Agenda and draft minutes

It was noted that an apology for absence had been received from Councillor N S Kenton.

It was noted that, in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 4, Councillor D R Friend had been appointed as a substitute member for Councillor N S Kenton.

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 minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 16 January 2025 (to follow).

The Chairman advised that the minutes had been delayed and would be presented at the March committee meeting.

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

The Chairman advised that the item listed (Application No DOV/24/00580 – Land north of Gobery Hill, Wingham) remained deferred and a report was anticipated in March.

Erection of three-storey care home (Use Class C2) and 7 single storey age-restricted retirement bungalows (Use Class C3) with landscaping, parking, access and other associated works (existing site to be redeveloped)

 

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

The Committee was shown an aerial view, CGIs, drawings, a plan and photographs of the application site which was located in the settlement confines of Deal and contained a former ecclesiastical care home and other buildings.  The Principal Planner advised that planning permission was sought for the erection of a three-storey care home and seven retirement bungalows, with associated landscaping, etc.  As an update to the report, she advised that Kent County Council (KCC) had agreed the Biodiversity Net Gain metric submitted by the applicant so this matter could be removed from the report recommendation.  She also advised that condition 30 was no longer necessary as the management and maintenance of the habit was included in the wording for condition 27. 

 

The Committee was advised that the home would also offer specialist dementia care for which there was a need.  The proposal was in accordance with Policies SP4 and H1 and was considered an acceptable use of the site.  The development would create 40 full-time jobs and the bungalows would contribute to the Council’s housing land supply.  The Council’s Heritage team had been consulted and it was considered that the benefits of the scheme outweighed the less than substantial harm that would be caused to a non-designated heritage asset which would be demolished.  Issues such as highways, flooding, visual amenity and ecology were considered acceptable, subject to conditions, and approval was therefore recommended.

 

In response to the Chairman, the Principal Planner advised that the distance between the proposed care home and site boundary was approximately 34.4 metres, and the building would be set back 25.4 metres from the road at the front of the site.  Councillor Loffman commended the report and noted that the site was in the settlement confines, accorded with Policy H1 and there was a demand for care homes, particularly those specialising in dementia.  Whilst he had reservations about some aspects of the development, such as parking and overshadowing, he could find no reasons to refuse the application.  In his view, this was a more worthwhile use of the land than another housing scheme. 

 

In response to Members’ queries, the Principal Planner advised that there would be 29 parking spaces for the care home plus a dedicated ambulance and delivery bay.  There would also be an additional three parking spaces located within the north part of the site, for visitors to the bungalows or additional staff parking.  She appreciated that residents felt there was inadequate parking on surrounding roads but there was some limited parking available.  She explained that she had visited the site with the Heritage Officer to look at the billiard room, in relation to which a condition would be imposed for a photographic record to be taken before its demolition.  In respect of biodiversity net gain, KCC Ecology had indicated its satisfaction with the metric plan submitted.  A condition for a scheme of bat-sensitive lighting was suggested.   As single storey bungalows, the dwellings’ impact on privacy was considered acceptable. 

 

Councillor D G Cronk referred to KCC Highways’ comments about safe access for lorries and queried whether the requisite modifications would be done before development commenced. He noted that Kent Fire & Rescue had raised issues in relation to turning around near units 7 and 8.   He also noted that 6 or 8 trees would be removed and asked how many new ones would be planted.   The Principal Planner advised that the number of trees to be removed had been reduced during the course of the application.  60 new trees would be planted and there would be a condition for tree protection measures to protect others.  She referred to paragraph 2.31 of the report, advising that further tracking had been submitted and that the requirement for safe access would be addressed under Building Regulations.  She confirmed that the access would be widened before any works took place.  In terms of drainage, conditions had been suggested by Southern Water and KCC (as Lead Local Flood Authority) and would adequately deal with any surface water flooding.

 

Councillor H M Williams welcomed the provision of much-needed care accommodation.  However, she was concerned about the routeing strategy for construction and delivery traffic and requested that vehicles be prohibited from using the Rectory Road junction with Manor Road which was effectively a blind corner.  She also asked whether any of the bungalows would be built to M4(3) standard.

 

The Principal Planner responded that routeing details would be reviewed at the time of submission of the construction management plan.  KCC would be consulted and an informative could be added to suggest that vehicles avoid a certain route.  However, she warned that it could be difficult to monitor and enforce.  She advised that discussions could be held with the applicant over building the bungalows to M4(3) standard. 

 

Councillor J S Back commented that neither Deal Town Council nor KCC Highways had raised any objections to the proposal which conformed to Policies SP1, SP2, H1 and PM6.  He welcomed the provision of a facility for dementia patients which was badly needed.   He proposed that the application should be approved, on condition that the site manager’s contact details were made available to local residents in case of problems during construction.

 

Councillor D G Beaney requested that the number of new trees to be planted should be included in the condition for ecological enhancement measures.  He also suggested that a condition should be imposed to require the road to be built before the start of construction in order to prevent mud on the road.   The Principal Planner confirmed that the central access road would be constructed first.   To prevent mud on the road, wheel-washing could be included in the construction management plan, and the landscaping condition would cover the planting of new trees.

