Application No: Y15/1292/SH

Location of Site: Stonegate Farmers Stone Street Stelling Minnis Canterbury

Development: Demolition of buildings and structures, remediation of land and the erection of 30 houses and two B1 office units of 465m2 floor area, plus the closure of existing access to Stone Street and creation of new access to Thorn Lane.

Applicant: Mr Mark QuinnQuinn Patel Hayes Developments LtdNew RentsAshfordKentTN23 1JJ

Agent: Mr Alastair CracknellQuinn Estates77 Bekesbourne LaneLittlebourneKentCT3 1UZ

Date Valid: 31.12.15

Expiry Date: 31.03.16

Date of Committee: 27.09.2016

Officer Contact: Mrs Wendy Simpson

RECOMMENDATION: That planning permission be refused for the reasons set out at the end of the report, subject to any minor changes delegated to the Head of Planning.

1.0 THE PROPOSAL

1.1 The proposal is for full planning permission for a mixed use development to provide 30 houses (C3 use class) and 2 office buildings (B1 use class) of 465m2 commercial floor space. Of the 30 houses 9 (30%) are proposed to be shared equity affordable.

1.2 In addition to the provision of the houses and office units, and following negotiation the proposal involves:

- the demolition of all the buildings on the site;- the removal of some bunds and tree belts from the boundaries of the

site;- the stopping up of the existing vehicle access to the site off Stone

Street and the creation of a new vehicle access off Thorn Lane;- the realignment and reprovision of a pond on site;- on-site supporting infrastructure and landscaping;

- provision of an on-site play area;- scheme of highway works including drainage;- the provision of a pedestrian footpath to Stelling Minnis;

1.3 The residential mix provides for three terraces of 3 dwellings (8no. x 2-bed and 1no x 3-bed), one pair of semi-detached dwellings (2no. x 3-bed) and 25 detached dwellings (15no. x 4-bed and 4no x 5-bed). Some of the dwellings have attached garages or car ports.

1.4 The dwellings are of a mixed appearance by virtue of their design, size and footprint resulting in dwellings of a rural vernacular including features such as steeply hipped roofs, catslide roofs, chimneys, partial timber weatherboard cladding, porches or porch-canopies. The general brick type to be used would be a red multistock brick with multi-red mix plain clay tiles.

1.5 Of the two commercial buildings proposed, Unit 1 is a square, two-storey building that offers two floors of open space in class B1a use. Externally a four way hipped roof is proposed with a central ‘chimney’ or ‘finial’ feature which is likely to allow for ventilation or some such. The exterior of the building is shown as timber clad. Unit 2 is very similar to Unit 1 but appears to be a ‘double unit’ of Unit 1 and the roof has been adjusted accordingly. Unit 2 has been internally divided into 2 units so overall the commercial element of the proposal provides 3 self-contained office units of the same size and each with two floors.

1.6 The development is to be served by a private water treatment plant (package treatment plant).

1.7 The application is accompanied by a Design and Access Statement, ecological scoping survey and survey assessment, transport statement and framework travel plan, contamination assessments, marketing report, tree survey, viability assessment, flood risk assessment, Statement of Community Involvement, Sustainability assessment and report, Site Construction Management Plan, Five year housing land supply assessment, Drainage design, Landscape Visual Impact assessment, Economics Benefit statement and Archaeological assessment.

2.0 LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION OF SITE

2.1 The vacant 3.32 hectare site was formerly used as an egg production and packing business and is located on the west side of Stone Street (B2068), outside and to the west of the village of Stelling Minnis.

2.2 The site consists of a group of substantial sheds and an office building, with hardstanding areas. There is vehicular access onto Stone Street. Around the perimeters of the site is substantial bunding and trees/vegetation screening the site. To the southeastern side of the site, fronting onto Stone Street, is a detached residential property (The Thorn). Open fields adjoin to the south and west.

2.3 The site is outside of any settlement and forms part of the open countryside of the designated Kent Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and defined Special Landscape Area. The site is also indicated on the Proposals Map to the Local Plan as a Groundwater Source Protection Zone 3. Many of the trees or tree groups around the perimeter of the site are protected under a Tree Preservation Order 15 of 2016.

3.0 RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

Y14/1102/SH - Outline application for a mixed use development comprising 1,720 sq. metres of Business (Class B1) commercial floorspace, 9 No. 4 bed dwellings and 5 No. 3 bed dwellings, following demolition of 3 former chicken sheds and 1 industrial building (REFUSED 30.12.14)

Y14/0754/SH - Change of use and conversion of existing egg production unit to nine storage/distribution units (Class B8) following demolition of part of 'Building 3' and provision of loading and parking area, continued use of Building 1 for B1 (Business) and B8 use and alterations to the existing vehicular access and formation of new vehicle access to existing house. (APPROVED 06.11.2014)

Y10/0608/SH - Change of use of existing buildings from egg production unit to storage/distribution (Class B8) following demolition of an existing building and provision of loading and parking areas, continued use of retained building for Class B1 (offices/light industry) and Class B8 (storage/distribution) use, alterations to existing vehicular access and formation of new access to existing house. (APPROVED 30.09.11)

Y06/0257/SH - Change of use of part of existing buildings from egg production unit to storage/distribution (Class B8) following demolition of parts of buildings and provision of a loading and parking area, alterations to existing vehicular access and formation of new vehicular access to existing house (re-submission of planning application Y02/0624/SH) (APPROVED 17.04)

Y02/0624/SH - Change of use from egg production unit to industrial (Class B1) and storage (Class B8) uses following demolition of parts of buildings. (WITHDRAWN)

91/0737/SH - Outline application for the erection of an agricultural dwelling (Renewal of 88/0503/SH). (APPROVED 25.10.91)

90/1147/SH - Erection of a poultry shed (APPROVED 24.01.91)

88/1219/SH - Formation of a lake to take rainwater and alleviate flooding in Thorn Lane (APPROVED 20.12.88)

88/0503/SH - Renewal of outline approval SH/85/0173 for erection of an agricultural workers dwelling and new vehicular access (APPROVED 08.12.88)

SH/87/1444 - Demolition of existing poultry farm and construction of two egg production units and packing shed (APPROVED 12.02.88)

SH/85/1116 - Demolition of existing poultry farm and construction of two egg production units and packing shed with offices and store (REFUSED 20.01.86)

85/0173/SH - Outline application for the erection of an agricultural dwelling. (APPROVED 22.05.85)

SH/81/205 - Outline application for the erection of an agricultural dwelling. (APPROVED)

CH/8/70/161 - Proposed egg laying unit (APPROVED 11.11.70)

CH/8/66/251 - Erection of poultry laying house (APPROVED 09.12.66)

CH/8/65/171 - Erect store/tractor shed (APPROVED 29.07.65)

CH/8/63/304A - Amend application for erection of 8 demonstration battery houses (APPROVED 02.01.64)

CH/8/63/304B - Erection of 8 demonstration battery houses. (APPROVED 02.01.64)

CH/8/63/304 - Erection of 4 demonstration battery houses (APPROVED 25.01.61)

4.0 CONSULTATION RESPONSES

4.1 Elmsted Parish Council

Object to the proposal if it does not include a resolution to the following :

1. The flooding issue must be resolved with a comprehensive flooding plan being put in place.

2. The junction at Thorn Lane must be improved. A right turn filter lane must be created in order to stop traffic congestion at this site.

3. Pedestrian access to Stelling Minnis must be improved.4. We note the intention to expand Bodsham School but the roads

through to Bodsham School are already unable to support the levels of traffic that use them. There must be some significant improvements to the road infrastructure to enable road surfaces to cope with the excessive traffic. The vehicles also need somewhere to park when accessing Bodsham School.

5. The number of affordable housing units must be maintained.

4.2 Stelling Minnis Parish Council

Original comments :

Supports the proposal subject to :

- that at least 9 low cost starter homes are included in the development, with preference being given to persons who live or have connection with Stelling Minnis or Elmsted Parishes;

- Road improvements to B2068 (Stone Street) be made a condition;- Resolving flood problems in Thorn Lane is made a condition.

The site has been an eyesore for many years and is unattractive for agricultural development.

The proposal will supply some employment opportunities for local people and trades in the short and long term; provide additional housing stock; provide low cost starter homes – badly needed in both communities (Stelling Minnis and Elmsted); will provide additional trade for Stelling Minnis Stores and pubs and additional student potential for Stelling Minnis and Bodsham primary schools.

The road safety improvements to Stone Street is wanted by Stelling Minnis Parish Council.

Updated comments :

Stelling Minnis Parish Council will only support the application if all of the following three criteria/conditions are met:-

1) Road safety improvements to B2068 at and either side of the Junctions with Thorn and Curtis Lane are carried out, along the lines suggested by the developer, are carried out as part of the development;

2) The flooding problem in Thorn Lane is resolved.

3) At least 9 Low cost/starter homes/affordable housing (or what ever term is "planning friendly") units are provided as part of the development. The term you and the developer wish to use is immaterial as far as Parish Council is concerned, as long as the 9 houses are economical, which probably also means small, so that persons starting on the housing ladder and living, employed or having connections with the communities of Stelling Minnis or Elmsted have an opportunity to be able to purchase a first home at or below the government recommended price for such homes so that they would qualify for any first time purchase grants.

I hope that this helps and clarifies Stelling Minnis Parish Councils position.

4.3 Kent Highways Services

Comments on original proposal

Conclusion : I would recommend this application to be refused on the basis that the proposed development is likely to generate an increase in pedestrian traffic on a highway lacking adequate footways with consequential additional hazards to all users of the highway and that the proposed right hand turn lanes do not meet the necessary geometric design standards to the detriment to vehicle users of these right hand turn lanes, on a road that is subject to the national speed limit (60mph).

Discussion : Thank you for your consultation in relation to the above planning application. I have the following comments to make with respect to highway matters :

Access

1. The proposed highway improvements do not take into account of the current drainage issues on Stone Street. To the north of the site on Stone Street there are highway drainage ditches and trief kerbing which have not been included on the highway improvements drawings. Widening the carriageway would be unacceptable to the north of Curtis Lane due to the location of the drainage ditches. Please note culverting of highway drainage ditches is against KCC policy.

2. The proposed right turn lanes cannot be accommodated within highway land and/or within land within the applicants control. The running lanes must be 3.5 metres wide with a 3 metre right turn lane, plus a 1.8 metre footway on one side of Stone Street in order so that pedestrians can safely access the local facilities in Stelling Minnis village. The taper for the right turn lanes must be a minimum of 60 metres in length, based on a taper of 1 in 20. An island would be required for a pedestrian crossing point on Stone Street and this would need to be 2 metres in width. Unfortunately the highway land available at the junction of Stone Street and Thorn Lane is approximately 10 metres (from ditch to fenceline) which is

inadequate to provide the running lanes, right turn lane and required footways.

3. The existing lawful use on the site as set out in the Transport Statement submitted with the application has an existing trip attraction of 20 movements in the AM Peak and 19 movements in the PM Peak. The baseline daily figure is a total of 267 movements. The baseline total daily pedestrian movements for the existing use of the site is 20. The proposals will result in an increase from 20 to 51 pedestrian movements. There is also an increase of public transport users from 2 to 19. The site would be served from the bus service which is routed through Stelling Minnis village. This would mean there is a significant increase in pedestrians which would need to safely cross Stone Street to walk to the local amenities within the village. The pedestrian route from the site to the village is currently inadequate with pedestrians having to walk along both Thorn Lane and Curtis Lane, both of which are only just wide enough for two vehicles to pass one another, have no street lighting, poor forward visibility due to bends on Curtis Lane and are subject to the national speed limit (60mph). There is a Public Right of Way (PROW) which runs through a field to the North of Curtis Lane into the village but this is not properly surfaced and from the site visit undertaken on the 12th January 2016 it would appear that it is obstructed by low level crops and so is not a suitable alternative walking route. The proposals would therefore lead to an increase in pedestrian movements along both Thorn Lane and Curtis Lane, which is not suitable to cater for pedestrians, to the detriment to highway safety.

Layout

4. An engineering drawing at a scale of 1:500 should be provided showing road widths, footway widths and visibility splays.

5. Generally parking courts are not well used as they are remote from dwellings and have a lack of security. The car parking court between plots 27-28 is unlikely to be used by residents and will lead to on-street parking on the main access road. On-street parking is likely to take place outside plot 28 due to the rear parking allocation.

6. Parking bays should measure a minimum of 5 metres long x 2.5 metres wide. However, if the bay is bounded at one side by a fence, wall or soft landscaped area, then the bay should be 2.7 metres wide. Should the bay be bounded at both sides then the minimum width should be 2.9 metres. Lay-by car parking bays should measure 6 metres x 2 metres wide, increased to 2.5 metres wide, when the bay is not abutting a footpath. Plots where parking is provided in front of a garage the car parking spaces should measure 5.5 metres long x 2.5 metres wide together with a 6 metre reversing distance. Please confirm the bays meet these requirements and show the dimensions on the plan or add a note to that effect.

7. Tandem car parking is unacceptable as set out in Interim Guidance Note

3 for sites in a rural location. This applies plots 2, 3, 7, 22, 27 and 30 and so the parking layout for these plots will need to be amended accordingly.

8. Plots 8 and 18 require a 6 metre reversing distance to be provided.

9. Single car ports must be designed to a minimum width of 2.9 metres by 5.5 metres in length. If a double car port is to be provided then minimum requirements of the car port must be 5.4 metres in width by 5.5 metres in length.

10. Vehicle tracking for an 11.4 metre long refuse vehicle must be provided for the access onto Thorn Lane and the internal road layout.

11. No details have to be provided of the surfacing materials of the access road. Please note that only tarmac or block paving will be adopted by KCC Highways and Transportation.

12. An adoption plan has not been submitted the proposed extent of adoption by KCC Highways and Transportation.

13. A services plan has not been submitted showing the proposed location of services within the site.

I would also comment as follows:

The sites used within the TRICS output are not based on similar population characteristics. The sites selected should have a maximum population of 5,000 within 1 mile and a maximum population of 25,000 within 5 miles. Edge of Town and Neighbourhood Centre sites should only be used. This input would equate to a trip rate of 8.332 per dwelling, per day. Therefore the information provided in table 4 of the modal attraction of the proposed residential development is incorrect. It should be as follows:

Vehicles Arrivals Depatures Total

08:00-09:00 4 16 2017:00-18:00 18 11 29Daily 118 121 239

The applicant can contact KCC Highways and Transportation directly and we could give them a copy of the correct TRICS output.

It should be noted that a Stage 1 Safety Audit of the proposed right turn lanes with a designers response, including any departures from standards are required to be submitted at the planning application stage.

I would recommend this application to be refused on the basis that the proposed development is likely to generate an increase in pedestrian traffic on a highway lacking adequate footways with consequential additional

hazards to all users of the highway and that the proposed right hand turn lanes do not meet the necessary geometric design standards to the detriment to vehicle users of these right hand turn lanes, on a road that is subject to the national speed limit (60mph).

Comments on interim revised proposal

Thank you for your consultation in relation to the above planning application and the additional information received. I have the following comments to make with respect to highway matters :

Details must be provided to the Land Drainage Team before the highway improvements are agreed with regards to the change in land drainage. Evidence of the land drainage consent must be provided. The Land Drainage Team can be contacted at flood@kent.gov.uk and for further information please go to: http://www.kent.gov.uk/waste-planning-and-land/flooding-and-drainage/land-drainage-consent

The off-site highway works plan is acceptable and my previous comments have now been addressed.

It is unacceptable to encourage pedestrians to use Curtis Lane as it is a narrow lane, with poor alignment and geometry, subject to national speed limit and is un-lit. I would suggest the PROW HE14 could be diverted through Section 119 of the Highways Act 1980 around the field and then surfaced with a hogging surface. This could be secured by a contribution within the Section 106 agreement. The PROW team should therefore be consulted on any proposals to divert the PROW.

Pedestrian visibility splays of 1 metre by 43 metres are required at the proposed footway crossing Curtis Lane. A fully scaled visibility splay plan at 1:500 must be submitted.

A fully scaled site layout plan at 1:500 scale is required in order to address my concerns with the overall parking provision within the site and my previous comments regarding plots 5-9 still stand.

