Your Councillors

09-0570_rep

APPLICATION: �� MA/09/0570�� Date: 1 April 2009 Received: 14 September 2009

APPLICANT:	Mr P.� Howard

LOCATION:	3, NORTHDOWNS VIEW, HARRIETSHAM, MAIDSTONE, KENT, ME17 1AQ ��
PARISH:	Harrietsham

PROPOSAL:	Erection of detached single storey dwelling and detached garage as shown on drawing numbers 08.1500.01, 08.1500.04, 08.1500.05 and 08.1500.06 received on 2/4/09 as amended by drawing number 08.1500.08 and tree report received on 14/9/09.
AGENDA DATE: CASE OFFICER:	18th March 2010 Peter Hockney

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

●� it is contrary to views expressed by Harrietsham Parish Council

1. POLICIES

Maidstone Borough-Wide Local Plan 2000:� ENV6, H27, T13
South East Plan 2009: CC4, H4, H5, M1, BE1, T4

Government Policy:� PPS1, PPS3, PPG13, PPG24

2. HISTORY

No relevant history

3. CONSULTATIONS

3.1�� Harrietsham Parish Council wishes to see the application REFUSED on the following grounds:-

� The revised plans show a garage at the front of the property, which is not in keeping with the street scene.

� The removal of the TPO tree numbered TPO 9 of 2009.

3.2�� Kent Highway Services raise no objections to the application and are satisfied with the parking and access arrangements.

3.3�� MBC Landscape Officer states:-

�I�ve had a look at the Tree report (H255) and agree with the findings.�

3.4�� MBC Environmental Health Manager raises no objections to the application and states that although it is beside the busy A20 traffic noise is less likely to be a problem due to the reduced speeds of traffic in this area. Informatives are recommended for imposition on any approval.

4. REPRESENTATIONS

4.1�� Four letters of objection have been received from the occupiers of the neighbouring property �Hawkley Lodge� on the following grounds:-

� Overlooking and loss of privacy.

� Loss of light.

� Loss of trees, including that covered by a TPO and hedgerow.

� The development is contrary to policy H19 of the Maidstone Borough-Wide Local Plan (2000).

� Insufficient visibility onto the A20 from the access.

� Potential damage to adjoining property from tree removal and newly planted tree.

4.2�� One letter has been received from a planning agent on behalf of the occupiers of the neighbouring property �Hawkley Lodge� raising the following issues:-

� Overlooking and loss of privacy.

� Loss of light.

� It will sit forward of Hawkley Lodge and will thus have a dominating affect.

� No details of slab levels have been included in the application.� If the bungalow is constructed in an elevated position relative to Hawkley Lodge, it will have an undesirable and additional dominating effect.

� The proposal would result in overlooking of Hawkley Lodge and 4 Northdowns View.

� The alterations to the front boundary hedge and tree would introduce a suburban aspect to the frontage.

� Loss of TPO tree.

� Inadequate amenity space for 3 Northdowns View.

� Traffic noise from the A20 would lead to an unsatisfactory level of amenity.

5. CONSIDERATIONS

5.1�� Site Location and Description

5.1.1 The application site relates to the southern part of an existing rear garden to 3 Northdowns View located within the village envelope of Harrietsham. It is approximately 0.05 hectares in area.

5.1.2 The site is bounded to the south by Ashford Road (A20), to the east by 4 Northdowns View and to the west by �Hawkley Lodge�. The context of this part of Ashford Road is of detached low rise properties fronting onto Ashford Road. The majority of these properties are relatively new (constructed within the last 20 years) and include �Hawkley Lodge�, �Jeremiah� and �Wealden Lodge� to the west.

5.1.3 The site contains a number of trees, including a sycamore covered by TPO 9 of 2009. This was imposed on 27 May 2009 during the life of this application. There is an extensive boundary hedge to the front of the site forming the boundary with Ashford Road.

5.2�� Proposed Development

5.2.1 The application is a full application for the erection of a single bungalow and detached single garage with a new vehicular access onto Ashford Road.

5.2.2 The dwelling would be approximately 2.2 metres to eaves and 5.2 metres to the ridge. It would be set back a minimum of approximately 11m. The detached garage would be positioned in front of the dwelling and would be approximately 2 metres to eaves and 3.2 metres to ridge with a minimum set back of approximately 6.5 metres.

5.2.3 The development would involve the loss of two trees an ash tree and the sycamore tree covered by TPO 9 of 2009. A field maple is proposed to be planted as a replacement specimen.

5.3�� Principle of Development

5.3.1 The application site is within the identified village envelope of Harrietsham within the Maidstone Borough-Wide Local Plan (2000). The site is part of a residential garden and therefore falls within the definition of previously developed land in PPS3.

