APPLICATION:        MA/12/0133             Date: 28 January 2012             Received: 16 July 2012

 

APPLICANT:	Mr David  Hales
LOCATION:	BIO, FORGE LANE, BREDHURST, GILLINGHAM, KENT, ME7 3JW
PARISH:	Bredhurst
PROPOSAL:	Erection of a detached replacement dwelling as shown on plan numbers 2022-004 RevC, 2022-005 RevA and design and access statement received 30th January 2012 and site location plan received 31st January 2012 and plan number  2022-008 received 9th March 2012 and 2022-007 RevA and 2022-006 RevA received 16th July 2012.
AGENDA DATE:   CASE OFFICER:	26th July 2012   Kevin Hope

 

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

 

      ●  The council’s recommendation is contrary to the views of the parish council.

 

1.      POLICIES

 

• Maidstone Borough-Wide Local Plan 2000: ENV31, ENV33, ENV34
• South East Plan 2009: CC1, CC4, CC6, BE1, H4, H5, T4, NRM4, NRM10

·         Village Design Statement: N/A

·         Government Policy: National Planning Policy Framework 2012

 

2.      HISTORY

 

·              No previous planning history at this site

 

3.           CONSULTATIONS

 

3.1        Parish Council:  Bredhurst parish council – Raised objections to this proposal with the following comments:-

 

“Bredhurst Parish Council is not against the re-development of the site, but considers that the proposed development is not in keeping with the character of the village and the houses immediately around the site and therefore would like to see the application rejected. The proposed new development is twice the size of the current house and would overshadow the surrounding bungalows. If Maidstone Borough Council is minded to accept the development, then Bredhurst Parish Council would like to see the application brought before that planning committee so that these concerns can be addressed”.

 

3.2    Environmental Health Officer: Raised no objections with the following comments:-

 

“The proposed dwelling will be sited in the residential area of Bredhurst.  Although the site is approximately 200m from the M2, I do not consider that road traffic noise will be a problem at this location.  I note that the plans do not contains details relating to the collection of waste and recyclables.   Our records also indicate that land contamination is not likely at this location”.  

 

3.3     KCC Highways: Raised no objections with the following comments:-

 

“I refer to the above planning application and whilst I have concerns relating to visibility from the access due to the proposed boundary treatment and the position of the proposed entrance gates, I would raise no objection.

 

3.4     Landscape Officer: Raises no objections with the following comments:-

 

“I consider that the extent of landscaping proposed is appropriate. However, the landscaping detail is insufficient and the species choice is not particularly appropriate to the character of the area and I therefore suggest the use of a pre-commencement condition requiring a detailed landscaping scheme to be submitted and approved and a landscape implementation condition”.

 

4.      REPRESENTATIONS

         

4.1     Three representations have been received on this application, two raising objections on the proposal and one in support.  The issues raised include the impact of the height of the proposed dwelling, overshadowing, loss of privacy and loss of light to ‘Old Yew’, the proposed dwelling is considered to be out of keeping with the appearance and character of Forge Lane in both scale and design also highways issues are considered unsatisfactory as a result of the proposed vehicle access on to Forge Lane.

 

5.      CONSIDERATIONS

 

5.1     Site Description

 

5.1.1  The application site relates to a detached two storey dwelling sited within a large rectangular shaped plot within the village envelope of Bredhurst.  The dwelling is currently vacant and is in a state of disrepair.  There is no planning history at this site which suggests the dwelling was constructed prior to 1948.  The dwelling currently has rendered elevations with a tiled roof.  There is also a single attached garage to the dwelling and an area of hardstanding to the front providing additional parking provision.  The dwelling is set on a higher level than the road with a difference of approximately 1m. There is some low level hedging and planting forming the front boundary treatment to the site.  To the south eastern front boundary, there is an established hedge maintained at a height of approximately 1.8m bordering the neighbouring property ‘Old Yew’.  To the rear, there is a rectangular shaped garden which is some what overgrown.  The garden is bordered by a row of tall established conifer trees to the north western boundary with a range of other planting at a lower level to the south eastern boundary.  There is also the provision of 1.8m high panel fencing to the south eastern and south western boundaries.  It appears that there was previously some established and overgrown planting within the rest of the rear garden area although this has recently been cleared.

