Agenda and draft minutes

Planning Committee - Thursday, 29th August, 2024 6.00 pm

Not all meetings are broadcast. The meetings that will be broadcast are as follows: (a) Council; (b) Cabinet; (c) Dover Joint Transportation Advisory Board; (d) General Purposes Committee; (e) Electoral Matters Committee; (f) Governance Committee; (g) Planning Committee; and (h) Overview and Scrutiny Committee.

For those meetings that are being broadcast there will be a link to view the live broadcast under the ‘Media’ heading below. Only those items not restricted on the agenda will be broadcast.

Guidance on how to watch live broadcasts of meetings.

The link to view a recording of a meeting that was broadcast can be found on the Council’s YouTube channel (@doverdc)

Venue: Council Chamber. View directions

Contact: Democratic Services  Email: democraticservices@dover.gov.uk

Media

Items
No. Item

23.

Apologies

To receive any apologies for absence.

Minutes:

It was noted that apologies had been received from Councillors J S Back, R M Knight and C F Woodgate.

 

24.

Appointment of Substitute Members

To note appointments of Substitute Members.

Minutes:

It was noted that, in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 4, Councillors O C de R Richardson, D R Friend and P M Brivio had been appointed as substitute members for Councillors J S Back, R M Knight and C F Woodgate respectively. 

 

25.

Declarations of Interest pdf icon PDF 55 KB

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

Minutes:

Councillor N S Kenton declared an Other Significant Interest in Agenda Item 10

(DOV/23/01437 – 12 Britannia Terrace, Sandwich) by reason that a family member owned property nearby.

 

Councillor D R Friend stated that he had made public comments about Agenda Item 6 (DOV/24/00352 – The Barn, Coombe Lane, Woodnesborough), such that it could be perceived that he had predetermined the application.   He advised that he would withdraw from the Chamber during consideration of the application. 

 

Councillor M J Nee declared an Other Significant Interest in Agenda Item 5 (DOV/23/01336 – Neptune, Bay Hill, St Margaret’s Bay) by reason that the applicant was well known to him.

 

 

26.

Minutes pdf icon PDF 123 KB

To confirm the attached minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 11 July 2024.

Minutes:

The minutes of the meeting held on 11 July 2024 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

 

27.

Application No DOV/23/01336 - Neptune, Bay Hill, St Margaret's Bay pdf icon PDF 501 KB

Erection of a detached dwelling, garage, vehicular access, parking and turning area with landscaping.

 

Reason for report – Number of contrary views (10)

 

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

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Committee was shown CGIs, plans and photographs of the application site which was outside the settlement boundary of St Margaret’s Bay and comprised the former side garden of Seaways.  The Planning Consultant advised that the topography of the site mostly fell steeply from its northern to its southern boundary.  Whilst the site was a challenging one to build on, Officers were of the view that the proposals were well designed, with an innovative use of materials.  The building would not be overly prominent or stand out in an intrusive way in wider views of the area.  As an update to the report, he advised that an additional condition was recommended regarding the need for a screen on the eastern elevation of the terraced area.

 

Councillor O C de R Richardson expressed concerns about the proposals, namely that the site was outside the settlement confines and the impact on the conservation area which was the subject of a detailed Character Appraisal.  In his view this was an open area of green land which, along with the other big gaps between dwellings, was of benefit to St Margaret’s Bay.  He noted that there had been problems in Bay Hill during the construction of other properties.  He proposed that the application should be refused on the basis that it was outside the settlement confines and would affect the conservation area and overlook Carmel Cottage.

 

The Planning Consultant explained that the line of the settlement boundary ran along the northern section of Bay Hill, and all properties to the east of the application site were outside the boundary.  The visual context of the proposals related well to the existing settlement, there being other houses around the site.  Moreover, Policy SP4 of the new Local Plan permitted development adjacent to the settlement boundaries providing the visual and physical context were acceptable and the development would not be in isolation.  For these reasons, and due to its being well located, the proposal complied with SP4 which carried considerable weight.  He reminded Members that the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) sought to achieve sustainable development which this proposal was considered to be.   Whilst the weight to be attached to the green land was for Members to assess, this was a large plot and there would be space around the dwelling to maintain some of the existing open, green character of the area.

