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
No. | Item |
---|---|
Apologies To receive any apologies for absence. Minutes: It was noted that an apology for absence had been received from Councillor R M Knight. |
|
Appointment of Substitute Members To note appointments of Substitute Members. Minutes: It was noted that, in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 4, Councillor D R Friend had been appointed as a substitute member for Councillor R M Knight. |
|
Declarations of Interest To receive any declarations of interest from Members in respect of business to be transacted on the agenda. Minutes: Councillor D G Beaney declared an Other Significant Interest in Agenda Item 13 (Application No DOV/24/00588 – Little Westhill Farm, Belsey Lane, Ewell Minnis) by reason that his wife had written a letter in support of the application and he had carried out work for the applicant. |
|
To confirm the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 29 August 2024 (to follow). Minutes: The minutes of the meeting held on 29 August 2024 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman. |
|
To note the attached. Minutes: The Chairman noted that the application listed, which had been the subject of a site visit, was due for consideration at the meeting. |
|
Update on Local Plan Minutes: The Team Leader (Development Management) (TL) advised the Committee that, since the publication of the meeting agenda, the findings of the Planning Inspector’s report on the draft Dover District Local Plan to 2040 had been reported to Cabinet on 7 October and would be reported to Council on 16 October. The update was for Members’ information only and did not change any of the recommendations in the committee reports. |
|
Application No DOV/22/01409 - Land South-West of Sholden Drive, Sandwich Road, Sholden Reserved Matters application for details of landscaping, layout, scale and appearance pursuant to outline permission DOV/21/00402 for the erection of 64 dwellings and associated car parking and infrastructure
To consider the attached report of the Head of Planning and Development. Additional documents: Minutes: The Committee was shown an aerial view, drawings, plans and photographs of the application site which was located outside the settlement boundary of Deal but adjacent to a neighbouring development that had received planning permission since the boundaries were last revised. The Principal Planner advised that the application was for the reserved matters of landscaping, layout, scale and appearance pursuant to DOV/21/00402 for the erection of 64 dwellings. The wider outline site was to be developed in two separate phases, with Phase 1A having already received reserved matters approval, and Phase 2 being the reserved matters application for determination that evening. To the south-east of this site was a separate outline application. There would be a new priority junction onto Sandwich Road and a spine road running through the two reserved matters developments which would also serve the adjacent development that was the subject of a separate outline permission. There would also be a second emergency access onto Sandwich Road. She reminded Members that the principle of development had been established at the outline application stage. In summary, the reserved matters details submitted had demonstrated that there would be no unacceptable impacts on the character and appearance of the area, nor on the living conditions of neighbours and future residents. The application was considered acceptable in all other material respects and approval was recommended.
Councillor H M Williams commented that she found the spIit applications long and confusing and was concerned about the emergency access. In response, the Principal Planner clarified that the primary vehicle access would serve both phases of the reserved matters development and the other outline development to the south-east. The emergency access was considered acceptable by Kent County Council (KCC) Highways and would be built as part of the first phase of the development and therefore in place before this phase was occupied. In terms of archaeology, the site had been the subject of a survey and a KCC officer had already visited the site. Members were advised that a 30% affordable housing requirement applied to the whole outline application site, and a scheme for affordable housing would be required under the Section 106 agreement. The Principal Planner confirmed that the affordable homes would be built to Building Regulations M4(2) (accessible and adaptable) standard internally but to M4(1) standard externally because the parking layout would not meet the M4(2) requirements. Whilst developers were encouraged to meet nationally prescribed space standards, it was not a requirement. This particular scheme met most but not all of the standards.
In response to Councillor D G Cronk, the Principal Planner advised that there would be 18 visitor parking spaces which was considered adequate for a site on the edge of a suburban location. The Section 106 agreement required the provision of one home built to M4(3) standards (wheelchair user dwelling) which the developer had met. However, there was no requirement to provide disabled visitor parking spaces.
In response to Councillor D G Beaney who raised concerns about Southern Water, the Principal Planner advised that a condition had been included in the outline planning permission which required information to be submitted demonstrating that there was sufficient capacity in the sewerage network for the new development. Furthermore, it was within the Local Planning Authority’s (LPA) remit to enter into discussions with Southern Water in relation to this matter. The Principal Planning Solicitor explained that similar conditions had been imposed on outline applications in the past due to capacity issues. Developers’ rights to connect to the sewerage network (subject only to it not damaging the sewerage infrastructure) had led to them doing so regardless of capacity which had then, on occasions, caused sewage to back up elsewhere. Case law had established that local authorities could impose conditions regulating such matters to avoid this happening. Officers were satisfied that the condition was lawful and effective.
