Agenda and minutes

It was noted that apologies for absence had been received from Councillors M R Eddy and D P Murphy.

 

It was noted that Councillors P M Brivio and P D Jull had been appointed as substitute members for Councillors M R Eddy and D P Murphy respectively.

 

To receive any declarations of interest from Members in respect of business to be transacted on the agenda.

There were no declarations of interest.

 

To confirm the attached minutes of the meetings of the Committee held on 17 and 24 May 2018.

The minutes of the meetings held on 17 and 24 May 2018 were approved as correct records and signed by the Chairman.

 

The Chairman advised that the two items listed were dealt with elsewhere on the agenda.  

 

Change of use from agriculture to private keeping of horses; erection of a detached stable block; formation of hardstanding for vehicle turning area and associated parking, and new vehicle access and gates

 

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

 

The Committee was shown plans and photographs of the application site.  The Planning Officer advised that the application sought part retrospective planning permission for a change of use of land comprising 1.3 hectares for the keeping of horses for private use.  The proposal also included the formation of a hardstanding, the erection of a stable block, and the erection of gates and fencing to sub-divide the land into six paddocks with an area of open grazing at the south-west end of the site.   The land was agricultural land but indications were that it had not been farmed for a number of years.  A Public Right of Way (PROW) traversed the bottom corner of the site and would therefore be partly affected by the proposed development.  Whilst Kent County Council’s (KCC) PROW team had raised no objections to the proposal, it would not countenance any changes to the direction of the path or its closure to the public.  The proposal was compliant with Policy DD21, a ‘saved’ policy which supported horse-related development.  KCC Highways had raised no objections, and there would be only a limited impact on the residential amenity of neighbouring dwellings whose gardens backed onto the site. Approval was therefore recommended.

 

Councillor M J Ovenden raised concerns regarding the enclosure of the PROW.  Being a Tilmanstone resident, she knew it was a well-used path and, whilst gates or a kissing gate would be acceptable, a stile would not as it would restrict access for some dog walkers and parents with push-chairs.  

 

In response to various concerns raised by several Members, the Planning Officer advised that the applicant intended to keep seven horses on the land and this could be restricted by condition.  The proposal was in keeping with British Horse Society regulations, particularly as the horses would have access to a further 3.2 hectares of grazing land, the latter not requiring a change of use.  Manure would be stored as a muck heap and collected on a weekly basis by a local farmer.  The proposed hardstanding would be made of permeable material so as to allow water used for washing horses to seep into the ground.   A condition would be imposed to address issues relating to the PROW such as the means of enclosure.   Members were advised that moving the entrance gates back, in order to get vehicles off the highway, could interfere with the turning circle of the horse-box.  The latter issue, rather than the prospect of vehicles waiting on the highway, had concerned KCC Highways which had sought to ensure that a horse-box could leave the site in forward gear.      

 

Councillor B Gardner proposed that the application should be deferred for negotiations with the applicant on the PROW, including potentially excluding it from the development.  However, the Chairman reminded Members that there was an existing condition which could be strengthened to reflect the concerns raised by the Committee.  In his view, modifying the proposal was preferable to a refusal. Councillor P D Jull suggested that the condition should state explicitly that there should be no alterations to the footpath and that stiles should not be used. 

 

The Team Leader (Development Management) reminded the Committee that it needed to consider the application before it and, unless real harm could be identified, the application should be approved.  To ask the applicant to remove the part of the land that included the PROW from the proposal would be difficult to justify.   The same was true of the access gates and approval should be given, subject to details of these being submitted.  In relation to the existing use of the land, it was recognised that a tractor would face the same problem when entering the site.   

