REFERENCE NO -  16/501954/FULL


Demolition of 1 no. existing redundant structure, conversion of existing redundant barn and adjoining structures into a new dwelling with changes to fenestration and doors.

ADDRESS Bletchenden Farm  Bletchenden Road Headcorn Kent TN27 9JB 



The proposed development, subject to imposition of the recommended conditions, is considered to comply with the policies of the Development Plan and there are no overriding material planning considerations justifying the refusal of planning permission. 



Recommendation contrary to the views of Headcorn Parish Council


WARD Headcorn


APPLICANT Mr John Cashmore













1.1       This site is located to the west of Bletchenden Manor Barn, which itself is located at the end of an unadopted track. The barn falls in the curtilage of Bletchenden Manor Barn, which is a Grade II listed building.


1.2       The barn has a timber frame with black painted weatherboard, slate cladding and concrete block work to the external walls. The roof comprises Kent peg tiles, corrugated iron and clay tiles. To the west of the main barn building is an attached stable block and pole barn, which are overgrown and in a poor state of repair. The footprint of the existing barn, including the stable and pole barn, is approximately 315sqm. The barn alone has a footprint of approximately 150sqm. A swimming pool is located directly to the south of the building.


1.3         The site falls within Flood Zone 3 but lies within an area enclosed by an existing privately constructed flood defence bund.


1.4         The site falls outside of any defined settlement boundary within open countryside which also comprises an Area of Local Landscape Value.



2.0       RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY           


2.1      This planning application is accompanied by an application seeking Listed Building Consent for the proposed works ref: 16/501955/LBC and which is also being presented to Members at this meeting.


2.2       15/506450: Convert a redundant barn and adjoining structures into a new dwelling, demolish three structures.-REFUSED- 18-12-15 on the grounds of lack of information on flood risk, design of the conversion works to the barn and the associated extension would have a detrimental impact on the character of the existing historical agricultural barn and a negative impact on the setting of the listed building and lack of windows and ventilation to the upstairs bedroom would provide poor living conditions to the future occupiers of the property


2.3       15/506451: LBC application in connection with the above – REFUSED 18-12-15 on the grounds that the design of the conversion works to the barn and the associated extension would have a detrimental impact on the character of the existing historical agricultural barn and a negative impact on the setting of the listed building. The increased ridge height of the barn, the bulk of the proposed extension and the excessive use of glazing to the front and rear elevations would no longer appear agricultural in its design, and would therefore appear incongruous in this location.


2.4       05/1064: Conversion of redundant barn & adjoining stables/store to dwelling with associated internal & external alterations –APPROVED- 31.01.2006


            Bletchenden Manor Farm (adjoining site to the west)


2.5       15/503223: Change of use and conversion of cattle shed to tourist accommodation and construction of flood defence bund-APPROVED- 21.09.16


3.0       PROPOSAL


3.1       Planning permission and Listed Building Consent is sought to convert and extend the existing derelict barn which will be converted into a dwelling. The existing stable block adjacent to the barn is to be demolished together with the attached pole barn.


3.2       The proposed single storey pitched roof extension will have the same footprint as the demolished stable block. Materials used for the proposed barn conversion and extension will be black weatherboarding with stock brick plinths with plain clay roof tiles.


3.4       Key external changes involves installation of clerestory windows in the enhanced front and rear hoist bays on the derelict barn with a number of narrow profile window and doors at ground and first floor level in the barn to be converted and the proposed addition.      


3.5       Three parking spaces and a turning area to be sited abutting the western end of the proposed addition.


3.6       The applicants advise that the proposal is essentially a resubmission of the proposal approved under ref:05/1064.


3.7       The application has been accompanied by a flood risk assessment (FRA) along with a phase 1 habitat survey and bat roost survey emergence report




The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)

National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG)

Local Plan: SP17, DM1, DM3, DM4, DM30, DM32




4.1       11 neighbouring properties consulted – 6 objections have been received which are summarised below:


-       Lies within a flood zone and submitted FRA out of date – proposal therefore exposing future residents to danger from flooding.

-       Result in loss of flood storage.

-       Site has no mains drainage so of site were to flood pollution of local watercourse would occur.

