Democratic Services Democratic Services White Cliffs Business Park White Cliffs Business Park Dover Dover Kent CT16 3PJ Kent CT16 3PJ

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

29 November 2010 29 November 2010 Dear Councillor 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, 9 December 2010 at 6.00 pm when the following business will be transacted.

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT a meeting of the PLANNING Committee will be held in the Council Chamber at these Offices on Thursday, 9 December 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 paulinehodding@dover.gov.uk. Members of the public who require further information are asked to contact Pauline Hodding on (01304) 872305 or by e-mail at paulinehodding@dover.gov.uk. Yours sincerely Yours sincerely Chief Executive Chief Executive Planning Committee MembershipPlanning 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 4-8) To confirm the attached Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 11 November

2010. 4. ITEMS DEFERRED (Page 11 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 12-74) To consider the attached report of the Development Control Manager. (For further

information please contact Tim Flisher, extension 2461.) 6. TREE PRESERVATION ORDER NO 13, 2009 – CONFIRMATION OF ORDER ON

THREE SILVER BIRCH TREES – TRINITY HOMES SITE, ST CLARE ROAD, WALMER (Pages 75-77)

To consider the attached report of the Development Control Manager. 7. 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

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

2

3

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: paulinehodding@dover.gov.uk 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 11 November 2010 at 6.00 pm.

Present: Chairman: Councillor A F Richardson (Vice-Chairman in the Chair) Councillors: T A Bond S S Chandler M S Furnival N S Kenton C J Meredith J C Record R J Thompson R S Walkden Officers: Development Control Manager Principal Solicitor Senior Democratic Support Officer

The following persons were also present and spoke in connection with the applications indicated:

Application No For Against DOV/09/0651 – Mr B Tutt DOV/10/0417 Mr S Roberts Mrs J Entwisle DOV/10/0668 – Mr P Smith DOV/10/0765 – Mr L Alton DOV/10/0808 Mr P Sherred and – Councillor P A Watkins DOV/10/0822 – Mr R Mills DOV/10/0827 – Mr P Ballantyne Apologies for absence were received from Councillors S G Leith and J M Munt. 299 APPOINTMENT OF SUBSTITUTE MEMBERS It was noted that, in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 4, Councillor

N S Kenton had been appointed as substitute for Councillor S G Leith. 300 MINUTES The Minutes of the meeting held on 14 October 2010 were approved as a correct

record and signed by the Chairman. 301 SOUTH EAST PLAN/REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY The Development Control Manager explained that a legal challenge had recently

been made in the High Court to the decision by the Communities Secretary to scrap the South East Plan and Regional Spatial Strategy. Therefore policies contained within the Plan had now again to be taken into account when considering planning applications but it was not anticipated that this would have any material effect on any of the applications before Committee at this time.

4

RESOLVED: That the report be noted. 302 DEFERRED ITEMS The Development Control Manager reported that the applicant had asked for

Application No DOV/10/0488 (The Hope Public House, Lydden) to be deferred. RESOLVED: That consideration of Application No DOV/10/0488 (The Hope

Public House, Lydden) remain deferred. 303 APPLICATIONS WHICH MAY BE SUBJECT TO PUBLIC SPEAKING (1) Application No DOV/05/0318 – Change of use and conversion to 4 houses

and 10 self-contained flats together with erection of extensions, associated parking and landscaping – Bushy Ruff and access Alkham Road, Temple Ewell

The Development Control Manager reported that County Highways had made

further comments regarding deficiencies in the approach to the site access. RESOLVED: That in order to assist Members to assess the effect on the

Listed Building, access to the public area and access onto Alkham Road and the principle of development at this site, a site visit be held on Tuesday 7 December 2010 and Councillors A F Richardson (Chairman), C J Meredith, J C Record, R J Thompson and R S Walkden (reserves Councillors M S Furnival and N S Kenton) be appointed to view this any other site.

(2) Application No DOV/09/0651 – Outline application for the erection of a

detached dwelling and garage – Alden's Yard, rear of 71-79 Capel Street, Capel-le-Ferne

The Development Control Manager reported that the Environment Agency had

made recommendations, including conditions, and that Southern Water had no objections. Committee was advised that a further letter of objection from a local resident had been received which referred to overlooking of a number of properties, the height of the proposed building and the narrow access. As this was an outline application the plan showing indicative siting and the Design and Access Statement were the only documents which had been received and plans of any detailed application, if made, would be submitted at that time and copied to consultees.

RESOLVED: That the application be approved in accordance with the

recommendation of the Development Control Manager. (3) Application No DOV/10/0417 – Conversion of stable and greenhouse to a

single residential dwelling and erection of a pitched roof to greenhouse – Perry's Cottage, Hawarden Place, Wingham

The Development Control Manager advised that the description of the application

as shown in the agenda was incorrect and should refer to a single residential dwelling and erection of a pitched roof to the greenhouse. A separate application had recently been received for Listed Building consent which would not affect the Committee's decision on the application before it and any decision reached that evening would not commit Members to a particular decision on the Listed Building

5

application, should that need to be submitted to Committee. The existence and setting of any nearby listed buildings would automatically be taken into account when considering a planning application: in this instance these included Manor Court. A further plan had been received showing the parking space to be adjoined by a boundary wall. An additional third party letter claimed an increase in the width of the extension footprint and commented on the extension's scale and the number of dwellings served by the access. The Conservation Officer had not raised any objection to the application.

RESOLVED: That the application be approved in accordance with the

recommendation of the Development Control Manager. (Councillor A F Richardson declared a personal interest in this item for the reason

that an archaeological condition had been recommended and he was employed by the Canterbury Archaeological Trust.)

(4) Application No DOV/10/0668 – Change of use and conversion to single

residential dwelling – 45 London Road, River Members were informed of typographical errors in the report at section (c) which

should refer to PPS1 and PPS3, and paragraph 1.3 where the last sentence should read "The proposed unit would not be a secure unit". Additionally Circular 05/2010 referred to in paragraph 1.5 of the report had been superseded by Circular 08/2010. The Community Safety Manager had neither supported nor objected to the application. A lengthy letter with several appendices had been received from a third party and the points raised were summarised by the Development Control Manager. Although the writer stated that much important information had been missing from the application the Community Safety Manager had seen the letter and attachments and had not altered his view of the application.

RESOLVED: That the application be approved in accordance with the

recommendation of the Development Control Manager. (5) Application No DOV/10/0765 – Erection of 10 detached dwellings and

associated parking without compliance with Conditions 2, 5 and 11 of planning permission DOV/08/0869 to allow for the re-siting of plots 8, 9 and 10 and parking for plots 6, 7, 8 and 9 – Land rear of 14-56 Court Road and Access Road, Station Drive, Walmer

The Development Control Manager reported that County Highways were satisfied

on all matters and the Environment Agency had not raised objection but had commented on drainage issues. Local concerns had been taken into account and no change in the level of on-site parking provision had been made. Shared parking available for other users would be increased.

RESOLVED: That the application be approved in accordance with the

recommendation of the Development Control Manager. (6) Application No DOV/10/0808 – Erection of a detached dwelling – Land

adjacent to Copthorne, Dover Road, Guston Committee was advised that County Highways had recommended conditions, the

Parish Council strongly disagreed with the report and supported the development, referring to the adjacent development of White Cliffs Business Park Phase III, the Connaught Barracks site and the design of the proposal. A letter from the agent

6

had confirmed the existence of a local bus service but this did not alter the officer's recommendation. The Development Control Manager reminded the Committee the site was outside the confines of the Dover urban area which had been adopted in the Core Strategy recently approved by Members and this policy was reflected in the recommendation. Consistency of policy application should underpin all planning decisions and any contrary decisions should only be made under exceptional circumstances. Were the application to be refused that decision would not prejudice any future consideration under the Site Allocations process but if permission were granted then it was likely that such future consideration would indeed be prejudiced.

On being put to the vote a motion to refuse the application was lost. RESOLVED: That, in order to assist Members to assess the merits of the

site in respect of policy and the proposed developments on adjacent locations, a site visit be held on Tuesday 7 December 2010.

(Councillor A F Richardson declared a personal interest in this item for the reason

that an archaeological condition had been recommended and he was employed by the Canterbury Archaeological Trust.)

(In accordance with paragraph 18.5 of Part 4 of the Council's Procedure Rules

Councillors M S Furnival, C J Meredith, J C Record and R J Thompson requested that their votes for the motion to refuse the application be recorded.)

(7) Application No DOV/10/0822 – Change of use and conversion to two

dwellings and three self-contained flats together with replacement roof and dormer windows and the erection of pitched roof to the existing flat roof extension (existing porch to be demolished) – The Old Bakery, High Street, St Margaret's-at-Cliffe

The Development Control Manager referred to an error in paragraph 1.4 of the

report which should refer to the height of the main gable-sided roof. Further, satisfactory information had been received from the agent.

RESOLVED: That the application be approved in accordance with the

recommendation of the Development Control Manager. (8) Application No DOV/10/0827 – Erection of a pair of semi-detached dwellings

and a detached dwelling (existing dwelling to be demolished) – 27 Eythorne Road, Shepherdswell

Members were advised that the County Archaeologist had raised no objection to the

proposal but had recommended a condition. The Parish Council was opposed to the development on the grounds that it was intrusive, out of keeping, affected the amenity of the area and provided inadequate parking spaces.

RESOLVED: That, in order to assist Members to assess the effect of the

proposal on Nos 1, 2 and 3 The Glen and on the street scene together with parking provision, a site visit be held on 7 December 2010.

7

8

(Councillor A F Richardson declared a personal interest in this item for the reason that an archaeological condition had been recommended and he was employed by the Canterbury Archaeological Trust.)

304 ACTION TAKEN IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ORDINARY DECISIONS

(COUNCIL BUSINESS) URGENCY PROCEDURE The Committee was advised that the Development Control Manager, in consultation

with the Chairman of the Committee, had agreed the wording of condition (ii) in respect of Planning Permission reference DOV/10/0756 (south east side of rugby pitches and adjoining rear boundaries of properties in Halliday Drive and Harvey Avenue – Former Drill Field, Canada Road, Walmer).

RESOLVED: That the action taken be approved 305 FEES AND CHARGES 2011/12 The Committee considered the report of the Director of Development and Public

Protection on the proposed fees and charges for 2011/2012 in respect of the Planning Section. The figure of 2£50,000 shown on page 9 at (b) in respect of operations connected with exploratory drilling for oil or gas should be £250,000. The Development Control Manager undertook to investigate whether the increase in VAT to 20%, due on 1 January 2011, had been taken into account when setting the fees and charges.

RESOLVED: That the report be noted. (In accordance with the provisions of Section 100(B)(4)(b) of the Local Government

Act 1972, the Chairman agreed that this item, which was not detailed in the agenda, should be considered as a matter of urgency because of the need to report to Cabinet on 6 December 2010.)

The meeting ended at 8.53 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

9

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

10

DOVER DISTRICT COUNCIL Agenda Item No 4 REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT CONTROL MANAGER PLANNING COMMITTEE – 9 DECEMBER 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/10/0488 Erection of four dwellings and construction of

vehicular access together with car parking for the Public House, 144 Canterbury Road, Lydden. (Item 1, 16 September 2010). Deferred pending a further report. Reported elsewhere on this Agenda.

2. DOV/05/0318 Change of use and conversion to four houses and ten

self-contained flats, together with erection of extensions, associated parking and landscaping. Bushy Ruff and access, Alkham Road, Temple Ewell. (Item 1, 11 November 2010). Deferred pending a site visit.

3. DOV/10/0808 Erection of a detached dwelling, land adjacent to

Copthorne, Dover Road, Guston. (Item 6, 11 November 2010). Deferred pending a site visit.

4. DOV/10/0827 Erection of a pair of semi-detached dwellings and a

detached dwelling (existing dwelling to be demolished), 27 Eythorne Road, Shepherdswell. (Item 8, 11November 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).

11

DOVER DISTRICT COUNCIL REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT CONTROL MANAGER

PLANNING COMMITTEE 09 DECEMBER 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).

Agenda Item No 5

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.

1. a) DOV/10/0488 – Erection of four dwellings and construction of vehicular access, together with car-parking for the public house, 144 Canterbury Road, Lydden

b) Summary of Recommendation Grant planning permission. c) Planning Policy and Guidance ● Policy CC1 states that the main aim of the South East Plan (SEP) is to

achieve sustainable development. ● SEP Policy CC4 sets out that new development will be expected to

incorporate sustainable construction standards and techniques. ● SEP Policy H5 states that positive measures to raise the quality of

new housing, reduce its environmental impact and facilitate future adaptation will be encouraged.

● Core Strategy (CS) Policy CP1 sets out the District's settlement

hierarchy and includes Lydden in the list of villages which can each act as a tertiary focus for development which recognises its role as a provider of services to essentially its home community.

● Core Strategy (CS) Policy CP4 states that for development of over ten

units density should wherever possible exceed 40 dwellings net per hectare and developments will seldom be justified at less than 30 dwellings net per hectare.

● CS Policy CP5 states that new residential development should meet

Code for Sustainable Homes level 3. ● CS Policy CP6 sets out that development that generates a demand for

infrastructure will only be permitted if the necessary infrastructure to support it is either already in place or there is a reliable mechanism to ensure that it will be provided at the time it is needed.

● CS Policy DM11 sets out that planning applications for development

that would increase travel demand should be supported by a systematic assessment to quantify the amount and type of travel likely to be generated and include measures that satisfy demand to maximise walking, cycling and the use of public transport.

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

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

● CS Policy DM15 states that development which would adversely affect

the character or appearance of the countryside will only be permitted if it is justified by certain criteria.

● Dover District Local Plan (DDLP) Policy HS2 sets out that on unallocated sites within the urban boundaries, housing development will be permitted, provided housing is the most suitable land use.

● 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.

● PPS3: Housing emphasises that good design is fundamental to the

development of high quality new housing, which contributes to the creation of sustainable, mixed communities. A key objective is the effective use of previously developed land, but there is no presumption that such land is necessarily suitable for housing. Indeed, the definition of previously-developed land excludes "land in built-up areas such as private residential gardens …".

● Policy EC13 of PPS4: Planning for Sustainable Growth states that,

when assessing applications affecting services in villages, including pubs, local planning authorities should, amongst other matters, taken into account their importance to the local community if the proposal would result in its loss or change of use and refuse applications which fail to protect existing facilities providing for people’s day-to-day needs.

