APPLICATION: MA/12/1777 Date: 28 September 2012 Received: 28 September 2012
|
APPLICANT: |
Mr John Showler, Rogate |
|
|
|
|
LOCATION: |
LAND AT NORTHLAND AND GROOM WAY, OLD ASHFORD ROAD, LENHAM, MAIDSTONE, KENT, ME17 0QY |
|
PARISH: |
Lenham |
|
|
|
|
PROPOSAL: |
Erection of 12(no) dwellings and associated works as shown on Design & Access statement, Ecological Scoping report, Arboricultural Survey and Planning Integration report, Herpetofauna search results, Kent birds record summary, protected species inventory, Kent Bat Group search results and drawing nos. 596: P02, P03, P04, P07, P12 and P15 received 28/09/12 and drawing nos. 596: P01 A, P05 A, P06 A, P10 A and P11 A received 20/11/12. |
|
AGENDA DATE:
CASE OFFICER: |
31st January 2013
Kathryn Altieri |
The recommendation for this application is being reported to Committee for decision because:
● It is a departure from the Development Plan.
1. POLICIES
· Maidstone Borough-Wide Local Plan 2000: ENV6, ENV28, ENV34, T13
· South East Plan 2009: SP3, CC1, CC4, CC6, BE1, H1, H4, H5, NRM4, NRM5, NRM9, NRM10, T4
· Government Policy: National Planning Policy Framework (2012)
· ‘Planning for Growth’ Ministerial Statement (March 2011)
2. HISTORY
2.1 There is no planning history that is relevant within the application site, however the history of the surrounding area is a material planning consideration;
MA/99/0813 - Outline application for the erection of a community centre, medical centre and 10 local needs housing units and construction of new access road to Old Ashford Road with siting and means of access only to be determined – approved/granted with conditions
MA/02/0087 - Erection of doctor's surgery, detached bin store, 12 car parking spaces and means of access to Old Ashford Road – approved/granted with conditions
MA/00/1969 - Erection of community centre with parking and access onto Old Ashford Road – approved/granted with conditions
MA/00/1917 - Erection of 10 dwellinghouses with parking, and access onto Ashford Road - approved/granted with conditions
3. CONSULTATIONS
3.1 Councillor T. Sams:
3.1.1 “If you are minded to approve this application, please report it to the planning committee for the reasons set out below. The application is of significant interest within the community. A consultative meeting on 17/06/12 by the applicants before submitting the application attracted a large number of attendees. There will be an impact on what is already a busy area serving, housing, doctor’s surgery and community centre. I would like the planning committee to give particular consideration to the highways issues.”
3.2 Lenham Parish Council: Does not wish to comment on this application.
3.3 KCC Highways Officer: Raises no objections with recommended conditions and informatives;
3.3.1 “The access onto Old Ashford Road serves 2 dwellings (units 1 and 2) and replaces the existing access which will be closed. Adequate space is available for parking and turning and vision splays are satisfactory.
3.3.2 The access onto Groom Way would serve the remaining 10 dwellings. Visibility from the access is satisfactory. Unit 3 is provided with 3 parking spaces in the car barn and 14 spaces are provided for the remaining 9 dwellings which is considered to be adequate.
3.3.3 Improvements are to be made to the visibility splay at the junction of Old Ashford Road and Groom Way by the removal of the conifer hedging and a footway is to be provided along the site boundary on Old Ashford Road.
3.3.4 I would recommend that improvements are made to the 2 bus stops near to the site in Old Ashford Road by the provision of bus boarders in order that these are accessible by the residents of this development and to enhance the use of the bus service.
3.3.5 The recommended informatives have duly been added.
3.4 Environmental Health Officer: Raises no objections;
3.4.1 “The site is in a relatively quiet semi-rural area and traffic noise is not a problem. It is also outside the Maidstone Town Air Quality Management Area and I do not consider the scale of this development and/or its site position warrant an air quality assessment. Any demolition or construction activities may have an impact on local residents and so the usual informatives should apply in this respect. The building to be demolished should be checked for the presence of asbestos and any found must only be removed by a licensed contractor.
3.4.2 There is no indication of land contamination based on information from the Maidstone Borough Council’s contaminated land database and historic maps databases, and no indication from the latest British Geological Survey maps that there is a significant chance of high radon concentrations.”
3.4.3 The recommended informatives have duly been added.
3.5 Landscape Officer: Raises no objections subject to conditions;
3.5.1 “The arboricultural survey and planning integration report provided by the applicant is acceptable. I, therefore, raise no objection on arboricultural grounds subject to conditions requiring compliance with the above mentioned document together with the submission, prior approval of and compliance with the full details recommended in paragraph 10.1 of this report. A standard landscape condition will also be required.”
3.6 KCC Biodiversity Officer:
3.6.1 “We have reviewed the ecological scoping survey in conjunction with the desk top information we have available to us (including aerial photos and biological records). We are satisfied with the results of the survey and we require no additional information to be submitted prior to determination of the planning application.
3.6.2 Reptiles
The survey has identified that there is a low potential reptiles being present within the hedgerows. As a result an ecological watching brief has been proposed when the hedges are being removed. Details of the watching brief must be submitted for comment as a condition of planning permission, if granted.
3.6.3 Breeding Birds
As detailed within the report there are suitable features for nesting birds within the site. If the vegetation and buildings are removed during the breeding bird season a survey must be carried out prior to works beginning. If any breeding birds are identified all works in that area must cease until all the young have fledged.
3.6.4 Bats
Bats have been recorded within the surrounding area. Lighting can be detrimental to roosting, foraging and commuting bats. We advise that the Bat Conservation Trust’s Bats and Lighting in the UK guidance is adhered to in the lighting design (see end of this note for a summary of key requirements).
3.6.5 Enhancements
One of the principles of the National Planning Policy Framework is that “opportunities to incorporate biodiversity in and around developments should be encouraged”.
3.6.6 It is welcomed that planting proposed for the site is to be native species. However other enhancements can be incorporated in to the site – consideration should be given to including bat bricks or tiles in the new buildings or bird boxes within the site.”
3.7 Conservation Officer: Raise no objections subject to conditions;
3.7.1 “The site lies almost opposite the listed Tanyard Farmhouse, which is set back from the road by a considerable distance. The redevelopment of this site in the manner proposed, with modestly-scaled dwellings of attractive design, will have no adverse impact on the setting of the listed building. Raise no objections in terms of impact on setting of Lenham Conservation Area. Condition for samples of materials is recommended.”
3.8 UK Power Networks: Raise no objections.
3.9 Environment Agency: Raises no objections with recommended condition and informatives;
3.9.1 “We have no objection to the development at this location however we request that the following condition is included in any permission granted:
3.9.2 If, during development, contamination not previously identified is found to be present at the site then no further development (unless otherwise agreed in writing with the local planning authority) shall be carried out until the developer has submitted a remediation strategy to the local planning authority detailing how this unsuspected contamination shall be dealt with and obtained written approval from the local planning authority. The remediation strategy shall be implemented as approved.
Reason: To protect groundwater because the site is located within a Principal Aquifer and to comply with the NFFP.”
3.9.3 The recommended informatives have duly been added.
3.10 Scotland Gas Networks: Gave no response.
3.11 Southern Water: Raises no objection;
3.11.1 “Southern Water requires a formal application for the connection to the public foul sewer to be made by the applicant or developer. Recommend condition for details of the proposed means of foul and surface water sewage disposal to be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority.
3.11.2 The recommended informatives and condition have duly been added.
3.12 Natural England: Raise no objections;
3.12.1 “This application is within the setting of Kent Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Natural England has no comments to make on this proposal as we do not believe that this development is likely to impact on the reasons for which the site is designated.”