Councillor J P Loffman commented that Great Mongeham Parish Council had objected to the proposals because it argued that the whole application should be treated as one for 110 houses. Referring to paragraph 2.45 which made reference to the overall mix of 110 dwellings being appropriate, his view was that the mix of dwellings in this phase of the development was not appropriate. Continuing on this point, he took issue with the fact that, whilst the Committee was only permitted to look at individual applications rather than considering the cumulative impact of several, the report referred to the overall mix of dwellings across the whole site. He also raised concerns about turning heads for the emergency services, contamination and air quality.
The Principal Planner advised that, if the adjoining site was developed, the turning head shown on the plans would be removed. KCC Highways was content with the layout, and the applicant would have to meet Building Regulations standards in respect of emergency access for fire vehicles. Matters such as contamination, air quality and noise had all been addressed at the outline application stage, such that a number of conditions had been imposed requiring assessments, investigations, etc. The Chairman commented that it would have been useful if the report had included the outline conditions so that Members could assure themselves that their concerns had been addressed.
RESOLVED: (a) That, subject to archaeological matters being addressed for phase 1B of outline permission DOV/21/00402, Application No DOV/22/01409 be APPROVED subject to the following conditions:
(i) Approved plans;
(ii) Samples of materials;
(iii) Details of measures required to provide on-site energy generation;
(iv) Provision of bicycle storage;
(v) Provision of vehicle parking spaces;
(vi) Provision of refuse/recycling storage and collection points;
(vii) Details of all external lighting in public realm areas/bat sensitive lighting;
(viii) Boundary treatment details including provision of hedgehog gaps;
(ix) Details of play area;
(x) Pedestrian visibility splays. (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. |
|
Application No DOV/24/00660 - 5 Griffin Street, Deal Replacement ofexisting window with glazed door, installation of new window to second floor and erection of balcony and balustrade to rear and privacy screen
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 within the settlement confines of Deal and in a conservation area. The Principal Planner reminded the Committee that the application had been deferred at the last meeting for a site visit. As an update to the report, she advised that two additional representations had been received from objectors who had already submitted comments, raising additional concerns that the application’s supporting imagery had not been sufficiently referenced in the Officer’s assessment and mentioning the absence of any reference to a tunnelling effect (in relation to the impact on neighbour amenity). Further concerns related to the images in the report showing a slatted screen rather than a privacy screen and no update on the progress of the Local Plan. In response, the Principal Planner clarified that the inspector’s report on the draft Local Plan had found it to be sound and legally compliant. In addition, she referred to condition 3 which would be amended to require details and samples of the privacy screen to be submitted and approved by the LPA.
Councillor N S Kenton referred to the site visit that had been held on 8 October. He reported that, based on the facts found on site, Members had concluded that there would be some harm to the neighbouring residential amenity of 4 Griffin Street caused by the position and scale of the proposed rear balcony and screening. Members had been split over the impact of the proposals on neighbours. Some Members felt that the impact could be addressed by a condition requiring a solid (rather than slatted) privacy screen to the western side of the balcony on the shared boundary with no. 4. However, the majority view was that, whilst the use of a solid privacy screen rather than a slatted screen might overcome loss of privacy, in itself it could result in further harm to the amenity of no. 4 by virtue of having an increased overbearing impact.
Councillor Kenton commented that the report and photographs shown at the previous meeting had not prepared Members for what they saw at the site visit. There was very little outdoor space and, whilst he understood why the owners of no. 5 would want to erect a balcony, it would have considerable impact on the residents of no. 4 who, in fact, currently had a remarkable degree of privacy. The fact that no. 5 was at a higher level than no. 4 exacerbated the proposal’s overbearing impact. The problem that the panel had been wrestling with was that a slatted screen would not give sufficient privacy, yet a solid one would create a huge wall on the boundary with no. 4.