-       Site has been subject to flooding on at least 3 occasions in last 18 years.

-       Inappropriate to convert building to residential use when it is in such poor condition.

-       Incorrect ownership certificate has been submitted.

-       Proposal contrary to the Headcorn Neighbourhood Plan which given its advanced state should be given great weight in the determination of this application.

-       The private flood protection bund that has been constructed is not recognised by the EA and should not therefore be taken into account as flood protection measure.

-       The bund which was constructed in 2001 has not been properly maintained and furthermore is of insufficient height to take into account climate change flooding.

-       The bund does not lie in the ownership or control of the applicant and as such could be removed or altered at any time without the applicants consent.

-       Planning permission and listed building consent recently refused for similar proposals and do not consider there has been any material change in circumstances justifying a different decision.

-       No need for additional development in area given the amount of housing development permitted in Headcorn.

-       Additional traffic will result in harm to the free flow of traffic and highway safety.

-       Local residents under no obligation to allow access over existing private road – new access road will therefore have to be constructed to serve the development which is likely to have a further adverse impact on the area.

-       Will harm local flora and fauna.

-       Area not served by main drainages and additional discharge from the development is likely to result in additional pollution and flooding to the locality.


4.2       In addition the proximity of the site to Headcorn Aerodrome has also been referred to and that the site lies within its noise safeguarding zone. As such any development that may be permitted should not inhibit continued use of the aerodrome.




5.1       Responses received to application as originally submitted and following receipt of further information on ecology and flood risk           


5.2       Headcorn Parish Council:


-       Proposal does not comply with policy HNP3 of the neighbourhood plan and to approve development in a flood zone would be irresponsible and exacerbate existing flood related problems.

-       Originally submitted FRA is too out of date to be of any use in determining the level of the flood risk the site will be exposed to.

-       The updated FRA does not address the flood risk concerns.

-       Amendments to the elevations and additional ecology information do not address the main flood related concerns.


5.3       Environment Agency: When this application was first submitted it OBJECTED on the following grounds:


-       The crest height of the private flood embankment has not been confirmed as above the minimum acceptable crest height for the entire length and therefore are unable to confirm the proposed property will benefit from an acceptable level of flood protection which is likely to increase following the impact of climate change.

-       Also flood embankment is not wholly within the curtilage of the development site nor within the same ownership and so there is no guarantee the embankment will be maintained in the future.

-       The proposed floor level is below the design flood level and so unless the height of the embankment can be established and its maintenance secured in the future unable to confirm the risk of internal flooding to the proposed dwelling can be reduced to an acceptable level.

-       Also believe that safe access from the site is not possible under flood conditions however this is for the LPA to decide.


5.4       However following the submission of further details specifically addressing its concerns relating to the private flood embankment, the EA now raises NO OBJECTION. However it makes a number of comments which are summarised below:


-       For application 15/503223 for the same site, the outstanding issue and reason for objection was due to lack of safe access.

-       Advise LPA should consult its own emergency planning team on details of the Flood Warning and Evacuation plan submitted by the applicant as part of application 15/503223.

-       As previously stated if evacuation was required during flood conditions residents would have to move through over 250m of flood water at a depth of at least 0.5m to a point on Bletchenden Road at low risk of flooding.

-       Notwithstanding the above, the applicant has stated the crest level of the bund is at or above 20.35metres above Ordnance Datum (mAOD) and will be maintained at this level.

-       Confirm this level is sufficiently high enough to minimise the risk of fluvial flooding to the proposed development.

-       In summary, if the LPA consider the issue of safe access can be managed, are satisfied the risk of internal flooding to the proposed conversion will be minimised to an acceptable level.


5.5       KCC Public Rights of Way: Proposal does not affect nearby public rights of way running along the eastern and northern site boundaries.            


5.6       MBC Heritage: The application affects a 16th or 17th Century five bay barn which forms a group with the adjacent listed farmhouse. The principle of its conversion to a dwelling has been long established, the earliest permission for such a change of use dates back to 1988. The most recent permission in 2005 accepted the rebuilding/ conversion of the adjacent stable building which enabled a much more sympathetic conversion of the main barn to be put forward with minimal internal sub-division and insertion of upper floors.