3.13 Kent Downs AONB Unit: Raise no objections;
3.13.1 “Our comments, which are of a general nature in relation to developments within the setting and having an impact on the views out from the AONB, are as follows:
3.13.2 Design to mitigate impact
We would like you to consider the roofing materials carefully - be non-reflective and recessive in colour, and any solar panels/ photovoltaics faced south to avoid glint and glare. (We would assume this to be the case anyway to ensure best efficiency.) Black, non-reflective is the least obtrusive. We would also like you to address the height and alignment of the buildings in relation to the visibility from the AONB.
3.13.3 Light Pollution
The impact of light pollution at this sensitive location at the foot of the downs should also be considered. The KDAONB would suggest that street lighting is not needed in this location or for this size of development, so close to the rural area. Careful design and conditions are needed to reduce any form of private lighting to a minimum.
3.13.4 Green Infrastructure
Design of any new developments should afford sufficient green infrastructure to relieve pressure on more sensitive landscapes beyond the boundaries of the development, which in this case includes the AONB.
3.13.5 With this in mind we note that the area to the west of Groom Way is currently open space, not within the curtilage of Northland. It provides a landscaped entrance to the Community Centre and Surgery. This would be lost is this development goes ahead with this number of houses.
3.13.6 Sustainability
Developments need to design in biomass (wood chip) systems at an early stage and we would encourage you to suggest this to the applicant as part of their sustainability and energy strategy. This site is well located within easy distance of wood chip supplies.”
Consultation responses with regards to contributions:
3.14 Mouchel (acting for KCC education and Adult Services):
Primary School education provision;
3.14.1 Having received confirmation from MBC that 9 units will remain sheltered in perpetuity in accordance with the Design & Access statement, KCC have agreed to withdraw the primary requirement only on these 9 units. Thus reviewing the application, 3 new family homes are proposed; but as one is a replacement, there will be 2 ‘applicable’ family units for Primary Education contributions amounting to (2 x £2360.96) = £4721.92
3.14.2 The new primary school accommodation is intended to provide locally and delivered in accordance with the Local Planning Authority’s Infrastructure Delivery Plan (where available), timetable and phasing. Two primary schools within a 2 mile radius are in Lenham and Platts Heath.
3.14.3 There is no current requirement for secondary school education provision.
Libraries, youth and community learning;
3.14.4 Local libraries - £305.57
Youth facilities - No current requirement
Community Learning - £240.81
3.14.5 The County Council will mitigate the shortfall of local libraries book stocks through the provision of additional stock at Lenham library which is local to the development.
3.14.6 In terms of community learning, the contribution would be to the project for Lenham and Harrietsham area and will be delivered as the monies are received and will accord with the Local Planning Authority’s Infrastructure Delivery Plan (where applicable).
Adult social services; £170.14
3.14.7 Facilities for Kent Adult Social Services (older people, and adults with learning or physical disabilities) are already fully allocated. Therefore, the proposed development will result in a demand upon social services which KASS are under a statutory obligation to meet but will have no additional funding to do so. The County Council will mitigate this impact through the provision of new/expanded facilities and services in Maidstone local to the development.
3.14.8 Project 1 is for assistive technology (Telecare): enabling clients to live as independently and secure as possible in their own homes on this development technology items, including: pendants, fall sensors and alarms. Project 2 is ‘Building Community Capacity’, with enhancement of local community facilities to ensure full DDA access to clients to participate in community activities and groups. Both projects are related to the Harrietsham and Lenham ward.
TOTAL CONTRIBUTIONS OF £5438.44
3.15 West Kent Primary Care Trust (PCT):
3.15.1 “In terms of this particular application, a need has been identified for contributions to support the delivery of investments highlighted within the PCT’s Strategic Service Development Plan. These improvements to the primary care infrastructure will enable the PCT to support the registrations of the new population, in addition to the commissioning and delivery of health services to all. This proposed development is expected to result in a need to invest in a number of local surgery premises:
· Len Valley Surgery (Main) Lenham
· The Glebe Surgery (Branch) Harrietsham
3.15.2 These surgeries are within a two mile radius of the development. This contribution will be directly related to supporting the improvements within primary care by way of extension, refurbishment and/or upgrade in order to provide the required capacity.
3.15.3 NHS West Kent has used the same formulae for calculating s106 contributions for some time and believes these are calculated as fair and reasonable. The application identifies unit sizes to calculate predicted occupancy multiplied by £360. The existing housing has been deducted from calculations and so the calculation therefore is based on 11 dwellings (with nine units are to be age restricted).
3.15.4 For this particular application the contribution has been revised as:
3 units x 3.5 persons less existing house at 3.5 persons = 7 persons
9 units x 2 persons occupancy = 18 persons
Total 25 persons @ £360pp = £9,000
3.15.5 This figure has been calculated as the cost per person needed to enhance healthcare needs within the NHS services.”
3.16 The Council’s Parks and Open Spaces Department:
3.16.1 Clearly there is no on-site open space provision at this location and we would therefore request an off-site contribution to be written into the Section 106 Head of Terms. The development makes no contribution to publicly accessible and meaningfully useful open space provision, which is a stated priority for the council.
3.16.2 The contribution would be based on 12 units x £1575 per unit = £18900.
Minus 1 x £1575 for existing unit = £17325
3.16.3 This would go towards enhancing, maintaining, repairing and renewing amenity areas and green spaces within a one mile radius of the proposed development. Primarily we would request that any contribution received be given to the Parish Council for general improvements and enhancements to the amenity, open and green spaces land they own and which would be used by any new residents in the area. This is the cost per dwelling as set out in the ‘Supplementary Planning Guidelines’ and Fields in Trust’s (formerly National Playing Fields Association) guidelines as provision costs for outdoor playing space.”
4. REPRESENTATIONS
4.1 2 neighbour representations have been made raising concerns over the density of the application, arboricultural issues, highway safety including drivers speeding along Old Ashford Road and increased traffic movements.
5. CONSIDERATIONS
5.1 Background information
5.1.1 The applicant did receive pre-application advice from the Council back in April 2012. It was stated at this time that an application of this type in this location would be balanced, but that if the standard of development was of a high quality, the Council could support a scheme as a departure from the Development Plan due to the lack of harm. The applicant has removed a unit and reconfigured the layout since pre-application advice was given.
5.1.2 The community centre, doctor’s surgery and the ten affordable local needs housing in Groom Way (approved under outline application MA/99/0813 and then subsequently full planning applications MA/02/0087, MA/00/1969 and MA/00/1917) are outside the defined village settlement and sits to the north/north-west of the application site.
5.2 Site Description
5.2.1 The relatively flat application site encompasses the residential curtilage of ‘Northland’, largely enclosed by a well established hedge some 2.5m in height, and the open areas of soft landscaping to the north and east of this property. The application site does fall outside the defined village boundary, with the edge of the defined envelope being the eastern boundary of the neighbouring property ‘Eastwood’; and the site is also in the North Downs Special Landscape Area, as shown by the Maidstone Borough-Wide Local Plan 2000.
5.2.2 ‘Northland’ is an unremarkable 1970’s (two storey) property set back some 17m from Old Ashford Road that does have an existing vehicle access on to this said highway. The open area of land to the north and east of ‘Northland’ consists of well maintained grass, with young trees planted close to the footpath along Groom Way. Covering an area of some 0.41ha, the application site is bordered by Groom Way to the east, Old Ashford Road to the south, residential property (‘Eastwood’) to the west, and a doctors’ surgery to the north.
5.2.3 The doctors’ surgery to the north of the site, is a low eaved, brick built building with first floor accommodation in its relatively steeply pitched hipped roof; the community centre is also a low eaved brick built building with hipped roof elements, taking on a ‘barn-style’ appearance; and the brick built residential properties in Groom Way are split into two terraces, with front porch projections and white horizontal timber cladding at first floor level. The level of hardstanding/parking areas linked with these three uses, particularly for the community centre, is also significantly noticeable, lending itself to a more urban feel than countryside.