 

5.1.2  In terms of the character of the surrounding area, the streetscene of Forge Lane comprises a range of dwellings of a variety of ages and scales.  The application dwelling forms part of a small row of properties which line a narrow through road from Dunn Street Road to Forge Lane. The neighbouring single storey properties to the south east have a consistent building line and pattern of development although the application dwelling is set back further from the road with a greater spacing to the side boundary.  The application dwelling is also located on a prominent corner plot at the junction of Forge Lane and the narrow through road. Beyond this, the dwellings to the northern side of Forge Lane are set on a lower level than the road creating a sloping effect in the streetscene, many of these dwellings are chalet style one and a half stories.  The resulting streetscene comprises residential development of a range of styles.

 

5.1.3  The application site is designated as a Special Landscape Area, Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and Strategic Gap.  As such, a number of relevant Maidstone Borough Wide Local Plan 2000 policies apply as outlined above.

 

5.2     Proposal

 

5.2.1  Planning permission is sought for the erection of a detached replacement dwelling.  The dwelling would be two storey in scale with a hipped roof design.  This would also involve a number of projecting two storey hipped roof elements creating texture and prominence within the front principal elevation.  The dwelling would measure approximately 15.5m in width and would be 15.3m in length.  The eaves height and ridge height of the dwelling would measure approximately 4.9m and 8.5m respectively.

 

5.2.2  It is also proposed to include the provision of railing topped boundary walling to the front elevation including entrance gates.  Beyond this would be an area of hardstanding providing parking in addition to the integral garage and border planting.

 

5.2.3  The submitted design and access statement states that the dwelling would be of brick construction with a rendered finish to the elevations, although maintaining a brick plinth. Slate roof tiling would be used for the roofing material.  No further details or samples have been provided.

 

5.3     Principle of development

 

5.3.1  In terms of whether a development of this type is acceptable in principle, Development Plan policy and central Government guidance encourages housing in sustainable urban locations as an alternative to residential development in more remote countryside situations.  Replacement housing within defined village and urban boundaries is acceptable in principle, especially where the wider character of the area is predominantly residential, but clearly the detail of the scheme must be appropriate.  Therefore, consideration will be given to the guidance contained within the National Planning Policy Framework 2012 together with applicable policies within the Maidstone Borough Wide Local Plan 2000 and the South East Plan 2009 as outlined under section 1.

 

5.4     Visual Impact

 

5.4.1  Due to the prominent location of the application site at a junction and bend within Forge Lane, the visual impact of the proposed dwelling is an important consideration.  At present, the existing dwelling is set back some way in to the site, further back than the established building line of the dwellings to the south east which reduces the dominance of the building within the streetcene.  This characteristic would be maintained with the proposed replacement dwelling with the dwelling set back a minimum of 8.4m from the front boundary.  With this maintained set back location, significant views of the proposed dwelling would not be possible when travelling east due to the dense screening to the north western boundary and therefore reducing the dominance and overall visual impact of the dwelling.

 

5.4.2  In terms of design, I consider the projecting elements of the front elevation are well articulated with the scale and proportions of the front elevation and act as a focal point to the front elevation denoting the entrance to the property.  This incorporates a significant level of glazing although I consider this to be a positive feature which increases light through the building and reduces the presence within the streetcene.  I note that the dwelling would extend some distance to the rear creating a square shaped building; however, the overall bulk of the dwelling is reduced with the incorporation of the flat topped hipped roof. I therefore do not consider that the overall bulk of the dwelling is excessive.  In addition, the projecting elements to the front elevation also assist in breaking up the overall bulk of the development and create a good level of visual interest to the building. Furthermore, the introduction of the brick plinth with rendered elevations and the strong fenestration detail further adds to the building’s visual interest.  I appreciate that the side elevations of the proposed dwelling would appear bulky in scale and unarticulated to a degree.  However, the north western side elevation would be well screened by the existing dense trees.  Similarly, the south eastern side elevation would be largely screened by the existing row of single storey dwellings to the south east due to the set back location of the proposed dwelling.

