inspector considered that because of the size, bulk and position of the building it would be prominent and obtrusive causing unacceptable harm to the open nature of this part of the countryside and conservation area. Overall it was concluded that it would not be a high quality design. Landscaping proposed would not have been sufficient to mitigate against the harm from the bulk and prominence of the building in this important rural location between the main settlements. The Inspector felt that the argument of improved security was not sufficient to overcome the substantial harm that the proposal would cause. Blean Forest Mr Jon Gauld CA/09/00890/FUL Erection of one dwelling Land adjacent to 11 Woodland Way, Blean, CT2 7LS Hilary Lock The appeal site formed part of the rear garden of No. 11 Woodland Way, a detached twostorey dwelling. The application was refused on the basis of the detrimental impact that it would have had upon the character and appearance of the street scene. The Inspector subsequently dismissed the appeal on this basis. The Inspector identified that the limited size of the plot would have resulted in a development out of keeping in the street scene. It was considered that the proposed bulk and mass would have been more intrusive than the shallower first-floor side elevation of the existing building and that the forward siting close to the roadside boundary would have conflicted with the more spacious development pattern in the street scene with the front elevation of the dwelling appearing dominant. The Inspector recognised that new development should respond to its context and create or reinforce local
distinctiveness and that in this case the spaciousness of the local pattern was a characteristic that should be respected. The Inspector did not agree with the conclusions of the appellant s Character Area Appraisal that the area of the appeal site had very little visual interest and that a dwelling on the site would reduce the monotony and enclosure of the street scene. The Inspector concluded that the proposal would have conflicted with the aims of Policy CC6 of the South East Plan in that it would have failed to respect the character and distinctiveness of the settlement and also with the requirements of BE1 of the Local Plan in that its form, layout, scale and massing would have been inappropriate to its context. The Inspector also considered that the proposal would have been contrary to the valid principles contained in the Guidelines to Control Residential Intensification in matters of siting, layout, design and scale. The Inspector also considered that the appeal site was in a sustainable location in terms of its proximity to services and facilities provided on the university campus and in relation to public transport. Also, that this was an area where infill development could be appropriate although the recent omission of private residential garden area from the definition of previously developed land in Planning Policy Statement 3 was a material consideration to which some weight was accorded. The Inspector also considered that a contribution towards transport infrastructure was reasonable and necessary and is supported by the analysis as set out in the Supplementary Planning Document. The Inspector considered that payment upfront was not in accordance with Circular 05/2005 as an appropriate mechanism for securing the contribution and that the payment was not properly secured in a way which clearly related it to the development in question and to the purposes for which it had been made. Little weight was therefore attached to the payment but the submission of a properly executed unilateral undertaking would not have outweighed the conclusions of the Inspector as set out above. West Bay New Country Homes Ltd CA/09/01538/FUL Change in house type of plots 8-13 of planning permission CA/08/01138/HBA Seaside Caravan Park, Standard Avenue, Studd Hill, Herne Bay, CT6 8EF Committee (Contrary to Officer s recommendation) Nigel Burrows The proposal involved an increase of approximately 1.5 metres in the overall depth of the dwellings and an 800mm increase in the ridge heights. The dwellings would also be sited further back from Standard Avenue than previously approved to allow off-street parking provision on the frontage of each plot. While in principle this amendment was welcomed by the Inspector as it would reduce the prominence of the development, it was considered that the off-street parking would dominate the individual frontages of these dwellings and the parked cars would obscure their ground floor facades. The limited opportunities for landscaping would not be sufficient to mitigate the overall visual intrusion. The appeal failed for this reason. While the Inspector recognised that a revised scheme approved in May 2009 also incorporated vehicle parking on the frontages of the plots, in this scheme the dwellings were sited further back so the off-street parking was less dominating and there were greater opportunities for landscaping.