● Manual for Streets, together with Manual for Streets 2, set out

principles for achieving high quality design in the public realm. ● Kent Design Guide is adopted supplementary guidance, advocating

good design, informed by a design analysis of the surrounding environment.

d) Relevant Planning History

DOV/06/0338 – Erection of 5 dwellings and the erection of a detached building for 4 holiday apartments, public house car park and alterations to existing vehicular access – Refused.

DOV/07/0241 - Erection of 5 dwellings, public house car park

and alterations to existing vehicular access – Refused on four grounds, relating to extent and scale, impact on mature trees, increased concentration of traffic and parking provision, sight lines and road pattern.

DOV/09/00645 - Erection of four dwellings, public house car park

and alterations to existing vehicular access – Withdrawn.

DOV/10/486 - Partial demolition of existing single storey side

extension – Granted. e) Consultee and Third Party Responses

County Highways: Raises no objection, subject to conditions.

Environment Agency: No objection, subject to conditions and informatives.

County Archaeologist: No objections, subject to condition.

Veolia Water: Gives advice.

Southern Water: Gives advice.

Kent Footpaths: No comments received.

Lydden Parish Council: Objects for the following reasons: • There is poor visibility to the site; • Increase of traffic; • Loss of the garden and skittle alley – the pub would loose trade; • Car-parking would not allow lorries access to the back of the pub for

deliveries; • Inadequate parking for the pub would result in cars parking on the

road; • The houses are not in keeping with surrounding properties; • Government policy is against using garden land for residential development; • The pub garden provides the only level play area in the village for

children.

Public Representations: Fourteen letters of objection have been submitted, including one from a Member and one from the Chairman of the Dover and District Skittles Association, stating in summary:

• Inappropriate site for high density development; • The development would change the village character; • Scale of houses would not blend with neighbouring properties; • Effects on the public footpath adjoining the site; • The housing would not be affordable; • The refuse area is too close to the adjoining property; • Limited visibility at the vehicular access making it unsafe; • Traffic dangers;

• Pub car parking would be reduced, which would cause dangerous on-

street parking; • The pub is a successful business and a valuable local family amenity

and social and community outlet, particularly in summer when the garden is used;

• The beer garden and the skittle alley would be lost; • The loss of the garden would prevent use as a camping and certified

caravan site; • There would be a decline in, or loss of, the viability of the pub as a business; • The Hope inn is currently a thriving business in a village identified in

the Core Strategy (Policy CP1) for tertiary services; • The other pub is effectively a restaurant and provides little community

function;

• Rural-based jobs are encouraged by the Core strategy; the development would not be sustainable as there is no local employment.

A letter from the MP expresses concern that the proposal runs contrary to the need for more community provision and that it would be a retrograde step for Lydden. He encloses two letters from local residents which reiterate many of the concerns summarised above concerning the loss of a village amenity but also raising the matter of the loss of a camping and caravan site and the consequences for the local economy and tourism.

e) 1. The Site and the Proposal

1.1 The application site relates to a 0.29 hectare plot of land comprising

the Hope Inn Public House and land to the side and rear of the pub. The land is not uniform in shape and wraps round the rear garden of No. 142 to the east, extending back from Canterbury Road by 75m. The roadside boundary measures about 50m.

1.2 The Hope Inn fronts Canterbury Road and is built right up against the

roadside boundary. A public footpath runs alongside the western boundary of the plot, leading through open countryside. There is a row of Sycamore, Ash and field Maple trees along the footpath.

1.3 The pub is a cream-rendered building, with various additions and has

a lawn to the rear, with a skittle alley and a grassed area beyond. An access, driveway and parking area is sited to the east of the pub and behind the neighbouring property, No. 142. The land slopes down to the north. Due to the slope and the foliage and trees along the public footpath, the site is not readily seen from along the footpath.

1.4 Built development in this part of Lydden has a linear character, with dwellings fronting the northern side of the road. These are a mix of two storey houses and bungalows, mainly finished in red brick or white render. The neighbouring property, No. 142 is a detached, white-rendered bungalow, with a small rear garden. A semi-detached, thatched building (which is listed) lies to the east of No. 142; it has a large rear garden, extending along the boundary of the application site. There is a treed bank opposite the site, on the other side of the road, and the area to the south is undeveloped.

1.5 The site is within the village confines of Lydden, the boundary of which

otherwise wraps tightly round the existing linear-type development along Canterbury Road. Woodland opposite the site, to the south of Canterbury Road, is part of a Site of Scientific Interest and the woods and surrounding land are within the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

1.6 The proposal seeks full planning permission for the erection of four

dwellings. Two of the dwellings would be four-bedroom detached properties and the other two would be a pair of semi-detached three-bedroom properties. They would all have steeply pitched roofs of grey concrete tiles, with a gable end to the front façade, and brick-built walls and weather-boarded detailing at first floor level.

1.7 The semi-detached pair would be sited at an angle from the road, to

the north-western corner of No. 142, the adjacent property, with a detached garage sited near No. 142’s rear boundary. These dwellings would be about 18m away from the roadside boundary of the site and would have a staggered layout, with plot two sited slightly further back. Internally, plots one and two would each have a lounge, kitchen and dining area and WC at ground floor level and three bedrooms and a bath and shower room at first floor.

1.8 The two detached properties (plots three and four) would be sited

further to the rear – about 36m from the roadside boundary, with a detached garage located adjacent to the western boundary of the site to serve plot four. Plots three and four would each have a lounge and separate dining room and kitchen at ground floor, with four bedrooms, a bathroom and shower room at first floor.

1.9 The dwellings would occupy the existing car park and the grassed

area beyond the skittle alley. The existing access would be modified to serve the proposed new dwellings. The properties would be arranged around the proposed private drive and turning area. Each property is shown to have its own garden, with two parking spaces each. Two of the properties (plots one and four) would also have detached garages. The pub car park (between the pub and plot four) would provide twelve parking spaces, with an additional two spaces for the residential unit above the pub. The skittle alley would be removed. A refuse area is shown to one side of the access.

1.10 The application has been submitted following two refused schemes,

negotiations and a withdrawn scheme. The proposal is similar to a previously withdrawn scheme, which was submitted in 2009. The main difference is that the proposal now shows the demolition of much

of the single storey part of the pub, which would enable better sight lines at the site entrance. The parking layout has also been amended, to ensure that the off-street parking spaces are independently accessible and to show sight line provision. Plans demonstrating delivery vehicle and fire appliance access into the site have also been submitted.

1.11 Members may recall that this application has been considered by the

Committee twice (Item 1, 19 August 2010; Minute 168(A); and Item 2, 16 September 2010; Minute 201). At the first meeting, Members decided, subject to outstanding matters being resolved, to approve the proposal. However, further letters were subsequently received from third parties. These necessitated the second report. Additional letters objecting to the proposal, in particular raising concerns about the potential loss of the pub, Lydden's position as a tertiary focus, jobs and the detrimental effect on the community and local employment, were received prior to the September meeting. A great deal of supplementary information had also been received, including a statement from the applicant together with a request that determination of the application be deferred to allow for a further full report.

1.12 Discussions between officers and the applicants had led to the

submission of sketch plans with suggestions about how to accommodate the bar, pool table and darts area following demolition of part of the premises. The Committee was advised that, due to the amount of information submitted and the level of local concern expressed, a further comprehensive report to Committee should be compiled before the application could be safely determined. Members resolved that consideration of the application be deferred in order to prepare a further report, to include reference to all new information received.

1.13 Plans and details have now been submitted in an attempt to

demonstrate how the pub would continue to function once the side extension has been demolished. The internal layout would incorporate a bar area to the left corner, with the original access to the cellar. The main bar area would replace the existing dining room and have a darts area, with thirty-two seating spaces shown, with an additional twelve stools around the bar. An existing storage area would be incorporated into the bar, with the existing kitchen retained and a separate room (part of the existing bar) being used for pool. Toilets would be provided in a small extension to the side.

1.14 Externally, the plan shows a side and rear garden area, with the

current beer cellar retained, a reduced yard and space for additional landlord and staff parking.

1.15 An informal plan, which does not form a formal part of this application,

has also been submitted to show other suggested changes that could take place in the future, subject to planning permission being granted. This includes various positions for a skittle alley to be located.

1.16 A further statement has also been submitted, which sets out details of

the viability of the pub. It states, in summary, that:

• The grounds are under-utilized and previous passing trade will

not be replaced; • The pub cannot be realistically sustainable in its current form; • The grounds extend to some five times the site area of an

average village pub; • The large car park is under-utilized and is significantly larger

than current standards; • The Hope Inn has been advertised for camping, motor home

and caravan use, but has had only a very modest take-up. A high volume would be required to have any significant effect on income;

• The skittle alley is not well used, but could still be provided in

the reduced area; • There was minimal demand for the children’s play facilities

when they were provided, but the garden patio area is sized to allow plenty of space for family uses;

• The demolition would enable additional outside seating area if

the need arose or potentially a new extension set further back from the road, if demand were ever to return;

• The proposal would significantly increase the chances of the

pub’s survival.

1.17 An assessment of the proposal in terms of its compliance with PPS4 has also been submitted. In summary, this states that demolition has already been approved and the essential pub facilities would remain. The bar would revert to its historic position, the cellar would be reused and darts and pool areas would be provided. The reduced pub curtilage would provide sufficient space for a skittle alley (which would require planning permission). Moreover, in good weather, the beer garden would provide additional seating. The statement notes that the pub is one of two in the village and has suffered from a distinct decline in trade, although efforts are being made by the owner and the land-lady to improve its financial viability. It concludes that the proposal would assist the viability of the pub, enabling it to continue to trade and that in the longer term it would enable cross-subsidy for reinvestment in the pub.

1.18 Basic financial details of the pub’s income have also been submitted

and are being treated as a confidential part of the application.

1.19 Plans will be on display.

2. Main Issues 2.1 The main areas of assessment are:

• Principle of residential development;

• Impact on neighbours and future occupants; • Design and layout; • Highways implications; and • Impact on the viability of the pub.

3. Assessment

Principle of residential development 3.1 The application site is within the village confines of Lydden and is at

least partially on previously developed land. To this extent, the proposal meets the principal objectives of PPS3 for sustainable residential development.

3.2 PPS3 has recently been amended to remove reference to achieving a

minimum density of 30 dwellings per hectare and to exclude private residential gardens (and other open land) from the definition of previously-developed land. Consideration also has to be given to the village-edge location of the development and the highways and visual impacts that would result from a higher density, which would be unlikely to be acceptable, as previously refused schemes have indicated. It is arguable that the open grass area to the northern part of the site is not brownfield land. However, it is not important in its current state to the character of this part of Lydden and it is not considered that its development in the manner now indicated would be contrary to the provisions of PPS3 or other policy. Four units, in principle, are considered acceptable.

Impact on neighbours and future occupants

3.3 The location and design of the proposed dwellings are such that it is

not considered that they would have an unacceptable impact on neighbours or future residents. Each property would have its own private residential garden and they would be set a sufficient distance away from the neighbouring properties so as to prevent any overbearing or overshadowing impact on these properties.

3.4 First floor side windows serve bathrooms or hallways, which are all

non-habitable rooms. The one exception is to plot 2, which has a side bedroom window. This would overlook the car-parking area and would not create unacceptable overlooking into plot 3. There are not considered to be any overlooking concerns.

3.5 In respect of the potential level of noise and disturbance that would be created from the habitation of four new dwellings, it is considered that the additional vehicles movements and general use of the dwellings and associated garden areas is unlikely to be a cause for concern, given that the dwellings would be located within the confines, in a built-up area and would be within good sized curtilages, utilizing an existing access. A particular objection concerns the proposed siting of a refuse store adjoining the access. While this would be close to the boundary with the adjoining curtilage, the store is considered to be a sufficient distance away from the dwelling at No. 142 such as not to give rise to material harm.

Design and layout

3.6 Lydden is a village that clearly follows a linear pattern of residential

development, mainly along Canterbury Road and, to a lesser extent, Stonehall Road, which branches off Canterbury Road to the north. The development comprises mainly residential frontage development.

3.7 The application site is quite central to the village and the proposal

would introduce development behind the established linear pattern of frontage development along Canterbury Road.

3.8 The area to the rear of the pub plays an important role in the transition

between the built linear form of residential development along Canterbury Road and the countryside to the rear. Whilst PPS3 encourages the re-development of previously developed land (and Members will note the earlier reference to this point at para 3.3), this has to be balanced against the avoidance of unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the surrounding area.

3.9 It was previously advised that the then proposed number of dwellings

needed to be reduced, that an area of open ‘soft’ space needed to be retained to the rear of the site and that the degree to which the development encroaches towards the rear should be kept to a minimum, in order that a ‘soft edge’ be retained between the village confines and the open countryside. It was also advised that the potential impact on the character of the existing pattern of development along Canterbury Road would in part also depend on the scale, design and use of material of the proposed units.

3.10 The main visual impact of the development would be from the west of

the site, across the open countryside, when approaching from Lydden Hill. The area currently appears loose-knit, with the rendered side elevation of the pub seen, in places, over long views from the west. The tree line along the western boundary provides a soft edge, which marks the gradual transition from the village confines into the open countryside and does effectively screen or soften the site. However, these trees are on adjoining land and their retention cannot be guaranteed.

3.11 The most recently determined application, for the erection of five

dwellings, was refused on six grounds (DOV/07/241). By reason of its extent and scale, the development was considered to result in a stark and unacceptable intensification of built development on the edge of

the village, which would erode the soft edge of this part of the settlement. The application was also refused on the ground that one of the units was likely to prejudice the longevity of the mature trees along the western flank of the site. The proposal was considered to introduce a built form of a depth that is not found in this part of the village and to unacceptably extend development beyond the existing pattern of frontage development, which would un-balance the relationship of built form and open countryside.

3.12 The number of units has been reduced to four, with unit four sited

further away from the side boundary than the previous Unit 5 (in order to prevent harm to the boundary trees). The reduction in density and size of buildings would help to prevent the site from looking too cramped.

3.13 Although the development would not form linear frontage

development, this does not necessarily mean that the proposal would result in unacceptable visual harm or be detrimental to the spatial character of the area. The proposed dwellings would be set back within the site and are now shown to be of narrower form than those previously refused. The gaps and spaces around and between buildings are considered much more appropriate. It is considered that the proposal would retain a feeling of space and openness and the overall bulk of the previously proposed five units has been satisfactorily addressed. It is considered that in terms of the layout of the proposal, the scheme would sufficiently overcome previous concerns.