Councillor Beaney commented that the use of a solid screen would have a significant negative impact on the living space of no. 4 and he proposed that the application should be refused on that basis. Councillor S Hill referred to the number of objections and the dwelling’s status as a listed building in a conservation area. Councillor Loffman advised that he had initially been of the opinion that a solid screen would comply with the appropriate planning regulations. However, on reflection, he had come to the view that a solid screen would be overbearing due to the different levels of the houses. In response to Councillor Hill, the Principal Planner clarified that bathrooms were classed as non-habitable rooms.
RESOLVED: (a) That, notwithstanding the Officer’s recommendation, Application No DOV/24/00660 be REFUSED on the grounds that it would cause unacceptable harm to the amenity of, and have an overbearing impact on, 4 Griffin Street.
|
|
Application No DOV/24/00580 - Land North of Gobery Hill, Wingham Erection of 17 dwellings, new vehicular access with associated parking and landscaping
To consider the attached report of the Head of Planning and Development. Additional documents: Minutes: The Committee viewed an aerial view, drawings, plans and photographs of the application site which was situated outside but adjacent to the settlement boundary of Wingham. The Senior Planner advised that planning permission was sought for the erection of 17 dwellings and a new vehicular access, etc. The scheme included 30% affordable housing (equivalent to 5 dwellings). A previous application for the erection of 15 dwellings had been refused (and dismissed at appeal) on pedestrian safety grounds. An alternative pedestrian crossing on Preston Hill was now proposed which, along with a vehicle overrun, additional double yellow lines and the setting back of the crossing 12 metres from the junction, had overcome the previous reason for refusal and was now considered acceptable by KCC Highways. There would be landscaped open space to the frontage and south-east of the site incorporating ecological mitigation and enhancements.
As an update, the Committee was advised that an additional 14 objections had been received since the report was published, raising no new concerns. In respect of drainage, further technical information had now been provided and the Lead Local Flood Authority (KCC) had confirmed that it was acceptable. Whilst a holding objection from the River Stour (Kent) Internal Drainage Board remained, Officers were of the view that its objection had been addressed by the new information. As a correction to the report, a reference to biodiversity credits in paragraph 3.85 should read biodiversity units. The proposals accorded with Policy SP4 and were considered to be a good quality form of development that was compatible with the local and natural built environment. The benefits of the proposals outweighed any disadvantages and, subject to the settlement of a Section 106 agreement as a delegation to Officers, approval was recommended.
Councillor Loffman raised concerns about the proposals. He used Gobery Hill on a regular basis and there were lots of parked vehicles and traffic there. Whilst he liked the design of the development, the pedestrian crossing was an accident waiting to happen and he proposed that the application should be refused. His views on KCC Highways were well known and it seemed to him that common sense was lacking. Councillors Cronk and Kenton raised concerns around HGVs and large farm vehicles using the narrowed road/junction and the impact on pedestrians. In response to Councillor Beaney, the Senior Planner clarified that the pedestrian crossing and proposed junction improvements had not been in place under the previous application. She emphasised that, under this application, there would be a vehicle overrun area, extensions to the double yellow lines on both sides of Preston Hill and dropped kerbs for pedestrians. The crossing and improvements had been subject to a stage 1 road safety audit and found to be acceptable.
The Chairman, citing his frustration with KCC Highways generally and the notorious nature of the bend, proposed that the application should be deferred and an independent transport adviser appointed to carry out a full audit and report back to the Committee. The Principal Planning Solicitor advised that there was always a risk with deferring an application for further information that the applicant would appeal on the grounds of non-determination. However, that needed to be balanced against the risk of refusing an application without sufficient evidence which carried its own risk. If the Committee was minded to refuse the application without any evidence to counter KCC Highways’ assessment of the proposals, it would be better to defer the application in order to seek its own evidence and run the risk of an appeal against non-determination, rather than ploughing on with an outright refusal that had no evidence behind it and went against the advice of KCC Highways, the statutory consultee.
Councillor Kenton stated that he was not opposed to the principle of development on this site, but the junction was a problem for him. He was convinced that the extended kerb would be ignored and pedestrians/vehicles would be unable to see around the corner. Furthermore, extending the double yellow lines would clear the road of parked vehicles, thus allowing vehicles to go faster. Whilst the plans might look good on paper, the reality was that they would not work. Councillor Loffman agreed to withdraw his motion to refuse the application. Councillor Beaney expressed disappointment at the proposal to defer the application as he was concerned that the independent adviser would be unduly swayed by the advice already given by KCC Highways as the statutory consultee. He and several other Members stated that they would prefer to refuse the application outright.
