1. Home
  2. Council and Democracy
  3. Contact your Parish Council

Contact your Parish Council

Report for MA 12 0324

APPLICATION:       MA/12/0324   Date: 20 February 2012  Received: 21 February 2012

 

APPLICANT:

Mr R  Clements

 

 

LOCATION:

RHENCULLEN, BRIDGE STREET, LOOSE, MAIDSTONE, KENT, ME15 0BY                    

 

PARISH:

 

Loose

 

 

PROPOSAL:

Retrospective application for hard landscaping works to rear garden (re-submission of MA/11/1872), as shown on drawing number P626/1 Rev A and site plan received 21 February 2012, and Heritage Statement and Design & Access Statement both dated 20 February 2012 received 21 February 2012.

 

AGENDA DATE:

 

CASE OFFICER:

 

30th August 2012

 

Jon Lawrence

 

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

 

  ●  it is contrary to views expressed by the Parish Council

   

1.       POLICIES

 

·      Maidstone Borough-Wide Local Plan 2000:  ENV28, ENV35, H27

·      South East Plan 2009:  CC1, CC4, CC6, BE1, BE6, C4, NRM4, NRM5

·      Government Policy:  NPPF

 

2.                HISTORY

 

MA/11/1872 – Retrospective application for hard landscaping works to rear garden – Withdrawn 6/12/2011

 

MA/03/1650 - Conversion of existing garage, erection of front porch, rear conservatory and other alterations – Approved 16/10/2003

 

MA/02/1740 - Erection of side extension, front porch, rear conservatory and change of windows – Approved 17/1/2003

 

MA/97/0302 – Erection of new roof including two dormers in the front elevation and a two storey rear extension together with a front porch – Refused 21/5/1997

 

3.      CONSULTATIONS

 

3.1     LOOSE PARISH COUNCIL – “A meeting of the Loose Parish Council planning committee took place on the 19th March 2012 to discuss the above application. We understood from Mr Clements, the landowner, at the meeting that he has followed and acted upon the advice he received from yourself and Mr Mike Parkinson, Principal Conservation Officer following the previous application which was withdrawn. We appreciate the consideration Mr Clements has accorded towards the changes proposed to the structure and landscaping.

 

The application was evaluated against the comments in our previous letter dated 1st December 2011. The Committee looked objectively at the proposed changes to the existing garden but felt that they had not gone far enough to alleviate the impact it has on the conservation area and article 4 directive. This is an extremely sensitive site.

 

The Loose Parish Council wish to see this application refused and request it is reported to the planning committee.

 

The Parish Council reiterates the reasons for refusal as outlined in its letter dated 1st December 2011. It considers the application continues to fail on the objectives of PPS1 specifically:-

 

Clause 17. In essence this calls for protecting and enhancing the quality of natural rural environments in particular, valued landscapes etc. The existing structure(s), mainly retaining walls, do not enhance the natural rural setting with their hard faces of brick, stone and railway sleepers. This is particularly the case when viewed from the north on the footpath through the Loose Valley near Kirkdale Cottages. The development creates a hard “face” from the stream edge to the roof ridge of the bungalow from this location.

 

The development is at odds with the trees, shrubs and grassland at the rear of adjacent properties. The terracing does not align with the gradient of the ground generally in that area. It stands out proud of it.

 

Clause 18 calls for designs to help mitigate effects of declining environmental quality. The design and construction do nothing to improve and detract from the natural environment in this location.

 

Clause 20 addresses the promotion of biodiversity of wildlife habitats etc. There is no evidence that a wildlife survey was made prior to the development. This is particularly relevant as there is a designated Site of Nature Conservation Interest (SNCI) in the north area of the adjacent property, “Westmount”, to the west. There may well have been rare species in the area. The development itself can be seen as a barrier to the migration of wildlife along the stream bank.

 

Clause 38 indicates the need for scale, density, massing, height of development etc. to be in relation to neighbouring buildings and the local area. Here the mass and height of the vertical walling to the terraces is excessive. In fact the wall faces present an area similar to the north elevation of “Rhencullen” bungalow itself. There is nothing similar in the area.

 

It is appreciated that although attempts have been made to soften the appearance with planting and modifications to the retaining walls, we ask you to consider the impact such a development has on an area rich in natural character and appearance. This garden neither enhances nor improves the conservation area or natural landscape features of the Loose Valley.