 

Councillor D G Cronk queried how much weight should be given to sustainable development and the NPPF.  He also questioned how surface water drainage would be dealt with given the topography of the site.  The Planning Consultant advised that the applicant was required to make a formal application to connect to the public sewer.  Whilst details of how surface water run-off would be addressed remained outstanding, he was in no doubt that suitable arrangements could be achieved.  He clarified that Policy SP4 was broadly consistent with the NPPF’s objectives around sustainable development and therefore carried considerable weight.  In response to Councillor Richardson, he advised that the application had been submitted before the biodiversity net gain requirements had been introduced but, nevertheless, relevant conditions were proposed.  It was his view that the site was large enough to achieve net gains. 

 

In response to Councillor J P Loffman who raised concerns relating to the loss of trees, the Planning Consultant advised that trees on the site were covered by Tree Protection Orders and within a conservation area so felling them would require permission from the Local Planning Authority (LPA).  Whilst some trees would be lost, it was not a significant number, nor were the trees considered to be of such significance that refusal was warranted.  A landscape condition was proposed that encouraged the planting of trees but, in any case, the LPA would always seek to replace any trees lost as the result of development.  He understood that the applicant intended to retain the green, woody character of a large part of the site, adding that any reptiles would be translocated. 

Councillor D G Beaney pointed out the proposal’s compliance with Policy SP4 and proposed that it should be approved.  Councillor S Hill praised the applicant’s efforts to address concerns raised about the development. Councillor N S Kenton understood why some people were opposed to the development of a windfall site because it was not allocated land.  However, the site adjoined the confines and he had seen no issues relating to overlooking, ecology or the impact on the conservation area and countryside.  He was of the view that seaside settings such as this lent themselves to this type of tiered housing. Councillor P M Brivio agreed, commenting that it was a tasteful design and the suggested conditions would address any areas of concern.  She was also pleased to see that a construction management statement had been submitted.

 

RESOLVED:   (a) That Application No DOV/23/01336 be APPROVED subject to the following conditions: 

 

(i)     3-year implementation period;

 

(ii)    Approved drawings: 8180 A1 02A, 03A, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, 09, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14;

 

(iii)  Approved documents: Tree Protection Plan, Tree Constraints Plan, Ecology Reptile Survey and Mitigation Strategy Report, Ecology Report and Landscape Plan;

 

(iv)  Submission for approval of a biodiversity method statement;

 

(v)   Submission for approval of biodiversity enhancements;

 

(vi)  Submission for approval of external lighting strategy;

 

(vii)Submission for approval of a habitat monitoring and management plan;

 

(viii)                   Submission for approval of method to dispose of foul water from the site;

 

(ix)  Submission for approval of method to address surface water run-off;

 

(x)   Submission of a Construction Method Statement;

 

(xi)  Submission for approval of materials for buildings and hard surfacing and panel of flintwork;

 

(xii)Submission for approval of boundary treatments and landscaping on the site;

 

(xiii)                   Provision and retention of the vehicle parking spaces;

 

(xiv)                   Provision and retention of visibility splays;

 

(xv)                    Provision and retention of pedestrian visibility splays;

 

(xvi)                   Provision and retention of cycle parking facilities and refuse facilities;

 

(xvii)                 Adherence to tree protection measures during construction;

 

(xviii)                Adherence to proposed levels/gradients/topography of the land;

 

(xix)                   Removal of permitted development rights (due to need to safeguard the significance of the conservation area and landscape setting);

 

(xx)                    Screen to be provided to eastern elevation of terraced area.

  

(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 report and as resolved by the Committee.

 

(Councillor M J Nee left the Chamber during consideration of this item.)

 

(Councillor J P Loffman chaired the meeting during consideration of this item.)

 

28.