 

Councillor E A Biggs expressed disappointment at the loss of the billiards room which was a piece of local history.  Whilst a condition required it to be photographed, he requested that this be actively monitored.  He hoped that the care home would be open to NHS patients and affordable for local people. 

 

Responding to Members’ comments, the Chairman noted that there was no policy requirement for M4(3) homes, but it was something that could be discussed with the developer.  The sharing of contact details with local residents was something that would be expected to happen under the considerate contractors’ scheme and could be included in the construction management plan for certainty.  The landscaping plan would be sufficient to secure new planting and tree protection. 

 

RESOLVED:   (a) That, subject to the completion of a Section 106 agreement (to

secure the required contributions and over 55s accommodation for the bungalows, amongst other matters) Application No DOV/24/00615 be APPROVED subject to the following conditions:

 

(i)            Time condition;

 

(ii)           List of approved plans;

 

(iii)          Samples of materials;

 

(iv)          Archaeology (programme of archaeological works);

 

(v)           Photographic record at level 3 to fully record historic decorative interior details (elevations, ceiling, details and features in billiards room, etc) to be submitted and deposited in Kent Historic Environment Record;

 

(vi)          Details of means of foul sewerage and surface water disposal;

 

(vii)        Sustainable surface water drainage scheme;

 

(viii)       Verification report pertaining to surface water drainage scheme;

 

(ix)          Construction management plan;

 

(x)           Wheel-washing and contingency measures;

 

(xi)          Highway condition surveys;

 

(xii)        Provision of construction vehicle loading/unloading and turning facilities;

 

(xiii)       Provision of parking facilities for site personnel/visitors;

 

(xiv)       Provision and retention of vehicle parking spaces and/or garages shown;

 

(xv)        Electric vehicle charging provision and facilities;

 

(xvi)       Provision and retention of cycle parking facilities;

 

(xvii)      Completion and maintenance of the access shown;

 

(xviii)     Completion of footways and/or footpaths and carriageways (including turning facility, highway drainage, visibility splays, street lighting, nameplates and any highway structures) (with the exception of the wearing course) between a dwelling and the adopted highway;

 

(xix)       Provision and maintenance of visibility splays with no obstructions over 1.05 metres above carriageway level within the splays;

 

(xx)        Details of refuse contract in relation to the care home;

 

(xxi)       Restrict permitted development rights for class B in relation to the bungalows;

 

(xxii)      Implementation and maintenance of landscaping shown;

 

(xxiii)     Tree protection measures;

 

(xxiv)     Bat-sensitive lighting scheme;

 

(xxv)      Scheme of ecological enhancement measures;

 

(xxvi)     Biodiversity gain plan;

 

(xxvii)    Habitat management and monitoring plan (HMMP);

 

(xxviii)  Notice of implementation and completion of the HMMP works;

 

(xxix)     Completion of the HMMP works and submission of completion report;

 

(xxx)      Submission of monitoring reports in accordance with the HMMP;

 

(xxxi)     Details of energy efficiency and sustainability measures which will be incorporated.

 

(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 single storey front extension with balcony, single storey side extensions, two-storey side extension, new dormers to roof, new rear balcony over existing sunroom, level rear terrace, new front boundary treatment/entrance gates and new detached garage (existing detached garage and existing side lean-to sunroom to be demolished)

 

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

Members viewed an aerial view, plans and photographs of the application site which was situated within the settlement confines of Kingsdown.   The Senior Planner advised that planning permission was sought for extensions and other alterations, including the construction of a new garage.  

 

The Committee was advised that the key considerations for the application were design and the visual impact and impact on residential amenity and ecology. The application was considered to be policy compliant in all respects.   29 objections had been submitted relating to works proposed to the rear of the property including a swimming-pool, hot tub and underground storage bunker.  However, these had now been removed from the application.  The property’s position on a cliff had raised concerns about land stability.  According to paragraph 197 of the National Planning Policy Framework, where there were issues around land stability, it was the responsibility of the landowner to resolve these.   Nevertheless, the Council’s Building Control Manager had been consulted and had advised that, because the rear terrace and retaining wall would be in close proximity to the house, the proposals were likely to be acceptable.

 

In response to concerns raised by Councillor Williams, the Senior Planner clarified that

the rear terrace could be assessed by Building Control as part of the wider scheme of works.  Furthermore, a supporting statement had been received from a structural engineer that set out the principles of work to be carried out.  A retaining wall of reinforced concrete, with a sub-base of the same, would be built to support the terrace at higher ground level.  It would be embedded low enough to ensure that it did not exert outward pressure on the sloping soils underneath.  In addition, a geotechnical consultant would be appointed to conduct testing of the sub-soil to check that the stability of the existing slope had not been compromised.  In response to Councillor Biggs, he confirmed that if the applicant wished to reinstate the removed works in future, a separate application and planning permission would be required.

