Contact your Parish Council

REPORT SUMMARY

 

REFERENCE NO -  14/501240/FULL
APPLICATION PROPOSAL Demolition of existing garages to allow for erection of detached dwelling and associated works.
ADDRESS Land Adjacent 1 Bakery Cottages Chatham Road Sandling Kent ME14 3BE
RECOMMENDATION - Permit
SUMMARY OF REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION The proposed development is not inline with Policy ENV28 of the Maidstone Borough-Wide Local Plan 2000. However, the development is at a reasonably sustainable location, is close to an existing settlement, and is not considered to result in significant visual harm to the area. Given the current shortfall in the required five-year housing supply, the low adverse impacts of the development are not considered to significantly outweigh its benefits. As such the development is considered to be in compliance with the National Planning Policy Framework and this is sufficient grounds to depart from the Local Plan.
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE The application is contrary to the provisions of the Development Plan.
WARD Boxley		PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL Boxley	APPLICANT Mr L Fitzgerald AGENT Anderson North Limited
DECISION DUE DATE 13/08/14		PUBLICITY EXPIRY DATE 13/08/14	OFFICER SITE VISIT DATE 04/08/14
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY (including appeals and relevant history on adjoining sites):
App No	Proposal			Decision	Date

 

MA/88/0280

Erection of double garage and link porch to house.

Approved with conditions

May 1988

 

70/0337/MK2

Double garage

Approved with conditions

Nov 1970

 

MAIN REPORT

 

1.0       DESCRIPTION OF SITE

 

1.01   The application site comprises a square shaped residential plot located outside of the urban area of Maidstone and within the North Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The site is also within the North Downs Special Landscape Area and the Strategic Gap.  This is some 1km north of Maidstone and forms part of a residential area sited between the A229 and the Old Chatham Road.

 

1.02   The site is occupied by a semi detached two storey dwelling set back from the road by some 10m.  The dwelling is also set on a higher level than the road with a difference of approximately 1m.  The dwelling has a hipped roof with a substantial flat roof side addition comprising additional living space as well as a large garage. The amenity space extends to the side of the garage and to the rear of the dwelling which is maintained with border planting.

 

1.03   The site is accessed via a private driveway which serves No1 and 2 Bakery Cottages. This access is also a recognised footpath KH11, although this is cut off by the A229.

 

2.0    PROPOSAL

 

2.01   Planning permission is sought for the demolition of the existing garage to allow for the erection of a detached dwelling and associated works.

 

2.02   The proposed dwelling would be two storey in scale and located to the western side of No1.  This property would have a fully hipped roof with a ridge height and eaves height of approximately 7.2m and 5m respectively. The dwelling would also have a rectangular shaped footprint measuring 5m in width and projecting 7.3m in depth.

 

2.03   The proposed dwelling would include two parking spaces to the front and amenity space to the side and rear resulting from a central split of the curtilage of No1.

 

3.0    POLICY AND OTHER CONSIDERATIONS

 

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)

National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG)

Development Plan: ENV28, ENV31, ENV33, ENV34

Supplementary Planning Documents: MBC Residential Extension SPD 2009

 

6.0    LOCAL REPRESENTATIONS

 

6.1     One representation has been received raising the following points:-

 

·         Impact of the development upon parking provision

·         Impact upon access drive serving neighbouring dwellings

·         Disruption and damage from construction traffic

·         Drainage issues to No1 and No2 Bakery Cottages

 

7.0    CONSULTATIONS

 

          Environment Agency - Raise no comments

 

Boxley Parish Council - Do not wish to object with the following comments:-

 

“Members noted that the road servicing the properties was maintained by tenants and it is hoped that the developer will arrange to repair any damage caused by the building work”.

 

          KCC Highways - Raise no objections with the following comments:-

 

“The site is accessed from a private drive and adequate parking is provided. I can confirm that I do not wish to raise objection”.

 

8.0    Principle of Development

 

8.01   Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 provides that all planning applications must be determined in accordance with the Development Plan unless other material considerations indicate otherwise.

 

8.02   The application site is located in the countryside outside the defined urban boundary. The starting point for consideration is saved Policy ENV28 of the Maidstone Borough-Wide Local Plan 2000 which states:

 

“In the countryside planning permission will not be given for development which harms the character and appearance of the area or the amenities of surrounding occupiers, and development will be confined to:

 

(1) That which is reasonably necessary for the purposes of agriculture and forestry; or

(2) The winning of minerals; or

(3) Open air recreation and ancillary buildings providing operational uses only; or

(4) The provision of public or institutional uses for which a rural location is justified; or

(5) Such other exceptions as indicated by policies elsewhere in this plan. Proposals should include measures for habitat restoration and creation to ensure that there is no net loss of wildlife resources.”