Application No DOV/24/00352 - The Barn, Coombe Lane, Woodnesborough pdf icon PDF 429 KB

Erection of a dwelling and associated parking

 

Reason for report – Called in by Councillor

 

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

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Members viewed drawings, plans and photographs of the application site which was situated outside the settlement confines of Ash.  The Senior Planner advised that planning permission was sought to erect a dwelling and for associated parking on the site which currently hosted a dwelling that had recently been granted a certificate of lawfulness for its continued use as a dwellinghouse.  The proposals sought to retain the existing dwelling as an amenity building. 

 

Members were advised that the site was outside the settlement confines and in the countryside.  Moreover, the application did not accord with any of the permitted exceptions for the erection of a single dwelling in the countryside.  The proposed dwelling was large in size and unrelated to, and incompatible in its design with, local buildings.  The proposal would be highly visible from public views (e.g. from nearby Public Rights of Way) which was a material consideration.  The domestication of the site was considered to cause visual harm to the countryside and the proposal was therefore regarded as unsustainable and unjustified.  Furthermore, no archaeological assessment had been submitted when the application site was in an area of archaeological potential. 

 

Referring to paragraph 2.21 and Policy H6 of the new Local Plan, the Senior Planner advised that the existing dwelling exceeded the size and scale of a building considered to be an ancillary annexe.  Whilst there was provision in the policy for ancillary buildings, the retention of the existing dwelling, currently used as a family home, meant that the proposed new build property could not be regarded as a replacement dwelling.  She added that the curtilage of the barn included in the Lawful Development Certificate had been smaller than the one shown for this site.  This meant that the current application did not fall within the curtilage of the barn and could not therefore be categorised as previously developed land.   

 

In response to a point raised by Councillor Loffman, the Chairman reminded Members that they were required to apply their own judgement and consider each application on its own merits.  They should not compare one application with another.  The Senior Planner added that the material difference between this application and another on the agenda that evening was that the other site was immediately adjacent to the settlement confines whereas this one was approximately 0.41 kilometres outside the confines of Ash and therefore substantially further away. 

 

Councillor Kenton commented that the application site was in the middle of nowhere and did not comply with the applicable policies.  However, he requested clarification on a number of matters including its location outside the curtilage of the barn, whether the new dwelling would be an environmental enhancement and the status of the annexe.  The Team Leader (TL) confirmed that Policy DM8 allowed for replacement dwellings in the countryside, subject to meeting the relevant criteria which included being of an appropriate style, size, siting and causing no harm to the character of the countryside.  The proposed dwelling did not meet these criteria as it was visible from public vantage points and was not a like-for-like replacement of the existing dwelling.  Moreover, whilst Policy H6 permitted residential extensions such as an annexe, the existing building was an individual residential dwelling and could not therefore clearly be linked to the proposed dwelling.  

 

RESOLVED: (a) That Application No DOV/24/00352 be REFUSED on the following

grounds:

 

(i)     The proposal would constitute an unsustainable and unjustified residential development in this rural location, resulting in additional vehicle movements and the need to travel by private car. The proposed dwelling would result in an overdevelopment of the site, being visually intrusive, thus detracting from and causing harm to the rural character and appearance of this part of the countryside, contrary to policies CP1, DM1, DM8 and DM11 of the Core Strategy and draft policies SP4, PM1, NE2 and TI1 of the Submission Draft Local Plan and paragraphs 84 and 180 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

 

(ii)    The applicant has failed to supply an appropriate desk-based assessment in respect of archaeology, in an area of archaeological potential, contrary to draft policy HE3 of the Draft Local Plan and paragraph 200 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

 

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

 

(Councillor D R Friend left the Chamber during consideration of this item.)

 

29.

