Agenda and draft minutes

It was noted that apologies for absence had been received from Councillors J S Back and D R Friend (the latter being due to act as substitute for Councillor Back).

There were no substitute members appointed.

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 meeting of the Committee held on 16 January 2025, and the minutes of the meeting held on 13 February 2025 (to follow).

The minutes of the meetings of the Committee held on 16 January and 13 February 2025 were approved as correct records.

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

The Chairman noted that the consultant’s report in respect of the deferred item was awaited.  It was anticipated that a report would come back to the Committee in April.

Change of use of building to House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) for up to 8 people (Sui Generis)

 

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

The Committee was shown plans and photographs of the application site which was close to Dover town centre and within Dover Castle conservation area.  The Planning Consultant advised that planning permission was sought for a change of use of the building to a House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) to accommodate 8 people.  No external changes were proposed to the building which was Grade II listed.  A Lawful Development Certificate (LDC) had been granted in December 2024 for 6 bedrooms.  Planning permission was not required to change from a residential dwelling-house to a small HMO.  The LDC had therefore effectively established the principle of the building’s use as a small HMO for up to 6 people.  Planning permission was now being sought for two additional bedrooms in the roof space.

 

In response to Councillor D G Cronk, the Chairman emphasised that the house would need an HMO licence which would not be issued if the building did not meet fire regulations.  He reminded Members that fire safety was not a material planning matter.  The Planning Consultant added that the Council’s Private Sector Housing team had reviewed the layout and had no concerns.  Further information and drawings would be required to address fire safety which would be assessed by another team.  He clarified that Policy H7 of the Local Plan did not define ‘vicinity’ in the context of HMOs.  However, when assessing the application, Officers had looked at whether this proposal, in combination with other HMOs nearby, could have an impact.  There were no other HMOs (licensed or unauthorised) in this stretch of road.  It was open to Members to interpret what was meant by ‘vicinity’.  However, he cautioned that specific evidence on the wider impact would be required rather than just raising generic concerns. 

 

Councillor N S Kenton commented that the concerns raised by Dover Town Council were understandable as a proliferation of HMOs in a concentrated area would not be good.  However, there was no evidence in this case and he did not believe that the addition of two bedrooms was sufficient to justify refusal.  Whilst the lack of an extra bathroom was not ideal, the building met minimum standards. 

 

Councillor J P Loffman sought clarification on Policy H7 and its objective of safeguarding the residential amenity of nearby occupiers.   The Planning Consultant advised that, as the property was not currently being used as an HMO, there was no evidence in relation to its impact on residential amenity.  He stressed that HMOs varied in the way they were operated, with some managed well and others badly.  He commented that the transient nature of HMOs – with residents coming and going at different times – would inevitably have some impact on the amenity of neighbouring properties.   Whilst there would always be an impact, it was about the degree of harm and, ultimately, a matter of judgement for Members.  He added that there was usually a name and number for local residents to contact in the event of problems. Officers were of the view that the proposals were not an over-intensification of the building, and the historic plan form would be retained as there would be no sub-division of rooms. 

 

Councillor D G Beaney referred to Policy PM2.  He had some sympathy with Dover Town Council but accepted there was a need for HMOs.  He expressed concerns about HMO residents making lots of noise whilst using the rear outside space. 

 

The Planning Consultant advised that the HMO licence would cover matters such as fire and electricity risk.  It was not for Planning to determine who could occupy the property, but to consider whether the proposal was an acceptable use of the land.  Furthermore, under planning policies, there were no technical standards governing the size of rooms or amenity areas for HMOs.  The fact that this HMO would have an amenity area was a positive element, but the occupiers’ behaviour could not be controlled (the same being true if the building were a 5-bedroomed house).  He reassured Members that the suggested HMO management plan condition should ensure that local residents were able to contact someone in the event of problems.  In summary, the applicant had an LDC for an HMO for 6 occupants (the fallback position) and it was for the Committee to assess whether an additional two occupants would make a material difference.  

 

RESOLVED:   That Application No DOV/24/01086 be APPROVED subject to the

following conditions:

(i)               Implement permission within 3 years;

 

(ii)              Approval of layout as shown on submitted drawings PN-002 Rev1, PN-003 Rev1, PN-009 Rev1, PN-0010 Rev1 and PN-011 Rev1;

 

(iii)            No more than 8 bedrooms shall be provided and no more than 8 residents shall occupy the property at any one time;

 

(iv)            Provision of area within garden for 8 sheltered and secure cycle parking spaces;

 

(v)             Provision of refuse and recycling storage area within garden;

 

(vi)            House in Multiple Occupation Management Plan.