5.2.4 The five residential properties to the west of the application that front onto Old Ashford Road are a mixture of different styles, ages and scales, with no clear building line; and their frontages vary from hedging, walls and fencing to no boundary treatment. Travelling further into Lenham village, the pattern of built development becomes denser.
5.2.5 The southern side of Old Lenham Road is strongly characterised by softly landscaped amenity areas up to the junction with Glebe Gardens; and as you travel eastwards along Old Ashford Road away from the village, the character of the landscape does change, with built development giving way to arable/grazing land.
5.2.6 This section of Old Ashford Road has a speed limit of 30mph, it does have street lighting, and there is a bus stop on either side of the road within 70m of the application site. The national speed limit is signalled some 70m to the east of the application site. Groom Way is not a through-road, leading only to the doctors’ surgery, community centre and ten residential properties. There are a number of public footpaths surrounding the site in all directions.
5.2.7 The site is in a sustainable location, with Lenham’s The Square ‘Local Centre’ being less than 300m to the west of the application site with facilities such as a bakery, greengrocers, convenience store, library, public houses that serve food, and a takeaway restaurant. Lenham is also served by a train station (some 1200m to the south-west of the application site); and there is a regular bus service (Stagecoach) that links the village to Maidstone and Ashford seven days a week. This will be discussed further later on in this report.
5.3 Proposal
5.3.1 The proposal is for the erection of twelve dwellinghouses and a five-bay carport with shared vehicle access to Units 1 and 2 from Old Ashford Road and a new vehicle access to the other Units from Groom Way. The proposed development would consist of eight 3 bedroom properties and 4 four bedroom properties, with Units 4-12 (inclusive) restricted to person/persons over the age of 55 years old (or persons who were living as part of a single household with such a person or persons who have since died). The detached five-bay carport would be sited close to the Groom Way vehicle entrance (southern side); and pedestrian access into the site would be from the north-western corner and north-eastern corner of the site. ‘Northland’ would be demolished as part of the proposed scheme.
5.3.2 With regards to the nine age-restricted units, the applicant suggests there is a strong local demand for such properties aimed at the retirement market. Moreover, this restriction has also seen the applicant reduce the number of parking spaces and that given the site’s close proximity to the village centre, doctor’s surgery and community centre, they consider it a suitable location to have this type of housing.
5.3.3 This application would calculate at a density of 29 dwellings per hectare; and all of the new dwellings would achieve Level 4 in terms of the Code for Sustainable Homes.
5.3.4 In general terms, the development would consist of three detached properties erected along the site’s southern boundary; with Units 1 and 2 fronting onto Old Ashford Road and Unit 3 built side on, fronting onto Groom Way. Parking and a softly landscaped courtyard area would be located to the rear of the site, surrounded by two terraces of three houses (to the east and west of the site); a single detached dwelling (to the north of the site); and a pair of semi-detached houses (to the north of the site).
5.3.5 All nine of the properties to the rear of the site would have their frontages facing onto the courtyard, so that the rear gardens of Units 4, 5 and 6 would back onto Groom Way; the rear gardens of Units 7, 8 and 9 would back onto the doctors’ surgery; and the rear gardens of 10, 11 and 12 would back onto the rear gardens of ‘Eastwood’ and 2 Groom Way.
5.3.6 A brief description of each property is as follows;
5.3.7 Unit 1 (fronting onto Old Ashford Road);
- Detached two storey dwellinghouse (4 bed) with gable-end front and rear projections; double attached side garage; and barn-hipped roof element.
- Its main ridge height would stand some 9m from ground level and its main eaves height some 4.5m.
- Externally, the walls are to be of red multi-stock brick with tile hanging elements at first floor level; and the roof will be laid with plain clay tiles.
5.3.8 Unit 2 (fronting onto Old Ashford Road);
- Detached two storey dwellinghouse (4 bed) with pitched roof and catslide roof element to the rear.
- Its main ridge height would stand some 9.35m from ground level and its main eaves height some 5.3m.
- Externally, the walls are to be largely clad with softwood feather-edged weatherboarding, with red multi-stock brick elements (plinth, chimney and bay window); and the roof will be laid with slate tiles.
5.3.9 Unit 3 (fronting onto Groom Way);
- Detached two storey dwellinghouse (4 bed) with pitched roof and catslide roof element to the side.
- Its main ridge height would stand some 8.9m from ground level and its main eaves height some 4.8m.
- Externally, the walls are to be part clad with softwood feather-edged weatherboarding and red multi-stock brick; and the roof will be laid with plain clay tiles.
5.3.10 Unit 4 (fronting westwards onto internal courtyard area);
- End of terrace, two storey dwellinghouse (3 bed) with pitched roof.
- Its main ridge height would stand some 8.6m from ground level and its main eaves height some 4.5m.
- Externally, the ground floor level would be of red multi-stock brick and the first floor level of tile hanging; and the roof will be laid with plain clay tiles.
5.3.11 Units 5 & 6 (fronting westwards onto internal courtyard area);
- Adjoining mid-terrace and end of terrace, two storey dwellinghouses (3 bed) with pitched roofs.
- Main ridge heights would stand some 9.6m from ground level and main eaves heights some 5.1m.
- Externally, the properties would be of red multi-stock brick, with plain clay roof tiles.
5.3.12 Units 7 & 8 (fronting southwards onto internal courtyard area);
- Pair of semi-detached, two storey dwellinghouses (3 bed) with pitched roofs.
- Main ridge heights would stand some 9.2m from ground level and main eaves heights some 54.5m.
- Externally, the properties would be of red multi-stock brick, with plain clay roof tiles.
5.3.13 Unit 9 (fronting southwards onto internal courtyard area);
- Detached, two storey dwellinghouse (4 bed) with pitched roofs.
- Main ridge heights would stand some 8.6m from ground level and main eaves heights some 4.8m.
- Externally, the walls are to be largely clad with softwood feather-edged weatherboarding, with red multi-stock brick elements (i.e. plinth and chimney); and the roof will be laid with slate tiles.
5.3.14 Units 10, 11 & 12 (fronting eastwards onto internal courtyard area);
- When viewed from the front, the three adjoining properties (3 bed) would be two storey in appearance and gable-ended. Units 10 and 11 would have a ridge height of some 7m from ground level and an eaves height of 4.3m; and Unit 12 would have a ridge height of some 8.25m and an eaves height of some 4.75m.
- To the rear, Units 10 and 11 would have a lower eaves height (some 3.2m), with Unit 10 also having a single storey element projecting out on its own.
- From the rear, Unit 12 would also have a catslide roof element with a single storey glazed projection.
- Externally, these buildings would be a mixture of softwood feather-edged weatherboarding and red multi-stock brick; and the roof will be laid with slate tiles.
5.3.15 In terms of parking, Units 1 and 2 would have parking to the front (private driveways and double detached garages); Unit 3 would have three allocated parking spaces; and Units 4-12 would have a total of 15 allocated parking spaces, equating to 1.6 spaces per unit. The five-bay carport (with bin store) would measure some 16.8m in length and some 5.7m in depth; and with its pitched roof would stand some 5m in height from its ridge to ground level. Its eaves height would measure some 2.2m. In terms of materials, it would be largely clad with softwood feather-edged weatherboarding, with a red multi-stock brick plinth; and its roof would be laid with slate tiles. The open parking areas would be of bound gravel, framed by local stock brick walls (some 1m in height).
5.3.16 In terms of contributions, Mouchel (acting for KCC education and Adult Services) has requested a total of £5,438.44; West Kent Primary Care Trust has requested a total of £9,000; and the Council’s Parks and Open Spaces Department has requested a total of £17,325. A breakdown of these requests has previously been shown under sections 3.14-3.16 of this report. The applicant has also provisionally agreed to these contributions.