The Senior Planner reminded the Committee that the pedestrian crossing would be set 12 metres back from the junction so that there would be sufficient visibility up and down the road. The overrun area – which would be distinguished by block paving in order to discourage standard vehicles from using it - would address the manoeuvring of larger vehicles.
The Chairman reminded Members that they were here to make decisions for the betterment of the district and not on the basis of parochial bias or preferences.
The Principal Planning Solicitor stressed that, whilst councillors were there to represent the electorate and had a responsibility to listen to residents’ views, they were also required to make decisions based on the evidence before them as that is what they would be judged on at appeal. In other words, they should detach themselves from the emotion surrounding the proposals and focus on the evidence. He emphasised that anecdotal evidence relating to the junction would not be persuasive at appeal. In order to make the best possible decision, the Committee needed an evidential basis for rejecting the Officer’s recommendation and going against the advice of KCC Highways, the statutory consultee. Refusing the application without the evidence might be seen as unreasonable and would lead to an appeal which the Council would almost certainly lose. Should the developer take the Council to appeal on the grounds of non-determination, the Council would not be in a worse position as it would either have the independent evidence to support its opposition or evidence that the proposals were acceptable.
Councillor Loffman accepted that seeking the views of an independent expert would be the sensible option, and requested that KCC Highways be asked to explain how its Officers had arrived at their conclusion. Councillor J S Back suggested that KCC Highways should be asked to attend the meeting to answer questions.
RESOLVED: (a) That, notwithstanding the Officer’s recommendation, Application No DOV/24/00580 be DEFERRED for a traffic safety audit of the junction to be carried out by an independent adviser.
|
|
Application No DOV/23/01236 - Land at The Street, East Langdon Outline planning application for erection of 8 dwellings (all matters reserved except access)
To consider the attached report of the Head of Planning and Development. Additional documents: Minutes: Members were shown an aerial view, plans and photographs of the application site which was situated adjacent to the settlement confines of East Langdon. The Senior Planner advised that outline planning permission was sought for the erection of eight dwellings, with all matters reserved except access.
The Committee was advised that the site was connected to the confines via the built form of the village hall car park and met the requirements of draft Policy SP4 which permitted such development, subject to safeguarding conditions. Modifications to the draft Local Plan had removed the need for developments to join the confines immediately providing they physically and visually related to the built existing form of settlement. An updated comment had been received from KCC Highways which had previously raised concerns about pedestrian routeing. Following the presentation of new information relating to the school’s Travel Plan and the use of The Street as a walking route to school, KCC Highways had dropped its objection (subject to conditions being attached) as it considered that, with the proposed pedestrian scheme and generally low speed of traffic along the route, the proposal would not result in significant harm to pedestrian safety. Officers were of the view that the development was a modest and compatible expansion of the existing settlement. The benefits of the scheme were considered to outweigh any disadvantages and the application was therefore recommended for approval.
In response to Councillor Beaney, the Senior Planner clarified that schemes of ten units or more (known as major developments) were required to provide affordable housing (with a minimum for rural exception sites of six). This was an increase on the previous minimum figure and was set out in Policy SP5 of the new Local Plan. Councillor Loffman made reference to a comment regarding a previous application which suggested that this and another development would represent a 70% increase in the size of East Langdon, an increase that would undoubtedly be felt by the existing community. He rued the fact that the Committee could only consider this application rather than the cumulative impact of several applications. In response to his query about the site being of regional archaeological significance, the Chairman pointed out that there was an archaeological condition that the applicant would have to discharge satisfactorily before works could commence on site.
Councillor Williams voiced concerns about the sustainability of the site which lacked public transport, shops and other facilities and was served by narrow roads. The Senior Planner advised that the site was not allocated land but a windfall site. A site opposite had already been granted planning permission for 40 dwellings and would provide pedestrian access to the primary school. Should the other site not come forward, pedestrians would walk through the village hall car park and across a small stretch of road and along a footpath, an arrangement supported by the school’s Travel Plan which encouraged parents to park in the village hall car park. Through the Local Plan process, East Langdon had been categorised as a Tier 1 settlement which meant it was able to absorb a greater amount of development. She added that the proposal accorded with Policy SP4 and related well in visual terms to the existing settlement. Whilst the village did not have a large range of amenities, it was considered to be a sustainable location.
