DC/13/19

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE

13 May 2014

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF PLANNING ON APPLICATIONS

1. Y13/0934/SH HAWKINGE COMMUNITY CENTRE (LAND ADJACENT) (Page 6) HERON FORSTAL AVENUE HAWKINGE KENT Erection of a 610m2 supermarket, together with associated 82 space car park

(to be shared with community centre),access and landscaping. 2. Y14/0138/SH 50-56 SHORNCLIFFE ROAD (FORMALLY WESTBROOK

(Page 33) HOUSE) FOLKESTONE KENT Erection of four storey care home, being matters of Appearance reserved to

outline planning permission Y10/0077/SH 3. Y14/0129/SH PROSPECT FARM GIBRALTAR LANE HAWKINGE KENT (Page 45) Erection of single storey detached dwelling with associated parking and

landscaping following removal of existing stable block building. 4. Y14/0391/SH MADEIRA COURT CLIFTON CRESCENT FOLKESTONE (Page 63) KENT Application of external insulation render to all elevations, new canopies to top

balconies on south east elevations and the construction of a sedum roof over the garage

DC/13/19 Application No: Y13/0934/SH

Location of Site: Land Adjacent to Hawkinge Community Centre Heron Forstal Avenue Hawkinge Kent Development: Erection of a 610m2 supermarket, together with

associated 82 space car park (to be shared with community centre),access and landscaping.

Applicant: Edinburgh Land Estates 4 Toscana Court Danderhall Midlothian Agent: Mr W Wood Slorach Wood Architects The Station Masters Office Dalmeny Station South Queensferry, West Lothian Date Received: 06.09.2013 (valid 11.02.14) Expiry Date: 08.04.2014 Committee Date: 13.05.14 Officer Contact: Mr Ben Geering

RECOMMENDATION: That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions set out at the end of the report

1.0 THE PROPOSAL 1.1 Planning permission is sought for the erection of a single storey supermarket

with associated car parking, access and service yard. The planning application is for a scheme comprising of a 455 square metre sales area with 155 square metres of storage space. The total external footprint is 610 square metres, together with an 82 space car park serving both the proposed store and existing Hawkinge Community Centre and accessed via Heron Forstal Avenue, with car park land within the application boundary including that in the ownership of the Community Centre.

1.2 The application site has an extensive history, discussed in section 2 below.

The proposed layout locates the supermarket to the north of the access road running west to east into the site, with parking and the store entrance to the southern front elevation and the store service yard to the rear, accessed to the eastern side of the store. A grassed area, within Shepway District Council’s ownership runs along the western side boundary and provides a (to be) landscaped buffer of 12 metres between the front section of the store and the rear garden side boundary of 2 Pritchard Drive (14.6 metres to the side

DC/13/19 elevation of the property) and 9 metres to the rear garden boundary fence of 4 Pritchard Drive (21 metres between buildings). To the rear of these properties the side boundary of 6 Pritchard Drive is located a minimum of 9.2 metres from the acoustic fence surrounding the proposed service yard to the rear of the site, a distance of 12.2m to the side of the property.

1.3 The proposal provides a comprehensive redesign and configuration of the

existing car park, increasing the number of spaces available from the current maximum of 61 spaces (within a poorly designed layout) to 82 car parking spaces. The car park to be provided is to be used by both the community centre and the proposed store. The shape of the site is constrained, and therefore the majority of the parking is provided along the eastern boundary of the site, which backs on to Canterbury Road properties (26 spaces), on land between the community centre and village hall car park (14 spaces), to the immediate north of the community centre (17 spaces and 1 motor cycle space) and to the immediate south and east of the store (26 spaces). The layout includes a footpath link to the existing footpath/cycleway that serves the entrance to the Community Centre and links to Canterbury Road, providing pedestrian access across the site and connecting up with Heron Forstal Avenue to the west.

1.4 Whilst the site is fairly level, the proposal includes reducing the ground level to

the north of the community centre by 80cm so as to provide level parking and access, with the car park sloping uphill towards the south-eastern corner of the site.

1.5 The proposed supermarket building is of a simple contemporary design,

measuring a maximum of 5.14 metres in height with a shallow 4% roof pitch hidden behind a small parapet wall. The building is considerably smaller in scale and lower in height than the community centre, 19.5 metres to the south, which measures over 5.4 metres to the eaves and has a ridge height of 8.6 metres above the ground level, (the ground level is also 0.8 metres above that proposed for the store). The application has been accompanied by sections through the site, demonstrating that the proposed building is of a lower height than the ridge height of nearby properties, the nearest of which is 14.6 metres to the west.

1.6 The footprint of the store is broadly rectangular, with a narrowing front section,

measuring a maximum of 27 metres in width (west to east) and 32 metres in depth (south to north), including the entrance lobby. A mixture of materials are proposed, including timber panels, powder coated cladding and glazed elevations with a none reflective roof. The front elevation of the building, facing south towards the car park and Community Centre provides an entrance lobby, with a lower height of 3.8 metres, breaking up the front elevation of the store and providing a clearly legible entrance. This is largely glazed, with timber and powder coated clad sections in place.

1.7 Vehicular access to the car park is provided via Heron Forstal Avenue only,

albeit publically accessible parking is available within the adjacent 29 space village car park. Within the proposed car park itself there are 82 regular spaces

DC/13/19 provided, including 7 disability badge holder spaces and a further 2 parking spaces for mobility scooters and motorcycles, together with covered cycle racks for 10 bikes. No separate staff parking is provided in the development. The car parking area is to be shared between the store and the community centre with no restrictions on the usage of the car park by the community centre’s customers.

1.8 The store’s service yard is provided to the north eastern corner of the site,

located behind the proposed store, between the rear boundaries of 105, 107 and 111 Canterbury Road to the east and the side boundary of 6 Pritchard Drive to the west. The service yard provides a turning area so that all vehicles enter and exit in a forward gear only. An acoustic fence, measuring 3 metres in height surrounds the service yard with further landscaping to the boundaries with neighbouring properties beyond this.

1.9 The following opening and delivery hours are proposed by the development:

Opening -0800 - 2000 Monday to Sunday, Deliveries – 0800– 1800 M-Sat, 1000 -1200 S, BH

No service yard activity to take place between 1900 -0800 Monday to Saturday, and before 0900 and after 1600 on Sundays and bank holidays.

1.10 The application has been submitted by the landowner and is not in conjunction

with a supermarket operator, it therefore has not been supported by details of potential employment resulting from the operation of the store. Within the District there are a number of comparable stores in place, the most similar in size of which is a Tesco Express located on Foord Road, Folkestone which has a sales area of 280 square metres and a total area of 396 square metres. This store employs 25 local people and provides a car park of 17 spaces.

2.0 LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION OF SITE 2.1 The application site is located centrally within the village of Hawkinge, to the

east of the A260 Spitfire Way and west of Canterbury Road. It is to the north of the Community Centre and is well connected with the wider village by road, footpath and cycleway. The site originally formed a single parcel of land in the district council’s ownership to provide community facilities in the village (identified in the 1990 Hawkinge Development Brief), including the village green and community centre.

2.2 Access to the site is provided via an existing mini-roundabout serving Heron

Forstal Avenue and Pritchard Drive. The shape of the site is broadly that of a right angle triangle, with the longest side forming the eastern boundary with the rear of properties fronting on to Canterbury Road, the Village Hall and its Car Park. The existing ground level is fairly flat, rising up gradually to the southeast from the Community Centre and Canterbury Road by approximately 80cm. To the south of the site is the Hawkinge Community Centre, incorporating the village Post Office, Parish Council Offices, community rooms and large and small halls. The Community Centre provides numerous facilities for the village

DC/13/19 and wider community of the district, including tea and coffee mornings, aerobics, dance lessons, short mat bowls, badminton, martial arts classes, yoga and pilates, a mother and toddler group, Saturday morning farmers market and Sunday Chapel service. In addition to these regular uses the Centre has capacity for wedding receptions, conferences and other large scale events, often attracting hundreds of attendees.

2.3 The village of Hawkinge is located within the Kent Downs AONB, within the

Alkham sub character area which forms part of the East Kent Downs character area. This wider landscaped setting for Hawkinge is dominated by long ridges and isolated valleys, with few woodlands that mostly occur on steep valley slopes. The application site is central to the village and is not prominent within the wider countryside.

3.0 RELEVANT SITE AND PLANNING HISTORY 3.1 In August 1999 Reserved Matters were approved for the provision of a village

green, together with an access road and landscaping to the application site and that of the proposed (at that time) Community Centre. Details of the application on the electronic copy of the file identify that the site was earmarked for a community centre, retail development and a public house to meet the requirements of the village set out in the adopted 1990 Hawkinge Development Brief. In approving this Reserved Matters application a s106 legal agreement passed the land into the District Council’s ownership from the developer of the wider site, Pentland Homes.

3.2 In 2000, under application reference Y00/0751/SH a planning application was

submitted for the erection of a community centre by the Parish Council. This proposal provided access to the Community Centre via Canterbury Road, car parking to serve the Community Centre via both Canterbury Road and Heron Forstal Avenue with an informative on the planning permission stating the existing Village Hall should be removed following the opening of the new community centre and for the site to be incorporated in to the development for parking or other ancillary uses. The report to the Development Control Committee of 24th October 2000 states (paras. 5.2, 8.3 and 8.4) that

“The land the subject of this application is in the ownership of the District

Council with the exception of the village hall and village green. The Council’s land was acquired from the former owner in order to provide community facilities, including a village hall and other facilities such as a public house and shop

!..In the later part of the 1990’s it became apparent that there was no market demand for facilities at that time. In order to safeguard the position for the future, the Council took ownership of an area of approximately 0.815 Ha of land. This included the 0.4 Ha for the community facility, the remainder being for shop, pub and associated parking.

The community centre which has been designed is significantly larger than that originally anticipated and it is not possible to provide the necessary car parking without using the whole of the Council’s land. In fact, overspill car parking on a

DC/13/19 reinforced grass system is also required for large scale events and the application shows this on the village green. The amended drawings also indentify overspill parking on the existing school site.”

3.3 Paragraphs 8.5 and 8.6 of the 2000 report raise further concern that the scale

of the community centre would result in an inability to provide a public house and shop at the site, central to the village and adjacent to the village green. These have, to an extent been realised with the Mayfly Public House and Lidl Supermarket having been provided following the granting of planning permission in 2005 at a more peripheral site on the allocated employment land to the west of Spitfire Way. It should be noted that a condition required the submission of parking details for the community centre to be approved however these were not submitted to the Council.

3.4 In 2001 a further application for a community centre and convenience store

was approved by the Council (Y01/1079/SH). This granted planning permission for a 1540 sq/m Community Centre, together with a 650 sq/m attached shop and car park of 63 spaces, accessed solely via Herons Forstal Avenue. In considering this application the report to the Development Control Committee (para 8.6) stated that the provision of additional facilities, including a shop at this location accorded with the 1990 Development Brief and the Shepway District Local Plan, which earmarked the provision of facilities on this site to serve the local community and it was therefore an appropriate location for the proposed community centre and shop.

3.5 Following the granting of the two separate planning permissions for the

Community Centre, the Y00/0751/SH planning permission was implemented at the site, albeit the detailed design of the car park and arrangements for overspill car parking were not submitted for approval, as required by condition. In 2007 Shepway District Council sold the remaining land within their ownership, forming the majority of the application site to the current applicant. Cabinet Report C/06/136, dated 28th March 2007 recognises that the land has been used as the Community Centre’s car park and therefore there are a number of restrictive covenants in place on the deeds of the land, dating from April 2007. The most relevant being clauses set out in section 3 which states:

"in consideration of the release of the owner grants to the trustees in fee simple

with full title guarantee-

• A right (in common with the owner and successors in title) for the Trustees and all those authorised by the Trustees from time to time to access the Owner’s land for the parking of private motor vehicles owned by the visitors to the Trusts Land on a first come first served basis in the parking area that is designated from time to time by the owner (or successors in title) provided that – o the total area which shall be reserved for the parking of motor

vehicles on the Owner's land will never be less than 2000 sq/m o the positioning of such designated parking spaces will provide

convenient access to the Trusts land.

DC/13/19 o that the owner will make up the access way and the parking spaces

and thereafter maintain the same without contribution from the trustees.

o No payment will be demanded by the owner in respect of the use of the owner’s land by the trustees for the parking of private motor vehicles.

3.6 In March 2010 a supermarket scheme for the site was withdrawn following

discussion with officers regarding the parking amount, size of store and service arrangement. Following this a revised planning application was submitted under reference Y10/0711/SH for the ‘Erection of a 670 sq/m supermarket, together with associated 75 space car park (to be shared with community centre) and access and landscaping’. Following extensive consideration and negotiation with the applicant this planning application was refused, under delegated authority, following an objection from KCC Highways, for the following reason:

‘The application fails to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Local Planning

Authority that the development provides adequate off street parking to meet the shared needs of the proposed supermarket and existing community centre. It is therefore considered contrary to Shepway District Local Plan Review 2006 policies SD1, S2 and TR12, together with Government Guidance set out in PPG13 which seek to ensure that development can be accommodated without adverse impact on residential amenity or highway safety and that provision for off street parking can be made on or near the site in accordance with adopted maximum parking standards. ‘

3.7 The applicant took the refused application to appeal. A copy of the inspector’s

report is attached to this document. In considering the development and dismissing the appeal the inspector found that:

• A supermarket on the appeal site could increase the retention of convenience expenditure in a sustainable manner. No harm in principle is found from a retail use in the proposed location.