 

Loose Parish Councillors visited the site at the time of the original application, and recommend that Borough Councillors also do this, and take in the view from the public footpath to the north of Kirkdale Cottages”.

 

3.2     ENVIRONMENT AGENCY – “We maintain our objection to the application and recommend refusal of planning permission for the following reasons:
 
The site lies within Flood Zone 3a defined by Planning Policy Statement 25 as having a high probability of flooding, where the risk to life and / or property in upstream and /or downstream locations from fluvial inundation would be unacceptable if the development were to be allowed.
 
In particular:
 
1. The site lies within the flood plain and the proposed development will impede flood flow and/or reduce storage capacity thereby increasing the risk of flooding elsewhere.
 
2. The information provided suggests that the proposed development will cause an unacceptable risk of surface water flooding to people and property elsewhere.

 

3. There is no buffer zone to the Loose Stream.

 

Buffer zone
It may be possible to overcome this element of the objection if the development is moved back to provide an 8 metre buffer zone measured from the bank top (defined as the point at which the bank meets the level of the surrounding land) alongside the Loose Stream. The buffer zone should be free from all built development. Domestic gardens and formal landscaping should not be incorporated into the buffer zone. The buffer zone should be planted with locally native species of UK genetic provenance and appropriately managed under an agreed scheme. Any scheme to provide a buffer zone will need to include a working methods statement detailing how the buffer zone will be protected during construction”.

3.3     KENT WILDLIFE TRUST – “The site abuts the Loose Valley Local Wildlife Site (LWS, MA20).   The LWS comprises a mosaic of rough, unmanaged grassland, semi-improved grazed pastures, drier horse-grazed meadows and damp marshy grassland along the valley floor beside the river.  The LWS citation confirms that the combination of woodland and riverside shrubs and plants creates good conditions for a wide range of bird species throughout the year.  The river is also likely to be used by bats foraging and commuting between resting and feeding areas.   Abundant river marginal vegetation means that a wide diversity of plant species is present.

 

The application seeks permission for a large-scale engineering operation that has used significant amounts of ‘hard’ surfaces and finishes.  These features are particularly insensitive to wildlife interests and represent a severe disruption to the wildlife corridor established by the river.  I note that the applicant has made no effort to evaluate the impact of development on local biodiversity interests as required under the recently-adopted National Planning Policy Framework let alone local planning policies. 

 

In the circumstances, I urge the Borough Council to refuse the application and work with the applicant to achieve a more ‘natural’ profile to this valued river bank”. 

 

3.4     MBC CONSERVATION OFFICER – “Although described as retrospective, the proposals now put forward incorporate amendments to the works as currently constructed.

 

As they currently stand, the works carried out without planning permission are considered to be inappropriate and out of character, resulting in an urbanisation of this riverside site on the village edge. However, amendments are now proposed which will go some way towards softening the impact, particularly by reducing the sheer height of the timber baulk wall to one half of the width by the use of stepped terraces. The combination of this with the planting proposed, and remedial works to the existing ragstone walling to achieve a better standard of pointing, will, in my view, result in a more acceptable scheme. Given the history of subsidence at this property some sort of retaining structure here would appear to be inevitable and there is evidence of some sort of ragstone walling having been built in the past. On balance I am prepared to raise no objections to these latest proposals, but conditions will be needed to secure the implementation of the amendments now proposed within a specified timescale (3 months?) and to require approval of a sample of the repointing of the ragstone. I RAISE NO OBJECTION to this application on heritage grounds and recommend conditions as detailed above”.

 

3.5        NATURAL ENGLAND - (On previous withdrawn application MA/11/1872) they commented that “this proposal does not appear to affect any statutorily protected sites or landscapes, or have significant impacts on the conservation of soils, nor is the proposal EIA development”. On the basis that this revised scheme is considered an improvement they were not therefore consulted on this current application.   

 

3.6     K.C.C. ECOLOGY – “The river bank is included within the Loose Valley Local Wildlife Site.

 

The site was designated for a variety of reasons including:

 

·         The combination of woodland and riverside shrubs and plants creates good conditions for a wide range of bird species throughout the year, including the unusual water rail in winter months.  Species recorded include blackbird, mallard, goldfinch, kingfisher and green woodpecker

·         The varying grassland conditions and abundant river marginal vegetation mean that a wide diversity of plant species is present.