3.14 The dwellings would be finished in brick and would be partly

timber-clad on the upper elevations, to reflect timber-clad buildings further west of the site. Whilst the surrounding properties demonstrate a variety of styles and sizes, the proposed dwellings have a traditional style, with steeply pitched roofs, gable ends and the design of each of the units is considered to be of a style, form and size that would not appear out of context with the surrounding properties.

3.15 The dwellings would be set back from the road and would be hardly

visible from the eastern direction along Canterbury Road until almost outside the site. It is not considered that the development would appear intrusive within the street scene and the impact on the trees to the western boundary has been alleviated by removing the fifth unit and siting the fourth unit slightly further from the boundary and therefore this reason for refusal has been satisfactorily overcome.

3.16 It is considered moreover that the dwellings would not encroach

unacceptably into the wider countryside to the rear. They would all be within the village confines and would not unacceptably harm the soft edge of the village, as they do not project as far back into the site as much as previous schemes. It is unlikely that this development would start a trend for development set beyond the road frontage, given that the village confine boundaries are generally tightly formed around existing residential properties. In any case, any applications for residential development would be assessed on their own merit.

3.17 Overall, the proposed dwellings are considered to be of an appropriate siting, design, style location and form. Material samples for the finish to the buildings and hard landscaping, as well as details and plans for soft landscaping, can be controlled by way of condition. Further domestic paraphernalia, such as garages and sheds, can be controlled to a certain extent by attaching a condition that prevents any further development within the site.

3.18 The other element of the scheme is to provide a car park for the pub.

This would be located to the rear of the pub building, to replace that lost where the proposed dwellings would be located. Much of the site is already given up to hard-surfacing for parking and it is unfortunate that more space would need to be given up for this. However, the proposed parking area is shown to the rear of the pub and would be softened to a certain degree by the trees and soft landscaping shown as plan. It is considered that, with a good landscaping scheme in place (which can be required by way of condition), the level of visual harm would be kept to a minimum.

Highways implications

3.19 There were a number of highways objections relating to the previously

refused application. These included concerns about an increase in the concentration of traffic, unsuitable and insufficient accommodation for parking, loading and off-loading of vehicles, sub-standard sight-lines and unsatisfactory provision for a road pattern for easy and safe circulation.

3.20 There have been considerable changes when compared to the

previous application. The number of dwellings has been reduced from five to four, which has created further space around the development, as well as reducing traffic generation.

3.21 One of the fundamental highways grounds of refusal was the lack of

sight lines. 3.22 The applicant has received permission for the demolition of part of the

existing pub extension, in order to enable better sight-lines.

3.23 Manual for Streets recommends that, for an access onto a 30mph road, 43m visibility splays should be provided at the entrance in both directions (Table 7.1). Moreover, the ‘x’ distance (i.e. the distance measured back from the centre-point of the access, at the “give-way” point) would normally be 2.4m back. Manual for Streets advises that a minimum figure of 2m may be considered in some very lightly-trafficked and slow-speed situations (Para 7.7.7).

3.24 County Highways have advised that whilst the speed limit is 30mph

along this road, cars do travel in excess of this limit and warning signs have been placed along the road in an attempt to slow the traffic down.

3.25 The existing access provides visibility splays of 31m and 29m to the

sides. This is well under the 43m distance required. Even with the demolition of the building, the visibility splays, at 34.7m in the

southerly direction, with an x distance of 2m, would still fall short of those recommended under Manual for Streets.

3.26 Nevertheless, County Highways advises that this compromise is acceptable and that although there may be a slight increase in traffic, the improvements in visibility at the junction with Lydden Road would benefit the pub, as well as provide acceptable visibility for four dwellings and this application can be conditioned such that development cannot commence until the building is demolished in accordance with the approved application.

3.27 The highways problems are now all considered to have been

satisfactorily addressed and County Highways raises no objections to the scheme, subject to conditions being attached.

3.28 Manual for Streets 2 indicates that in some instances, poor visibility

splays can encourage drivers to emerge with more caution and, therefore, sometimes restricted visibility may be acceptable (Para 10.6.1). However, the proposed splays are already below standard and the road conditions are such that more reduced visibility splays would be likely to result in danger to other vehicles and as such, the proposal is considered acceptable in highways terms only if part of the pub is demolished.

Impact on the viability of the pub

3.29 Although the proposal does not directly involve the loss of the pub, it is

possible that, in requiring the demolition of part of the pub building, the proposal could indirectly threaten the viability of the pub, which could, in a worst case scenario, result in its closure.

3.30 Policy EC13 of PPS4 requires that when assessing applications that

would affect a public house, account should be taken of its importance to the local community or the economic base of the area, if the proposal would result in its loss.

3.31 The applicant’s agent states that the proposal would benefit the

running of the pub. However, it is hard to see how a loss of part of the pub, which would result in a reduction of the internal floor-space, would not directly result in the loss of trade and a potential impact on long-term viability. Rural pubs increasingly need to offer something special to attract custom and the development could be seen to reduce the potential for this through the demolition of the area that currently accommodates the bar, toilets, some seating, a pool table and a darts board, a reduction in parking from 28 to 12 spaces and the loss of much of the garden and a well-maintained skittle alley. There is also a potential loss of income if camping is no longer possible, though it is understood that this would be minimal.

3.32 Efforts have been made to establish how the pub would continue to

function after the demolition and the agent was asked to respond further to these concerns and explain in what way the applicant remains committed to a continuation of the pub as a business. Further information regarding the proposed internal layout of the pub,

its outside seating area, the financial viability of the pub in its current form and a draft Unilateral Undertaking have been submitted.

3.33 A plan shows how a garden area would be retained and used for

outside seating and a sketch plan indicates potential locations for a replacement skittle alley.

3.34 A plan has also been submitted to indicate how the internal layout of

the pub would be arranged to enable the bar to be relocated and provide seating areas and retain the kitchen.

3.35 However, it is apparent from a visit to the premises, that the demolition

would significantly reduce the available eating area and that the plan submitted would not realistically enable the bar, the darts area and seating area to be provided in such a way as indicated.

3.36 A draft Unilateral Undertaking has been submitted by the applicant’s

agent, which would require that the internal works to the pub would be carried out prior to the demolition of the single storey side extension. Given the apparent shortcomings of the proposed internal layout of the pub, as shown on plan, there would appear to be little benefit in requiring it to be carried out by way of a Unilateral Undertaking.

3.37 It is not considered that the information provided by the applicant’s

agent sufficiently demonstrates that the pub would not be adversely affected to some extent by the proposed scheme.

3.38 Nevertheless, consideration has to be given to the material weight that

this issue has in assessing the proposal as a whole. There are a number of factors, set out below, that would together suggest that little weight can be given and that a recommendation of refusal would not be justified in this case.

3.39 PPS4 requires consideration to be given to the importance of the pub

to the local community or the economic base of the area. It is understood from the agent that the pub has had a series of tenants who have not been commercially successful. However, the current land-lady, who has been at the pub for about a year, has begun to make the pub more viable. It is understood that the pub has league teams in skittles, pool and darts, that it is receiving regular bookings for Sunday lunches and is fully booked for Christmas Day. A number of concerns have been raised from local residents, related to the loss of the garden and skittle alley, the loss of a village amenity and the decline in the viability of the pub. The pub’s current vitality and financial viability does seem to be improving, but still appear tenuous, with a shaky, but improving economic base. It is probable that the pub has some level of community function, affirmed by the objections to its perceived potential loss by local residents.

3.40 At the same time, it does have to be acknowledged that there are two

pubs in Lydden. Although the other pub (The Bell Inn) was recently closed, this was temporary and the pub is understood to have re-opened on 4 September 2010. It is currently trading. Objectors have indicated that the two pubs attract different markets. However, this is not necessarily a factor to be considered under this proposal.

3.41 It is also pertinent that PPS4 refers specifically to applications that

would result in the loss of a pub. There is no certainty that the proposal would directly result in the closure of the Hope Inn. Little weight can be given, therefore, to the resistance to the loss of local services reflected in the CS at, for example, para 3.79.

3.42 The impact that the proposal would have (albeit indirectly) on the

viability of the pub is a material consideration. Notwithstanding this, Members should note that planning permission for making good the side wall of the pub, (as a result of the removal of part of the pub) has already been granted and that the applicant is able to carry out the demolition and alterations as soon as details required by condition have been approved. Although there would be no apparent benefit in doing so, demolition of the building itself could therefore be carried out regardless of whether this planning application is granted.

3.43 Moreover, Members should bear in mind that the Council has no

control over the closure of the pub per se, but that its conversion to (say) a wholly residential use would require planning permission. At that stage, Core Strategy Policy DM24, which presumes against the change of use of pubs in particular circumstances, would apply.

3.44 It is unfortunate that the scheme as proposed can be achieved only by

way of demolition of part of the pub. However, having given consideration to the current economic and community significance of the pub, it is not considered that there would be a failure to comply with Policy EC13 of PPS4 and a recommendation of refusal would not be justified.

Conclusion

3.45 The relevant factors, relating to the impact of the proposal on the loss

of the bar and garden, the reduced parking and loss of potential income from camping have now been addressed by the applicant.

3.46 The proposed layout of the pub does not appear to be particularly

well-designed or functional and is not considered to adequately demonstrate that the pub’s viability would not potentially be affected by the reduction in floor area, although it is likely that some form of service could continue, albeit it at a reduced level. Nevertheless, even in the event that the pub does close, it is not considered that the proposal would conflict with the aims and objectives of PPS4 and it would be difficult to justify a recommendation of refusal on this ground.

3.47 It is not considered that any of the other concerns, relating to parking

and access implications, the design, scale and density of the properties or their impact on surrounding neighbours and the wider street scene would be such as to justify a refusal.

g) Recommendation I PERMISSION BE GRANTED subject to the following conditions: (i) Time limit

condition; (ii) Amended plans; (iii) Sight lines; (iv) Gates; (v) Surfaced access; (vi) Parking provision; (vii) Parking for the public house; (viii) Construction

vehicles; (ix) DOV/10/486 (relating to demolition of pub extension) to be carried out prior to first occupation of dwellings; (x) Foul and surface water disposal; (xi) Turning head; (xii) Turning; (xiii) Sustainable construction; (xiv) Soft/hard landscaping and maintenance (to include site of demolished extension); (xv) Replacement planting; (xvi) No further development; (xvii) Material samples; (xviii) Means of enclosure; (xiv) Obscure glazing; (xx) Cross-sections; (xxi) Programme of archaeological work; (xxii) Details to be provided if contamination found; (xxiii) Drainage; (xxiv) Any other conditions or alterations to conditions to be delegated to the Development Control Manager.

II INFORMATIVES: (i) Works to the public highway; (ii) Wheel-washing; (iii)

Contact Southern Water about connection to public sewerage system; (iv) Contact Veolia about provision of potable water supply; (v) Environment Agency advice; (vi) Any other informatives to be delegated to the Development Control Manager.

Case Officer Sarah Platts

2. a) DOV/10/0745 – Retrospective application for the use of garage as

ancillary residential accommodation, Bay Hill House, The Droveway, St. Margaret’s Bay.

b) Summary of Recommendation Grant planning permission. c) Planning Policy and Guidance ● Policy DM13 of the Core Strategy (CS) states that provision for

residential development should be a design-led process and informed by the Table for Residential Parking (Table 1.1, p115).

● PPS1: Delivering Sustainable Development encourages sustainability

and good design. ● Policy HE11 of PPS5: Planning for the Historic Environment states

that Local Planning Authorities should take into account whether the development will materially harm the significance of the heritage asset or its setting.

d) Relevant Planning History

DOV/88/0424 - Erection of bungalow and garage with replacement garage – approved.

DOV/09/0278 - Erection of a two storey side extension with

balcony – refused. e) Consultee and Third Party Responses St. Margaret’s Parish Council: No objections to the planning aspects of the

application, assuming the relevant Building Regulations are applied in respect of change to living accommodation.

Public Representation: 3 letters have been received, objecting to the

proposal on the following grounds: - ● The use of the house as a dwelling for people receiving care has

created an increase in car movements and the need for parking. The existing parking on and off site is limited. Inconsiderate parking on the street has resulted in inconvenience to a neighbour;

● The principle of converting garages to residential. ● Intrusion of noise and cooking smells from the garage building; and ● The application results in the size of the residential property being

enlarged – a previous application has been refused.

f) 1. The Site and the Proposal

1.1 The proposal relates to a detached dwelling house within a residential area and the settlement confines of St. Margaret’s Bay. The property has a detached double garage which was granted planning permission in 1988, with a condition that it should always be available for the parking of vehicles. It is close to a Conservation Area.

1.2 At the time that this current application was submitted, the property

was being used as a Supported Living Home for young adults with learning difficulties, who were living together as a single household. However, on 16th November 2010 a letter was received from the applicant and owner of the house stating that the property is no longer used for that purpose, that it has now been rented out to a family with 2 children and that it will not be used again as a Supported Living Home.

1.3 Regardless of who occupies the house, the proposed garage

conversion is to be assessed as ancillary accommodation to the residential use of the dwelling.

1.4 The garage is located towards the front of the curtilage and has a

footprint of 5.7m x 5.8m. It is of single storey under a pitched roof with a wide up and over door to one elevation and a window and a personal door to one side. The floor plan shows a “studio/annexe” and a layout which suggests a living area and a separate wc/shower room. A further plan shows an area for on-site parking.

1.5 Plans will be on display.

2. Main Issues 2.1 The main issues are: - ● The impact of the loss of parking provision within the site,

particularly given the proposed increase in residential accommodation;

● Whether the physical alterations of the garage are sympathetic

to the character and appearance of the property and the street scene; and

● Whether the use of the garage as ancillary but self-contained

residential accommodation impacts detrimentally on the residential amenity of neighbouring properties in terms of overlooking and noise pollution.

Parking 2.2 Policy DM13 of the Core Strategy requires a minimum of 2

independently accessible spaces for a 4-bedroom house in a village location, where there are no on-street controls, but possibly a tight street layout.

2.3 The annex results in the loss of the two parking spaces in the garage. However, the drive to the front of the property has space for 3 or 4 cars. This parking area was conditioned as a turning area on application ref. DOV/88/424. The loss of the garage parking would mean that it would potentially no longer be possible to turn on the space. The current situation is that the turning space is used for parking, with the cars entering or leaving the site in reverse gear. Although The Droveway is not a main road, highway safety would be improved by allowing the vehicles some on-site turning space. To achieve this the applicant proposes to increase the area of hard standing and this is shown on the latest drawing. The resultant parking area would be approximately 84sqm and would allow 2 cars to park and turn on site. The proposal, therefore, accords with Policy DM13.