The current application is more or less identical to the proposals in 2005, although it is no longer proposed to thatch the barn.


Therefore raise NO OBJECTION subject to conditions to secure samples of materials, joinery details, submission of a schedule of repairs, removal of PD rights and landscaping.


5.7       KCC Ecology: Satisfied the submitted information provides a good understanding of the ecological impacts of the development and sufficient information has been provided to determine the application.


            The survey bat makes clear that the buildings are being used as bat roosts but as replacement bat lofts are to be created within the converted barn, stable block and adjacent building this provides sufficient mitigation to ensure bats populations will nor be harm. Also commend use of Kent peg tiles for roofing as these create roosting spaces though tiles should only be laid on traditional bitumen roofing felt along with lighting to minimise impacts on bats. 


Site is within 50 metres of at least 3 ponds. However due to the size and footprint of these ponds being well stocked with fish satisfied that there is limited potential for GCN to be impacted by the development site.


Regarding reptiles/breeding birds satisfied the precautionary mitigation proposed is acceptable and subject to the enhancements set out satisfied that wildlife interests have been addressed.


6.0       APPRAISAL


6.1       Before moving onto the assessment of the proposal it first needs to be ‘screened’ regarding whether it should have been accompanied by an EIA. As the proposal does not constitute Schedule 2 Development, as set out in the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017, nor does the application site lie within an AONB there is no requirement for an EIA.


6.2       The key issues in relation to this proposal are considered to be (a) principle (b) impact on rural character and the area of Local landscape Value. (c) amenity (d) heritage considerations (e) flooding (f) wildlife and (g) highways.




6.3       Planning permission has already been granted for the residential conversion of this building under ref: 05/1064. In addition the more recent refusals to convert the barn into a dwelling under refs: 15/506450 and 15/506451 were both refused on matters of detail not principle. It is therefore considered the principle of conversion of the building to a dwelling is acknowledged and its remains to assess whether the proposal can be seen to continue to comply with the provisions of policy DM31 of the Local Plan relating to the conversion of rural buildings.


            Impact on rural character and Area of Local Landscape Value


6.4       The assessment of the proposal in relation to the above concerns largely revolves around whether the proposal meets the key provisions of policy DM31 of the local plan. Policy DM31 states, amongst other things, that the reuse and adaption of existing rural buildings meeting the following criteria will be permitted which, in summary, are:


-       Building reinforces local character;

-       Is capable of conversion without major reconstruction;

-       That any alterations are in character;

-       Sufficient room to park vehicles without harming the character of the countryside and;

-       Suitably sensitive means of enclosure.


6.5       However policy DM31 also states, amongst other things, that residential reuse will not be permitted unless the following are also addressed, in summary, being:


-       Every reasonable attempt has been made to secure a reasonable business reuse of the building;

-       Is the only means of securing a suitable reuse for a listed building, unlisted building of quality grouped with one or more Listed Buildings in such a way as to contribute to the setting of the Listed Building/s or other building/s of quality and; 

-       Acceptable amenity space provision.


6.6       However the above criteria substantially reflect those of the former local plan policies under which planning permission was previously granted (and refused) for the residential conversion of this building.


6.7       Given the proposal effectively represents a resubmission of the residential change of use and works approved in 2005 and which met the above criteria, it is considered the proposal, by inference, also meets the provisions of policy DM31 above. By meeting the provisions of policy DM31 and having regard to the well enclosed, inward looking and self contained nature of the site, facing away from open countryside and forming part of an equally self contained grouping of building on this side of the track, it is considered there will be no material impact on the rural or landscape character of the area.




6.8       The property most likely to be affected by the proposal is Bletchenden Manor Farm abutting the application site to the east. Given that the bulk and profile of the barn to the converted will not change and a ‘flank to flank’ separation distance in excess of 10 metres is maintained, no material harm is identified to the outlook or amenity of Bletchenden Manor Farm. Furthermore the run down condition of the building and site in general means the proposed development will bring an uplift to the area and improvement to the visual amenity of properties abutting or overlooking the site. 