 

(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 recommendation and as resolved by the Planning Committee.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Change of use from commercial to House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) with 9-person occupancy

 

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

Members viewed plans and a photograph of the application site which was situated within the settlement confines of Dover and in a conservation area.   The Senior Planner advised that planning permission was sought for a change of use from commercial to an HMO for 9 persons.  No external changes to the Grade II-listed building were proposed so there would be no impact on the conservation area, nor would there be changes to the floor plan.   Conditions were attached requiring refuse storage to be in the rear garden and an HMO management plan.

 

The Chairman advised that he had a fundamental problem with the proposals due to the lack of bathrooms.  The HMO regulations stated that rooms should be within one floor of a toilet.  It was evident in this case that residents on the third floor would be forced to go to the ground floor if they needed to use the bathroom.  In his view this was unacceptable in terms of the occupants’ amenity.  He proposed that the application should be refused with reference to Policy PM1 (high quality design), PM2 (quality of residential accommodation) and paragraphs 131 (interior design) and 135 (wellbeing) of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). 

 

Councillor E A Biggs remarked on Castle Street’s historic appeal and its views of the castle.  The presence of an established community had helped to retain the street’s character and condition of the buildings.  He noted that there were already two HMOs in the street and, in his view, adding another could have a negative impact on the street.  Accordingly, he was unable to support the application. 

 

Councillor Beaney pointed out that the Committee had just approved a similar application.  He commented that the issue of bathroom facilities was not a planning matter and should be left to the owner to resolve when applying for the HMO licence.   There were no planning reasons to refuse the application and, ultimately, if the applicant was unable to obtain a licence, the proposal would not go ahead.  Whilst he was not a fan of HMOs, it would be contradictory to refuse this application which was no different to the application that had just been approved by the Committee. 

 

The Development Management Team Leader (TL) confirmed that the proposals were considered to be policy compliant.   Whilst she understood concerns raised about the internal layout, they were not a planning consideration, and Officers had no reservations about the amenity of occupants.  However, it was open to the Committee to give weight to this issue, such that it overrode other considerations, and come to an alternative judgement around amenity.  That being said, her own view was that the issue of bathroom facilities should not influence the Committee’s decision-making and the case for refusal was a weak one.

 

The Chairman advised that, on reflection, he was in agreement with the points raised by Councillor Beaney and withdrew his motion.

 

RESOLVED:   (a) That Application No DOV/24/00327 be APPROVED subject to the following conditions:  

 

(i)               Time limit;

 

(ii)              Approved plans;

 

(iii)            Restriction of number of residents to 9;

 

(iv)            HMO Management Plan to be submitted;

 

(v)             Bicycle storage details to be submitted.

 

(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. 

  

Change of use and conversion to a clubhouse for the Royal Cinque Ports Yacht Club. Erection of single storey side and rear extensions with glazed link, balcony, storm porch, solar panels to roof and associated alterations

 

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 to the south of the Grade II-listed Clock Tower in Dover.  The Principal Planner advised that planning permission was sought for a change of use and conversion to a clubhouse, with the erection of single storey side and rear extensions and other additions and alterations.  The design of the proposals had been amended since originally submitted in response to public and consultee comments.   Whilst there would be a low level of less than substantial harm to the setting of nearby heritage assets, the benefits of bringing a redundant building back into use were considered to outweigh this element.  With conditions relating to materials, the proposal was considered acceptable and approval was recommended.

 

RESOLVED: (a) That Application No DOV/24/01319 be APPROVED subject to the

following conditions:

 

(i)               Time condition;

 

(ii)              List of approved plans;

 

(iii)            Samples of materials (cladding);

 

(iv)            Sectional details of proposed photovoltaic panels;

 

(v)             Unexpected contamination;

 

(vi)            Unexpected archaeology.

 

(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.

Erection of a building and conversion of two buildings to create 11 dwellings and 4 retail units (2 buildings to be demolished)

 

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

Members viewed an aerial view, drawings, plans and photographs of the application site which was situated in Deal town centre, within a conservation area and in proximity to a number of listed buildings.  The Principal Planner advised that planning permission was sought for the erection of a building and the conversion of two buildings to create 11 dwellings and four retail units, with two buildings to be demolished.   As an update, she advised that a further representation had been received, neither objecting nor supporting the proposals, but commenting that the bus-stops and taxi ranks should be reorganised.  In addition, the reference to Kent County Council (KCC) and the agreement of the baseline habitat plan in the report recommendation should be removed as it had been agreed.  As a correction to the report, she advised that the reference in paragraph 2.37 to paragraph 2.40 should read 2.34. The impact on heritage assets and visual amenity was considered acceptable and approval was recommended.