In order to provide for the two right hand turn lanes on Stone Street, the provision of a 50 mph speed limit is required. The necessary Traffic Regulation Order must be submitted to the Traffic Schemes Team as part of the planning application in order that KCC Highways can be assured that it can be provided. The 50mph limit must be for a minimum distance of 600 metres and the location of the speed limit should be agreed in writing with KCC Highways.

INFORMATIVE: It is the responsibility of the applicant to ensure, before the development hereby approved is commenced, that all necessary highway approvals and consents where required are obtained and that the limits of highway boundary are clearly established in order to avoid any enforcement action being taken by the Highway Authority. The applicant must also ensure that the details shown on the approved plans agree in every aspect with those approved under such legislation and common law. It is therefore important for the applicant to contact KCC Highways and Transportation to progress this aspect of the works prior to commencement on site.

Comments on final proposal

Thank you for your consultation in relation to the above planning application and the additional information. I now raise no objection to the proposals. The following should be secured by condition: Prior to the occupation of any dwelling/building hereby permitted the

proposed highway improvement works (drawing No. 15119-010 Rev D) on Stone Street (B2068) shall be completed and maintained to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.

Prior to the occupation of any dwelling/building hereby permitted the applicant shall provide a new 50 mph speed limit along Stone Street in accordance with details to be submitted and agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.

Prior to the occupation of any dwelling/building hereby permitted the applicant shall divert Public Right of Way HE14 in accordance with details to be submitted and agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.

Prior to the occupation of any dwelling/building hereby permitted the proposed footways and the associated visibility splays in Curtis Lane, Thorn Lane and Stone Street, with no obstructions over 0.6m above footway level, shown on the submitted drawing No.15119-010 Rev D, shall be completed and maintained to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.

Prior to the occupation of any dwelling/building hereby permitted the proposed new access and the associated visibility splays in Thorn Lane, with no obstructions over 1 metre above carriageway level, shown on the submitted drawing No.15119-010 Rev D, shall be completed and maintained to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority .

Closure of the existing access on Stone Street prior to the occupation of any of the dwellings hereby permitted.

Provision and permanent retention of secure, covered cycle parking facilities prior to the occupation of any of the dwellings hereby permitted in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority.

Provision and permanent retention of the vehicle parking spaces and car ports shown on the submitted drawing 2713-105C prior to the occupation of any of the dwellings hereby permitted.

Provision and permanent retention of the vehicle turning facilities shown on the submitted drawing 2713-105C prior to the occupation of any of the dwellings hereby permitted.

Use of a bound surface for the first 5 metres of any accesses from the edge of the highway.

Construction Management Plan to include the following:(a) Routing of construction and delivery vehicles to / from site(b) Parking and turning areas for construction and delivery vehicles

and site personnel(c) Provision of wheel washing facilities(d) Details of site access point(s) for construction(e) Temporary traffic management / signage

Completion of the following works between a dwelling and the adopted highway prior to first occupation of the dwelling:

(a) Footways and/or footpaths, with the exception of the wearing course;

(b) Carriageways, with the exception of the wearing course but including a turning facility, highway drainage, visibility splays, street lighting, street nameplates and highway structures (if any).

INFORMATIVE: It is the responsibility of the applicant to ensure , before the development hereby approved is commenced, that all necessary highway approvals and consents where required are obtained and that the limits of highway boundary are clearly established in order to avoid any enforcement action being taken by the Highway Authority. The applicant must also ensure that the details shown on the approved plans agree in every aspect with those approved under such legislation and common law. It is therefore important for the applicant to contact KCC Highways and Transportation to progress this aspect of the works prior to commencement on site.

4.4 KCC Public Rights of Way Officer

The process of diverting Footpath HE14 could not be secured through a S106 contribution. This is because the diversion order may receive objections and is not guaranteed to be successful.

Instead of diverting the existing footpath, a new field edge path could be established through a Creation Order, though compensation for the landowner would need to be addressed and they may object to another PROW crossing their land.

4.5 Stagecoach Buses

We would point out that the site is only directly served by a single bus journey (mornings) to Canterbury on schooldays only, and an afternoon journey from Canterbury, again on schooldays only. The nearest alternative bus route is Route 18, which provides 5 journeys to Canterbury and 5 to Hythe on Mondays to Saturdays. However the nearest bus stops are in Stelling Minnis village, whim is a 1km walk from the proposed development. The additional housing will not be sufficient o nits own to support a viable and sustainable enhancement to the existing bus service.

We consider that the building of houses and offices at the proposed location is therefore likely to generate additional car journeys into Canterbury, thus adding to already high levels of traffic congestion, and that the proposed development is therefore not sustainable.

4.6 Kent County Council – Local Lead Flood Authority

Original Comment –

KCC as Lead Local Flood Authority request a holding objection pending further information regarding the drainage strategy at this site to fully demonstrate that the site’s drainage will be able to provide sufficient capacity for the 1 in 100 year climate adjusted critical storms.

At present an assessment has not been made to demonstrate that sufficient surface water storage and discharge capacity has been incorporated into the development.

We have concerns with the proposed reliance on an existing soakaway and remodelled pond as the final surface water outfall.

The site has been out of use for a considerable period and the pond/soakaway condition is noted to be poor in the Design and Access Statement : ‘The entire drainage system is found to be blocked with silt and debris due to a lack of maintenance over many years. As a result of the very poor condition and blocked drainage system this is currently resulting in all of the surface water to surcharge the existing pond and the surrounding low lying ditched along the site boundaries in addition to generating localised flooding off site in Thorn Lane and Stone Street’. Whilst the proposals result in not functional and replacement may need to be considered.

We will be happy to provide additional comment upon receipt of a drainage strategy which :

- Provides detail of specific infiltration capacity of the ground at this location;

- Demonstrates that the surface water generated by this development can be accommodated within the site’s boundaries without exacerbating the off-site flood risk or posing a risk to the surrounding environment (for a range of storm durations and intensities, up to and including critical, climate adjusted, 100yr rainfall event);

- Demonstrates that any infiltration features are designed in accordance with BRE digest 365, with a maximum half-drain time of 24hours (to enable subsequent storm events to be adequately accommodated);

- Shows full compliance with the NPPF and the non-statutory Technical Standards for Sustainable Drainage.

Comment following submission of Drainage scheme –

We have had recent discussion with the consultants for this application regarding the drainage design (attached to this email). Our main concern with the strategy is the use of the existing soakaways of unknown condition as there are statements within the design and access statement suggest the existing drainage system is poorly maintained and has not been functioning.

Given that the application is for full planning permission, we are currently unable to remove our holding objection until confirmation is received that

existing infrastructure onsite has been inspected, tested and is suitable for re-use, or that a replacement can be provided based on reasonable assumptions of the likely construction detail and capacity.

We feel that the drainage concept provided is generally appropriate but that there needs to be proof of the ability to outfall/discharge from the site prior to determination. There is a risk that if it was approved and subsequently conditioned as the site may not be able to be drained without impacting the layout.

Comments to Case Officer following further discussion –

Following discussion with the applicant’s consultant, the applicant has included new soakaways within the proposals for this location. This effectively removes my concerns about the use of the existing soakaways on site by having replacement units and accordingly I am in a position to remove KCC’s holding objection on this application. I attach a copy of the proposed layout from the consultant which you should already have been sent.

Should you wish to grant permission for the development I would recommend the following conditions are attached:

1. Development shall not begin until a detailed sustainable surface water drainage scheme for the site has been submitted to (and approved in writing by) the local planning authority. The detailed drainage scheme shall be based upon the general arrangement BJB drawing number 2185/SK602/Rev. A dated March 2016 and shall demonstrate that the surface water generated by this development (for all rainfall durations and intensities up to and including the climate change adjusted critical 100yr storm) can be accommodated and disposed of within the curtilage of the site.

2. No building hereby permitted shall be occupied until details of the implementation, maintenance and management of the sustainable drainage scheme have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme shall be implemented and thereafter managed and maintained in accordance with the approved details. Those details shall include:i) a timetable for its implementation, andii) a management and maintenance plan for the lifetime of the

development which shall include the arrangements for adoption by any public body or statutory undertaker, or any other arrangements to secure the operation of the sustainable drainage system throughout its lifetime.

3. No infiltration of surface water drainage into the ground is permitted other than with the express written consent of the local planning authority (in consultation with the Environment Agency); this may be given for those parts of the site where it has been demonstrated that there is no resultant unacceptable risk to controlled waters. The

development shall be carried out in accordance with the approval details.

Reasons:

To ensure that the principles of sustainable drainage are incorporated into this proposal, to ensure ongoing efficacy of the drainage provisions, to protect vulnerable groundwater resources and ensure compliance with the National Planning Policy Framework.

4.7 Southern Water

The Environment Agency should be consulted and the applicant is advices to consult the EA directly regarding the use of a private waste water treatment works which disposes of effluent to sub-soil irrigation. The owner of the premises will need to maintain the works to ensure its long term effectiveness.

The application form makes reference to drainage using Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS).

Under current legislation and guidance SUDS rely upon facilities which are not adoptable by sewerage undertakers. Therefore the applicant will need to ensure that arrangements exist for the long terms maintenance of the SUDS facilities. It is critical that the effectiveness of these systems is maintained in perpetuity. Good management will avoid flooding from the proposed surface water system, which may result in an inundation of the foul sewerage system.

Thus where a SUDS scheme is to be implemented, the drainage details submitted to the LPA should :

- Specify the responsibilities of each party for the implementation of the SUDS scheme;

- Specify a timetable for implementation;- Provide a management and maintenance plan for the lifetime of the

development. This should include the arrangements for the adoption by any public authority or statutory undertaker and any other arrangements to secure the operation of the scheme throughout its lifetime.

The Council’s Building Control officers or technical staff should be asked to comment on the adequacy or otherwise of soakaways to dispose of surface water from the proposed development.

4.8 Environment Agency

Following the submission of a Preliminary Risk Assessment and Site Investigation for the site, produced by BJB Consulting, we have no objection to the proposal providing the following conditions are included on any planning permission granted:

Condition 1: If, during development, contamination not previously identified is found to be present at the site then no further development (unless otherwise agreed in writing with the local planning authority) shall be carried out until the developer has submitted a remediation strategy to the local planning authority detailing how this unsuspected contamination shall be dealt with and obtained written approval from the local planning authority. The remediation strategy shall be implemented as approved.

Reason: To prevent pollution of controlled waters and comply with the National Planning Policy Framework.

Condition 2: No infiltration of surface water drainage into the ground at this site is permitted other than with the express written consent of the local planning authority, which may be given for those parts of the site where it has been demonstrated that there is no resultant unacceptable risk to controlled waters. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approval details.

Reason: To prevent pollution of controlled waters and comply with the National Planning Policy Framework.

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) paragraph 109 states that the planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by preventing both new and existing development from contributing to or being put at unacceptable risk from, or being adversely affected by unacceptable levels of water pollution. Government policy also states that planning policies and decisions should also ensure that adequate site investigation information, prepared by a competent person, is presented (NPPF, paragraph 121).

InformativeDrainageThe application for suggests that foul drainage will discharge to a package treatment plant. Please note that in accordance with the Environmental Permitting Regulations (2010), if you are going to make a discharge of sewage effluent to surface water (this includes rivers, streams, estuaries and the sea), or to groundwater (i.e. via an infiltration system), then you may need to apply for an environmental permit to make that discharge. Such approval may be withheld.

The following points should be noted wherever infiltration drainage (such as soakaways) are proposed at a site:

Appropriate pollution prevention methods (such as trapped gullies or interceptors) should be used to prevent hydrocarbons draining to ground from roads, hardstandings and car parks. Clean uncontaminated roof water should drain directly to the system entering after any pollution prevention methods.

No infiltration system should be sited in or allowed to discharge into land impacted by contamination or land previously identified as being

contaminated. Soakaways should not discharge into made ground. There must be no direct discharge to groundwater, a controlled

water. An unsaturated zone must be maintained throughout the year between the base of the system and the water table.

A series of shallow systems are preferable to systems such as deep bored soakaways, as deep bored soakaways can act as conduits for rapid transport of contaminants to groundwater

WasteContaminated soil that is, or must be disposed of, is waste. Therefore, its handling, transport, treatment and disposal is subject to waste management legislation, which includes:

Duty of Care Regulations 1991 Hazardous Waste (England and Wales) Regulations 2005 Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010 The Waste (England and Wales) Regulations 2011

Developers should ensure that all contaminated materials are adequately characterised both chemically and physically in line with British Standard BS EN 14899:2005 'Characterization of Waste - Sampling of Waste Materials - Framework for the Preparation and Application of a Sampling Plan' and that the permitting status of any proposed treatment or disposal activity is clear. If in doubt, we should be contacted for advice at an early stage to avoid any delays.

If the total quantity of waste material to be produced at or taken off site is hazardous waste and is 500kg or greater in any 12 month period the developer will need to register with us as a hazardous waste producer. Refer to our website at https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/environment-agency for more information.

Comments on additional submission documents

No objection – subject to conditions relating to should surprise contamination be found on the site how it should be dealt with and that no infiltration of surface water drainage into the ground should be allowed except if it has been demonstrated that there is no contamination in that part of the site.

It is also highlighted that the proposal for foul sewerage is to be dealt with by a package treatment plant but Environment Agency Regulations may require an Environmental Permit be issued for such an approach and such an approval may be withheld.

It is further highlighted that contaminated soil is subject to waste management legislation.

4.9 Environmental Health

CONTAMINATED LAND:

1. Prior to commencement of the development a desk top study shall be undertaken and submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The study shall include the identification of previous site uses, potential contaminants that might reasonably be expected given those uses and any other relevant information. Using this information, a diagrammatical representation (Conceptual Model) for the site of all potential contaminant sources, pathways and receptors shall also be included.

2. If a desk top study shows that further investigation is necessary, an investigation and risk assessment shall be undertaken by competent persons and a written report of the findings shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to commencement of the development. It shall include an assessment of the nature and extent of any contamination on the site, whether or not it originates on the site. The report of the findings shall include:

(i) A survey of the extent, scale and nature of contamination;

(ii) An assessment of the potential risks to: ● Human health;● Property (existing or proposed) including buildings, crops,

livestock, pets, woodland and service lines and pipes, ● Adjoining land, ● Ground waters and surface waters, ● Ecological systems, ● Archaeological sites and ancient monuments; and

(iii) An appraisal of remedial options and identification of the preferred option(s).

All work pursuant to this Condition shall be conducted in accordance with the DEFRA and Environment Agency document Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination (Contamination Report 11).

3. If investigation and risk assessment shows that remediation is necessary, a detailed remediation scheme to bring the site to a condition suitable for the intended use by removing unacceptable risks to human health, buildings and other property and the natural and historical environment shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to commencement of the development. The scheme shall include details of all works to be undertaken, proposed remediation objectives and remediation criteria, a timetable of works, site management procedures and a verification plan. The scheme shall ensure that the site will not qualify as contaminated land under Part 2A of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 in relation to the intended use of the land after remediation. The approved remediation scheme shall be carried out in accordance with the approved terms including the timetable, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Local Planning Authority shall be given two weeks written notification of commencement of the remediation scheme works.

4. Prior to commencement of development, a verification report demonstrating completion of the works set out in the approved remediation scheme and the effectiveness of the remediation shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The report shall include results of sampling and monitoring carried out in accordance with the approved verification plan to demonstrate that the site remediation criteria have been met. It shall also include details of longer-term monitoring of pollutant linkages and maintenance and arrangements for contingency action, as identified in the verification plan, and for the reporting of this to the Local Planning Authority.

5. In the event that, at any time while the development is being carried out, contamination is found that was not previously identified, it shall be reported in writing immediately to the Local Planning Authority. An investigation and risk assessment shall be undertaken and where remediation is necessary a remediation scheme shall be prepared. The results shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority. Following completion of measures identified in the approved remediation scheme a verification report shall be prepared and submitted to the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land and neighbouring land, together with those to controlled waters, property and ecological systems, are minimised and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other off-site receptors.