6.9       In terms of the amenity of future residents, the size of the dwelling, its amenity area with the site occupying a well screened and secluded position means no objection is identified in this respect.


            Heritage Considerations:


6.10     The proposed conversion involves (a) retention of the existing barn along with it key internal and external features (b) minimal external changes thereby avoiding the building appearing overly domestic and retaining the ‘memory’ of its previous agricultural use and (c) removal of outbuildings and their consolidation into a single storey outbuilding clearly subordinate in scale and appearance to the converted barn. The proposal will also provide a long term use of this currently run down heritage asset. 


6.11     As such given the positive comments of the Heritage Advisor and subject to the conditions recommended, the proposal is considered to meet the heritage requirements of the NPPF and policy DM4 of the local plan.







6.12     Having regard to the sites location in an area at risk of flooding and that the proposal represents a flood sensitive use, the application was accompanied by an FRA dated August 2005. Following concerns this was significantly out of date a revised FRA was submitted setting out a number of flood risk management measures as follows:


-       Construction of a clay bund in October 2007 protecting the application site and other nearby properties from flooding.

-       Flood defences within the applicants control set around 20.443 AOD whereas 1% Annual Exceedance Probability is 20.287 AOD.

-       Network of internal ditches within the bund to deal with surface water and where these outfall, they have been fitted with anti-flood valves to prevent water backing up into the protected area.

-       two surface water pumping stations have been constructed on the internal ditches so that surface and groundwater levels can be controlled by pumping excess water over the boundary.

-       Manual door barriers are to be fitted to all external doors to provide a water tight seal.

-       Covers for air bricks to prevent ingress of water into cavity of wall and pump installed under the block and beam floor to pump away any raising ground water.

-       Full port non-return valves to be installed in the sewerage treatment plant and ground floor toilets to prevent back flow into the property.

-       Mortar for the brickwork to contain a waterproofing agent and the brickwork thereafter to be sprayed with a waterproof sealant, the internal plaster to contain a waterproofing agent, all of which will limit the entry of water through the walls.

-       All door and window frames and openings for cables etc. to be sealed with a silicone gel to prevent entry of water at these points.

-       The ground floor will be approximately 400mm above outside ground level and no bedrooms are created on the ground floor.

-       No electrical sockets or switches to be lower than 800mm above floor level.

-       Property owner to sign up to the EA’s flood line to receive information and flood warnings by email and text.

-       Installation of flood warning system to ensure that safe egress from the property can be achieved during a flood event, giving plenty of time to vacate the property thus nullifying the risk to health and not burdening the rescue services.

-       The system can have CCTV attached to it enabling to be flood monitored by computer, tablet and phone.

-       Alarm will sound in the house, alerting occupants whether they are asleep or not or sent to portable devices around the world safeguarding the house when empty.

-       Alarm could be sent to other properties also reducing their exposure to a flood event.


6.13     Despite the above the EA at that time still maintained its objections on the grounds of uncertainty over the height and construction of the privately constructed flood embankment, future maintenance concerns and that safe access was not possible from the site in flood conditions.


6.14     An updated topographical survey of the whole bund has since been carried out and parts of the bund increased in height to above 20.35 AOD so that it is now above this level along the whole length of the bund.  On this basis the applicants consider the application site is protected from flooding in the same manner as the development allowed in the adjoining site to the west under application ref: 15/503223 and which was approved by the EA.


6.15    On this basis the EA have now withdrawn its objection to the proposal on flood risk grounds though leaving the Council to make its own assessment as to whether safe access and egress can be gained to the site. This was similarly the case for application ref:15/503223.


6.16     The assessment in connection with ref:15/503223 was that given the range of physical mitigation measures along with early warning and alarm measures, it was considered that even without the presence of the flood protection bund that future residents would be unlikely to be placed at risk of an unforeseen flooding inundation.


6.17     Furthermore that even if the property was to be surrounded by floodwater residents needing to leave the building or emergency services needing to gain access to the site would have to move through 250 metres of flood water of at least 0.5 metres deep before getting to, or from higher ground on Bletchenden Road (as would be the case with the current proposal). It was concluded that while negotiating such a depth of water was not desirable, given the water would be still/slow moving it was considered unlikely this would prove an insuperable obstacle to entering or leaving the site. Given that flooding levels and distance to higher ground in connection with the current proposal remains the same, it is again concluded unlikely this would prove an insuperable obstacle to entering or leaving the site.