Application No DOV/21/00123 - The Old Lantern, The Street, Martin pdf icon PDF 481 KB

Change of use of land and retention of Yurt (holiday let), Romany caravan (used for ornamental purposes only), smoke shelter to rear, pizza oven building, fencing, detached outbuilding as staff office and staff accommodation (retrospective)

 

Reason for report – Number of contrary views (7)

 

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

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Committee was shown plans and photographs of the application site.  The Senior Planner advised that retrospective planning permission was sought for the change of use of the rear garden for the retention of a yurt for use as a holiday let, a Romany caravan for ornamental purposes, a smoking shelter, a pizza oven building and flue and a detached outbuilding for use as an office and staff accommodation.  The application had been subject to a number of delays.  The main concerns with the proposed uses centred around fumes and smoke emissions from the pizza oven and their impact on the neighbouring property.  The pizza oven had been in operation for three years and was used for a limited number of hours three days a week.  The Council’s environmental health team had originally raised objections to the application but, following investigations, had found no statutory smoke nuisance arising from the use of the oven.  A specialist had also been consulted and had raised no objections.  Other elements of the application were low level structures that were suitably screened and, on balance, posed no harm to residential amenity. Subject to appropriate conditions, the application was recommended for approval.

 

In response to Members’ queries, the Senior Planner confirmed that the pizza oven’s hours of use would be restricted and could only be changed by seeking planning permission to vary the relevant condition.  As there had been no complaints, Councillor D G Beaney suggested that condition 3 governing the days and hours of use of the pizza oven should be removed and that any problems arising could be dealt with by the Council’s environmental health and/or licensing teams.  The TL clarified that the environmental health team worked to different legislation and could impose its own restrictions on the use of the pizza oven.  It was therefore an option for Members to remove the condition if they wished.   

 

RESOLVED:   (a) That Application No DOV/21/00123 be APPROVED subject to the

                        following conditions:

 

(i)     Time limit;

 

(ii)    Approved plans;

 

(iii)  Holiday accommodation ancillary use;

 

(iv)  Office and staff accommodation ancillary use.

 

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

 

30.

Application No DOV/24/00256 - 14 North Road, Kingsdown pdf icon PDF 498 KB

Erection of a single storey rear extension, insertion of rear French doors, replacement first floor rear elevation window and replacement front porch (existing rear extension to be demolished)

 

Reason for report – Number of contrary views (16)

 

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

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Members viewed drawings, a plan and photographs of the application site which was situated within the Kingsdown Conservation Area and subject to an Article 4(2) Direction.  The Senior Planner advised that planning permission was sought for the erection of a single storey rear extension, the insertion of rear French doors and the replacement of a first-floor rear elevation window and front porch.  The plans had been the subject of several amendments during the application process to address heritage concerns. The proposed extension was now considered to be a modest enlargement to the existing rear projection, being only an additional 1 metre deeper and 0.7 metres wider than the existing extension which would be demolished.  Overall, the amended scheme maintained the simple and traditional form and appearance of the host dwelling and wider terrace.  In addition, it was not out of character with the existing extensions and alterations to the rear of the terrace.  She noted that alterations to the ground floor of the property would not be seen from longer views in any case.  Furthermore, the alterations would be an improvement to the existing in terms of material finishes and replacement porch.  The impact on the conservation area was also considered acceptable and approval was therefore recommended.

 

Councillor H M Williams raised concerns about the cumulative effect of the proposals on North Road given that there were already three houses in a terrace of seven with bigger extensions and two that had first-floor terraces, built before the Article 4 Directive was introduced.  One property had been allowed to build an extension and terrace in 2021 which it was now acknowledged had been in error.  In contrast, South Road had fewer rear extensions and no terraces.  These two roads could be seen by the public when coming down the hill, approaching from the beach area and from an access path.  Both roads were of historical merit and, whilst the Committee could not undo previously permitted development, it could ensure that new proposals followed the strict guidelines of the Article 4(2) Direction and that the trend was not allowed to continue. 

 

She also raised concerns that neighbouring properties such as no. 13 might apply to carry out similar works due to loss of light and/or residential amenity affecting their properties.  She felt that the report underplayed the size of the extension which would be longer and wider in a small back garden such as this.  The style and height of the extension’s roof was also inappropriate, as was the proposed gable end which was not a heritage feature of the area.  She disliked the aluminium window frames which were not suitable for a conservation area and argued that traditional wooden windows would be more in keeping. 