• The proposed operational hours for the supermarket would be 0800 to 2000 Monday to Sunday. During such hours it is likely that an event attracting a considerable number of people could take place in the community centre. Without adequate information on the usage of the community centre, it has not been demonstrated that, if there was an event attracting a lot of people in the community centre when the supermarket was open, the demand for parking could be accommodated. If there were insufficient parking spaces available, overflow parking would take place on the residential roads that lead to the site from the A260. This would not only impact harmfully on residential occupiers’ amenities but would cause congestion and lead to conditions prejudicial to highway safety. The provisions of Shepway District Local Plan Review 2006 (LP) policies S2 (d) and TR12 would not be met in such a situation.

• In the absence of information on the usage of the community centre, it has not been demonstrated that the parking provision would be adequate to

DC/13/19 meet the needs of the proposed development in addition those of the community centre.

4.0 CONSULTATION RESPONSES 4.1 Hawkinge Town Council The Town Council met on the 12th March 2014 and considered the application in respect of the land adjacent to the Community Centre in detail. The Town Council resolved to object to the application on the grounds that; 1. Insufficient car parking has been provided to support the parking requirements for the

store and the Community Centre. 2. That insufficient consideration has been given to road safety and noise issues. 3. To further object on the grounds that as the application is the same in principle to the

previous application with the same supporting documentation, the grounds of objection submitted are still relevant. These being: (i) The road infrastructure leading to the application site is not adequate to

accommodate the increased traffic which will be using the proposed supermarket.

(ii) The proposed supermarket is not needed in the area as there are already 13 in a three and half mile radius.

(iii) Retail Analysis: The conclusions of this document are based on out of date data and therefore makes incorrect projections. No proper current analysis has been done.

(iv) The food store results in inadequate parking and mix of delivery vehicles with cars and pedestrians using the Community Centre and other local amenities will generate an unacceptable hazard to users.

(v) The legal agreement dated 2002 states that 2000m2 of shared parking be made available. The application provides this but includes land in the ownership of Hawkinge Community Centre.

(vi) The proposed site includes land the freehold of which, with no covenant on it is owned solely by the Community Centre. There is no requirement for the Community Centre to share this area for parking with any other party. Thus the total parking places shown in this application are inaccurate. It is therefore considered that the effect on Hawkinge Community Centre will be to compromise its economic viability which as the moment receives no public subsidies.

(vii) There is a serious potential danger to the public in allowing delivery vehicles to drive through customer parking areas and then reversing past parked cars, pedestrians and customers returning to cars with trolleys and young children. Also, parents with young children making their way to the Community Centre or Post Office are in immediate danger. This would occur at any time the Community Centre is open. Heron Forstal Road is semi-pedestrianised and is too narrow to facilitate large/H.G.V. delivery vehicles. If more than one delivery lorry arrives at the same time, a major parking issue would arise. The size of the delivery vehicle would make little difference to the impact on the parking problem.

DC/13/19 This is contrary to QL1 and QL2 stated in the Design and Access Statement.

(viii) The total parking places indicated on the plan are insufficient for the every day working of the Community Centre and the proposed store. To suggest that the opening times of the proposed store would not conflict with the opening times of the Community Centre is totally inaccurate.

(ix) There will be loss of light and overshadowing to local residents. (x) Increased disturbance to local residents from delivery vehicles. (xi) There have been strong objections from local residents on the effect it will

have on their quality of life and enjoyment of their gardens. (xii) Throughout the supporting documentation, there are inaccurate, misleading

and confusing statements: • Final Travel Plan Statement

Page 6 para 2.18 states that the management will ensure that the car parking spaces intended for users will not be used by staff or those accessing other commercial premises,

Where will the staff to the Community Centre, Post office and Town Council park?

• Page 11 para 4.1 and page 18 the cyclepath/footpath shown in green has already been provided.

With regard to the submitted Design and Access Statement, the Town Council does

not consider that the following policies have been met for the following reasons:

Policy QL1 Safe and secure environment. QL2 Safety and ambience of public realm.

(i) It will compromise the economic viability of the shop in the main road by taking trade, taking parking.

(ii) With the current application on the employment land, that is where the Town Council consider the development should be with the Community Centre and the Village Green proving the hub of the Social and Community needs.

Should the District Council be mindful to grant permission for the development the Town Council would request that the following conditions are added.

(i) There is a restriction on the opening hours of the store. (ii) That the developer be requested to enter into an agreement which provides

details of how parking will be accommodated to ensure the Community Centre can continue to operate at all times during the building of the supermarket.

(iii) The car park be designated a community car park without restriction and available to all.

(iv) The developer is requested to make an annual contribution to the maintenance of the Town Council’s car park adjacent to the Village Hall which will undoubtedly have extra wear and tear.

4.2 Kent Highways

DC/13/19 Thank you for the consultation on the above planning application. I have no objections to the application subject to the following conditions being attached to any planning permission granted:

1) Provision of construction vehicle loading/unloading and turning facilities prior to commencement of work on site and for the duration of construction.

2) Provision of parking facilities for site personnel and visitors prior to commencement of work on site and for the duration of construction.

3) Provision of wheel washing facilities prior to commencement of work on site and for the duration of construction.

4) Provision and permanent retention of the vehicle parking spaces shown on the submitted plans prior to the opening of the supermarket hereby permitted.

5) Provision and permanent retention of the vehicle loading/unloading and turning facilities shown on the submitted plans prior to the occupation of the supermarket hereby permitted.

6) Provision and permanent retention of the cycle parking facilities shown on the submitted plans prior to the occupation of the supermarket hereby permitted.

Notes: It should be noted that the parking provision for the proposed supermarket is now sufficient. The proposals have been reduced in size from 785 square metres (in 2010) to 610 square metres. The maximum parking standards for a store of 610 square metres is 31 car parking spaces. The applicants are increasing the size of the community centre car park from 61 spaces to 82 spaces, which represents an increase in 21 spaces. A parking survey (both video and 30 minute beat surveys) of the community centre and village hall car park has been carried out by the applicant on both a weekday and weekend during May 2013 when the community centre was fully booked to ascertain the parking demand from the community centre currently. At peak demand on a weekday (11am-11.30am) there was an accumulation of 70 spaces which left a total of 20 car parking spaces free (in both the community centre and village hall car park). Together with the increase in the number of spaces being proposed, this would mean that 41 spaces would be available for use by users of the supermarket, which is more than the maximum parking requirement of 31 spaces. At peak demand on a Saturday (7.30pm-8pm) there was an accumulation of 60 spaces which left a total of 30 car parking spaces free (in both the community centre and village hall car park). Together with the increase in the number of spaces being proposed, this would mean that 51 spaces would be available for use by users of the supermarket, which is more than the maximum parking requirement of 31 spaces. If the parking provision is only calculated for the community centre and not the village hall then this results in the following parking accumulation. The maximum accumulation in the car park was 51 cars on a weekday (7-7.30pm), 40 cars on a Saturday (7.30-8pm). This showed that there were10 free spaces on a weekday and 21 free spaces on a Saturday. This shows that with the enlarged car park (82 spaces, so 21 extra car parking spaces) even with the maximum parking provision of 31 spaces, this could be accommodated.

DC/13/19 The proposals therefore provide more than the maximum car parking standards and are therefore acceptable.

In terms of the coach parking the standards of 1 space per 5000 visitors per year only relates to historic houses, gardens, country park, theme parks and leisure parks and so there is no requirement for a community centre. A community centre would be classed as a social club and this has no standards for coach parking. In my opinion reliance can be made on the adjacent parish car park as it is a car park and is available to any member of the public to park. Both Shepway DC and KCC Highways accepted this for the nursery school application at 85 Canterbury Road. My response into the current application is as follows: At peak demand on a weekday (11am-11.30am) there was an accumulation of 70 spaces which left a total of 20 car parking spaces free (in both the community centre and village hall car park). Together with the increase in the number of spaces being proposed, this would mean that 41 spaces would be available for use by users of the supermarket, which is more than the maximum parking requirement of 31 spaces. At peak demand on a Saturday (7.30pm-8pm) there was an accumulation of 60 spaces which left a total of 30 car parking spaces free (in both the community centre and village hall car park). Together with the increase in the number of spaces being proposed, this would mean that 51 spaces would be available for use by users of the supermarket, which is more than the maximum parking requirement of 31 spaces. Even so if we were only counting the community centre and not village hall car park, the maximum accumulation in the car park was 51 cars on a weekday (7-7.30pm) on 40 cars on a Saturday (7.30-8pm). This shows that with the enlarged car park (82 spaces) even with the maximum parking provision of 31 spaces, this could be accommodated. It seems like the key issue is these extraordinary events which are not held on a frequent basis. You said that overspill parking was a condition on the community centre car park but this condition was not properly discharged. If so I think that Shepway needs to properly investigate this issue. It seems like this is a management issue and if the community centre are holding events such as funerals that are attracting large number of visitors ( 300-400 people) then this issue and overspill parking needs to be addressed directly by the community centre and they need to provide overspill car parking elsewhere in Hawkinge. 4.3 Environmental Health Officer With reference to this application Environmental Health make the following comments: The development will have an impact on surrounding residential premises which needs to be taken into consideration. A noise assessment was undertaken in 2011 and the report is documented as part of this application. It examined noise arising from deliveries, customer use and any mechanical plant that will be required by the

DC/13/19 premises. The noise report has concluded that the impact will be minor, but it has made certain assumptions, especially regarding the size of the delivery vehicles, and the number of deliveries at any one time. The report was based around the closest residential premises. EH remain to have very serious concerns about this application and also regarding the routes to be undertaken by lorries, regardless of their size, accessing the store. We therefore maintain an objection to this application. The report was based on the assumption that only small delivery lorries (up to 12 metres) would be used, and that there would only be one delivery per hour. EH do not consider that it is feasible, or practicable to apply conditions to this application that would reflect such working practises for a store to operate economically. We also remain concerned about enforcing such conditions if permission is granted. Even a ‘small lorry’, up to 10.5 m length, will have an impact on the residential premises for the proposed route to be undertaken by the delivery lorries. If permission is granted then the following conditions are recommended:

1) The store opening hours are restricted to 0800 hrs to 2000hrs Monday to Saturday. The opening hours for Sundays will be restricted to 6 consecutive hours only between 1000 hrs and 1800 hrs only.

2) Delivery times are restricted to 0800 hrs to 1800 hrs Monday to Saturday, and 1000 hrs to 1200 hrs Sundays and Bank holidays. Only five deliveries should be received each day between Monday to Saturday, one delivery per hour, with two deliveries on a Sunday, one delivery per hour.

3) No service yard activity should take place between 1900 hrs to 0800 hrs Monday to Saturday, or before 0900 hrs and after 1600 hrs on Sundays and Bank Holidays.

4) Deliveries should be made in small lorries only, not exceeding 10.5 m in length.

5) Acoustic fencing needs to be erected and maintained to at all times. Such details should be provided to the LPA for approval prior to erection.

6) Full details of any mechanical plant to be installed by the store will need to be submitted to the LPA, along with an acoustic report provided by suitably qualified engineers, to ensure noise levels from the operation of such plant will not cause disturbance to the local neighbouring premises. If mitigation is required such proposals should form part of the report.

7) A full lighting impact assessment needs to be submitted and approved by the LPA.

8) Any soil contamination found during the preparation and erection of the proposed store will need to be reported to the LPA. If remediation is required, such details will need to be approved by the LPA prior to any further development taking place.

4.4 Environment Agency

DC/13/19 We have no objection to the proposal providing the conditions within this letter

are imposed on any planning permission granted.

1. Contamination conditions 1,2 and 3 2. No infiltration of surface water in to the ground 3. Piling of foundations is not permitted without approval of LPA

4.5 Affinity Water No objection, informative to be added regarding connection to the water supply 4.6 Southern Water No objection, informative to be added regarding connection to public sewer. 5.0 PUBLICITY 5.1 Neighbours notified by letter. Expiry date 06.03.14 6.0 REPRESENTATIONS 6.1 23 Representations received from B Lagamus, 4 Sassoon Close; M & J

Prodger, 2 Green Close; D & J Elliot, 145 Heron Forstal Avenue; B Kinght-Smith, 3 DeHavilland Close; S Silkstone, 4 Vickers Close; S Harding, 42 Pritchard Drive; Mr& Mrs Martin, 4 Pritchard Drive; TP Lee, 143 Heron Forstal Avenue; H&C Rawson, 6 Pritchard Drive; S&E Alpin, 11 Park Close; Mr & Mrs Ashman; T&M Berry, 27 Pritchard Drive; J Seal; P&G Blanks, 2 Pritchard Drive; A Reynolds, 32a The Street; M&R Kirby, 10 Pritchard Drive; J Partridge, 36 Pritchard Drive; N&L Christie, 12 Green Close; M Beere, 9 Green Close; J Hodges; M Harding, 42 Pritchard Drive; Mr and Mrs Bayliss, 42 Pritchard Drive and Cllr S Peall raising the following objections:-

• Hawkinge does not need another supermarket, it is already well served by Tesco and Lidl and larger supermarkets are nearby in Folkestone.

• The proposal will significantly devalue properties close by.

• The land is designated for social and community use, not commercial.

• The traffic will cause unnecessary noise and the car park will be a magnet for teenagers and other people acting antisocially who already cause problems at night.

• Vehicles turning in the service yard and loading and unloading will cause significant noise and disturbance in close proximity to the properties in Pritchard Drive.

• Heron Forstal Avenue is a C road and not designed for use by large articulated lorries. Having lorries use this road will cause concern for parents whose children play on the green next to the community centre. There will be risk to children, pedestrians and pets.

• The access road and roundabout are not suitable for this use.

