Agenda and draft minutes

It was noted that apologies for absence had been received from Councillors D G Cronk, J P Loffman, H M Williams and C F Woodgate.

It was noted that, in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 4, Councillor M P Porter had been appointed as a substitute member for Councillor C F Woodgate.

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 consider the attached report of the Head of Planning and Development.

Members noted that the deferred item appeared elsewhere on the agenda.

Erection of 17 dwellings, new vehicular access with associated parking and landscaping

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

The Committee was shown an aerial view, plans and photographs of the application site which was located outside but adjacent to the settlement boundary of Wingham.  The Senior Planner advised that planning permission was sought for the erection of 17 dwellings, a new vehicular access and associated parking and landscaping.

 As an update to the report, she read out the comments submitted by Wingham Parish Council in full following a query from the parish council as to why a paragraph of its comments had only been reproduced in summary in the report.  In response to the points raised, she advised that Chapter 6 of the Traffic Science Manual quoted by Wingham Parish Council only applied to standalone crossings which was where vehicular traffic stopped solely to cross a carriageway.  In respect of concerns raised about traffic survey timings, she explained that the applicant had agreed with Kent County Council (KCC) Highways that surveys would be carried out off-peak during the half-term break as they were likely to record higher than average speeds at that time which would then lead to a requirement for longer than average visibility splays.  She advised that 32 additional letters of objection had been received which raised no new material considerations and largely reiterated concerns raised previously about the safety of the pedestrian crossing and junction alterations and enforcement associated with the visibility splays.  These matters had been addressed in the committee reports and presentation.

The Committee was reminded that the application had been deferred at its meeting held on 10 October 2024 in order to have a traffic safety audit carried out by an independent adviser on the proposed pedestrian crossing scheme at the junction of Preston Hill/Gobery Hill.  As a result of the audit, the scheme had been revised due to a problem identified in relation to the restricted visibility of approaching southbound vehicles to the eastern side of the pedestrian crossing.   The independent adviser had recommended that the visibility splay for the eastern side of the crossing should be determined from a point that was 0.95 metres back from the kerb line, taking into account the height and proximity of the hedge, in combination with the vertical alignment. 

KCC Highways had reviewed the independent survey, amended plans and KCC Highways Asset Management’s position on the highway boundary and was content that the revised pedestrian visibility splays were achievable.  Investigations had established that the highway boundary ran to the fence within the hedge surrounding the property called Topaz.  The hedge had grown forwards of the boundary and would need regular trimming where it encroached upon highways land to maintain the recommended visibility splays.    

Members were advised that a condition would be attached requiring off-site highway works, including the pedestrian crossing scheme, to be carried out prior to first occupation.  In respect of enforcing maintenance of the hedge, this would be secured via a Section 278 agreement initially and then through Section 154 notices, should the need arise, after construction.  These mechanisms would ensure that the visibility splays could be secured and maintained in perpetuity. 

The Senior Planner advised that the proposal accorded with Policy SP4 of the Local Plan and was considered to be a good quality form of development, compatible with and appropriate for the local built and natural environments in this edge of settlement location. Notwithstanding that the previous pedestrian crossing scheme was deemed acceptable by Officers and KCC Highways, the revised scheme was considered to be an improvement.  It had been subject to two independent road safety audits and reviewed by four highway professionals, none of whom had raised any concerns over visibility from the western part of the crossing. The application was considered to be acceptable in all material respects and approval was therefore recommended. 

The Chairman reminded Members that they had been comfortable with the principle of the development on this site at the October meeting, and sought confirmation that they were happy to proceed to debating highways matters alone.

Councillor J S Back raised concerns that, whilst the pedestrian crossing scheme had been amended and KCC Highways had found it acceptable, the position of the crossing did not give vehicles turning left up Preston Hill sufficient distance to stop, a particular concern at night.   The Senior Planner reminded Members that the proposed scheme had been the subject of two independent road safety audits and KCC Highways was satisfied with the proposals.  Gobery Hill was subject to a 20mph speed limit and, because of the relatively short distance when turning left up Preston Hill from the village, vehicles would naturally slow down to turn up the hill. 