·         Several old crack willow and ash pollards along the river support a reasonable bryophyte and liverwort flora.

 

Before the works were carried out the area of river bank may have met the above criteria. 

 

As an ecological survey was not carried out it is hard to establish exactly what the site was like prior to works starting. 

 

From reviewing the 2003 aerial photos it appears that the area has been vegetated in the past and as a result could have acted as a corridor to wildlife along the river bank.  As a result of the works the photos indicate that there is no or very minimal vegetation remaining and as a result it's suitability as a wildlife corridor has declined significantly.

 

From reviewing the information submitted with the planning we are aware of the reasoning behind the works however we question whether the works could have been carried out in a way that river bank and the vegetation could have been retained.  This would have been the preferred option as it would have retained the connectivity of the river bank.

 

The applicant is proposing to increase the planting within the area to minimise the visual impact.  If planning permission is granted the landscaping scheme should be designed to incorporate native species which are already present within the river bank.  Although not the ideal solution it will to some extent reduce the impact of the works. If planning permission is granted any native species planting which is carried out will improve the site for biodiversity compared to what it is now - for example it could provide suitable nesting habitat for birds using the river.

 

However I would like to stress that the connectivity will still be reduced - the hard standing of the terrace area could prevent wildlife from moving along the river bank”. 

     

3.7     MBC LANDSCAPE OFFICER – “The application is retrospective, so in terms of potential impact on the Norway Spruce, designated T1 of Tree Preservation Order No.1 of 2004, any root damage resulting from the implementation of the proposal would have already taken place. The submitted plans demonstrate that development and excavation within the root protection area of the tree has taken place in my opinion. There is no evidence to demonstrate whether this actually involved severing of tree roots, but I consider that it is likely. Such works could have significantly increased the risk of windthrow failure or lead to the premature decline or death of the tree and carrying out root pruning without consent is an offence under TPO legislation.

 

If this application was not retrospective, I would almost certainly object to the proposal on the basis that such damage would be likely. As it has already taken place, it cannot be undone. The tree is protected, so a replacement tree can be secured under TPO legislation if it does fail, but this can be additionally strengthened through the use of a landscaping condition requiring replacement of failures in an approved landscaping scheme. I do not consider that the submitted landscaping proposals are sufficiently detailed and recommend the use of a standard condition (modified to reflect the fact that the application is retrospective) requiring a detailed scheme to be submitted and approved and a standard landscape implementation condition”.

 

4.      REPRESENTATIONS
 

4.1     Thirteen objections have been received. These include from Loose Amenities Association, the Valley Conservation Society and local residents. In summary, the grounds for objection are as follows:

 

·         Breach of Article 4 Direction

·         Prominent position, entrance to valley

·         Visible from public footpaths and areas, spoils views

·         Inappropriate, poor and unnecessary design

·         Out of character – does not complement unspoilt rural nature of valley

·         Detrimental impact on area, including Conservation Area

·         Loss of landscape features

·         Dominates surroundings, imposing

·         Dangerous precedent for further development if approved

·         Incongruent materials more in keeping with urban setting

·         Works completed without planning permission

·         Terracing does not align with steady gradient of ground

·         Destruction of natural line of stream bank

·         Ragstone of poor standard

·         Affect on wildlife habitats and trees – both lost - SNCI nearby

·         Sleepers could pollute water    

·         Planting not of appropriate type to soften impact – and shouldn’t be relied upon anyway

·         Amendments do not overcome concerns over height, mass and materials

·         Previous scheme preferable – latest scheme raises height and therefore increases visual impact

·         Ragstone should be used to all vertical surfaces

·         Balustrading could be removed, not necessary

·         Loss of privacy through raised levels of garden

·         Protected trees affected

·         No environmental assessment

·         Light pollution – compounds harm

·         Doesn’t preserve or enhance natural or historic environment, including Conservation Area

·         Contrary to NPPF

·         Formerly ALLI. Harms and alters natural landscape features

·         Loss of natural drainage – water and flood concerns

·         No ecological assessment

·         Risk to irreplaceable beauty of village and valley  

 

4.2     A local resident has also written in support, objecting to the removal of the development “as your plans will not enhance the walk through the valley and I believe that the structure is more in keeping with the woodland”.