• Parking is inadequate as it does not take in to account staff numbers at the proposed store and the community centre.

DC/13/19 • The proposal provides insufficient landscaping and will lead to light

pollution.

• Noise from refrigeration and aircon units will result in a loss of amenity for nearby residents.

• There is no requirement for the community centre to share its own parking

• The surveys do not take in to account large events held by the community centre.

• Alternative sites are available for this type of use adjacent to Lidl, this would be a far better site.

• Will the development lead to flooding?

• The design, scale and materials are inappropriate to this area.

• The original idea of the A260 bypass was to take away traffic from the rural area and houses, this development will bring it back.

• The community centre already creates parking problems when it holds a large event – this will make the situation far worse.

Objection received from Hawkinge Community Centre raising the following points:

• Circumstances in Hawkinge have changed substantially during the intervening years since outline permission was originally given. The shape of Hawkinge as a Town had changed with new retail units being provided on the designated employment land off Hurricane Way; an area far more suited to the subject development

• The Community Centre is not just a small village hall but a large facility which has become a focal point for the Community incorporating the Baptist Church, Post Office and Town Council offices. Financially it has to stand alone and attract sufficient business to survive. It cannot survive by just renting to small groups but needs to attract custom from a variety of sources and the activities available frequently require 50 to 200 car parking spaces and sometimes more. It is open from 9.00 am until late evening 6 days per week with not inconsiderable use on Sundays. Parking at the Centre is already frequently near capacity at various times during the day. Competing for parking with a food store would seriously jeopardise the viability of the Community Centre which is a self funding, not for profit charity serving the community. Indeed the high level of the current use activity is identified in Edinburgh Estates own Noise Measurement Survey in section 4.

• By way of example on Saturday (1st March) both the land in question and the Town Councils` car park next to the village hall were full because of events taking place .Similarly on March 8th 400 Christian Nepalese arrive for an all-day church service. The total number of parking spaces shown on the submitted drawing are totally inadequate to service a Food store plus the Community Centre and its tenants.

• With the exception of sending a Certificate B notification of their intention to submit a new Planning Application the applicant has made no attempt to communicate with the Hawkinge Community Centre which was a condition of the original outline planning decision.

• The current Shepway Local Plan identifies this site for `social or community facility use’. This use category is re-enforced in Cabinet report C/06/136, and as this planning application is for commercial use it should be rejected on

DC/13/19 those grounds alone. Furthermore it could be argued that the grant of this application would prevent the Community Centre from complying with para.3.1 of the same report.

• This new plan incorporates land owned by the Community Centre and at no time has this design been discussed with us and we categorically reject the proposals. The Deed of Easement referred to in Cabinet report C/06/136 guarantees 2000 square metres of shared parking on land in the ownership of Edinburgh Estates which is identified blue on the plans submitted includes land which is owned by us, and thus this planning application does not comply with that agreement which we have with Shepway DC. Edinburgh Estates are also in breach of para. 2.4 of the same report. The plan shows parking spaces, pedestrian areas, a trolley park and footpath all of which encroach upon and restrict access to the Community Centre Loading Bay which is unacceptable.

• We believe that Kent Highways have seriously underestimated the impact of the inevitable overflow parking onto surrounding residential streets which we believe is likely to happen more than once a week. This would be compounded by delivery trucks trying to reach and leave the site. These vehicles would also create a significant safety risk to user of the Community Centre many of whom are mothers with young children in pushchairs/prams.

• In our opinion Heron Forstal Avenue is little more than a C class road, and if this were to be the access in the countryside i.e. on a country lane, then the application would fail on highway grounds alone.

• It might be argued that when permission was originally granted to the Community Centre a store was planned on the site, however, this overlooks one vital piece of information that in granting this, access for delivery lorries would be via a widened entrance off the A260 through the Town Councils` car park with the village hall being knocked down. The planning consent sought to prevent this type of traffic going along Heron Forstal Avenue (Condition 13) as it would in the planners eyes, `result in conditions prejudicial to highway safety`. Condition 3 sought to safeguard the amenities of the adjoining area.

Looking at the documents submitted by the Applicant we note the following: 1. Retail Assessment

Policy S2 has been deleted from the Local plan, we suggest it does not comply with Policy S8 and Policy S7 refers to retail and commercial expansion on the identified Employment Land. We argue therefore that this planning application is not compliant with policies, QL1 (safe and secure environment), and QL2 (safety and ambience of public realm).

2. Noise Survey Paragraph 8 identifies that the noise generated by their delivery lorries will be between 83 – 92 decibels. It should be noted that 85 decibels is the level set on the noise limiter by SDC inside the Community Centre.

3. Car Park Studies Section 3, Para 3.4 is disputed because at no time was the Community Centre notified of this survey, In fact when the activity was observed police were called out and checked their credentials with their head office. It so happens that the Centre was not operating at full capacity on either day of this survey as our records clearly show and could have been made available if anyone

DC/13/19 had requested. It therefore follows that the supposition in Section 4 Para. 4.3 is false.

4. The Planning Application Document – please note Q10 identifies 82 car parking spaces on the Applicant’s land when in fact there are only 67. Q19 Employment. These figures are in our view rather fanciful for the size of store

We do not consider that this new application materially changes the grounds for refusal of a previous application Y10/0090/SH which was rejected and furthermore lost to appeal. 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 Core Strategy Local Plan 2013 apply: DSD, SS1, SS3, SS4, 7.2 The following policies of the Shepway District Local Plan Review apply: SD1, BE1, TR11, TR12 7.3 The following National Government Guidance applies: National Planning Policy Framework 8.0 APPRAISAL 8.1 In determining the previous application the sole reason for refusal related to

highway safety, with the detailed assessment of the application concluding that in all other regards the proposal complied with national and local planning policy. In considering the appeal the inspector stated that

‘A supermarket on the appeal site could increase the retention of convenience expenditure in a sustainable manner. No harm in principle is found from a retail use in the proposed location.’

8.2 As such, it has previously been accepted by both Shepway District Council and

the Planning Inspectorate that the principle of a supermarket in this location is acceptable, that the design, layout, service arrangements and proposed opening hours are acceptable/can be controlled by condition and that the only matter that was not satisfactorily resolved when considering application Y10/0711/SH were as set out in the reason for refusal, stated again below -

The application fails to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Local Planning

Authority that the development provides adequate off street parking to meet the shared needs of the proposed supermarket and existing community centre. It is therefore considered contrary to Shepway District Local Plan Review 2006

DC/13/19 policies SD1, S2 and TR12, together with Government Guidance set out in PPG13 which seek to ensure that development can be accommodated without adverse impact on residential amenity or highway safety and that provision for off street parking can be made on or near the site in accordance with adopted maximum parking standards.

8.3 Since consideration of the last application Y10/0751/SH there has been a

substantial change in national and local planning policy via the introduction of the National Planning Policy Framework, replacing PPS’s and PPG’s, the revocation of the South East Plan, the adoption of the Shepway District Core Strategy Local Plan 2013, and the associated saving of and deletion of a number of Shepway Local Plan Review 2006 policies. As such, policies S2 and PPG13, referred to in the previous decision notice have been replaced, whilst policy SC6, which allocated the application site and surrounding area for the provision of a community centre/village hall, has been deleted, given its objective has been achieved.

8.4 Government policy set out in the NPPF, together with policy DSD of the Core

Strategy Local Plan and policy SD1 of the Shepway District Local Plan Review place sustainable development at the heart of the planning system. Paragraph 17 of the NPPF establishes 12 principles for plan making and decision making, many of which are relevant to the consideration of this application – planning should be:

• plan-led, empowering local people to shape their surroundings, with succinct local and neighbourhood plans setting out a positive vision for the future of the area.

• not simply be about scrutiny, but instead be a creative exercise in finding ways to enhance and improve the places in which people live their lives; proactively drive and support sustainable economic development to deliver the homes, business and industrial units, infrastructure and thriving local places that the country needs. Every effort should be made objectively to identify and then meet the housing, business and other development needs of an area, and respond positively to wider opportunities for growth.

• always seek to secure high quality design and a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings;

• take account of the different roles and character of different areas, promoting the vitality of our main urban areas,

• contribute to conserving and enhancing the natural environment and reducing pollution.

• take account of and support local strategies to improve health, social and cultural wellbeing for all, and deliver sufficient community and cultural facilities and services to meet local needs.

8.5 Paragraph 26 of the NPPF relates to the provision and assessment of retail facilities. This states that ‘when assessing applications for retail, leisure and office development outside of town centres, which are not in accordance with an up-to-date Local Plan, local planning authorities should require an impact assessment if the development is over a proportionate, locally set floorspace threshold (if there is no locally set threshold, the default threshold is 2,500 sq m).’ The proposed development, of 610 square metres is substantially below

DC/13/19 the threshold set out within the NPPF. Policy SS4 of the Core Strategy, replacing SS2 of the Local Plan Review does not include a lower, locally set threshold and as such no impact assessment is required for the use proposed by national or local planning policy.

8.6 The Retail Impact Assessment, submitted with the application is therefore

supportive rather than essential in nature. The conclusions that can be drawn from this information is that the size of the store aims to meet the local need of Hawkinge and would not impact negatively on other centres. Hawkinge retains little main shop and top up expenditure (based on the data provided) and a new store, central to the village could increase the retention of retail spend in a sustainable manner.

8.7 The Core Strategy identifies Hawkinge as a ‘Service Centre for Shepway, a

settlement which should accommodate development appropriate to Shepway and their own needs, in order to grow and consolidate their position as District Centres serving the local hinterland with shops, employment and public services.’ It is considered the proposed store would further enhance the role of Hawkinge as a District Service Centre.

Layout, scale, visual impact and design 8.8 Due to the shape of the site and existing constraints on the layout in place the

store and service yard are located to the northern section of the site, with access provided to the west. Along the western boundary of the site there is an extensive landscaping buffer zone approximately 12 metres in width, providing visual and physical separation between the proposed store and the domestic rear gardens of properties within Pritchard Drive. Within this area an acoustic fence and other fencing ensures security is maintained and access to the public is restricted. It is considered the distance between the store and neighbouring properties is visually appropriate. The car parking layout follows the principles of that negotiated for application Y10/0711/SH with KCC Highways and provides pedestrian and cyclist access across the site (connecting up with existing footways and cycle routes).

8.9 It is considered the layout of the car park improves the appearance of the site,

whilst the hard and soft landscaping, subject to detailed planting details and management provides appropriate screening where needed, with pockets of planting within the car park area. As shown on the submitted plans the use of contrasting paving materials ensures pedestrian areas are clearly defined. Given the above it is considered the layout of the site is acceptable.

8.10 The application proposes a single storey simple yet contemporary store,

which, by its design and scale seeks to minimise its visual prominence. Elevations and sections show the store, at a maximum height of 5.34 metres which is of a lower height than neighbouring dwellings There is separation of over 14 metres to the nearest property to the west and significantly further to properties to the east and the community centre to the south. The store is of a significantly smaller scale than the adjacent community centre and would appear largely subservient to this building which acts as a focal point within the

DC/13/19 locality against the backdrop of the village green. Whilst functional in nature, the materials proposed (timber cladding, powder coated panels, glazing) are, subject to approval, suitable for the locality. To the front of the store an entrance porch helps to ‘break up’ the massing of the building and improves its appearance. It is considered the bulk, scale and massing of the store is appropriate to the locality and would not be of harm to the wider area or designated AONB.

Amenity 8.11 As previously discussed it is considered that the proposed store is an

appropriate distance and scale so as to ensure it will not be overbearing or oppressive to any nearby properties. The site is already used as a car park throughout the day and evening, with the vast majority of spaces proposed to serve the community centre (which opens later in to the evening than the proposed store) rather than the store. Given the above it is not considered the proposal would cause undue disturbance from the additional use of the car park by customers.

8.12 With regards to deliveries the previous application underwent significant

additional survey work following consultation with Kent Highways and Environmental Health, whose comments are listed earlier in the report. These consultees recommend that delivery lorries should be no longer than 10.5 metres in length (rigid only) and must enter and leave the service yard in a forward gear, deliveries should take place between restricted hours and the number of deliveries per day should also be restricted to a maximum of 1 per hour.

8.13 The noise report supporting the application demonstrates to the satisfaction of

the Environmental Heath Manager that the proposal, with appropriate mitigation measures (acoustic fence) would not result in harm to neighbour amenity from noise and disturbance, however Environmental Health maintain an objection (as they did for application Y10/0711/SH) to the use of Heron Forstal Avenue for access. This matter was discussed in the assessment of the previous application, as set out below

‘Whilst Environmental Health retain an objection to the development this is solely based upon the routing of delivery lorries to the store via Heron Forstal Avenue, the only available access route. Given the restrictions that can be applied to deliveries via condition, together with the guidance of Kent Highways that the road is suitable for such a use it is not considered such an objection would be an appropriate reason for the refusal of the application.’

8.14 The previous application was not refused on the grounds that the access via Heron Forstal Avenue was unacceptable, nor did the inspector consider such access would be unsuitable for the proposed store. Further, the Council had previously granted planning permission for a store, to be accessed via Heron Forstal Avenue in 2001.

DC/13/19 8.15 Given the above assessment, and subject to significant restrictive conditions it

is considered the proposed development would not be of significant detriment to neighbour residential amenity that would warrant refusal of the application on these grounds.

Sustainable Construction 8.16 The proposed development has been supported by a BREEAM Pre

Assessment demonstrating that the store could be built to achieve a “Very Good” rating, incorporating 10% onsite energy generation.

Highways, Access and Transport 8.17 The development is located centrally within the village with opportunity for

access by public and private transport. Kent Highways consider access via Heron Forstal is appropriate for rigid service vehicles (up to 10.5 metres) as well as vehicles using the store and community centre.