Visual Amenity 2.4 The garage is set further forward within the plot than Bay Hill House

and is prominent within The Droveway street scene. Nonetheless, no physical alterations are proposed to the external appearance of the garage. Even the up-and-over door is retained. The conversion does not yet have the benefit of Building Regulations approval, but the Building Control Manager has advised that Building Regulations approval can be achieved with retaining the garage door. As such, the conversion of the building would not have any impact on the character and appearance of The Droveway street scene, or the adjacent Conservation Area. As such, it is considered that the proposal accords with Policies PPS1 and PPS5.

2.5 The detached garage is to the front of the site, close to the front

boundary and is a distance of some 11m from the house. By virtue of its physical separation from the house, it has the potential to be separated off from the house and become a separate dwelling in the future. However, that is not currently before the Committee. Such a proposal could well raise objections including insufficient parking, sub-division of the plot and harm to the visual amenity of the area. For these reasons the garage annex should only be used ancillary to the main house and a condition should be put on any permission ensuring that it remains so.

Residential Amenity 2.6 No. 10 The Droveway is the closest neighbour to the annex, at only

approximately 7m away. It is not considered that the residential use of the garage building is likely to generate such an overwhelming degree of noise or odour pollution to cause an unacceptable nuisance and harm residential amenity of neighbouring properties. The annex provides limited accommodation, suitable for only 1 or 2 occupants.

2.7 The residential amenity of future occupants of the garage has been a

concern of the Parish Council. Insulating and otherwise adapting the building in accordance with current Building Regulations would ensure warm and dry accommodation for prospective residents. That is an aspect to be pursued by Building Control or Private Sector Housing under Housing Legislation if necessary.

Conclusions 2.8 In light of the above, it is considered that the application can be

recommended for approval. Consideration has been given to all matters raised. However, none are such to affect the conclusion that the proposal is acceptable.

g) Recommendation I PERMISSION BE GRANTED subject to the following conditions: - (i) DP04;

(ii) 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 any elevation of the annex hereby permitted, other than expressly authorised by this permission. Reason: In the interests of residential amenity and in order to avoid unacceptable overlooking; (iii) Within six months of the date of this approval, the space to be surfaced for the parking of cars shall be constructed in accordance with the details hereby approved. That space and the vehicular access to it thereafter shall not be used for any purpose other than the parking of vehicles. Reason: In order to ensure that adequate parking is provided and maintained and in the interests of road safety and visual amenity; (iv) The annex hereby approved shall be used only as residential accommodation ancillary to Bay Hill House and for no other purpose, whether or not within the same Use Class of the Schedule to the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987, or in any provision equivalent to that Class in any statutory instrument revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the locality; (v) Any other conditions to be delegated to the Development Control Manager.

Case Officer Maxine Hall

3. a) i) DOV/10/784 – Erection of single storey and two storey extensions

to replace Halton Forstal, erection of replacement refuse store and extension to existing car park and creation of hardstanding/turning area (demolition of existing Halton Forstal, greenhouse, detached garage and removal of tree;

ii) DOV/10/785 - Erection of single storey and two storey extensions

to replace Halton Forstal together with internal alterations (demolition of existing Halton Forstal, greenhouse, detached garage).

Marquis of Granby, Alkham Valley Road, Alkham. b) Summary of Recommendation Planning permission and Listed Building Consent be granted. c) Planning Policies and Guidance

• South East Plan policy CC6 states that new development should respect or enhance the character and distinctiveness of settlements and landscapes, and use innovative design processes to create a high quality built environment;

• South East Plan policy BE5 requires new development within villages

to reflect their distinctive character;

• South East Plan policy BE6 requires development to protect, enhance and conserve the historic environment;

• Core Strategy (CS) policy DM3 permits the expansion of existing

businesses or creation of a new business in the rural area where they are within a village as designated within the settlement hierarchy, and provided the expansion would not generate significant travel and is consistent with the scale and setting of the settlement;

• CS policy DM13 requires provision for parking to be a design led

process based on the characteristics of the site, locality, nature of development and design objectives;

• PPS1: Delivering Sustainable Development requires 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 residential amenity of adjacent properties is also important;

• Policy EC12 of Planning Policy Statement 4: Planning for Sustainable

Economic Growth states that in rural areas Local Planning Authorities should support development which enhances the vitality and viability of market towns and other rural settlements;

• PPS5: Planning for the Historic Environment aims to protect the historic environment and its heritage assets for the quality of life they bring to this and future generations. In assessing applications which affect heritage assets, due regard should be given to the nature, extent and significance of the asset and the impact of any proposals on the significance of that asset, including its setting. Heritage assets are a ‘non-renewable’ resource; however, intelligently managed change may sometimes be necessary in order to secure their long term future. New development should take into account issues of scale, height, massing, alignment, materials and use. (Policies HE6, HE7, HE9 and HE10);

• PPS9: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation aims to promote

sustainable development by ensuring that biological and geological diversity are conserved and enhanced as an integral part of social, environmental and economic development. The aims of planning decisions should be to prevent harm to biodiversity and geological conservation interests and to ensure that adequate mitigation measures are put in place where necessary;

● The Good Practice Guide on Planning for Tourism states that tourism

is a vital component in the make-up of the national economy, and should be viewed positively by Local Planning Authorities, particularly where the development would help to conserve or maintain a historic building and would not adversely affect the historic environment, would respect and improve biodiversity and would represent a small scale rural scheme generating limited traffic; and

• 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.

d) Relevant Planning History

CH/6/49/0238 - Erection of cottage (Halton Forstal) on site of cottages being demolished – Granted.

DOV/07/1393 - Erection of single storey rear extension, change

of use and conversion to first floor bed and breakfast accommodation and associated internal and external alterations – Granted.

e) Consultee and Third Party Responses County Highways: No objections subject to conditions relating to parking. Natural England: No comments. English Heritage: No comments. Southern Water: Requests that an informative and a condition are attached

to any permission.

Public Rights of Way Officer: No objections as no public rights of way would be affected by the proposal.

Alkham Parish Council: No objections to the proposal, but asks that parking is

not allowed in or near The Forstal.

Ancient Monuments Society: Halton Forstal is perfectly acceptable in context, picturesque by intention, structurally sound and useable. However, the new build, in its barn-like form and use of flint promises to be more contextual than Halton Forstal, therefore, no objections are raised. British Council for Archaeology: Does not object to the principle of redevelopment; however, raises concerns over having a flint elevation fronting The Forstal, as this could appear to be ‘too heavy and overpowering in appearance’.

Public Representations: 1 letter of support has been received on the grounds that the proposal would improve access to the Church and views of the Church. 5 letters of objection to the proposal have been received. These raise the following summarised material considerations:

• The new development could harm the character and appearance of

the conservation area; • The loss of Halton Forstal would harm the appearance of the

conservation area; • The development could affect bats; • The development could harm the setting of the listed Church to the

rear of the site; • The bin stores will produce unpleasant odours and harm the amenity

of nearby dwellings; and • Increasing the number of guest rooms could increase the number of

visitors parking in The Forstal, blocking access to the dwellings off The Forstal.

f) 1. The Site and the Proposal

1.1 The site is within the confines of the village and is within a

conservation area. 1.2 The property is a public house/ restaurant with a building (Halton

Forstal) used as staff accommodation to the rear. The public house is a Grade II listed building; Halton Forstal is a modern addition granted in 1949, and is not listed.

1.3 To the rear (north west) of the site is a Grade I listed Church, the

Church of St Anthony the Martyr, which is partially screened from the application site by mature trees. To the north east is The Forstal, a narrow lane which provides access to several residential properties (Forstal Cottage, which is grade II listed, Old School Cottages and 1

and 2 Church Cottages) and the Church. These buildings form part of an important group of buildings within the Alkham Conservation Area. To the south west is another residential property, Brindene, and to the south east the site fronts Alkham Valley Road.

1.4 Within the site the public house and Halton Forstal are sited

immediately adjacent to The Forstal on the east side of the site, with the car park to the west.

1.5 The site is steep, sloping up from the road to the Church, with the

buildings (The Marquis, Halton Forstal and the Church) forming a series of points of interest up the hill.

1.6 The applications seek full planning permission and listed building

consent to demolish the existing building with attached greenhouse (known as Halton Forstal) to the rear of the public house and to erect single storey and two storey extensions in its place, which would provide a larger kitchen and staff area and 5 new guest bedrooms. Whilst the bulk of the new building would be located roughly in the same position as the existing Halton Forstal, it would be connected at ground floor level to the Marquis. This single storey extension, which would fill the gap between the two main buildings, would provide additional kitchen, office and staff facilities.

1.7 Also proposed are the demolition of the existing dilapidated single

garage to the rear of the site and the conversion of the hardstanding associated with the garage to a turning area to be used by vehicles (such as bridal vehicles) using the Church and the Marquis by widening the existing hardstanding.

1.8 The new extensions would be positioned over the site of the existing

bin storage area beside the kitchen, adjacent to the north east boundary. New bin stores would be erected on the site of the existing garage adjacent to the north west boundary with the Church, adjacent to the existing boundary wall.

1.9 Although the extensions would be adjacent to the boundary, a narrow

gap would be left which would be used to create a path from the Marquis up to the Church.

1.10 The existing car park to the north west side of the public house would

be extended to the rear to create an additional 6 spaces to serve the additional 5 guest rooms within the proposed extension. In order to accomplish this, the large twin stem tree (a Tree of Heaven) situated just to the rear of the existing car park on the site of the new spaces, would be removed and replaced with two new trees adjacent to the car park, a Silver Birch and a Yew, and a section of native species hedging along the south west boundary. Permission is required to remove the tree as it is within a conservation area.

1.11 Plans will be displayed.

2. Main Issues 2.1 The main issues for consideration are:

• The impact on the character and setting of the listed buildings

(in particular, the Grade II listed public house within the site and the Grade I listed Church to the rear of the site);

• The impact on the character and appearance of the

conservation area and street scene; • The impact of the loss of the Tree of Heaven in the car park; • The principle of commercial development within the rural area; • The impact on any bats roosting or foraging in the area; • Impact on residential amenity; and • Highways/parking issues.

3. Assessment Impact on the Character and Setting of the Listed Buildings 3.1 Halton Forstal dates from the mid 20th Century; it is an ‘L’ shaped two

storey structure of brick construction under a steeply pitched plain clay tiled roof. The first floor is timber framed with red brick infill laid in herringbone fashion. The south elevation, facing The Marquis, is jettied with two dormer windows. The main entrance leads directly onto The Forstal. It was built in a ’picturesque’ style, and its steeply pitched roofs make a positive contribution to the character of the conservation area and the setting of the listed buildings, forming a visual bridge between The Marquis and the Church. The siting of the building, directly on the edge of the highway also greatly strengthens the axis leading up to the Church lych gate. However, its uPVC windows, the concrete block planter on the road frontage between The Marquis and Halton Forstal, the aluminium greenhouse, the pre-fabricated garage to the north and the poor quality spaces around the building, all detract from the character of the building and its setting, and therefore the setting of the adjoining listed buildings.

3.2 The proposed replacement building and extension to The Marquis

have been designed to take advantage of the changes in level on the site. The new building would consist of, on the ground floor, a wheel chair accessible bedroom, staff facilities and an extension to the kitchen of the restaurant. The floors of the two storey extension would each consist of two letting rooms. This would appear as a two storey structure from The Forstal, with a double pitched roof running east-west and gable ends facing The Forstal and the existing car park.

3.3 This new building would have roughly the same footprint as that which

would be demolished and would have a similar steeply pitched roof. However, it would be set slightly further back from the road, to allow the creation of a stepped footpath along The Forstal, thus improving pedestrian safety along the route to the Church.

3.4 The new building would be linked to The Marquis by a single storey structure, under a flat sedum roof, set behind a parapet. The elevation of both structures, fronting The Forstal, would be of flint construction, as would the boundary wall to the north of the extension. The remaining elevations would be finished in a combination of brick and render. Where the single storey extension meets The Marquis, no important architectural features would be covered or lost, with minimal intervention to the historic fabric. Two new openings would be formed in the existing structure, in order to give access between the existing kitchen and the new extension, but this is a modern part of the building so there would be no loss of historic fabric.

3.7 At the northern end of the site, the pre-fabricated garage would be

removed, and a turning space created for use by the Church when a limousine is required. No permanent parking is to be provided in this location.

3.8 Whilst it is considered that Halton Forstal does have some merit, it is

not considered that this is significant enough to require its retention at ‘all costs’; indeed the current arrangement does have some negative aspects, as identified above. The loss of this building needs to be weighed against the benefits of the new development. These benefits can be summarised as follows.

3.9 The use of flint to the walls and the gable fronting The Forstal reflects

the use of this material in other parts of the conservation area and provides visual continuity with the Church.

3.10 The proposed stepped footpath, on the western side of The Forstal,

would not only provide increased safety for pedestrians, but would also lead the eye towards the lych gate and the Church beyond.

3.11 The gravelled turning area at the northern end of the site would not

only provide a useful space for limousines or other vehicles using the Church, but also enhance the space in front of the Church, with the removal of the pre-fabricated garage, thus reinforcing the ‘sense of arrival’ at the Church.

3.12 The boundary treatment of the west side of The Forstal would be

enhanced, with the removal of the concrete block planter. 3.13 The spaces around the new development would be rationalised and

enhanced. 3.14 The new facilities provided by the extension would help to secure the

long term viability of The Marquis and hence the future maintenance of this listed building.

3.15 Concern has been raised by a third party over the use of flint on the

east elevation, fronting The Forstal, on the grounds that it may appear too overpowering in this location. However, another party considers the use of flint entirely appropriate, making the proposal more contextural than the existing building. Flint is a traditional building material in East Kent and there are several other examples of its use in the village. Consequently, it is considered that its use, in this

location, would be entirely appropriate, providing visual continuity with the Church. One third party objects to the use of render on the elevation facing The Forstal, which it is stated would harm the appearance of the area, but this elevation is in fact intended to be flint with brick detailing.

3.16 Whilst account has been taken of the objections received regarding

the impact on the setting of the adjacent listed buildings, it is considered that the proposals would bring significant benefits to the site and preserve both the character and the setting of The Marquis, together with the setting of adjoining listed buildings, as required by PPS 5 and policy BE6, and that these benefits would outweigh the loss of Halton Forstal.

Impact on Conservation Area and Street Scene 3.17 Alkham lies in a valley, with the land rising northwards from Alkham

Valley Road, and this land form plays a key role in the special character of the area, creating a series of dramatic views and vistas as one travels through and around the conservation area.