 

Councillors Loffman and Cronk raised concerns about loss of light and the impact on the amenity of neighbours.  In particular, Councillor Loffman wanted to understand in more detail how light gain would balance out the loss of light and why this matter had not been a reason for refusal.  The Principal Planner advised that daylight and sunlight assessments had been submitted, together with an addendum dealing with the impact on 3 South Street.   Light/overshadowing issues were dealt with in some detail in paragraphs 2.15 and 2.16 of the report.  The scheme had been amended so that a lightwell would be created at first and second floor level between part of the development fronting South Street and the neighbouring property.  The windows on the boundary of the two served a hallway rather than a main habitable room.  Whilst it was recognised that there would be some overshadowing, it was Officers’ opinion that the impact would not be so harmful as to warrant refusal, and the benefits of the development outweighed any harm that would be caused.  Ultimately, it was for the Committee to decide what weight should be attributed to this element when assessing the application.    

 

Councillor H M Williams queried the inclusion of retail space given that there were already a number of empty shops in Deal.  The Chairman understood Councillor Williams’ concerns but was encouraged by the provision of retail space.  In response to Councillor Biggs who asked about sound insulation, the Principal Planner advised that this was normally covered under Building Regulations.  The Council’s Environmental Protection team had been consulted and had recommended a condition.  Details of the sound insulation scheme could be required if Members wished. 

 

RESOLVED:   (a) That, subject to the completion of a legal agreement or online

payment (in relation to strategic highways, SAMMS and off-site tree provision), Application No DOV/24/01084 be APPROVED subject to the following conditions:

 

(i)               Time limit;

 

(ii)              List of approved plans;

 

(iii)            Samples of materials;

 

(iv)            Archaeology (programme of archaeological works);

 

(v)             Sectional details of proposed shopfronts (including details of finish colour);

 

(vi)            Details of all new windows and doors (timber construction only – half or full-size cross-sectional drawings); details and samples of materials including finish colour of render; position, type and colour of mechanical vents and flues; sectional drawings of eaves detailing; position, materials and colour of rainwater goods;

 

(vii)          Construction Management Plan;

 

(viii)         Measures to prevent the discharge of surface water onto the highway;

 

(ix)            Provision and retention of secure, covered cycle parking facilities (details to be submitted);

 

(x)             Provision of the refuse storage prior to first use/occupation;

 

(xi)            Obscured glazing to specific windows;

 

(xii)          Details of sound insulation scheme to be submitted;

 

(xiii)         Biodiversity enhancement plan (BEP);

 

(xiv)         Photographic evidence of implementation of BEP measures;

 

(xv)          Details of foul sewage and surface water disposal;

 

(xvi)         Flood resilience and mitigation measures;

 

(xvii)       Dwellings built to higher water efficiency standard under Building Regulations;

 

(xviii)      Details of sustainability measures to be incorporated within the development (including higher water efficiency standard in Building Regulations).

 

(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.

 

Change of use and conversion of 2 barns to 5 dwellings, insertion of rooflights, bin/cycle store and associated parking and landscaping (car barn to be demolished)

 

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

The Committee was shown an aerial view, drawings and photographs of the application site which was adjacent to the settlement boundary of Ash and a conservation area.  The Principal Planner advised that planning permission was sought for a change of use and the conversion of two barns to five dwellings.  As an update to the report, she advised that three further letters of objection had been received maintaining objections but the issues raised were all covered in the report. 

 

The application, which had attracted a sizeable number of objections (all of which had been considered), proposed the conversion of barn A to two, single storey residential units and barn B to three units.  Policy SP4 was relevant in this case and supported minor residential development adjoining the settlement boundaries and the reuse of redundant or disused buildings, subject to the enhancement of the immediate setting.  The application site would be screened from the conservation area and, as a result, would have no impact on its character.  Whilst barn B was a substantial size, amendments had been made during the course of the application process to limit its impact on the rural setting of listed buildings and the conservation area.  In response to third party comments, it had been confirmed that barn A was not curtilage-listed.

 

The Principal Planner confirmed that the proposal was not subject to the 10% Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) requirement, having been submitted before the implementation date.  Nevertheless, the applicant had submitted a BNG metric to demonstrate a commitment to on-site biodiversity gain.  In line with other applications, ecological enhancements would be secured by attaching planning conditions.  A letter had been received from the RSPB (Royal Society for the Protection of Birds), stating that the site fell within a turtle dove-friendly zone and noting the absence of a bird-breeding survey.  In respect of the latter, Members were advised that a hedgerow survey was not required for a development of this size and scale.   

 

Councillor Loffman sought clarification in respect of traffic impact, emergency vehicles and overlooking/privacy, citing paragraph 10.16 of Policy T12.   The access road was a single lane and he would oppose the application if it was likely to create traffic problems.  The Principal Planner advised that it was a private road with an existing access and had previously served a farm.  She stressed that traffic movements connected to the site’s use as a farm were unknown and had been uncontrolled.  The development of residential units here would change the nature of vehicles using the site but, on this scale, would not have a significantly greater impact on traffic movements.  In respect of overlooking/privacy, she clarified that barn A had no openings on the elevation facing the rear of dwellings on Guilton Lane and barn B had a slight buffer in barn A and again with the existence of two garages beyond the parameters.   