SITE CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT PLAN:

This did not provide any information in respect of working hours. It is recommended these are restricted too 0800 hrs to 1800 hrs Monday to Friday, 0800 hrs to 1300 hrs Saturdays, with no working on Sundays or Bank Holidays.

B1/B8 SITES:

It is recommended that these units are restricted in the hours of use to 0800 hrs to 1800 hrs Monday to Saturday, with no working on Sundays or Bank Holidays.

4.11 Kent Downs AONB Unit

Comments on original proposal

Conclusion : The AONB Unit objects to this application.

Discussion :

The proposal constitutes major development within the Kent Downs AONB. The NPPF sets out clear policy on protection of the natural environment, including land that is within Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty. As set out

at para 14, the main thrust of the NPPF is a presumption in favour of sustainable development, however this is not applicable where specific policies elsewhere in the NPPF indicate that development should be restricted. Footnote 9 to para 14 specifies that this includes those policies relating to land designated as Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty. In relation to major developments in AONBs, para 116 specifies that planning permission should be refused for major developments in such areas except in exceptional circumstances and where it can be demonstrated that they are in the public interest. It is advised that consideration of such applications should include an assessment of:

The need for the development, including in terms of any national considerations, and the impact of permitting it, or refusing it, upon the local economy;

The cost of, and scope for, developing elsewhere outside the designated area, or meeting the need for it in some other way; and

Any detrimental effect on the environment, the landscape and recreational opportunities, and the extent to which that could be moderated.

Both exceptional circumstances and public interest have to be demonstrated.

To comply with the NPPF it is therefore necessary to demonstrate that there is a need for the proposed development and that the proposed developments could not be accommodated elsewhere, outside the Kent Downs AONB. An assessment of these matters is provided below:

The need for the development

Lack of adequate housing land in Shepway District has been cited as justification for permitting the scheme in the AONB, however this in itself is not considered to represent exceptional circumstances. This is a view that has been accepted in appeal decisions such as APP/P1615/A/13/2204158 Land off Reddings Lane, Staunton, (Coleford), Gloucestershire where while attaching significant weight to an absence of a five year housing land supply, the Inspector concluded that a scheme for 14 dwellings in the Wye Valley AONB did not outweigh the harm to the AONB or to local landscape character.

Similarly, at a recent appeal for 40 new dwellings on the edge of Harrietsham, the Inspector concluded that the environmental harm resulting to the landscape setting of the Kent Downs AONB did not outweigh Maidstone Borough Council’s need for housing development and lack of demonstrable 5 year supply of housing land (APP/U2235/W/15/3119223).

In the absence of any demonstrated need for either the commercial or for the residential development in this unsustainable location, together with the ready availability of alternative commercial premises in the vicinity of this site, the application fails the test of need, in our view.

The scope for developing elsewhere

The present application fails to address this matter at all. As the NPPF makes clear, planning permission should be refused for major developments in AONBs except in exceptional circumstances and where it can be demonstrated they are in the public interest. No evidence that housing or commercial development of the nature, scale and quantities proposed here cannot be accommodated elsewhere in the area but outside the Kent Downs AONB is provided. As a result it is our view that the application fails the alternative sites test.

Any detrimental effect on the environment, landscape and recreational opportunities

A Landscape and Visual Appraisal Report has been submitted with the application. This concludes that existing bunds and vegetation around the perimeter of the site provide strong containment and that the site is well screened in the landscape by existing boundary vegetation and that while the main central parts of the site do not contribute to the character and visual appearance of the area the boundary vegetation does contribute to the rural character and appearance of the locality. The assessment advises that the landscape condition of the site is low and the sensitivity of the site is ‘medium to high’ although the natural containment of the site provided by hedgerow and trees reduces it sensitivity. A conclusion is reached in this document that ‘the proposed development is likely to have minimal landscape and visual effects on the wider surrounding area as the site is not prominent’.

The assessment and conclusions are based on the retention of much of the peripheral planting as shown in the Landscape Strategy Plan accompanying the application. However it is important to note that this plan is in direct contradiction with the Arboricultural Report submitted with the application. The Arboricultural Report advises (at Section 6.2.1) that the proposal necessitates the removal of 7 groups of trees and 13 individual trees. The trees identified for removal include all existing trees along the site’s south, east and north boundaries. It is advised that this is unavoidable due to proposed levels changes associated with the removal and reconfiguration of existing bunds on the site’s north, east and south side. While no detail of the proposed removal, retention or alteration of the existing bunds is provided in the application documentation, it is clear from the proposed site layout that the removal/significant reduction of bunds would be required along the south and east boundaries. This will, as specified in the arboricultural report, result in the removal of trees along the site’s south, east and north boundaries. As such views into the site from these directions, which include views from Thorn Lane to the north and Stone Street to the east would be completely opened up. This conflicts with the Landscape Strategy Plan and if these trees are to be removed, it is suggested that the conclusions of the Landscape and visual Appraisal

Report are nullified as the conclusions in this document are made on the basis of landscaping being retained along these boundaries.

Notwithstanding concerns regarding the discrepancy in connection with tree retention/removal referred to above, the AONB Unit considers that that development here on the scale and of the nature proposed would have a detrimental impact on the visual identity of the East Kent Downs Landscape Character Area. The Landscape Assessment of Kent recognises that there is a distinct settlement pattern of villages within valleys and large farms on the plateau. The Study suggests a ‘conserve’ landscape strategy and recommends actions including conserving the settlement patterns, avoiding ridge line development, as well as conserving hedgerows along roads. The development as proposed would be in conflict with this, introducing a new settlement on a plateau and resulting in the loss of hedgerows along roads.

While the overall footprint of development would be reduced by the proposal, at present the area of built form is contained to the central part of the site. The proposals would result in the built form extending far beyond the existing built-up area, introducing built form much closer to the southern, eastern and northern boundaries and accordingly to Stone Street and Thorn Lane. As well as increasing the area of built development and therefore impact, as explained above, this extension outside of the existing built up area results in the need for removal of existing bunding and significant numbers of trees which currently provide effective screening of the site. While bunding is not a natural landscape feature, in this situation it does nevertheless serve a useful purpose largely screening views into the site.

In addition to being out of character with the landscape and having adverse visual impact the proposal includes alterations to the highway outside of the application site which would also fail to conserve and enhance the AONB. The widening of the existing B2068 Stone Street to accommodate a right turn lane and the associated road markings associated with this, together with apparent further markings on both Thorn Lane and Curtis Lane and the introduction of additional road signs on the B2068 would introduce urbanizing features to what is currently a road network of rural character. The visibility splays and the widening of the B2068 to accommodate the right hand turn lane will also result in the need for removal of existing vegetation, to the detriment of the AONB. The LVIA fails to consider the impact of these highways alterations.

Taking the above matters into account, it is our view that development here on the scale and of the nature proposed would have a detrimental impact on the visual identity of the East Kent Downs Landscape Character Area. It is considered that the impact of this proposed development would be to weaken the characteristics and qualities of the AONB and therefore that it would disregard the primary purpose of the AONB designation, namely the conservation and enhancement of its natural beauty. It is our view therefore that it fails the test of detrimental effect.

Furthermore, this is a clearly unsustainable site, well outside the boundaries of the nearest settlements of Stelling Minnis and Elmsted. While the

application submission advises that the proposal is within walking distance of the village of Stelling Minnis, the reality of the situation is that with a lack of footways and street lighting, this would not be an attractive option and public transport to/from the site is limited.

In addition to being contrary to national planning policy and guidance, it is considered that the proposed development would also be contrary to Shepway’s development plan policies. In particular policy CSD4 of Shepway’s Core Strategy 2013 specifies that “Planning decisions will have close regard to the need for conservation and enhancement of natural beauty in the AONB and its setting, which will take priority over other planning considerations”.

The proposal is also considered to be contrary to many policies contained within the Kent Downs AONB Management Plan 2014 to 2019, which can be downloaded from the Kent Down’s website site: http://www.kentdowns.org.uk/guidance-management-and-advice/management-plan

The Management Plan has been formally adopted by all the local authorities in Kent in which the AONB occurs, including Shepway District Council. Management Plans are a material consideration in determining planning applications/appeals as set out in para 15 of the decision in respect of Appeal Ref: APP/P1615/A/13/2204158 Land off Reddings Lane, Staunton, (Coleford), Gloucestershire where the Inspector noted that “The Management Plan is a material consideration to which I attach considerable weight.”

Policies SD1, SD3, SD8 and LLC1 are considered particularly relevant:

SD1 The need to conserve and enhance the natural beauty of the Kent Downs AONB is recognised as the primary purpose of the designation and given the highest level of protection within statutory and other appropriate planning and development strategies and development control decisions.

SD3 New development or changes to land use will be opposed where they disregard or run counter to the primary purpose of the Kent Downs AONB.

SD8 Proposals which negatively impact on the distinctive landform, landscape character, special characteristics and qualities, the setting and views to and from the AONB, will be opposed unless they can be satisfactorily mitigated.

LLC1 The protection, conservation and enhancement of special characteristics and qualities, natural beauty and landscape character of the Kent Downs AONB will be supported and pursued.

Conclusion

This is a clearly unsustainable site, well outside the boundaries of the nearest settlements of Stelling Minnis and Elmsted. The proposals would

amount to a major development in the Kent Downs AONB without any adequate justification. The proposed development would neither conserve nor enhance the character of this part of the Kent Downs AONB. It is our view that the NPPF tests as set out in paragraph 116 have not been adequately considered in in the application documentation, that no public need or exceptional circumstances justification has been demonstrated and that the application fails to comply with the NPPF as a result. The application also conflicts with policy CSD4 of the Shepway Core Strategy as specified above as well as policies in the Kent Downs AONB Management Plan.

Accordingly, the AONB Unit objects to this application.

Comments on revised proposal

Thank you for your consultation on the amended plans/information submitted in respect of the above application. The following comments are from the Kent Downs AONB Unit and as such are at an officer level and do not necessarily represent the comments of the whole AONB partnership. The legal context of our response and list of AONB guidance is set out as Appendix 1 below.

While we welcome the fact the discrepancies in the LVIA/Arboricultural report have been addressed in the additional material, the AONB Unit maintains its objection to the application for the reasons set out in our original response, attached to this letter as Appendix 2.

As previously advised, the application is considered to represent a major development and as such should be considered against paragraph 116 of the NPPF; the application still fails to fully address this matter, failing to demonstrate that the development could not be accommodated outside of the AONB.

The AONB Unit remains of the view that that development here on the scale and of the nature proposed would have a detrimental impact on the visual identity of the East Kent Downs Landscape Character Area. The Landscape Assessment of Kent recognises that there is a distinct settlement pattern of villages within valleys and large farms on the plateau. The Study suggests a ‘conserve’ landscape strategy and recommends actions including conserving the settlement patterns, avoiding ridge line development, as well as conserving hedgerows along roads. The development as proposed would be in conflict with this, introducing a new settlement on a plateau and resulting in the loss of hedgerows along roads.

While the overall footprint of development would be reduced by the proposal, at present the area of built form is contained to the central part of the site. The proposals would result in the built form extending far beyond the existing built-up area, introducing built form much closer to the southern, eastern and northern boundaries and accordingly to Stone Street and Thorn Lane. As previously advised, as well as increasing the area of built development and therefore impact, this extension outside of the existing built up area results in

the need for removal of existing bunding and extensive tracts of existing vegetative screening around the site’s perimeter. While it is noted that the proposals have been amended to retain more trees than previously proposed, the proposal still involves the removal of four groups of trees which will open up views into the site; proposed landscaping will take some time to provide the level of screening that currently exists.

Accordingly, the AONB Unit maintains its objection to this application, for the reasons set out in our original response, dated 27 January 2016.

4.12 Arboricultural Manager

Comments on original proposal

I have concerns over the loss of tree cover on the site boundaries with Stone Street and Thorn Lane.

The accompanying pre-development tree survey and report recommends the loss of all trees from the northern and eastern boundaries (G1, G10, G12 and G13). It is my opinion that these groups poses high visual amenity value and provide a highly desirable screen around the site. The removal of these groups would open up the site unnecessarily and be detrimental to the landscape character of the area.

The tree groups in question do not appear to pose any constraint on the proposed site layout as they are orientated to the north and east. The groups contain predominantly mature native species that would give an air of maturity to the site and negate the need for new, inadequate landscaping.

I would like to recommend that the applicant submits a revised tree protection plan that shows these groups as retained along with measures for their protection.

Comments on revised proposal

I can confirm that I am satisfied with the revised Arboricultrual details submitted in support of this application.

In accordance with paragraph 7.3.2 of the revised tree survey report, the erection of all protective barriers will need to be undertaken under the supervision of the project arboriculturist with photographs and written confirmation sent to me on completion.

In accordance with paragraph 7.5 of the revised tree survey report, the excavation of the western side of the eastern bund will need to be undertaken under the supervision of the project arboriculturist and myself. I would request that five working days notice is given in advance of this operation taking place.

Comments following final revisions

I have read with interest the comments made in section 7.5 of the AIA document (copied below).

Paragraph 7.5.3 clearly states that all excavation with the theoretical RPA’s (shown as orange hatch within Appendix D) will be undertaken by hand.

I would therefore like to be present along with the arboricultural consultant to ensure that this operation is indeed undertaken by hand as opposed to mechanical excavation by machine and a condition to this effect will need to be included in any consent along with the following:

A pre-commencement site meeting shall be held and attended by the developer’s arboricultural consultant, the designated site foreman and a representative from the Local Authority (Arboricultural Manager) to discuss details of the working procedures and agree that all tree protection measures have been installed in accordance with the approved tree protection plan. Any approved remedial works shall subsequently be carried out under strict supervision by the arboricultural consultant immediately following that approval.

Monthly site visits shall be carried out by the developer’s arboricultural consultant in strict accordance with the supervision schedule contained within the approved arboricultural method statement. Copies of written site notes and/or reports detailing the results of all site supervision visits and any necessary remedial works undertaken or required shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority immediately following the monthly visit. Variations to the approved supervision schedule must be submitted in writing to the Local Planning Authority and shall not be implemented until written consent has been obtained.

No trenches or pipe runs for services or drains shall be sited within the tree protection zone in accordance with BS5837:2012 of any existing tree or group of trees to be retained on the site or on adjoining land, and no ground levels shall be altered within this same radius. A plan of all proposed service runs shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval.

A construction method statement detailing all demolition and construction activities that will be undertaken within or adjacent to root protection areas and tree canopy spreads or have implications for trees shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority prior to commencement of any ground clearance, tree works, demolition or development.

4.13 KCC Ecological Advise Service

Under the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act (2006), “Every public authority must, in exercising its functions, have regard, so far as is consistent with the proper exercise of those functions, to the purpose of conserving biodiversity”. In order to comply with this ‘Biodiversity Duty’,

planning decisions must ensure that they adequately consider the potential ecological impacts of a proposed development.

The National Planning Policy Framework states that “the planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by…minimising impacts on biodiversity and delivering net gains in biodiversity where possible.”

Paragraph 99 of Government Circular (ODPM 06/2005) Biodiversity and Geological Conservation - Statutory Obligations & Their Impact Within the Planning System states that “It is essential that the presence or otherwise of protected species, and the extent that they may be affected by the proposed development, is established before the planning permission is granted otherwise all relevant material considerations may not have been addressed in making the decision.”

Natural England has published Standing Advice on protected species and Ancient Woodland. When determining an application for development that is covered by the Standing Advice, Local Planning Authorities must take into account the Standing Advice. The Standing Advice is a material consideration in the determination of applications in the same way as a letter received from Natural England following consultation.

We have reviewed the ecological information which has been submitted with the planning application and we are satisfied that the submitted information provided SDC with a good understanding of the ecological constraints associated with the proposed development site.

The following surveys have been carried out within the site:

Ecological Scoping Survey Dormouse Survey Amphibian Surveys Bat Surveys (activity and emergence) Reptile surveys (completed as part of previous planning applications)

The ecological surveys recorded the following within the site:

- Dormice - Common Pipistrelle and Brown Long Eared likely roosting within the

building. - At least 4 species of bat foraging within the site - Evidence of Foraging/Commuting Badger - Grass snake - Suitable breeding bird habitat

The proposed development will result in the loss of known bat roosts through the demolition of the buildings and the removal of existing woodland habitat along the southern and western boundaries of the site – this is due to the need to re-model the bunds on site to facilitate the development. The loss of

the woodland habitat will result in the loss of suitable dormouse habitat and bat foraging habitat.