3.18 Alkham Conservation Area is focused around a cluster of historic

buildings along part of Slip Lane and Alkham Valley Road, several of which are listed. It also includes the Recreation Ground to the south and a meadow to the east.

3.19 The conservation area generally has a loose ‘grain’, predominantly

comprising a number of large detached buildings, set in spacious grounds, as to be expected in a rural location. However, there is a higher density of buildings to the south and east of the Church, fronting The Forstal and the southern end of Slip Lane, giving a more urban character.

3.20 Whilst the historic buildings make a significant contribution to the

character of the area, the spaces between the buildings and the soft landscaping they contain are also germane to its special character.

3.21 The application site fronts The Forstal, which is a short, steeply

inclined road, rising northwards away from the busy Alkham Valley Road, to the Church. It is a relatively narrow street, with no footpaths, flanked by a series of mainly two storey buildings, giving a feeling of street enclosure.

3.22 The Forstal and the parish Church form the historic core of the village,

with The Forstal providing an important and highly sensitive transition zone between Alkham Valley Road and the medieval Church. As such, it makes a significant contribution to the special character of this part of the conservation area.

3.23 Objections have been received that the loss of Halton Forstal would

have a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the conservation area. However, whilst the steeply pitched roof of Halton Forstal makes a positive contribution to the character of the conservation area, forming a visual link between The Marquis and the Church, this needs to be weighed against the benefits of the proposal.

3.24 The proposed building would have a similar steeply pitched roof, and

would re-use the existing Kent peg tiles, thus maintaining the visual link between the Marquis and the Church. The form, bulk, massing and detailed design of the proposal would be sympathetic to the context and street scene, as would the use of flint and render for the elevations.

3.25 Whilst the new structure would be set further back from the highway

than the existing building, in order to provide a stepped footpath adjacent to the building, the street enclosure would be maintained. It is considered that the design of the new extension, the removal of the existing concrete block planter along the edge of the site, the removal of the pre-fabricated garage and the formation of a turning area at the northern end of the site all represent improvements to the character and appearance of the conservation area.

3.26 In view of the above and notwithstanding the concerns raised by third

parties, it is considered that the proposal would both preserve and enhance the special character and appearance of this part of the conservation area and thus meet the objectives of PPS5, as well as SEP policy BE6. It would also respect the distinctive character of the village in accordance with policies CC6 and BE5. It would create a well integrated design respecting the established character of the village and the scale and materials of the surrounding area to form a harmonious composition with the surrounding buildings, in accordance with the Kent Design Guide.

The loss of the Tree 3.27 It is acknowledged that additional parking spaces would be required

for the new development to serve the new guest bedrooms. This would require the removal of a twin stemmed tree situated to the rear of the existing car park. The removal of this tree has evoked strong feeling in local residents who have objected to the application on the ground that the loss of the tree would harm the character and appearance of the conservation area.

3.28 This is a large and mature tree which is visible from the wider

conservation area due to its size and height, though at a distance of over 30m from the road. From the road and wider conservation area it is seen as one of many mature trees within the site. Subject to appropriate replacement, its loss would not be likely to significantly affect the character or appearance of the conservation area. The applicants have shown that the tree is to be replaced with a yew and Silver Birch, as well as native hedging along the south west boundary of the car park. It is considered that these trees would represent adequate replacements for the tree to be removed in terms of the appearance of the site and area, particularly as the Yew would be closer to the road and would therefore have a greater impact on the wider conservation area.

3.29 It is also of note that the tree to be removed is a species known as a

Tree of Heaven, a species of Ailanthus. This is species which is fast growing and spreads by suckers which have been known to damage

pavements and walls. The tree survey submitted with the application notes that many suckers can be seen emerging from the tree up to 5m from the nearest stem, and therefore represent a potential danger to the listed building in the future. It can spread quickly and out-compete native plants, particularly as it makes use of allelopathy (the ability to produce chemicals which inhibit other plant growth). For this reason it is included in the top 25 alien invasive plant species listed by the European Plant Protection Organisation as posing a threat to plant health, environment and biodiversity. It is considered the removal of such a species and replacement with native species should be supported, as it would have a beneficial impact on the ecology of the area.

3.30 The replacement of the tree would meet the requirements of the Kent

Design Guide which states that new trees should be indigenous species. It is considered that the loss of the tree would comply with national policies, by considering the impact on the natural environment and respecting the character of the area in accordance with PPS1, making a positive contribution to the character and local distinctiveness of the historic environment in accordance with PPS5 and by ensuring that biological diversity is conserved and enhanced in accordance with PPS9.

The principle of commercial development within the rural area 3.31 Alkham is classified as a village within the settlement hierarchy of the

Core Strategy and as such the expansion of a business within the village is deemed to be acceptable in principle. It is considered that the creation of additional guest rooms to let is unlikely to significantly increase travel to the site and this is emphasised by the fact that only 6 additional parking spaces are required to serve the extension proposed. The proposal is consistent with the scale and setting of the village and conservation area, as well as with the setting of the adjacent listed buildings. It is considered that the proposal would comply with policy DM3 and would also comply with PPS4 which states that in rural areas LPAs should support development which enhances the vitality and viability of rural settlements.

3.32 As the development would be beneficial to tourism in the area, the

development would also comply with The Good Practice Guide on Planning for Tourism, particularly as it would help to maintain a listed building whilst generating only limited additional traffic and improving the biodiversity of the area.

Impact on Bats 3.33 The submitted bat survey notes that Halton Forstal is situated in an

area with good potential for foraging bats due to the nearby countryside, Church and Churchyard and tree lined hedgerows, and that although no signs have been found of bats roosting within the existing building, the existing roof does provide a potential roosting site particularly for pipistrelle species between the tiles and roof lining.

3.34 It is therefore recommended that the proposed building should allow

access for bats to non-habitable spaces within the roof. The surveyor

has recommended that care is taken when demolishing the building and that any external lights be angled down and fitted with movement sensors to avoid lights being left on all night, since well lit areas are avoided by bats.

3.35 In accordance with this advice the agents have shown the new

building to have ridge tile roof access for bats, and conditions and an informative are suggested regarding access for bats, lighting and demolition of the building. It is considered that this would make the proposal acceptable in terms of PPS9, as it would ensure that biological diversity is conserved and enhanced as part of the proposed development and that no harm would come to a protected species.

Impact on Residential Amenity 3.36 The proposed extensions which would replace Halton Forstal would

be erected adjacent to The Forstal, around 6m from the nearest dwelling (1 Old School Cottages).

3.37 The two storey building to replace Halton Forstal would be no higher

than the existing building and would have a considerably shorter side elevation, thus reducing the impact on the adjacent properties in terms of light and outlook compared to the existing building. The single storey flat roofed extension would be around 3m high at the highest point (the height varies due to the gradient of The Forstal). Due to the limited height and distance from the nearest property it is considered that it would not be likely to cause a loss of light or outlook, or create an overbearing enclosure to any of the adjacent dwellings or their gardens.

3.38 The window and door proposed in the side of the single storey

extension and ground floor window proposed in the side of the two storey extension would face The Forstal, and would not be likely to exacerbate the existing potential for overlooking that occurs from this lane and the existing Halton Forstal.

3.39 The first floor window would be high level (over 2m above internal

floor level) and would not be likely to cause a loss of privacy from overlooking.

3.40 The other alterations proposed are not considered to be likely to affect

the amenity of adjacent properties. 3.41 It is therefore considered that the proposal would comply with the aims

of PPS1 requiring good design which contributes to making places better for people and the Kent Design Guide promoting design which prevents overlooking and overshadowing.

Highways/ Parking Issues 3.42 CS policy DM13 requires parking provision to be based on the

characteristics of the site, locality and nature of the development. The site for the new parking spaces has been chosen to minimise its impact on the adjacent listed buildings and conservation area, by locating them adjacent to the existing car park where the creation of

an area of hardstanding is least likely to affect the character of the site or setting of the listed buildings. It would also be least likely to be noticeable from the wider conservation area and road 30m away, both because by simply extending an existing area of hardstanding it would be less noticeable than if a new area of hardstanding was created within the site, and because of its distance from the road and adjacent listed buildings, thus reducing its overall impact.

3.43 The Parish Council has requested that no parking be allowed on or

near The Forstal. The proposal would be likely to reduce parking adjacent to The Forstal since the existing parking area in front of the garage to be demolished would become a turning area instead. Several letters of representation have raised objections on the grounds that the creation of additional guest rooms would be likely to increase the number of patrons to the public house parking on The Forstal. However 6 new parking spaces would be created, which would be more than adequate to serve the 5 new guest rooms proposed. It is therefore unlikely that the proposal would encourage parking on The Forstal. County Highways have no objections to the proposal but have recommended conditions to ensure that the parking spaces are provided prior to the occupation of the new development and to ensure space is allocated for construction vehicles.

Conclusions and other matters 3.44 Concerns have been raised regarding the proposed bin stores, due to

the odours which are claimed to emanate from the existing bins during summer. However, the new bin stores would be located further from the neighbouring dwellings than their present location and would be within refuse store ‘cupboards’ rather than just in bins, which would give an extra layer of protection from odours. It is considered that the new site of the refuse storage area would not be likely to exacerbate the potential effect on residential amenity, but would be likely to reduce any adverse affects.

3.45 Southern Water has requested a condition requiring details of a

grease trap to be submitted to the planning authority. However, it is considered that this is beyond the jurisdiction of planning and would not be enforceable. However, the matter is covered by Part H of the Building Regulations, and can therefore be dealt with by Building Control. Southern Water has accepted that the condition can be changed to an informative.

3.46 One letter of representation requested that signs be erected to direct

patrons away from The Forstal, and the applicant has had the plans amended to include two small signs to direct patrons to the car park, away from The Forstal. A condition requiring details of the signs is suggested. Advertisement consent will be required for these directional signs and an informative to this effect has been suggested.

3.47 In summary, having taken into account all material planning and listed

building considerations, it is considered that the proposed development and works are acceptable and favourable recommendations are made.

g) Recommendation I In respect of planning application DOV/10/784: PERMISSION BE GRANTED

subject to the following conditions: (i) DP08; (ii) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the submitted application as amended by drawings received 16 November 2010 and 19 November 2010 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; (iii) The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall be Hoskins Flemish Antique red bricks, flint and render for the walls, and Kent peg tiles from the existing roof and zinc, in accordance with the materials samples submitted 12 November 2010 and amended drawings submitted 15 November 2010. Reason: In the interests of protecting the character and appearance of the listed buildings and conservation area; (iv) All rain water goods used shall be of cast iron. Reason: In the interests of preserving the architectural or historic interest of the listed building and in the interests of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the Conservation Area in which it is located; (v) No works shall take place until full details of all external joinery to the new doors (which shall be of timber construction only) in the form of half or full size cross sectional drawings, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: As no such details have been submitted, in the interests of preserving the architectural or historic interest of the listed building and in the interests of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the Conservation Area in which it is located; (vi) Prior to the removal of the Tree of Heaven to the rear of the car park, details shall be submitted for and approved by the Local Planning Authority of the planting times of the replacement trees (Silver Birch and Yew) and native species hedging shown on drawing 09.48.101 Revision C received 19/11/10. The trees and hedging shall be planted in accordance with the approved drawing and approved planting times. Reason: To ensure that adequate provision is made for the planting of trees hedges and in the interests of enhancing the quality and enjoyment of the environment; (vii) If within a period of five years from the date of the planting of any tree or shrub that tree or shrub, or any tree or shrub planted in replacement for it, is removed, uprooted or destroyed or dies (or becomes in the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, seriously damaged or defective) another tree or shrub of the same species and size as that originally planted shall be planted at the same place, unless the Local Planning Authority gives its written consent to any variation. Reason: To ensure that adequate provision is made for the planting of trees and shrubs and in the interests of maintaining and enhancing the quality and enjoyment of the environment; (viii) PA16; (ix) PA32; (x) Any external lighting to be installed to serve the development hereby approved should be directed downwards by means of hood, cowl or other means of shielding to prevent upwards light spillage, and should be fitted with a movement sensor so that the light is not on continually but only when required. Reason: In order to prevent harm to any bats foraging in the area; (xi) Provision shall be made to encourage access and roosting of bats in the non-habitable areas of the roof space as shown on drawing 09.48.104 Revision B. Reason: To ensure that bats in the area are protected from the adverse effects of development by protecting their habitat and potential roosting site; (xii) The first floor window in the northeast elevation of the two storey extension hereby approved shall have a cill height of no less than 2160mm above the internal finished floor

level, in accordance with drawing 09.48.103 Revision B and clarified by the e-mail received 16/11/10 and thereafter shall be so maintained. Reason: In order to avoid unacceptable overlooking; (xiii) Any other conditions or amendments to the above conditions to be delegated to the Development Control Manager.

II In respect of Listed Building Application DOV/10/785: LISTED BUILDING

CONSENT BE GRANTED subject to: (i) LB25; (ii) LB02; (iii) LB12; (iv) LB14: (v) The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall be Hoskins Flemish Antique red bricks, flint and render for the walls, and Kent peg tiles from the existing roof and zinc, in accordance with the materials samples submitted 12 November 2010 and amended drawings submitted 15 November 2010. Reason: In the interests of protecting the character and appearance of the listed buildings and conservation area; (vi) Prior to the installation of the sign shown on drawing 09.48.103 Revision B, large scale drawings of the proposed signs showing their design, colour and materials shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: As no such details have been submitted, in the interests of preserving the character and appearance of the listed building and the conservation area within which it is located; (vii) Any other conditions or amendments to the above conditions to be delegated to the Development Control Manager.

III Informatives: (a) All bats and their roosts are given full protection under the 1981

Wildlife and Countryside Act (as amended) and the Conservation (Natural Habitats and c) Regulations 1994. Should any bats or evidence of any bats be found prior to or during works, works must stop immediately and Natural England contacted for further advice before works can proceed. This is a legal requirement and applies to whoever carries out the work. All contractors working on site should be made aware of it and provided with Natural England’s contact details: 01233 812525, or Batlines (who have a contract to supply advise on behalf of Natural England): 08451 300228.

(b) The applicant should be aware that advertisement consent is required

for the proposed directional signs on the side of the Marquis, and that consent should be sought for these before the signs are installed. This approval does not grant advertisement consent for the signs.