 

5.4.3  With regard to the frontage of the development, the submitted plans show a 0.5m high wall running along the front north east facing boundary.  This includes a gated entrance.  Negotiations have taken place with agent concerning this boundary treatment which originally comprised 1.8m high walling and gates. This revised design with a reduced scale, retains the open character to this part of the streetscene and also assists in reducing the visual impact upon this prominent corner location within the street.  Beyond this boundary treatment, there is an area of hardstanding providing parking provision.  This has also been the subject of negotiations and has been reduced with an increased level of landscaping from the original proposal.

 

5.4.4 In terms of the character of the surrounding area, it should be noted that in the vicinity there is a varied streetscene in terms of the scale, design and age of properties. Whilst, the immediately adjacent dwellings are single storey, the existing dwelling to be demolished is two storey and a number of chalet style dwellings of one and a half stories within the vicinity.  This varied character together with the different levels of the plots creates a diverse and mixed streetscene.  In addition to this, many of the dwellings to the north west of the site are of a similar footprint to that proposed and so the scale of the dwelling is not significantly out of context. I appreciate that this design is more modern in character than the surrounding dwellings, although I consider that this would further add to the variety in design and appearance in this street. I therefore consider that the proposed dwelling would not appear significantly out of keeping and would not appear over dominant or incongruous within this streetscene.

 

5.4.5 I therefore consider the siting, scale and design of the proposed dwelling to be acceptable.  Indeed, I believe that this proposal would not appear visually intrusive but positively integrate with the streetscene and surrounding area.

 

5.5     Highways

 

5.5.1  The site already has an existing residential use, the development would continue to have vehicle access onto Forge Lane and there would be an adequate vehicle turning area within the site.  I therefore consider there to be no significant highway safety issues and that this proposal would not generate significant enough vehicle movements to and from this site, to justify refusal on the grounds of highway safety. The KCC Highways Officer has been consulted on this proposal and has raised no objections.

 

5.5.2  It should also be noted that the ‘Kent Design Guide – Residential Parking’ has not been formally adopted by Maidstone Borough Council and that there are no minimum or maximum parking standards that residential development has to adhere to.

 

5.5.3  Sustainability

 

5.5.4  The site lies within the defined urban area and is within walking distance of local amenities; and there is a bus service serving Maidstone and Medway within walking distance of the site.  I therefore consider the site to be within a sustainable location.

 

5.6     Landscaping

 

5.6.1  There is a degree of landscaping proposed within this development involving shrub planting within borders to the front of the dwelling and abutting the proposed front boundary wall.  This would soften the appearance of the building and would create a more residential appearance to the building. In my view, this level of landscaping is sufficient in this case to soften the appearance to the development.

 

5.6.2 As previously stated, there is a line of established conifer trees to the north western boundary reaching some 10m in height together with a number of other specimens to the front of the existing dwelling. The submitted layout plan shows that two trees would be removed from the front of the site although I do not consider that this would cause any visual harm. The row of conifer trees are shown to be retained although there are no tree protection details submitted.  As such, a condition shall be imposed requesting such details prior to the commencement of development.  I do not consider that the trees on site are of a significant value to warrant protection by a TPO.  The submitted plan also shows the provision of some low level planting within the front of the site and also to the frontage and behind the proposed boundary walling.  Again, this I consider would provide a softer appearance to the development and improve the overall appearance to the development.  The landscape officer has been consulted on this and agrees that the level of landscaping is appropriate.  However, there are no details with regard to the planting species or size.  I therefore consider it appropriate to request full landscaping details prior to commencement.

