Issue - meetings

Erection of a detached dwelling with associated parking.

To consider the attached report of the Head of Planning, Regeneration and Development.

The Committee viewed an aerial view, a map, plans and photographs of the application site.  The Team Leader (Development Management) reminded Members that the application had been deferred at the last meeting for a site visit.  The application sought planning permission for the erection of a detached dwelling in the hamlet of Tilmanstone. The site was situated in the countryside and countryside protection policies therefore applied. The latter were considered up-to-date and could therefore be given full weight.  Given the site’s location, the occupant would be heavily reliant on the use of the car which, in planning terms, meant the site was unsustainable. Although the site lay within a conservation area, the Council’s Heritage Officer had raised no objections.

It was emphasised that the site lent a soft and sylvian edge to Tilmanstone.  The proposed dwelling would be most visible from the footpath that ran along Northcourt Lane.  The siting of the dwelling in the form proposed would be contrary to the Local Plan and countryside policies.  Moreover, a case had not been made in respect of the applicant’s personal circumstances that would justify setting aside these policies.

Councillor Biggs reported on the site visit, the purpose of which had been to assess the potential impact on the countryside and to understand the needs of the applicant.  A Tilmanstone Parish Council representative had attended the site visit and raised no objections.  Following a walk around the site and along the footpath, Members had concluded that the proposed development would have a modest impact on the countryside.  However, they also felt that a single storey building would be visually more acceptable.  They also felt that further information was needed regarding the applicant’s needs and circumstances and what other options, if any, had been explored.

Councillor Bond stressed that the Committee had a duty to be consistent in its decision-making and to uphold the policies of the Local Plan.  In his view the Officer’s assessment was fair, and there were no planning reasons to override policies and approve a dwelling in the countryside.  Councillor Kenton clarified that Tilmanstone’s designation as a hamlet and Core Strategy Policy DM1 were the starting point for the Committee.  Whilst village gardens were considered to be brownfield land, no sequential test had been carried out to demonstrate that alternative options had been explored and discounted.  Whilst there was sympathy for the applicant, the need for such a large dwelling had not been explained.  

RESOLVED:   That Application No DOV19/00106 be REFUSED on the grounds that the proposed development would be located outside of any settlement confines, as identified on Dover District Council Policies Map 2015, does not functionally require a rural location and would not be ancillary to existing development and would therefore represent an unsustainable form of development.  The proposal would be highly visible within its rural setting and harmful to the open character and appearance of the adjoining countryside.  The proposal would therefore be contrary to Policies CP1, DM1, DM11, DM15 and DM16 of the Core Strategy and paragraph 127 of the National Planning Policy Framework. 

Erection of a detached dwelling with associated parking

To consider the attached report of the Head of Regeneration and Development.

Members viewed plans, CGI images and photographs of the application site which was situated on the edge of Tilmanstone and in a Conservation Area.  The Senior Planner advised that the application sought planning permission to sub-divide the site and erect an additional dwelling which would be sited 30 metres away from St Mary’s Grove Cottage, a Grade II-listed building. The Council’s Heritage Officer had visited the site and concluded that the proposed development would not have a detrimental impact on the listed cottage or wider area.

Under Policy CP1 of the Core Strategy, Tilmanstone was classified as a hamlet and, as such, was regarded as unsuitable for residential development.  Policy DM1 of the Core Strategy presumed against development in such locations and circumstances.  Given that there was no functional requirement for the development to be in this location, the proposal was therefore considered to be contrary to DM1 and CP1. The proposal was also contrary to DM11 which sought to resist development outside settlement confines due to the increase in travel demand.  The area had an open character with views across the site dominated by an open rural landscape. The proposal would extend built development in a sensitive edge-of-village location.  For these reasons, Officers considered that the proposal would be contrary to Policies DM15 and DM16 which sought to protect the countryside.  Whilst Officers were sympathetic to the applicant’s circumstances, national policies and the longer term impact of the dwelling must be considered. 

Councillor P M Brivio understood the need to respect planning policies, but was of the view that sympathetic consideration should be given to the applicant’s personal circumstances. Councillor R S Walkden agreed, commenting that KCC’s Archaeology team, KCC Highways and the KCC PROW team had all raised no objections to the proposal. Furthermore, the Heritage Officer had raised no objections regarding the proposal’s impact on the cottage or Conservation Area.  He was of the view that the applicant’s personal circumstances should outweigh any planning objections.

Councillor Bond stressed that, whilst he sympathised with the applicant, Members needed to consider the application against Local Plan policies.  Granting permission for this site would lead to creeping development and would set a precedent for others to follow suit.  He could find no robust planning reason to grant permission and urged caution. 

The Planning Solicitor advised Members that the courts had indicated that personal circumstances were capable of being a material consideration, but only if all other matters were evenly balanced. Members should approach the application by assessing it first and foremost against the Local Plan and other material considerations, including personal circumstances.  The Team Leader (Development Management) added that there was likely to be an increase in travel demand to meet the daily needs of the applicant.  Members should bear in mind that the proposed dwelling would be there for another 70 years or so, in other words long after the applicant.  Whilst personal circumstances carried weight, in this case they would not outweigh the harm caused by development in a rural area.

It was moved by Councillor D P Murphy and duly seconded that Application No DOV/19/00106 be REFUSED as per the Officer’s recommendation.

On being put to the vote, the motion was LOST.

It was moved by Councillor D G Beaney and duly seconded that the application be DEFERRED for a site visit.

On being put to the vote, the motion was CARRIED.

RESOLVED:  That, notwithstanding the Officer’s recommendation, Application No DOV/19/00106 be DEFERRED for a site visit to be held on Tuesday 18 June 2019 to enable Members to: (i) Assess the impact on the countryside; and (ii) Understand the needs of the applicant, and that Councillors D G Beaney, E A Biggs, P M Brivio, R S Walkden and H M Williams (reserve: Councillor J S Back) be appointed to visit the site.