In response to other matters raised, the Senior Planner advised that a condition had been attached to address contamination which, if found, would have to be remediated. She confirmed that the draft settlement confines terminated in the village hall car park. She suggested that a condition requiring the development to be built to M(4)2 standard could be added. She referred Members to page 85 of the report which dealt with matters connected to the pedestrian route.
In response to Councillor Beaney who requested that the application come back to the Committee in the event that significant changes were made to the pedestrian routeing (for example, should a dispute arise between the village hall and the developer), the Chairman reminded Members that they could keep track of such matters via the regular updates they received from Planning. He requested that a note be added to the file so Officers were clear that, in the event of a significant Section 73 application for this site being submitted, he would be made aware of it. The Senior Planner added that this matter was addressed in paragraph 2.51 of the report and assured Members that the condition would be worded flexibly to allow minor changes to be made to the pedestrian routeing arrangements.
RESOLVED: (a) That Outline Application No DOV/23/01236 be APPROVED subject to the following conditions:
(i) Submission of reserved matters;
(ii) Reserved matters time limit;
(iii) Time limits;
(iv) Approved plans;
(v) Existing hedgerow to front boundary retained;
(vi) Tree and hedge protection measures;
(vii) Archaeology field evaluation and investigation;
(viii) Pedestrian routeing details;
(ix) Details of an uncontrolled crossing point to Langdon playing fields;
(x) Implementation of Traffic Regulation Order to relocate the 20mph speed limit;
(xi) Gateway feature at speed limit change;
(xii) Visibility splays;
(xiii) Completion and maintenance of access;
(xiv) Measures to prevent discharge of surface water onto highway;
(xv) Details of roads, footways, verges, junctions, street lighting, etc to be submitted and approved;
(xvi) Construction Environmental Management Plan;
(xvii) Contamination investigation;
(xviii) Contamination remediation;
(xix) Contamination verification;
(xx) Unexpected contamination;
(xxi) Unexploded ordnance risk assessment;
(xxii) Reserved matters to demonstrate surface water drainage can be accommodated;
(xxiii) No discharge/infiltration to ground without consent;
(xxiv) Surface water drainage design strategy;
(xxv) Verification report for surface water drainage strategy;
(xxvi) Details of foul drainage;
(xxvii) Biodiversity method statement;
(xxviii) Bat-sensitive lighting strategy;
(xxix) Ecological design strategy;
(xxx) Habitat management and monitoring plan;
(xxxi) Dwellings to be built to M(4)2 standard.
(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.
|
|
Application No DOV/24/00142 - Forge Farm House, Forge Lane, Sutton Partial change of use for the erection of a replacement stable block, hay barn/games room, construction of retaining walls, patio and landscaping and demolition of existing stable block
To consider the attached report of the Head of Planning and Development. Additional documents: Minutes: Members viewed an aerial view, drawings, plans and photographs of the application site. The Senior Planner advised that planning permission was sought for a partial change of use for the erection of a replacement stable block and the demolition of the existing stable block, amongst other things. The proposed replacement was deemed to be a comparable building and would align partly with an outbuilding connected to a dwelling called Brewers. The proposal was considered to have an acceptable impact on the residential amenity of adjacent neighbours, highways and ecology and it was therefore recommended that planning permission should be granted.
Councillor Beaney welcomed the applicant’s efforts to keep the proposed building as low as possible and away from the property next door. He proposed that the application should be approved. In response to Councillor Cronk, the Senior Planner advised that the stables would accommodate two horses, and a condition would be attached to ensure that a maximum of two horses were kept on the site (including stables and paddock). Councillor Kenton queried whether a location elsewhere within the application site had been explored where the building was likely to have less impact. The Senior Planner advised that two previous applications had been submitted where the stable block would have been nearer the open countryside and more visible and exposed, thus causing more of a detrimental impact. Changes had therefore been made to lessen the proposal’s impact. In response to Councillor Loffman, she advised that the applicant was proposing to use traditional dark timber and a condition would be attached requiring material samples to be submitted.