5.3.17 Given the scale of the proposed development, no affordable housing provision is required.
5.4 Relevant policy and guidance
5.4.1 The application site does fall outside the defined village envelope of Lenham and this proposal is not one of the listed exceptions of development in the countryside shown in policy ENV28 of the Maidstone Borough-Wide Local Plan 2000. The proposal is therefore a departure from the Development Plan. However, as will be explained in detail further on the report, I take the view that the proposed development would not be visually harmful and therefore acceptable.
5.4.2 South East Plan 2009 polices listed at the beginning of this report are also of relevance.
5.4.3 Moreover, at the heart of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) is a “presumption in favour of sustainable development”, which should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan-making and decision-taking. The NPPF goes on to state that… “Housing applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development”.
5.4.4 Paragraph 53 of the NPPF does state;
“Local planning authorities should consider the case for setting out policies to resist inappropriate development of residential gardens, for example where development would cause harm to the local area.”
5.4.5 Whilst garden land is no longer ‘previously developed land’, the NPPF does not prohibit the erection of houses on gardens and it does not restrict new housing only to previously development land, but clearly the scheme must be appropriate and not cause significant harm to the amenity of the local area. It must also be a material consideration that there is an existing building on site.
5.4.6 The draft Maidstone Core Strategy, although not adopted, is a planning document that sets the general direction of development in the borough until 2026 and should therefore, be given some, albeit limited, weight. The draft Core Strategy seeks to direct 20% of all housing development over the plan period to the rural area and specifically to the five rural service centres, of which Lenham is one.
5.4.7 The Council has identified that collectively, RSCs have not seen significant growth in the past few years, with no allocated sites within the village confines of Lenham that would see any significant development in the short/medium term. The draft Core Strategy shows that the Council has a clear objective in terms of housing provision in Rural Service Centres, including Lenham, and I am of the view that bringing forward this high quality development now would be acceptable. Indeed, with the anticipated delay of the Core Strategy, why wait if the principle of the development is considered acceptable.
5.4.8 The NPPF that states housing applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development, which includes good design. In line with this, I will go on to explain why I consider the proposal to be sustainable and visually acceptable, and therefore acceptable in principle.
5.4.9 Notwithstanding this, a material consideration in the determination of this application comes in the way of a recent Planning Inspectorate appeal decision at 41 & 56 Valley Drive (APP/U2235/A/12/2174289). The Council at the time of this appeal, and now, cannot demonstrate a deliverable five year supply of housing land and so there is a shortfall in the Borough. The NPPF does state that in order to promote house building, relevant polices for the supply of housing should not be considered up to date if the Local Planning Authority cannot demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing sites. The Inspector concluded on the Valley Drive appeal that;
“In these circumstances, restricting development to the urban area is not up to date because addressing a shortfall in housing supply could well necessitate the use of the land that is not inside the urban area. As a result in considering this proposal I have not attached significant weight to Local Plan policy ENV28.”
5.4.10 The lack of a 5 year supply is a relevant factor but does not, of itself, direct that this application should be approved. Indeed, this proposal would make a relatively marginal contribution to the borough’s housing land supply position. It is the specific details of this proposal that, in my view, make the development acceptable in this case.
5.5 Sustainability
5.5.1 I am of the view that the application is in a sustainable location, and as it states in the Planning for Growth Ministerial Statement (March 2011);
“Development that is sustainable should go ahead, without delay – a presumption in favour of sustainable development that is the basis for every plan, and every decision.”
5.5.2 As previously mentioned, The Square ‘Local Centre’ is less than 300m to the west of the application site with facilities such as a bakery, greengrocers, convenience store, library, public houses that serve food, and a takeaway restaurant; Lenham is served by a train station (some 1200m to the south-west of the application site); and there is a regular bus service (Stagecoach) that links the village to Maidstone and Ashford seven days a week. In terms of frequency, there are more than ten buses a day in both directions (to Maidstone and Ashford) Mondays to Saturdays; and five buses each way on Sundays/Bank Holidays. There is a bus stop on either side of Old Lenham Road, within 70m of the application site; and there are other bus stops close to The Square and along Ashford Road.
5.5.3 Moreover, there are three doctor surgeries within five miles of the application site, including the Len Valley Practice that is immediately to the north of the site on Groom Way, and a branch of this practice known as the Glebe Medical Centre on Church Road, Harrietsham. The other surgery is in Charing, and at the time of writing this report all three were accepting new patients. In addition, there are fourteen dentists within a ten mile radius that are accepting new patients. This information was taken from the official NHS Direct website at the time of writing this report.
5.5.4 In terms of education, Lenham does have a primary school and secondary school, both in Ham Lane (less than a mile away from the application site).
5.6 Design, siting and appearance
5.6.1 Given the surrounding existing built development of the dwellings in Groom Way, the community centre and the doctor’s surgery to the north/north-west of the site, and Groom Way to the east of the site, I am of the view that the village entrance here is not ‘soft’ in appearance and that the application site does not ‘read’ as countryside but as being in the confines of the village.
5.6.2 Furthermore, there is no clear uniform pattern of existing built development for this scheme to adversely effect. Indeed, there is no real built frontage to speak of along the southern side of this Old Ashford Road; and the properties on the northern side do vary in degrees of set back from the road. Moreover, the positioning of the doctor’s surgery, community centre and dwellings to the north of the site, and Groom Way to the east of the site (that are outside the defined village) is such that the proposal would not noticeably encroach into the countryside with the surrounding development providing a clearly defined end to the built up area. In terms of the impact on the wider area, cul-de-sacs are very much a common feature of Lenham village, including both Groom Way immediately to the north of the site and Glebe Gardens to the south. I also consider the density of 29 dwellings per hectare and the layout shown to fully respect the site’s edge of village location, where built development becomes less dense, giving way to agricultural land and a more rural landscape. I therefore take the view that this proposal would not have a detrimental impact on the pattern and grain of development of the surrounding area; and in this instance consider it to be an appropriate edge of village development.
5.6.3 I will now specifically turn to the proposal’s layout. In terms of the Old Ashford Road frontage, the spacing (at first floor level) between ‘Eastwood’ and Unit 1 would be more than 8m; between Unit 1 and Unit 2 some 3.5m; and between Unit 2 and Unit 3 some 9m. This generous spacing creates an open feel to the development, with the properties sitting comfortably within the allocated plots.
5.6.4 Furthermore, the set back of these three units from the road would positively relate with the five residential properties to the immediate west of the site; and the varying styles and ridge heights would continue the mix of building designs and sizes along this row. Unit 2 would have a detached garage to the front of the site. However, given this garage’s modest footprint, low eaves height, pitched roof design and orientation, I am satisfied that this element of the proposal would not appear over dominant or incongruous in the street. I am also satisfied that the flank of Unit 3 that faces onto Old Ashford Road is well-detailed, providing an acceptable level of visual interest; and that the unit’s overall positioning, orientation, design, set back from both highways and scale would fully respect its corner plot location, preserving a softly landscaped and open feel.
5.6.5 In terms of the Groom Way frontage, the buildings would be set back more than 6m from this highway; and the staggered building line, varying ridge heights; and differing styles of buildings and materials would ensure a visually interesting development. I am also not over concerned with the terrace (Units 4, 5 and 6) being set with the rear gardens backing onto Groom Way, as the terrace is well set back from the road, with the use of planting as part of the boundary treatment to further soften the scheme. In addition to this, the well articulated and active elevations of Units 3 and 7 either side of the terrace puts it into context; and the 7m set back of Units 7 and 8 from the northern boundary of the site, would also provide a good break between the propose development and the doctor’s surgery. Again, the spacing and orientation of the units would create an open feel to the development when viewed from Groom Way, with the properties sitting comfortably within the allocated plots.
5.6.6 Within the site, I consider the layout to be spacious and open in feel, with each unit set well within its plot and within the site as a whole; and the softly landscaped courtyard area and frontages to the units along with the linear parking area being broken up with landscaping and the traditionally styled carport further enhances the scheme. The differing styles, heights, and choice of materials for the units facing into the site also add to the visual interest of this high quality development. The 1.8m high local stock brick wall along the rear boundaries of Units 1 and 2 would also preserve the traditional feel to the scheme.