 

The Senior Planner advised that the proposals were considered acceptable both individually and cumulatively.  There was a variety of new extensions in North Road and, whilst some were not sympathetic, this one was and would have limited visibility.  The Heritage Officer had raised no objections, commenting that it was a limited and modest proposal.  Officers were of the view that there would be no harm to the character of the rear of the terrace.  There were other gable ends in the area and this one was considered modest and acceptable.  She stressed that a previous appeal had been in relation to a substantially larger development with a two-storey rear extension and terrace. The existing windows were all uPVC and the aluminium windows would therefore be an improvement.  It was proposed to replace the timber windows of the porch with new timber but the existing roof would remain.  

 

In response to Councillor Loffman, the Senior Planner confirmed that cumulative impact was relevant and had been considered as part of the assessment process.  Councillor Loffman responded that cumulative impact should carry significant weight, adding that the rear of the terrace was a hotch-potch and restrictions should have been imposed years ago in his opinion.  Whilst he sympathised with objectors, he feared there were no planning reasons to refuse the application.  The Chairman commented that he had been persuaded by the Heritage Officer’s comments and the Committee’s debate that evening and, with the amendments that had been made, he could now support the application.

 

RESOLVED:   (a) That Application No DOV/24/00256 be APPROVED subject to the

following conditions:

 

(i)     Time limit;

 

(ii)    Approved plans;

 

(iii)  Material details including sample of roof tiles;

 

(iv)  Details of aluminium fenestration set in reveals;

 

(v)   Joinery details of timber fenestration to front porch;

 

(vi)  Conservation style rooflights;

 

(vii)Arboricultural method statement.           

 

(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.  

 

 

31.

Application No DOV/23/01211 - 12 North Road, Kingsdown pdf icon PDF 506 KB

Erection of rear extension, extension to existing porch, rooflight to rear, re-tile roof, render to elevations and replacement windows

 

Reason for report – Number of contrary views (26)        

 

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

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Committee was shown an aerial view, drawings, a plan and photographs of the application site which, like the previous agenda item, was situated within the Kingsdown Conservation Area and subject to an Article 4(2) Direction.  The Planning Officer advised that planning permission was sought for a lot of improvements to the property which was in a poor state of repair.  Whilst concerns had been raised about loss of privacy, the balcony was an existing feature and the addition of an obscure-glazed screen would be an enhancement.  She clarified that the dormer had been completed prior to the adoption of the Article 4(2) Direction.  The application also proposed the installation of a rooflight which was not considered to be significant.

 

Councillor Williams raised concerns about the extension which looked to have doubled in width and increased in roof height.  It was her view that the proposals would be harmful to the visual amenity of no. 11, creating a tunnelling effect to that property.   The privacy screen would make the balcony more visible from public views and the glazing was out of character with the terrace of houses.  She disagreed with Officers’ comments about the visual impact on the conservation area, including in relation to windows and breaking up the roof slope, and believed it was possible to design a more sympathetic extension.  Whilst she was not against modernisation, it needed to be done sensitively.

 

The Chairman commented that he was keen to ensure that the porch was of a suitable design, in line with comments made by the Heritage Officer. He commented that there was at present no privacy screen on the balcony so this addition would be of benefit to neighbouring properties which were currently overlooked.  The extension would not be overly big because it wrapped around the building and, in any case, there was already an extension there.  He cautioned against removing the privacy screen as its purpose was to protect the privacy of neighbouring properties.  He advised Members not to ‘redesign’ the property by proposing lots of changes.   

 

The Planning Officer commented that there was a degree of separation between the application property and no. 11 so there would be no tunnelling effect in relation to the latter.  She added that the 1.8-metre height of the screen was a standard one.  She clarified that the increased footprint of the extension came from the sloping part of the roof. A joinery condition was attached which would ensure that appropriate materials were used.  The design of the porch would be controlled by the condition relating to approved plans.  In respect of concerns raised by Councillor Williams about the use of weatherboarding at the rear of the terrace and her suggestion that render should be used, the Planning Officer advised that, being on the ground floor, the majority of the extension would not be seen from public views. 

