APPLICATION:       MA/13/0170           Date: 31 January 2013 Received: 1 February 2013

 

APPLICANT:	Mr Leonard  Arnold
LOCATION:	THE WOODYARD, EAST STREET, HUNTON, KENT, ME15 0RA
PARISH:	Hunton
PROPOSAL:	Demolition of existing buildings and redevelopment to provide one dwelling and detached garage as shown on drawing nos. DHA/9241/01, DHA/9241/02, and topographical survey received on 31st January 2013, and DHA/9241/03 RevB, DHA/9241/04 RevB, and DHA/9241/05 RevA received on 21st October 2013.
AGENDA DATE:   CASE OFFICER:	27th February 2014   Richard Timms

 

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:  ENV28, ENV34

·         Government Policy:  NPPF 2012

 

2.       HISTORY

 

MA/11/1374  Outline application for demolition of existing commercial buildings and redevelopment with 7no. B1 starter units within a single storey building and associated parking with means of access, layout and scale to be considered at this stage and appearance and landscaping reserved for future consideration – REFUSED

MA/10/0553         Erection of 1no 4 bedroom detached dwelling and 2no 5 bedroom detached dwellings – REFUSED

MA/06/1171         An application for a certificate of Lawfulness for existing development being the use of land as a woodyard for the manufacture of fence posts and spiles using chestnut coppice timber and for the ancillary storage of vehicles and equipment used in association therewith, a use falling within Class B2 as described in application MA/06/1171 – APPROVED

63/0401/MK3  Outline application for house and garage – REFUSED

 

3.       CONSULTATIONS

 

3.1        Hunton Parish Council: “Wishes to see the application APPROVED. If the MBC recommendation is to refuse the application, then the Parish Council would like the application to be reported to Planning Committee.”

 

3.2     Kent Highways: No objections subject to additional turning space.

 

3.3     Environmental Health: No objections subject to a contaminated land condition.

 

3.4     KCC Ecology: No objections subject to following recommendations of report and securing proposed enhancements.

 

4.       REPRESENTATIONS

 

4.1     Neighbour Representations:          5 representations received all offering support for the application and raising the following (summarised) points:

 

• Support dwelling instead of business.
• Suitable and sensible development for the site.
• Site hasn’t operated as a business for 7 years and appears unviable commercially.

 

 

5.       CONSIDERATIONS

 

5.1    Introduction

 

5.1.1  This is a full application for the demolition of existing B2 use buildings and redevelopment to provide one dwelling and a detached garage at ‘The Woodyard’, East Street, Hunton.

 

5.2    Site Description

 

5.2.1  The site is an irregular shaped parcel of land on the west side of East Street which is around 1.2km east of the centre of Hunton. The site falls within the countryside for planning purposes and here is designated as a Special Landscape Area.

 

5.2.2  There is a hard surfaced access off East Street in the southeast corner, which runs west into the site and then north forming an L-shape. There are a number of single storey buildings on the site including a timber shed with tin roof, a fairly dilapidated part tiled pitch roofed building adjacent to an open-fronted structure, and oil tanks in the southern half of the site. Further north in the centre to the west side is a two storey ‘Atcost’ building and portable cabin. There is also a substation in the centre of the site on the east side. The site was cleared last year of the limited ground vegetation and is largely bare earth in the north part of the site and southeast corner. There are a number of trees within the southern half, on and around the access. The site is higher than the road level by around 1-1.5m at the southern end and by nearly 3m at the northern end.

 

5.2.3  Close-boarded fencing around 2m in height encloses the site with a recently planted beech hedge inside. Along the site frontage this fencing is partly broken by existing vegetation where which sits on an earth bank. Immediately north are a row of conifers around 8m in height, which extend round to East Street.

 

5.2.4  The nearest dwellings are ‘Grafton House’ immediately south of the site and ‘Elm Croft’ opposite the site to the east around 30m away. To the west of the site is agricultural land and to the north, grassed land which appears to be associated with the dwelling ‘Court Lodge’.