6.18    As such having regard to the range of proposed flood protection/mitigation measures (including the presence of the flood protection bund) it is considered future residents of the site will not be exposed to unacceptable flood risks.


Wildlife and habitat considerations:


6.19     The wildlife assessment submitted with the proposal identified water features, trees and semi improved grassland all as having some wildlife potential though it concluded the majority of site has low potential due to the prevalence of hardstandings,  paved areas and introduced garden plants preventing notable flowering plants from establishing.


6.20     The water features identified in or close to the application site all contained significant fish stocks making then unlikely habitats for Great Crested Newts though the site contains habitats capable of supporting reptiles. There was also evidence the existing building providing habitat for breeding birds though no evidence of badger activity.


6.21     A bat emergence survey concluded that the barn had had high potential to support roosting bats. As the site lacks wooded areas it does not provide a suitable habitat for dormice while no evidence of protected invertebrates was identified.


6.22      Based on the above the following mitigation/enhancement measures are proposed being:


-       Work only to be undertaken outside bird breeding season.

-       Provision of bat lofts.

-       Vegetation cleared in a way to safeguard reptiles along with the erection and maintenance of exclusion fencing.

-       Use of native broadleaved trees and plants to be sourced locally

-       Two martin/swallow nest boxes on the newly proposed buildings.

-       Placing a bat roost box on one of the willow trees along the adjacent pond.


6.23     Given the nature and scale of the development and the positive comments from KCC Ecology, it is considered the proposed measures represents a proportionate and sensitive approach to wildlife considerations in accordance with the provisions of the NPPF and policy DM3 of the Local Plan.





Highway considerations


6.24          In the absence of previous objections to the residential reuse of this building, minimal traffic generation and that sufficient on site parking and turning space is available no harm identified to the proposal on highway grounds.


            Other matters


6.25       Concern has been raised that the proposal will result in the loss of flood storage. As site coverage essentially remains the same and in the absence of objection from the EA such an objection cannot be sustained.


6.26       In the absence of formal adoption of the Headcorn Neighbourhood this is not yet a material consideration that can be given weight in the determination of this application.


6.27       It is acknowledged the bund does not wholly lie in the ownership or control of the applicant and as such could technically be removed or altered at any time without the applicants consent. However as the bund provides flood protection for a number of properties retention of the bund would appear to be in all parties interests.


6.28       Local residents may choose to withhold permission to use the existing private road which is a private matter. However as the proposal is currently shown with access this possibility cannot be taken into account in determining the application. Should agreement fail to be reached an alternative access requiring planning permission may be necessary which would be assessed on its merits at the time.




7.1      Given the above it is considered appropriate to conclude the following:


-        No harm is identified to the rural character or landscape character of the area.

-        Represents an acceptable conversion/extension in accordance with the provisions of policy DM31 of the Local Plan.

-        Is acceptable in its amenity and heritage impacts.  

-        Proposed mitigation measures are proportionate to the level of flood risk identified

-        Makes sufficient provision for wildlife in accordance with the NPPF and policy DM3 of the Local Plan.

-        Is acceptable in its highway impacts.


7.2       In the circumstances it is considered the balance of issues fall in favour of the proposal and planning permission should be granted as a consequence.


8.0       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.    Prior to the development reaching eaves level joinery details of the proposed windows and doors shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The details shall specify materials and finishes and include large scale plans at a scale of 1:20 showing long and cross profiles of the mullions, transoms and cills.  Work shall only be carried out in accordance with the approved details and retained as such at all times thereafter.


Reason: In the interests of visual amenity. This information is required prior to commencement as some works have already been carried out on the site.


3.       Prior to the development reaching eaves level written details and samples of all external materials including those to be used for permeable surface materials, access ways, parking and turning areas shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be constructed using the approved materials. 

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity.

4.       Prior to first occupation of the building hereby approved fencing, walling and other boundary treatments shall be in place which are in accordance with details that have previously been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority with the approved details retained for the lifetime of the development.

