Contact your Parish Council

Report for MA110575

APPLICATION: �� MA/11/0575 ��Date: 11 April 2011�� Received: 26 September 2011

APPLICANT:	Mr K� Harper

LOCATION:	CARAVAN, DETLING LIME WORKS, HERMITAGE LANE, DETLING, MAIDSTONE, KENT, ME14 3HW ��
PARISH:	Detling

PROPOSAL:	Variation of condition 5 of appeal decision of MA/05/1462 (Retrospective application for the change of use of land to a mixed use of residential and business use to include the stationing of 1 number caravan and the retention of 3 number outbuildings {2 being conjoined} to allow a second vehicle to be kept on the site as shown on details received on 26/4/11 as amended by revised ownership certificate received on 26/9/11.
AGENDA DATE: CASE OFFICER:	3rd November 2011 Peter Hockney

The recommendation for this application is being reported to Committee for decision because:

� Councillor de Wiggondene has requested it be reported for the reason set out in the report.

1. POLICIES

Maidstone Borough-Wide Local Plan 2000:� ENV28, ENV31, ENV33, ENV34, T13
South East Plan 2009:� T4, C3
Government Policy:� PPS3, PPS7, Circular 01/2006

2. HISTORY

MA/05/1462 � Retrospective application for the change of use of land to a mixed use of residential and business use to include the stationing of 1 number caravan and the retention of 3 number outbuildings (2 being conjoined) � REFUSED � ALLOWED AT APPEAL.

3. BACKGROUND

3.1 Mr Harper has been residing within Detling Lime Works for approximately 31 years having moved to the site in approximately 1980. In 1983 Kent County Council granted consent for the stationing of a residential mobile home for a night watchman, Mr Harper. This was a temporary planning permission that expired in September 2003 and was not renewed.

3.2 In November 2003 Kent County Council issued an enforcement notice alleging a material change of use from quarry to non-quarry related purposes, the erection of buildings and structures and the storage for onward sale, selective retention and transfer of non quarry related materials, articles and the stationing of vehicles on site. An appeal was made against this notice but was subsequently withdrawn prior to its determination and thus the notice took effect and remains in force. The enforcement notice did not cover the continued stationing of the caravan and residential use of the site.

3.3 Subsequently, planning application MA/05/1462 was submitted to Maidstone Borough Council and refused on 27 October 2005. An appeal was made against this refusal and heard at a public inquiry on 23 and 24 May 2006 where Mr Harper claimed gypsy status, which was accepted at the inquiry. On 3 July 2006 the Inspector issued her decision which granted a permanent and personal consent to Mr Harper for residential occupation of the site. I attach a copy of the appeal decision at Appendix 1. Crucially at the appeal the business element of the change of use was not considered and only the residential use was approved. Mr Harper continues to live at the site following this permission.

4. CONSULTATIONS

4.1�� Detling Parish Council raise no objections to the application.

5. REPRESENTATIONS

5.1 Letters of objection have been received from 3 respondents, including a planning agent on behalf of the freeholder and head lessee of Detling Lime Works on the following grounds:-

� The owners of site are opposed to the application.

� Increase in traffic.

� Concerns with the description of the application.

� Concern that incorrect notice has been served.

� There is no justification for an additional vehicle in this sensitive location.

5.2 Cllr de Wiggondene has requested that the application be reported to planning committee for the following reasons:-

�This application is currently the subject of a Breach of Condition Notice issued by MBC for which enforcement proceedings are under consideration.�

5.3 CPRE Maidstone objects to the application on the grounds that there is no justification for a second vehicle.

6. CONSIDERATIONS

6.1�� Site Description

6.1.1 The application site relates to part of Detling Lime Works, which is a working lime quarry. The site is within the open countryside and the designated Kent Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, Special Landscape Area and Strategic Gap within Detling Parish.

6.1.2 The quarry lies within an extremely attractive wooded landscape on the south facing escarpment of the North Downs. The Pilgrims Way follows the road along the base of the escarpment providing extensive views across the Medway Valley, and the North Downs Way follows the top of the escarpment. About 200m to the south of the application site are the outlying houses of Detling Village and just beyond is the A249 dual carriageway.