 

4.3     As part of the application submissions seven letters of support and a petition of seventy signatures in support have also been received. The reasons for support are summarised as follows:

 

·         Rich diversity in architecture in Loose Village

·         Limited development carried out in good faith

·         Garden difficult to landscape due to steep slope

·         Reflects style of bungalow with references to local vernacular

·         Sympathetically constructed

·         Improved amenity for use of property

·         Stabilized an area prone to subsidence, raising integrity of bank

·         Further land shift would have occurred harming steam and wildlife

·         To remove the development would have no positive effect on Conservation Area

·         Visually pleasing – bank was an eyesore

·         Enhances appearance of property, not out of character or inappropriate

·         Materials blend well with others in vicinity

·         Established tree provides focus and height

·         Greatly improved appearance when viewed from path leading to Loose Valley

·         Soft landscaping will improve further                     

 

5.      CONSIDERATIONS

 

5.1    Site Description

 

5.1.1  This application relates to a detached bungalow property in a discreet location just within the `built’ envelope of Loose village, at the lowest part. It is also within the Loose Valley Conservation Area, and within a designated Area of Local Landscape Importance. It is also on land previously designated as a Site of Nature Conservation Interest. An Article 4 Direction confirmed for the Loose Valley Conservation Area also covers this property, removing residential and other permitted development rights. A stream/brook runs along the rear of the property, which is within designated Flood Zones 2 and 3. A protected Norway Spruce tree is located near the stream/brook within the curtilage. There is also other planting and vegetation generally around the rear of the site. The land rises northwards in the field to the north on the opposite side of the stream/brook, within which there is also a handful of trees. Public footpath KM58 runs along the north side of this field, from KM52 just to the east. There are other residential properties south of the site including one adjacent to the south-east, and other residential properties to the north-east and north-west on the opposite side of the brook/stream. 

 

5.1.2  The bungalow has been previously extended and altered with planning permission. This application seeks permission for hard landscaping works that have been carried out within the rear garden backing onto the stream at the rear of the property and foot of the garden. Amendments are also proposed under this application to the development “as built”. At present the development consists of raised terraced areas with lawn and slab paving, lower terraced areas with gravel finish, timber sleeper retaining walls with timber handrails above, and elements of brick and ragstone retaining walling. Central brick and concrete steps lead down to the stream/brook. There is also a narrow concrete platform at the bottom by the stream/brook.               

 

5.2    Proposal

 

5.2.1  This application seeks permission for the hard landscaped terraced areas, but with proposed amendments. The principle amendment is the inclusion of an extra step/terrace on one side of the central steps between the ragstone wall and timber sleeper retaining wall. This also involves the reduction in height of the land levels on that side where nearest to the brook/stream, and the reduction in height of the timber sleeper wall retaining those present land levels. Further, it involves the inclusion of an additional sleeper retaining wall behind that and in front of the ragstone wall. It is also proposed to reposition the handrail currently positioned on top of the higher timber sleeper wall to the top of that existing ragstone wall.

    

5.2.2  Hanging and trailing vegetation/planting is also proposed, including to the existing and proposed terraced levels, and darker mortar with recessed joints to the existing areas of ragstone walling.

 

5.3    Principle of Development

 

5.3.1  Although the application site lies within a designated Conservation Area and designated Area of Local Landscape Importance, it is also within the built up envelope of Loose Village. In principle, therefore, I am satisfied that this development is acceptable in line with development plan policies and government advice aimed at rural settlements.

 

5.3.2  However, strong regard must be had to development plan policies and government advice aimed at conserving and enhancing the natural and historic environment and protecting landscapes of quality and character. Further, the development must accord with the principle of sustainable development that underwrites government policy.           

 

5.4    Visual Impact

 

5.4.1  The development as existing is visible and as proposed would remain visible from public areas to the north that includes the footpath that runs along the north edge of the field on the opposite side of the brook/stream. This would be around 40 metres away from the back edge of the application site and therefore also the subject development, so it is at a reasonably close distance.

 

5.4.2  As built, the height, scale, mass and material of the development is considered to be inappropriate and out of character for this location on the edge of the village. It does, therefore, have an unacceptable impact on the character of both the natural and historic environment.