 

5.2.5  The site benefits from a lawful development certificate (Ref. MA/06/1171) for use of land as a woodyard for the manufacture of fence posts and spiles and for the ancillary storage of vehicles and equipment, a use falling within Class B2. Its lawful planning use is therefore for B2 (general industrial use). This is an unfettered use that can occur over the whole site and with no hours of use restrictions. It is however not currently in use.

 

5.3    Planning History

 

5.3.1  Outline permission was refused for redevelopment of the site for seven B1 units within a single storey building for three reasons under MA/11/1374 in October 2011. It was considered that the site would be an unsustainable location for the amount of development proposed, that the poor layout would harm the area, and that the intensified use of the access, without improvements, would be detrimental to highway safety.

 

5.3.2  Permission was refused for three detached houses under MA/10/0553 in May 2010 as there was not considered to be any overriding justification for housing at the site, which was contrary to local and national policy, and because of the visual harm to the area from the development of three large houses.

 

 

 

5.4    Proposal

 

5.4.1  Permission is sought for a two storey dwelling and detached double garage. The dwelling would be positioned in the centre of the site with garden space to its rear, north. The garage would be towards the southwest corner of the site with turning space in front leading off the existing access in the southeast corner.

 

5.4.2  The dwelling would be two storeys with a ridge height of 8.3m. On the front, south side would be varying eaves heights, a gabled element projecting from the roof and gabled dormers. The rear, north side and west side would have a full two storey elevation with eaves of 4.8m and the east side would have a low eaves of 2.5m. It would have an overall width of 13.8m and depth of 10.3m. Materials proposed are brickwork, tile hanging, plain clay roof, and timber joinery. 

 

5.4.3  The garage would have one enclosed parking space and an open space on the north side. It would have a footprint of 6.5m x 6m, ridge height 5.2m, eaves 2.5m with a barn hipped roof. Materials proposed would match the dwelling.

 

5.5    Principle of Development

 

5.5.1  The application site lies outside any defined settlement boundary and is within the open countryside for the purposes of the Development Plan. Policy ENV28 of the Local Plan restricts development in the countryside to specific types of which new housing is not one. As such, the provision of a dwelling at the site is contrary to the Local Plan.

 

5.5.2  However, it is noted the NPPF advises at paragraph 49 that, “relevant policies 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.” At this moment in time the Council cannot demonstrate a 5 year supply and as such policy ENV28, which restricts housing in the countryside, cannot be grounds for a principle objection to the proposals (as was the case for the refused application for three houses).

 

5.5.3 The applicant also considers that redevelopment of the site with a single house will have a more positive impact on the appearance of the site and its relationship with neighbouring dwellings in terms of visual impact, noise, traffic and general disturbance. It is also put forward that under the lawful use of the site, an un-neighbourly use such as car repairs could operate, that the site could generate relatively high numbers of car and HGV movements, and that additional visual harm could arise from external storage and parking. The applicant also cites the NPPF’s aim of encouraging the efficient use of previously developed land (paragraphs 17 and 111).

 

5.5.4 I agree there is merit in considering the fallback position and un-neighbourly nature of the B2 use against the proposals for one house, and the changes since previous applications in respect of the NPPF and lack of a 5 year housing supply.

 

5.6    Visual Impact & Location

 

5.6.1  I would not suggest the existing buildings have a significant impact upon the local area but there are five separate structures and they do have a presence from East Street and from public footpath KM171 in the field to the southwest. Also, if the B2 use was taken up at the site it could include open storage of unsightly equipment and materials and much increased visual intrusion. With this fallback position, I consider that one new dwelling, its garage and garden would result in an improvement. The site is also within a small group of houses and so has an existing residential character.