8.18 The application proposes 82 parking spaces to meet the needs of both the

store and the existing community centre. The community centre has a small car park within its own ownership however as previously mentioned covenants on the application site require appropriate parking to be made available to meet the needs of the community centre (a minimum of 2000 square metres is stated) and at present land within the applicant’s ownership is used for parking. The community centre has a significant floor area and caters for wide ranging uses that meet the needs of the surrounding population as well as those further afield as members of sports and other clubs, the Baptist church etc.

8.19 The application has been supported by a detailed car park study, carried out on

Wednesday 22nd May 2013 and Saturday 18th May 2013 to a methodology agreed by KCC Highways using video to record arrivals and departures between 0700 and 2300 at 30 minute intervals. The study states the Community Centre confirmed that accommodation was fully booked on these days, which is considered to represent a typical weekday and Saturday.

8.20 The provided study covered both the community centre car park (61 spaces)

and the adjacent Town Council/village hall car park (29 spaces), (providing a total of 90 spaces) on the advice of KCC Highways as there is a degree of interrelationship between their use. The study identified that the maximum weekday combined use at any one time was 70 spaces, 27 in the Town Council car park and 43 within the Community Centre, whilst the maximum use of the Community Centre car park was 51 cars. On the Saturday the maximum combined use was 60 spaces, with a maximum of 41 cars within the Community Centre car park. The study therefore demonstrated that at the observed, typical use times the Community Centre car park did not operate to full capacity and had a minimum of 10 spaces available for use, with further parking available in the Hawkinge Town Council village car park and when considering the combined capacity of the car parks there were always a minimum of 20 spaces available mid week and 30 spaces available at the weekend.

DC/13/19 8.21 The proposed car park layout provides 82 spaces within a formal improved

layout. This is an increase of 21 spaces on that existing, whilst it should be noted that the usability of the existing car park is significantly compromised as it approaches capacity. Based on the survey information of existing use of the Community Centre car park there would be a minimum of 31 spaces available within the shared car park to serve the proposed store, at the peak use time for the community centre, whilst for the vast majority of the time, both midweek and on a Saturday there would be a greater number of car parking spaces available for the store than the maximum parking requirement of 31 spaces.

8.22 The Community Centre, Town Council and nearby residents have highlighted

in their comments that the community centre often hosts special events that attract over 300 people and that these events lead to parking within the public highway to the detriment of public safety. In granting planning permission (under both the 2000 and 2001 applications) for the Community Centre an area of the village green was identified to be grass-creted and made available for overflow parking (shown on a submitted plan) so as to ensure when large events were held there would not be highway safety issues with the surrounding streets. Unfortunately this condition was never appropriately discharged by the applicant, nor enforced by Shepway District Council, leading to the current situation whereby large scale events are taking place at the community centre that are significantly exceeding the adopted parking standards for a community centre of this size, without measures being taken by the community centre to manage this parking off site or via a travel or management plan.

8.23 KCC highway’s opinion is that the community centre should be putting

measures in place to manage parking off site for these large scale events more effectively as the car park will never appropriately accommodate such use and the use of Heron Forstal Avenue is not appropriate.

Other matters 8.24 Surface Water drainage and site remediation works can be controlled via

condition, in accordance with the requests of Southern Water and the Environment Agency.

Human Rights 8.25 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.

DC/13/19 8.26 This application is reported to Committee as Shepway District Council are

landowner/leaseholder for much of the application site and the applicant. 9.0 SUMMARY 9.1 Planning permission is sought for the erection of a 610 square metre

supermarket (A1 use), together with the provision of an 82 space car park to serve both the development and the adjacent community centre.

9.2 A previous application for the site was refused under reference Y10/0711/SH

and the appeal dismissed. The reason for refusal was solely on the grounds that insufficient evidence had been provided to demonstrate that appropriate shared parking provision could be made to meet the needs of the store and community centre. As such, it has previously been accepted by both Shepway District Council and the Planning Inspectorate that the principle of a supermarket in this location is acceptable, that the design, layout, service arrangements and proposed opening hours are acceptable/can be controlled by condition

9.3 The current application proposes a reduced size store, enlarged car parking

area and has been supported by a weekday and Saturday detailed assessment of the Community Centre car park usage and that of the adjacent Town Council community car park. This survey, carried out in agreement with KCC Highways demonstrates that there is adequate parking capacity to meet the needs of the Community Centre and proposed store. Accordingly, KCC Highways have removed their objection to the application and recommended approval, subject to a number of conditions.

9.4 The application has provided appropriate evidence and amendment to

overcome the previous reason for refusal and therefore complies with Development Plan policy.

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 granted subject to the following conditions 1. Standard time condition 2. Sample panel of materials to be provided on site and agreed in writing

DC/13/19

3. Provision of secure covered cycle parking facilities

4 Prior to the commencement of development details at a scale of 1:20 of all eaves treatments, the entrance canopy, windows, doors, external vents (including venting to roofs), ballustrading, railings and other external fittings to the building shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and no further alterations shall be made without subsequent prior approval.

5. The foodstore hereby permitted shall not be open for trading outside the hours

0800 to 2000 Monday to Saturday and 1000 -1600 on Sundays unless otherwise agreed by the Local Planning Authority.

6. Approved plans 7. No deliveries shall take place to the store outside the hours 0800 to 1800

Monday to Saturday and 1000 -1200 on Sundays and Bank Holidays and no activity shall occur within the service/delivery yard after 1900 hours Monday to Saturday and 1600 on Sundays and Bank Holidays unless otherwise agreed by the Local Planning Authority in writing.

8. Deliveries to the store must meet the following requirements:

a) Delivery vehicles to be rigid and not to exceed 10.5 metres in length b) All deliveries must enter and exit the service yard in a forward gear. c) No more than 5 deliveries per day, Monday to Saturday and 2 deliveries per

day on Sundays and Bank Holidays. d) No more than 1 delivery per hour.

9. Prior to the commencement of development 1:50 drawings of any external

trolley storage areas and shelters shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA. All trolleys shall be stored within the approved locations which shall not be varied without the prior approval of the LPA.

10. Prior to the commencement of development details of all external lighting to be

installed, including details of light spill, levels of illumination and measures to reduce the impact of lighting on the wider landscape shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority in writing for approval. The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

11. Prior to the commencement of development a management plan for the

operation of the car park to allow for its uncharged and uncontrolled use by the users of the Community Centre shall be submitted to and approved by the LPA, such measures as approved to be implemented at the time of the first opening of the premises to the general public and permanently retained thereafter.

DC/13/19 12. Provision and permanent retention of the vehicle parking spaces shown on the

submitted plans prior to the opening of the supermarket hereby permitted. 13. Prior to the commencement of development, details of noise attenuation

measures and management arrangements for the service yard, delivery vehicles and external plant and equipment shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA, such measures as approved to be implemented prior to the first use and retained thereafter.

14. The net retail sales area of the foodstore hereby approved shall not exceed 610

sq/m without the prior approval of the local planning authority. 15. Prior to the commencement of development full details of acoustic enclosures

for the air conditioning and condensing units shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details prior to the first use of the retail unit and retained and maintained at all times.

16. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General

Permitted Development) Order 1995 as amended by the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Amendment) (No.2) (England) Order 2008 (and any Order revoking and re-enacting those Orders) (with or without modification), no additional openings shall be constructed within the building hereby approved.

17. No part of the foodstore hereby permitted shall be brought into first use unless

and until a detailed Waste Management Plan (WMP) has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The detailed WMP shall cover the entire operation of the store and will include how the following matters are addressed:

i. Separation of waste ii. Recycling of waste packaging iii.Recycling of waste food stuffs The approved details shall be implemented at the store hereby permitted and

shall thereafter be maintained, unless otherwise agreed by the Local Planning Authority.

DC/13/19 18. No development shall take place until full details of both hard and soft

landscape works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority including an implementation programme and maintenance schedule. The details submitted shall include indications of all existing trees, shrubs and hedgerows on the land and details of any to be retained together with measures for their protection in the course of development. All hard and soft landscape works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. The works shall be carried out prior to the occupation of any part of the development or in accordance with the programme agreed with the Local Planning Authority. The soft landscape works shall be maintained in accordance with the agreed maintenance schedule.

19. No development shall take place until measures to prevent debris and spoil

being deposited on the public highway have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing and installed and maintained in a functioning condition in accordance with these approved measures during the construction works. Any spoil or debris deposited on the public highway shall be cleared by the applicants or contractors as soon as is reasonably practicable.

20. Soft landscape works shall include planting plans; written specifications

(including cultivation and other operations associated with plant and grass establishment); schedules of plants, noting species, plant sizes and proposed numbers/densities where appropriate; and an implementation programme.

21. Details of acoustic fence and solid gates to be provided to service yard to be

submitted to the LPA for approval prior to the commencement of development. 22. Contamination 23. No piled foundations 24. No goods waste or other materials shall be stored outside the buildings at any

time unless within the designated service yard area. 25. Details of a trolley lock or similar system to prevent trolleys being taken outside

of the car park shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing. The approved scheme shall be implemented on site prior to the opening of the store.

26. Full details of the proposed surface water drainage, a surface water attenuation

scheme and sewage disposal arrangements shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority before the development commences. The approved scheme shall be carried out prior to the occupation of the buildings and maintained in a functional condition.

DC/13/19 27. Prior to the commencement of any work, including site clearance works, details

of a method of construction, including times of working, wheel washing, siting of compounds, site personnel parking and lorry routing shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority and the construction of the development shall not be carried out otherwise than in strict accordance with the approved details.

In the view of the District Planning Authority, and having taken into account all material planning considerations; there is insufficient demonstrable harm or conflict with policy arising from the proposal to warrant withholding planning permission. In coming to this decision, regard has been had to the following policies: The full headings for the policies are attached to the schedule of planning matters at Appendix 1. The following policies of the Shepway Core Strategy Local Plan 2013 apply: DSD, SS1, SS3, SS4, The following policies of the Shepway District Local Plan Review apply: SD1, BE1, TR11, TR12 7.3 The following National Government Guidance applies: National Planning Policy Framework Planning Practice Guidance Decision of Committee

DC/13/19

DC/13/19

DC/13/19 Application No.: Y14/0138/SH Location of Site: 50 - 56 Shorncliffe Road (formally Westbrook

House) Folkestone Kent CT20 2WH Description of Development: Erection of four storey care home, being

matters of Appearance reserved to outline planning permission Y10/0077/SH

Applicant: Opus Care Ltd 5 Fitzroy Square London W1T 5HH Agent: Mr G Hollaway Guy Hollaway Architects LLP The Tramway Stables Rampart Road Hythe Date Received: 18.02.14 Date of Committee: 13.05.14 Expiry Date: 20.05.14 NG REF: 621607 136096 Officer Contact: Mr Ben Geering

RECOMMENDATION: That the reserved matters application be granted, subject to the conditions set out at the end of the report.

1.0 Location and description of site 1.1 The application site consists of part of the former Westbrook House

Preparatory School, an independent school which closed in July 2008 due to a lack of pupils and financial losses. It provided private education for mixed entry, ranging from 2-11 years for approximately 100 pupils.

1.2 Outline planning permission has been granted under reference Y10/0077/SH

for the redevelopment of the entire school site, with the current application consisting of a Reserved Matters application for the Appearance of the approved care home only, all other matters (scale, layout, access and landscaping having been approved). The site is centrally located within the urban area of Folkestone, and accessed via Shorncliffe Road to the south, which it fronts and via an approved new road to the rear, accessed from Martin Road. To the east are the residential properties within the 3 storey Cliffstone Court, whilst to the west is the retained school building, granted permission for conversion to 14 flats under reference Y10/0076/SH (permission now expired). The area is characterised by 3 and 4 storey properties, with the fourth storey often incorporated in to the roof space, fronting on to the wide, open aspect of Shorncliffe Road.

1.3 The site has an area of 0.34 Hectares.

DC/13/19 2.0 PLANNING HISTORY 2.1The application site has an extensive planning history relating to its former use as a school. Recent planning applications relate to its redevelopment, with Y10/0077/SH being the Outline planning permission to which this Reserved Matters application relates: Y10/0076/SH - Change of use and conversion of existing buildings

(Class D1) to 22 self-contained flats (Class C3) together with external alterations, car parking and landscaping. AC. 03.09.10.

Y10/0077/SH - Outline application for the construction of 127

dwellings (Class C3) and an 80 bedroom nursing home (Class C2) following the demolition of 52 Shorncliffe Road, together with associated access, parking and landscaping. AC. 29.08.12.

Y12/0048/NMC - Non Material Amendment to Y10/0077/SH -

Imposition of additional condition to clarify phased approach to development. A. 04.10.12.

2.2 In addition an application submitted under section 96a of the Town and

Country Planning Act is currently under consideration for a Non Material Amendment to the outline planning application, under reference Y14/0009/NMC. This seeks approval for amended plans, incorporating the following changes: 1. Increase in height of Nursing Home by 1.4 metres from 11.0 metres to

12.40 metres. 2. Increase in gap by 2.0 metres from 15.5m to 17.5m to Cliffstone Court. 3. Reduction in footprint of building from 1360m2 to 1300m2. 4. Reduction in gap to 56/58 Shorncliffe Road (within redline area) from 5.4

metres to 3.3 metres to the rear, with a wider gap to the frontage of 6.9 metres.

