APPLICATION:       MA/13/2043         Date: 27 November 2013         Received: 9 January 2014

 

APPLICANT:	Mr R  Young
LOCATION:	1, CULPEPER CLOSE, HOLLINGBOURNE, MAIDSTONE, KENT, ME17 1UD
PARISH:	Hollingbourne
PROPOSAL:	Demolition of existing garage and erection of attached house with associated works including roof extension to 1 Culpeper Close a shown on Planning Statement and Design & Access Statement received 27/11/13 and drawing nos. CP1 & CP2 received 15/01/14.
AGENDA DATE:   CASE OFFICER:	27th February 2014   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, ENV33, ENV34

·         Government Policy: National Planning Policy Framework

 

2.                HISTORY

 

None.

 

3.      BACKGROUND INFORMATION

 

3.1     The applicant did seek pre-application advice under PA/13/0364 for a dwelling in this location.  The proposal was generally accepted with the suggested amendments incorporated into this proposal (reduced dormer window to side and retention of catslide roof).

 

4.      CONSULTATIONS

 

4.1        Hollingbourne Parish Council: Do not wish to object.

 

4.2    KCC Highways Officer: Raises no objections.

 

4.3    Landscape Officer: Raises no objections;

 

4.3.1 “In the absence of any details relating to the Leyland Cypress tree and based on the proposed layout plan and your photographs, I consider that it is unlikely that the tree will be successfully retained in its current form.  The excavation that would be required for the construction of the driveway will potentially cause significant root damage that could lead to its decline or, in the worst case, destabilise the tree.  It might survive, if reduced in size to minimise the risk of such failure.  However, I do not consider that the tree makes a significant contribution to amenity. Its potential loss is not, therefore, a reason to refuse the application, but the application should not be considered on the assumption that the tree can be retained.  I suggest the use of a condition that requires a replacement tree be planted in the event that the Cypress needs to be removed, or dies within 5 years of the completion of the development. The specification of any replacement tree should be agreed in writing with the LPA prior to planting.”

 

4.4    Environmental Health Officer: Raises no objections

 

5.           REPRESENTATIONS

 

5.1    No representations made.

 

6.      CONSIDERATIONS

 

6.1    Site description

 

6.1.1 1 Culpeper Close is a semi-detached property with a catslide roof and tile hanging at first floor level; and a front drive and garage to the side.  This style of property is a strong characteristic of Culpeper Close, be it as semi-detached or terraced properties.  The property itself is a corner plot on the western side of Culpeper Close; and, with a grass verge in between, Eyhorne Street is to the north of the site.  The northern and western boundaries of the site are enclosed with 1.8m high close boarded fencing. 

 

6.1.2 The site is part of a cluster of residential properties, with Culpeper Close stretching some 260m to the south-east of the site; and ‘Troys Mead’, a quiet cul-de-sac, located to the west of the site.  Hollingbourne Primary School is immediately to the north of the site.

 

6.1.3 The application site is not within any defined settlement, and is also within the North Downs Special Landscape Area (SLA), the Kent Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) as shown by the Maidstone Borough-Wide Local Plan 2000 (MBWLP).

 

6.2    Proposal

 

6.2.1  The proposal is for the erection of an attached (2-bed) house and would include a roof extension to 1 Culpeper Close, to make a terrace of three properties.   

 

6.2.2  The proposed house would have a general ‘L’ shape, measuring some 9.3m wide from the front; and when viewed from the side (northern) flank, some 10m in depth.  The rear projection would measure some 4.3m in length whilst being set away some 3.5m from the shared boundary with 1 Culpeper Close.  The side elevation would have a catslide roof element with two small (flat roofed) dormer windows, bringing the eaves height down to 2.3m from ground level; and the new dwelling would be set 1.7m off from the site’s northern boundary.

 

6.2.3  Overall, the proposal would continue the ridge and eaves heights of the existing semi-detached properties, some 7m and 5.5m respectively; and externally would be built from matching materials.