5.6.7 In general terms, there is a good variety of house types within the proposed development, with the use of a similar palette of external materials bringing the scheme together well. Indeed, the mixture of brickwork, feather edged timber boarding, tile hanging and tile/slate roof tiles, would create a visually interesting development of good quality. The use of granite sets and appropriate hardstanding (bound gravel) through-out the development together with the soft landscaping would also visually enhance the scheme. The applicant will be directed by way of condition for what external materials should be used in the development.
5.6.8 The use of non-reflective plain clay and slate roof tiles would avoid glint and glare when viewed from the Kent Downs AONB to north of Ashford Road; and given the existing built development close to the site and how this proposal would be read in context with it, I am not of the view that the scale/height of the proposed development would have an adverse impact on the setting of the AONB. Furthermore, planning permission would be required for any proposed external lighting, and so its potential impact on the surrounding area and the AONB would be considered then; and the proposal will include a good level of landscaping and ecological enhancements (to be discussed later on in report), going some way to relieve the pressure on the surrounding countryside and the AONB to the north. The use of biomass (wood chip) systems at an early stage has been suggested by the Kent Downs AONB Unit, but I do not consider this to be within the remit of planning and therefore do not consider it appropriate to pursue this matter any further.
5.6.9 Tanyard Farmhouse, a Grade II listed building to the south-east of the site, is set back some 120m from Old Ashford Road; and Lenham Conservation Area is some 85m away to the west of the site. Given these considerable separation distances; and the well designed scheme proposed, I am satisfied that this development would not have a detrimental impact on the character and setting of these historic designations. The Council’s Conservation Officer also raises no objections.
5.6.10 I am therefore of the view that this is a well designed and sustainable development that would not appear out of context, cramped or visually incongruous within the setting, pattern and character of the wider area, but a cohesive development that allows a soft transition into the countryside. I therefore consider the principle acceptable for this proposed development.
5.7 Residential Amenity
5.7.1 The nearest property to the proposed development is ‘Eastwood’, a modestly sized bungalow that is located immediately to the west of the application site.
5.7.2 As it stands, suitable boundary treatments would maintain acceptable levels of privacy at ground floor level; no new first floor openings in Unit 1 would directly overlook this property or its immediate outdoor amenity space; and no two storey built development would be within 8.5m of ‘Eastwood’, with the proposed single storey garage of Unit 1 separating the two properties. In addition to this, the siting and design of Units 10, 11 and 12 would ensure there to be no significant levels of overlooking into the garden area of ‘Eastwood’. I am therefore satisfied that this proposal would not result in a development that would unacceptably overwhelm, or result in a significant loss of light, privacy or outlook to the occupants of ‘Eastwood’.
5.7.3 There is an extant planning permission for ‘Eastwood’ that has granted the erection of a part two storey, part single storey rear extension and roof extension (MA/12/0411). If this were to be implemented, I am satisfied that the amenity of the occupants of this property would still be fully respected.
5.7.4 2 Groom Way and the adjoining properties along this terrace would be more than 15m away from the closest proposed properties (Units 10 & 11), which I consider a significant enough distance for the proposal to not overwhelm/over dominate these neighbours; Units 10 and 11 are low eaved in height from the rear elevations, further reducing any visual presence when viewed from these properties; and the proposed units and the existing properties in Groom Way are orientated in such a way that I have no significant concerns with the scheme causing a significant loss of light, privacy or outlook to the occupants of these houses.
5.7.5 No other residential property would be in a significant enough distance of this proposal, to be adversely affected by it.
5.8 Impact on future occupants
5.8.1 I am satisfied that the fenestration arrangements of the new dwellings would result in acceptable levels of outlook, daylight and privacy for the occupants. Appropriate boundary treatments and conditioning all bathroom and ensuite openings to be obscure glazed and fixed shut would also maintain acceptable levels of privacy for future occupants.
5.8.2 I do consider the level of proposed outdoor amenity space to be acceptable for properties of this size.
5.8.3 I am also satisfied that the residential amenity of future occupiers would not be significantly affected by the existing surrounding properties, given their separation distances, orientation and fenestration detail.
5.9 Highways
5.9.1 The existing vehicular access point for ‘Northland’ is to be replaced by an access point more centrally placed along Old Ashford Road (for Units 1 & 2) and an access point centrally placed onto Groom Way. The two access points would measure some 4.4m wide at the junctions with the said highways, and a pavement would edge the eastern and southern boundaries of the site. I am of the view that these access points would be adequate for the frequency/level of vehicle movements of twelve residential properties and Old Ashford Road and Groom Way would be capable of satisfactorily accommodating the extra traffic generated by this new development.
5.9.2 I am also of the view that the ‘shared surface’ type approach within the site is acceptable, there is good all round visibility; and given the layout, no vehicle should be travelling at any great speed to endanger pedestrians. Furthermore, the KCC Highways Officer has not raised any specific objections to the proposed scheme and is satisfied with the stated visibility splays of 43m x 2.4m being adequate for this location.
5.9.3 In terms of parking, Units 1 and 2 would have parking to the front (private driveways and double detached garages); Unit 3 would have three allocated parking spaces; and Units 4-12 (for persons 55yrs and over) would have a total of 15 allocated parking spaces, equating to 1.6 spaces per unit.
5.9.4 I consider the new accesses would safely accommodate and serve the proposed development; and whilst there are no adopted minimum or maximum parking standards for the Council to adhere to for a development like this, I am of the view that the parking provision shown is sufficient, given the site’s sustainable location, and given that a household of persons 55yrs and over are likely to have fewer cars than a younger family say. I am therefore of the view that the proposed development would not have a significant impact on highway safety.
5.9.5 The KCC Highways Officer has made reference to improving the two existing bus stops close to the application site. The suggestion being that the provision of bus boarders would make them more accessible to the residents of this development and thus enhance the use of the bus service. The KCC Highways Officer recommended that this was requested by way of the applicant entering into a Section 278 Agreement to undertake the works.
5.9.6 Given the close proximity of the two bus stops in question and the fact that nine of the units would be given over to persons 55yrs and over (a demographic of people that are more likely to use public transport than a family say), I am satisfied that this request is reasonable and will therefore duly impose a condition ensuring that this contribution is met.
5.10 Landscaping
5.10.1 The submitted Arboricultural Survey and Planning Integration Report shows that the five trees and the hedges within the site (except for parts along the western boundary) are of no landscape significance or in a poor condition and are to be removed as part of the proposed development. In addition, the report indicatively shows there is considerable scope for new planting within the site, and an appropriate landscape scheme will be requested by way of condition to ensure this is adhered to. This condition will specifically detail what I expect to see in the way of landscaping, including the use of indigenous species, and hedging and tree planting on the visually important southern and eastern boundaries of the site, reflecting the rural character of the rural area. The applicant has agreed to use a mix of suitable native hedge planting along the southern and eastern boundaries would be used instead of the Cypress hedging shown on the drawings. This will be ensured by way of condition.
5.10.2 The report also confirms that the two trees in the neighbouring garden of ‘Eastwood’ are to be retained and whilst the larger tree at the rear of the site will require special foundations to be used in its vicinity, the proposal does comply with current standards and advice. A method statement for the foundation construction within root protection areas (RPA) will be asked for by way of condition prior to the commencement of any works. Furthermore, the report confirms that one of the existing trees along Groom Way is to be replanted on the opposite side of this highway.
5.10.3 Whilst no further information is required at this stage, I do consider it reasonable to impose prior to commencement conditions requiring the compliance with the submitted Arboricultural Survey and Planning Integration Report together full details of the recommendations set out in paragraph 10.1 of this report.
5.10.4 After consultation with the Council’s Landscape Officer, the submitted details are considered to be acceptable on arboricultural grounds; and I am of the view that the proposal would provide a good level of appropriate planting within the site, having a positive impact upon the character and appearance of the locality.