2.3 It is considered these alterations can be determined as a Non Material

Amendment to the major application Y10/0077/SH. Should members resolve to approve this Reserved Matters Application the Non Material Amendment currently under consideration will be determined by the Head of Planning Services. It should be noted that the height of the development sought by this Reserved Matters application extends to the height (12.4m) proposed by the Non Material Amendment. The suitability of this is discussed within the report.

3.0 THE PROPOSAL 3.1 Approval is sought for the outstanding Reserved Matter, Appearance, with

all other matters already approved at the outline stage. Whilst the description of the outline application stated an 80 bedroom care home, the

DC/13/19 proposal as submitted is for 110 bedrooms, and has been submitted by a carehome operator. The description of the development does not limit the number of bedrooms within the carehome, and therefore this matter is not under consideration, however, as set out in section 2 there is currently a Non Material Amendment under consideration which seeks to make minor changes to the footprint of the carehome and increase its height by 1.4m above that shown within the approved outline plans. This Non Material Amendment also increases the number of parking spaces serving the carehome from 19 to 38. As set out in the initial Transport Assessment, carehomes generate a negligible amount of trips on the highway network, considerably less than the previous use of the site. The applicant has confirmed that the carehome will generate up to 170 full and part time jobs, with a maximum of 35 on site at any one time.

3.2 The approved outline plans 09.20.20 and 09.20.21 identify the carehome

building as having 3 full storeys, with an additional pitched roof. The detailed design of the carehome, together with floorplans were not considered at the outline stage and are therefore considered under this Reserved Matters submission.

3.3 The details for approval identify a 4 storey building, incorporating 3 full

storeys and a 4th storey set back into a Mansard Roof with contemporary dormer windows, with a maximum ridge height of 12.4 metres. The application includes both the floorplans and elevations of the carehome, constituting its detailed design.

3.4 The ground floor provides the main entrance and lobby, residents’ lounges,

dining room and kitchen, together with, staff facilities, nursing and service areas. The ground floor includes 24 bedrooms. The first and second floors each provide 29 bedrooms, resident’s dining room, nurses station, and lounge areas whilst the fourth 4 floor, set within a Mansard roof provides 28 bedrooms,

3.5 The existing former Westbrook House School is of differing heights, ranging

from 2 to 3 storeys, with a maximum ridge height of 13.1 metres. 3.6 The proposed development adopts a contemporary design, predominantly of

red brick to match the surrounding buildings, with a slate mansard roof providing third floor accommodation and a slate blue brick to the ground floor. The design incorporates two and three section bays to the south facade, undulating in to each section so as to provide texture to and articulate the long facade to the street. Glazing is also used to articulate the elevation, with both projecting and recessed windows and a 4 storey glazed entrance lobby helping to break up and reduce the horizontal massing of the building and provide it with some verticality.

3.7 The proposal seeks to utilise the following materials:

• Brick work detailing to front and side elevations to maintain street scene, incorporating a slate blue brick plinth, red brick to facade to maintain existing character, painted render finish to rear.

DC/13/19 • Timber cladding to window sections with render detailing.

• Recessed and projecting windows with white detailing.

• Slate roof tiles and concealed gutter details, forming a mansard roof with contemporary projecting dormer windows and flush finish rooflights.

• Large format aluminium glazing with opening side lights

• Curtain walling to central communal space over main entrance 3.8 Following the submission of the application a number of minor changes have

been made to the design of the scheme, as identified within the amended plans now under consideration. These changes have been made to overcome officer concerns with regards to the relationship with the adjacent building (56-60) and provide for a materials and detailing that is most appropriate to the building and character of the area.

4.0 CONSULTATIONS 4.1 Folkestone Town Council Y14/0138/SH Object due to excessive height of building which is higher than neighbouring

property. Too overpowering. 4.2 Kent Highways

Whilst KCC Highways are not a required consultee for details of Appearance condition 21of Y10/0077/SH requires details of staff, visitor and cycle parking for the carehome to be provided prior to the commencement of development and these details have been shown on the submitted plans. have no objections to the application subject to the following conditions being attached to any planning permission granted:-

1) Provision of construction vehicle loading/unloading and turning facilities

prior to commencement of work on site and for the duration of construction.

2) Provision of parking facilities for site personnel and visitors prior to commencement of work on site and for the duration of construction.

3) Provision of measures to prevent the discharge of surface water from the private parking area onto the highway.

4) Provision of wheel washing facilities prior to commencement of work on site and for the duration of construction.

5) Provision and permanent retention of the vehicle parking spaces and turning space shown on the submitted plans prior to the occupation of the care home hereby permitted.

6) Provision and permanent retention of the cycle parking facilities shown on the submitted plans prior to the occupation of the care home hereby permitted.

Notes:

DC/13/19 It should be noted that the proposed parking provision is in accordance with Kent Parking Standards for a care home, which are 1 space per 6 beds and 1 space per 2 staff. The 110 bedroom care home requires 18 spaces for visitors to the site and 18 spaces for staff (based on 35 staff being based at the site at any one time). The required parking provision is 36 parking spaces and 38 parking spaces are being provided. 5.0 PUBLICITY

5.1 Neighbours notified by letter. Expiry date 12.03.2014. 5.2 Site Notice. Expiry date 18.03.2014 5.3 Press Notice. Expiry date 23.03.14. 6.0 REPRESENTATIONS 6.1 Comments received from The New Folkestone Society, Mr T Cook, 3

Avenay Court and Ms M Wright, 4 Marten Road, stating the following:

• The society wishes to object to the application. In common with other objections we feel the proposed buildings are too high. Adjacent properties are three storey and we feel the same criterion should apply here. We are also unhappy about the design. The concept modelling ‘mock up’ accompanying the plans presents a brutal and ugly image, and whilst there is no vernacular architecture in Shorncliffe Road, the excellent new building next to Earlscliffe has set the standard for this important thoroughfare. These buildings are in a different league, and no amount of tree planting is going to lessen their impact. We urge this application be refused.

• The proposed building with its height, bulky design and roofline, will present a dominant and potentially very intrusive building in to the street scene. The design and access statement has looked at the elegant pitched roofs, mainly red brick Victorian buildings with their varied but very attractive facades in the vicinity and then totally ignored them.

• The drawings attempt to hide the impact the building will have with trees that take at least 50 years to mature, if they survive that long.

• I think the Council should very carefully consider whether to allow a change from the agreed roofline and scale of this building, and whether a design that is more attractive and positively contributes to Shorncliffe Road can be achieved. Certainly the original buildings approved for removal are more architecturally stimulating and handsome for a principle road in to the town. The recently approved Christchurch Road Retirement buildings were more thoughtfully designed than this.

DC/13/19 • The building is too high and will effect the pleasure and use of

gardens in Marten Road, restricting the sunlight. Most buildings in the area are three storey.

6.2 Comments received from Ward Member, Councillor Rory Love: I wish to register my objection to the above planning application.

I am concerned that the overall height of the proposal is significantly greater than the adjoining properties and indeed greater than the originally proposed height shown on the outline planning application. This will create a building that will appear to be of a more overbearing bulk and mass, which will be out of character with the neighbouring buildings in the road. I fear it could also impact upon the amenity enjoyed by neighbouring residents, and support the view expressed by one such resident in Marten Road. The proposal potentially conflicts with policy BE1. I would hope that further discussions could take place with the developers and/or the architects to see whether a resolution to these issues could be found. I should like to be informed of the Case Officer recommendation and the outcome of any discussions over the height, in advance of the formal decision being reached, to enable me to consider whether the local residents’ best interests would be served by my calling-in the decision to the Development Control Committee.

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 Core Strategy Local Plan 2013 and

saved policies of the Shepway Local Plan Review 2006 apply: DSD, SS3, SD1, BE1, BE11, U1a, U7, SC1, TR5, TR6, TR11, TR12, 8.0 APPRAISAL 8.1 As previously stated the application seeks Reserved Matters approval for

Appearance only. As such, the development must be assessed on visual impact grounds (in terms of the appearance of the building within its surroundings and overall design quality) and amenity, with regard to whether the detailed design results in a loss of residential amenity by reason of overlooking or interlooking.

Visual Impact 8.2 Shorncliffe Road forms a wide, arterial, tree lined route in to Folkestone and

is fronted by properties of a grand scale, framing the street and contributing positively to its character. There are a number of existing 3 and 4 storey properties along its northern side that are of a similar scale to the care home, including 58/60 Shorncliffe Road which extends to 10.9 metres to the

DC/13/19 eaves, 14 metres to the ridge (measured from the street level) and ‘Building G’ approved by the outline permission, which has a maximum height of 13.45 metres to the ridge and has yet to be designed in detail. To the west of Marten Road, the properties 66-76 Shorncliffe Road are all of a grand Victorian scale, albeit incorporating pitched roofs, whilst to the east of the site is a large Victorian property incorporating 4th storey accommodation within a mansard roof. It is considered that the proposed building is therefore of a height and scale that reflects the character of the area and that the increase in height from that approved at outline does not result in harm to the boulevard character of the street scene.

8.3 The outline planning permission has already established permission for a

building of this width/frontage to the street scene and to a very similar height. It is considered the articulation to the front elevation ensures the facade retains texture and rhythm that assists in successfully breaking up the horizontal mass of the building. In particular the recessing and projection of windows and other glazed features is very important to the design of the building. The detailed design of the facades can be controlled by an additional condition, which will ensure appropriate detailing of the articulation of the elevations and require a sample panels of materials to be provided to the Council for approval.

8.4 Shorncliffe Road includes a variety of build styles, including residential

properties, Victorian mansion block flats and educational buildings both new (K College site) and old (Westbrooke House). It is considered the contemporary design is of a high architectural quality, incorporating appropriate detailing and materiality to ensure that it will appear appropriate within the street scene.

Neighbour Amenity 8.5 The impact of the proposal on residential amenity was considered in detail in

approving the outline planning application, with section 13.2 of the report stating the following:

“To the southern boundary of the site the nursing home building replaces existing school buildings fronting Shorncliffe Road, with its eastern elevation running parallel with the boundary with properties within Cliffestone Court. At present the existing 4 storey school building also faces numbers 1-6 Cliffestone Court, with side windows 14 metres to the west of those within Cliffestone Court providing acceptable residential amenity within this urban location. The proposal provides a minimum distance of 15 metres to Cliffestone Court, with the distance increasing to 17 metres for the second block numbers 7-12 and therefore it is not considered the proposal unacceptably increases overlooking of these properties. Given the distance between these buildings it is considered that balconies should not be installed on the eastern elevation of the carehome and this can be controlled via condition.”

8.6 The plans as submitted show an increased distance of 17.5 metres to

Cliffstone Court, further enhancing residential amenity of the occupants of

DC/13/19 these properties. No balconies are proposed, as stated in informative 5 of Y10/0077/SH .

8.7 Following amendments to the scheme the distance to 50-56 Shorncliffe

Road (the retained element of the school) has been increased along the frontage, with the building inset by 3.5 metres, to a depth of 4.5 metres. It is considered this amendment ensures appropriate openness is retained between buildings in the street scene and, by removing the large side return windows ensures that there is no opportunity for unacceptable inter/overlooking between the communal area of the carehome and flat 14 of the to be converted 50/56 Shorncliffe Road.

9.0 Human Rights 9.1 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.

9.2 This application is reported to Committee due to the objection of the Town

Council. It has also been called in by Councillor Rory Love. 10.0 SUMMARY & CONCLUSION 10.1 Outline planning permission has previously been granted for the

development of the former Westbrook House School to provide 127 dwellings and a nursing home. The current Reserved Matters application seeks approval for details of Appearance of the approved carehome, with all other matters already having been approved.

10.2 The development seeks to provide a building that is of a domestic rather

than institutional appearance, incorporating a number of contemporary design features alongside a predominantly redbrick facade that matches other buildings within the street. Design features include aluminium windows and curtain wall glazing, timber boarding and a slate mansard. It is considered the appearance of the building meets with established Core Strategy and Local Plan policy, as well as government guidance within the NPPF and PPG and is suitable to this prominent location which provides a main arterial route in to the town.

10.3 The impact of the proposal upon the residential amenity of neighbours was

fully considered in section 13 of the original report for the outline planning application. It is not considered that the detailed design of the building

DC/13/19 creates any additional concerns with regards to interlooking or overlooking, subject to appropriate conditions.

10.4 Given the above, and subject to the additional conditions below which

supplement those already placed on the outline planning permission it is recommended the details of Appearance are approved.

11.0 BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS 11.1 The consultation responses set out at Section 1.0 and any representations

at Section 3.0 are background documents for the purposes of the Local Government Act 1972 (as amended).

RECOMMENDATION: That the reserved matter application be granted, subject to the conditions set out at the end of the report.

Conditions

1. Details to be submitted for condition 2 of Y10/0077/SH (materials) shall include the construction of an onsite sample panel.

2. Prior to the commencement of development, further details shall be

submitted for approval pursuant to condition 1 of Y10/0077/SH at a scale of 1:20 (where relevant) with a written specification of the parapet capping, eaves detailing, all windows, external doors, external vents (including venting to roofs), window reveals/returns and projections, window surrounds, join between cladding and brickwork/render and other external fittings to the building. No further alterations shall be made to the approved building without subsequent prior approval.

Reason: These details have not been provided in this reserved matter application

and are necessary to ensure the satisfactory appearance of the completed development and in the interests of visual amenity in accordance with policies SD1and BE1 of the Shepway District Local Plan Review and government guidance within the NPPF.