Councillor Back queried why the 20mph limit could not be extended for the new development as this would alleviate residents’ and Members’ concerns. The Team Leader Development Management (TL) advised that concerns had been raised about the times of day the speed survey had been carried out.  KCC Highways had confirmed that the times of day the survey had been conducted represented times during which the highest speeds were likely to be recorded.  KCC had attended the site during the survey to ensure there were no inappropriately parked vehicles that could artificially reduce vehicle speeds, and was satisfied that the speeds recorded were representative.  On this point, measured speeds in that section had come out at 21.3mph. The minimum visibility requirement for this speed was 25 metres which the proposed visibility splays would exceed given that 30 metres was achievable at this junction. 

Councillor D G Beaney stated that he was uncomfortable with the level of reliance on another authority to maintain the hedge in the long-term.  The Council would, essentially, be relying on the public to keep an eye on the hedge.   The Section 154 process was fairly tedious and it could potentially be weeks before the hedge was cut back once it had been reported.  Add to that the uncertainty surrounding who would bear responsibility following local government reorganisation, and he considered the decision facing the Committee to be a difficult and important one.   Councillor M J Porter pointed out that the ability of KCC to cut the hedge on a regular basis would be affected by bird-nesting season which ran from March to September.  He went on to raise concerns about speeding on the A257 and was of the view that exiting the proposed development would be dangerous. 

The Chairman advised that he had three concerns around highway safety.   Firstly, he doubted KCC’s ability to respond promptly should the landowner refuse to cut the hedge which would grow quickly and, almost certainly, obstruct the sightlines frequently.  Secondly, neither the original nor subsequent road safety audit had considered pedestrian desire lines.  The Manual for Streets (September 2010) referred to supporting pedestrian and cyclist desire lines in detailed designs, advising that pedestrian routes needed to be direct and match desire lines as closely as possible, including across junctions unless there were site-specific reasons that precluded it.  The manual went on to state that pedestrian crossings should be located on or close to desire lines so that they were convenient and pleasant to use, even if guard railings or other deterrent features were used. In contrast, the proposed crossing was not located close to desire lines and pedestrians were likely to use the island at the junction as a central refuge.  

He was not persuaded that the crossing would be heavily used which was concerning as some drivers who used the route regularly would know this and not bother to reduce speed or alter their behaviour accordingly.  Moreover, the turn left up Preston Hill had a large radius and extending the double yellow lines up the hill as proposed would give drivers more time to see if traffic was coming down the hill, factors that were likely to reduce the need for drivers to slow down.  In addition, drivers’ view of pedestrians crossing from west to east would be delayed, and pedestrians crossing from west to east would not be able to see vehicles turning onto the hill.  This would give them a limited amount of time to react to a fast-moving vehicle once they had begun to cross. 

He reiterated his view that the road safety audits had not taken everything into consideration, such as desire points and pedestrians walking from the village centre and crossing Preston Hill.  The hedge was the responsibility of the landowner until it became a nuisance and only then would KCC get involved.  For these reasons, he proposed that the application should be refused as there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety, contrary to paragraph 116 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

Councillor E A Biggs voiced concerns about Members questioning the results of the second road safety audit and disputing the advice of the statutory consultee.  The TL stressed that the views of statutory consultees should be given significant weight, albeit he was aware that some Members had reservations about them.  He emphasised that the scheme had been scrutinised by a number of experts who had unanimously concluded that it was a safe crossing point.  A refusal was likely to lead to an appeal where the applicant would have a case to make based on two road safety audits, traffic survey evidence of speeds and KCC support.  Whilst the Chairman and other Members had raised understandable concerns around where vehicles would be seen from and driver behaviour, he cautioned the Committee in the strongest terms against refusing the application given the overwhelming evidence.  He warned that going head-to-head with experts in their field at appeal rarely ended well for the Council.  