5.3.2 The principle of minor residential development within identified village boundaries is accepted under policy H27 of the Maidstone Borough-Wide Local Plan (2000). Harrietsham is identified as a Rural Service Centre in the Local Development Scheme (September 2009). Government Guidance on housing contained within PPS3 considers development of new housing on such previously developed sites as generally acceptable.

5.3.3 The minimum density set out in guidance is 30 dwellings per hectare. The area of the site is 0.05 hectares and would equate to 1.5 dwellings using the minimum density. As such I consider that the erection of one dwelling here to be acceptable, especially given the nature of the other plots located to the west.

5.4�� Design and Visual Impact

5.4.1 The area is characterised by residential development, in particular properties fronting Ashford Road with a significant set back from Ashford Road. This includes the properties of �Hawkley Lodge�, �Jeremiah� and �Wealden Lodge� immediately to the west. These properties have been built following similar applications for the erection of single dwellings in the rear gardens of properties to the north. The results are detached properties within the rear gardens that front onto Ashford Road. Whilst the design of the dwelling is not groundbreaking or particularly high quality the key characteristic to embrace in this location is the small scale of the dwellings. Therefore the development would fit into the context of the surrounding development and would not appear out of place.

5.4.2 The proposed dwelling would be a low rise single bungalow 2.2 metres to eaves and 5.2 metres to the ridge and in this respect would be of a similar scale to other properties in the immediate vicinity. It would be set a significant distance back from the front boundary with Ashford Road approximately 11m. There is not a strong building line in this part of Ashford Road and the proposed set back would be acceptable. The existing hedgerow to the boundary with Ashford Road would be maintained outside of the visibility splays with a double row of hawthorn hedgerow proposed outside the visibility splay. The dwelling would not appear dominant in the street and the maintenance and enhancement of the frontage planting would screen the majority of the development and soften its impact. Its visual impact would be acceptable.

5.4.3 The proposal would also involve the erection of a detached single garage positioned in front of the dwelling. It would usually be unacceptable to locate a garage in front of a dwelling as it would generally result in an incongruous feature within the street that does not fit the context of an area. However, within the immediate area there are other outbuildings close to Ashford Road particularly a detached garage at Wealden Lodge to the west and a building to the rear of �Maple Tree House� and on the corner of Ashford Road and Downlands to the east. The existence of these other detached outbuildings combined with the small scale of the garage, 2 metres to eaves and 3.2 metres to ridge, the set back of 6.5 metres from the boundary with Ashford Road and the maintenance of the hedgerow frontage would ensure that the location of this garage closer to the road than the proposed dwelling would be visually acceptable.

5.4.4 There is a significant level of proposed hardstanding that would be located to the front of the site as a parking area with vehicular access onto Ashford Road. However, this is comparable to other dwellings in the area and would allow for adequate turning facilities for vehicles even when a number of cars are parked on the site. This would be required in terms of highway safety and therefore I consider that in this case the level of hardstanding is acceptable.

5.5�� Impact on Residential Amenity

5.5.1 The proposed development would be located to the south of 3 Northdowns View, to the east of �Hawkley Lodge� and to the south west of 4 Northdowns View. These would be the three properties most likely to be affected by the proposal.

5.5.2 The separation distance between 3 Northdowns View and the proposed dwelling would be approximately 19m. This distance combined with the small scale nature of the dwelling would ensure that there would be no loss of light or an overwhelming impact on the occupiers of 3 Northdowns View. The single storey nature of the development would ensure there would be no loss of privacy caused to these occupiers by the occupiers of the proposed dwelling.

5.5.3 The property of �Hawkley Lodge� would be approximately 8 metres from the proposed dwelling. This separation and the small scale of the dwelling would ensure there would be no loss of light or overwhelming impact from the development of the proposed dwelling. The 1.8m close boarded fence along the boundary would prevent any overlooking from the proposed single storey dwelling. Conditions limiting permitted development for extensions and the submission of details of slab levels would ensure that no adverse impact would occur to the residential amenity of the occupiers of �Hawkley Lodge�.

5.5.4 The dwelling of 4 Northdowns View would be approximately 12m from the proposed dwelling at its closest point. This distance combined with the small scale nature of the dwelling would ensure that there would be no loss of light or an overwhelming impact on the occupiers of 4 Northdowns View. The single storey nature of the development and the angle of view from the rear facing bedroom window would ensure there would be no loss of privacy caused to these occupiers by the occupiers of the proposed dwelling.

5.6�� Impact on Trees

5.6.1 The application site contains a sycamore tree close to the western boundary of the site that is covered by TPO 9 of 2009 as well as other trees including an ash tree another sycamore tree near the southern boundary with Ashford Road. The application includes the removal of the protected sycamore tree and the ash tree close to the western boundary with a proposed replacement field maple to be located in the south west corner of the site near the boundary with Ashford Road.

5.6.2 An arboricultural report in accordance with BS5837 has been submitted which has categorised the trees on site and identified the sycamore tree as a category C tree. The replacement field maple tree would be 20-25cm girth and 6m tall. The report identifies the root protection areas for the remainder of the trees on site and contains recommendations to ensure that these trees are not damaged.