Informative

1. The applicant is advised of the condition requirements of Y10/0077/SH. In the view of the District Planning Authority, and having taken into account all material planning considerations, there is insufficient demonstrable harm or conflict with policy arising from the proposal to warrant withholding planning permission. In coming to this decision, regard has been had to the following policies:

DC/13/19 Shepway District Local Plan Review – DSD, SS3, SD1, BE1, BE11, U1a, U7, SC1, TR5, TR6, TR11, TR12, National Planning Policy Framework Planning Practice Guidance Decision of Committee

DC/13/19

DC/13/19

DC/13/19 Application No: Y14/0129/SH Location of Site: Prospect Farm Gibraltar Lane Hawkinge Kent Development: Erection of single storey detached dwelling with

associated parking and landscaping following removal of existing stable block building.

Applicant: Dr L Thompson

52 Campbell Road Hawkinge Folkestone Kent CT18 7TL

Agent: Ms H Williams CC Studio Architects Suite D Mersham-Le-Hatch Business Village Hythe Road Ashford Kent TN25 5NH

Date Received: 14.02.14 Expiry Date: 11.04.14 Date of Committee: 13.05.14 Officer Contact: Miss Caroline Barker

RECOMMENDATION: That planning permission be refused for the reasons set out at the end of the report.

1.0 THE PROPOSAL

1.1 The application seeks permission for the erection of a single storey

detached dwelling following removal of the existing stable block building. It would be sited towards the front of the site adjacent to Gibraltar Road and cover an area of approximately 270 square metres. It would provide a master bedroom with en suite, 3 smaller bedrooms served by a shower room and additional bathroom, together with a living room, playroom, dining/kitchen, utility room, small cloak room and wc. Two offices served by an additional bedroom would also be provided and an external car port.

1.2 The dwelling has been designed with a monopitch roof which would slope

away from the road and be planted with sedum. It is also proposed to construct a bund from the road edge across the front of the dwelling in order that only a narrow row of windows is revealed above for the most part of the front elevation. The eastern end of the dwelling, car port would be clearly visible when travelling towards the site from the east.

DC/13/19 1.3 There is an overall aim of sustainable living sought by the applicant for

which different uses for the site have been identified. The site consists of three parcels of land which rise in level from north to south. The lower portion closest to the road to the north would form the residential curtilage consisting of the dwelling, vehicular access with car port/drive, and garden area where a Code for Sustainable Homes level 5 is sought for the dwelling. The middle field has been planted with more than 140 fruit trees and has vegetable planting covered by polytunnels which would be continued to be used for agriculture purposes and the applicant has plans to use the top field for livestock.

1.4 The application is accompanied by the following documentation:

• Pre-Code for Sustainable Homes and Draft Standard Assessment Procedure Assessment;

• Preliminary Ecology Appraisal;

• Design and Access Statement;

• Planning Statement 1.5 The submitted documentation sets out the sustainability drive for the

proposal which seeks to promote self-sufficient sustainable living. It is proposed the dwelling would reach a Code for Sustainable Homes (CSH) level 5. A pre- Code for Sustainable Homes and Draft Standard Assessment was carried out by Forum Energy Consultants which has confirmed that this level could be achievable. The report summarises the key features of sustainability that the applicant proposes to incorporate into the development including features to benefit from solar gain in its design, use of solar thermal panels, biomass heating systems and triple glazing and the intention to live from the land. Two home offices are proposed to reduce the need to travel to work. It is proposed that any hardstanding remaining from historic development of the site would be broken down and reused where possible in the building of the proposed dwelling.

2.0 LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION OF SITE 2.1 The application site is situated adjacent to but outside the settlement

boundary of Hawkinge and as such is regarded as countryside by development plan policies. The development known as Terlingham village within the settlement of Hawkinge is located to the north of the site on the other side of Gibraltar Lane, along which the defined settlement boundary runs. The application site is separated from Terlingham Village by a planted earth bund which is a significant area of land denoted on the policies map of the Local Plan as a strategic landscape buffer and which is protected from development by saved policy CO24 of the Shewpay District Local Plan Review. There is a footpath some 15m from the northwest corner of the application site which leads into Terlingham Village from Gibraltar Lane.

2.2 The land is identified as falling within the designated Area of Outstanding

Natural Beauty (AONB) and Special Landscape Area (SLA) as set out in the policies map of the local plan and is also identified as having archaeological

DC/13/19 potential. The land rises slightly from north to south and forms part of the wider landscape that has a rural open character

2.3 The site is a formed of 4 parcels of land. The area to the northeaster corner

adjacent to the road contains an existing dilapidated stable block with associated hardstanding. The remaining 3 parcels are meadow and undeveloped, with the exception of a dilapidated field shelter to the western boundary of the northern paddock. There are also remains of a concrete base in the northernmost field showing history of previous development

2.4 There is a group of buildings to the east of the site comprising dwellings and

associated rural/commercial buildings. It is understood a haulage company is run from the adjacent Gibraltar Farm where there is evidence of buildings, hardstandings and vehicles. The closest residential building is located some 30m to the east of the application. Beyond this property are two other residential dwellings fronting Gibraltar Lane but there are no other immediately adjoining neighbours surrounding the application site, the closest being over 300m away to the southwest which is not visible across the landscape features. The road is narrow and winding and bordered with sporadic tree planting. The small pockets of buildings are interspersed within meadows and paddock lands amongst the rolling green landscape. The area has a rural character to it, remote from the dense residential development of Hawkinge village.

3.0 RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY SH/76/626 - Siting of residential caravan Refused. 84/0867/SH - Erection of stables. Approved 06.11.84 88/0426/SH - Outline application for the erection of a dwelling.

Refused. 21.09.88. 88/1618/SH - Outline application for the erection of a detached

dwelling. Refused. 28.02.89. 89/0803/SH - Outline application for the erection of a dwelling.

Refused. 29.09.89. 90/1053/SH - Outline application for the erection of a detached

bungalow. Refused. 20.11.90. 92/0854/SH - Outline application for the erection of a single

storey dwelling. Refused. 07.01.93. Appeal dismissed.

96/0048/SH - Outline application for the erection of a residential

dwelling. Refused. 13.03.96. 4.0 CONSULTATION RESPONSES

DC/13/19 4.1 Hawkinge Town Council

Object. Contrary to planning policies CO1 and CO4. Outside of the village envelope.

4.2 Kent Highways Services

I recommend that this application be refused for the following reasons:

1. The proposed site access does not provide the required visibility splays of 2 metres by 43 metres in each direction. There is currently a large amount of trees/vegetation to the left of the site access which substantially reduces visibility out of the access so that the site access only has visibility splays of approximately 15 metres to the left, which is far less than the required standards and the intersection of the site access will be detrimental to highway safety.

2. The proposal, located remote from services, employment opportunities and not being well served by public transport, is contrary to the aims of the National Planning Policy Framework (paragraphs 29-41) which seeks to support reductions in green house gas emissions, reduce congestion and minimise journey lengths.

4.3 Kent Downs AONB Unit

Views awaited

4.4 Natural England Natural England’s comments in relation to this application are provided in the following sections:

• Statutory nature conservation sites – no objection This application is in close proximity to the Folkestone to Etchinghill Escarpment Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). This SSSI forms part of the Folkestone to Etchinghill Escarpment Special Area of Conservation (SAC).

Natural England advises your authority that the proposal, if undertaken in strict accordance with the details submitted, is not likely to have a significant effect on the interest features for which Folkestone to Etchinghill Escarpment has been classified. Natural England therefore advises that your authority is not required to undertake an Appropriate Assessment to assess the implications of this proposal on the site’s conservation objectives.

In addition, Natural England is satisfied that the proposed development being carried out in strict accordance with the details of the application, as submitted, will not damage or destroy the interest features for which the Folkestone to Etchinghill Escarpment SSSI has been notified. We therefore advise your authority that this SSSI does not represent a constraint in determining this application. Should the details of this application change, Natural England draws your attention to Section 28(I)

DC/13/19 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (As amended), requiring your authority to re-consult Natural England.

• Protected landscapes Having reviewed the application Natural England does not wish to comment on this development proposal.

The development however relates to the Kent Downs AONB. We therefore advise you to seek the advice of the AONB Unit. Their knowledge of the location and wider landscape setting of the development should help to confirm whether or not it would impact significantly on the purposes of the designation. They will also be able to advise whether the development accords with the aims and policies set out in the AONB management plan.

• Protected species We have not assessed this application and associated documents for impacts on protected species.

Natural England has published Standing Advice on protected species. The standing advice includes a habitat decision tree which provides advice to planners on deciding if there is a ‘reasonable likelihood’ of protected species being present. It also provides detailed advice on the protected species most often affected by development, including flow charts for individual species to enable an assessment to be made on a protected species survey and mitigation strategy.

You should apply our Standing Advice to this application as it is a material consideration in the determination of applications in the same way as any individual response received from natural England following consultation.

The Standing Advice should not be treated as giving any indication or providing any assurance in respect of European Protected Species (EPS) that the proposed development is unlikely to affect the EPS present on the site; nor should it be interpreted as meaning that Natural England has reached any views as to whether a licence may be granted,.

If you have any specific questions on aspects that are not covered by out Standing Advice for European Protected Species or have difficulty in applying it to this application please contact us with details.

• Local Sites If the proposal site is on or adjacent to a local site e.g. Local Wildlife Site, Regionally Important Geological/Geomorphological (RIGS) or Local Natural Reserve (LNR) the authority should ensure it has sufficient information to fully understand the impact of the proposal on the local site before it determines the application.

• Biodiversity Enhancements This application may provide opportunities to incorporate features into the design which are beneficial to wildlife, such as the incorporation of

DC/13/19 roosting opportunities for bats or the installation of bird nest boxes. The authority should consider securing measures to enhance the biodiversity of the site from the applicant, if it is minded to grant permission for this application. This is in accordance with Paragraph 118 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Additionally, we would draw your attention to Section 40 of the Natural environment and Rural communities Act (2006) which states that ‘Every public authority must, in exercising its functions, have regard, so far as it is consistent with the proper exercise of those functions, to the purpose of conserving biodiversity’. Section 40(3) of the same Act also states that ‘conserving biodiversity includes, in relation to a living organism or type of habitat, restoring or enhancing a population or habitat’.

• Landscape enhancement This application may provide opportunities to enhance the character and local distinctiveness of the surrounding natural and built environment; use natural resources more sustainably; and bring benefits for the local community, for example through green space provision and access to and contact with nature.

Landscape characterisation and townscape assessments, and associated sensitivity and capacity assessments provide tools for planners and developers to consider new development and ensure that it makes a positive contribution in terms of design, form and location, to the location, to the character and functions of the landscape and avoids any unacceptable impacts.

4.5 Kent Wildlife Trust

Views awaited

4.6 Archaeology Views awaited. 5.0 PUBLICITY 5.1 Neighbours notified by letter. Expiry date 10.03.14. 5.2 Site Notice – Advertised as a Departure from policy. Expiry date 28.03.14. 5.3 Press Notice – Advertised as a Departure from policy. Expiry date 23.03.14. 6.0 REPRESENTATIONS 6.1 One email received objecting on the following grounds:

• Entrance in a dangerous position;

• Development would add to congestion on the lane;

DC/13/19 • Further increase in vehicles arising from proposed expansion to home

business, deliveries from the proposed working of the land and construction vehicles;

• Siting of proposed dwelling not in keeping with existing development and be prominent close to the boundary;

• No previous buildings in this position at the site;

• Previous applications for development rejected;

• Presence of wildlife in the area;

• Not suitable or viable for sustainable or self-sufficient living practices since it is exposed to the weather, poor ground quality and too small for keeping livestock;

• Blot on the landscape. 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 saved policies of the Shepway District Local Plan Review

apply: SD1, HO1, BE1, BE16, U3, U4, TR11, TR12, CO1, CO4, CO24 7.3 The following policies of the Shepway Core Strategy Local Plan apply: DSD, SS1, SS2, SS3, CSD2, CSD3, CSD4 7.4 The following Supplementary Planning Documents and Government

Guidance apply:

National Planning Policy Statement (NPPF) National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG)

8.0 APPRAISAL Relevant Material Planning Considerations 8.1 The main issues to be considered in the determination of this application are

the principal of new residential development within the countryside outside any defined settlement boundary, the design standard of the dwelling and impact upon the landscape, impact on highways, neighbouring amenity and ecology.

Background 8.2 In the consideration of this application, Members’ attention is drawn to the

planning history. Although the site has not been the subject of a recent application, a series of planning applications were submitted for residential development of the site for a single dwelling between 1988 and 1996. In each case, planning permission was refused on the grounds that the development would result in sporadic development in a rural area where

DC/13/19 there was no exceptional justification. In the case of application 92/0854/SH the case was dismissed by the Inspector at an appeal. An additional ground was introduced under 90/1053/SH in relation to the suitability of Gibraltar Lane in highway terms but this was not supported by the Inspector.

8.3 It is acknowledged that these decisions were made several years ago and

the residential development of Terlingham Village on the northern side of Gibraltar Lane has since been developed. However, it is considered that, as was the case at the time of the previous applications, there remains a distinction in the character of the two areas either side of Gibraltar Lane (discussed below) and while there have been modifications to policy since the previous applications, the primary planning policy principles regarding development outside the designated settlement boundary remain the same.

Policy 8.4 At the heart of the NPPF is a presumption in favour of sustainable

development for which one of the core principles is to contribute to the conservation of the natural environment. Paragraph 109 requires the planning system to contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by protecting and enhancing valued landscapes. This is consolidated in paragraph 115 which requires that ‘great weight’ should be given to ‘conserving landscape and scenic beauty in...Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, which have the highest status of protection in relation to landscape and scenic beauty'. To promote sustainable development in rural areas, the NPPF resists the provision of new isolated housing in the countryside where there is no essential need unless in exceptional circumstances, such as exceptional quality or innovative nature of the design (Para. 55).