The Inspector did not agree with the Council that the increased height would be out of keeping and felt that that chalet style design would be better proportioned as the front dormers would be contained within a more generous roof area. Furthermore, the Inspector did not consider that the proposal would have a dominating or overbearing impact on the residents situated on the opposite side of Standard Avenue, nor would it impinge on their privacy and did not consider that the proposal would seriously harm the overall living conditions of these residents. Nevertheless the appeal was dismissed for the reasons outlined above. Heron Iceland Foods Limited CA/09/01561/FUL Installation of new shopfront including roller shutters and air-conditioning units (Resubmission of CA/09/00715/FUL) 155-157 Mortimer Street, Herne Bay, CT6 5HD Nigel Burrows The appeal was made against the refusal of planning permission for a replacement shopfront and air-conditioning units at the Iceland store in Herne Bay. The Inspector concluded that the appeal should be dismissed. The main issues in this case were the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the building and surrounding Herne Bay Conservation Area. The Inspector identified Mortimer Street as a main shopping street and that the roller shutter, when lowered, would enclose the shopfront entrance and half of the shop frontage. Despite the punched and glazed design the roller shutter was considered to introduce an unduly defensive, almost fortress-like character to the façade of the building and it would detract from its character and appearance. It was considered that the shutter would appear intrusive in the street scene, would be visible for considerable lengths of time when the retail unit is closed and would have a deadening effect within the retail frontage that would not preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the conservation area. West Bay Primesight Ltd CA/09/01867/ADV Internally illuminated free standing display board (Retrospective) 98 Sea Street, Herne Bay, CT6 8QF Stuart M Reid Appeal allowed The appeal was upheld with a condition relating to non illumination outside the openings hours of the supermarket. The Council Officer recommended the refusal of advertisement consent on the grounds that the sign added to the overall clutter in the street scene and did not appear linked to the activities of the retail unit itself. The Inspector opined that its
relationship with the business activity of the supermarket was irrelevant. In terms of clutter he opined that the street scene in the immediate locality was free of clutter and that the sign would not be harmful to the amenity of the area, as such the appeal was allowed. Westgate Regent Investments Ltd CA/09/01173/FUL Change of use from Class A1 (retail) to Class A3/A5 (restaurant/take-away), installation of extractor system and single-storey extension to the rear (Resubmission) 15 St Dunstan s Street, Canterbury, CT2 8AF Committee (Contrary to Officer s recommendation) John Papworth Appeal allowed and application for costs by Regent Investments Ltd against the Council dismissed The appeal was made against the decision to refuse planning permission for a change of use from Class A1 (retail) to Class A3/A5 (restaurant/take-away) and installation of means of extraction to rear within false chimney. In terms of a concentration of late night uses and risk of late night noise and disturbance the Inspector concluded that the balance of similar uses along St Dunstan s Street was not of such an extent as to cause harm, whether alone or cumulatively, given the commercial nature of the area already. The restaurant has the potential to create noise and disturbance to the rear of the building, however the Inspector concluded that a management scheme imposed by condition could control the use of the rear of the building to prevent undue noise and disturbance being imposed upon neighbouring residents amenities. In view of the available parking in the vicinity and the on-street controls there is, in the Inspector s opinion, little risk of harmful parking. Much trade would be via pedestrian passing trade. Parking enforcement would deal with illegal parking. In conclusion, it was not considered that the operation of one further restaurant, take-away or both, would endanger highway safety or the free flow of traffic. The Inspector concluded in respect of the application for costs that whilst the Committee Members decision was contrary to that of the officer s recommendation, the view that Members took was in line with Local Plan policies and on a firm planning basis. The evidence produced and reasonable planning grounds shown by Committee Members accord with the guidance set out in Circular 03/2009 which advises that costs will unlikely be awarded if realistic and specific evidence is provided about the consequences of the proposed development. The Inspector concluded that Members made a reasonable attempt to foresee problems in the event of one further restaurant or take-away use starting.
Herne & Broomfield Mr P Mason CA/09/01292/FUL Erection of a pair of semi-detached bungalows (Revised scheme) Land rear of 70 Mill Lane, Herne, CT6 7DP Committee (Contrary to Officer s recommendation) Hilary Lock Number 70 Mill Lane is a detached two-storey dwelling sited in an established residential area. The erection of a pair of semi-detached dwellings to the rear of the site was proposed. Officers recommended the application for approval and the Development Control Committee subsequently refused the application for two reasons. The first being that the proposal would have represented a cramped, over-intensive form of development detrimental to the character and appearance of the area and have an unacceptable impact upon residential amenity. In addition it was considered that the intensification of the access would have resulted in increased risk to the safety of the users of the public highway. The appeal was dismissed. The Inspector considered that the amount of built form proposed in relation to the plot size would have been out of keeping with the generally more spacious pattern of the surrounding frontage development. Also that the combination of the plot widths, the relative sizes of the usable private gardens and the close proximity of the proposed dwellings to their boundaries would have resulted in a development that would have appeared unacceptably cramped. The proposal was therefore considered harmful to the character and appearance of the area and to have failed to respond to the context and local distinctiveness, contrary to the aims of Local Plan Policy BE1 and the Guidelines to Control Residential Intensification. The Inspector concluded that the proposal would not have resulted in any direct loss of privacy to neighbouring occupants and that the increased general activity from two additional dwellings would not have affected the amenities currently enjoyed by surrounding occupants to a degree that their living conditions would have been harmed. In terms of highway safety the Inspector concluded that the additional traffic created by the development would not materially add to any existing hazards that the lack of a footway along Mill Lane currently causes to pedestrians and that the proposal would not have materially affected highway safety. The Inspector also considered that a contribution towards transport infrastructure was reasonable and necessary but that the unilateral undertaking submitted did not outweigh the other conclusions as set out above. Marshside Mr P R Bushell CA/09/00634/FUL Erection of detached dwelling (Revised scheme) Chislet House, Sandpit Lane, Chislet, CT3 4DR Simon Poole