 

Councillor Kenton identified the main issue as being the principle of development.  The access road was a private road with existing usage.   Class Q was the fallback position and a material consideration.  The site was adjacent to the confines and he could see no reason why the proposal would be unacceptable in planning terms. 

 

The Principal Planner advised that the applicant could apply for Class Q permitted development and convert the barns without planning permission.  Class Q was in a transition phase and, theoretically, ten residential units could have been built on the site.  The applicant had chosen not to go down that route but to apply for planning permission instead.  Councillor Beaney commended the applicant for doing so.

 

RESOLVED:   (a) That, subject to the completion of a legal agreement or online

payment in relation to SAMMS, Application No DOV/24/00356 be APPROVED subject to the following conditions:

 

(i)               Standard time limit;

 

(ii)              Approved plans;

 

(iii)            Samples of materials;

 

(iv)            Details of eaves and flues;

 

(v)             Boundary treatment;

 

(vi)            Landscaping;

 

(vii)          Method statement for protected species;

 

(viii)         Lighting design strategy for biodiversity;

 

(ix)            Ecological design strategy;

 

(x)             Biodiversity enhancement measures;

 

(xi)            Provision and retention of parking;

 

(xii)          Cycle and refuse storage;

 

(xiii)         Drainage;

 

(xiv)         Programme of archaeological work;

 

(xv)          Contamination;

 

(xvi)         Permitted development rights removed;

 

(xvii)       Water efficiency standards.

 

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

 

 

Change of use and conversion to 2 flats, plus 1 dwelling to include insertion of 7 rooflights, 1 roof lantern and alterations to doors/windows (2 single storey side extensions to be demolished; 1 dwelling to be retained)

 

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

The Committee viewed drawings, plans and photographs of the application site which was within the settlement confines of Dover.  The Principal Planner advised that planning permission was sought for a change of use and the conversion of a former bakery into two flats and a dwelling, with an existing dwelling to be retained.  Since the committee report was published, three additional letters had been received, with one raising an additional matter regarding the lack of amenity space and concerns around standards for future occupiers. 

 

The Principal Planner advised that the application had been amended to reduce the number of proposed flats from three to two, thus achieving an improvement in accommodation and better use of the land.   Amended drawings for this change had only been published recently so the application would be readvertised for 21 days before the decision notice was issued.  Subject to no further objections being received as a result of consultation, delegated authority to approve the application was being sought. 

 

Councillor Beaney referred to a building nearby that had been converted using bricks and materials that were not in keeping with the character of the area.  He queried whether the treatment of the shop front could be conditioned to ensure the use of appropriate materials.  Councillor Kenton agreed, commenting that more time should have been spent on the design of the scheme and retaining the attractive shop front would look better in the street scene.  

 

In response to Councillor Williams who noted that one of the houses would be below the technical housing standards, the Principal Planner advised that the standards were a benchmark and harder to achieve when converting existing/older buildings.  However, the shortfall in space would not impede someone living there comfortably day to day.  The Chairman added that, as a conversion of an existing dwelling, there was no option of increasing the floor area.   Councillor Biggs noted the absence of amenity space and commented that, whilst affordable housing in Dover could not be secured due to viability issues, this should not lead to a lowering of standards.  In response, the Principal Planner stressed that discussions with the agent had resulted in amendments being made to the scheme to reduce the number of flats.  The development was not necessarily targeted at families and not everybody was necessarily seeking outside amenity space.  The development would bring an empty building back into use, enhance the general environment of the area and made efficient use of the site.  These factors had to be weighed against the concerns raised by some Members. 

 

Like Councillor Beaney, Councillor Biggs singled out the shop conversion down the road as being particularly unattractive.  He queried how the Committee could ensure that this conversion (particularly of the shop front) was well designed and sympathetic to its surroundings.   The Principal Planner advised that, whilst there was no control over retaining the shop front, Officers could condition that details of materials should be submitted to ensure that they were appropriate and sensitive. 

 

RESOLVED:   (a) That, subject to no further objections being received as a result of consultation, Application No DOV/24/01134 be APPROVED subject to the following conditions:

 

(i)               Time limit;

 

(ii)              Approved plans;

 

(iii)            Details of materials to be submitted;

 

(iv)            Cycle and refuse storage;

 

(v)             Details of enclosure to be submitted;

 

(vi)            Water efficiency standards.

 

(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.

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

The Committee noted that no action had been taken.