5.11 Biodiversity/ecology
5.11.1 The submitted ecological scoping report concludes that given the very short grassland nature of the majority of the site with planted exotic borders and conifer hedge lines, there appears to be limited potential for protected species to occur.
5.11.2 Indeed, the site is not considered suitable for water vole or dormouse; and the short mown grassland does not favour reptile species although there was some very limited potential for this group along a few hedge areas that have not been tightly mown. Great crested newts (GCN) are known to occur in the pond some 35m to the south of the application site, yet the site itself has very limited GCN terrestrial habitat and is separated from the pond by Old Ashford Road. Furthermore, none of the trees on site are thought to provide potential roosting areas for bats, although there is a Poplar tree with potential on the neighbouring property to the west of the site; and the existing trees/hedging on site does provide potential nesting areas for birds.
5.11.3 I am therefore in agreement with this report’s conclusion and the KCC Biodiversity Officer is also satisfied that no additional information is required to be submitted prior to determination of the planning application.
5.11.4 However, if any clearance works (buildings and vegetation) are to be started during bird breeding season, I do consider it reasonable to impose a condition requesting a survey to be submitted to the Council for approval; and I also consider it reasonable to request (by way of condition) an ecological watching brief to be submitted for the Council’s approval prior to when the hedges on site are to be removed.
5.11.5 In addition to this, one of the principles of the National Planning Policy Framework is that “opportunities to incorporate biodiversity in and around developments should be encouraged”. Proposed native planting is obviously welcomed in this respect, and I will also be asking for details of rear boundary treatments to incorporate a minimum gap of 150mm from ground level, and for details of the provision of swift and/or bat boxes within the development. This is in the interests of enhancing the ecology and biodiversity of the site and surrounding area.
5.12 Unilateral Undertaking details
5.12.1 Any request for contributions needs to be scrutinised, in accordance with Regulation 122 of the Act. This has strict criteria setting out that any obligation must meet the following requirements: -
It is:
(a) Necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms;
(b) Directly related to the development; and
(c) Fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.
Maidstone Borough Council Parks and Open Space -
5.12.2 Contributions of £17,325 have been sought from Maidstone Borough Council Parks and Open Space, as the proposed development makes no contribution to publicly accessible and meaningfully useful open space provision, which is a stated priority for the council.
5.12.3 These contributions would be used for enhancing, maintaining, repairing and renewing amenity areas and green spaces within a one mile radius of the proposed development. The contributions would be given to Maidstone Borough Council to then pass on to Lenham Parish Council, for improvements and enhancements to the amenity, open and green spaces land that is in their ownership and in close proximity to the application site.
5.12.4 The question was raised whether the occupants of the age restricted units would make any demands for playing fields, sports facilities and children’s play spaces. In response, the Parks and Open Spaces Department has made it clear that the Green Spaces Strategy identifies eight categories of Open Space that not only includes playing fields, sports facilities and children’s play spaces, but also parks and gardens, natural and semi-natural greens pace, allotments and community gardens, green corridors and cemeteries and churchyards. It is also worth noting that there is a growing trend for outdoor gym equipment in parkland areas which are specifically aimed at the more senior residents in towns and boroughs.
5.12.5 I therefore consider the use of the contributions proposed by the Council’s Parks and Open Space to be related to this development, as they are within close proximity of the site and there is a good indication as to how the money will be spent. Moreover, there is no space within the site to provide any on-site open space (except for the properties rear gardens) and Maidstone Borough Council does have an adopted Development Plan Document (DPD) that requires applicants to provide open space on site. So, when open space is not provided on site, off-site contributions are sought, to improve the facilities within the locality, that will ensure that the additional strain placed upon the open spaces is addressed.
West Kent Primary Care Trust -
5.12.6 West Kent Primary Care Trust has requested that a contribution of £9,000 to be invested in the Len Valley Surgery, Lenham and the Glebe Surgery, Harrietsham (which is a branch surgery to the Len Valley Surgery). The requested contributions would be directly related to supporting the improvements within primary care by way of extension, refurbishment and/or upgrade in order to provide the required capacity. This figure has taken into account nine of the units would be age restricted and therefore more than likely to have a lower occupancy ratio.
5.12.7 Len Valley Surgery is immediately adjacent (to the north) of the application site and the Glebe Surgery, Harrietsham is the next nearest surgery some 1.8 miles away from the application site. Glebe Surgery is a branch associated to the Len Valley Surgery, so there is the possibility of patients attending certain clinics or using certain services only available at this smaller surgery. I consider the use of the contributions proposed by West Kent Primary Care Trust to be reasonable and clearly related to this development and there is a good indication as to how the money will be spent.
Kent County Council (Mouchel) -
5.12.8 Nine units would be occupied by persons 55yrs or older and so it would be unreasonable to request primary school contributions based on these units. Therefore, because two new family homes are proposed (one is a replacement and so not ‘applicable’), the contributions have been calculated £4721.92.
5.12.9 These contributions would locally provide new primary school accommodation, to be delivered in accordance with the Local Planning Authority’s Infrastructure Delivery Plan (where available), timetable and phasing. Two primary schools within a 2 mile radius are in Lenham and Platts Heath. I am satisfied that this contribution would meet the tests of Regulation 122, in that it would be necessary, directly related and of a suitable scale.
5.12.10 No secondary school contributions have been requested.
5.12.11 A request for £546.38 for libraries and community learning has been made. This would be spent on providing additional book stock for Lenham library and on projects within the Harrietsham and Lenham ward. I am satisfied that this contribution would meet the tests of Regulation 122, in that it would be necessary, directly related and of a suitable scale.
5.12.12 A request of £170.14 for adult social services has also been made to provide new/expanded facilities and services in Maidstone local to the development. Project 1 is for assistive technology (Telecare), enabling clients to live as independently and securely as possible in their own homes by using technology including pendants, fall sensors and alarms. Project 2 is for ‘Building Community Capacity’, with the enhancement of local community facilities to ensure full DDA access to clients to participate in community activities and groups. Both projects are related to the Harrietsham and Lenham ward. It is not as important for these services to be within walking distance of the site and in any case several of these services are provided by way of home-based visits by carers/assessors. I am satisfied that implementation within the Harrietsham and Lenham ward is reasonable, necessary and related to the proposed development.
5.12.13 I am satisfied that the contributions sought meet the specific tests of Regulation 122 of the Act; and as such, should be provided by the applicant.
5.13 Other Matters
5.13.1 The applicant has stated that each dwelling would achieve a minimum of Level 4 in terms of the Code for Sustainable Homes, ensuring a sustainable and energy efficient form of development.
5.13.2 Whilst the development is acceptable in terms of its design and layout, I consider it reasonable to remove each property’s permitted development rights to extend both the buiding and the roof area, to build front porches, and to erect boundary treatments. This will ensure the character and open feel to the development is retained and that the amenity of future occupants and existing surounding neighbours is respected.
5.13.3 The site is not within a Flood Zone, as designated by the Environment Agency and is not within close proximity of any noticeable watercourse. Therefore, this development would not be prejudicial to flood flow, storage capacity and drainage within the area. The Environment Agency also raises no objections.
5.14.4 Given the application site’s location and advice taken from the Council’s Environmental Health Officer, I do not consider it necessary to impose the condition regarding contamination, as recommended by the Environment Agency; or to request further details in terms of acoustic and air quality surveys.
6. CONCLUSION
6.1 Lenham Parish Council did not wish to comment on this application and the issues raised by the two neighbour representations have been dealt with in the man body of this report. I would also like to add that the issue of speeding vehicles along Old Ashford Road is not a material planning consideration in the determination of this application.
6.2 For the reasons outlined above, I consider the development would not cause any demonstrable harm to the character of the area and it would not significantly harm the amenities of existing residents. It is therefore considered overall that the proposal is acceptable for the reasons given and so I recommend conditional approval of the application.