 

5.4.3  However, the development as proposed under this application is considered to be a significant improvement. The reduction of the height of the rearmost timber sleeper wall on the stream edge by some 50% contributes to softening the visual impact, and this will only serve to be improved further by the removal of the timber railing currently atop and its repositioning on top of the ragstone wall further back. Hanging and trailing vegetation/planting also proposed all around the terracing will further soften its appearance.

 

5.4.4  The proposal to carry out remedial pointing works to the ragstone walling will also improve the appearance of the development. The predominant materials used of timber and ragstone also reflect that used and included generally in built form in the area. 

 

5.4.5  Taking into account the apparent need for some sort of retaining structure at the property due to the subsidence problems that have historically existed, and that ragstone walling apparently previously existed in a similar location at the property, I do therefore consider that on balance the proposed scheme is acceptable in visual terms.                   

 

5.5    Residential Amenity

 

5.5.1  The rear garden of this property has been raised (in terracing format) as part of this development. As a result it is possible to see over the dividing fence with the adjacent property to the east (Millbourne Cottage). However, there is a distance of around 20 metres to the private areas immediately behind the rear of that dwelling, whilst the detached garage at that property is also in between. I therefore consider that this dwelling and its private areas are unaffected in terms of overlooking/loss of privacy.

 

5.5.2  Given the considerable distances and orientation involved between the application property and the properties on the other side of the stream/brook to both the north-east (Kirkdale Cottages) and north-west, combined with the various vegetation and enclosures between, I do not consider that there is any unacceptable overlooking of these dwellings or their private areas as a result of the development.     

 

 

 

 

5.6    Landscaping

 

5.6.1  Hanging, climbing and trailing planting is proposed as part of the submissions all around this terraced area, which should provide good cover generally even on the ground. Although some of the planting type is detailed on the submitted drawing, some is left unspecified and stated to be to LPA approval. In this respect, for ecological reasons, species native to the riverbank and area would be preferred. An informative could advise of this. The exact type and detail of all this planting can therefore be secured by condition.

 

5.6.2  Submission of a detailed landscaping scheme by condition and a further condition concerning implementation and maintenance of any such scheme would then also ensure that if the protected Norway Spruce tree on the lower terrace of the development was to die, then a suitable replacement would be required. It has already been suggested by the Council’s Landscape Section that the roots of this tree at least are likely to have been damaged by the work that has already taken place.   

 

5.7    Ecology

 

5.7.1  Although this development will have involved removal of vegetation along the corridor of the riverbank, leading to a significant decline in its suitability as a wildlife corridor, planting is proposed within the area to minimise the general impact of the development. If the landscaping scheme were designed to incorporate native species already common to this riverbank then this would to some extent reduce the ecological impact of these works as already carried out and proposed under this application, and improve the site for bio-diversity. This landscaping scheme and its implementation can be secured by condition. KCC Ecology accept that this could limit the impact. They do, however, also point out that connectivity will still be reduced as the hardstanding of the terraced area could prevent wildlife from moving along the river bank.        

 

5.8    Flooding

 

5.8.1  The Environment Agency have recommended that permission be refused for this development within Flood Zone 3a, on the basis that it will impede flood flow and/or reduce storage capacity and thereby increase flood risk elsewhere, that the development will cause an unacceptable risk of surface water flooding; and that there is no buffer zone to the Loose Stream.

 

5.8.2  There will, however, be planted areas on the development and site which will help to minimise this loss of flood storage and interruption to flood flow, and therefore also the consequent flood risk. It also needs to be considered that unchecked subsidence of the bank could have caused greater problems. 

 

5.8.3  Also, I consider that the development is of a minimal size and scale, and that therefore any resultant flood risk is not to the extent that permission should be refused.

 

5.8.4  Further, it would not be practical for the development to be moved back to create an 8 metre buffer zone from the stream considering the relative size of the back garden, nor appropriate considering the structures and levels of land that previously existed within this “zone”.  

 

5.9    Other matters

 

5.9.1  It needs to be considered how best to secure implementation of the proposed scheme as opposed to the development constructed.