 

RESOLVED:  (a) That Application No DOV/23/01211 be APPROVED subject to the following conditions:

 

(i)     Time Limit;

 

(ii)    Approved plans and details;

 

(iii)  Obscured 1.8-metre glazing screens;

 

(iv) Samples of paint for render to front elevation;

 

(v)  Joinery details;

 

(vi)  Material samples.

   

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

 

32.

Application No DOV/23/01437 - 12 Britannia Terrace, School Road, Sandwich pdf icon PDF 521 KB

Erection of a single storey rear extension (incorporating partial demolition and rebuild of boundary wall to create a cavity wall), rebuilding of boundary wall and reinstatement of fence panel

 

Reason for report – Number of contrary views (14) & Called in by Councillor

 

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

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Members viewed a drawing, plans and photographs of the application site which was situated within the settlement boundaries of Sandwich and in a conservation area. The Planning Officer advised that, during the course of the application, two sets of amendments had been made and the one now before the Committee sought planning permission for the erection of a single storey rear extension (incorporating the partial demolition and rebuilding of the boundary wall to create a cavity wall), the rebuilding of a different part of the boundary wall and reinstatement of a fence panel.  The original plan to widen the vehicle access had been removed from the application and the wall and fence would be reinstated as per the originals. There was considered to be no impact on visual amenity, nor would the proposals result in harm to the residential amenity of neighbouring residents.  Furthermore, they would preserve the character and appearance of the conservation area, and approval was therefore recommended. 

 

In response to the Chairman, the Planning Officer advised that, should the applicant attempt to remove the fence panel at a later date, they would require planning permission to do so.  The Chairman commented that the application had been called in by Councillor Moorhouse and there had been numerous objections, mainly on highways grounds.  However, with the amendments that had been made, the objections had largely fallen away so it was somewhat of an anomaly that the application was before the Committee. 

 

Councillor Loffman praised the report for the annotated comments made by the Planning Officer which he found helpful.  Several Members queried why the fence was being retained and thought a continuous brick wall would look better.  The Planning Officer advised that the applicant had indicated he was not willing to replace the fence with bricks. 

 

RESOLVED:   (a) That Application No DOV/23/01437 be APPROVED subject to the

following conditions:

 

(i)     Time limit;

 

(ii)    Approved plans;

 

(iii)  Materials samples;

 

(iv)  Joinery details (including details of the depth of window reveals).

 

(a)   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.

 

(Councillor N S Kenton left the Chamber during consideration of this item.)

 

33.

Application No DOV/24/00570 - 16 Green Lane, Eythorne pdf icon PDF 465 KB

Erection of a detached annexe/workshop with solar panels to roof

 

Reason for report – Number of contrary views (9 received within the consultation period and a further 2 outside of this timeframe)

 

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

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Members were shown drawings, plans and photographs of the application site which was a 1.5-storey bungalow within the settlement confines of Eythorne.  The Planning Officer advised that planning permission was sought for the erection of a detached annexe/workshop in the garden.   The building would be situated at the back of the garden and, following amendments made during the application process to reduce the size, it was now considered to be sensitive to the character of the existing dwelling and therefore acceptable.  As an update to the report, Members were advised that three further objections had been received but all the matters raised had been addressed in the report.

 

RESOLVED:   (a) That Application No DOV/24/00570 be APPROVED subject to the

following conditions:

 

(i)    Time limit;

 

(ii)   Approved plans;

 

(iii)  Protection and retention of trees;

 

(iv)  Ancillary use only;

 

(v)   No windows to be inserted in roof other than hereby approved;

 

(vi)  No external lighting;

 

(vii)Details of ecological enhancements.

 

(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.

 

34.