Mitigation

The ecology report has provided a basic outline of what mitigation will be implemented if planning permission is granted. We advise that if planning permission is granted there would be a requirement for a detailed mitigation strategy to be submitted as a condition of planning permission.

The mitigation within the report includes the planting of 0.4 ha of woodland/hedgerows within the boundary of the site and the creation of bat roosts features within the proposed development.

We advise that SDC require additional information to be submitted confirming why the ecologists are satisfied that sufficient woodland/hedgerows will be planted to retain and support the dormouse population. A large area of bramble is present within the site which is likely to be used by foraging dormice and unfortunately this habitat has not been incorporated in to the proposed mitigation strategy.

The design of the proposed development means that the garden’s back on to the hedgerow/wooded boundary and it is likely that it will be the owners responsibility to manage the boundary. As such we do have concerns that the boundary will not be managed to benefit dormice long term.

We recommend that the following additional information is submitted prior to determination of the planning application clarifying the following:

Suitability of the proposed dormouse mitigation to retain the dormouse population.

How the applicant will ensure that the hedgerow/woodland area will be retained and managed appropriately.

Precautionary mitigation

Due to the presence of breeding birds, badgers and occasional grass snakes the report has advised that a precautionary mitigation approach must be implemented for these species when carrying out works within the site. We advise that for these species we are satisfied with this approach.

Lighting

As discussed within the submitted report lighting can be detrimental to roosting, foraging and commuting bats. The results of the bat surveys must be used to inform the design of the lighting scheme.

We also advise that the Bat Conservation Trust’s Bats and Lighting in the UK guidance is adhered to in the lighting design (see end of this note for a summary of key requirements).

Enhancements

One of the principles of the National Planning Policy Framework is that “opportunities to incorporate biodiversity in and around developments should be encouraged”.

The submitted report has made a number of recommendations to enhance the site – including re-profiling the pond.

We would expect the proposed enhancements to be retained and managed in perpetuity.

Management Plan

There is a need to ensure that a management plan is produced and implemented if planning permission is granted. We would advise that a management plan is submitted as a condition of planning permission – if granted. The management plan must include details of who will be responsible for the long term management of the site.

This response was submitted following consideration of the following document(s):

Ecological Appraisal; Aspect Ecology; November 2015

Bats and Lighting in the UK Bat Conservation Trust and Institution of Lighting Engineers Summary of requirements

The two most important features of street and security lighting with respect to bats are:

1. The UV component. Low or zero UV installations are preferred to reduce attraction of insects to lighting and therefore to reduce the attraction of foraging bats to these areas.

2. Restriction of the area illuminated. Lighting must be shielded to maintain dark areas, particularly above lighting installations, and in many cases, land adjacent to the areas illuminated. The aim is to maintain dark commuting corridors for foraging and commuting bats. Bats avoid well lit areas, and these create barriers for flying bats between roosting and feeding areas.

UV characteristics:

Low Low pressure Sodium Lamps (SOX) emit a minimal UV component. High pressure Sodium Lamps (SON) emit a small UV component. White SON, though low in UV, emit more than regular SON.

High

Metal Halide lamps emit more UV than SON lamps, but less than Mercury lamps

Mercury lamps (MBF) emit a high UV component. Tungsten Halogen, if unfiltered, emit a high UV component Compact Fluorescent (CFL), if unfiltered, emit a high UV component.

Variable Light Emitting Diodes (LEDs) have a range of UV outputs. Variants are

available with low or minimal UV output.

Glass glazing and UV filtering lenses are recommended to reduce UV output.

Street lighting

Low-pressure sodium or high-pressure sodium must be used instead of mercury or metal halide lamps. LEDs must be specified as low UV. Tungsten halogen and CFL sources must have appropriate UV filtering to reduce UV to low levels.

Lighting must be directed to where it is needed and light spillage avoided. Hoods must be used on each lamp to direct light and contain spillage. Light leakage into hedgerows and trees must be avoided.

If possible, the times during which the lighting is on overnight must be limited to provide some dark periods. If the light is fitted with a timer this must be adjusted to reduce the amount of 'lit time' and provide dark periods.

Security and domestic external lighting

The above recommendations concerning UV output and direction apply. In addition:

Lighting should illuminate only ground floor areas - light should not leak upwards to illuminate first floor and higher levels;

Lamps of greater than 2000 lumens (150 W) must not be used; Movement or similar sensors must be used - they must be carefully

installed and aimed, to reduce the amount of time a light is on each night;

Light must illuminate only the immediate area required, by using as sharp a downward angle as possible;

Light must not be directed at or close to bat roost access points or flight paths from the roost - a shield or hood can be used to control or restrict the area to be lit;

Wide angle illumination must be avoided as this will be more disturbing to foraging and commuting bats as well as people and other wildlife;

Lighting must not illuminate any bat bricks and boxes placed on buildings, trees or other nearby locations.

4.14 K.C.C. (Planning - Archaeology)

On original submission :

Conclusion : Unfortunately I feel that the submitted desk-based assessment has a number of shortcomings and does not provide the level of detail, structured assessment, or consideration of the site’s archaeological interest that I would expect in such a document. I have not had any prior discussion with the applicant or their archaeological contractor in terms of the scope of the desk-based assessment.

Given the level of uncertainty it would be preferable if the applicant could be asked to submit a revised desk-based assessment that includes a more detailed assessment of the site’s past impacts, including a more detailed walkover survey.

Discussion :

As you note the application is accompanied by an archaeological desk-based assessment that was prepared on behalf of the applicant by SWAT Archaeology.

Unfortunately I feel that the submitted desk-based assessment has a number of shortcomings and does not provide the level of detail, structured assessment, or consideration of the site’s archaeological interest that I would expect in such a document. I have not had any prior discussion with the applicant or their archaeological contractor in terms of the scope of the desk-based assessment.

Given the previously developed nature of the site a robust assessment of past site impacts would have been particularly useful, so that we could properly understand how the construction of the existing sheds and associated landscaping might have impacted the site’s archaeological potential.

Unfortunately the desk-based assessment is particularly poor in this respect. If we had been consulted on the scope of the desk-based assessment then we would have suggested a detailed impact assessment should form a major part of the study. A site visit was undertaken as part of the study in October 2015, but in my opinion the results of this walkover survey are poorly presented and there is no detailed description of the outcome of this site visit or observations made.

There would also appear to be little co-ordination between the various specialists preparing the supporting documentation. For example the desk-based assessment notes at 4.1.5 that no geotechnical investigations have been carried out at the site, but a report on a geo-environmental investigation by BJB Consulting has been submitted as part of the application. The ground investigation report suggests intrusive investigations were undertaken in May and June 2015 and therefore should have been taken account of in the archaeological desk-based assessment which is dated November 2015. The results of the geo-environmental investigations

should have been used to inform the impact assessment in the archaeological desk-based assessment.

In terms of impacts the desk-based assessment concludes that there are some areas of the site, for instance the north area and the verges of Stone Street which are considered to have surviving archaeological potential. I note however that accompanying plans appear to show an existing pond in the northern area of the site, whilst the geotechnical report seems to suggest surviving topsoil is either very thin or entirely absent within these areas, perhaps indicating past truncation. The accompanying plans do not appear to show any major impacts along the verges of Stone Street, with the houses largely set back from the present road frontage. It is therefore unclear what potential there is for archaeology to survive at the site and what impacts the proposed development might have on this potential.

The desk-based assessment suggests that an archaeological condition should be attached to any forthcoming planning consent, however without the benefit of a proper impact assessment I do not feel that I have sufficient information to advise you whether an such a condition would be justified.

Given this uncertainty it would be preferable if the applicant could be asked to submit a revised desk-based assessment that includes a more detailed assessment of the site’s past impacts, including a more detailed walkover survey. I appreciate however that there may not now be time to ask for such information? Therefore if you are minded to determine the application on the basis of the existing desk-based assessment I would suggest it would be better to err on the side of caution and include an archaeological condition as suggested in the desk-based assessment. The following covers what would be required:

AR1 No development shall take place until the applicant, or their agents or successors in title, has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written specification and timetable which has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure that features of archaeological interest are properly examined and recorded.

Comments on Revised details

I am following up on my previous comments of the 15th February 2015 on the application for redevelopment of the former Stonegate Farmers site. As you may recall I previously noted that the archaeological desk-assessment submitted with the application did not provide the level of detail that we would expect in such a document.

The applicant’s archaeological contractor subsequently prepared a letter responding to my comments (dated 21st February 2016, but not sent until 22 March 2016). Unfortunately this letter still did not properly address the issues outlined in my previous correspondence.

I have therefore had to spend additional time looking at the past impacts, and hence it has taken me slightly longer to get back to you than I would have hoped.

It is clear from the site geo-technical site investigations, historic mapping and site topographical survey that there has been a considerable amount of past disturbance at the site. Nevertheless it would seem that there are some discrete areas that have seen little past disturbance and which correspond with where new development is proposed.

Given the mixed levels of disturbance across the site I would suggest that the archaeological potential is not uniform and there are clearly some areas where the past disturbance would seem to be severe. I would however suggest that there are other areas where a programme of archaeological works would be warranted. A proper archaeological impact assessment should be the first phase in any archaeological programme so that investigations can be appropriately targeted. The following programme of archaeological works condition could be used to secure this work:

No development shall take place until the applicant, or their agents or successors in title, has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written specification and timetable which has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure that features of archaeological interest are properly examined and recorded.

4.15 KCC (Economic Development)

We refer to the above planning application which concerns proposed residential development at Stonegate Farmers, Stone Street, Stelling Minnis and comprising: 30 households (including 9 Starter Homes).

The County Council has assessed the implications of this proposal in terms of the delivery of its community services and is of the opinion that it will have an additional impact on the delivery of its services, which will require mitigation either through the direct provision of infrastructure or the payment of an appropriate financial contribution.

The Planning Act 2008 and the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 (the CIL Regulations) (Regulation 122) require that requests for development contributions of various kinds must comply with three specific legal tests:

1. Necessary, 2. Related to the development, and 3. Reasonably related in scale and kind

These tests have been duly applied in the context of this planning application and give rise to the following specific requirements (the evidence supporting

these requirements is set out in the attached Appendices). [Appendices on application file.]

Request Summary

Primary Education (extension cost) – towards Bodsham School reconfiguration.

Per Starter Home (x 9) £2360.96Per ‘applicable house’ (x21) (2360.96

Library Bookstock – towards additional bookstock required to mitigate the impact of the new borrowers from this development.

Per Starter Home (x 9) £48.02Per ‘applicable house’ (x21) £48.02

Broadband Contribution

Before development commences details shall be submitted (or as part of reserved matters) for the installation offixed infrastructure and High Speed Optic (minimal internal speed of 100mb) connections to multi point destinations and all buildings including residential, commercial and community. This shall provide sufficient capacity, including duct sizing to cater for all future phases of the development with sufficient flexibility to meet the needs of existing and future residents. The infrastructure shall be laid out in accordance with the approved details and at the same time as other services during the construction process.

INFORMATIVE – The BT GPON system is currently being rolled out in Kent by BDUK. This is a laid fibre optical network offering a single optical fibre to multi point destinations i.e. fibre direct to premises.

These requests are considered to comply with the Planning Legislation (NPPF Para 72), new development is to be sustainable and mitigate its impact upon local facilities. KCC have, in accordance with KCC policy, identified expansion of existing Primary Schools to provide capacity locally to accommodate the further pupils arising.

5.0 PUBLICITY

5.1 Neighbours notified by letter. Expiry date 29 January 2016

5.2 Site Notice. Expiry date 5 February 2016

5.3 Press Notice. Expiry date 11 February 2016

6.0 REPRESENTATIONS

6.1 4 letters/emails received objecting or raising concerns on the following grounds:

The scale of the proposal will dramatically change the character of the area;

The proposal equates to putting a housing estate away from either Stelling Minnis or Elmsted communities;

Thorn Lane floods after prolonged rainfall and is too deep for a normal car to negotiate;

The extra traffic generated is far too much for the condition of the road, there are already too many road traffic accidents on Stone Street;

There is very limited public transport, no footpaths and very dangerous for pedestrians wishing to cross the road to get to Stelling Minnis as they will have to cross a busy road with 60mph limit which is often ignored;

Excessive number of houses for site causing major traffic movements, including large commercial vehicles such as oil, gas and sewerage tankers on a single track lane;

More traffic on Dean Hill and Clapper Hill – both small lanes with bind bends;

Proposed access on Thorn Lane very close to Stone Street while vehicles turning into Thorn Lane often travel at high speeds, dangerous to cars turning out of the site;

Vehicle back up onto Stone Street due to congestion in Thorn Lane as lane narrow, not enough room for two vehicles to pass;

Visibility onto Stone Street is not good at junction because lane is below level of the verges; (Accidents records for this junction);

Flooding at the proposed site entrance is often severe making the road impassable – run off from the site will exacerbate flooding;

Lack of mains drainage means potential flooding of septic tanks will contaminate flood water;

Light pollution in AONB; 50mph speed limit needs to be extended or preferable speed reduced

to 40mph through the junction zone as at the Farthing Common end of Stone Street.

6.3 4 letters of support has been received raising the following points:

Pleased to see rural office space being provided; Site been a longstanding eyesore in the area- serving no good purpose

for well over a decade; The proposal is an opportunity to increase safety of the Curtis

Lane/B2068 junction; Support provision of housing for local people; Affordable Housing is much needed for both Elmsted and Stelling

Minnis; Planning permission for commercial use ‘was never a viable option’; the applicant’s have offered to fund road improvements on both the

B2068 junctions with Thorn Lane and Curtis Lane.

7.0 RELEVANT POLICY GUIDANCE

7.1 The full headings for the policies are attached to the schedule of planning matters at Appendix 1.

7.2 The following policies of the Shepway District Local Plan Review apply:

SD1, BE1, BE8, BE16, BE17, LR9, LR10, U2, U3, U4, U10a, U15, TR5, TR11, TR12, CO1, CO4, CO11, CO16, HO1

7.3 The following policies of the Shepway Local Plan Core Strategy apply:

DSD, SS1, SS2, SS3, SS5, CSD1, CSD3, CSD4, CSD5

7.4 The following Supplementary Planning Documents and Government Guidance apply:

National Planning Policy Framework - particularly paragraphs 9, 14, 17, 22, 28, 32, 42, 49, 55, 56, 57, 58, 109, 115, 116, 118, 121, 123

7.5 Advice set out in the National Planning Policy Guidance

8.0 APPRAISAL

Background

8.1 In the submitted planning statement the applicant considers that the site’s lawful use is as class B8 use and the site therefore meets the definition of ‘previously developed land’ under Annex 2 of the NPPF.

8.2 It is noted that no Lawful Development Certificate application has been submitted to the Local Planning Authority to secure the lawful position and Officers have advised the applicant at pre-application stage that such a position was not formally agreed by the Council.

8.3 In respect to the use of the site, prior to its closure, planning permission for the existing development on the site was granted under planning applicationSH/87/1444 (Demolition of existing poultry farm and construction of two egg production units and packing shed - Approved 12 December 1988).

8.4 Prior to this 1988 planning permission the planning record shows the site as being an ‘egg farm’ (agricultural use) historically and the site remained in an agricultural use with the granting and commencement of the 1988 planning permission. After 1988 the planning record then records planning applications for the site being for further poultry laying sheds and an agricultural dwelling.

8.5 In 2006 an element of storage/distribution gained planning permission (Y06/0257/SH) and commenced within the site with eggs from other local

sources being imported onto the site also for distribution, in addition to the eggs laid by chickens on the site. It is accepted therefore that there is an element of formal use under a Class B8 use but this is alongside the predominant agricultural use that continued on the site.

8.6 Planning applications to diversify the use of the buildings on the site to Class B1, B2 and B8 uses were granted planning permission under references Y10/0608/SH and Y14/0754/SH but have never been implemented.