 

8.03   The proposed development does not fit into any of the exceptions set out in policy which is why it has been advertised as a departure from the Development Plan.

 

8.04   It is necessary therefore to consider two main issues in relation to the proposals. Firstly, whether there are any material considerations that would indicate that a decision not in accordance with the Development Plan is justified, and secondly whether the development would cause unacceptable harm. (Detailed issues of harm will be discussed later in the report).

 

8.05   In terms of other material considerations, the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) is a key consideration, particularly with regard to housing land supply. Paragraph 47 of the NPPF states that Councils should; “Identify and update annually a supply of specific deliverable sites sufficient to provide five years worth of housing against their housing requirements with an additional buffer of 5% (moved forward from later in the plan period) to ensure choice and competition in the market for land. Where there has been a record of persistent under delivery of housing, local planning authorities should increase the buffer to 20% (moved forward from later in the plan period) to provide a realistic prospect of achieving the planned supply and to ensure choice and competition in the market for land.”

 

8.06   The Council does not currently have a five year supply of housing land which is a significant factor. Paragraph 49 of the NPPF states that housing applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development and that relevant policies for the supply of housing (such as ENV28) should not be considered up-to-date if a five year supply cannot be demonstrated. The presumption in favour of sustainable development in this situation means that permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the application, when assessed against the policies of the NPPF as a whole.

 

8.07   In terms of the location of the site, the site is reasonably close to the urban area and benefits from the public transport opportunities along the A229. Clearly the urban area offers a full range of services and therefore this would appear to be reasonably sustainable.

 

8.08   The site does comprise part of the garden of No1 Bakery Cottages and therefore, as stated within the NPPF, this comprises Greenfield land.  However, in light that the site is reasonably sustainable, I consider that a residential development at the site is possible. The key issue is whether there would be any adverse impacts as a result of this development which would therefore warrant refusal.  This will be assessed within the sections to follow.

 

          Visual Impact and Design

 

8.09   With regard to the visual impact of the development, the site is positioned along a narrow private access which is lined by established landscaping and trees.  This is some 70m from Chatham Road to the east and a similar distance from the A229 to the west, as such, the site is not visible from these main routes by virtue of this separation and the existing dense trees and landscaping between them. I acknowledge that clear views would be possible from the public footpath, although I would question the usage of this by virtue of its confined nature between the two main routes.  The proposal would significantly reduce the first floor space to the western side of No1 to the boundary with No21 Tollgate Way, although this space does contain development in the form of the large flat roof side extension.  However, I am of the view that this space is capable of accommodating further two storey development as well as retaining some of the spacious character of this site.  The proposal would also see the removal of the flat roof addition which would improve the sprawling appearance of the host dwelling.

 

8.10   In terms of the design, whilst this dwelling is of a more standard appearance, this is intended to be responsive to the host dwelling and other neighbouring dwellings to the east.  The dwelling also incorporates a hipped roof which again, is intended to maintain the character of the locality, although, it is noted that this would appear different being the only detached dwelling within Bakery Cottages.  The proposed ridge height would be maintained from the host dwelling with a higher eaves height by 0.3m.  I consider the overall proportion and appearance of the dwelling would be acceptable and its detached nature would not be visually detrimental.  In my view, the proposed dwelling would be sympathetic to the character and appearance of the neighbouring Bakery Cottages and the locality as a whole.

 

8.11   In terms of the wider area, to the north of the site is a large residential development of 1980’s construction which is urban in its context and comprises modestly scaled residential plots.  The proposed dwelling would not be significantly at odds with this existing character and would be viewed within this context.

 

8.12   Overall, I am of the view that by virtue of the secluded nature of this site down a landscaped private access together with the residential context of the immediate area, there is unlikely to be any significant visual harm to the surrounding countryside or AONB.

 

          Residential Amenity

 

8.13   In terms of neighbouring amenity, the proposed dwelling would respect the building line and linear pattern of the neighbouring dwellings to the east.  The dwelling would also be of a suitable scale and siting so as to not create any significant loss of light, privacy, outlook or overshadowing to any neighbouring dwellings.

 

8.14   The proposed dwelling would have a sufficient area of private amenity space extending some 14m to the rear of the dwelling and measuring approximately 11m in total width.  The garden area would also extend to the western side of the dwelling providing pedestrian access to the front of the dwelling.  In my view, this is ample private amenity space for any future occupiers.