(c) A formal application to Southern Water for connection to the public

sewerage system is required in order to service the development. To initiate a sewer capacity check to identify the appropriate connection points for the development Southern Water has requested that the applicant contact Atkins Ltd, Anglo St James House, 39A Southgate Street, Winchester, SO23 9EG. Tel 01962 8858688.

d) Southern Water has stated that grease from the food preparation and

dish washing area should not be allowed to enter the public sewerage or water disposal system. A scheme to include regular emptying and disposal of grease by a registered contractor of a licensed waste facility should be implemented prior to the first operation of the extended kitchen.

Case Officers Catherine Todd and Clive Alexander

4. a) DOV/10/0914 – Internal and external alterations to facilitate change of use and conversion to single dwelling, Perrys Cottage, Hawarden Place, off Canterbury Road, Wingham

b) Summary of Recommendation Listed Building Consent be granted. c) Planning Policies and Guidance

• SEP Policy BE6 seeks to ensure that proposals protect, conserve and, where appropriate, enhance the historic environment and the contribution that it makes to the local and regional distinctiveness and sense of place.

• 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 acceptable.

• PPS5: Planning for the Historic Environment aims to protect the

historic environment and its heritage assets for the quality of life they bring to this and future generations. In assessing applications which affect heritage assets, due regard should be given to the nature, extent and significance of the asset and the impact of any proposals on the significance of that asset, including its setting. Heritage assets are a 'non-renewable' resource; intelligently managed change may sometimes be necessary in order to secure their long term future. New development should take into account issues of scale, height, massing, alignment, materials and use. Policies HE7, HE8 and HE9 refer.

• Kent Design Guide advocates good design which is sympathetic to the

existing layout, scale, form and architectural style. d) Relevant Planning History DOV/10/00417 - Planning Permission granted for conversion to

single dwelling. e) Consultee and Third Party Responses English Heritage: No objections. Wingham Parish Council: Objects on the material grounds that the proposed

building would have a detrimental impact on the character of the surrounding buildings and The Granary in particular.

Public Representations: Five letters of objection have been received; the material comments can be summarised as follows:

• Impact on the character and appearance of a curtilage listed building.

• Replacement of a greenhouse with a brick built extension with hipped roof.

• Proposed extension does not reflect the scale of the existing

greenhouse and would be very close to the adjoining Granary. • Insensitive development would spoil the appearance of Hawarden

Place. • The proposed extension should be subservient to the host building. • A conservatory extension would better reflect the former use of the

building. • The proposals will make the building look like a bungalow. • The white weatherboarding and modern brickwork will clash with the

Granary's existing historic elevations. • Proposed extension would detract from the character of the

surrounding area. • The roof line of the extension is higher than the existing greenhouse,

giving a crowded feel to the area.

f) 1. The Site and the Proposal

1.1 The site lies within the confines of Wingham, to the south of Wingham Court. The building was originally a small stable and formed part of the wider Wingham Court farm complex. When the farm buildings became redundant, the majority of them were converted to residential use; however, the stables, the subject of this application, were left unused.

1.2 The Wingham Court complex forms an important group of buildings

within the Wingham Conservation Area. Wingham Court itself is listed Grade 2* and a former stable block to the east, known as The Chicken House, is listed Grade 2. The remaining former farm buildings are not listed in their own right; however, as they fall within the historic curtilage of Wingham Court, and pre-date 1948, they are afforded the same protection. Consequently, Listed Building Consent is required for the proposed alterations to the former stable block. Those farm buildings which were converted to residential use retain much of their original character and continue to make an important contribution to the character and appearance of this part of the Conservation Area.

1.3 The stables, which date from the end of the 19th Century, are of red

brick construction, partly built over an earlier boundary wall, under a gabled Kent Peg tiled roof. It is a simple and relatively small structure with few openings, reflecting its former use, and still retains much of its original character.

1.4 The stables were extended to the south, probably in the 1960s, by the provision of a greenhouse. This was of timber, brick and glass construction and although functional, it does not respect the character or appearance of the stables or the former Granary to the south. It is now in a poor state of repair and detracts from the character of the area.

1.5 This application seeks Listed Building Consent to convert the stables

to a single dwelling. This entails the provision of simple French doors, with fanlight above, on the east elevation; internal alterations, including the removal of the horse stalls, together with the removal of the modern greenhouse and its replacement with a single storey extension. The new extension is to be of brick and weatherboard elevations under a hipped plain clay tile roof, to match the roof on the stable block. The roof has been hipped so as to reduce impact on the neighbouring property. The ridge would be lower than the stables, although will be higher than the existing greenhouse. The foot print would be similar to that of the existing greenhouse.

1.6 The proposal would create a two bedroom dwelling. To the rear would

be a private garden, while to the front, one parking space would be provided together with a boundary wall 1.5 meter high to separate the site from the adjoining Granary, to the south.

1.7 Members will recall that a planning application for an identical

proposal was approved at the meeting on 11 November 2010 (DOV/10/0417 – Item 3).

1.8 Plans will be on display.

2. Main Issues 2.1 The principal issues that need to be considered are the impact of the

proposals on the character of the historic building and the Conservation Area in which it is located.

3. Assessment 3.1 The original stable block is a simple structure with few openings,

which reflects its original use. It forms part of a historic farmyard and makes a valuable contribution to this part of the Conservation Area and to the setting of adjoining historic buildings, some of which are listed in their own right. As such, there is a presumption in favour of its restoration and re-use.

3.2 Attached to the stable block, on its southern elevation, is a modern

greenhouse which is of no historic merit and currently detracts from the character and appearance of the stable and from the setting of adjoining buildings. It is therefore considered that the removal of the greenhouse should be welcomed from a heritage point of view.

3.3 In terms of the detailed proposals of the scheme, the main intervention

is the proposed extension to the stables, which is required to provide sufficient space to create a dwelling, and it is this element of the scheme that has attracted the most third party objections. The foot print of the extension would be similar to that of the existing

greenhouse. It would be a single storey structure of brick and weatherboard elevations under a double pitched plain clay tile roof. The roof has been hipped at its southern end, in order to reduce its impact on the adjoining property to the south. The ridge of the roof would be considerably lower than that of the stables, reflecting the width of the extension. The west (public) elevation would be weatherboarded over a brick plinth and contain a simple boarded door and small window. The east (private) elevation would be similar to the west side, but would contain an additional casement window. The southern elevation would be of brick construction with no openings.

3.4 The proposed external alterations to the existing stable block, apart

from the extension described above, principally relate to the insertion of French doors with a fanlight above, on the east elevation, which replaces a pair of casement windows. Internally, the stalls are to be replaced by one bedroom and a living space with kitchen area.

3.5 It is considered that the proposals seek to work with and maintain as

much of the character of the original stable block as possible. The proposed extension would be subservient to the host building and of comparable scale to the existing greenhouse. The detailed design of the extension has been kept simple by using traditional materials of brick and weatherboarding, with simple window and door details. The use of plain clay tiles on the roof would provide a visual link between the existing structure and the proposed extension, whilst the use of white weatherboarding would allow clear interpretation of what is original and what is a new element. Thus the progression of the building would be clearly seen without detracting from the character of the host building.

3.6 It is therefore considered that the proposals are sympathetic to the

character and appearance of the stable block and surrounding buildings and will not detract from the character of this part of the Conservation Area. As such, the scheme is in line with the requirements of the policy context identified at c) above. It is also considered that the proposals would provide an economic use for the building and secure its long term maintenance.

3.7 The concerns raised by the Parish Council and public representations

over the impact of the proposals on the character and appearance of the area are noted. However, it is considered that these have not been substantiated and that the proposals are acceptable in terms of their impact on the character of the existing building, the setting of adjoining buildings and the character of the Conservation Area.

3.8 Third parties have raised a number of objections which are not

material to a listed building consent application. These have not been referred to in this report and were addressed when the associated planning application was determined.

g) Recommendation LISTED BUILDING CONSENT BE GIVEN subject to:- (i) Time limit; (ii)

Amended Plans; (iii) Samples of Materials; (iv) Joinery Details; (v) Cast Iron

Rainwater Goods; (vi) Any other conditions to be delegated to the Development Control Manager.

Case Officer Clive Alexander

5. a) DOV/10/0931 – Change of use and conversion to two holiday lets,

erection of a single storey extension and alterations to existing roof Deepdene, Belsey Lane, Ewell Minnis, Alkham

b) Summary of Recommendation Planning permission be refused c) Planning Policy and Guidance

• Policy C3 of the South East Plan (SEP) sets out the high priority to be given to conservation and enhancement of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB).

• Policy DM1 of the Dover District Core Strategy (CS) states that

development will not be permitted on land outside the urban boundaries unless specifically justified by other development plan policies, or its functionality requires such a location, or it is ancillary to existing development or uses

• Policy DM3 supports the provision for new commercial development

or the expansion of an existing business in the rural area provided that the proposal complies with three specific criteria. However, for development beyond the confines it should be demonstrated that no suitable site exists within the rural settlement confines.

• Policy DM4 supports the re-use or conversion of structurally sound

permanent buildings beyond the confines for commercial uses, on the basis that the building is suitable in character and scale for the proposed use and would contribute to local character and be acceptable in other planning respects.

• Policy DM11 states that development that would generate travel will

not be permitted outside the urban boundaries and rural settlement confines unless justified by other development plan policies

• Policy DM15 seeks to prevent development which would lead to the loss

of, or adversely affect the character and appearance of the countryside, unless special circumstances apply.

• Policy DM16 states that development that would harm the character of

the landscape will only be permitted if it is in accordance with an allocation in a Development plan Document or it can be sited to avoid or reduce the harm and/or incorporate design measures to mitigate.

• Policy PPS1: Delivering Sustainable Development seeks to ensure good quality design which is sustainable in layout and function whilst enhancing residential amenities.

• Policy EC12 of PPS4: Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth,

encourages Local Planning Authorities to approve planning applications for the conversion and re-use of existing buildings in the

countryside for economic development, particularly those adjacent or closely related to towns or villages, where the benefits outweigh the harm in terms of:-

● The potential impact on the countryside, landscapes and

wildlife; ● Local economic and social needs and opportunities; ● Settlement patterns and the level of accessibility to service

centres, markets and housing; ● The need to conserve, or the desirability of conserving,

heritage assets; and ● The suitability of the building(s), and of different scales, for re-

use recognising that replacement of buildings should be favoured where this would result in a more acceptable and sustainable development than might be achieved through conversion.

• PPS7: Sustainable Development in Rural Areas expresses

sustainability as a key principle. Additionally, it affirms that the AONB has the highest status of protection in relation to landscape and scenic beauty. The conservation of the natural beauty of the landscape and countryside should therefore be given great weight in development control decisions in these areas. All development in rural areas should be well designed and inclusive, in keeping and scale with its location, and sensitive to the character of the countryside and local distinctiveness.

• PPG13: Transport seeks to reduce the need to travel, especially by

car.

• The Good Practice Guide on Tourism set out how crucial tourism is to the well-being of the country. It refers to the support for self-catering holiday accommodation in PPS7, but this advice has been superseded by PPS4 (as above).

d) Relevant Planning History None. e) Consultee and Third Party Responses Alkham Parish Council: Objects for the following reasons:-

• The location is inappropriate; • There is no evidence to suggest a need for this type of development; • There would be extra pressure on the highway and the use of the

vehicle access; • The existing building is constructed from unsuitable materials and is of

an unsuitable size for the use proposed;

• The existing footprint of the building does not warrant or justify the increased size of the proposed units; and

• Concerns relating to future permanent residential use.

Public Representation: 1 letter of objection has been received; the comments are summarised as follows:- • It will set a precedent for more ‘unused’ outbuildings to be converted; • There is already holiday accommodation in the area which is not fully

utilised; and • The plot is unsuitable for more development.

4 letters have been received in support of the application; the comments are summarised as follows:- • The plans look attractive; • Would make pleasant rural accommodation for visitors.

f) 1. The Site and the Proposal

1.1 The site is located beyond the settlement confines, within the open

countryside and the AONB. 1.2 The application site accommodates a large detached dwelling, which

has been extended several times and sits on elevated ground above the public highway and the surrounding cartilage. A number of outbuildings within the site include a double detached garage and what appeared to be a timber shed/summer house which was under construction. It would appear that these structures do not have planning permission as there is no relevant planning history associated with the site.

1.3 The building subject of this application is a simple stable block which

is now used for residential storage and forms an outbuilding within the curtilage of the dwelling. The building is single storey with a mono-pitched roof and a footprint of 4.2m x 13m.

1.4 Full planning permission is sought for the change of use, conversion

and extension of this building to two self-contained holiday units. Each unit would contain an open plan living room, kitchen and dining area, one bedroom and a bathroom. To facilitate this development the footprint of the building would increase in size to 5.8m x 13m and the mono pitched roof would be replaced with a double pitched roof increasing the height of the building from approx. 2.8m to 3.5m. Other alterations would include two new windows in both side elevations and a brand new front elevation (following the extension). A parking area would adjoin. The plans indicate enclosed plots for each unit.

1.5 Plans will be on display. 2. Main Issues 2.1 The main issues in this application relate to:-

• The principle of the development; • The visual appearance; • Highways issues; and • Residential amenity.

3. Assessment

Principle 3.1 Policy DM1 of the CS does not permit development beyond the

settlement confines unless the development is justified by other development plan policies. In addition, Policy DM11 does not permit development if it would generate a need to travel beyond the settlement confines unless again it is justified by other development plan policies.

3.2 Policy DM4 echoes the advice in PPS4 and permits the re-use or

conversion of rural buildings provided that they are structurally sound and permanent. Beyond the confines the policy still permits such development provided that it is for commercial use and that the converted building is of a suitable character and scale for the use proposed and contributes to local character.

3.3 Based on this policy the principle of the conversion of an outbuilding in

this location to a holiday let may be acceptable. However, the Council has to be satisfied that the proposal would constitute the conversion of the existing building and would not simply result in a replacement building.

3.4 The changes proposed would result in a new roof, a new front

elevation and the punctuation of both side elevations with two windows, the existing side window is not shown to be retained and re-used. The building would have an enlarged footprint. The proposal goes beyond a re-use or conversion and clearly involves considerable new building works.

3.5 The applicant has not provided a structural survey or a construction

method statement. Therefore, there is no evidence to demonstrate that the building is structurally sound and no explanation of how the existing building would be retained and converted. From the amount of alterations that appear to be necessary to convert this building it would appear to be tantamount to a new building. There must be doubt, too, that the building is of suitable character and scale for what is proposed. The proposal is thus contrary to Policy DM4.