8.7 The site was refused planning permission in December 2014 for redevelopment for housing and class B1 commercial floorspace under application Y14/1102/SH (Outline application for a mixed use development comprising 1,720 sq. metres of Business (Class B1) commercial floorspace, 9 No. 4 bed dwellings). The reason for refusal was:

“The application site is located within the Kent Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and Special Landscape Area and the proposal would result in unacceptable residential development in the countryside outside the confines of an existing village or rural settlement without special justification, without proper consideration of sequentially preferential sites and unrelated to a business re-use, and as such would not constitute sustainable development. Consequently, it is considered to be contrary to saved policies SD1 and CO1 of the Shepway District Local Plan Review, policies SS1, SS3 and CSD3 of the Shepway Core Strategy Local Plan 2013 and Government guidance in paragraphs 17, 28 and 49 of the National Planning Policy Framework, which support a presumption in favour of sustainable development and seek to protect the countryside for its own sake by directing development toward existing sustainable settlements, in accordance with the adopted settlement hierarchy.”

Relevant Material Planning Considerations

8.8 - Principle- Rural Economy- Sustainable Development- Major Development in the AONB- Design/Layout- Impact on the character of the area/AONB- Amenities- Highways and Parking- Archaeology- Ecology- Contamination/Drainage- Obligations- Affordable Housing-Community Infrastructure Levy- Other matters

Principle

8.9 The NPPF at its core presumes in favour of ‘sustainable development’ and in its ‘core principles’ at paragraph 17 encourages the effective reuse of brownfield sites (previously developed land) that are not of high environmental value.

8.10 The NPPF definition of ‘previously developed land’ states in part ‘This excludes: land that is or has been occupied by agricultural or forestry buildings...’

8.11 Officers consider that the extant use of the site appears to be primarily of an intensive agricultural use, as per s336 of the TCPA 1990 (amended) - “agriculture” includes horticulture, fruit growing, seed growing, dairy farming, the breeding and keeping of livestock (including any creature kept for the production of food, wool, skins or fur, or for the purpose of its use in the farming of land), the use of land as grazing land, meadow land, osier land, market gardens and nursery grounds, and the use of land for woodlands where that use is ancillary to the farming of land for other agricultural purposes, and “agricultural” shall be construed accordingly”. The buildings for this use remain on the site. There is also seen to be a lesser element of storage and distribution use with eggs also having been bought into the site from local sources.

8.12 ‘Land that is or has been occupied by agricultural ...buildings’ is specifically excluded from the definition of ‘previously developed land’ (Brownfield) within the NPPF.

8.13 This aspect is material in the consideration of the current application, given it is your officer’s view that the entire application site does not constitute Previously Developed Land in accordance with the definition set out in the appendices of the NPPF.

Rural Economy

8.14 The NPPF ‘core principles’ seeks to proactively drive and support economic development that is sustainable and addresses business needs of the area.The NPPF also supports the creation of a strong rural economy (para 28), including development that respects the character of the countryside and supports communities and visitors, tourism and leisure activities. The NPPF also states that the planning system should operate to encourage not impede economic growth and that significant weight should be placed on the need to support economic growth through the planning system. For agricultural land the NPPF promotes ‘the development and diversification of agricultural and other land-based rural businesses’ (para 28).

8.15 Policy CO16 of the Shepway Local Plan Review supports farm diversification, in part, where ‘the proposal would not prejudice the agricultural working of the farm unit’.

8.16 Policy CSD3 of the Shepway Core Strategy allows for ‘sustainable rural diversification’ related to agricultural, forestry or equine development; replacement of buildings on a like-for-like basis; the conversion of buildings

that contribute to the character of their location; as well as ‘affordable housing’ that meets the ‘rural exceptions’ tests.

8.17 Policy SS2 of the Shepway Core Strategy relates to 'Housing and Economic Growth Strategy' and states that'...business activity and the provision of jobs will be facilitated through.....concerted efforts to deliver rural regeneration (especially in the south and west of Shepway).'

8.18 In this case the use of the site has ceased and the site has remained vacant for a number of years, becoming increasingly dilapidated. Planning permissions have also been granted for alternate, commercial, uses of the existing buildings on the site but these have not been implemented. It would not appear from the submitted marketing evidence that the site was available for sale for majority of the period since the closure of the egg production business and as such it would appear that the site has been allowed to remain vacant and become derelict by the owner of the site, prior to its recent sale to the applicant.

8.19 The current proposal on its face is primarily for housing with a small element of office space (465sqm) and is not considered to constitute a ‘diversification’ of the agricultural use.

8.20 Notwithstanding that the applicant’s planning statement advises that the site constitutes ‘previously developed land’, against the conclusions and informal advice of Council officers, the applicant has sought to justify the redevelopment of the site primarily for housing instead of redevelopment to provide rural business use, which is more acceptable in policy terms, in that they consider that ‘there is a large oversupply of employment land in the District in quantative terms’ and the regeneration of the contaminated site would ‘provide an opportunity to create new employment within the B1 units’, enabled by the delivery of the proposed housing.

8.21 In summary therefore it is apparent that the site does not meet the NPPF definition of ‘previously developed land’ and the proposal does not constitute a diversification of the predominant agricultural use of the land. The proposal does however provide an element of alternative commercial use of a type that has been previously approved on the site but not bought forward.

8.22 On balance the provision of the class B1 element of the proposal is considered to comply with the provisions of the NPPF, Core Strategy and Local Plan policies. However the large provision of housing on the site is not considered to meet policy and guidance, which would seek firstly to retain this site in an agricultural use, after which a business(es) use of the site would be considered.

Sustainable Development

8.24 At a national level the National Planning Policy Framework [NPPF] reaffirms the presumption in favour of sustainable development outlined in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended). Policy DSD of the Shepway Core Strategy and policy SD1 of the Shepway Local Plan Review also

presume in favour of sustainable development (unless harm will result from the proposal).

8.25 However, it must be noted that whilst the NPPF presumes in favour of sustainable development generally it caveats this in footnote to paragraph 14 (footnote 9) and excludes presumption in favour (in part) from land designated as Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The application site falls within the Kent Downs AONB and therefore even if the proposal is considered to constitute ‘sustainable’ development there is no presumption in its favour for development of this site within the NPPF.

8.26 Within the Shepway Core Strategy, policy SS1 addresses the primary Core Strategy aims and sets out the strategic priorities for each of the defined character areas of the district. Within policy SS1 the future spatial priority for new development in the North Downs Area is accommodating development outside of the AONB and without material impact upon its setting; consolidating Hawkinge's growth; and sensitively meeting the needs of communities within the AONB at better-served settlements.

8.27 Policy SS3 of the Core Strategy directs development toward existing sustainable settlements in order to protect the open countryside, with table 4.3 (in the preamble to this policy) setting out the settlement hierarchy in relation to accommodating place-shaping change, clarifying places not regarded as countryside, guiding regeneration priorities and co-ordinating development location decisions overall. Policy CSD4 of the Core Strategy states in part that ‘Planning decisions will have close regard to the need for conservation and enhancement of natural beauty in the AONB and its setting, which will take priority over other planning considerations.’ Elsewhere development must not jeopardise the protection and enhancement of the distinctive and diverse local landscapes in Shepway (especially where these support the setting of the AONB), and must reflect the need for attractive and high-quality open spaces throughout the district.’

8.28 The NPPF defines ‘Sustainable development’ as having three dimensions: economic, social and environmental.

8.29 In support of the proposal the applicant has provided a Sustainability Assessment [SA] and Sustainability Report [SR] and the applicant concludes that the development constitutes ‘sustainable development’.

8.30 The applicant highlights in their SA paragraph 14 of the NPPF which

requires development proposals that accord with the development plan to be approved without delay; and where the development plan is absent, silent or out-of-date, it requires planning permission to be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed in the Framework taken as a whole, or specific policies of the Framework indicate that development should be restricted.

8.31 Within the SA the applicant considers that the proposed development should be considered to be sustainable under the terms of the NPPF and Local Policy.

8.32 Officers are mindful that in coming to this conclusion the applicant is not correct in their views contained within the SA and SR in respect to the status and standing of the Council’s Core Strategy and Local Plan policy documents and various other aspects in coming to their conclusion. The applicant has also not taken account of the footnote to paragraph 14 of the NPPF that excludes sustainable development within an AONB from a ‘presumption in favour.’

8.33 Officers consider that the Core Strategy and Local Plan documents are up to date and are material considerations in determination of this application and that the current proposal, as outlined in the SA, conflicts with the principles and specifics of both national and local planning policy on multiple parameters.

Location and sustainability

8.34 Paragraph 55 of the NPPF sets out that housing should be located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities and that isolated new homes in the countryside should be avoided without justification, such as: essential need for rural workers; related to the preservation of a heritage asset; re-use of redundant buildings; exceptional design of a building. Paragraph 32 of the NPPF directs that it is taken into account whether new development; takes opportunities to use sustainable modes of transport; provides safe and suitable access for all people; incorporates improvements within the transport network which limit significant impacts of the development on/to the highway network as a result of the development.

8.35 The application site is not associated with any particular settlement, but is nearest to Stelling Minnis, a little under 1km to its east and on the opposite side of Stone Street, which is a single carriageway distributor road (B2068) with a current traffic speed restriction of 60mph.

8.36 Within the table 4.3 of the Shepway Core Strategy, Stelling Minnis is identified as a secondary village that can "provide crucial rural facilities to visitors and their own residents and workforce, in line with local needs, their environment, and role as relatively small country settlements". However, it is made clear at paragraph 4.63 of the Shepway Core Strategy that "To maintain the character and integrity of the countryside, and protect small rural places, the extent of settlements is defined through boundaries separating settlements from open countryside." The policies map shows that the application site is outside of any defined settlement boundaries. (Although it must be clarified that Stelling Minnis has no defined settlement boundary.)

8.38 Within the Shepway Core Strategy, policy CSD3 seeks to protect the countryside from inappropriate development that does not require a countryside location although a range of exceptions to this are listed, similar to paragraph 55 of the NPPF, but with a broader range to cover infrastructure. Policy SS1 of the Shepway Core Strategy identifies the strategic priorities for future development being on urban, brownfield sites. Saved policy HO1 of the Shepway Local Plan Review permits housing on

previously developed sites or infill within urban areas. Policy SS3 of the Core Strategy requires development within Shepway to be directed towards previously developed land within the urban area. Saved policy SD1 of the Shepway Local Plan (2006) states that the priority is to “locate new development within or around existing built-up areas, especially on previously developed land, in preference to ‘greenfield’ sites”.

8.39 In this case it has already been noted that the proposal does not meet the NPPF core principles as it involves the redevelopment of land that does not fully meet the definition of being ‘previously developed’ (Brownfield) and also does not meet the exceptional tests for development in a countryside location.

8.40 As already discussed Officers are not in agreement with the applicant in respect to the lawful use of the land given its agricultural production previous use (as per s336 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended)), further, the relationship of the location to a built-up area, an attribute of being ‘sustainable’, is extremely precarious being about 1km from Stelling Minnis, crossing fast-flowing main road (Stone Street) and currently without pedestrian crossing facilities, and then there is no link to any footpaths or roads with pedestrian footways on the eastern side of Stone Street leading to Stelling Minnis.

8.41 It is noted that there is a Public Right of Way (PROW HE14) crossing an agricultural field on the eastern side of Stone Street, that leads to Stelling Minnis.

8.42 Furthermore Stelling Minnis is classed in the core strategy as a “secondary village”, which the core strategy explains functions as the lowest tier settlements providing “crucial rural facilities to visitors and their own residents and workforce, in line with local needs, their environment, and role as relatively small country settlements.”

8.43 It is unrealistic to expect future occupiers not to also travel regularly to more major local centres – Hawkinge, Lyminge, Folkestone, Canterbury or Ashford and therefore the amount of housing proposed within the application exceeds the settlement ‘status’ of Stelling Minnis set out in the Core Strategy Local Plan

8.44 In respect to access to bus services the company that runs the local bus service, Stagecoach Buses, confirms that the site is only directly served by a single bus journey (mornings) to Canterbury on schooldays only, and an afternoon journey from Canterbury, again on schooldays only. The nearest alternative bus route is Route 18, which provides 5 journeys to Canterbury and 5 to Hythe on Mondays to Saturdays but the nearest bus stops are in Stelling Minnis village - a 1km walk from the proposed development.

8.45 Stagecoach Buses confirm that the additional housing proposed will not be sufficient on its own to support a viable and sustainable enhancement to the existing bus service and they consider that the building of houses and offices

at the site is likely to generate additional car journeys into Canterbury, thus adding to already high levels of traffic congestion.

8.46 The applicant contends the feasibility of the “Kent Karrier” service providing “access to town centres such as Ashford, Deal, Folkestone, Hythe and many other locations” (paragraph 5.8 SA). However, this is not considered to counter the lack of a formal bus service for the site. The Kent Karrier service, operated by the County Council, is a subscription service that undertakes one journey per week to Ashford (Monday), and one journey either to Deal or to Folkestone/Hythe (Friday) from Stelling Minnis, for residents to be able to attend hospital appointments.

8.47 Any theoretical use by occupiers of the development of the ‘Kent Karrier’ would not be considered as suitable, in planning terms, as an alternative to use of a private vehicle.

8.48 In paragraph 5.1 of the applicant’s SA it is noted that all available local services are more than 800m from the site [the ‘Manual for Streets’ distance to services that the Council has used in the writing of the Shepway Core Strategy policies], and some services are at significantly greater distance. In paragraph 5.2 of the SA, the applicant refers to the Institute of Highways and Transportation document ‘Providing for Journeys on Foot’. This provides more generous distances for commuting on foot, but still the development fails to meet these, and so it can only be concluded that the development will be almost exclusively serviced by vehicular traffic and thus is not sustainable in its location away from settlements and amenities in the area.

8.49 During the course of the application following negotiation with Officers the applicant has proposed a package of highway works and other elements to create a better linkage of the site to Stelling Minnis for pedestrians. (Discussed later in this report.) By doing so the applicant seeks to mitigate against the isolated nature of the site, decrease the reliance of occupiers of the proposed development on car use to access amenities and improve the take-up of alternative modes of transport.

8.50 Whilst the proposed package of connectivity works are considered to be acceptable and provide an improvement in connectivity they do not fundamentally change the isolated location of the site given both its distance and poor connectivity to Stelling Minnis, and its more significant distance from larger villages that provide a wider range of services to meet the daily needs of the population. There are also questions at this time if the package proposed to improve connectivity is in fact deliverable as the required preliminary agreements to achieve the TRO and PROW/new footpath are not in place and involve the agreement of parties other than the applicant.

Social sustainability

8.51 The applicant’s submitted Sustainability Assessment proposes to create a sense of place and community (paragraph 7.8) in the development, and consider that the proposal will enhance social cohesion through the provision of a mix of housing and employment space.

8.52 During the course of the application the applicant has amended the proposal to replace the originally proposed nine ‘starter home’ units (which did not accord with the Government’s recognised standards for ‘Starter Homes’) with nine ‘shared equity’ units, which are a recognised form of affordable housing product.

8.53 However the development on site cannot be considered to be providing a mixed community in itself and given the spatial distance between this site and the closest village(s), this social aspect of sustainability would be challenging in this location.

8.54 As discussed under the ‘Location and sustainability’ section above the package of works to provide improved pedestrian linkages to Stelling Minnis only provide limited mitigation and connectivity and the spatial relationship of the site to rural villages means that there is no meaningful housing mix, or social cohesion of future occupiers of the site, with the wider community.

8.55 Furthermore the ‘suburban’ layout of the proposed development does not encourage social integration within the site and whilst the applicant has added an area of local play space during the course of the application, the development does not provide any meaningful area of informal open space (as required by policy LR9) in which children/families can play informally together, hold community events etc, and in this way also the proposal fails to meet ‘social sustainability aspects of ‘sustainable development’. Officers have made it clear to the applicant that provision should be made within the site for a meaningful, usable open space at the heart of the development that would provide for a ‘green.’ The policy requirement for such open space, including play space is for 1650m2 to be provided, however the application provides for approximately 1/3 of this area. Whilst amendments have been sought by officers, with the suggestion of the removal of a property (unit 8) to provide for a central green the applicant has not amended plans to meet adopted policy requirements.