 

RESOLVED:   (a) That Application No DOV/18/00025 be APPROVED subject to the following conditions:

 

            i) 3-year commencement;

 

ii) Built in accordance with the approved drawings;

 

iii) Samples of finishes;

 

iv) Restriction on use to private/family, no commercial;

 

v) Restriction on number of horses to be kept on the site at any one time;

 

vi) Submission of a landscaping scheme which lists species, density and mature height of hedging/bushes to be planted around stable and to boundaries;

 

vii) Details of gates/stiles which would impact the public right of way;

 

viii) Details of access gates;

 

ix) Storage of horse-related paraphernalia within the stable block;

 

x) No burning of bedding or waste on site;

 

xi) Vegetation within the visibility splay shown on approved drawings shall be maintained at a height of no more than 1 metre;

 

xii) The base of the muck heap shall be concrete;

 

xiii) Details of on-site sustainable surface water drainage;

 

xiv) Details of security and emergency arrangements;

 

xv) Bund shall be removed from site prior to erection of stables or use hereby permitted commences;

 

xvi) No lighting on stables/site other than as hereby permitted;

 

xvii) Details of treatment of first 5 metres of vehicle access – to show a bonded material;

 

xviii) Archaeological watching brief.

 

            (b) That powers be delegated to the Head of Regeneration and Development to settle any necessary planning conditions in line with the issues set out in the recommendation and as resolved by the Planning Committee.

 

 

 

Erection of 17 no. two and three-bedroom dwellings, creation of access roads and parking

 

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

Members viewed drawings, plans and photographs of the application site which was within the settlement confines of Aylesham and had formerly been occupied by a public house.  The Principal Planner advised that, following responses from consultees, the initial scheme of 13 dwellings and 7 flats had been reduced to 17 dwellings.  The existing access would be closed and a new single access created.  An existing bus-stop would be relocated and enhanced, and parking provision was in accordance with the regulations.  The design of the dwellings took account of the scheme’s proximity to existing properties, such that flank elevations had either no windows or windows that were obscure-glazed.  It was proposed to use a variable palette of materials, including white weatherboarding which was referenced within the Aylesham design code. 

 

Policy DM4 of the Core Strategy required developments of 15 units or more to provide 30% on-site affordable housing.  Under the original scheme, six flats had been designated as affordable housing.  However, it was recognised that registered social landlords (RSL) were often reluctant to manage small numbers of affordable housing units. Accordingly, a contribution of £185,000 towards the provision of off-site affordable housing had been accepted, representing 5% of the gross development value of the scheme.

 

Councillor Gardner welcomed the design of the proposal, but objected to the reduction in affordable housing provision.  £185,000 would be sufficient to build only two units and was unacceptable.  He was of the view that the application should be refused or deferred for a viability report.  The Chairman sympathised with these views, but understood the difficulties in getting RSLs to take on such small schemes.

 

Councillor T A Bond requested that condition 12) be amended to ensure that the access road was built to a standard that could be adopted by KCC.  The Chairman agreed and recollected that a standard condition relating to the construction of roads had been agreed at a previous committee meeting.   Councillor B W Butcher welcomed the use of a brownfield site which was generally more costly to develop due to contamination clearance, etc.  This was a sustainable location, with easy access to shops and a regular bus service.

 

In response to Members’ queries, the Principal Planner clarified that KCC Highways had indicated its satisfaction with the proposed layout in relation to access for refuse trucks and emergency vehicles.  She clarified that a condition could be included in relation to the construction of the access road, reflecting the wording used for other applications.  The condition would also require the submission of a timetable to ensure the works were completed.  Finally, the applicant had submitted a design and access statement with the application. In this respect, Officers considered that the materials and white weatherboarding proposed by the applicant would enhance the area.

 

RESOLVED:   (a) That, subject to the completion of a Section 106 agreement, Application No DOV/17/00892 be APPROVED subject to the following conditions:      

 

     i) Time limit;

 

     ii) Approved plans;

 

     iii) Samples;

 

     iv) Cycle and bin storage;

 

     v) Parking/turning;

 

     vi) Construction management plan;

 

     vii) Archaeology;

 

     viii) Foul and surface water disposal details;

 

     ix) Landscaping scheme;

 

     x) Landscape implementation;

 

     xi)  Details of finished ground floor levels;

 

     xii) Finished surfacing to vehicle and pedestrian access routes, parking areas, kerbs;

 

     xiii) Sustainable Drainage System management;

 

     xiv) Hard and soft landscaping;

 

     xv) Ecological enhancements;

 

     xvi) Details of boundary treatment;

 

     xvii) Submission of external lighting;

 

     xviii) Contamination;

 

     xix) Permitted Development rights - windows.

 

     b)         That powers be delegated to the Head of Regeneration and Development to settle the Section 106 legal agreement, and any necessary planning conditions and matters in line with the issues set out in the recommendation and as resolved by the Planning Committee.