8.5 In line with the principles of sustainable development, policies DSD, SS1,

SS3, CDS3 and CSD4 of the Shepway Core Strategy Local Plan seek to direct development to the most sustainable locations within the defined settlement boundaries to protect the open countryside and ensure development within the countryside is only permitted where it is essential, while having close regard to the need for conservation and enhancement of natural beauty in the AONB and its setting, which 'should take priority over other planning considerations'. Policy SS3 identifies that the most appropriate sites for development where the principle of development is likely to be acceptable are sites of previously developed land within the defined settlements, provided it is not of high environmental value. Policy CSD3 sets out specific development types which are considered appropriate within rural areas (set out in full below).

8.6 Saved local plan policy SD1 builds on the principles of sustainable

development and sets out that in meeting social objectives and helping people meet their personal aspirations through accommodating new development and improving the quality of life for all members of society, 'areas of countryside that are of special quality, particularly the Kent Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty [and] Special Landscape Areas' should be protected and enhanced. Saved policy CO1 expands on this principal

DC/13/19 stating that that the countryside will be protected for its own sake and only permit development which is of a high standard of design and sympathetic in scale and appearance to their setting. Saved policy CO4 refers specifically to the designation of Special Landscape Areas and states that proposals should protect or enhance the natural beauty of the Special Landscape Area and that development proposals that are not consistent with this objective will not be permitted unless there is a need to secure social wellbeing which outweighs the need to protect the SLAs countywide landscape significance. Saved policy CO24, whilst not directly applicable to the application site, but associated with the surrounding landscape, seeks to define and protect strategic landscape areas whilst preventing development within these areas.

Development in the Countryside 8.7 It is a fundamental principle of national and local planning policy,

encapsulated by policies SS1, SS3 and CSD3 of the Core Strategy, that new dwellings should not be permitted in the countryside outside the confines of the major/principal urban areas, rural service centres or smaller rural settlements unless they are replacements for existing dwellings or where it can be demonstrated there is an essential need for farm, forestry or other workers.

8.8 It is considered that there are two distinct character areas that can be

identified either side of Gibraltar Lane: the densely populated town houses with new infrastructure in Hawkinge village, which has a denser suburban appearance and grain with a structured layout, and the land to the south of Gibraltar Lane, which is characterised by rolling countryside providing open views over grazing fields and woods. The distinction between the two areas has been clearly delineated by the formation of a landscaped earth bund which was constructed in conjunction with the development of Terlingham Village to the north of the site. This bund forms a landscape buffer around the edge, identifying the margins of the settlement boundary and enclosing the village within the wider open countryside. This bund is identified and protected from development on the policies map of the Local Plan and within the policy wording of saved policy CO24. As such, the application site is not only identified as being situated outside the settlement boundary but clearly outside the confines of Hawkinge village in a countryside location.

8.9 Shepway Core Strategy Local Plan policy SS1 states that ‘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’ and key to this is ‘consolidating Hawkinge’s growth’. It is accepted that Hawkinge is located within the AONB but developments outside the defined village envelope which result of the spread of buildings and expansion of the built form in the open countryside is contrary to the principle aims of this policy.

8.10 The application site is directly adjacent to a group of buildings comprising

dwellings and a commercial haulage business. It comprises a very small group of buildings along a narrow rural lane which, despite the proximity to Hawkinge Village, is in an isolated position given the landscape buffer and

DC/13/19 surrounding open countryside and proximity of any other surrounding development. Excluding Hawkinge village which has been identified as falling within a different spatial character, the closest buildings are over 300m away. In light of the dispersion of existing developments in the locality and the character of the area, the proposed development would result in the erection of a house in an isolated rural location and result in sporadic growth in the countryside, contrary to the aims of saved policies CO1 and CO4 of the Shepway District Local Plan Review, policies SS1, SS3, CDS3 and CSD4 of the Shepway Core Strategy Local Plan and paragraph 115 of the NPPF.

Need 8.11 Paragraph 55 of the NPPF requires there to be an essential need for the

provision of new isolated housing in the countryside. Shepway Core Strategy Local Plan policy CSD3 builds on this principle and sets out that proposals for new development in locations outside of the Settlement Hierarchy may only be allowed if a rural location is essential and that new housing development in a rural location will only be acceptable in principal if forming a site for:

• affordable housing (rural exceptions as per CSD1, or allocated sites);

• agriculture, forestry or equine development;

• sustainable rural diversification, and tourism enterprises;

• local public/essential services and community facilities;

• replacement buildings (on a like for like basis);

• conversions of buildings that contribute to the character of their location;

• sustainable rural transport improvements;

• essential flood defences or strategic coastal recreation. 8.12 The proposed development seeks permission for a new dwelling which

would involve the removal of an existing stable building. No case has been set out in the application justifying an essential need for the dwelling in this location. The applicant sets out evidence showing a previous residential use of the site in historic maps dating from 1858-1945. The site has not been used for residential purposes since the advent of the modern planning system (circa 1948) for some 70 years and as such, the proposal can only be assessed on the provision of a new dwelling in the countryside.

8.13 While the applicant may be commended for pursuing their ideal for a self-

supported lifestyle, a situation, future occupants of the property may not aspire to, the development does not meet the criteria above. It is also acknowledged that, while the Code for Sustainable Homes level could be secured, it would not be reasonable or practical to secure the applicant’s intention to work the land. In the same respect, the use of home offices might be discontinued in a change of circumstances and might not be implemented by future occupants. It is therefore considered that there is no essential need for a countryside location that would outweigh the presumption against development at this site, contrary to established national and local plan policy.

DC/13/19 Sustainability 8.14 It is acknowledged that the application sets out that the site is close to

footpaths leading to Hawkinge Village which enables members of the family to use sustainable transport methods to travel to school. It is also noted that the applicant sets out the intention to be self-sufficient and to work from the home offices which reduces the need to travel and to achieve a Code for Sustainable Homes level 5 (which is discussed in more detail below). However, the children will not always attend the local primary school as they grow older and, while it is recognised the lack of services in Hawkinge is a problem that effects the entire village, it is inevitable that the occupants of this proposed dwelling will be reliant on a car given the remote location of the application site, lack of overall facilities and employment opportunities in Hawkinge and not being well served by public transport, Despite the intention for a self-supported lifestyle and intention to work from home, this may well not meet the aspirations of any future residents and it would not be reasonable or practical to remove the ability to use a car. This point is raised by Kent Highways in their comments set out in paragraph 4.2 above.

8.15 It is therefore considered that while the proposal offers some sustainability

benefits, they are not sufficient to override other material considerations. Design/Impact on Landscape 8.16 As set out in the policy section above, the NPPF allows for new dwellings in

the countryside for circumstances where exceptional quality or innovative nature of the design has been demonstrated. Paragraph 55 sets out that such a design should:

a) be truly outstanding or innovative, helping to raise standards of design

more generally in rural areas; b) reflect the highest standards in architecture; c) significantly enhance its immediate setting; and d) be sensitive to the defining characteristics of the local area

This sets an extremely high expectation for proposals to demonstrate truly remarkable and innovative design standards. It should be noted that there are very few examples nationwide where applications have been approved on this basis.

8.17 Regarding criteria a) and b) above, it is intended the proposed dwelling

meets CSH level 5. The application sets out a list of self-sufficient living/sustainable technologies in the Draft CSH/SAP Assessment which identifies the proposed use of biomas boilers, PV cells, triple glazing, rainwater harvesting, dual wc and reduced flow taps, energy efficient lighting and appliances and monitoring devices, recycling/compost facilities and cycle storage. The design of the dwelling has also taken into account its orientation and design to optimise solar and heating gain and it is proposed to enhance the biodiversity of the site by recycling the residual concrete

DC/13/19 bases and provide more planting. The use of a bund and sedum roof would also enhance the energy efficiency of the building. In order to meet the exceptional threshold for design required by the NPPF, amongst other equally important matters, a very high level of sustainability would be expected. While these technologies and methods for sustainable living enhance the design quality of the proposal, it has not been demonstrated that the development would utilise pioneering or innovative technologies that would meet the high standard set out in paragraph 55.

8.18 The dwelling has a simple rectangular form with a very elongated frontage.

The line of the monopitch roof is continued to the rear with the provision of a brise soleil and the rear elevation has been opened up with extensive fenestration which lacks finesse. It is not considered that the appearance of the building is remarkable or shows particular architectural flair. It has been designed with the intention that it will blend into the landscape. It need not be assumed, however, that in order to meet the NPPF requirement for a building exhibiting the highest standards in architecture the dwelling must be hidden from view, far from in fact. Overall, the design of the building is considered to be unremarkable and does not display exceptional design flair or innovative features. Applications seeking to achieve the highest of design quality and the justification of paragraph 55 of the NPPF in terms of exceptional quality or innovative nature of the design, often seek an independent review of this by a design review panel, who will critically assess the design and the contribution it makes to the landscape. While this is not a mandatory requirement, this has not been done with the current application and as such there is no support from an independent body to verify that the development would meet the requirements of paragraph 55 of the NPPF.

8.19 Regarding criteria c) and d) above, the dwelling has been designed so as to

screen it from outside the site. Design features such as an earth bund, which will obscure most of the front elevation, and a sedum monopitch roof have been employed so as to help blend the building into the landscape and obscure the development from both shorter and longer distance views. The building has a low profile and has been positioned at the lowest part of the site in order to prevent the building being overly prominent in the landscape. In doing so, however, it is located close to the road. This does not follow the pattern of development at the adjoining sites where the single storey buildings are set back to limit their dominance from the road and create space along the frontage which allows for landscaping and maintain an element of space. The positioning of the dwelling so close to the road has necessitated the creation of a bund to screen the building. Since the dwelling has been designed with a particularly elongated form, measuring over 37 metres, the manipulation of the landscape to create the bund would be extensive. The bund would therefore be prominent from the road and would have a contrived appearance which would be incongruous to the character of the rural area. In landscape terms, it is questionable whether the use of sedum (to the roof) is appropriate and will have the desired effect to blend in since the site is surrounded by grassed meadow.

DC/13/19 8.20 The erection of a dwelling would give rise to domestic activity and

paraphernalia which would result in a material change in the character and appearance of the site. While some permitted development rights could be restricted to control this, there would be a significant shift inherent in the change from agricultural/horse keeping to domestic use. The proximity of the house to the road would also lead to greater visibility of the development, albeit from limited positions but particularly from the east where the entrance would be located.

8.21 It is therefore considered that the proposal would not sit comfortably in the

context of the site’s immediate setting and would erode the open, undeveloped nature of the locality. The bund would create an unnatural feature unrelated to the rural character of the lane and would fail to protect the special character and appearance of the designated landscape. In this respect, the proposal would be contrary to saved policies CO1 and CO4 of the NPPF, policy CSD4 of the Shepway Core Strategy Local Plan and the NPPF which give the highest status of protection to the AONB and seek to preserve the special character of the countryside.

8.22 It is not considered that the design of the proposed dwelling is unacceptable

per se but in the context of paragraph 55 of the NPPF, it does not meet the exacting design standards required to outweigh other planning considerations. While the building has been designed so as to try and blend the building into its surroundings, the development would result in the presence of an additional built form in the countryside and would not significantly enhance its immediate setting, as required by paragraph 55. In light of the distance from the existing group of buildings at Gibraltar Farm and physical separation by the existing field, the proposed development would by visually isolated. As such, the development would bring about a significant and harmful change in the character of the site and expand and consolidate the built form outside the settlement boundary which, in the absence of any overriding justification, would be harmful to the open character of the landscape and fail to protect the special value of the designated AONB and SLA. As such the proposals would be contrary to established Government and Development Plan policies which seek to protect the character and appearance of the rural landscape.

Highways 8.23 The proposed development would make use of the existing access to the

site and provide off street parking under a car port with additional forecourt space.

8.24 Kent Highways have raised objections on two grounds. The second ground

in relation to the sustainability of the location of the site has been discussed above.

8.25 The first ground relates to the fact the proposed site access does not

provide the required visibility splay of 2 metres by 43 metres in each direction. Following receipt of these comments, the applicant provided an

DC/13/19 amended site layout plan showing the existing hedgerow/planting to be cut back and cleared together with additional planting/screening.

8.26 Following re-consultation, Kent Highways re-iterated their concerns that the

plans still failed to show the required visibility splays from the centre line of the site entrance and that they were only being shown to the left of the site access where they should be provided on both sides. Whilst it might be possible to resolve this issue, for example by the repositioning of the access, the application must be assessed on the information submitted, and it not clear whether these visibility splays could be achieved in any case within the boundary of the site (within the applicants control) or the implications that this may have on the existing landscape features. In this respect, Kent Highways objection is maintained and the proposal is considered unacceptable in highway terms since the substandard access would be detrimental to highway safety.

8.27 It is acknowledged that a public objection was raised on the grounds of

increased traffic, however traffic generated by development is necessary and transient and on the basis that Kent Highways raise no objection to the increase in traffic or congestion as a result of the development, it is not considered that these concerns of the local resident would be a reasonable ground to withhold planning permission.

Neighbouring Amenity 8.28 In light of the separation that would be retained between the proposed

dwelling and the closest neighbour to the east at Gibraltar Farm, the development would not cause overshadowing or be overbearing. The low profile of the proposal and siting of the dwelling would not result in overlooking and loss of privacy. Other surrounding properties would be sited even further away so as not to be affected. As such, it is considered that the residential amenities of neighbouring occupiers would be safeguarded as a result of the development.

Ecology 8.29 The application site is a rural field which is largely previously undeveloped.