 

RESOLVED: (a) That Application No DOV/24/01089 be APPROVED subject to the

following conditions:

 

(i)               Time limit;

 

(ii)              Approved plans;

 

(iii)            Provision/retention/maintenance of privacy screens;

 

(iv)            Obscure glazing.

 

(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 a dwelling, garden room and parking

 

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

The Committee viewed an aerial view, drawings, plans and photographs of the application site which was located within the settlement confines of Kingsdown.  The Senior Planner advised that two additional letters of objection had been received, with one raising one new material consideration, claiming that the development would not secure 10% biodiversity net gain, contrary to Policy NE1.  However, the application had been received prior to April 2024 and was therefore exempt through the statutory framework.  The application had been amended since initial submission and a modest, unassuming, single storey dwelling was now proposed which reflected the appearance of similar back-land development nearby. Following the demolition of an existing garage, two tandem parking spaces would be provided and approval was recommended. 

 

Councillor Williams raised concerns about the access which was a muddy track with no obvious owner.   The proposal appeared to ignore the Kingsdown Design Code submitted to the Council the previous year and which referred to respecting  surrounding buildings and maintaining open space, as well as advice given in the Homes England – Building for a Healthy Life guidance which stated that there should not be an over-reliance on tandem parking.  In her view, the proposal was out of character with the area. 

 

The Development Management Team Leader (TL) clarified that the Design Code for Kingsdown would form part of the Kingsdown Neighbourhood Plan which had not yet been out to consultation and did not currently form part of the Development Plan. This meant that it could not be given consideration at this point.  

 

The Senior Planner referred Members to paragraphs 2.8 and 2.9 of the report which dealt with the pattern of development in this area.  Whilst the area was characterised by large plots and detached dwellings, there were also smaller dwellings and subdivided plots.  The proposed plot and existing, reduced plot were spacious and were not considered to be cramped.  Moreover, the proposal was considered to be compatible with the surrounding area.  It was acknowledged that tandem parking was not ideal.  However, it was acceptable in some cases and met KCC Highways’ requirements in terms of size and number of spaces.  She clarified that she had physically measured the parking spaces which were 6.1 metres in width and in accordance with the plans submitted.  She confirmed that access to the site was also in accordance with standards, being 2.7 metres in width.  Officers considered that there would be limited demand for parking associated with the proposed dwelling and it was evident that the proposal met the requirements of paragraph 116 of the NPPF.  There was sufficient manoeuvrability within the site and on-street parking in the surrounding area.  In conclusion, there were no highway grounds on which to refuse the application as neither cumulative impact nor highway safety were an issue.

 

In response to comments made about there being no dropped kerb, the TL advised that permission for a dropped kerb was a matter for KCC Highways. He clarified that there would be two parking spaces for the existing property (an improvement on the existing arrangement) and another two for the proposed dwelling.  KCC required 1.5 spaces per property and, whilst these were best provided side by side, tandem parking was not prohibited.   He stressed that there would be no severe impact on the highway or highway safety.  The Senior Planner added that it was a non-classified road which meant that planning permission was not required for the dropped kerb.  The Chairman clarified that the Senior Planner had visited the site to confirm measurements at his request and a site visit, as suggested by Councillor Beaney, was not therefore necessary.

 

RESOLVED:   (a) That, subject to payment being received for the SPA and Strategic

Highway Network contributions, or the receipt of a valid legal agreement to secure these contributions, Application No DOV/23/00782 be APPROVED subject to the following conditions:

 

(i)               Time limit;

 

(ii)              Approved plans;

 

(iii)            Details of materials;

 

(iv)            Reveals;

 

(v)             Landscaping;

 

(vi)            Ecological enhancements;

 

(vii)          Provision and retention of parking;

 

(viii)         Cycle storage;

 

(ix)            Refuse storage;

 

(x)             Built to M4(2) Standard;

 

(xi)            Water efficiency standards;

 

(xii)          Removal of some permitted development rights;

 

(xiii)         Surface water drainage.

 

(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.

Outline application for the erection of a dwelling (with all matters reserved)

 

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

Members were shown plans and photographs of the application site which was situated within the settlement confines of Eythorne.  The Senior Planner advised that outline planning permission was sought for the erection of a dwelling on a parcel of land on the eastern side of Sandwich Road.  The site was considered capable of accommodating a single dwelling and the application was recommended for approval. 

 

RESOLVED:   (a) That, subject to the receipt and agreement of Biodiversity Net Gain

information and a legal agreement to secure contributions towards the Strategic Highway Tariff, Outline Application No DOV/24/00550 be APPROVED subject to the following conditions:

 

(i)            Details of reserved matters – scale, appearance, access, layout and landscaping;

 

(ii)           Application for reserved matters – 3 years from date of permission;

 

(iii)          Time – begun no later than the expiration of 2 years from the date of approval of the last reserved matters;

 

(iv)          Approved plans;

 

(v)           Built to M4(2) Standard;

 

(vi)          Water Efficiency Standards;

 

(vii)        Details of surface and foul water drainage;

 

(viii)       Details of integrated Ecological Enhancements as part of the Reserved Matters.

 

(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.