 

6.2.4  2 off-road parking spaces would be provided for the new dwelling and 1 Culpeper Close.  The existing garage would be removed; and the first floor extension to 1 Culpeper Close would provide the occupants with ensuite facilities to 2 existing bedrooms.

 

6.3    Relevant policy and guidance

 

6.3.1  The application site lies outside any defined village boundary and is within an AONB and SLA for Development Plan purposes.  Development in the countryside, especially new housing, is tightly controlled under the terms of Development Plan policy and central government guidance in the form of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). 

 

National Planning Policy Framework

 

6.3.2  The NPPF states that there should be a presumption in favour of sustainable development, which in the context of decision making is defined as approving development proposals that accord with the Development Plan without delay, and where the Development Plan is silent, granting planning permission unless any adverse impact of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits.  So, although the NPPF identifies the provision of new housing by way of various means of delivery as a priority, it also sets out that this is not to take place at the expense of either the built or natural environment. 

 

6.3.3  Moreover, paragraph 53 of the NPPF seeks to resist inappropriate development of residential gardens, particularly where development would cause harm to the local area; and paragraph 55 of the NPPF is clear that new isolated homes in the countryside should be avoided unless there are special circumstances.  This proposal does not qualify as one of these special circumstances (as listed in paragraph 55 of the NPPF).  The NPPF also makes it clear that proposed development needs to respect the intrinsic character and setting of the countryside (paragraph 17); and should seek to conserve the landscape and scenic beauty of the AONB (paragraph 115).  Garden land is also considered to be greenfield land.

 

6.3.4  It is my view that this proposal is not in an unsustainable or isolated location.  Indeed, the site is directly opposite a primary school; it is within 700m of Hollingbourne train station; and within 800m of the defined village of Eyhorne Street, with its public houses; village hall; osteopath; and shop.  Furthermore, the proposal site is within 200m of a play area; and although not well served by footpaths, Hollingbourne village is within 800m with its church; and public house.  Eyhorne Street, the main road that runs past the application site is also on a bus route; and there are three doctor surgeries and 1 dentist surgery within 3 miles of the site.  With this considered, I am satisfied that this proposal is not contrary to paragraph 55 of the NPPF.

 

6.3.5  In taking the view that the proposal would not represent a wholly unsustainable development, enough to justify refusal, I will also discuss further on in the report why the development would not cause significant visual harm to the surrounding area.  I therefore consider this proposal to be in accordance with the NPPF and acceptable in principle.

 

Development Plan

 

6.3.6  Policy ENV28 of the MBWLP restricts new residential development in the countryside for which there is no Development Plan policy justification, to prevent harmful sporadic development within the countryside.  Policy ENV28 seeks to restrict certain uses in the countryside, and this sentiment is in accordance with the NPPF.  The proposal is contrary to policy ENV28 and to recommend approval of it is therefore considered to be a departure from the Development Plan.

 

6.3.7  Policies ENV33 and ENV34 also seek to protect and conserve the scenic quality of AONB’s and SLA’s.

 

5-year housing land supply

 

6.3.8  Until such times as a 5-year supply can be demonstrated, planning applications on greenfield sites must be assessed on individual merit; and whilst the issue of the Council’s 5-year land supply is a material consideration in determining this application, it is not the main or singular issue to consider. 

 

Summary

 

6.3.9 The proposal is contrary to policy ENV28 of the Development Plan.  However (as set out above) the site is very much read in context with the existing built development, and I am of the view that the specific circumstances of this application lead me to recommend conditional approval of the development.  To clarify, I am satisfied that this proposal would not consolidate sporadic development within the countryside, or have a detrimental impact on the setting the AONB hereabouts.

 

6.3.10 This is a balanced application but to weighing everything up, the proposal would not cause significant visual harm; the site is not in a truly unsustainable location; and the Council cannot currently demonstrate a 5 year land supply.  In my view the balance tips in support of this application, and I therefore consider the principle of this proposal to be acceptable and will go on to discuss the detail of the proposal.