Chislet House is a large detached dwelling situated on the edge of a group of dwellings forming the small rural hamlet of Hollow Street. The erection of a detached single-storey dwelling and associated access alterations within the garden of Chislet House was proposed. The application was refused for four reasons. The first one being that the erection of a dwelling on the site, outside of the built confines of any town or village, with no overriding justification having been demonstrated, would have given rise to an unnecessary, unsustainable and harmful form of development detrimental to the environment in general and the character and appearance of the countryside. It was considered to be unsustainable on the basis of a lack of facilities and a subsequent reliance on journeys carried out by private car by future occupiers. Further the dwelling itself would have represented an intrusive form of development in the landscape that would have been detrimental to the Area of High Landscape Value (AHLV) and which would have failed to preserve the character and appearance of the Hollow Street and Chislet Forstal Conservation Area. The Inspector concluded that permanent additional residential accommodation in this rural area would have increased the number of journeys by private transport modes and that it would have represented an unsustainable form of development contrary to Policy BE1 of the Local Plan. The Inspector considered that the appeal site was outside of the confines of the hamlet and that the proposal would not have represented infill development. In addition the excessive height, bulk and location outside of the confines of Hollow Street would have unacceptably harmed the character and distinctiveness of the hamlet, countryside and AHLV, contrary to Policy R7 of the Local Plan. The Inspector also considered that with the exception of the terraces and semi-detached properties in Hollow Street, other buildings are detached and set well apart from each other. In this case Owl Cottage, the nearest neighbour, is a significant distance from Chislet House outside of the confines of the hamlet. The gap between the dwellings was considered an important constituent of the character and appearance of the conservation area. The Inspector felt that the proposal would have failed to reflect the scale and appearance of neighbouring properties and that due to its siting, height and bulk it would have failed to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the conservation area, contrary to Policy BE7 of the Local Plan. The Inspector considered the appellant s personal circumstances and desire to move into a smaller property in the area. He also noted that alternative solutions to meet these needs through adapting Chislet House and its outbuildings had been considered. He also recognised that the proposal would have contributed, albeit slightly, to the Council s housing targets. Notwithstanding this the Inspector concluded that these matters did not outweigh the harm identified above. The Inspector was satisfied that transport contributions were justified and met the terms of Circular 05/2005 but considered that they had not been properly secured due to the absence of a completed planning obligation. The appeal was dismissed. Barham Downs Mr G Garraway CA/09/00608/FUL Change of use from holiday let to residential dwelling Little Marley Barn, Little Marley Farm, Marley Lane, Kingston, CT4 6JH Simon Poole Little Marley Barn is a small, single-storey building that was granted planning permission in 2004 to be converted to a holiday-let from a dog kennels. The change of use from holiday let
to residential was proposed. The application was refused for two reasons, the first being that the proposal would have resulted in the loss of visitor tourist accommodation in the District with insufficient justification to demonstrate it was no longer needed for such purposes or no longer viable. The second reason was that as the site lies outside of the built confines of any town or village, with no overriding justification, it would have given rise to an unnecessary, unsustainable and harmful form of development, detrimental to the environment in general and the character of the countryside in particular. The Inspector concluded that there was no evidence to demonstrate that the property was no longer needed or that it had been actively marketed as tourist accommodation. Also that nothing had been provided to indicate that effort had been made to secure the use of the building for cultural, tourism, economic or community uses. Although noted that the proposal would result in the loss of one small holiday let property, the Inspector concluded that the development would be contrary to Policy TC8 of the Local Plan. The Inspector recognised that for health reasons that the appellant and his wife wanted to move to a smaller singlelevel property and remain in the area, also that the adaptation of Marley Lane Farm to meet their needs may be costly. However, these matters were considered not to outweigh the conclusions above. The Inspector also considered that the proposal would have resulted in the creation of a permanent dwelling in a rural area some distance from local facilities and services. As Marley Lane is not served by public transport, future occupiers would be reliant on private modes of transport. Having regard to the current occupancy restriction (that the building should not be occupied between 15 January and 15 March) the Inspector considered that the proposal would result in a significant increase in the number of journeys by private modes of transport and concluded that the proposal would be an unsustainable form of development, failing to comply with Policy BE1 of the Local Plan and the objectives of sustainable development. The appeal was dismissed. Contact Officer: Joanne Rodda Direct Dial: 862 176