 

5.7     Neighbouring Amenity

 

5.7.1  In terms of the impact upon neighbouring amenity, I note that a representation has been received with regard to overshadowing, loss of privacy and loss of light to ‘Old Yew’. I have assessed this by applying a BRE 45˚ light test comprising an elevation and floor plan test.  Whilst the floor plan test indicates that the projection of the dwelling to the rear may result in a loss of light to the rear of ‘Old Yew’, the elevation test shows that there would not result in a loss of light to this property due to the spacing of approximately 6m between the two dwellings.  The BRE guidelines state that in order for a development to result in a significant loss of light, both BRE tests would need to fail.  In addition to this, it is important to consider the orientation of the site which faces south west, therefore, ‘Old Yew’ would be sited to the east of the proposed dwelling and as such, would not result in a significant loss of light or overshadowing to ‘Old Yew’. With regard to privacy, the first floor windows within the south east facing side elevation would serve an en-suite and therefore could be conditioned to be obscure glazed with a fan light opening in the interests of privacy.  At ground floor level, the window and door would be largely screened by the boundary treatment and I therefore consider that there would not be a significant loss of privacy to ‘Old Yew’. I therefore do not consider that this proposal would result in a significant detrimental impact upon the amenity of ‘Old Yew’ including a loss of overshadowing, privacy, light or outlook.

 

5.7.2  In terms of the impact upon the amenity of ‘The Lodge’, a BRE light test has also been conducted regarding the amenity impact to this property.  This shows similar results in that the floor plan test indicates that part of ‘The lodge’ would suffer from a loss of light whereas the elevation test does not due to the spacing of approximately 4.6m between the two dwellings. This is principally due to the orientation of the site with ‘The Lodge’ sited to the north west of the proposed dwelling, as a result, there is likely to be a degree of overshadowing also, however, due to the retained line of dense tree planting which lines the north western boundary and the spacing between these two properties, I do not consider that any loss of light or overshadowing would be significantly increased by the proposed dwelling. Similarly in terms of privacy, the proposed first floor windows would serve en-suite bathrooms and could be controlled by condition, the ground floor windows would be screened by the boundary treatment and planting.  I therefore conclude that there would not be a significant impact upon ‘The Lodge’ including a loss of privacy, outlook, overshadowing or light.

 

5.7.3  Due to the scale and siting of this proposal, there would not be a significant impact upon the amenity of any other neighbouring property.

 

5.7.4  Amenity for Future Occupiers

 

5.7.5  Given the level of glazing within the proposed dwelling and the overall fenestration arrangement of the dwelling, I consider that this would result in an acceptable level of outlook, daylight and privacy for any occupant.  The outdoor amenity space is also considered sufficient with the provision of approximately 32 square meters of private amenity space.

 

5.8     Ecology

 

5.8.1  Due to the cleared planting to the rear of the existing dwelling, I do not consider there to be any significant issues with regards to a possible impact upon protected species.  I therefore consider it unjustified to request any further details with regards to ecology or biodiversity. 

 

5.8.2  Other considerations

 

5.8.3  The applicant has confirmed that this proposal will seek to achieve a minimum of Code Level 4 of the ‘Code for Sustainable Homes’ and so will be conditioned accordingly, to ensure a sustainable and energy efficient form of development.  I consider this is acceptable and would ensure a good quality development is delivered.

 

6.      CONCLUSION

 

For the reasons outlined above, I consider the development would not cause any demonstrable harm to the character or appearance of the surrounding area, it would not have a detrimental impact upon the amenities of the existing residents and would not result in harm to highway safety.  It is therefore considered overall that the proposal is acceptable with regard to the relevant provisions of the development plan and amenity impacts on the local environment and other material considerations such as are relevant.  I therefore recommend conditional approval of the application on this basis.

 

7.      RECOMMENDATION

 

Subject to the completion of the consultation period and no new issues being raised, I be given delegated powers to 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, including the colour of the render to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the dwelling 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.  This is in accordance with policies ENV31, ENV33 and ENV34 of the Maidstone Borough Wide Local Plan 2000 and policies CC1, CC4, CC6, BE1, T4 and NRM10 of the South East Plan 2009 and the guidance contained within the National Planning Policy Framework 2012.

3.           The area shown on the submitted layout as vehicle parking space or garages shall be provided, surfaced and drained to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority before the use is commenced or the premises occupied, and shall be retained for the use of the occupiers of, and visitors to, the premises, and no permanent development, whether or not permitted by the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order), shall be carried out on that area of land so shown or in such a position as to preclude vehicular access to this reserved parking space.