Economic sustainability

8.56 The applicant has submitted a marketing report in support of the proposal together with an ‘Economic Benefits Statement’.

8.57 The proposal is mixed use in nature, comprising commercial and residential development as one application, with the applicant having advised the Officers that the residential aspect was enabling development for the delivery of the commercial redevelopment of the site as a consequence of market conditions and redevelopment costs. The current proposal includes 465sqm of B1 office space divided into three spaces of the same size and layout. However the application does not propose the delivery of the office units, instead extending only to ‘...provide a ready site and advertise the units’ by the time of the occupation of the 15th house on the site.

8.58 As already considered the principle of the redevelopment of the site for commercial purposes is supported in policy terms, given the

existing/potential commercial use at the site and the existing built form and the support of the rural economy also a material factor.

8.59 A recent permission (Y14/0754/SH) for the commercial re-use of the buildings remains extant and a historic permission (Y10/0608/SH) for the redevelopment of the site for commercial purposes was also granted but has now expired.

8.60 The applicant’s marketing report, submitted with the application, identifies that around 20,000 sq. ft (1858sqm) of commercial floorspace could reasonably be expected to be sold/let, given current market trends and the amount of floorspace already on the market. The report also identifies that units in the 1000 to 2000 sq ft category (93sqm to 186sqm) are the most likely to be let, although the addendum to the marketing report states that the market for 5000 sq ft units (465sqm) is picking up, with the demand mainly being for newer/purpose built units, especially in 'secondary' locations that are not closely associated with motorway junctions etc. Given the above the application itself identifies there is demand for the employment proposed, once units are provided. Planning policy evidence base further identifies a lack of new, high quality units being provided, rather than a lack of demand for such units within the district.

8.62 The Y14/0754/SH planning permission accepted a reduction in commercial floorspace from approximately 7845 sq metres to 5700 sq metres, as it would bring a redundant agricultural/commercial site back into use. However, whilst this is a loss of commercial floorspace in the district, it has been accepted that the egg production unit will not become active again and the recently permitted B1/B8 use has not been implemented.

8.63 The current proposal would see a further reduction from the 5700 sq metres of the B1/B8 use permitted, to 465 sq metres.

8.64 Whilst the applicant in the Sustainability Assessment notes that there is a large oversupply of employment land in the district (paragraph 6.6), what the application submission cannot account for is the potential for the relocation of existing businesses, perhaps by virtue of the size of the site and being able to extend an existing business or that, compare to some other rural business sites, the location directly onto the B2068 would be a betterment of access. Such aspects might be more readily understood by consideration of the marketing for the site and resultant interest.

8.65 The applicant’s Marketing Report details the ‘Marketing Campaign’ for the sale of the site and details that the marketing process commenced on 13th February 2015 when, it states, the premises were advertised for sale ‘on an unconditional basis’. (It is noted that the advertising boards erected on the site clearly stated ‘Commercial Development Opportunity’ and an extant planning permission for the redevelopment of the site for B1, B2 and B8 use was in place). The report states that the premises were put ‘under offer’ to the applicant in July 2015 and exchanged within 8 weeks.

8.66 Therefore the marketing of the site from first advert to ‘under offer’ was about 4 and a half to 5 and a half months.

8.67 The report details the ‘Market Interest’ within this period resulted in sealed bids for the site, of which it records ‘only one was received that was both unconditional and had evidence of financial backing’. It further advises that ‘difficulties in marketing the property were encountered with some interested parties being deterred by the inherent liabilities associated with a building of this age, such as asbestos. It was considered that significant and an unviable amount of expenditure was required to update the buildings and make them usable.’

8.68 However it is noted that other sealed bids were received for the site (as not all other parties were deterred), and conceivably a redevelopment for commercial use would have been able to occupy the site with much less need for remediation or redevelopment if they had been successful. (Remediation costs to bring a contaminated site up to standards suitable for residential occupation are greater than would be required for most alternative commercial uses). Clearly details of other bids for the procurement of the site are not known, nor are the nature of the other bidders, the intended use of the site or the nature of the ‘conditions’ that would have been required by the other bidders, which may have been straightforward and/or unexceptional.

8.70 In the short time that the site was on the market, after many years of not being available for purchase, it would appear that there was interest in the site by parties other than the applicant, who seek planning permission to primarily deliver housing on an unallocated site. The NPPF (paragraph 22) says that ‘planning policies should avoid long term protection of sites allocated for employment use where there is no reasonable prospect of the site being used for that purpose’, and whilst this site is not allocated for employment use, in policy terms it should be retained in the first instance for alternative agricultural and/or business use to support a prosperous rural economy.

8.72 It is not considered that a robust case has been made by the applicant that there is ‘no reasonable prospect’ of the site being used for holistic or predominantly employment use and as such there remains objection to the housing element of the proposal in principle.

Ecological Sustainability

8.73 This aspect, in respect to biodiversity, will be considered in greater detail later in this report.

8.74 In this proposal the applicant commits to providing a development that accords with the Code for Sustainable Homes Level 4 and it is encouraging that a commitment to sustainable construction is offered. However, Written Ministerial Statement of 25th March 2015 removed the Code for Sustainable Homes from planning policy, and replaced water efficiency requirements with national standards.

8.75 In term of water sustainability, policy CSD5 of the Shepway Core Strategy, in part, requires that all developments should incorporate water efficiency measures that differ slightly from the new national standards as the Shepway District is identified as a ‘water scarcity’ area.

8.76 The policy states development for new dwellings should include specific design features and demonstrate a maximum level of usage should be of 105 litres per person per day or less. This usage level figure is adjusted to 110 litres per person per day under the guidance of Building Regulations Approved Document G (which came into effect in October 2015). This can be controlled by planning condition and no objection is raised in respect of this element of policy CDS5 of the core strategy.

8.77 In terms of Sustainable Drainage Systems (SUDs), from 6 April 2015 the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) required that planning authorities will ensure that SUDS systems are put in place via decisions on all planning applications for major development received after that date. In this case Kent County Council, as the Local Lead Flood Authority (LLFA) for the area, advises that, given the site location, there are limited options for surface water management. The applicant needs to co-ordinate with Southern Water and the LLFA with respect to an acceptable drainage strategy for the site. Following initial comments from both the LLFA and Southern Water the applicant has submitted a detailed drainage strategy for the site which is discussed in more detail in the Contamination/Drainage’ section of this report.

Major Development in AONB

8.78 It has already been noted that the application site falls outside of any settlement boundaries and as well as being located in the open countryside it is also located in the Kent Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and the North Downs Special Landscape Area.

8.79 The protection of valued and designated landscapes is made explicit in paragraphs 109 and 115 of the NPPF, with biodiversity conservation set out in paragraph 118.

8.80 Paragraph 115 of the NPPF notes that, “great weight should be given to conserving landscape and scenic beauty in National Parks, the Broads and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, which have the highest status of protection in relation to landscape and scenic beauty.” Core Strategy Policy CSD4 states that “planning decisions will have close regard to the need for conservation and enhancement of natural beauty in the AONB and its setting, which will take priority over other planning considerations.”

8.81 In relation to major developments in AONBs, paragraph 116 of the NPPF specifies that ‘planning permission should be refused for major developments in such areas except in exceptional circumstances and where it can be demonstrated that they are in the public interest.’ Considerations of such applications, the guidance states, ‘should include an assessment of :

the need for the development, including in terms of national considerations, and the impact of permitting it, or refusing it, upon the local economy; the cost of, and scope for, developing elsewhere outside of the designated area, or meeting the need in some other way; and any detrimental effect on the environment, the landscape and the recreational opportunities, and the extent to which that could be moderated.’

8.82 Whilst the NPPF presumes in favour of sustainable development generally it caveats this in the footnote to paragraph 14 (footnote 9) and excludes presumption in favour from land designated as Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

8.83 There is some discussion in respect to what constitutes ‘major development’ in respect to paragraph 116 of the NPPF. In this case Officers consider that, notwithstanding the TCPA definition of ‘major’ for procedural purposes, a development of this level of housing and employment floorspace, when seen in the context of the scattered small scale settlements that characterise the North Downs AONB, is greater in scale than some existing settlements and constitutes a significant proportion of the quantum of other settlements. As such the proposal is considered to constitute ‘major development’ for which consideration under paragraph 116 of the NPPF applies.

8.84 Shepway’s planning policies accord with the NPPF in respect to developments, and recommend against development in the AONB, and therefore the proposal does not accord with the sustainability principles implied and stated in national or local policy.

8.85 The present application fails to address this matter of ‘the scope to develop elsewhere’ at all. No evidence that housing particularly (given policy acceptance for agricultural/commercial redevelopment of the site) of the nature, scale and quantities proposed in this application cannot be accommodated elsewhere in the area, but outside the Kent Downs AONB. As such the application fails the alternative sites test. Furthermore, The Council is currently producing the ‘Places and Policies Local Plan’ which will seek to allocate development across the district, in accordance with the adopted settlement hierarchy to meet the housing requirements of the adopted Core Strategy Local Plan. The application site has not been proposed for allocation within the Preferred Options draft of this plan.

8.86 In terms of assessing the ‘exceptional circumstances’ for major development within the AONB paragraph 116 requires the consideration of any ‘exceptional justification’ related to the impact of the development on the local economy and the ‘need’ for the development.

8.87 The NPPF also takes into consideration that there may be opportunity to ‘moderate’ elements of ‘detrimental effect on the environment, the landscape and the recreational opportunities’ and as such these are secondary aspects to the consideration.

8.88 In respect to the impact on the local economy, as has already been discussed the proposed commercial floorspace is considered to meet with

planning policy in respect to its provision on this site. 8.89 It is difficult to compare the new employment proposal with the old in respect of jobs but certainly there is not considered to be a vast number of additional jobs supplied under the current proposal and no exceptional case in terms of the local economy is made. Furthermore, the redevelopment of the site in alternate business use is acceptable in policy terms but the site was sold after only a very short period of marketing and the case is not considered to have been made that there is ‘no reasonable prospect’ of the site being used for holistic or predominantly employment use.

8.90 In terms of the predominate ‘housing’ element of the proposal, which is

considered to be unsustainable due in part to its isolated location, the developer is minded that there is an exceptional need for this housing as they consider that the Council is not meeting its ‘five year housing supply’ and this justifies the delivery of this quantum of housing on this site, within the AONB.

8.91 This is not agreed by the Council who is minded that it is meeting its five year housing supply needs.

8.92 Core Strategy Policy SS2 (Housing and Economic Growth Strategy) states that the long term aim is to ensure the delivery of a minimum of 350 dwellings (7,000 in total) by 2030/31 with a target of 8,000 dwellings being built by the end of 2025/26 (equating to 400 dwellings per year).

8.93 The interpretation of this policy was considered and clarified by the judge at the High Court decision on the Lympne airfield case (appeal reference APP/L2250/A/13/2210752), who concluded that the appeal Inspector had interpreted policy SS2 of the Core Strategy properly and that the housing requirement was 350 dwellings per year and the 400 figure was a policy ‘target’.

8.94 Therefore, due to High Court decision, the requirement the District Council needs to meet is the lower figure of 350 dwellings to calculate the five year supply in accordance with Core Strategy policy. An Inspector considering a recent case (Pod Corner, Rye Road, Brookland, Romney Marsh (APP/L2250/W/15/3131423) upheld the High Court decision.

8.95 An updated review of housing delivery has just been completed (August 2016) and agrees with the published Authority Monitoring Report, identifying that delivery of the five year housing supply is being met within the district and an exceptional justification for the delivery of housing on this site, under paragraph 116 of the NPPF is not substantiated.

8.96 Furthermore, no case has been made that the 30 houses proposed could not be delivered outside of the AONB, within alternative sites that have been considered through the SHLAA process and are about to go out to consultation for the Places and Policies Local Plan Preferred Options document.

8.97 In terms of the aspects of ‘detrimental effect on the environment, the landscape and the recreational opportunities, and the extent to which that could be moderated’ these are considered in more detail within the other sections of the report but fundamentally the proposal to exceptionally provide significant major development within the AONB is unacceptable in principle. There is no presumption in favour of major sustainable development of predominantly housing within the AONB, and in fact the proposal is not considered to constitute sustainable development, and there are no exceptional justification put forward that would mean an alternative conclusion is justified in this application.

Design/Layout

8.98 The NPPF and saved local plan policy BE1 requires new development to be of ‘high quality’ housing in term of the appearance of the development, ensuring that the development density is appropriate for its location, the impact on the street scene and character of the area and also the functionality and layout of the development design. Paragraph 9 of the NPPF seeks positive improvements in the quality of the built environment (in part) by the ‘replacing poor design with better design’. Para 56 of the NPPF says that ‘good design is a key aspect of sustainable development’. Para 57 and 58 refer to high quality and inclusive design, that is visually attractive as a result of good architecture and appropriate landscaping, that adds to the overall quality of the area and responding to local character and history and reflecting the identity of local surroundings and materials, while not preventing or discouraging appropriate innovation.

8.99 Saved policy LR9 of the Shepway Local Plan Review requires that, in areas where open space deficiency exists that sites of 25 dwellings or more should provide open space on the site. Saved policy LR10 requires that developments containing 20 or more child bed spaces should provide children’s play space or make a commuted sum payment towards off site provision.

8.100 Following the submission of the application the Council has applied a Tree Preservation Order to a number of trees/groups of trees around the perimeter of the site. The removal of protected trees is moderated by policy BE17 of the Shepway District Local Plan Review and the retention of existing landscape features is the subject of policy BE16 of the local plan review.

8.101 In this case the visual impact of the existing large scale intensive farming buildings on the site, given that the use is in an appropriate rural location, has been mitigated by the use of very significant amounts of bunding and tree screening (much of it evergreen). As such from the public realm there is minimal appreciation of the development on the site.

8.102 The current proposal is for a very different form of development, being mostly residential and of the quantum proposed, and the enclosure of the site with large bunds and tree belts is not appropriate for that form of development.

8.103 Within the local area the pattern of residential development is of a scattered and irregular form with houses facing the public road network and clusters of dwellings forming hamlets and small settlements, often without defined boundaries. Whilst there are individual larger dwellings seen within the area these are not characteristic of the area and more generally dwellings are two storey in nature or bungalows.

8.104 In respect to Stelling Minnis, the closest village in the immediate area, its primary characteristic that is it ‘scattered’ over a large area, with some areas of more concentrated development.

8.105 In contrast this proposal is for twenty-two 3 to 5 bedroom houses and eight 2-bedroomed houses laid out in what is considered be a suburban grain, with a rural vernacular to the house designs. The layout of the development is highly organised and designed around car access, rather than seeking to deliver development appropriate and reflecting the rural character of the locality. This is further exacerbated by the lack of open space within the development, itself contrary to adopted policy and good design principles. The development is inward facing and enclosed with little relationship to the rural area in which it is located in terms of connectivity, historic housing patterns in the site’s immediate area or settlement patterns with the wider AONB area. The proposal provides a concentration of dwellings that do not relate to the wider area nor form a meaningful part of it nor have any meaningful relation to it. The density of the residential element of the development is approximately 10 dwellings per Hectare, whilst for new development this is low it is still markedly greater than that of the surrounding settlements, made up of isolated houses, small groups of properties and farmsteads.

8.106 The dwellings are of a mixed appearance by virtue of their design, size and footprint, resulting in dwellings of a rural vernacular including features such as steeply hipped roofs, catslide roofs, chimneys, partial timber weatherboard cladding, porches or porch-canopies. The general brick type to be used would be a red multistock brick with multi-red mix plain clay tiles. The height of proposed the houses are two and two-and-a-half storey, with some dwellings incorporating habitable space within the roofspace. The materials palette advised for the development are of a good quality and overall the houses are of a pleasing appearance.

8.107 The two commercial buildings proposed are two storey in height and are proposed to be timber clad with four way hipped roofs and central ‘chimney’ or ‘finial’ features, which is likely to allow for ventilation. The design and appearance of the business units is considered to be acceptable in this rural location and compliment the design of the houses as part of this mixed use development proposal.