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity.

5.       Prior to first occupation of the dwelling hereby approved approved a native species landscaping scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme, which shall be implmented in the first available planting scheme followign first occupation, shall show existing trees and hedgerows to be retained, and specify the areas of new planting, the type, size and density of any planting along with long term management details of the landscaping scheme. Any planting becoming dead, dying or diseased within 5 years of planting shall be replaced with a similar species of a size to be agreed in writing beforehand with the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity.

6.       The development shall not commence, and before any equipment, machinery or materials are brought onto the site, barriers and/or ground protection in accordance with BS 5837 (2005) 'Trees in Relation to Construction-Recommendations' shall be in place to protect  any trees/hedgerows that are to be retained. The barriers and/or ground protection shall be maintained until all equipment, machinery and surplus materials have been removed from the site. Nothing shall be stored or placed, nor fires lit, within any of the areas protected in accordance with this condition. The siting of barriers/ground protection shall not be altered, nor ground levels changed, nor excavations made within these areas without the written consent of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity. This work is required prior to commencement in order to protect any trees or hedgerows retrained on the site.

7.       No external lighting whatsover shall be installed without the written prior approval of the Local Planning Authority. Any lighting shall only be installed in accordance with the approved details and retained as such at all times thereafter.

Reason: To safeguard the nightime rural environment and in the interests of wildlife protection.

8.       Mitigation measures shall be carried out in accordance the details set out in paragraphs 5.5 and 5.6 of the submitted Bat Roost Emergence Survey Report carried out by Hone Ecology dated 24th May 2016.

       Reason: In the interests of wildlife.

9.      The mitigation/enhancements set out paragraphs 8.2-8.17 (inc) set out in extended phase 1 Ecological Habitat Survey Report carried out by Hone Ecology dated the 24th May 2015 shall be implemented and maintained in accordance with the submitted details.

       Reason: In the interests of wildlife.


10.   The development shall not commence until the following details to deal with the risks associated with contamination of the site have first been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority:

1) A preliminary risk assessment which has identified:

- all previous uses

- potential contaminants associated with those uses

- a conceptual model of the site indicating sources, pathways and receptors

- potentially unacceptable risks arising from contamination at the site.

2) A site investigation, based on (1) to provide information for a detailed assessment of the risk to all receptors that may be affected, including those off site.

3) A remediation method statement (RMS) based on the site investigation results and the detailed risk assessment (2). This should give full details of the remediation measures required and how they are to be undertaken. The RMS should also include a verification plan to detail the data that will be collected in order to demonstrate that the works set out in the RMS are complete and identifying any requirements for longer-term monitoring of pollutant linkages, maintenance and arrangements for contingency action.

4) A Closure Report is submitted upon completion of the works. The closure report shall include full verification details as set out in 3. This should include details of any post remediation sampling and analysis, together with documentation certifying quantities and source/destination of any material brought onto or taken from the site. Any material brought onto the site shall be certified clean;

Any changes to these components require the express consent of the local planning authority. The scheme shall thereafter be implemented as approved.


Reason: In the interests of amenity and public safety. The details are required prior to commencement as further construction works may restrict the scope of any necessary remediation works.


11.   Prior to first occupation of the development hereby approved the flood risk management and warning regime shall be implemented in accordance with the details set out in paragraphs 7.01-7.16 (inc) of the flood risk assessment carried out by Monson dated the 5th November 2015 and shall be maintained as such at all times thereafter.

Reason: In the interests of flood protection .

12.   No sleeping accomodation shall be provided on the ground floor of the building hereby permitted.

       Reason: In the interests of flood protection .

13.   Ground floor levels shall be 400mm above the existing ground level and there shall be no changes to existing ground levels within any part of the site.


       Reason: In the interests of flood protection and to maintain flood storage capacity.


14.   The development shall not commence until the applicant, or their agents or successors in title, has secured the implementation of a watching brief to be undertaken by an archaeologist approved by the Local Planning Authority so that the excavation is observed and items of interest and finds are recorded. The watching brief shall be in accordance with a written programme and specification which has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority.