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 in accordance with the guidance contained within the National Planning Policy Framework 2012.

4.           Notwithstanding the details submitted on drawing no. 2022-005 RevA received 16/07/12, no development shall take place until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority a scheme of landscaping, using indigenous species, which shall include a  tree protection plan. The scheme shall be designed using the principles established in the Councils adopted Landscape Character Assessment and Landscape Guidelines. The approved protection measures shall be implemented before any equipment, machinery or materials are brought onto the site and 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: No such details have been submitted and To ensure a satisfactory setting and external appearance to the development.  This in accordance with Policy ENV6 of the Maidstone Borough-Wide Local Plan 2000, policies CC1 and CC6 of the South East Plan 2009 and the guidance contained within the National Planning Policy Framework 2012.

5.           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 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. This is in accordance with policies ENV31, ENV33 and ENV34 of the Maidstone Borough Wide Local Plan 2000 and policies CC1, CC4, CC6, BE1, T4 and NRM10 of the South East Plan 2009 and the guidance contained within the National Planning Policy Framework 2012.

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

Reason: To ensure a sustainable and energy efficient form of development in accordance with policy CC1 of the South East Plan 2009 and the guidance contained within the National Planning Policy Framework 2012.

7.           Before the dwelling hereby approved is first occupied, a properly consolidated and surfaced access (not loose stone or gravel) shall be constructed, details of which shall have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure an acceptable appearance to the development and in the interests of highway safety in accordance with the guidance contained within the National Planning Policy Framework 2012.

8.           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, Class(es) A and B 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. This is in accordance with policies ENV31, ENV33 and ENV34 of the Maidstone Borough Wide Local Plan 2000 and policies CC1, CC4, CC6, BE1, T4 and NRM10 of the South East Plan 2009 and the guidance contained within the National Planning Policy Framework 2012.

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

Plan numbers 2022-004 RevC, 2022-005 RevA and design and access statement received 30th January 2012 and site location plan received 31st January 2012 and plan number  2022-008 received 9th March 2012 and 2022-007 RevA and 2022-006 RevA received 16th July 2012.

Reason: To ensure the quality of the development is maintained and to prevent harm to the residential amenity of neighbouring occupiers. This is in accordance with policies ENV31, ENV33 and ENV34 of the Maidstone Borough Wide Local Plan 2000 and policies CC1, CC4, CC6, BE1, T4 and NRM10 of the South East Plan 2009 and the guidance contained within the National Planning Policy Framework 2012.

Informatives set out below

As an initial operation on site, adequate precautions shall be taken during the progress of the works to guard against the deposit of mud and similar substances on the public highway in accordance with proposals to be submitted to, and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such proposals shall include washing facilities by which vehicles will have their wheels, chassis and bodywork effectively cleaned and washed free of mud and similar substances.

Before the dwelling hereby permitted is first occupied the area between the nearside carriageway edge and lines drawn between a point 2.0m back from the carriageway edge along the centre line of the access and points on the carriageway edge to the site boundary from and on both sides of the centre line of the access shall be cleared of obstruction to visibility at and above a height of 900mm above the nearside carriageway level and thereafter maintained free of obstruction at all times.

Pedestrian visibility splays 2m x 2m with no obstruction over 0.6m above the access footway level shall be provided prior to the commencement of any other development in this application and shall be subsequently maintained.

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 EHM 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 EHM.

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.

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.

Provision should be made for the separate storage of recyclables from household waste. Advice on recycling can be obtained from the Environmental Services Manager.

The importance of notifying local residents in advance of any unavoidably noisy operations, particularly when these are to take place outside the normal working hours is advisable.

Where possible, the developer shall provide the Council and residents with a name of a person and maintain dedicated telephone number to deal with any noise complaints or queries about the work, for example scaffolding alarm misfiring late in the night/early hours of the morning, any over-run of any kind.

The developer may be required to produce a Site Waste Management Plan in accordance with Section 54 of the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005. This should be available for inspection by the Local Authority at any time prior to and during the development.

 

 

 

 

 

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.