6.1.3 There are only limited short range glimpses of the development from Hermitage Lane.

6.2�� Proposal

6.2.1� The application seeks to vary condition 5 of the appeal decision. Condition 5 stated:-

No more than one vehicle, of a non-commercial nature, shall be kept on the appeal site at any time;

6.2.2� The application seeks to allow a second vehicle to be parked on the site.

6.3�� Considerations

6.3.1 The site has permission for residential use for Mr Harper following the permanent consent gained at appeal in 2006. There are allegations and investigations into breaches of planning control with regard to commercial activities, open storage and landscaping on the site. However, none of these issues are material in the consideration of this planning application.

6.3.2 The site is within the Kent Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and development is sought to be restricted in order to protect its scenic quality. This was the reason that the Inspector imposed certain restrictive conditions on the approval, including the restriction to one vehicle.

6.3.3 The Inspector considered that the one vehicle permitted on site, which could have been the van Mr Harper was converting to a motor home was reasonable.

6.3.4 The agent for Mr Harper has stated in the application that �whilst the Inspector expressly accepted the applicant�s need to retain the �coach� this vehicle is not viable for the applicant whose health has deteriorated as the Inspector anticipated and is too large to enter hospital car parks nor is it yet restored. The applicant needs to retain his land rover discovery vehicles for that purpose.�

6.3.5 The main considerations of this application relate to the visual impact of an additional vehicle on the site. Whilst the site is in the Kent Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and the open countryside it is a well screened site with planning permission for a residential caravan and outbuildings. It is my view that the parking of one additional vehicle would not have a significant visual impact on the character and appearance of the area or the scenic quality of the Kent Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. For this reason I do not consider that there is any conflict with Development Plan policies and that the visual impact of the parking of a vehicle would be acceptable.

6.3.6 The site is a significant distance (approx 80m) from the nearest residential property of �Hillside�. This distance would ensure that the parking of a vehicle would not have a significant impact on the residential amenity of the occupiers in terms of any disturbance.

6.3.7 I note the concerns that have been raised with regard to the increase in traffic movements. However, the site will still be limited to the residential occupation of Mr Harper only and given that the number of occupiers will not increase I do not consider that by allowing the parking of a second vehicle there would necessarily be an increase in traffic movements. Even if there were an increase, the increased movements when compared to the existing movements on the site and the wider quarry would not have a significant impact on traffic, highway safety or residential amenity of nearby occupiers.

6.3.8 There have been objections raised on the issue that there has been no justification put forward for an additional vehicle on the site. The agent has explained the reason for the application (as set out above in para 6.3.4), however, I do not consider there to be any significant planning harm caused by the parking of an additional vehicle and therefore do not consider that parking an additional vehicle requires particular justification.

6.3.9 It is important to consider whether it would be reasonable to prevent an individual at a lawful residence to own and park more than one car. Although the site is in the Kent Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty it is my view that it would be unreasonable to prevent the parking of a second vehicle on the lawful residential site. There are no other residences in the Borough, that I am aware of, either bricks and mortar housing or caravan sites where the number of private vehicles is restricted. Therefore, it is reasonable to allow a second vehicle to be parked at the site.

7. CONCLUSION

7.1 The site has planning permission for a residential caravan site for Mr Harper following an appeal decision in July 2006, following refusal of MA/05/1462. Condition 5 of the approval restricted the number of vehicles on the site to one vehicle. This application seeks to vary that condition to allow a second vehicle to be parked.

7.2 The site is within the Kent Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, however, it is a well screened site with some approved development and the stationing of a residential caravan. The additional visual harm that would be caused by an additional vehicle would not be significant and there are no other planning reasons to warrant refusal of the application.

8. RECOMMENDATION

GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION subject to the following conditions:��

1. No more than two vehicles, of a non-commercial nature, shall be kept on the site at any time;

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and the protection of the scenic quality of the Kent Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

Informatives set out below

Please note that all other conditions attached to appeal decision MA/05/1462 remain in force and shall be adhered to.

The proposed development, subject to the conditions stated, is considered to comply with the policies of the Development Plan (Maidstone Borough-Wide Local Plan 2000 and the South East Plan 2009) and there are no overriding material considerations to indicate a refusal of planning consent.