 

Erection of a detached dwelling with associated access and parking

 

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

Members were shown drawings, plans and photographs of the application site. The Principal Planner advised that the application sought planning permission for the erection of a four-bedroom, three-storey dwelling on land that currently benefitted from a Certificate of Lawful Development for the storage of a container and touring caravan. 

 

As a factual correction to the report, the Committee was advised that references to Ripple being a hamlet were incorrect as it was defined as a village in the settlement hierarchy within Policy CP1 of the Core Strategy.  This policy stated that the function of a village was ‘to provide a tertiary focus for development in the rural area; suitable for a scale of development that would reinforce its role as a provider of services to essentially its home community.’  However, the site was located outside the settlement boundary of the defined village of Ripple.  Core Strategy Policy DM1 presumed against development in such a location (beyond settlement confines) unless it was justified by other development plan policies, none of which applied in this case.  The proposal was therefore contrary to Policies CP1 and DM1.

 

In support of the application, reference had been made to an appeal decision at a site in Kingsdown.  That case was similar as it was also for a self-build dwelling that was outside the village settlement boundary.  Whilst the Planning Inspector had allowed the appeal, it was considered that the scale, bulk and siting of the dwelling in the appeal decision would have a significantly lesser impact on the landscape character of the area than the application under consideration.  It was therefore considered that the appeal decision could be distinguished from the current application, and should not carry significant weight in the determination of the proposal.

 

The Principal Planner acknowledged that the categorisation of the settlement of Ripple as a village meant that, in principle, development of a suitable scale to reinforce its role as a provider of services to the local community might be acceptable.  This would not be the case with a hamlet as the Core Strategy operated a (rebuttable) presumption against further development in such locations. 

 

Notwithstanding the corrections to the report, the recommendation remained the same.  The site was located several hundred metres outside the Ripple boundary in ‘Upper Ripple’, and some distance from local amenities.  The applicant had sought to maximise the site, but had ended up with a large, bulky dwelling that, if built, would be visible from public vantage points.  Moreover, it would appear incongruous when viewed against existing dwellings which were single storey, low-key bungalows.  It was clarified that the site was not garden land, and that the applicant had not been open to changing the design of the proposed dwelling to any significant degree. In summary, due to the siting of the proposal and its impact on the landscape and locality as a whole, the proposed development would cause significant harm to the character and appearance of the countryside for the reasons set out in the report and as reported to the Committee.

 

Councillors Butcher and P M Brivio raised concerns about the size of the proposed dwelling which would be very prominent.  Councillor Bond added that the dwelling was outside settlement confines, contrary to Policies DM1 and CP1 and should therefore be refused.  Councillor Jull disagreed, arguing that the proposal would be no more intrusive from distant views than the existing farm.

 

RESOLVED:   That Application No DOV/18/00095 be REFUSED on the grounds that the proposed development, if permitted, by virtue of its siting, form, materials and scale, would result in an incongruous, intrusive, alien and unsustainable form of development, bringing about significant harm to the character and appearance of the countryside.  The proposal would be viewed from nearby public rights of way and would be highly visible within its rural setting.  The proposal is therefore contrary to Policies DM1, DM11, DM15 and DM16 of the Dover District Core Strategy and paragraphs 17 and 55 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

 

Erection of 120 dwellings, including 36 affordable homes, with new vehicular and pedestrian access, internal access roads, car parking, landscaping, provision of 0.84 hectares of open space and a locally equipped area for children’s play (LEAP)

 

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

The Committee was shown drawings, plans and photographs of the application site. The Principal Planner reminded Members that the application sought planning permission for the erection of 120 dwellings on a site which had been allocated for development under policy LA16 of the Land Allocations Local Plan (LALP). 

 

The application had originally been considered at the Planning Committee meeting held on 22 March 2018, but had been deferred for an independent highways assessment.   The applicant had subsequently lodged an appeal against the non-determination of the application.   Whilst the application would now be determined by a Planning Inspector (PI), the Committee’s views were being sought on how it would have determined the application were it in a position to do so.  These views would inform the Council’s approach to the appeal.  Unfortunately, whilst a transport consultant had been engaged, the highways assessment sought by the Committee had not yet been undertaken, and the findings were unlikely to be available to bring back to the Committee until August at the earliest.  That said, some new information/commentary had come to light as a result of agreeing the scope of the assessment. 