RESOLVED: (a) That Application No DOV/24/00142 be APPROVED subject to the following conditions:
(i) Time limit;
(ii) Approved plans;
(iii) Samples of materials;
(iv) Disposal of manure in accordance with submitted details;
(v) Drainage in accordance with submitted details;
(vi) Contamination not previously identified;
(vii) No drainage infiltration or surface water drainage permitted other than with the consent of the Local Planning Authority;
(viii) Biodiversity Method Statement;
(ix) Provision for updated Biodiversity Method Statement;
(x) Bat-sensitive lighting;
(xi) Biodiversity enhancements;
(xii) Ancillary use of stables/games/gym room;
(xiii) No more than 2 horses on site;
(xiv) Existing building to be demolished prior to erection of replacement building hereby permitted.
(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.
|
|
Application No DOV/24/00139 - Merrydown, Station Road, Martin Mill Change of use of land for the siting of 1 glamping pod with access and parking
To consider the attached report of the Head of Planning and Development. Additional documents: Minutes: The Committee viewed plans and photographs of the application site which was currently used as garden land and classified as being in the countryside. The Senior Planner advised that planning permission was sought for a change of use of land for the siting of one glamping pod with access and parking. Whilst the proposal was contrary to several policies in the Core Strategy, it accorded with the relevant paragraphs of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and several policies of the emerging Local Plan. It would have a modest and acceptable impact and approval was therefore recommended.
In response to Councillor Loffman who referred to the parish council’s wish to restrict the number of months the pod could be used, the Senior Planner pointed out that there was a condition to restrict the use of the pod so it could not be permanently occupied. With one pod, the proposal was a modest form of development, and inclement weather in the winter months was likely to naturally restrict its usage. If the number of pods were to increase, further restrictions could be imposed.
RESOLVED: (a) That Application No DOV/24/00139 be APPROVED subject to the following conditions:
(i) Time limit;
(ii) Approved plans;
(iii) Restrictions to four occupants on site;
(iv) External lighting details;
(v) Retention of existing landscaping;
(vi) Restriction for usage of the pod (not permanently occupied). (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.
|
|
Erection of single storey clubhouse with canopy linking to existing changing rooms (existing clubhouse to be replaced) and alterations to materials of existing changing rooms roof
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 within the settlement boundaries of Walmer and in a conservation area. The Planning Officer advised that planning permission was sought for the erection of a single storey clubhouse and the demolition of the existing clubhouse.
The Planning Officer advised that the building would be located in the same place as the existing clubhouse but with a slightly larger footprint. As a result of concerns raised by Officers, the roofing material had been changed from corrugated metal to natural zinc. As an update, she advised that a letter had been received from a resident raising concerns which had already been addressed in the report. As a correction to the report, she advised that a reference to inadequate detail in the applicant’s heritage statement not being a material consideration was incorrect. It was clarified that pre-application advice had been provided for a different scheme at the site which was not sufficiently similar to this one to be a material consideration. A condition would be attached to control the colour of the roof. The Planning Officer referred to the Walmer Design Statement of 2003 which was a material consideration. Whilst the proposal was contrary to policy WDS1 of the Statement, Officers considered that there was no conflict with the policy. Finally, Walmer Town Council had indicated that it was unable to comment on the application due to there being insufficient information in the heritage statement.
Councillor Williams expressed disappointment that there was no statement from the Council’s Heritage Officer given that the proposal was in a conservation area. She did not consider a zinc roof to be appropriate for a conservation area and queried why tiles were not being used. The roof would be higher than the hedge and harmful to the amenity of two houses in Liverpool Road which looked directly onto the hedge but could not currently see the existing clubhouse. Whilst she supported the idea of a new clubhouse, the ridge height of the new roof should be reduced.
The Planning Officer advised that the increased footprint of the building dictated the need for a higher roof which would be 1.2 metres higher than previously. The Team Leader (Development Management) (TL) advised that, because of the concerns raised, she had spoken to the Heritage Officer who had looked at the proposal and concluded that the retention of the hedge would mean that the buildings were contained in a green area and, whilst part of the roof would be seen, the roofing material would be controlled. In the context of the wider conservation area, she considered that there would be no harm to the character and appearance of the conservation area. Officers would seek to ensure that the hedge was kept at a height of no less than 2.5 metres.
The Chairman pointed out that conservation was not necessarily just about preserving things. In response to Councillor Kenton, the Planning Officer clarified that the maximum ridge height would be 4.7 metres and the hedge would be retained at a minimum height of 2.5 metres. Councillor Kenton argued that the proposed building would be modest and should not necessarily be a pastiche of other buildings around it. The club was aiming to provide a first-class facility and the Committee should support it.
