Agenda and minutes

Planning Committee
Thursday, 13th February, 2020 6.00 pm

  • How to watch remote meetings of the Council
  • Venue: Council Chamber. View directions

    Contact: Kate Batty-Smith  Democratic Services Officer

    Items
    No. Item

    93.

    Apologies

    To receive any apologies for absence.

    Minutes:

    It was noted that apologies for absence had been received from Councillors J P J Burman and D P Murphy.

     

    94.

    Appointment of Substitute Members

    To note appointments of Substitute Members.

    Minutes:

    It was noted that, in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 4, Councillor M Bates had been appointed as substitute member for Councillor D P Murphy. 

     

    95.

    Declarations of Interest pdf icon PDF 143 KB

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

    Minutes:

    There were no declarations of interest.

     

    96.

    Minutes pdf icon PDF 141 KB

    To confirm the attached minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 16 January 2020.

    Minutes:

    The minutes of the meeting held on 16 January 2020 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

     

    97.

    Items Deferred pdf icon PDF 233 KB

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

    Minutes:

    Members were advised that the two deferred items were due for consideration at the meeting.

     

    98.

    Application No DOV/19/00669 - Land between nos 107 and 127 Capel Street, Capel-le-Ferne pdf icon PDF 878 KB

    Outline application for the erection of thirty-four dwellings and means of access with associated landscaping (appearance, landscaping, layout and scale reserved)

     

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

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    Members viewed drawings, plans and photographs of the application site.  The Principal Planner reminded Members that the application had originally come to Committee in October 2019, but had been deferred for, amongst other things, further details and clarification of proposed off-site highway works, including footpaths and parking.   The application had subsequently been withdrawn from the 16 January agenda due to the late submission of a technical note by Capel-le-Ferne Parish Council which required due consideration.

     

    In respect of the reasons for deferral and the applicant’s response, the Principal Planner advised that these were addressed in detail in paragraphs 1.4 to 1.11 of the report.  In summary, an amended master plan and an additional highway works plan had been submitted and been the subject of re-consultation.  The applicant had prepared a drawing and layout plan indicating where parking would be provided, particularly parking spaces that could be used by parents at school collection and drop-off times.  As a result of concerns raised by Members, the description of the application and the site layout plan had been amended to give some certainty over the design of the scheme that would be delivered.  This meant that the indicative layout would form a masterplan that would be included in the approved plans list.  Whilst it could be varied in a minor way at the reserved matters stage, it would need to be largely in conformity with the approved site masterplan/layout plan.  In terms of concerns raised about financial contributions to education, Kent County Council’s (KCC) position was set out at paragraphs 1.14 to 1.17 of the report. 

     

    Members were reminded that the application sought outline permission for the erection of 34 dwellings on a site which had been allocated for development in 2015 under Policy LA26 of the Land Allocations Local Plan (LALP).  Subject to the caveat relating to the site layout, all matters were reserved, except for access.  A previous application for a more intensive development had been refused and dismissed at appeal in 2016.  The current scheme had a better variety of housing types which were more in keeping with Capel Street.  A new footpath would be provided along the frontage of the site, and there would be four accesses serving separate dwellings.  Double yellow lines would be installed on Capel Street to facilitate the free movement of traffic and to help with the current problems experienced at school times.  Formal passing bays would also be provided.  

     

    KCC Highways had provided a comprehensive response to the technical note produced by Lime Transport, and this was set out on pages 18 to 20 of the report.  In particular, KCC Officers had looked at the visibility splays and found these to be of a suitable standard.  A lot of work had gone into addressing highways matters, and it was considered that the proposed measures would mitigate any impact of the scheme on the existing situation.  It was reiterated that the applicant was not required to resolve or improve the existing situation. The Principal Transport and Development Planner (PTDP) added that the technical note raised no new issues which had not already been considered when coming to a balanced judgement about the application.  

     

    The Committee was advised that, since publication of the report, four additional comments had been received from neighbours, and four letters had been submitted by the parish council, highlighting a failure to identify safety concerns.  A letter had also been received from Capel Residents’ Group, reiterating concerns submitted by the parish council and those raised in the technical note.  The applicant had also provided a response to the technical note.

     

    In response to Councillor O C de R Richardson, the Principal Planner clarified that the primary school had not been consulted about the proposals because it was not a statutory consultee.   Councillor T A Bond stated that, whilst it was difficult to argue with the principle of development on the site as it was an allocated one, the traffic was a concern - albeit that it was likely to be problematic for only two hours a day.   He felt that concerns about the impact at school times had not been properly addressed.