 

6.4    Design, siting and appearance

 

6.4.1  The proposal would have a clear frontage onto Culpeper Close, much like the other properties in the street; and whilst it would project beyond the building line of the nearest properties in terms of the Eyhorne Street frontage, there is no uniform building line and the proposal would not project beyond the pair of semi-detached properties (120 and 122 Eyhorne Street) to the east.  I am therefore satisfied that the new dwelling would be read very much in context with the existing built development in the area, and take the view that it would not appear adversely prominent or visually harmful, particularly as the catslide roof would further reduce the overall bulk of the development.  There are also other terraced properties in Culpeper Close.  Therefore, in terms of the impact on the wider area, I am satisfied that the proposed development would not have a detrimental impact upon the pattern and grain of development of the surrounding area. 

 

6.4.2  Moreover, the scale and design of the proposed dwelling is in keeping with the character of the surrounding area, with the existing ridge and eaves heights maintained; and to ensure that appropriate external materials are used a pre-commencement condition will be imposed requesting details of the brick and tiles to be used.  The width of the proposed dwelling and the shown fenestration detail is also very much in proportion with the surrounding properties; the rear projection is well scaled and not excessive in depth; and the catslide roof would not only relate well with the locality, but would also ensure that the bulk of the development is reduced particularly when viewed from Eyhorne Street.  In addition, the existing 1.8m high close boarded fencing would provide a certain level of screening; and the proposal’s 1.7m set in from the existing northern boundary together with an appropriate landscaping scheme would further soften the proposal.

 

6.4.3  The first floor extension of 1 Culpeper Close is considered to be of a reasonable scale, appropriate design and necessary in terms of the overall development, and I raise no objections to the proposal in this respect.

 

6.4.4  I am of the view that the proposal would not appear over dominant, cramped or adversely prominent within the street; and cannot argue that it would be at odds with the prevailing pattern of built development within the surrounding area.  I am therefore satisfied that the new dwelling would not appear incongruous or cause unacceptable visual harm to the character and appearance of the countryside hereabouts that falls within an AONB and SLA. 

 

6.5    Residential amenity

 

6.5.1  I am satisfied that the appropriate use of boundary treatments would ensure acceptable levels of privacy at ground floor level for all neighbouring residents; and I will condition the bedroom window that is directly facing onto 1 Culpeper Close to be obscure glazed and fixed shut to further ensure acceptable levels of privacy.  All of the other first floor openings do not directly overlook into any habitable rooms or private amenity space of neighbouring properties.

 

6.5.2  The BRE daylight elevation and plan tests were carried out to see if there would be any impact upon 1 Culpeper Close in terms of loss of daylight to the nearest ground floor opening to the rear that serves a habitable room.  The proposal passed both these tests and so I am satisfied that this proposal would cause a significant loss of light to the occupants of this property.  The orientation of the proposed dwelling would also ensure that it would not cause a significant loss of sunlight to any neighbouring property.

 

6.5.3  I am also satisfied that the proposal, given the modest scale and depth of the rear projection, and its 3.5m set back of the shared boundary would not appear overbearing or cause a significant loss of outlook to the occupants of 1 Culpeper Close (internally or when in the garden).

 

6.5.4  No other residential property would be adversely affected by this proposed development.

 

6.5.5  I am therefore satisfied that this proposal would not appear overwhelming, or have a significant detrimental impact upon the residential amenity of any neighbour, in terms of general disturbance, and loss of privacy, outlook, and light.

 

6.6    Amenity for future occupants

 

6.6.1  I am of the view that the new dwelling would provide acceptable levels of outdoor (private) amenity space for future occupants; and that there would be an acceptable level of internal living accommodation with sufficient privacy and light being achieved for each habitable room.  I therefore raise no concerns on this issue.