 

5.6.2  It is also of note that the original proposals have been much reduced through negotiations. The ridge and eaves height of the dwelling has been lowered and the mass has been much reduced by the removal of a large gable previously on the south side, the reduction in width by over 3m, and a reduction in depth. The house therefore has the appearance of a chalet bungalow on the south and east sides, which are those facing East Street. The garage was originally three bays and has been reduced to a two bay garage.

 

5.6.3  Hard surfacing would be reduced at the site and the landscaping scheme shows new hedge planting along the boundaries, new trees, and retention of trees near the access. This can be secured by condition to improve the appearance of the site.

 

5.6.4  The site is not well-located in terms of access to services and facilities. Whilst there is a limited bus service past the site, I consider future residents would be heavily reliant on private vehicles to reach shops, employment, doctors etc. For this reason, I do not consider the site is sustainably located. Nonetheless, the existing use would create its own movements, including HGVs, and so again I do not consider the proposal for one dwelling would result in a significantly worse situation in this respect.

 

5.6.5  Overall, I consider the removal of all buildings and reductions of hard surfacing, and replacement with one modest house, gardens and landscaping would improve the appearance of the site and there would not be an increase in terms of unsustainable vehicle movements.

 

 

 

5.7    Residential Amenity

 

5.7.1 The lawful use (B2 general industrial) by its very nature has the potential to cause noise and disturbance to neighbouring properties from the actual use in buildings and around the site, and from commercial traffic such as HGVs. Whilst there is no active use at present, B2 uses could resume without the need for further permission and without being restricted by planning conditions: for example open storage, external lighting, hours of use etc. are not restricted. As outlined above, there are houses to the south, east and north with ‘Grafton’ only 10 metres from the south edge of the site. At this proximity, noise and disturbance could potentially be very harmful to these properties. Therefore, my view is that the change in use to one dwelling holds significant benefits.

 

5.7.2 The house itself would be ensured sufficient residential amenity and a contaminated land condition is recommended by Environmental Health to ensure no harmful impacts upon future residents from the former uses. The house would also be sufficient distance from neighbours so as not to harm their amenity. 

 

5.8    Economic Considerations

 

5.8.1  The proposals would result in the loss of a site with lawful commercial use. Whilst the site has not been used for a number of years, the applicant has not advanced the case that it is no longer suitable for such use and states that redevelopment for commercial use remains an option. The proposals for one dwelling would not provide any significant economic benefits and so there would be a negative impact in this respect.

 

5.9    Other Matters

 

5.9.1 An ecological scoping survey of the site and a bat survey of the buildings and trees have been carried out. The reports conclude that the site contains a variety of habitat types but they provide very few opportunities for protected species and as such no further surveys are recommended. During the building inspections, no evidence of a bat roost was found and only one of the buildings has potential for hibernating, where there is low potential in an expansion joint. It is therefore recommend that the joint is inspected by a licensed bat ecologist prior to any dismantling or the demolition of this building. Two trees have potential bat roosting features but the current plans do not propose to remove any trees so their retention can be secured by condition.

 

5.9.2 KCC Ecology is satisfied with the information provided and requires no additional information. As the buildings and trees on site have a low or negligible potential to be used by roosting bats they are satisfied that there is no requirement for emergence surveys to be carried out. They advise that the recommendations and enhancements of the report should be followed, including conditions on lighting to limit impact on bats, a bat box, bat tube or brick bat box within the walls of the house, bird nesting boxes, and landscaping that would enhance the site for biodiversity.

 

5.9.3 KCC Highways have raised issue with turning space for cars, however, in my view there is sufficient space for vehicles to turn in the driveway outside the proposed garage.

 

6.      CONCLUSION

 

6.1    The development is contrary to Local Plan policy ENV28 for the location of new housing. However, with the lack of a 5 year housing supply, this alone cannot form grounds to refuse the application, and the merits must be weighed up.