3.6 Policy DM3 of the CS supports new commercial business in the rural

areas provided that it is within a rural settlement, unless it can be demonstrated that no suitable site exists, in which event it should be located adjacent to the settlement unless there is functional requirement for it to be located elsewhere. This application has not been accompanied with a planning statement or a design and access statement and therefore no evidence has been provided to

demonstrate how the proposal may comply with Policy DM3; therefore, the proposal is contrary to this policy.

Visual appearance

3.7 Apart from the general principle of this development, due to the sensitive location of the site within the countryside and the AONB, policy DM15 of the CS requires it to be demonstrated that the proposal would not result in the loss of or adversely affect the countryside or the natural beauty of the wider area.

3.8 The proposed changes, specifically the erection of the pitched roof

and the alterations to the side elevation, would be clearly visible from the public highway and the main access gates into the site. The alterations to the front elevation, the proposed parking area and the allocated garden would be clearly visible from the adjacent countryside and AONB. There is a low timber fence between the (claimed) residential garden and the adjacent land (being used for grazing). This conversion would result in the further domestication of this site and would detract from the natural beauty of the landscape, adversely affecting the character and appearance of the countryside. Policy DM15 relates to protection of the countryside. PPS7 advises that 'Nationally designated areas comprising Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), have been confirmed by the Government as having the highest status of protection in relation to landscape and scenic beauty. The conservation of the natural beauty of the landscape and countryside should therefore be given great weight in planning policies and development control decisions in these areas'.

3.9 The character of the building would be significantly altered, with a

domestic appearance and the scale of the building and the associated external work would mean that it would no longer appear as a either a domestic outbuilding or as a stable block; therefore the proposal would conflict with Policy DM4 and the requirement in PPS1 for design to contribute positively to making better places. PPS1 adds that design which is inappropriate in its context should not be accepted.

Highways Issues

3.11 As this proposal has not demonstrated compliance with Policies DM3 or DM4, it has to be concluded that the proposal conflicts with Policies DM1 and DM11 as it is unjustified development in the countryside which would cause harm and generate the need to travel beyond the confines. Policy DM11 reflects the advice in PPG13.

3.12 In addition to the locational unsustainability of the proposal, remote

from local services and public transport, the site is served only by a network of narrow roads lacking footways and lighting and with poor alignments. They are not suitable for accommodating additional traffic unless the proposal is justified through other policies.

3.13 No alteration is proposed to the existing vehicle access. The visibility

from the access is considered to be sufficient, but this does not outweigh the highway harm otherwise identified.

Residential Amenity

3.14 The nearest residential dwelling is the host property ‘Deepdene’. There is a sufficient separation distance of 20m between the two buildings and therefore the proposal is unlikely to result in harm to residential amenities.

Conclusion and Other Matters 3.15 It is acknowledged that there is local support for this development.

However, there is also local opposition, including from the Parish Council. The site is clearly remote from any existing settlement and in a location where priority must be given to landscape considerations. The proposal fails to satisfy various policy considerations and it is not considered that these are outweighed by other factors. None of the matters raised by third parties leads to a different conclusion.

g) Recommendation I PERMISSION BE REFUSED on the following grounds:- (i) In the absence of

a structural survey and a construction method statement to demonstrate how the existing building would be converted, the proposal would be tantamount to a new building within the countryside, contrary to Policy DM4 of the Core Strategy. Moreover, no evidence has been submitted to justify the construction of a new commercial building within the countryside, contrary to Policy DM3 of the Core Strategy; (ii) The development, if permitted, would result in development beyond the settlement confines which would generate a need to travel. In the absence of unusual and compelling justification the proposal would be contrary to Policies DM1 and DM11 of the Core Strategy and contrary to the general aims of sustainable development and travel as set out in PPG13; (iii) The proposed development, by reason of the extensions, alterations and creation of additional car parking and private amenity space, would result in the domestication of this prominent building and as such would adversely affect the character of the countryside and the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty within which the site is situated and is widely visible. The proposal is contrary to Policies DM15 and DM16 of the Core Strategy and the provisions of PPS1 and PPS7; (iv) The road network in the vicinity is not suitable for serving further development which generates traffic.

Case Officer Rachel Elwood

6. a) DOV/10/0982 – Erection of a 60 temporary met-mast for a period of 18 months, Engine Shed Land, East Langdon.

b) Summary of Recommendation Consideration be deferred. c) Planning Policies and Guidance • South East Plan policies relating to the management of natural

resources, specifically renewable energy are applicable, and targets are specified in relation to the renewable energy resource within the region.

• Policy DM15 of the Dover District Core Strategy (CS) relates to the

protection of the countryside, and only permits development that would result in the loss of, or adversely affect the character or appearance of the countryside if the development meets one a number of specific requirements, provided also that measures are incorporated to reduce, as far as practicable, any harmful effects on countryside character.

• Policy DM16 of the CS sets out criteria that must be met if

development would harm landscape character, as identified through the process of landscape character assessment.

• Saved Policy CO5 of the Dover District Council Local Plan (DDLP)

relates to development on the Undeveloped and Heritage Coasts and does not permit development if it would adversely affect the scenic beauty, heritage or nature conservation value of a heritage coast.

• PPS1: Delivering Sustainable Development and its Supplement relate

to delivering sustainable development and climate change. PPS22: Renewable Energy and its Companion Guide provide policy advice and technical detail and advice on material considerations in relation to renewable energy developments, including proposals for wind turbines. PPS5: Planning for the Historic Environment contains policies in respect of heritage assets. The associated Practice Guide provides guidance on its implementation.

• As part of the evidence base for the Core Strategy, a study was

undertaken in 2009 in respect of Sustainable Construction and Renewable Energy capacity and feasibility within the Dover District. It identifies areas within the District where there is wind energy potential. This is however, a high level assessment of areas where further work and more detailed feasibility studies are necessary.

d) Relevant Planning History DOV/06/01390 – Scoping opinion for a wind energy

development. DOV/07/01148 - A wind energy development comprising the

erection of 5 wind turbines, each with a

maximum hub height of up to 120 m, together with access tracks, hard standing areas and an electricity sub-station and temporary construction compound – Dismissed at appeal.

DOV/07/1153 - Temporary siting (for 18 months) of 50m high

meteorological monitoring mast – Approved. DOV/10/0983 – Screening opinion for the siting of a wind

turbine (95 metres to blade tip) - Development screened to be Environmental Impact Assessment development.

e) Consultee and Third Party Responses

It should be noted that the advert expiry date for the application is 3 December 2010. All representations and consultee comments received at the time of writing this report have been included. Any responses received after the completion of the report will be verbally reported to Members. Highways Agency: No comments to date. County Archaeologist: No comments to date. KCC Footpaths: No comments to date. KCC Strategic Planning Unit: No comments to date. National Trust: The Trust owns and manages substantial land holdings at the White Cliffs, and the primary concern is the potential impact of wind turbine development on the landscape of the area and in particular the views from South Foreland Lighthouse. On the basis that the proposal is for a temporary period of 18 months and is for the purpose of data collection to inform any forthcoming planning application for wind turbine development on the site, no objection is raised. English Heritage: No detailed comments. The proposal would have a minimal effect on the nearby scheduled monument of West Langdon Abbey. Natural England: No objection, but recommends that if the Council are minded to approve the development, bat recorders are installed at various heights on the mast during the active season to allow a robust assessment of bat activity to be undertaken. This should then help to inform any subsequent application for wind turbines which may be forthcoming. Kent Wildlife Trust: No comments to date. RSPB: No comments to date. Kent Downs AONB Unit: No objection, subject to the period of siting being restricted to 18 months and the land being reinstated to its original conditions after removal. Environment Agency: No comments to date.

Veolia Water: No objections. Requests that a condition is attached to any approval requiring the developer to agree with Veolia all necessary works and charges, including the preparation and completion of any legal Agreements, associated with the provision of a potable water supply. (This appears to be a standard response that is not applicable). Southern Water: No objections. Folkestone and Dover Water: No comments to date. Ancient Monument Society: No comments to date. Garden History Society: No comments to date. CPRE: Objects on the grounds that the mast is intended to provide information on wind strength with a view to the erection of wind turbine(s) at this site, which is/are likely to be essentially identical in location to the turbines which were refused planning permission on appeal recently. Does not see the point of investigating wind speed when the case against wind turbines at this location has already been made. British Horse Society: No comments to date. Ramblers Association: Objection to the erection of turbines on the site given the close proximity to public rights of ways, one of which is a national trail, The North Downs Way. Reference is made to the previous appeal and the Inspector’s comments that the turbines would have on the Saxon Shore Way, which he described as ‘among some of the finest coast in the country’. Canterbury City Council: No comments to date. Thanet District Council: No comments to date. Shepway District Council: No comments to date. Friends of Dover Castle: No comments to date. White Cliffs Country Tourism Association: No comments to date. Dover and District Chamber of Commerce and Trade: No comments to date. Ofcom: No comments to date. Association of Consulting Engineers: No comments to date. BBC: No comments to date. The Radio Society of Great Britain: No comments to date Institution of Electrical Engineers: MOD: No safeguarding objections. Appreciates that this application is a precursor/trial for the validity of a windfarm, and could have concerns should this site be further developed for a windfarm.

National Air Traffic Services (NATS): No comments to date. Civil Aviation Authority (CAA): The mast does not technically constitute an aviation obstruction, therefore few observations are made. Recommends that Waldershare Gilding Club be consulted. In relation to military aircraft safety MOD should be consulted. Further, recommends that it would be sensible to establish the related viewpoint of local emergency services air support units. The mast would be one of the tallest structures within the immediate vicinity and might be viewed as needing to be lit and/or marked for navigation purposes. Such lighting is only mandatory for structures of a height of 150 metres or more, unless there is an aerodrome safeguarding issue. It would be unlikely that the CAA would have any issues associated within an aviation stakeholder request for lighting/marking of any structure considered to be a significant hazard to air navigation. Kent International Airport (Infratil): No objection on safeguarding grounds. Further advises of an objection to any wind turbine erected at this location. Channel Gliding Club: The Club maintains its position regarding high structures in the vicinity of its circuit and re-affirms that any such structure or otherwise will adversely affect the free movement of gliders, motor gliders and glider/tug combinations. The site at Waldershare was specifically chosen in 1984 to minimise nuisance to the local community and because of the lack of high structures in the area. British Gliding Association: No comments to date. Sprite Aviation Services (Inglenook Farm): Objects to the proposal on the ground that the proposed mast, together with the ground elevation at the site (which is 22 metres higher than the mean elevation of the runway), would be a contravention of official guidance in CAP793, and thereby pose an unacceptable risk to pilots landing at Inglenook farm airstrip. These types of masts are not visible from the air, and it is quite conceivable that an aircraft could fly directly into the mast. Langdon Action Group: Objects on the grounds that the application is a precursor to an application for the erection of turbine(s), on land that was the subject of an appeal that was dismissed in 2009, and that previous wind measurements have been made on the site. The objection details some of the reasons for dismissal of the appeal, which include aviation matters, residential amenity and separation distances. All parish councils were consulted. To date comments from the following have been received: Langdon Parish Council: Objects to the proposal on the following grounds: • There is no purpose for the mast other than to gather wind speed as a

precursor to an application to site wind turbine(s) at the site; • Data is already available from previous records;

• The Inspector dismissed the previous appeal and concluded that the site is unsuitable for wind turbines, single or multiple;

• The position of the mast is in the flight path corridor of the operational

airstrip at Inglenook farm, and presents a serious hazard to aircraft entering or leaving, contravening guidance in CAP793;

• The mast will be a visual intrusion into the sensitive rural landscape

and especially on properties in West Langdon; and

• The erection of the mast would be detrimental to the well-being of residents of the adjacent hamlets, who experienced considerable anxiety, stress and anger during the previous application and appeal for turbines on this site.

Woodnesborough Parish Council: Objects on the ground that the mast will have an adverse visual impact. Ringwould with Kingsdown Parish Council: Ambivalent. Shepherdswell with Coldred Parish Council: No objection to the proposal, but expresses reservation about a possible future wind farm/turbine at the site. Stourmouth Parish Council: No observations. St Margaret’s Parish Council: Recommend refusal, and does not consider any type of turbine on this site appropriate given the findings on the previous application. Wingham Parish Council: No particular comments to make on the application. Sandwich Town Council: No objections Public Representations: Two letters of objection have been received in which the following material concerns have been raised:

• The proposal is a precursor to the erection of another wind farm, and nothing has changed on the site, where permission was previously refused at appeal.

• There are enough wind farms in the area, being provided off shore.

• The Inspector when dismissing the appeal referred to development of

‘up to five turbines’, meaning that his concerns would relate to any number of turbines.

f) 1. The Site and the Proposal

1.1 It is proposed to erect a 60 metre high, meteorological mast on part of

the site that was the subject of a previous planning application and subsequent appeal in 2009. The appeal was dismissed (planning application reference DOV/07/1148) in respect of the siting of 5 wind turbines with a height to blade tip of 120 metres. Planning permission was however granted in 2008 for the siting of a 50 metres high anemometry mast on land approximately 160 metres to the southeast

of the existing, old dilapidated engine shed. (DOV/07/1153 – Item 3, 5 June 2008).

1.2 The mast would be erected on agricultural land to the west of the

village of East Langdon, to the northeast of the village of Guston and to the south of West Langdon. It would be sited at a distance of approximately 110 metres from Archers Court Road to the northwest, and at a distance of approximately 400 metres to the north west of the engine shed.

1.3 Some 2.8 km from the proposed mast is the eastern edge of an

extensive swathe of land that is designated as part of the Kent Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, (AONB). Part of the AONB, closer to the coastline, and at a distance of approximately 4km from the proposed mast, is designated as Heritage Coast.

1.4 The met mast is of a monopole design, would have a height of not

more than 60 metres, and would be constructed of 150mm diameter galvanised steel. The met mast would be used to enable data to be collected regarding the wind resource in the site and provide a robust assessment of the potential electricity output of the site over the long term from a wind turbine on the site.

1.5 The mast would be supported by 7 guy sets (stabilising ropes), with a

cross radius of approximately 33 – 42 metres. Each guy set would have 4 guys which would connect to 4 anchor points on the ground to secure the mast.

1.6 The mast would have wind loading capabilities of 57 m/sec (127mph)

at its base (10 metres) and 74m/sec (166 mph) at the top of the mast (60 metres) and has been designed to withstand wind speeds up to 150 mph. The mast requires 3 anemometers to be positioned at heights of 40 metres, 50 metres and 60 metres, to measure wind speed.

1.7 There is no need for specialist access to the site. Access would be

gained via the existing farm access from Archers Court Road. No excavations, site preparation or concrete would be required and the mast would be fully removed and the site restored to its original condition upon completion of the monitoring.