Application No DOV/24/00660 - 5 Griffin Street, Deal pdf icon PDF 539 KB

Replacement of existing window with glazed door, installation of new window to 2nd floor and erection of balcony and balustrade to rear and privacy screen

 

Reason for report – Number of contrary views (8)

 

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

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Committee was shown plans and photographs of the application site which was situated within the settlement confines of Deal and in a conservation area.  The TL advised that planning permission was sought for the replacement of an existing window with glazed door, the installation of a new window to the second floor and the erection of a balcony and balustrade (with privacy screen) to the rear of the property.  As an update, the TL advised Members that the applicant had applied for and been granted listed building consent for the proposed changes. Whilst the Senior Heritage Officer had subsequently advised that listed building consent was not required for the balcony screening, since publication of the report she had advised that a Section 73 application would be required to amend the approved plans.  

 

In response to Members’ questions, the Chairman clarified that, under the Council’s constitution, Section 73 applications were not required to come back to the Committee for determination.  However, at the discretion of the Head of Planning and Development and the Portfolio Holder, they could be referred back to Members.  This discretion would normally only be exercised in contentious cases but could be implemented here if the Committee wished.  In terms of loss of privacy, the TL advised that there was no definition, and it was more a matter of residents perceiving themselves to be overlooked by existing or proposed windows.  In a built-up, urban area with rear fenestrations there was already a degree of loss of privacy which was part of living in an area like this.  He noted that the previous application had been refused due to the absence of a privacy screen.  The Chairman added that the concept of loss of privacy was bound to be subjective because it rested on different people’s opinions.

 

In response to Councillor Williams who sought clarification on the balcony screening, the TL advised that the screening would be slatted and provided on the western elevation of the balcony. 

 

The Chairman questioned whether, with the 1.8-metre privacy screen, there would effectively be a 4-metre fence to the boundary with no. 4.  The TL advised that the balcony would cover a substantial part of next door’s courtyard but not all of it.  The side elevation of the courtyard would be ‘screened’ by a fence to the lower ground floor of no. 5. 

 

Councillors S Hill and Beaney expressed concerns about the application, with Councillor Beaney suggesting that the application should be refused due to its design and harmful impact on next door’s living space.  

 

The Chairman proposed that there should be a site visit as the neighbour’s comments had raised concerns for him, such that he felt unable to make a decision on the application that evening.  In response to Councillor Richardson, the TL advised that, whilst deferral for a site visit could lead to the applicant appealing on the grounds of non-determination, they might just as well wait for the outcome of the site visit, given how long the appeal process was likely to take. 

 

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

No DOV/24/00660 be DEFERRED for a site visit at 9.30am on Tuesday 8 October 2024 to enable Members to look at the impact of the proposals on the residential amenity of neighbouring properties, particularly on the courtyard garden of 4 Griffin Street, and to understand the privacy screen proposal, and that Councillors D G Beaney, P M Brivio, S Hill, J P Loffman and N S Kenton (reserve: Cllr M J Nee) be appointed to attend the site visit.

 

35.

Additional Item of Urgent Business - Proposed Changes to Committee Meeting Dates pdf icon PDF 69 KB

To consider the attached recommendation.

Minutes:

The Committee received a short report on proposals to cancel scheduled Planning Committee meetings on 19 September and 24 October 2024 and replace them with a new meeting on 10 October.  The proposals were connected with the Local Plan and ensuring that reports presented to the Committee were accurate in terms of its status and the weight to be attributed to policies.

 

RESOLVED:   That the Planning Committee meetings scheduled for 19 September and 24 October 2024 be cancelled and replaced with a new meeting, to be held on 10 October 2024.

 

(In accordance with the provisions of Section 100(B)(4)(b) of the Local Government Act 1972, the Chairman agreed that this item, which was not detailed on the agenda, should be considered as a matter of urgency for the reasons set out in the supplement to the agenda.)

 

36.

Appeals and Informal Hearings

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

Minutes:

The Chairman noted that there was no information to receive regarding appeals.

 

37.

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.