       Reason: To ensure features of archaeological interest are properly examined and recorded. This information is required prior to commencement as works may harm items of archaeological value.


15   Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification) no development within Schedule 2, Part 1, Class(es) A, B, C, D, E, F and H to that Order shall be carried out without the permission of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To safeguard the character, fabric and setting of the heritage asset.


16     The development shall not commence until details of surface and waste water disposal have been submitted for the prior approval in writing of the local planning authority. The development shall only be carried out in accordance with the approved details which shall be maintained as such at all times thereafter.


       Reason: In the interests of flood and pollution prevention. This information is required prior to commencement as works may prevent the installation of necessary measures.


17. Prior to the development hereby approved comencing a repairs schedule shall be submitted for prior approval in writing by the Local Planning Authority.


Reason: To safguard the character and fabric of the heritage asset.

18.       The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans being drawing nos: 1544-001 rev A, 002 rev A, 100 rev A, 101 rev A, 102 rev A, 103 rev B, 105 Rev C , 010 rev A, 011 rev B, 012 rev A and 014 Rev A


       Reason: To ensure the quality of the development is maintained in the interests of visual amenity.





As the development involves demolition and / or construction the development should be carried out in accordance with the Mid Kent Environmental Code of Development Practice.



The applicant is advised that adequate and suitable measures should be carried out for the minimisation of asbestos fibres during demolition, so as to prevent airborne fibres from affecting workers carrying out the work, and nearby properties. Only contractors licensed by the Health and Safety Executive should be employed. Any redundant materials removed from the site should be transported by a registered waste carrier and disposed of at an appropriate legal tipping site.




The two most important features of street and security lighting with respect to bats are:

1. The UV component. Low or zero UV installations are preferred to reduce attraction of insects to lighting and therefore to reduce the attraction of foraging bats to these areas.

2. Restriction of the area illuminated. Lighting must be shielded to maintain dark

areas, particularly above lighting installations, and in many cases, land adjacent to the

areas illuminated. The aim is to maintain dark commuting corridors for foraging and

commuting bats. Bats avoid well lit areas, and these create barriers for flying bats

between roosting and feeding areas.

UV characteristics:


Low pressure Sodium Lamps (SOX) emit a minimal UV component.

High pressure Sodium Lamps (SON) emit a small UV component.

White SON, though low in UV, emit more than regular SON.


Metal Halide lamps emit more UV than SON lamps, but less than Mercury lamps

Mercury lamps (MBF) emit a high UV component.

Tungsten Halogen, if unfiltered, emit a high UV component

Compact Fluorescent (CFL), if unfiltered, emit a high UV component.


Light Emitting Diodes (LEDs) have a range of UV outputs. Variants are available with low or minimal UV output.

Glass glazing and UV filtering lenses are recommended to reduce UV output.

Street lighting

Low-pressure sodium or high-pressure sodium must be used instead of mercury or metal halide lamps. LEDs must be specified as low UV. Tungsten halogen and CFL sources must have appropriate UV filtering to reduce UV to low levels.

Lighting must be directed to where it is needed and light spillage avoided. Hoods must be used on each lamp to direct light and contain spillage. Light leakage into hedgerows and trees must be avoided.

If possible, the times during which the lighting is on overnight must be limited to provide

some dark periods. If the light is fitted with a timer this must be adjusted to reduce the

amount of 'lit time' and provide dark periods.

Security and domestic external lighting

The above recommendations concerning UV output and direction apply. In addition:

Lighting should illuminate only ground floor areas - light should not leak upwards to

illuminate first floor and higher levels;

Lamps of greater than 2000 lumens (150 W) must not be used;

Movement or similar sensors must be used - they must be carefully installed and

aimed, to reduce the amount of time a light is on each night;

Light must illuminate only the immediate area required, by using as sharp a downward angle as possible;

Light must not be directed at or close to bat roost access points or flight paths from the roost - a shield or hood can be used to control or restrict the area to be lit;

Wide angle illumination must be avoided as this will be more disturbing to foraging

and commuting bats as well as people and other wildlife;

Lighting must not illuminate any bat bricks and boxes placed on buildings, trees or

other nearby locations.