1.8 The location of the met mast has been determined to ensure that

accurate and representative measurements can be taken. Account has also been taken of the technical and highway safety aspects in respect of set back from roads, and in accordance with ‘fall-over’ distance advice in the PPS22 Companion Guide, the mast has been set back a suitable distance from the highway.

1.9 The mast is proposed to be erected for a temporary period of

18 months. 1.10 Plans will be on display.

2. Main Issues

2.1 The main issues in the consideration of this application are:

• The impact of the development on the landscape and visual amenities

• The need for further wind analysis on this site; • The impact of the development on aviation safety; and • The need to support the generation of electricity from

renewable energy sources, where there is no conflict with Development Plan policies and other material considerations.

2.2 It is reasonable to assume that Airvolution seek to explore the

possibility of a single wind turbine on the site, since the Council received a Screening Opinion request earlier in November this year. Under the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Regulations 1999, the proposed siting of a single turbine on this site, with a height to blade tip of 95 metres, was screened to constitute EIA development. It is emphasised at this point that the consideration of this application is separate from that of any application for future development that may come forward on this site, comprising one or more wind turbines, and this application must be determined on its own merits. It would be unreasonable to withhold permission due to the fear of possible future developments on the site.

3. Assessment

3.1 The Companion Guide to PPS22 on wind energy (paragraph 32 of the

Technical Annex) highlights that in assessing whether a particular site will harness wind power satisfactorily, historical meteorological data available from the Meteorological Office and information derived from anemometers should be used. It further advises that measurements from the anemometers help to determine whether or not a candidate site is suitable, and if it is, the measurements help to determine the best position for the wind turbine(s) within the site’s boundary.

Landscape and visual impact 3.2 The mast would be located on agricultural land to the north-west of the

existing engine shed. The previous siting of a met mast on the site was on the lowest part of the wider tract of land, in a natural valley, to the south-east of the engine shed, on land approximately 74 m AOD. At that point, the level of the land, when taken in the context of the wider area, is lower than the level at Archers Court Road to the west and significantly lower than the road level on Waldershare Lane at the entrance to Enifer Downs Farm to the east of the previously sited mast.

3.3 For the purposes of comparison, the height of the proposed mast is

compared with other known masts within the district. For example, the BT mast at the White Cliffs Business Park has a height of

approximately 45 metres, above Ordnance Datum (AOD), which is 129 metres. The masts at Swingate are approximately 95 metres high, (AOD), which is 188 metres at this point. The height of the proposed mast would be slightly greater than that of the BT mast, and on ground AOD of approximately 90 metres.

3.4 The mast would be 60 metres high. However, given its slender profile

and its location, it would be virtually invisible to the naked eye in medium and longer distance views. Further, given the temporary nature of the proposal, for a period of 18 months, any close range adverse impact on visual amenities and landscape character would be temporary.

3.5 It is therefore considered that the temporary mast, whilst having an

impact on visual amenities and the landscape at close range, would not have a significant detrimental impact on visual amenities and the wider landscape given its profile and temporary nature. It would therefore not harm the objectives of policies DM15 and DM16 of the Core Strategy. Given the height, profile and temporary nature of the mast it would not have a significant or detrimental impact on the nearby AONB and Heritage Coast, or heritage receptors within the vicinity of the site, thereby not harming the objectives of PPS5 or policy CO5 of the DDLP.

The need for further analysis 3.6 Concern has been raised in respect of the need for further wind data

to be collected at the site, given that a mast was previously sited by Ecotricity nearby for a period of 18 months. In response to this, the applicant’s agent has advised that the data collected by Ecotricity commercially belongs to them and is not freely available. Airvolution have to ensure that the data collected is appropriate to their specific development and that the correct type of mast is installed and maintained, and data is collected in a manner which will allow economic modelling to be carried out with sufficient confidence to ensure that financing is available for any turbine development. Further, it can not be guaranteed that the Ecotricity data, (if sold), would meet this requirement which could impede the financing of the development at a later stage. The met mast is therefore needed.

Impact on aviation safety 3.7 The impact of the development on aviation interests is a material

consideration. PPS22 para 25 says of wind farms that ‘it is the responsibility of developers to address any potential impacts, taking into account CAA, MOD and DfT guidance in relation to radar and aviation, and the legislative requirements in separation distances, before planning applications are submitted’. During the inquiry held last year, aviation was considered, particularly in respect of Kent International Airport and Inglenook Farm. At Inglenook Farm there is a private airstrip, an unlicensed aerodrome.

3.8 The representation from the owner of Inglenook Farm, which lies

approximately 1.6 km north of the site, refers to specific Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) guidance contained in CAP793 (Safe Operating

Practices at Unlicensed Aerodromes). Para 3.6 of CAP793 recommends that there are no obstacles greater than 150 ft (46 metres) above the average runway elevation within 2,000 m of the runway at midpoint. The owner of the airstrip comments that the mast, together with the elevation of the land at the site, (that is 22 metres above the mean elevation of the runway) would contravene the CAA guidance.

3.9 The Inspector commented in para 41 of the decision in respect of the

previous turbine scheme that he acknowledged that ”the airstrip is not a major operation and that there would be a strong case for holding that development needed in the public interest should not be thwarted by it. Nonetheless, while the airstrip exists, the safety of its users is paramount”.

3.10 The aviation related matters in respect of Inglenook Farm considered

at the Public Inquiry in 2009 related to the physical effects of the turbines on aviation safety. The Inspector commented at para 40 of the appeal decision that he was “conscious of the advice in CAP428 (Safety Standards at Unlicensed Aerodromes), which cautions against obstacles greater than 150 feet within 2000 metres of the runway midpoint’. In this case, the owner of Inglenook Farm contends that the proposed mast would constitute an obstacle.

3.11 Para 6 of chapter 2 of CAP 428 states that “when obstructions are

placed deliberately in the path of aircraft the affected operations must be suspended if a safe approach cannot be made”. It then goes on to discuss possible planning enforcement to remove unauthorised obstructions. Para 5.1 of CAP 793 states that “anything that, because of its height or position, could be a hazard to an aeroplane landing or taking off, and which cannot be removed, should be conspicuous and marked if necessary. Operations must be suspended if a safe approach cannot be made”.

3.12 Using Intermap (GIS digital mapping technology), your officers have

looked at the contours, in 5 metres increments, of the proposed met-mast site and the Inglenook Airstrip. The difference between the two sites is shown to be approximately 25 metres. Therefore, your officers have no reason to doubt the measurements that the owner of the airstrip refers to in his letter. Based on these and the guidance in CAP 793 and CAP 428, the proposed mast would constitute an obstruction that could result in the suspension of aviation operations at Inglenook airstrip in the interests of aviation safety.

3.13 In response to this concern, the applicant’s agents have commented

that the requirement stated in the objection from Inglenook Farm is not as strict as alluded to, and is in fact a recommendation only. Account needs to be taken of the type and nature of flying activity. They further refer to the Council’s acceptance of Ecotricity’s met-mast on the site. However, it should be noted that the previous met mast had a height of 50 metres and was sited in a natural valley in the site at a level of 74 m AOD compared to the site proposed at a level of 90m AOD.

3.14 This matter has arisen in a similar case in Salcey Green, Milton Keynes when objections were made to a 70 metre high met mast that would be sited within safeguarding zones for an unlicensed airstrip and helipad. The applicants submitted an Aviation Impact Assessment that assessed the impact of the likely aviation impact of the mast. The Local Authority then commissioned an independent report, which concluded that there would be no conflict between the mast and aviation safety at the unlicensed aerodrome. It should be noted at this stage, that no objection has been raised to the mast by KIA, CAA and the MOD. Comments from NATS have not yet been received.

3.15 The applicant’s agent has commented that they would be happy to

light the met mast with an aviation warning light, which could be required by a planning condition. This may be an appropriate form of mitigation. However, should the met mast constitute an obstruction to the safe operation of the unlicensed aerodrome, no assessment has been undertaken by the applicant’s agent to demonstrate this. In the absence of an Aviation Impact Assessment in respect of the likely impact of the mast on the operations of Inglenook Airstrip, similar to that undertaken in respect of the Salcey Green proposal, it is not considered that a full and properly informed decision can be made in respect of the proposed mast or any mitigation. It is therefore recommended that a decision on the application be deferred until such a time as an Aviation Impact Assessment has been submitted by the applicant’s agent, which should then be independently verified on behalf of the Council. The assessment should also consider the impact of the siting of the mast in relation to the operation of the Waldershare Gliding Club, which has raised an objection to the proposal.

3.16 Until such time that it has been demonstrated that the proposed met-mast would not breach CAA official guidelines, and therefore not pose a threat to the safety of the users of the airstrip and the gliding club, support can not be given to the siting of the proposed met-mast.

Generation of electricity from renewable resources 3.17 The supplement to PPS1 highlights that climate change is the greatest

long-term challenge facing the world today. Addressing climate change is therefore the Government’s principal concern for sustainable development. The 2008 Climate Change Act set legally binding ‘carbon budgets’ aiming to cut UK emissions by 34% by 2020 and at least 80% by 2050 through investment in energy efficiency and clean energy technologies including renewables.

3.18 The generation of electricity from renewable sources, including wind

power, is one such way that the planning system can contribute to meeting this challenge. However, the approach to considering such applications for harnessing wind power should be in line with advice contained in PPS22. The Companion Guide to PPS22 relating to wind, at paragraph 32 of the Technical Annex, highlights that the monitoring of wind speeds requires anemometers to be placed on a site in addition to a desk-based study of historical meteorological data. In

accordance with this advice and the conclusion above in respect of the impact on visual amenities and the landscape, the temporary siting of the meteorological mast would assist in enabling an assessment of actual wind resource on the site, in line with the objectives of PPS22. Further, given the temporary nature of the proposal, which would be installed with minimal groundworks and changes to the agricultural land, the proposed mast would be acceptable in those respects.

` Conclusion 3.19 Notwithstanding these latter conclusions, until such a time as an

Aviation Impact Assessment has been undertaken and independently verified, favourable consideration cannot be given to the proposal. It is hoped to report further at the meeting. Any recommendation which may be made is without prejudice to any future proposals that may come forward in respect of the erection of a wind turbine or wind turbines at this site and Members will need to determine the application taking this point into account. The Committee will note the concerns of third parties that the application should be refused in the light of the Inspector’s decision in respect of the previous wind turbine scheme on the site. The current application stands to be considered on its individual merits and no reason is seen to withhold permission in respect of landscape, visual amenity or the impact on heritage assets. However, the aviation matters remain to be fully and properly assessed.

g) Recommendation

I Pending receipt of an Aviation Impact Assessment in respect of whether the mast would constitute an obstruction that would harm the air safety of the users of Inglenook Airstrip or the Waldershare Gliding Club, an independent report, to be commissioned by the District Council to consider the Aviation Impact Assessment and the views of the local emergency services air support units, (as recommended by the CAA), CONSIDERATION BE DEFERRED

Case Officer Fiona Runacre

DOVER DISTRICT COUNCIL Agenda Item No 6 REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT CONTROL MANAGER PLANNING COMMITTEE – 9 DECEMBER 2010

TREE PRESERVATION ORDER NO. 13, 2009 – CONFIRMATION OF ORDER ON THREE SILVER BIRCH TREES, TRINITY HOMES SITE, ST CLARE ROAD, WALMER

Recommendation

Tree Preservation Order No. 13, 2009 be confirmed without modification. Contact Officer: Anne Russell, Extension 2205. 1. Trinity Homes in Walmer comprises 20 bungalows owned by the Trinity House

Maritime Charity; the residents are beneficiaries of the Charity. The bungalows are located on three sides of the extensive site; the grounds are laid to formal lawns, terraces at the centre of the site and a woodland area on the south east side. The three Silver Birch trees the subject of this Tree Preservation Order (TPO) are situated in the lower terrace.

2. Four residents of the Homes contacted the Council in the Summer of 2009 asking for

the trees to be protected because they believed the Trustees’ plans to re-organise the gardens put the three trees at risk. A provisional TPO was made on 23 September 2009 to safeguard the public visual amenity provided by these trees.

3. Three letters objecting to the TPO were received; they raised the following material

points:

The trees do not offer any visual amenity to the location; they are barely visible from outside the grounds and their canopy is indiscernible from that of other trees in the area;

With regard to the visual amenity provided to the residents of Trinity Homes,

this is something that concerns all 28 residents, not just those of a vociferous minority;

These trees were planted about 10 years ago by well-meaning amateurs

without due consideration being given to the long term effects of such potentially large trees;

Trinity House plans to restore these gardens to their former elegance,

incorporating raised herb beds with allotment patches on the lower terrace; however, the ground is blighted by tree roots;

The next level up from the terrace where the trees are situated is laid out as a

formal rose garden with a fish pond; it is bare at the moment but if it were to be replanted the trees would stand between the sun and the roses;

Silver Birch trees are not under threat in this country and there are currently

no conservation projects in force;

75

76

This land was originally cultivated as a kitchen garden but was turfed over some 10 years ago, when one of the residents planted the three trees.

It will not be many years before the ornamental boundary wall suffers damage

from the tree roots; There are many trees here; these three silver birch trees would not be missed

when the pleasure the introduction of garden therapy will give to so many of the residents is considered..

4. Comments from the residents supporting the TPO are summarised as follows:

(i) The landlord of Trinity Homes has expressed an intention to fell the largest of

three Silver Birches along the lower terrace because it is endangering the adjacent wall. This is understood not to be the case; the wall shows no visible sign of distress;

(ii) The three trees are visible from the public road and from Hawkshill Down.

They variously provide screening of outbuildings and are intrinsically a beneficial adjunct to the landscape;

(iii) The trees are a stabilising influence given that the whole garden is moving

downhill.

5. Walmer Parish Council supports the TPO with the proviso that “the Ecology Officer carefully monitors the situation.”

6. It is considered that these young, healthy trees not only form a central focal point

within the grounds of Trinity Homes, but also make a positive contribution to public visual amenity. Following discussions between the Tree Officer and the Secretary to the Corporation of Trinity House, it was decided to defer confirmation of the Order so as to give the Trustees time to consider their plans for the gardens. An application for works to the three Silver Birch trees was recently submitted (DOV/10/657) without any pre-application discussion; therefore, in order to ensure that the proposed works are in the best interests of the trees and public visual amenity the Tree Preservation Order should be confirmed.

7. Photographs of the trees will be on display. It is recommended that Tree Preservation

Order No. 13, 2009 be confirmed without modification.

Background Papers

File reference PT/WAL/18.

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).