 

6.7    Highway safety implications

 

6.7.1  The proposed dwelling would make use of the existing vehicle access for 1 Culpeper Close, with a widened driveway providing 2 car park spaces for both properties.  I am satisfied that this arrangement would not result in any highway safety concern and therefore raise no objection in this respect.  The KCC Highways Officer also raised no objection to this proposal on highway safety grounds.

 

6.8    Arboricultural/landscape implications

 

6.8.1 The submitted plans show the Leyland Cypress tree to the front of the site to be retained.  However, based on the information available, the Council’s Landscape Officer is of the view that it is unlikely to be successfully retained in its current form.  Indeed, the excavation work required for the construction of the driveway would potentially cause significant root damage resulting in the tree’s decline.  Notwithstanding this, the tree is not considered to make a significant contribution to amenity, and so its potential loss is not a reason to refuse this application.  However, please note that the application should not be considered on the assumption that the tree can be retained.  I therefore consider it reasonable to impose a condition that states in the event of the tree dying within 5 years of the completion of the development that an appropriate replacement tree should be planted.

6.8.2 To ensure a satisfactory appearance to the proposal, I also consider it justified to request a landscaping scheme to be submitted prior to the commencement of the proposed development.

 

6.9    Other matters

 

6.9.1  The applicant has confirmed that the proposed dwelling would achieve a minimum of Level 4 in terms of the Code for Sustainable Homes. 

 

6.9.2  Given the nature of the proposal and the condition of the application site, I do not consider it necessary to request any further information in terms of any potential impact on protected species.  However, in accordance with the NPPF which seeks biodiversity enhancements, details of swift bricks have been requested by way of condition.  There are no flood risk concerns.

 

7.      CONCLUSION

 

7.1     The proposed development is not in accordance with Development Plan policy.  However, the proposed development would not represent an unsustainable form of development that would cause unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the countryside that falls within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.  For the reasons set out, it is considered that more weight should be given to the National Planning Policy Framework and I therefore recommend approval of this proposed development subject to the appropriate conditions.

 

8.      RECOMMENDATION

 

GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION subject to the following conditions:   

 

1.           The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission;

Reason: In accordance with the provisions of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

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

 Reason: To ensure a satisfactory appearance to the development.

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 buildings 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. 

4.           Before the development hereby permitted is first occupied, the proposed first floor side window that faces in a south-western direction 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.

5.           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;

Reason: To safeguard existing trees to be retained and to ensure a satisfactory setting and external appearance to the development. 

6.           Should the existing conifer tree to the front of the site die, be removed, or become seriously damaged or diseased within 5 years of the completion of the development then it shall be replaced with a suitable replacement to be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority;

Reason: in the interests of visual amenity.

7.           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 buildings 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.

8.           The development shall not commence until details of the following have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority;

i) details of the provision of bird/bat boxes within the development.

Reason: In the interests of ecology and biodiversity.

9.           The dwellings shall achieve Level 4 or better of the Code for Sustainable Homes. No dwelling shall 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.

10.        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/turning provision is likely to lead to parking inconvenient to other road users and in the interests of road safety.

11.        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, E and F 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 prospective occupiers and surrounding neighbours.

12.        The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: CP2 received 15/01/14;

Reason: To ensure the quality of the development is maintained and to prevent harm to the residential amenity of neighbouring occupiers.

Informatives set out below

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 Environmental Health Team regarding noise control requirements.

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

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

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

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

Any redundant materials removed from the site should be transported by a registered waste carrier and disposed of at an appropriate legal tipping site.

Adequate and suitable measures should be carried out for the minimisation of asbestos fibres during demolition, so as to prevent airborne fibres from affecting workers carrying out the work, and nearby properties. Only contractors licensed by the Health and Safety Executive should be employed.

 

 

 

 

The proposed development is not in accordance with Development Plan policy.  However in this specific case, the proposed development would not represent an unsustainable form of development that would cause unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the countryside that falls within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.  For the reasons set out, it is considered to represent circumstances that can outweigh the existing Development Plan policies and there are no overriding material considerations to indicate a refusal of planning consent.