5.6.3 The Council�s landscape officer has examined the report and agrees with its findings. There are no objections regarding the loss of the ash tree or the protected sycamore.

5.7�� Highway Considerations

5.7.1 The proposal involves the creation of a vehicular access onto Ashford Road. The visibility splays would be adequate and the area of hardstanding would be sufficient to allow turning areas for cars to enter and leave the site in a forward gear.

5.7.2 There would be no hazard to highway safety from the proposed development and this is evidenced by no objections being raised by Kent Highway Services.

5.8�� Other Considerations

5.8.1 The noise level from traffic using Ashford Road is a consideration with regard to this development. The Council�s Environmental Health Manager considers that traffic noise is less likely to be a problem due to the reduced speeds of traffic in this area. Therefore adequate residential amenity would be afforded to future occupiers of the dwelling.

5.8.2 The objector states that the development would not comply with policy H19 of the Maidstone Borough-Wide Local Plan (2000). However, this policy has not been saved and is no longer part of the Development Plan and cannot be a consideration in the determination of this application.

5.8.3 In accordance with policy CC4 of the South East Plan (2009) it will be appropriate to impose a condition requiring the development to achieve level 3 on the Code for Sustainable Homes.

5.8.4 Any damage caused to neighbouring properties either by tree removal or construction would be a private matter between the relevant parties and not a planning matter.

5.8.5 The development and the division of the garden would result in an adequate private garden area for both 3 Northdowns View and the proposed property.

5.9�� Conclusion

5.9.1 The proposed dwelling on this previously developed site within the village envelope is acceptable in principle and accords with national and local policies. The dwelling would not result in any harm to the residential amenity of any neighbouring residents. There would be no harm to the character and appearance of the area and the development would complement the context of the area.

5.9.2 There would be no reasonable justification for the refusal of planning permission and as such I consider the application acceptable.

6. 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. The development shall not commence until, written details and samples of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the building(s) hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the development shall be constructed using the approved materials;

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory appearance to the development in accordance with policy BE1 of the South East Plan (2009).

3. The development shall not commence and no machinery or materials shall be brought onto the site until the tree protection measures contained within the tree report undertaken by Treeventures Ltd dated 18 June 2009 have been undertaken and these shall be fully complied with until the completion of the development;

Reason: To ensure adequate protection is afforded to trees on site and ensure no damage is caused in accordance with policies ENV6 of the Maidstone Borough-Wide Local Plan (2000) and BE1 of the South East Plan (2009).

4. All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the landscaping details shown on drawing number 08.1500.08 Rev A shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons following the occupation of the dwelling 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 in accordance with policies ENV6 of the Maidstone Borough-Wide Local Plan (2000) and BE1 of the South East Plan (2009).

5. The dwelling shall achieve Level 3 of the Code for Sustainable Homes. The dwelling shall not be occupied until a final Code Certificate has been issued for it certifying that Code Level 3 has been achieved;
�
Reason: To ensure a sustainable and energy efficient form of development in accordance with Policies CC4 and M1of the South East Plan (2009), Kent Design Guide 2000 and PPS1.

6. 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, Part 1, Classes A and B shall be carried out without the permission of the Local Planning Authority;

Reason: To safeguard the character and appearance of the development and the enjoyment of their properties by existing and prospective occupiers in accordance with policy BE1 of the South East Plan (2009).

7. The development shall not commence until, details of the proposed slab levels of the building(s) and the existing site levels have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the development shall be completed strictly in accordance with the approved levels;

�Reason: In order to secure a satisfactory form of development having regard to the topography of the site in accordance with policy BE1 of the South East Plan (2009).

Informatives set out below

Attention is drawn to Sections 60 & 61 of the COPA 1974 and to the Associated British Standard COP BS 5228:1997 for noise control on construction sites. Statutory requirements are laid down for control of noise during works of construction and demolition and you are advised to contact the Environmental Health Manager regarding noise control requirements.

Clearance and burning of existing woodland or rubbish must be carried without nuisance from smoke etc to nearby residential properties. Advice on minimising any potential nuisance is available from the Environmental Health Manager.

Plant and machinery used for demolition and construction shall only be operated within the application site between 0800 hours and 1900 hours on Mondays to Fridays and between 0800 hours and 1300 hours on Saturdays and at no time on Sunday and Bank Holidays.

Vehicles may only arrive, depart, be loaded or unloaded within the general site between the hours of 0800 hours and 1900 Mondays to Fridays and 0800 to 1300 hours on Saturdays and at no time on Sundays and Bank Holidays.

Adequate and suitable provision in the form of water sprays should be used to reduce dust from the site.

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 South East Plan 2009) and there are no overriding material considerations to indicate a refusal of planning consent.