 

5.9.2  Enforcement action could be taken against the unauthorised development as constructed (prior to it achieving immunity which would be in at least another 3 years) should any planning permission granted for the proposed scheme not be implemented in the meantime. Whilst I could understand any demand for the proposed scheme to be implemented within a restrictive timescale, I do not therefore consider it necessary to impose a short time limit for implementation by way of condition on any permission granted for the proposed scheme, if this were indeed even possible. The applicants could also be advised by way of Informative that appropriate enforcement action will be taken by the LPA should the unauthorised development remain in place without any progress/steps being made to implement the planning permission granted. Such action would not necessarily have to wait until near the time when immunity would be reached.        

 

5.9.3  Conditions requiring submission within 2 months of details of landscaping, details of materials and details of the repointing of the ragstone will also provide focus in this respect.    

 

6.      CONCLUSION

 

6.1     The proposed scheme would not have an unacceptable visual impact on the character of the natural and historic environment including the Conservation Area and designated ALLI. Proposed hanging, climbing and trailing planting will assist in this respect. 

 

6.2     The proposed scheme would not have an unacceptable impact on residential amenity.

 

6.3     The ecological impact of the development can be reduced by incorporating native species common to the riverbank in the proposed planting.

 

6.4     It can be assured that the details of proposed planting, materials to be used and repointing of the ragstone are acceptable and appropriate by securing all for submission and implementation by condition.

 

6.5     Should the proposed scheme not be implemented then enforcement action could still be taken against the unacceptable development as constructed before it achieves immunity.

  

6.6     I therefore consider the development to be acceptable and that planning permission should be granted subject to conditions.

 

7.           RECOMMENDATION

 

GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION subject to the following conditions:   

 

1.           The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission;

Reason: In accordance with the provisions of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

2.           Within 2 months of the date of this permission, a scheme of landscaping, using indigenous species which shall include indications of all existing trees and hedgerows on the land, and details of any to be retained, shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval together with a programme for the approved scheme's implementation and long term management. The scheme shall be designed using the principles established in the Council's adopted Landscape Character Assessment and Landscape Guidelines;

Reason: No such details have been submitted, and in accordance with policies ENV28, ENV35 and H27 of the Maidstone Borough-Wide Local Plan 2000 and policies CC1, CC4, CC6, C4, NRM5, BE1 and BE6 of the South East Plan 2009.

3.           All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved details of landscaping shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons following the completion of the development, and any trees or plants which within a period of five years from the completion of the development die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species, unless the Local Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation;

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory setting and external appearance to the development, in accordance with policies ENV28, ENV35 and H27 of the Maidstone Borough-Wide Local Plan 2000 and policies CC1, CC6, CC4, C4, NRM5, BE1 and BE6 of the South East Plan 2009.

4.           Within 2 months written details and samples of the materials used and to be used in the development shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority and the development shall thereafter be constructed using the approved materials within 2 months of the date of any subsequent approval of those details;

Reason: to ensure a satisfactory appearance to the development, in accordance with policies ENV28, ENV35 and H27 of the Maidstone Borough-Wide Local Plan 2000 and policies CC1, CC6, C4, BE1 and BE6 of the South East Plan 2009.

5.           Within 2 months of the date of this decision written details and a sample of the proposed repointing of the existing ragstone walling included in the development shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority and the approved details shall thereafter be implemented within 2 months of the date of any subsequent approval of those details;

Reason: to ensure a satisfactory appearance to the development, in accordance with policies ENV28, ENV35 and H27 of the Maidstone Borough-Wide Local Plan 2000 and policies CC1, CC6, C4, BE1 and BE6 of the South-East Plan 2009.

6.           The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans:

Drawing number P626/1 Rev A received 21 February 2012.

Reason: To ensure the quality of the development is maintained in accordance with policies ENV28, ENV35 and H27 of the Maidstone Borough-Wide Local Plan 2000 and policies CC1, CC4, CC6, C4, BE1, BE6 , NRM4 and NRM5 of the South East Plan 2009.

Informatives set out below

The applicant is advised that, for biodiversity reasons, the inclusion of species native to the riverbank should be included and incorporated in the landscaping scheme required to be submitted.

The applicant is reminded that the existing development as constructed is in breach of planning control and considered unacceptable, and that therefore appropriate formal enforcement can and will be pursued by the local planning authority should it remain without implementation of the scheme hereby approved.

 

 

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.