 

The site was situated one kilometre from the centre of Sandwich.  The proposed access would be onto Woodnesborough Road, with a secondary, emergency access onto St Bart’s Road.  The development would comprise a predominantly block layout with a swathe of green open space on the Woodnesborough Road frontage.  A PROW crossed the site and would be upgraded.  Whilst the proposed dwellings were not locally distinctive, it was considered that the scale, appearance and mix of materials would not detract from the character of the area. 

 

Concerns had been raised during consultation and at the committee meeting in March about the impact of the development on the local highway network.  Members were advised that two traffic islands would be installed at Woodnesborough Road with a turning lane between them.  Other alterations included the extension of the 30-mile per hour speed limit further along Woodnesborough Road to the west, the provision of double yellow lines around the bend in the road, two short stretches of single yellow lines outside the primary school, and the provision of new pedestrian crossing points.  Passing places would also be provided in St Bart’s Road.  Several representations had called for a new slip road to link the scheme with the Sandwich by-pass.  However, such calls were considered unreasonable for the reasons set out in paragraph 1.9 of the report.  Whilst Members’ concerns about the increase in traffic were recognised, the fact remained that the mitigation measures proposed by the applicant had passed a safety audit.  

 

The Committee had also questioned the TRICS assessment which predicted that the scheme would generate 65 two-way vehicle movements during the peak hours of 8.00 to 9.00am and 5.00 to 6.00pm. Of these 65 movements, it was predicted that there would be approximately 16 vehicle movements travelling south-east along Woodnesborough Road, 16 travelling northwards along Woodnesborough Road towards the centre of Sandwich, and 33 turning east onto St Bart’s Road. The Principal Planner advised that he had visited a development at Sholden the preceding week in order to make comparisons with the application site.  In his opinion the proposed development would not cause a severe cumulative impact on the highway network.  

 

Members were reminded that the development would provide 120 dwellings, including 36 much-needed affordable houses, a number that was compliant with the Local Planning Authority’s 30% requirement.  A total of £815,000 in financial contributions would be made to deliver infrastructure in the local area to meet the needs of the development.  Ecological reports and species surveys had been submitted. The development accorded with all the criteria set out in policy LA16, including the requirement for access to be provided via Woodnesborough Road.  In particular, it should be borne in mind that the Council was unable to demonstrate a five-year housing land supply, as a result of which the ‘tilted balance’ approach was engaged, namely that the development should be approved unless the adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits.

 

Councillor Butcher stated that, without the highways assessment, he was unable to support the application.  In his view, there was no doubt that the additional traffic generated by the scheme would cause congestion in the town and exacerbate the existing problem outside Sandwich Technology School.  His local experience appeared to carry little weight with the so-called experts whose advice he disputed. Councillor Gardner referred to the fact that all three ward councillors had spoken with one voice on the traffic issue which was unusual in itself.  He expressed surprise that the developer had not been willing to wait a couple of months for the independent assessment given that the site had lain undeveloped for some time already.  Councillor Ovenden supported the principle of development at the site but rued the fact that, without the assessment, the opportunity had been lost to improve road safety. Councillor Bond remained concerned about the accuracy of the traffic data provided.  He was of the opinion that the Committee’s original decision had been correct, and believed that the assessment was still necessary in order to make a safe and robust decision.  

 

In response to the Chairman, the Principal Planner advised that a stage 1 safety audit had been undertaken.  However, this was largely a broad-brush exercise which simply considered whether the developer’s proposals would achieve safe access and where measures such as traffic islands would be placed.  Once planning permission had been granted, a second stage safety audit would look at the details of how traffic islands would be constructed, etc. With reference to one speaker, Members were advised that an informal path known as Black Lane was already extensively used by pedestrians to get to schools and the main bus-stops.  