 

6.2    In considering the fallback position, the unfettered lawful B2 use has the potential to be visually harmful to the local area (here designated a Special Landscape Area), notwithstanding the impact of the existing buildings. It also has the potential to be disturbing to the living conditions of adjoining and nearby houses. The removal of all buildings and reductions of hard surfacing, and replacement with one modest house, gardens and landscaping would improve the appearance of the site and is clearly a compatible use with the neighbouring properties. I consider these are significant matters that weigh in favour the proposals. Whilst the location is unsustainable in terms of access to services and facilities, a single house would not result in any increase in movements above the current lawful use, and may mean a reduction. There would be no harmful implications for ecology and suitable conditions could ensure an enhancement to the site, as would decontamination. There would be a loss of a commercial use, which supports the rural economy, but I do not consider this is sufficient to outweigh the benefits of the application.

 

6.3     Whilst I have reservations as to the introduction of a new residential use in open countryside, in this case I conclude that the advantages outweigh the broad policy objections contained within the Development Plan and I recommend that permission be granted. The application has been advertised as being contrary to Local Plan policy.

 

7.           RECOMMENDATION

 

GRANT 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.   Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 as amended (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification) no enlargement of the dwelling hereby permitted shall be carried out without the permission of the Local Planning Authority;
    
Reason: To safeguard the character and appearance of the countryside.

3.   The development shall not commence until, written details and samples of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the buildings and driveway 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.

4.   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 amenity of adjoining properties.

5.   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 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 retention of existing trees to the south of the proposed dwelling as shown on drawing no. DHA/9241/03 RevB received on 21st October 2013;

Reason: No such details have been submitted and to ensure a satisfactory setting to the site.

6.   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.

7.   The development shall not commence until details of all lighting has been submitted to an approved by the Local Planning Authority. The details shall take into account, and seek to minimise any negative impact upon bats.

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and biodiversity.

8.   The recommendations as set out at paragraphs 7.5 to 7.11 of the 'Mountfield Ecology' Ecological Scoping Survey Report shall be followed during the course of the development unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of biodiversity.

9.   The development shall not commence until specific details of the type and location of the bird and bat boxes recommended under the 'Mountfield Ecology' Ecological Scoping Survey Report have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. They shall thereafter be maintained at the site.

Reason: In the interests of biodiversity.

10.        The dwelling shall achieve at least Level 4 of the Code for Sustainable Homes. The dwelling shall not 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.

11.        The development hereby permitted shall not be commenced until the following components of a scheme to deal with the risks associated with contamination of the site shall have been submitted to and approved, in writing, by the local planning authority:

1) A preliminary risk assessment which has identified:
- all previous uses
- potential contaminants associated with those uses
- a conceptual model of the site indicating sources, pathways and receptors
- potentially unacceptable risks arising from contamination at the site.

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

3) A remediation method statement (RMS) based on the site investigation results and the detailed risk assessment (2). This should give full details of the remediation measures required and how they are to be undertaken. The RMS should also include a verification plan to detail the data that will be collected in order to demonstrate that the works set out in the RMS are complete and identifying any requirements for longer-term monitoring of pollutant linkages, maintenance and arrangements for contingency action.
 
4) A Closure Report is submitted upon completion of the works. The closure report shall include full verification details as set out in 3. This should include details of any post remediation sampling and analysis, together with documentation certifying quantities and source/destination of any material brought onto or taken from the site. Any material brought onto the site shall be certified clean;

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

Reasons: To prevent harm to the health of future occupants.

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

Drawing nos. DHA/9241/01, DHA/9241/02, and topographical survey received on 31st January 2013, and DHA/9241/03 RevB, DHA/9241/04 RevB, and DHA/9241/05 RevA received on 21st October 2013.

Reason: For the purposes of clarity and in the interests of visual amenity.

 

The proposed development is not in accordance with Development Plan policy. However, the improvements to the local area in respect of visual and residential amenity, the absence of any overriding harm, and the lack of a five year housing supply are considered to be grounds to override existing policies in the Development Plan. The proposals are considered to be sustainable in terms of the National Planning Policy Framework 2012 and there are no overriding material considerations to indicate a refusal of planning permission.