 

          Highways

 

8.15   In terms of the impact upon highways, as discussed above the site is accessed via a private access drive from Chatham Road.  The proposed dwelling has a suitable access and parking provision for two vehicles which is considered sufficient.  The KCC Highways officer has also been consulted and raised no objections, I am therefore of the view that there would not be any significant highways issues as a result of this development.

 

          Landscaping

 

8.16   There are no protected trees or any significant planting with a high amenity value within the site.  There is some border planting within the site and some would be lost as a result of this application.  There is also a significant level of hardstanding to the front and side of the dwelling.  I will therefore impose a condition requiring details of additional soft landscaping to the front and rear of the site to be provided.

 

Ecology

 

8.17   In terms of ecology, whilst there are some established hedge and shrubs to the western boundary, the garden is in a maintained state and to my mind, is unlikely to support any protected species.  I therefore do not consider an ecology survey is necessary in this case.

 

8.18   In terms of biodiversity enhancement, discussions have taken place with the agent concerning the provision of bird and bat boxes within the building which will be secured by a suitable condition.  Appropriate native landscaping is also encouraged to support this.

 

Other Matters

 

8.19   I am aware that concerns have been raised with regard to drainage issues to neighbouring properties.  This is generally not a planning issue and is covered by Building regulations, although I notice that the site is not within a flood zone and the water goods to service the dwelling are contained within the site itself.  I therefore do not consider this to be a material consideration to this planning application.

 

8.20   Concerns have also been raised with regard to potential impact upon the private driveway from construction traffic.  This is also not a material planning issue and would be a civil matter between the neighbouring residents.

 

8.21   With regard to the Code for Sustainable Homes a condition can be imposed to secure a sustainable build at Code Level 4. This would ensure the overall sustainable construction level of the dwelling is raised which would be inline with the emerging Local Plan.

 

9.0    CONCLUSION

 

9.01   Having regard to the situation as regards the five-year housing land supply and my view that this development would not cause significant harm to the character and appearance of the countryside, I consider that a departure from the provisions of the Development Plan is warranted and I recommend that this application be approved.

 

10.0  RECOMMENDATION

 

For the reasons outlined above, I therefore recommend approval with the following conditions:-

 

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. The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the building hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building;

 

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory appearance to the development.

 

3. No development shall take place until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority a scheme of landscaping for the site including additional planting to the front of the dwelling, using indigenous species which shall include indications of all existing trees and hedgerows on the land, and details of any to be retained, together with measures for their protection in the course of development. 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.

 

4. 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 occupation of the building(s) or the completion of the development, whichever is the sooner; 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.

 

5. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 as amended by the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Amendment) (England) Order 2008 and the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Amendment) (No.2) (England) Order 2008  (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification) no development within Schedule 2, Part1, Class(es) A,B,C to that Order shall be carried out without the permission of the Local Planning Authority;

         

Reason: To safeguard the character, appearance and functioning of the surrounding area.

 

6. The development shall not commence until, details of all fencing, walling and other boundary treatments have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details before the first occupation of the building(s) or land and maintained thereafter;

 

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory appearance to the development and to safeguard the enjoyment of their properties by existing and prospective occupiers.

 

7. The approved details of the parking/turning areas shall be completed before the commencement of the use of the land or buildings hereby permitted and shall thereafter be kept available for such use. No development, whether permitted by the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 as amended by the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Amendment) (England) Order 2008 and the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Amendment) (No.2) (England) Order 2008 (or any order revoking and re- enacting that Order, with or without modification) or not, shall be carried out on the areas indicated or in such a position as to preclude vehicular access to them;

 

Reason: Development without adequate parking/turning provision is likely to lead to parking inconvenient to other road users and in the interests of road safety.

 

8. The dwelling shall achieve Level 4 or better of the Code for Sustainable Homes. No dwelling shall be occupied until a final Code Certificate has been issued for it certifying that Code Level 4 or better has been achieved;

 

Reason: To ensure a sustainable and energy efficient form of development.

 

9. The development shall not commence until details of the provision of swift bricks and/or bat boxes within the development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority;

 

Reason: In the interests of ecology and biodiversity.

 

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

 

Plan numbers 1-BAKERY-COTTAGES-01 REVA, 1-BAKERY-COTTAGES-02 REVA, 1-BAKERY-COTTAGES-03 REVA and Application Form received 18^th June 2014.

 

Reason: To ensure the quality of the development is maintained and to prevent harm to the residential amenity of neighbouring occupiers.

 

INFORMATIVES

 

N/A

 

Case Officer: Kevin Hope

 

NB For full details of all papers submitted with this application please refer to the relevant           Public Access pages on the council’s website. The conditions set out in the report may be subject to such reasonable change as is necessary to ensure accuracy and enforceability.