7. RECOMMENDATION
GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION subject to the following conditions:
1.
The
development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three
years from the date of this permission;
Reason: In accordance with the provisions of Section 91 of the Town and Country
Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory
Purchase Act 2004.
2.
The
development shall not commence until, written details and samples of the
following 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;
i) red multi-stock bricks;
ii) plain clay roof tiles;
iii) slate roof tiles;
iii) plain clay tile hangings;
iv) details of softwood feather edged weatherboarding and colour of painted
finish to be used;
The development shall be constructed using the approved materials and maintained
thereafter;
Reason: To ensure a satisfactory appearance to the development. This is in
accordance with policies ENV28 and ENV34 of the Maidstone Borough-Wide Local
Plan 2000, polices BE1, CC1, CC4 and CC6 of the South East Plan 2009 and the
National Planning Policy Framework.
3.
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. This
is in accordance with policies ENV28 and ENV34 of the Maidstone Borough-Wide
Local Plan 2000, polices BE1, CC1, CC4 and CC6 of the South East Plan 2009 and
the National Planning Policy Framework.
4.
The
development shall not commence until details of the hardsurfacing within the
site have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority and maintained thereafter;
Reason: To ensure that the development positively responds to the character and
appearance of the locality and to ensure highway safety. This is in accordance
with policies ENV28 and ENV34 of the Maidstone Borough-Wide Local Plan 2000,
polices BE1, CC1, CC4 and CC6 of the South East Plan 2009 and the National
Planning Policy Framework.
5.
No
development shall take place until details in the form of large scale drawings
(at a scale of 1:20 or 1:50) of the following matters have been submitted to
and approved by the local planning authority;
(i) Details of windows and doors and recesses/reveals which shall be a minimum
of 70mm;
(ii) Details of treatment of eaves finishing;
The development shall thereafter be undertaken in accordance with the
subsequently approved details. This is in accordance with policies ENV28 and
ENV34 of the Maidstone Borough-Wide Local Plan 2000, polices BE1, CC1, CC4 and
CC6 of the South East Plan 2009 and the National Planning Policy Framework.
6.
Before
the development hereby permitted is first occupied, the proposed windows
serving bathroom and ensuite facilities shall be obscure glazed and shall be
incapable of being opened except for a high level fanlight opening of at least
1.7m above inside floor level and shall subsequently be maintained as such;
Reason: To prevent overlooking of adjoining properties and to safeguard the privacy
of existing and prospective occupiers. This is in accordance with policies
ENV28 and ENV34 of the Maidstone Borough-Wide Local Plan 2000, polices BE1,
CC1, CC4 and CC6 of the South East Plan 2009 and the National Planning Policy
Framework.
7.
The
development shall not commence until there has been submitted to and approved
in writing by the Local Planning Authority a scheme of landscaping, using
indigenous species which shall be in accordance with BS 5837 (2012) 'Trees in
relation to design, demolition and construction - Recommendations' with
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 and a programme for the approved scheme's implementation and long
term management. The scheme shall be designed using the principles established
in the Council's adopted Landscape Character Assessment and Landscape
Guidelines and shall include the following;
i) Details of the species, size, density and location of all new planting
within the site;
ii) Except for 1 Malus hupehensis, the retention of all existing trees along
the application site's eastern boundary;
iii) The southern and eastern boundary hedges of the site to consist of 10%
Field Maple, 70% Hawthorn, 15% Hazel and 5% Holly mix; to be planted at 45cm
centres in a double staggered row with 30cm between the rows;
Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and biodiversity. This is in
accordance with policy ENV6 of the Maidstone Borough-Wide Local Plan 2000,
policy NRM5 of the South East Plan 2009 and the National Planning Policy
Framework.
8.
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. This is in accordance with policy ENV6 of the Maidstone
Borough-Wide Local Plan 2000 and the National Planning Policy Framework.
9.
All
trees to be retained must be protected in accordance with the Arboricultural
Survey and Planning Integration Report received 28/09/12, 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
fenced in accordance with this condition and the ground levels within those
areas shall not be altered, nor shall any excavation be made, without the
written consent of the Local Planning Authority;
Reason: To safeguard existing trees to be retained and to ensure a satisfactory
setting and external appearance to the development. This is in accordance with
policy ENV6 of the Maidstone Borough-Wide Local Plan 2000 the National Planning
Policy Framework.
10.
The
development shall not commence until there has been submitted to and approved
in writing by the Local Planning Authority full details relating to the
recommendations set out under paragraph 10.1 of the Arboricultural Survey and
Planning Integration Report received 28/09/12, and an Arboricultural Method
Statement for the foundation construction within the root protection areas,
which shall be in accordance with BS 5837 (2012) Trees in relation to design,
demolition and construction - Recommendations that shall include details of
what works there will be to existing trees prior to the commencement of works
together with measures for their protection in the course of development.
Reason: To ensure the retention of existing trees within the site. This is in
accordance with policy ENV6 of the Maidstone Borough-Wide Local Plan 2000 and
the National Planning Policy Framework.
11.
All
site clearance works (buildings and vegetation) shall not commence until an
ecological watching brief for protected species (which accords with the
recommendation in the Preliminary Ecological Scoping Report received 28/09/12),
has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
All works shall then proceed in accordance with the approved strategy unless
any amendments are agreed in writing by the local planning authority.
Reason: In the interests of ecology and biodiversity. This is in accordance
with policy NRM5 of the South East Plan 2009 and the National Planning Policy
Framework.
12.
The
development shall not commence until details of the following have been
submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and
maintained thereafter;
i) details of the provision of swift and/or bat/bird boxes within the
development;
ii) details of rear boundary treatments to incorporate a minimum gap of 150mm
from ground level;
Reason: In the interests of ecology and biodiversity. This is in accordance
with policy NRM5 of the South East Plan 2009 and the National Planning Policy
Framework.
13.
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, B, D and E and Schedule 2,
Part 2, Class A 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. This is
in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework.
14.
The
dwellings shall achieve Level 4 or better of the Code for Sustainable Homes.
The dwellings shall not 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. This
is in accordance with policy CC4 of the South East Plan 2009 and the National
Planning Policy Framework.
15.
Units
4-12 (inclusive) of the residential development hereby permitted shall be
occupied only by persons of 55yrs and over or persons who were living as part
of a single household with such a person or persons who have since died;
Reason: Development without adequate parking provision is likely to lead to
parking inconvenient to other road users and in the interests of road safety. This
is in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework.
16.
No
free standing lighting shall be installed on the site without the prior written
consent of the Local Planning Authority;
Reason: To safeguard visual amenity and the residential amenity of future
occupants. This in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework.
17.
Unless
otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority no development
permitted by this permission shall commence until such time as an agreement
under Section 278 of the Highways Act 1980 has been completed with respect to
the following highway works: a) The provision of bus boarders to the two bus
stops on each side of Old Ashford Road closest to the application site. No
part of the development hereby permitted shall be occupied until such time as
the above mentioned highway works are complete;
Reason: In the interests of highway safety in accordance with the National
Planning Policy Framework. This is in accordance with the National Planning
Policy Framework.
18.
The
development hereby permitted shall not be commenced until the vehicle
visibility splays stated in the Design and Access statement received 28/09/12
have been provided with no obstruction to visibility at or above a height of
900mm above the nearside carriageway level. The visibility splays shall
thereafter be maintained free of obstruction at all times.
Reason: In the interests of highway safety. This in accordance with the
National Planning Policy Framework.
19.
Any
entrance gates erected shall be hung to open away from the highway only and
shall be set back a minimum distance of 5.5m from the carriageway edge.
Reason: In the interests of highway safety. This is in accordance with the
National Planning Policy Framework.
20.
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 provision is likely to lead to
parking inconvenient to other road users and in the interests of road safety.
This is in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework.
21.