 

The Chairman reminded the Committee that it had a duty to act responsibly, and to follow planning policies.   The site had been allocated for development and examined by a PI as part of the LALP process, including the issue of linking any potential development with the A256, the notion of which had been dismissed.  The scheme would provide 120 dwellings in a sustainable location with easy access to schools and buses.  Moreover, it was likely to help improve road safety in this location.  Whilst he shared Members’ concerns about road safety, he was more uneasy about the Committee’s challenge to the traffic figures which were based on nationally recognised traffic modelling.  It was likely that the PI would approve the application at appeal and, given that Members also had a duty to the wider community, he urged Members to consider their position carefully.    

 

Councillor P M Wallace likened the problem of cars speeding into Sandwich along Woodnesborough Road to the situation in Folkestone Road.  In his view, the Committee’s original request for further information had been borne from its wish to adopt a responsible approach.    Councillor Bond added that it should be made clear to the PI that the Committee had sought this independent information in good faith and in order to assuage its genuine concerns surrounding traffic congestion and road safety.   He believed that the Committee was now being put under duress as a result of the developer’s appeal.

 

The Chairman stressed that the Committee needed to focus on whether it believed there would be significant and demonstrable harm caused by the proposal that would outweigh any benefits.  If so, evidence of this harm would be required.  In response to concerns raised by Members about the speed limit, the Principal Planner suggested that condition 3) could be strengthened to require additional measures to enforce the speed limit.  Whilst the applicant had proposed speed signs and ‘rumble’ surfacing, through the appeal process the Council could seek additional measures.   In clarification, the Chairman stated that this would mean the Committee indicating that, if it had been in a position to do so, it would have approved the application subject to further highway safety improvements.  

 

The Planning Solicitor reminded the Committee that the developer had a statutory right of appeal, and cautioned against an emotional response.   The issue for the Committee’s consideration was what case the Council should put forward at the appeal.   The application had not been determined within the timescale permitted and an application for costs could be made.   Even if the applicant did not pursue the latter, the PI could award costs against the Council if it was thought that the reasoning behind the decision had been poor.  In reaching a decision, the PI would also consider whether there had been a prudent use of public funds by the Council.   Members needed to consider how reasonable it would be to claim that the Committee could not determine the application without the independent traffic data.  Finally, he emphasised that the Committee’s decision should be based on whether there would be significant and demonstrable harm that outweighed the benefits of the proposal.  

 

The Team Leader (Development Management) reiterated this advice, adding that during the land allocations process careful consideration had been given to the site’s capacity and highways issues. The application fully complied with the criteria set out in Policy LA16.  Factors such as the proposal’s compliance with the Local Plan and the delay in determining the application were likely to weigh heavily with the PI.  A strengthened condition to address highway safety concerns could help the Council’s case.  The Chairman suggested that a strengthened condition could go some way to achieving what Members had been looking for when seeking the independent assessment. 

 

Councillor Bond supported the idea of including a condition that would address highway safety.  Whilst a compromise in that it did not address pressure on the road network, it would put the Council in a better position to negotiate and protect the interests and safety of Sandwich residents.  

 

It was moved by Councillor B Gardner and duly seconded that the Committee should indicate that the application would have been refused on the grounds of highway and pedestrian safety and the absence of independent traffic data.

 

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

 

The Chairman then called for the report recommendation to be voted upon, namely that Application No DOV/17/00876 would have been APPROVED, subject to condition 3) being strengthened, the precise wording of which to be delegated to Officers.

 

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

 

RESOLVED:  (a)  That the Committee confirms that it would have approved Application No DOV/17/00876 had it been in a position to do so, subject to a Section 106 legal agreement to secure necessary planning contributions, reptile translocation, ecological mitigation and the provision and maintenance of play space, and subject to conditions to include:

 

(i) Approved plans;

 

(ii) A scheme to secure affordable housing;

 

(iii) Provision of off-site highway works;

 

(iv) Construction management plan;

 

(v) Provision of measures to prevent the discharge of water onto the highway;

 

(vi) Provision of vehicle parking and turning areas;

 

(vii) Provision of cycle parking;

 

(viii) Provision of alterations to the ES10;

 

(ix) Completion of certain works to the access roads prior to the occupation of dwellings;

 

(x) Provision of visibility splays;

 

(xi) Scheme for the provision of foul drainage, including a timetable;

 

(xii) Scheme for the provision of surface water drainage, including a timetable;

 

(xiii) Archaeology;

 

(xiv) Ecological mitigation and enhancements;

 

(xv) Identification of the exact position of the water main and details for its protection;

 

(xvi) Protection of existing trees and hedges to be retained;

 

(xvii) Details for excavations near trees;

 

(xviii) Detailed landscaping scheme, including details of replacement trees;

 

(ixx) Samples of materials;

 

(xx) Provision of refuse and recycling facilities.