     

    The PTDP reiterated that passing places were included in the highway works scheme which would extend and formalise existing passing places outside 34 to 32 and 86 to 82 Capel Street.  Whilst there was ad hoc parking at present, the new development would incorporate properly designed and designated parking spaces and facilitate the movement of traffic along Capel Street.  A national, standardised database had been used to predict the 19 two-way traffic movements per hour during school times.  Members should also bear in mind that some of the children living in the new development would be attending the school which would lead to a reduction in traffic movements over time.  An informal crossing point would be installed outside 120 Capel Street.  This, together with the fact that Capel Street was within a 20mph zone, and that visibility and sightlines around the proposed crossing point were considered satisfactory, had led Officers to conclude that pedestrian safety issues had been thoroughly addressed.  The school had a travel plan, and there were measures that it could take to lessen traffic impact, such as promoting its ‘walking bus’.  Having visited Capel Street during peak hours, highways officers were confident that the scheme would mitigate its own impact.        

     

    In response to Councillor D G Beaney who suggested that a site visit should be held, the Principal Planner cautioned that another deferral on highways grounds might be considered unreasonable, with the risk that the applicant could appeal on grounds of non-determination.  In any case, highways issues had been considered in detail, with visits made by the highways officer at peak times. It was therefore difficult to justify holding a site visit at this stage in the process. 

     

    The PTDP advised that waiting restrictions would help to manage traffic.  When visiting the site he had observed that there had not been many local residents exiting their driveways at school times.  This indicated that residents tended to time their trips to avoid peak times. In response to Councillor E A Biggs who queried the review procedure, he advised that the review process would involve a Stage 3 road safety audit which would review the alterations and how they were operating.  Officers were confident that the predicted trip rates were robust.  He added that, when forecasting movements, previous national guidelines did not require any junction with fewer than 30 traffic movements to be considered which gave Members an indication of how severe traffic impacts had to be before a full assessment of highway capacity was required.  He confirmed that sightlines would be checked before construction works took place, and that access points were fixed and could not be changed.      

      

    It was moved by Councillor E A Biggs, duly seconded and

     

    RESOLVED:   (a) That, subject to a Section 106 legal agreement to secure necessary planning contributions, Application No DOV/19/00669 be APPROVED subject to the following conditions:

     

    (i)            Reserved matters details;

     

    (ii)           Outline time limits;

     

    (iii)          Approved plans;

     

    (iv)          Existing and proposed site levels and building heights;

     

    (v)           Ecological mitigation and recommendations implemented;

     

    (vi)          Ecological/biodiversity mitigation, enhancement and management plan;

     

    (vii)        Construction Management Plan;

     

    (viii)       Highway conditions (parking, visibility splays, highway works fully implemented, turning facilities, cycle parking, gradient, surface, works to all footpaths and drainage);

     

    (ix)          Affordable housing provision (numbers, type, tenure, location, timing of construction, housing provider and occupancy criteria scheme);

     

    (x)           Landscaping details and maintenance of buffer zones;

     

    (xi)          Open space management plan:

     

    (xii)        Protection of trees and hedges;

     

    (xiii)       Hard landscaping works and boundary details/enclosures;

     

    (xiv)       Reporting of unexpected land contamination;

     

    (xv)        No works on site until final SuDS testing is undertaken and submitted;

     

    (xvi)       Design details of surface water drainage strategy;

     

    (xvii)      Implementation and verification of SuDS scheme;

     

    (xviii)     No other infiltration on site other than that approved;

     

    (xix)       Contamination safeguarding;

     

    (xx)        Off-site highway works undertaken and implementation of a Traffic Regulation Order;

     

    (xxi)       External lighting to be addressed at reserved matters;

     

    (xxii)      Details of replacement/visitor parking to be submitted for approval.

     

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

     

    99.

    Application No DOV/19/00642 - Site at Cross Road, Deal pdf icon PDF 1 MB

    Outline application for the erection of 100 dwellings with associated parking and means of access (all matters reserved except for access)

     

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

    Additional documents:

    100.

    Appeals and Informal Hearings pdf icon PDF 592 KB

    To receive information relating to Appeals and Informal Hearings, and appoint Members as appropriate.

     

    To consider the report (to follow).

    Minutes:

    The Development Management Team Leader introduced the report which outlined details of planning appeals determined between October and December 2019.   In particular, he highlighted that costs of £46,500 had been awarded against the Council following the dismissal of an appeal for dwellings at Singledge Lane, Whitfield. 

     

    RESOLVED:   That the report be noted.

    101.

    Action taken in accordance with the Ordinary Decisions (Council Business) Urgency Procedure

    To raise any matters of concern in relation to decisions taken under the above procedure and reported on the Official Members' Weekly News.

    Minutes:

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

    Data Protection – Microsoft Teams Live

     

    Dover District Council is a Data Controller under GDPR. During this live broadcast, if you are participating in the meeting your personal data will be processed. The meeting is not recorded but, information will be processed for us to meet our obligations under the Local Government Act 1972 as amended by The Local Authorities and Police and Crime Panels (Coronavirus) (Flexibility of Local Authority and Police and Crime Panels Meetings) (England and Wales) Regulations 2020 [SI 2020 No. 392]. Your information will be handled securely and confidentially in compliance with data protection legislation. For more information on your privacy and if you have any questions, please visit our website at www.dover.gov.uk/privacy