The Chairman responded that he did not believe the road safety audits had considered every aspect of the proposed scheme that the Committee was now looking at.   Councillor Beaney reiterated his concerns that the Committee was being asked to rely on the work of other bodies which he was loath to do in relation to this site.  He commented that if a management plan could be put in place, he might feel differently about approving the application.  

The Principal Planning Solicitor summarised the situation for Members.  The applicant’s original assessment of the junction had been reviewed by a road safety auditor and then by KCC Highways which had found it acceptable.  Due to concerns, the Committee had deferred the application for a second independent review.  Overall, the proposal had been assessed by four experts in their field who had concluded that there would be no unacceptable impact on highway safety.  Furthermore, case law indicated that the views of statutory consultees such as KCC Highways should be accorded significant weight.  The concerns raised by some Members that KCC Highways could not be relied upon to respond quickly in respect of hedge maintenance were mere supposition as KCC had confirmed that it would maintain the hedge.   In any case, KCC had been satisfied with the previous scheme which it had regarded as safe without the hedge being maintained.   In the event of an appeal, the Inspector would be looking for evidence and it was by no means certain the Council would be able to find an expert willing to support its case.   There was also the possibility of costs being claimed against the Council for unreasonable behaviour where a decision had been made without evidence.  Whilst Members were right to listen to residents’ views, he encouraged them to adopt a dispassionate approach to the decision and to focus on the evidence before them, upon which their decision should be based. 

In response to the Chairman, the TL advised that KCC Highways had directly commented on desire lines.  It had advised that where pedestrians were crossing at the mouth of a junction, it was not unreasonable to expect them to divert a short distance to cross at a narrower and safer part of the carriageway.  This was no different to the rest of the highway network and pedestrians were expected to make decisions to safeguard themselves and ensure their own safety.  The safest point in this case was indicated by the installation of pedestrian crossing kerbs. 

The Chairman set out his reasons for refusal which were as follows: (i) The maintenance of the hedge was within the gift of the landowner and, were it to become overgrown, the sightlines would be obscured making the junction dangerous.  If the landowner failed to maintain the hedge, it was within KCC’s prerogative to do so but it was unlikely to be able to respond immediately to requests; (ii) There was no evidence in the reports submitted to the Committee that KCC Highways had considered desire lines; and (iii) Pedestrians crossing Preston Hill from west to east on the deflective crossing would not have the opportunity to gauge satisfactorily the speed of oncoming traffic. Furthermore, drivers approaching Preston Hill from the village had a large turning radius which meant that there was no necessity for them to slow down and they would not necessarily be able to see pedestrians until they had made the turn, and even then they were likely to be focused on whether there were other vehicles coming down the hill.   

In response to the reasons for refusal suggested, the TL reiterated that KCC had confirmed that it would maintain the hedge.  In relation to the west to east pedestrian crossing, the diagram showed that it met and, in fact, exceeded the visibility requirements for the vehicle speeds measured as part of the traffic survey.   In terms of hedge enforceability, the Senior Planner added that pedestrians could edge out onto the highway if the hedge became slightly overgrown.  She reminded Members that the previous proposal had not included any provision for hedge cutback to maintain visibility but had been considered acceptable by KCC Highways nonetheless.

The Principal Planning Solicitor added that, in his view, the reasons given were not a reasonable basis for refusal as they were unsupported by evidence.

Councillors Porter and R M Knight queried whether the hedge could be removed altogether given that it seemed to be the primary obstacle to approving the application.  Councillor Knight stated that he wanted to support the application but was unable to do so unless there was a satisfactory guarantee that the sightlines would be maintained.   Councillor Porter stressed that the hedge would inevitably be overgrown at certain times of year like the spring and summer when it was fast growing and could not be cut back due to nesting birds.