 

            (b) That powers be delegated to the Head of Regeneration and Development to settle the detailed wording of condition 3) and the appeal case for the Local Planning Authority, in line with the issues set out in the report and as resolved by the Planning Committee.

 

(In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 18.5, Councillors P M Brivio, D G Cronk, B Gardner and P M Wallace requested that their votes in favour of refusing the application, and against the Officer’s recommendation, be recorded.)

 

                       

The meeting was adjourned at 9.05pm for a short break and reconvened at 9.11pm.

 

Change of use and conversion into 9 no. self-contained flats (5 x 2 bedroom and 4 x 1 bedroom)

 

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

Members viewed drawings, plans and photographs of the application site.  The Principal Planner advised that the application sought planning permission for the conversion of a disused church into nine flats.  Members were advised that a late representation had been received that day in the form of a solicitor’s letter which stated that the applicant had no legal right of access across land extending from the church building up to Bartholomew Street.  If correct, this would prevent access to some of the proposed flats.  Members were reminded that this was a civil matter and therefore of no relevance to the Committee’s determination of the application. 

 

The Committee was reminded that a previous application had proposed the demolition of the church and been refused since the church was considered to be a non-designated heritage asset. The conversion of the existing building was considered to be a more sustainable option.  Whilst no parking spaces would be provided, the site was in a sustainable location and close to amenities.  There would also be no designated outside space.  Limited changes to the elevations were proposed, with most of the existing windows retained but new roof-lights installed in the upper floor.  Oriel windows would be used where appropriate to prevent overlooking.  The proposal complied with policies, providing small units of accommodation in a sustainable location, and approval was therefore recommended.

 

Councillor Brivio supported the proposal and particularly the retention of the building.  Councillor P M Beresford welcomed the provision of one and two-bedroom flats, but was disappointed that there would be no parking.

 

In response to Members’ queries, the Principal Planner undertook to circulate a copy of the solicitor’s letter.  She also confirmed that it was for Southern Water, not the applicant, to carry out a sewer capacity check.  Disabled access would be a matter for Building Control but, as a building conversion, standards differed to those applying to a new-build.  However, it was likely that the proposed steps to the ground-floor entrance would need to be changed to ramps.  During application discussions, the proposed stacking arrangement of the flats had been identified as an issue.  A condition had therefore been included which required noise attenuation to be above standard.  

 

RESOLVED:   (a) That Application No DOV/17/00704 be APPROVED subject to the following conditions:

 

i)    Standard Time;

 

ii)   Approved plans list;

 

iii)   External materials to match;

 

iv)   Provision and retention of cycle parking;

 

v)   Provision and retention of refuse storage;

 

vi) Scheme of noise attenuation/insulation to be submitted for approval;

 

vii) Landscaping scheme submitted for approval;

 

viii) Details of boundary treatment;

 

ix)  Meter boxes;

 

x) Obscure glazing;

 

xi) Joinery details;

 

xii) Recording of building features;

 

xiii) Foul and surface water drainage details to be submitted for approval.

 

            (b) That powers be delegated to the Head of Regeneration and Development to settle any necessary planning conditions in line with the issues set out in the recommendation and as resolved by the Planning Committee.

 

 

 

 

Erection of a detached dwelling, formation of parking area, demolition of existing garage, demolition of existing conservatory and extension of existing driveway (Amended description, amended drawings, re-advertisement)

 

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

Members were shown plans and photographs of the application site.  The Planning Officer reminded the Committee that the application had been deferred for a site visit by the Planning Committee at its meeting held on 17 May 2018.  The purpose of the site visit had been for Members to assess access and refuse arrangements and visibility for vehicles exiting onto Cowper Road.  The application sought planning permission for a single storey, detached dwelling on land at the rear of 105 Lewisham Road.   Access was proposed via an unsurfaced and unlit track from Cowper Road, the track being 100 metres in length and 2.5 metres wide.  