Development of the site would therefore likely affect any ecological value of the site. An ecology walkover study and habitat survey has been carried out by a qualified professional and submitted with the application. No statutory designated sties or local wildlife sites are identified within 500m of the site.

8.30 It was found that the site had the potential habitat to support a limited

number of protected species. The report recommended that a further investigation into the presence/absence of reptiles is required, together with other recommendations for mitigation measures and ecological enhancements which could be conditioned. Natural England raised no overall objection to the impact on ecology. If permission were to be granted, it is considered that such matters could be controlled by condition.

Other Issues

DC/13/19 8.31 The applicant has provided examples where other permissions have

previously been granted permission outside the settlement boundary and within the AONB in various locations.

8.32 In each of these cases, there was found to be an exceptional circumstance

why planning permission should be approved. Each case is assessed on its individual merits and an independent assessment of the site and proposal undertaken in accordance with relevant development policies. These cases are not material to the consideration of this planning application and should not influence any decision made in respect of this proposal.

HUMAN RIGHTS 8.33 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.

8.34 This application is reported to Committee at the request of Cllr Stuart Peall 9.0 SUMMARY 9.1 The application seek permission for the erection of a dwelling outside the

settlement boundary and within the open countryside in an area which is identified as been distinct from the confines of the village envelope, separated by an extensive earth bund that was formed to distinguish the built environment with the open countryside at the time of the Terlingham Village development.

No justification has been provided to demonstrate an exceptional need for the dwelling that might override the assumption against development of this site and the proposal fails to meet the exacting design tests of the NPPF which allows for special circumstances for designs which are truly outstanding or innovative, reflect the highest standards in architecture and significantly enhance its immediate setting.

9.2 As such, the proposal would present an additional building in the countryside

which would consolidate and expand the built environment in the countryside and cause demonstrable harm to the open rural character of the landscape. In this respect, the development would fail to preserve or enhance the specially designated landscape of the AONB and SLA which are given the highest status of protection. As such, and in accordance with Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, the proposals are contrary to established Government and Local Plan policies, to which there are no material considerations which outweigh this policy conflict, and the application is recommended for refusal.

DC/13/19

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 reasons:

1. Saved policies SD1, CO1 and HO1 of the Shepway District Local Plan

Review, policies DSD, SS1, SS3 and CSD3 of the Core Strategy and the National Planning Policy Framework seek to concentrate new residential development in sustainable locations within the built confines of settlements and to restrict new development in rural locations outside the relevant towns and rural villages unless it is demonstrated to be necessary to agriculture, forestry, the winning of minerals and other land uses which demand a rural location, in the interests of countryside conservation and efficient use of land resources, or unless there are special circumstances to override these constraints. The application site is situated outside any settlement boundary beyond the confines of the village envelope and it is considered that no such justification exists in this case. As such, the proposal is contrary to development policy, would result in sporadic development in the countryside without any overriding need or special justification, and would be contrary to the aims of sustainable development since there would be a reliance on car use given its location to access key services.

2. The proposed development, located outside the designated boundary of any

settlement, would consolidate and expand the built environment in the countryside and result in the unacceptable and unjustified domestication of the countryside to the detriment of the open rural character and beauty of the designated Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and Special Landscape Area, which have the highest status of protection. As such, the development would fail to protect the special character of the specially designated landscape, contrary to saved policies SD1, CO1 and CO4 of the Shepway District Local Plan Review, policies DSD and CSD4 of the Shepway Core Strategy Local Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.

3. The proposed siting of the proposed dwelling, including methods to screen

the development, would present a development which would be out of keeping with the immediate setting of the site and present landscape features which would be incongruous in the context of the landscape. The development would therefore be harmful to the visual amenity of the rural area and harmful to the special character of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and Special Landscape Area, contrary to saved policies SD1, CO1 and CO4 of the Shepway District Local Plan Review, policies DSD, SS1 and CSD4 of the Shepway Core Strategy Local Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.

DC/13/19 4. The proposed development does not provide adequate sight lines to either

side of the access which will obscure visibility for vehicles leaving the site, to the detriment of highway safety. As such, the development is contrary to the requirements of saved policies SD1, TR11 and TR12 of the Shepway District Local Pan Review and paragraph 32 of the National Planning Policy Framework which seeks to ensure that safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all people.

Decision of Committee

DC/13/19

DC/13/19 Application No: Y14/0391/SH Location of Site: Madeira Court Clifton Crescent Folkestone Kent Development: Application of external insulation render to all

elevations, new canopies to top balconies on south east elevations and the construction of a sedum roof over the garage

Applicant: Mr M Holden

Madeira Court (Folkestone) Ltd 17 West Heath Drive London NW11 7QG

Date Received: 19.03.14 Expiry Date: 14.05.14 Date of Committee: 13.05.14 Officer Contact: Mr Robert Allan

RECOMMENDATION: That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions set out at the end of the report.

1.0 THE PROPOSAL

1.1 The application is a response to stated issues of water ingress and thermal

insulation, as well as being suggested to improve the appearance of the building as it presently stands. Within the design and access statement accompanying the application, the applicant sets out the complications that the building and its occupants suffer and details the proposals for the structure.

1.2 In response to the suggested poor thermal efficiency of the building and

direct water ingress, which together cause condensation and damp issues for occupants, it is suggested that the flats are clad in magnolia finished rendered insulated cladding. This would be coloured matched to the adjoining building. The balcony slabs, windows and window reveals will be finished in white. The cladding would be 100mm of phenolic foam or Rockwool insulation slab mechanically fixed to the walls, giving a 120mm reveal to the windows. As part of these alterations, a trickle ventilation system will be fitted, along with an extraction system and a heat exchanger to recover heat from the extract air. This system minimises heat loss from direct ventilation (opening windows) but guards against condensation.

1.3 The low-level garage roof is currently covered in felt that is stated to be at

the end of its ‘life’. It is suggested that a 75mm stand up is provided around the perimeter of this area as part of the proposal to turn the roof into a sedum or similar slow growth small leaf planted area. The reason for the upstand is to solve the current problem of children playing on the roof.

DC/13/19 1.4 Finally, it is proposed to provide canopies to the top balconies on the south-

east facing elevation that is closest to the Leas, only. These canopies would be finished in white render to match the balcony plinths. It is also proposed to render the tank room on the roof of the building and finish it in magnolia with white trim.

2.0 LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION OF SITE 2.1 The application property has six floors of flats, two flats per floor, above a

semi-basement garage. The garage extends out beyond the flats as a low roof around 1100mm above the ground. The building is generally brick-faced, but with rendered bands to the top and bottom of the building and the garage roof, as well pebble panels in the north western elevation of the building. The building was constructed in 1964 and is suggested to be of the ‘International Style’ of architecture.

2.2 The south-east facade has two faces, the one toward the south-western end

of the property being recessed. There are balconies on both these faces, formed from cantilevered concrete, with teak handrails and glass.

2.3 The property is within the Leas and Bayle Conservation Area, in a prominent

position at the terminus of a Victorian crescent and attached directly to a listed building, number 31. The adjacent villas in the crescent have rendered facades with decorative mouldings and slate roofs.

3.0 RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY Y14/0256/SH - Creation of a single penthouse flat on the roof,

together with the application of external insulation render to all elevations, new canopies to top balconies on south east elevations and the construction of a sedum roof over the garage.

4.0 CONSULTATION RESPONSES 4.1 Folkestone Town Council Comments same as application Y14/0253/SH

a) Object to penthouse as it will make the building even more out of keeping in the conservation area and in the view of observations from neighbours

b) Object as no details for canopies c) Object to the rendering as it is unsightly d) No objection to the sedum roof

5.0 PUBLICITY 5.1 Neighbours notified by letter. Expiry date 09.04.14

DC/13/19 5.2 Site Notice. Expiry date 18.04.14 5.3 Press Notice. Expiry date 20.04.14 6.0 REPRESENTATIONS 6.1 Four representations received objecting on the following grounds:

• The cladding would not enhance the building;

• The light colour would be prone to discolouration;

• Alternative systems of insulation are available;

• The proposal is ‘architecturally preposterous’;

• The render would exacerbate the appearance of the building;

• If approved, the works must be carried out by approved installers;

• Regular redecoration should be required;

• Proposed render should be the same colour as the surrounding buildings.

6.2 Three representations received supporting for the following reasons:

• Flats are suffering from water penetration;

• A lack of insulation means that flats are cold – the alterations would lead to better thermal efficiency and reduced heating costs;

• The cladding would enhance the appearance of the building;

• The building would blend in better with the surrounding development. 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 saved policies of the Shepway District Local Plan Review

apply: SD1, BE1, BE4, BE5, BE8 7.3 The following policies of the Shepway Core Strategy Local Plan 2013 apply: DSD, SS3 7.4 The following Supplementary Planning Documents and Government

Guidance apply: Kent Design Guide National Planning Policy Framework – paragraphs 17 and 131

8.0 APPRAISAL

BACKGROUND

DC/13/19 8.1 The application is ‘partnered’ by a second application that, in addition to the

development sought within this proposal, also seeks an additional penthouse apartment on top of the building. This is being considered separately.

Relevant Material Planning Considerations 8.2 The main issues to be considered as part of this application are the visual

impact of the proposals upon the character and appearance of the conservation area and the building itself, as well as the impact upon the historic and architectural character of the adjacent listed building. The nature of the changes is such that there is no impact on the amenity of the occupants of the flats in Madeira Court or the occupants of the adjoining building.

Visual Amenity 8.3 Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act

1990 sets out that special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a designated conservation area. Conservation area appraisals have been prepared across the district, but in relation to the Folkestone area, only the area of the ‘Old Town’ has been assessed so far. Saved policy BE4 also seeks to ensure that new development, including alterations to existing buildings, respects the character or appearance of Conservation Areas through the use of appropriate materials. Paragraph 131 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) also seeks to ensure that when determining applications within defined heritage assets, new development should make a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness.

8.4 However, it is acknowledged that the application building is considered not

to be characteristic of the surrounding development, with the crescent characterised by rendered properties with slate-clad mansard roofs. These properties are generally finished in magnolia, with the window/door surrounds and corbelling detail finished in white.

8.5 The proposal is to clad the building with insulation that will be finished in

magnolia render to match the adjoining buildings, with the balcony slabs, window reveals, windows and horizontal elements of the staircase window finished in white. Whilst this change cannot completely ameliorate the visual impact of the building and its uncompromising form, the link to the colours of the surrounding development will allow it to blend in to a greater degree, improving the visual character of the building in the conservation area. This is in accordance with saved policy BE4 and paragraph 131 of the NPPF, whilst the insulation itself will accentuate the existing openings and structure of the building, highlighting the architectural positives of the structure and creating greater visual interest through light and shade.

8.6 In respect of the other alterations, the addition of balcony canopies to the

top floor southeast elevation is considered unlikely to have any significant overall visual impact, being a minor addition in the context of the building as a whole. The proposed sedum roof will add interest to the garage roof and

DC/13/19 be a visual improvement over the existing roofing felt that would benefit both the conservation area and the building.

8.7 Overall, it is considered that the proposed alterations will at the very least

preserve the character and appearance of the conservation area but could also be considered to enhance it by given a nondescript building a more interesting contemporary appearance. Nor are the changes considered to be detrimental to the existing character of the building and the proposals are compatible with adopted policy.

Listed Building 8.8 The application property is physically attached to 31 Clifton Crescent, a

Grade II star listed building. The alterations proposed will not alter the fabric of the listed building, but it is considered important to require detail of the junction with and relationship of the insulation to, the listed building. This detail can reasonably be sought by condition.

8.9 In respect of the setting of the listed building, the physical alterations will not

significantly alter how the application building relates to number 30, as although they will marginally increase its size through the addition of the insulation, and change its appearance through the addition of 2 canopies, the sedum roof and the change of the colour, it is considered that these alterations will not be detrimental to the setting of the listed building.

8.10 Overall, in accordance with saved policy BE5 of the Shepway District Local

Plan Review and paragraph 131 of the NPPF, it is considered that the proposals will not be detrimental to the setting or significance of the designated heritage asset in the form of the adjacent listed building.

HUMAN RIGHTS 8.11 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.

8.12 This application is reported to Committee due to the views of Folkestone

Town Council. 9.0 SUMMARY 9.1 The application property is a noted visual detractor in the conservation area

and whilst the proposed changes cannot completely ameliorate the visual impact of the building’s uncompromising form, the link to the colours of the surrounding development will allow it to blend into the surrounding conservation area more successfully therefore at the very least preserving its

DC/13/19 character. The insulation itself will have no detrimental effect upon the character of the building or conservation area.

9.2 The addition of the balcony canopies is considered likely to have little overall

visual impact, being a minor addition in the context of the building as a whole, whilst the proposed sedum roof will add interest to the semi-basement garage roof and be a visual improvement over the existing roofing felt.

9.3 In respect of the adjacent listed building, the proposed alterations will not

affect the fabric of the structure and will not adversely affect its setting. 9.4 Overall, it is considered that the proposed alterations will enhance the

character of the conservation area and would have no detrimental effect upon the character and setting of the adjoining listed building, in accordance with saved policies BE4 and BE5 of the Shepway District Local Plan Review and paragraph 131 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

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 granted subject to the following conditions:

1. Standard time condition 2. Approved plans 3. Details of render colour 4. Prior to the commencement of the development, scale sections at 1:10

showing the junction with and relationship to the listed building of the proposed external insulation and render shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval, with such details as approved implemented thereafter.

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and to ensure that special regard is paid to the interests of protecting the special architectural and historic character detailing the integrity of the Listed Building under Section 16 of the Planning (Listed Building Conservation Areas) Act 1990.

Decision of Committee

DC/13/19