The Principal Planning Solicitor emphasised that if the case went to appeal and an expert could not be found to make the Council’s case on the highways safety impact, the Council might look to Members to attend the hearing/inquiry where they could potentially expect to be cross-examined by a barrister acting for the developer. 

RESOLVED:   (a)   That, notwithstanding the Officer’s recommendation, Application

No DOV/24/00580 be REFUSED on the following grounds: (i) Unacceptable impact on highway safety, as a safe and suitable crossing cannot be achieved, contrary to paragraph 116 of the National Planning Policy Framework; (ii) Maintenance of the hedge cannot be secured as it relies upon the actions of a third party; and (iii) Insufficient pedestrian visibility from the pedestrian crossing on Preston Hill towards the south.

(b)  That powers be delegated to the Head of Planning and Development to finalise the wording of the reasons for refusal in line with the issues raised at the meeting and the resolution of the Planning Committee.

Erection of first-floor side/rear extension, single storey rear extension, rear dormer window, insertion of rooflights to front roof slope, alterations to windows and erection of an outbuilding

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

Members viewed drawings, plans and photographs of the application site which was situated within the settlement confines of Deal and in close proximity to a conservation area.   The Senior Planner advised that planning permission was sought for the erection of a first-floor side/rear extension, single storey rear extension and outbuiding and other alterations.  The original application had proposed the use of metal cladding on the exterior and a juliet balcony.   These had been removed and the revised materials and fenestration would now assimilate much better with the host property.  Overall, the design, scale and form of the extensions and alterations were considered to be suitably compatible with the property and in keeping with the character of the surrounding built environment.  There would be no significant harm to adjoining neighbours and the application was therefore recommended for approval. 

Councillor Back expressed the view that the proposed changes were not too intrusive.  Whilst some objectors had referred to the removal of a tree in the garden, it was not protected.   He proposed that the application should be approved. 

RESOLVED:   (a) That Application No DOV/24/01111 be APPROVED subject to the following conditions:

(i)               Time limits;

(ii)              Approved drawings;

(iii)            Samples of materials.

(b) That powers be delegated to the Head of Planning 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.

Change of use and conversion of barn to dwelling with associated parking

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

The Committee was shown an aerial view, CGIs, drawings and photographs of the application site which was situated outside the settlement confines of Kingsdown and within the Kent Downs National Landscape (formerly Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB)).   The Senior Planner advised that planning permission was sought for a change of use of the land to residential and the conversion of an existing barn to a 3-bedroom dwelling.  She added that there was planning history connected to the site which was not relevant to the application but was included in the presentation for completeness.   Under Policy SP4, new dwellings outside the confines were only permitted in exceptional circumstances, including where the development would re-use redundant or disused buildings and enhance its immediate setting. 

Councillor Back commented that the existing and proposed elevations looked exactly the same except for the windows and doors.  Land ownership had been mentioned but was not a planning consideration.  Policy SP4 supported the re-use of such buildings and he proposed that the application should be approved. 

Councillor Biggs queried whether Class Q permission was relevant in this case.   In response, the TL advised that Class Q applied to the conversion of agricultural buildings and there had been some debate as to whether the building had been in agricultural or an alternative use.  There were restrictions under Class Q relating to the amount of curtilage that could be added and elements of this application meant that the applicant could not apply for Class Q.  The scheme was well designed and all the better for having a larger curtilage.

RESOLVED:   (a) That, subject to a SAMMS payment and a reptile survey being

submitted and reviewed, Application No DOV/23/01428 be APPROVED subject to the following conditions:

(i)               Time limit;

(ii)              Approved plans;

(iii)            Materials;

(iv)            Retention of hedgerow;

(v)             Removal of permitted development rights (outbuildings and extensions);

(vi)            Details of landscaping to be provided and retained;

(vii)          Biodiversity mitigation measures as set out in the PEA.

(b) That powers be delegated to the Head of Planning and Development to settle any necessary planning conditions, obligations and reasons 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.

The Committee noted that no action had been taken.