No
development shall take place until details of the cycle storage areas have been
submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Any
details as are approved shall be fully implemented prior to the first
occupation of any of the residential units.
Reason: No such details have been submitted and to ensure highway safety. This
is in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework.
22.
The
development shall not commence until details of a scheme of foul and surface
water drainage for the site have been submitted to an approved by the local
planning authority. The development shall thereafter be carried out in
accordance with the subsequently approved details;
Reason: To ensure adequate drainage arrangements. This is in accordance with
the National Planning Policy Framework.
23.
There
shall be no discharge of foul or contaminated drainage from the site into
either groundwater or any surface waters, whether direct or via soakaways;
Reason: To prevent pollution of the water environment. This is in accordance
with the National Planning Policy Framework.
24.
The
development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the
following approved plans: 596: P02, P03, P04, P07 and P15 received 28/09/12 and
596: P01 A, P05 A, P06 A, P10 A and P11 A received 20/11/12;
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 ENV28 and ENV34 of the Maidstone Borough-Wide Local
Plan 2000, polices BE1, CC1, CC4 and CC6 of the South East Plan 2009 and the
National Planning Policy Framework.
Informatives set out below
Bats
have been recorded within the surrounding area, lighting can be detrimental to
roosting, foraging and commuting bats. To minimise impact on bats we advise
that the Bat Conservation Trust's Bats and Lighting in the UK guidance is
adhered to in the lighting design (see end of this note for a summary of key
requirements). 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
• 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.
High
• 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.
Variable
• 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.
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.
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.
Planning permission does not convey any approval for construction of the required vehicular crossing, or any other works within the highway for which a statutory licence must be obtained. Applicants should contact Kent County Council - Highways and Transportation (web:www.kent.gov.uk/roads_and_transport.aspx) or telephone: 08458 247800) in order to obtain the necessary Application Pack.
The site lies on a major aquifer, therefore
the following points should be noted wherever soakaways are proposed:
• Appropriate pollution prevention methods (such as trapped gullies or
interceptors) should be used to prevent hydrocarbons draining to ground from
roads, hardstandings and car parks. Clean uncontaminated roof water should
drain directly to soakaways entering after any pollution prevention methods.
• No soakaway should be sited in or allowed to discharge into land impacted by
contamination or land previously identified as being contaminated.
• There must be no direct discharge to groundwater, a controlled water. An
unsaturated zone must be maintained throughout the year between the base of
soakaways and the water table.
• A series of shallow soakaways are preferable to deep bored soakaways, as deep
bored soakaways can act as conduits for rapid transport of contaminants to
groundwater.
All precautions must be taken to avoid discharges and spills to the ground both during and after construction. For advice on pollution prevention, the applicant should refer to our guidance 'PPG1 - General guide to prevention of pollution', which is available on our website at www.environment-agency.gov.uk.
Waste from the development must be re-used,
re-cycled or otherwise disposed of in accordance with Environmental Protection
Act 1990 and in particular the Duty of Care.
Please also note that contaminated soil that is excavated, recovered or
disposed of, is controlled waste. Therefore its handling, transport, treatment
and disposal is subject to waste management legislation which includes:
i. Duty of Care Regulations 1991
ii. The Waste (England and Wales) Regulations 2011
iii. Hazardous Waste (England and Wales) Regulations 2005
iv. Pollution Prevention and Control Regulations (England and Wales) 2000
v. Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010
If waste is to be stored on site;
1) It must be done in accordance with Section 34 of the Environmental
Protection Act and the Duty of Care in respect of waste, any waste generated on
site is to be stored in a safe and secure manner in order to prevent its escape
or its handling by unauthorised persons. Details should be made available of
where waste is going to be taken as soon as an agreement is made with disposal
sites, especially exempt sites.
2) An environmental permit or registered exemption will be required from us to
store, treat and re-use demolition waste (under the Environmental Protection
Act 1990 or the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010).
Please visit our website http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/business/topics/permitting/32330.aspx
for details on whether the proposed activity requires an environmental permit
or is an exempt activity. The granting of planning permission does not
guarantee the granting of a permit under the Environmental Permitting Regulations
2010.
For information on determining whether the excavated material is a waste please
visit http://www.claire.co.uk/ for the CLAIRE Definition of Waste: Development
Industry Code of Practice (version 2) provides operators with a framework for
determining whether or not excavated material arising from site during
remediation and/or land development works are waste or have ceased to be waste.
A formal application for connection to the
public sewage system is required in order to service this development. To
initiate a sewer capacity check to identify the appropriate connection point
for the development, please contact Atkins Ltd, Anglo St James House, 39A
Southgate Street, Winchester, SO23 9EH (tel: 01962 858688), or
www.southernwater.co.uk.
Due to changes in legislation that came in to force on 1st October 2011 regarding the future ownership of sewers, it is possible that a sewer now deemed to be public could be crossing the above property. Therefore, should any sewer be found during construction works, an investigation of the sewer will be required to ascertain its condition, the number of properties served, and potential means of access before any future works commence on site. The applicant is advised to discuss the matter further with Atkins Ltd, Anglo St James House, 39A Southgate Street, Winchester, SO23 9EH (tel: 01962 858688), or www.southernwater.co.uk.'
Attention is drawn to Sections 60 & 61 of the COPA 1974 and to the Associated British Standard COP BS 5228: 2009 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.
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 developer may be required to produce a Site Waste Management Plan in accordance with Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005 Section 54. As per the relevant act and the Site Waste Management Regulations 2008, this should be available for inspection by the Local Authority at any time prior to and during the development.
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, cannot be stressed enough. 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.
Attention is drawn to Approved Document E Building Regulations 2003 'Resistance
to the Passage of Sound'. It is recommended that the applicant adheres to the
standards set out in this document in order to reduce the transmission of
excessive airborne and impact noise between the separate units in this
development and other dwellings.
In
order to minimise dust and dirt being blown about and potentially causing a
nuisance to occupiers of nearby premises the following precautions should be
taken.
• Reasonable and practicable steps should be used during any demolition or
removal of existing structure and fixtures, to dampen down the general site
area, using a suitable water or liquid spray system.
• Where practicable, all loose material on the site should be covered during
the demolition process.
• During the construction, reconstruction, refurbishment or modification of the
building and where practicable the exterior should be sheeted, enclosing
openings etc. as necessary.
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.
As an initial operation on site, adequate precautions should be taken during the progress of the works to guard against the deposit of mud and similar substances on the public highway, for example washing facilities by which vehicles will have their wheels, chassis and bodywork effectively cleaned and washed free of mud and similar substances before leaving site.
The proposed development is not in accordance with Development Plan policy. However in this specific case, the proposed development would not represent an unjustified form of development that would cause unacceptable visual harm to the character and appearance of the countryside. For the reasons set out, it is considered to represent circumstances that can outweigh the existing policies in the Development Plan and there are no overriding material considerations to indicate a refusal of planning consent.
Note
to Applicant
In accordance with paragraphs 186 and 187 of the NPPF, Maidstone Borough
Council (MBC) takes a positive and proactive approach to development proposals
focused on solutions. MBC works with applicants/agents in a positive and
proactive manner by:
Offering a pre-application advice and duty desk service.
Where possible, suggesting solutions to secure a successful outcome.
As appropriate, updating applicants/agents of any issues that may arise in the
processing of their application.
In this instance:
The applicant/agent was advised of minor changes required to the application
and these were agreed.
The applicant/agent was provided with pre-application advice.
The application was considered by the Planning Committee where the
applicant/agent had the opportunity to speak to the committee and promote the
application.
The proposed development
is not in accordance with Development Plan policy or central Government
guidance. However in this specific case, the proposed development would not
represent an unjustified form of development that would cause unacceptable
visual harm to the character and appearance of the countryside. For the
reasons set out, it is considered to represent circumstances that can outweigh
the existing policies in the Development Plan and there are no overriding
material considerations to indicate a refusal of planning consent.