8.108 During the course of the application the development has been redesigned to provide a small play area, within a circulation island for traffic moving around the site. This play area meets the size required by local plan policy LR10 but is also being used to provide informal sitting space and

landscaping and not solely an area for play. The play equipment to be provided within the play space would need to be agreed by condition and enclosed with fencing. Ideally the play area would form a part of a larger area that also combines the informal open communal space required by policy LR9, which should extend to 1650 square metres. The provision of such an appropriate area of open space would provide a focal heart to the development and also improve community integration for occupants of the proposed development, given the isolated rural location, the requirement for journeys to be completed by car and the car focussed layout of the site.

8.109 The applicant has recently also provided a plan illustrating the division of the land on site into private and shared areas. They have identified a small area of informal open space next to the garage of unit 11, but the size and location of the space makes it unsuitable to address the requirements of policy LR9. It’s late inclusion shows that the provision is an afterthought, with very limited usability. The design of the site is not seen to be delivering a sense of community with the houses being very isolated from each other for the most part and with only a small area of basic play space but no meaningful informal open communal area. Officers consider that a more meaningful open space/ play space area can be provided on the site, to the benefit of the layout and to assist community cohesion on the site, by involving amendments to the existing layout.

8.110 The Kent Downs AONB Unit considers that that development of the scale and of the nature proposed would have a detrimental impact on the visual identity of the East Kent Downs Landscape Character Area. They advise that the Landscape Assessment of Kent recognises that there is a distinct settlement pattern of villages within valleys and large farms on the plateau. The Study suggests a ‘conserve’ landscape strategy and recommends actions including conserving the settlement patterns, avoiding ridge line development, as well as conserving hedgerows along roads. They are minded that the development as proposed would be in conflict with this, introducing a new settlement on a plateau and resulting in the loss of hedgerows along roads.

8.111 Notwithstanding the tree preservation order affecting the site the proposal involves the removal of significant areas of bunds, hedgerow and trees. On the southern side of the site, abutting the open field, the large bund and all planting is to be removed. A hedgerow/tree replanting along the boundary is then proposed. On the eastern boundary, abutting Stone Street, much of the bunding is to be removed, with is trees, and only the tree line on the street boundary is to be retained, with three distinct gap areas then replanted (one of which is the existing vehicle access). On the northern boundary, to Thorn Lane, a new vehicle access is to be created and much of the bunding on this boundary removed whilst, the applicant hopes, retaining the trees, which they are minded predated the bunding. The council’s Arboricultural Manager advises that much of the existing tree planting may be lost in this approach but replanting can be conditioned. On the western boundary all trees are to be retained.

8.116 Within the site itself trees and bunding are to be removed. Approximately 0.38 hectares of wooded strip is to be removed from the eastern and southern boundaries of the site, then trees may also be lost on the northern boundary in addition as the bund is removed. In addition bramble/scrub strips are also to be lost together with any trees that exist within the interior of the site. The Ecology report advises that replacement boundary planting and landscape planting within the site will be of a range of native tree and shrub species. The overall combined planting area on the site is detailed in the Ecology report as being about 0.4hectares, (excluding trees lost on the northern boundary) with a greater proportion of this new planting being shrub planting.

8.117 In support of the application there has been submitted a Landscape and Visual Appraisal (LVA) report and the impact of the development on the character of the area and Kent Downs AONB is discussed further in the following section.

Impact on the character of the area /AONB

8.118 Within the Shepway Core Strategy the North Downs Character Area, in which the site is located, comprises the villages of Elham, Lyminge and Stelling Minnis as providing some commercial services and public facilities to existing residents. As already discussed, the area is characterised by small, relatively inaccessible hamlets. Direction provided by Core Strategy Policy SS1 explains, “the future spatial priority for new development in the North Downs area is on accommodating development outside of the AONB and without material impact on its setting”.

8.119 The proposal at hand, therefore, explicitly contravenes this policy.

8.120 Core Strategy Policy CSD4 states that “planning decisions will have close regard to the need for conservation and enhancement of natural beauty in the AONB and its setting, which will take priority over other planning considerations.”

8.121 In support of the proposal the applicant has submitted a Landscape and Visual Appraisal report (LVA).

8.122 The report appraises the site and its setting, paying particular attention to the boundaries, topography, vegetation and land uses. The visual appraisal is established using a series of photographs taken around the site, which are described within the text and shown on the Landscape Context Plan within the documentation.

8.123 This approach is concurrent with the guidance, which promotes an understanding of the site within the wider landscape and establishes how the site is viewed from a range of vantage points. The appraisal describes the nature of the development that has been proposed, how it would function and what landscaping would be used to mitigate its impact on the surrounding area. The LVIA concentrates on two different aspects, the effect that a development might have on a landscape and the visual effect that it

may have on different groups of people in terms of how they see it in its surroundings.

Landscape Effects

8.124 The LVIA assesses landscape effects caused by development. This is done through an appraisal, which considers the ‘magnitude of change’ to the site under the current proposal. (The ‘magnitude of change’ is the effect a development has on landscape features, caused by the size and scale of change, the geographical extent and the duration or reversibility of change. The ‘magnitude of change’ is considered alongside the sensitivity of a landscape in order to draw final conclusions about the impact of a development). The report examines the nature of change by assessing it against the landscape Elements, Character and Landscape Patterns. It demonstrates a range of impacts across the three landscape categories, none of which it concludes are considered ‘severe’.

8.125 The LVIA mentions that the majority of buffer trees will be maintained along the northern, eastern and western boundaries of the site, but does not mention the impact of the development on the southern boundary. In terms of the eastern boundary it is also not considered to wholly reflect the latest arboricultural report details, having been written prior to its production. However the Landscape Strategy Plan, within the report, indicates that the southern and eastern boundaries will be supplemented with new planting. Currently the very large barns on the site are hardly apparent from outside the site from the east, north or south due to large bunds and existing planting and evergreen trees.

Visual Effects

8.126 The LVIA identifies different user sensitivities for the different identified locations, which is concurrent with the guidance. The assessment predicts the magnitude of change that would result from the construction of the development, categorising views geographically as per below.

Near Distance views from locations to the North of the Site Near Distance Views from Locations to the North East and east of the Site Near Distance Views from locations to the West and south of the Site Consideration of Private Views from adjoining properties

8.127 The resulting visual effects are generally considered in the report to be ‘moderate’. Overall the applicant’s report concludes that the site will have some local impact but it will not be significant or harmful.

8.128 Whilst the Council’s Landscape officer accepts the conclusion that the visual impact on the area will be ‘moderate’, and once new planting is established the development will be well screened, it needs to be understood that there will be a greater presence of the proposed development from the surrounding roads than currently, particularly in the

shorter term, and this will result in a level of ‘urbanisation’ of the countryside, together with the highway works, footpaths, bollard lighting etc.

Amenities

8.129 Policy SD1 of the Shepway Local Plan Review and paragraph 17 of the NPPF require that consideration should be given to the residential amenities of both neighbouring properties and future occupiers of a development.

Neighbouring Amenity

8.130 Given the isolation of the site away from other dwellings, other than Thorn Farm Cottage, there will be no impacts to neighbours’ amenities in respect to loss of daylight, overlooking, outlook or overshadowing.

8.131 For Thorn Farm Cottage the existing tree screen and bund to the rear of the cottage is to be retained and that to the side to be replanted. The proposed dwellings are at such a distance also so as to prevent loss of privacy, daylight, outlook or overshadowing.

Amenities of Future Occupiers

8.132 In this case the size of the units are considered to be acceptable for the proposed number of occupants for those units. It is noted that the third bedroom in some of the three bedroom units are small with internal measurements scaling from the drawings at about 3m by 1.85m but overall the dwellings provide for acceptable to very generous internal space for future occupiers.

8.133 Externally however a number of the plots will be partly overshadowed through the day either by the tree screening around the boundaries of the site or the buildings themselves. The mostaffected plots are to be the terraces of Shared Equity housing running parallel to the eastern boundary of the site, with rear gardens of about 10.5m to 12.5m depth.

8.134 The British Research Establishment guidelines for sunlight for new buildings provides guidance in respect to amounts of daylight received into habitable rooms in new buildings and also that gardens should receive a minimum level of direct sunlight [measured at the Equinox] of at least 50% of its garden being in sunlight for a minimum period of 2 hours per day.

8.135 Whilst is it seen that the tree belts will impact the living conditions for occupiers of some of the houses, particularly bordering the eastern boundary and also along the newly planted southern boundary, it is however anticipated that the minimum daylight and sunlight BRE standards for new dwellings would be achieved.

8.136 This does however highlight that there may result conflict between the retained/new tree belts, which are protected by tree preservation orders and enhance biodiversity, and the living conditions of future occupiers in terms of

daylight, shadow and also dropping leaves, branches etc. A less dense development would be able to mitigate these impacts to a greater degree by providing for greater space between dwellings and the perimeter of the site.

Highway and Parking

8.137 Policy TR12 of the Shepway Local Plan Review relates to car parking levels to serve new development. Policy TR11 relates to the impact of new development on the highway network. Policy TR5 relates to the provision of cycle parking. Paragraph 32 of the National Planning Policy Framework states, in part, that ‘Development should only be prevented or refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of development are severe.’

8.138 The application involves the stopping off of the existing vehicle access onto the site, from Stone Street, and the formation of a new vehicle access from Thorn Lane, to the north of the site.

8.139 The matter of the isolated and unsustainable location of the site and the reliance of occupiers on private cars has already been discussed. (Para 32 NPPF). In seeking to mitigate somewhat against the separation of the site from local villages and amenities the applicant proposes a series of highway works and the provision of a linkage footpath to Stelling Minnis. The package of highway works involves:

The widening of Stone Street through the double junction of Curtis Lane/ Stone Street and Thorn Lane/Stone Street;

The creation of a turning lane on Stone Street for both junctions; the reprovision of highway drainage; The provision of a pedestrian crossing point on Stone Street to the

southern side of the Thorn Lane junction; The provision of pedestrian highway footway from the application site

access, along the southern side of Thorn Lane and western side of Stone Street to the pedestrian island;

The provision of pedestrian footway from the pedestrian island along the eastern side of Stone Street and around into Curtis Lane, on both sides of the junction of Curtis Lane with Stone Street.

8.140 The proposed highway footpath will then link to the Public Right of Way (PROW) HE14 that crosses an agricultural field to Stelling Minnis village.

8.141 In addition to the engineered highway works is also required to be an amendment to the Traffic Regulation Order [TRO] to slow the traffic to 50mph approaching and through the double junction on Stone Street. (The 50mph limit must be for a minimum distance of 600 metres and the exact location of the speed limit should be agreed with KCC Highways.)

8.142 Given the nature of the PROW HE14, running across an agricultural field, and that Curtis Lane itself is without footpaths and with bends that reduce forward vision, the applicant is minded that a new footpath (finished in roadstone) be provided running along the southern side of the agricultural

field to form a more acceptable pedestrian linkage to Stelling Minnis. Alternatively the PROW could be diverted. In terms of lighting the KCC Highways and Transportation officers advise that they will not be expect to see any street-lighting within the development site given that this is a rural setting, however the pedestrian refuge island in the middle of Stone Street will have to have a beacon light to ensure that road users are aware of the crossing point. This would be about 2-3 metres high and is a dim light. The alternate footpath provided would be unlit.

8.143 The KCC Highway and Transportation officers do not object to the proposal in highway terms subject to the inclusion of the package of highways works within a legal agreement and conditions that would require that the TRO amendment (reducing traffic speeds) and the alternative footpath to Stelling Minnis be the subject of planning conditions - that these items are provided prior to the first occupation of any development on the site.

8.144 It should be noted that at the time of writing this report the developer is not in agreement with the pre-occupation conditions of the TRO amendment and alternative footpath but wishes these to be included in a legal agreement; to pay a monetary sum for the delivery of these items and then KCC Highways and Transportation to deliver these items. This is not acceptable to KCC Highways and Transportation as these works are directly related to, and are the result of, the proposed development and are proposed in seeking to mitigate somewhat against the unsustainable location of the site. There are consultations and negotiations involved in being able to achieve and deliver these items and the responsibility to provide these should fall to the developer and not the local highway authority. At this time it is not established that these aspects of the mitigation package can be achieved.

8.145 In terms of parking on the site, parking is provided in the form of private garages, carports, hardstanding and some areas of grouped parking. There are 5 visitor parking bays proposed to be provided on the street. Overall the levels of parking for individual houses, the offices and visitors is acceptable and meets with parking standards.

8.156 Within the site the road layout is a single road that loops around the play area and then rejoins the main stem. The road is designed to enable a waste collection vehicle to navigate around the site easily.

Archaeology

8.157 Saved policy SD1 of the Shepway Local Plan Review requires the protection of local heritage, including archaeology.

8.158 In this case the application is accompanied by an ‘Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment’ prepared by Swale and Thames Survey Company. The assessment was not considered to provide the level of detail expected for such a document and subsequently additional work was undertaken by the applicant. Unfortunately this additional work was still considered to properly address the issues raised by the KCC Archaeologist but the KCC

Archaeologist therefore undertook his own research and concluded that “it is clear from the site geo-technical site investigations, historic mapping and site topographical survey that there has been a considerable amount of past disturbance at the site. Nevertheless it would seem that there are some discrete areas that have seen little past disturbance and which correspond with where new development is proposed.”

8.159 It is therefore suggested that some areas on the site would warrant a programme of archaeological works, which could be the subject of a planning condition.

Ecology

8.160 The matter of ecology falls under the ‘environmental’ aspect of sustainable development and the NPPF seeks to minimise impacts on biodiversity and provide net gains in biodiversity where possible. Saved policy CO11 of the Shepway Local Plan Review states that permission will not be given for development which would endanger plant or animal life to habitat protected under law or if it causes the loss or damage to habitat and landscape features of importance to nature conservation. This is unless the need for the development outweighs the nature conservation considerations and mitigation measures are undertaken to fully compensate for remaining adverse effects.

8.161 The site is currently vacant and is occupied by four buildings, the three long buildings on the southern part of the site having been previously used to house battery hens. The rest of the inner part of the site comprises hardstanding which is bounded around the perimeters of the site by grassland and trees, with open countryside beyond. There is a large pond in the northern part of the site. There are areas of Ancient Woodland close to the site and the nearest part of the Yorkletts SSSI is approximately 650 metres away.

8.162 In this case the applicant has undertaken an ecological appraisal which explains that the following surveys have been carried out within the site – Ecological Scoping Survey; Dormouse Survey; Amphibian Survey; Bat Survey (activity and emergence); Reptile Survey (completed as part of previous 2015 application).

8.163 The surveys recorded within the site the presence of Dormice, roosting bats (Common Pipistrelle and Brown Long Eared), at least four species of bat foraging within the site, evidence of foraging/commuting badger, grass snake, suitable breeding bird habitat.

8.164 The proposed development will result in the loss of known bat roosts through the demolition of the buildings and the removal of existing woodland habitat along the site boundaries – due to the remodelling of the bunds on site to facilitate the development. The removal of the woodland habitat will result in the loss of suitable dormouse habitat, bat foraging habitat and bird breeding habitat.

8.165 The ecology report provides a basic outline of what mitigation would be implemented if the planning permission is granted, but a more detailed mitigation strategy would be required by planning condition if permission were in fact granted. It is also noted that licences, in respect to Dormouse and Bat populations (European Protected Species), will be required from Natural England and also for badgers if they are found on site prior to development commencing. It is considered appropriate, and is recommended by the applicant’s ecologist, that an updated badger survey be undertaken immediately prior to works commencing. Any external lighting schemes need to be designed so as to minimise any impacts of bats and the bat surveys need to inform the design of the lighting scheme, which can be controlled by planning condition.

8.166 In terms of enhancement of the biodiversity of the site the submitted report makes a number of recommendations, including the reprofiling of the pond at the northern end of the site, replacement boundary planting and landscaping internal to the site. It would be expected that enhancements should be retained and managed in perpetuity and the management of identified ‘wildlife areas’ on the site form part of the legal agreement in the situation of the grant of planning permission. A management plan for the wildlife areas should also include who will be responsible for the long-term management of these areas.