 

Councillor Gardner reported the findings of the site visit which had taken place on 19 June.  The panel had looked at access and refuse arrangements.  Members had also looked at the site and considered it suitable for development.  However, the proposed arrangements for leaving refuse bins at the end of the track on Cowper Road were not considered satisfactory, not least because the owners of adjoining garages/sheds had indicated that they would not give permission for this.  Members had also considered the track unsuitable as the primary access to the proposed dwelling given that it was unsurfaced and unlit.  Their view was that an access via Lewisham Road would be much more appropriate.  

 

The Chairman added that he had also attended the site visit, and had found suggestions that the track was being used as a primary access misleading.  The track was clearly only used as secondary access as it was in poor condition and visibility at the junction with Cowper Road was poor.  He had been surprised to find that the area to the rear of the gardens had a rural feel, and he was of the view that regular use of the track would erode this character.  Councillor Wallace stated that he could not support the proposal which would change the environment and character of the area.  He disagreed with the use of garden land for the development, and disliked the design of the house which would appear incongruous in such a setting.  Moreover, the application could not be considered sustainable given that the refuse arrangements were dependent upon an agreement with the occupants of no. 105.            

 

RESOLVED:   (a) That, notwithstanding the Officer’s recommendation, Application No DOV/17/00879 be REFUSED on the grounds that the proposed development would involve the sole means of vehicle and pedestrian access to the property being an existing, unmade rear access track from Cowper Road. This route, by virtue of its sustained length, unsurfaced and unlit condition and, in places, narrow width, would provide an inadequate and substandard arrangement for accessing and servicing the proposed new dwelling (including for visitors, deliveries and bin collections, among others), resulting in a poorly integrated development which fails to function well and would be incompatible with the creation of an accessible and safe environment. As a consequence, the development would detract from the visual quality of the locality, and amenities and quality of life of residential occupiers of the new dwelling, contrary to the aims and objectives of  the National Planning Policy Framework, in particular paragraphs 17, 56, 61, 64 and 69.

 

(b) That powers be delegated to the Head of Regeneration and Development to settle the wording of the reasons for refusal, in line with the issues raised by the Planning Committee.

 

The Chairman advised the Committee that, in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 9, it was required to pass a resolution to continue the meeting beyond 10.00pm.

 

RESOLVED:  That the Committee proceed with the business remaining on the agenda.

 

Erection of two-storey and single storey side extensions; demolition of  existing lean-to structures and demolition of single storey rear extension

 

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

The Committee viewed plans and photographs of the application site.  The Planning Officer advised that the application sought planning permission for the erection of two-storey and single storey side extensions and the demolition of the existing lean-to structures and a single storey rear extension.  An existing timber lean-to structure which had been attached to the side of no. 65 Lewisham Road would be removed.  A gap of 0.5 metres (rather than the 1 metre referred to in the report) would be retained between the host property and no. 65.  There would be a clear difference in roof heights between the houses and the proposal was considered acceptable in terms of design and visual appearance. 

 

It was confirmed that the materials would match those of the host property. Councillor Gardner advised that this gave him some reassurance given the ugly appearance of the extension next door which had not been finished with matching materials.  The Planning Officer advised that there was no minimum requirement in relation to gaps between properties.  She confirmed that the roofline of the proposed extension would not overhang no. 65.  The Chairman reminded the Committee that disputes about boundaries were a civil matter.

 

RESOLVED:   (a) That Application No DOV/18/00209 be APPROVED subject to the following conditions:

 

                        (i)  Standard time limit;

 

                        (ii) In accordance with approved plans;

 

                        (iii) Materials to match those used on the existing dwelling;

 

(iv) Restriction of permitted development rights for openings on first floor or north-west elevation;

 

(v) Obscure-glazed windows that are fixed shut below 1.7 metres above internal finished floor level to be inserted on south-west elevation.

                       

(b) That powers be delegated to the Head of Regeneration and Development to settle any necessary planning conditions in line with the issues set out in the recommendation and as resolved by the Planning Committee.

 

 

The Committee noted that there was no information to receive regarding appeals and informal hearings.

 

The Committee noted that no action had been taken since the last meeting.