RESOLVED: (a) That, subject to the re-consultation of the application not raising any new issues following the publication of a tree survey, Application No DOV/23/01377 be APPROVED subject to the following conditions:
(i) Time limit;
(ii) Approved plans;
(iii) Sample of materials;
(iv) The clubhouse hereby permitted shall only be open to members of the club between the hours of 11.00am to 11.00pm Mondays to Saturdays and 12.00pm to 10.30pm on Sundays;
(v) The clubhouse hereby permitted shall only be used for purposes ancillary to the use of the site as a tennis/croquet club;
(vi) Details of foundations (to protect trees);
(vii) Hand-digging of foundations;
(viii) Tree and shrub protection;
(ix) The hedge to the east of the site shall be retained at a height of 2.5 metres;
(x) No external lighting, whether temporary or permanent shall be installed on the site;
(xi) Archaeology. (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.
|
|
Application No DOV/24/00588 - Little Westhill Farm, Belsey Lane, Ewell Minnis Change of use from former agricultural barn to a residential dwelling with roof extension, erection of rear summerhouse extension to garage, and change of use of land to residential curtilage
To consider the attached report of the Head of Planning and Development. Additional documents: Minutes: The Committee was shown drawings, plans and photographs of the application site which was situated outside the settlement confines of Ewell Minnis. The Planning Officer advised that retrospective planning permission was sought for a change of use from a former agricultural barn to a residential dwelling amongst other things. Members were advised that an application for a certificate of lawful development in 2023 had demonstrated the long-established use of the property as an independent, self-contained residential unit for a period in excess of 10 years. However, due to works that had been carried out to the property over this time, a certificate could not be issued. That being said, the long-term use of the building as a dwelling was a material consideration that weighed in favour of granting planning permission.
In response to concerns raised by Councillor Hill, the Chairman advised that issues regarding ownership were civil matters. The Committee’s role was only to consider the planning elements of the application, and land ownership was not a consideration. Councillor Kenton commented that the civil matter was a mess but had nothing to do with the Committee. Whilst he did not like the situation, he felt that he had no choice but to support the report recommendation.
RESOLVED: (a) That Outline Application No DOV/24/00588 be APPROVED subject to the following conditions:
(i) Approved plans;
(ii) Removal of permitted development rights for the insertion of windows in the roofslope to the south-west elevation and extensions to dwelling;
(iii) Summerhouse to be incidental to Paddock View.
(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.
(Councillor D G Beaney left the Chamber during consideration of this item.)
|
|
Application No DOV/24/00112 - Woodlands, The Avenue, Kingsdown Change of use from residential to children's home (Class C2) and erection of side extension
To consider the attached report of the Head of Planning and Development.
Additional documents: Minutes: The Committee viewed drawings, plans and photographs of the application site which was located outside, but adjacent to, the settlement confines of Kingsdown. The Planning Officer advised that planning permission was sought for a change of use from a residential dwelling to a children’s home and the erection of a side extension. The property would be extended to provide four bedrooms on the ground floor and two bathrooms. As an update to the report, the applicant had advised that a rest room would be used by staff to stay overnight. In this respect, children would be looked after on a one-to-one basis between 07.00am and 10.00pm, with two staff remaining on site outside those hours. In addition, door alarms would be used to monitor children at night. There was a large private garden and mature trees and shrubs would provide significant screening. The principle of the site as being suitable for residential accommodation had already been established. There was policy support for care facilities, and the impact on traffic movements, neighbouring properties and visual amenity were considered acceptable. The benefits of the proposal outweighed any potential harm and approval was therefore recommended.
The Chairman advised that he had a background in development schemes for specialist needs. It was a fact that, like this one, they always attracted a significant number of objections. He was unconvinced by the concerns raised about traffic given that there was a big campsite nearby. In his view this was an acceptable proposal and he moved that it should be approved. Councillor Loffman suggested that the company running the home should contribute to the upkeep of the road but otherwise supported the application.
RESOLVED: (a) That Application No DOV/24/00112 be APPROVED subject to the following conditions:
(i) Time limit;
(ii) Approved plans;
(iii) Use of matching materials;
(iv) The use of the premises shall be confined to use as a children’s home, for the fostering of not more than four children at any one time, and the premises shall not be used for any other use, whether or not within the same Use Class. Reason: In the interests of local and residential amenity and highway safety. (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.
|
|
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. |
|
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. |