Contamination/Drainage8.167 Policy U4 of the local plan states that development will not be permitted if it

would lead to unacceptable risk to the quality or potential yield of the surface or ground water resources or lead to an unacceptable risk of pollution. The NPPF paragraph 109 states that the planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by preventing both new and existing development from contributing to or being put at unacceptable risk from, or being adversely affected by unacceptable levels of water pollution. Government policy also states that planning policies and decisions should also ensure that adequate site investigation information, prepared by a competent person, is presented (NPPF, paragraph 121).

8.168 Policy U2 of the local plan states that planning permission for housing developments of five or more dwellings and other forms of development generating a similar flow of effluent will be refused unless connection is made to the nearest available mains drainage system with capacity to serve the development or details are submitted which show how the development will be connected to a mains drainage system.

8.169 In this case the site is located within an area identified on the Environment Agency maps as being within Groundwater Source Protection Zone 3 and there is no mains drainage system serving the area. The proposal includes the use of Sustainable Drainage Systems [SuDS] for surface/rainwater and for foul sewerage it is proposed that a private waste water treatment works (package treatment plant) will be installed at the site which disposes of effluent to sub-soil irrigation.

8.170 A Geo-environmental investigation (BJB Consulting ref 2185/SI July 2015) has been carried out on the site and during the course of the application a drainage strategy the site has also been submitted following the receipt of initial representations from the relevant parties.

8.171 In respect to matters of drainage and contamination Southern Water, the Environment Agency, Kent County Council (as the Local Lead Flood Authority), the Council’s land contamination consultants and the Council’s Environmental Health Officers have all provided comment on the proposal. The KCC Highways and Transportation officers have also provided comments in respect to the proposed highway drainage works.

8.172 Whilst policy U2 of the local plan states that development of over 5 houses should be connected to the mains drainage this matter needs to be considered on balance given that there is no Southern Water infrastructure in this area and the previously granted business uses for the site were also to rely on a package treatment plant. In respect to the proposed use of a package treatment plant for foul sewerage as part of this development there is not outright objection to this private treatment system but it is noted that Environment Agency Regulations may require the proposed package treatment plant to be the subject of an Environmental Permit.

8.173 In respect to surface water drainage utilising SuDS this is considered to be acceptable subject to the results of contamination investigations of the site. The LLFA advises that given the site location there are limited options for surface water management. If it were to become apparent at a later stage that drainage to the ground is not acceptable, once full contamination constraints for the site are known, then as the site is not connected to mains drainage/sewer systems it would fall to the private Treatment Package Works to deal with this water also.

8.174 In respect to contamination of the site some excavation of trial holes and window samples have been undertaken around the perimeter of the site but given that large areas of the site are covered with buildings or hardsurface much of the site remains un-investigated. Therefore, a planning condition would be required to undertake further work in this respect including a) provision of a desk study/conceptual model; b) supplementary site investigation in the building footprint; c) reconsideration of the risk assessment and remedial strategy; d) amendments to the import specification for clean soils.

Planning Obligations

8.175 Planning obligations are used to mitigate the impact of unacceptable development to make it acceptable in planning terms. Obligations are enshrined within the NPPF and are also the subject of policies DSD and SS5 of the Shepway Core Strategy. Planning obligations should meet the tests that they are necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms, directly related to the development, and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind.

Landscape and wildlife area management plan

8.176 The applicant advises they agree to the setting up a Management Company to be party to dwelling transfers and responsible for the maintenance of communal landscaping on the development.

8.177 The Council considers this is appropriate but the obligation needs to be extended somewhat further to specifically identify wildlife areas at the site, (which involves the creation of new habitat as well as protection of existing) and agree a wildlife management plan for these areas that will need to be carried out in perpetuity.

8.178 It is required that a legal agreement secures a management programme for both the wildlife area on the site, following the translocation of reptiles on the site and the completion of an ecological enhancement program of works. The applicant has confirmed agreement to this S106 obligation.

Highway Improvement/Pedestrian works8.179 The applicant has proposed obligation wording :

“Highway Improvements – to undertake highway improvements ‘on Stone Street/Curtis Lane/Thorn Lane...to the satisfaction of Kent Highways by the occupation of the 15th house’;”

8.180 As already discussed the additional items of the TRO delivery and rural footpath provision are required to be delivered prior to occupation as they are proposed to mitigate somewhat against the isolation of the site. But the proposed highway works are also considered to be part of the package of mitigation and as such delivery by the occupation of the 15th house is considered to be too late. Therefore whilst the widening of Stone Street, lane changes, highway drainage, provision of highway pavement and the traffic island area all works that can be carried out under as Section 278 works under the Highways Act 1980, and are appropriate to be included in the legal agreement, the timing of the delivery of these works would be required to be prior to occupation of the first residential unit and as such there is currently objection to the delivery the highway works under policies and guidance in respect to planning obligations.

8.181 The delivery of the changes to the Traffic Regulation Order (to reduce the road speed through the junction) and the linkage footpath to Stelling Minnis cannot form part of a Section 278 agreement and their delivery would be tied by pre-occupation conditions. However the applicant has advised that the delivery of these items pre-commencement would be threatened the delivery of the development.

8.182 The applicant has proposed that the provision of the changes to the Traffic Regulation Order and the provision of a new highway footpath around the field edge to Stelling Minnis, is included within the legal agreement and fulfilled by monetary payment to Kent County Council as the local highway authority, so the responsibility for the provision of these elements then becomes the responsibility of the highway authority. However a monetary obligation of these aspects, in lieu of the developer carrying out the works, is

not considered to be acceptable as the requirement for these works is entirely related to the proposed development and are proposed to seek to mitigate against the isolation of the development and its unsustainable location.

8.183 The local highway authority objects to the provision of a monetary payment and the local highway authority being responsible for delivery of these items. The local highway authority advise that just the payment of the monies, as suggested by the applicant, does not mean that these aspects could be secured as there would remain matters of negotiation with other parties and at this time the outcome of those further negotiations are unknown.

8.184 As such it is considered that the responsibility for the provision of the TRO changes and linkage footpath is that of the applicant, if it is considered that the provision of these aspects are sufficient to make an unacceptable development to be acceptable in planning terms.

8.185 The local highway authority suggest that rather than the matter of the TRO changes and linkage pathway, which do not form part of the Section 278 highway works, be the subject of a section 106 monetary payment these matters need to be the subject of Grampian style planning conditions tying the provision of these items to a timescale that they be completed ‘prior to the occupation’ of any units on the site and whilst the applicant may disagree such conditions could be applied. However, evidence that the PROW diversion/linkage footpath can be delivered would need to be provided to the Council prior to the grant of any planning permission should the package of highway works and linkage improvements for pedestrians to Stelling Minnis be considered to sufficiently mitigate against the separation of the site from the village.

8.186 In respect to the section 278 highway works again these need to be completed to a similar timescale as part of the legal agreement.

Delivery of Business Units

8.187 The Council has sought agreement from the applicant that should a planning permission be granted the delivery of the Class B1 units be that they are completed to a level ready for occupation place prior to the occupation of the 15th dwelling on the site.

8.188 The applicant is not in agreement with the timing of the obligation but has suggested ‘ We will provide a ready site and advertise the units but it would be unfundable via any mainstream bank and unviable to build without an end user legally committed’.

8.189 However officers believe that the, should planning permission be granted, the early delivery of the commercial space on the site would be critical. The applicant’s verbal advice to Officers to justify the provision of housing units on this site, contrary to policies that require the redevelopment of the site for agricultural use first and then for rural business use, is that the proposed housing is enabling development to deliver the proposed business units,

which the applicant advises in the planning statement ‘would provide jobs for up to 39 people’. (The Economic Benefits statement advises resultant jobs will be in the range of ‘28 jobs’.)

8.190 As such, if it is accepted that the delivery of the housing on the site as part of a mixed use development is justified against planning policy as an exceptional justification to deliver a realistic quantity and modern quality of rural commercial space, then the early delivery of that space is critical.

8.191 The council does not propose that the commercial space is provided prior to the delivery of any housing but prior to the occupation of the 15th dwelling on the site. This is considered to be a reasonable position in this case .

Affordable housing

8.192 Policy CSD1 of the Shepway Core Strategy requires that new housing developments of 15 or more units should provide 30% affordable dwellings on-site or through a financial contribution of broadly equivalent value off-site, subject to viability.

8.193 The National Planning Policy Framework states that the burden of planning obligations should be understood in the context of local economic conditions and market realities. The NPPF goes on to say that this should not undermine ambition for high quality design and wider social and environmental benefit but such ambition should be tested against the realistic likelihood of delivery. The NPPF continues that where the viability of a development is in question, local planning authorities should look to be flexible in applying policy requirements wherever possible.

8.194 In this case the applicant has amended the proposal during the course of the application to include the provision of 9 shared-equity units and remove reference to any ‘starter home’ product.

8.195 Such a provision of shared-equity housing equates with the policy

requirement for 30% affordable housing units and is considered to be an acceptable provision for this site. The applicant has also agreed to the delivery and transfer of 9 shared-equity units to a registered Housing Association prior to the occupation of the 13th open market dwelling on the site.

Community Infrastructure Levy [CIL]

8.196 The Community Infrastructure Levy [CIL] is a tool for local authorities in England and Wales to help deliver infrastructure to support the development of the area.

8.197 On 1st August 2016 Shepway District Council introduced a CIL scheme, which in part replaces Planning Obligations for infrastructure improvements in the area. Funds for infrastructure such as transport, schools, health facilities and parks are raised from developers building projects in the District.

8.198 Therefore, for this development, obligation requests, reported earlier in this report for education and library bookstock are no longer to be pursued via legal agreement, with funding provided for infrastructure via CIL instead.

8.199 CIL levy in the application area is charged at £125 per square metre for new dwellings, with the exception of the 9no. affordable housing units which are exempt. For new business floor space the levy is charged at £0 per square metre.

8.200 The applicant has completed and returned the required ‘CIL questions’ form but the form is not correctly completed and requires revision. Further information regarding the amount of CIL for the scheme will be reported at committee.

Other Issues

8.201 Policy CSD5 of the Shepway Core Strategy and paragraph 42 of the NPPF seek the provision of high quality communications infrastructure, to sustain economic growth. Subject to the use of a planning condition to require the installation of fixed telecommunication infrastructure and High Speed Fibre Optic (minimal internal speed of 100mb) connections to multi point destinations and all buildings including residential, commercial and community no objection is raised under policy CSD5 of the Shepway Core Strategy and paragraph 42 of the NPPF.

8.202 Government Guidance requires that reference be made to the New Homes Bonus Scheme, but this is not a material planning consideration.

8.203 The New Homes Bonus Scheme provides money to the Council to be paid when new homes are built within the district. Government funding has been set aside for local councils which they can spend to benefit their local community. Under the scheme the Government matches the council tax raised from new homes for the first six years through the New Homes Bonus. It should be noted that the Government has consulted Councils earlier in the year seeking to reform the New Homes Bonus to be paid over 4 years instead of 6 years, with a possible transition to 5 years. As such only a 4 year value for the New Homes Bonus has been calculated below.

8.204 In this case, an approximate value of the New Homes Bonus as a result of the proposed development would be approximately £44,000 per annum for 4 years (subject to the outcome of required consultation). This figure is based on an annual Council Tax revenue calculation from the proposed development of approximately £8,000 per annum.

Human Rights

8.205 In reaching a decision on a planning application the European Convention on Human Rights must be considered. The Convention Rights that are relevant are Article 8 and Article 1 of the first protocol. The proposed course of action is in accordance with domestic law. As the rights in these two articles are qualified, the Council needs to balance the rights of the individual against the interests of society and must be satisfied that any interference

with an individual’s rights is no more than necessary. Having regard to the previous paragraphs of this report, it is not considered that there is any infringement of the relevant Convention rights.

8.206 This application is reported to Committee at the request of Councillor Hollingsbee.

9.0 SUMMARY

9.1 This proposal is for the redevelopment of the former Stonegate Farm site for 30 houses and 465smq of office space. The site is located in an isolated rural location and is not allocated for housing development and planning policy would direct any redevelopment of the site should be for alternate agricultural use or rural business use. The proposal does not meet exceptional tests for the location of new dwellings in the countryside, nor does the land meet the NPPF definition of Previously Developed (Brownfield) Lane. The application has not sufficiently demonstrated that there is no reasonable prospect for holistic or predominant redevelopment for business/agricultural use in support of the rural economy.

9.2 By virtue of the isolated location of the site away from other villages and service centres the site is unsustainable and as such is not supported by planning policy or guidance, which only presumes support of sustainable development. Occupiers of the site would be car dependant for access to all services and community facilities, which are not located in the nearby locality. The site is not allocated for housing and is not proposed for allocation within the emerging Places and Policies Local Plan Preferred Options due to its unsustainable nature.

9.3 The quantum of housing development proposed is such that the development is considered to be major development in the Kent Downs AONB. No sequential testing has been undertaken to demonstrate this level of housing is unable to be delivered outside of the AONB and within sustainable locations, nor that there is a need for this housing to meet the Council’s housing supply required by the Core Strategy Local Plan. The proposal does not meet the exceptional tests for the location of major development within the AONB.

9.4 Whilst the appearance of the houses within the proposal is pleasing and the houses generally provide good levels of accommodation for future occupiers the development is inward looking and of a suburban grain and density which contrasts with the character and patterns of residential development in this rural area and this part of the Kent Downs AONB. The lack of any meaningful informal open space within the development and the isolated nature of the dwellings from each other for the most part is a barrier to social cohesion for future occupiers within the site, who are also isolated from other communities with the area due to the distance from other villages and service centres.

9.5 The applicant proposes the provision of 9 houses on the site in a shared-equity format that equates to the provision of 30% affordable housing and

accords with planning policy in this respect. The developer is also willing to agree to a nominations process for these houses to firstly be available to those with a connection to the local area.

9.6 Notwithstanding the objections in principle to the development under national and adopted development plan policy and guidance the applicant does propose a number of measures in seeking to address or mitigate against the detailed concerns of planning policy. These include the provision of a package of pedestrian improvement and highway works; a package of the planting of replacement trees and shrub and biodiversity enhancement; and the delivery of ‘a ready site’ for the commercial section of this planning application.

9.7 However, officers recommend that the mitigation measures proposed are not sufficient to overcome the objections in principle to the development under established policy and guidance and recommend that the application be refused planning permission.

10.0 BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS

10.1 The consultation responses set out at Section 4.0 and any representations at Section 6.0 are background documents for the purposes of the Local Government Act 1972 (as amended).

RECOMMENDATION – That planning permission be refused for the following reason(s):

1. The site is located within the open countryside, and does not meet the definition of Previously Developed Land as set out in Annex 2 of the NPPF. The site is not allocated for housing development and does not meet the exceptional tests for the location of housing within the rural area under paragraph 55 of the national Planning Policy Framework and policy CSD3 of the Shepway Core Strategy. The proposal is unsustainable in principle due to its isolated location away from rural villages and service centres. Future occupiers of the house would be very car dependant. The proposal will result in the loss of rural employment land without a robust case being evident that there is ‘no reasonable prospect’ for the holistic or predominant redevelopment of the site for alternative agricultural and/or business use to support a prosperous rural economy. The proposal is contrary to paragraph 7, 11, 14, 15, 17, 28 and 55 of the National Planning Policy Framework, SD1, CO1, CO16 of the Shepway Local Plan Review and DSD, SS1, SS2, SS3, CSD3 of the Shepway Core Strategy.

2. The proposal does not meet the tests for major development to be located within the Kent Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty in paragraph 116 of the National Planning Policy Framework. No evidence has been supplied to address why this major development for housing cannot be located outside of the Kent Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and the

exceptional circumstances of ‘need for the development’, the benefit to the local economy and being in the public interest have not been meet. The proposal is contrary to the principles of major development in the AONB designated area in paragraph 116 of the National Planning Policy Framework.3. The proposed layout is inward looking and does not reflect the density and pattern of residential development within the surrounding rural area and this part of the Kent Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The layout fails to provide appropriate and meaningful public open space as required by policy LR9 of the Shepway Local Plan Review. The proposal is therefore contrary to paragraphs 56, 57 and 58 of the National Planning Policy Framework, saved policies SD1, BE1, CO1 and LR9 of the Shepway Local Plan Review and policy DSD of the Shepway Core Strategy.

Decision of Committee