the officer to whom reference should be made concerning

DOVER DISTRICT COUNCIL

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT CONTROL MANAGER

PLANNING COMMITTEE 21 JUNE 2007

NON-DELEGATED APPLICATIONS

The Reports

The file reference number, a description of the proposal and its location are identified under a) of each separate item. The relevant planning policies and guidance and the previous planning history of the site are summarised at c) and d) respectively.

The views of third parties are set out at e); the details of the application and an appraisal of the proposal are set out at f) and each item concludes with a recommendation at g).

Additional information received prior to the meeting will be reported verbally. In some circumstances this may lead to a change in the recommendation.

Details of the abbreviated standard conditions, reasons for refusal and informatives may be obtained from the Planning Administration Supervisor (telephone 01304 872488).

It should be noted, in respect of points raised by third parties in support of, or objecting to, applications that they are incorporated in this report only if they concern material planning considerations.

Each item is accompanied by a plan (for identification purposes only) showing the location of the site and the Ordnance Survey Map reference.

Site Visits

The Committee approved a revised Protocol for Good Practice in Planning Procedures on 28 November 2002. In respect of site visits it states that all requests for site visits will be considered on their merits having regard to the likely usefulness to the Committee in reaching a decision.

The following criteria will be used to determine usefulness:

• the matter can only be safely determined after information has been acquired directly from inspecting this site.

• there is a need to further involve the public in the decision making process as a result of substantial local interest, based on material planning considerations, in the proposals.

• the comments of the applicant or an objector cannot be adequately expressed in writing because of age, infirmity or illiteracy;

The reasons for holding a Committee site visit must be included in the minutes.

Background Papers

List of background papers: unless otherwise stated, the appropriate file in respect of each application, save any document which discloses exempt information within the meaning of the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985.

The Officer to whom reference should be made concerning inspection of the background papers is Michelle Wallis, Planning Administration Supervisor, Planning, Council Offices, White Cliffs Business Park, Dover (Telephone: 01304 - 872488).

PROTOCOL FOR PUBLIC SPEAKING AT PLANNING COMMITTEE

1. The scheme for public speaking at Planning Committee only concerns mattersrelating to individual planning applications contained in the Planning Committeeagenda and not to other matters including Tree Preservation Orders or Enforcementmatters.

2. Any person wishing to speak at the Planning Committee should submit a writtenrequest using a form provided by the Council and indicating whether the speaker is infavour of, or opposed to, the planning application.

3. The period of notice shall be not later than two working days prior to the meeting ofthe Planning Committee.

4. Speaking opportunities shall be allocated on a first come, first served basis but withthe applicant being given first chance of supporting the scheme. Applicants and thirdparties will be notified of any other requests to speak. The identified speaker maydefer to another at the discretion of the Chairman of the Committee.

5. One person shall be allowed to speak in favour of, and one person allowed to speakagainst, each application. The maximum time limit will be three minutes per speakerand each person to speak once only when the application is first considered, even ifan application is considered on more than one occasion. This does not affect aperson’s right to speak at a site visit if the Committee decides one should be held.

6. The procedure to be followed when members of the public address the Committeeshall be as follows:

(a) Chairman introduces item.

(b) Planning Officer updates as appropriate.

(c) Chairman invites members of the public and Ward Councillor(s) to speak, withthe applicant or supporter last.

(d) Planning officer clarifies as appropriate.

(e) Committee debates the application.

(f) The vote is taken.

7. In addition to the arrangements outlined in 5 above, District Councillors, who are notMembers of the Committee may be permitted to address the Planning Committee forthree minutes in relation to planning applications in their Ward. This is subject togiving formal written notice of not less than two working days and of advising whetherthey are for, or against, the proposals. In the interests of balance, a further threeminutes’ representation on the contrary point of view will be allowed from theidentified speaker, or an additional speaker. If other District Councillors wish tospeak, having given similar notice and with the agreement of the Chairman, thisopportunity will be further extended as appropriate.

8. Agenda items will be taken in the order listed.

9. The Chairman may, in exceptional circumstances, alter or amend this procedure asdeemed necessary.

Index for Planning CommitteeDover District Council

Committee Date: 21/06/2007

Ref. No. 07/00123

Location Saltwood, Hawkshill Road, Walmer

Proposal

DOV/

Erection of two storey rear extension (existing rear extension to be demolished) (amended & further details)

Item No. 01 RcmDcn GTD

Ref. No. 07/00166

Location Land R/O 65 The Marina, Deal

Proposal

DOV/

Erection of 1no. four bedroom detached dwelling and construction of vehicular access (amended details)


Ref. No. 07/00219

Location Kearsney Court, Alkham Road, Temple Ewell

Proposal

DOV/

To fell three trees; Beech, Sycamore and Holm Oak

Item No. 03 RcmDcn SPLT

Ref. No. 07/00332

Location The White House, Sandwich Road, Eastry

Proposal

DOV/

Change of use, conversion and extensions to existing stable building to form 1no. dwelling, erection of car port and store and alterations to vehicular access (existing garage to be demolished and trees removed)


Ref. No. 07/00371

Location Site of Former Garage Adjoining, Dodd's Lane, Dover

Proposal

DOV/

Erection of a detached building incorporating 2no. two bedroom flats and 4no. one bedroom flats, alterations to existing vehicular access and associated car parking


Ref. No. 07/00432

Location 5 Farthingloe Cottages, Folkestone Road, Dover

Proposal

DOV/

Erection of side conservatory extension.


Index for Planning CommitteeDover District Council

Committee Date: 21/06/2007

Ref. No. 07/00451

Location Cottington Court Farm, Sandwich Road, Sholden

Proposal

DOV/

Erection of 2.2 metre high 'rocket' extension to existing tower


Ref. No. 07/00554

Location Flat 4, 42 The Marina, Deal

Proposal

DOV/

Dormer roof extension and erection of balcony


Ref. No. 07/00580

Location Braeside, Queensdown Road, Kingsdown

Proposal

DOV/

Erection of two storey side extension (existing porch and garage to be demolished)


Ref. No. 07/00588

Location 55 Archers Court Road, Whitfield

Proposal

DOV/

Erection of single storey rear extension


1. a) DOV/07/0123 – Erection of two-storey rear extension (existing rear extension to be demolished), Saltwood, Hawkshill Road, Walmer.

b) Summary of Recommendation

Planning permission be granted.

c) Planning Policies and Guidance

Kent and Medway Structure Plan (KMSP): Policies QL1, HP5 and EN1.Dover District Local Plan (DDLP): Policies DD1, DD8 and C01.Walmer Design Statement.

d) Relevant Planning History

None.

e) Consultee and Third Party Responses

County Highways: No objection.

Walmer Parish Council: Accepts that the precedent set by refusal at a neighbouring property is not relevant but still retains some reservations underPolicy WDS3 in terms of the design specification and sedum roof.

Requests a site visit by the Planning Committee before a decision is made, due to disputes over the accuracy and impact of the proposal.

Has stated that the letter of support from a parish councillor does not reflect the views of the Parish Council.

County Archaeologist: No archaeological measures necessary.

Public Representations: Five letters of objection and a letter of support were received during the first advertisement period. The proposal has been readvertised, following receipt of further amended plans and details. Two additional letters of support were received and further letters have also been submitted from the immediate neighbours. In summary, the material objections raised are as follows:

Impact on neighbours

• Noise pollution from the proposed music room;

• The extension would have an unacceptable impact on Small Downs, due to its proximity to the boundary line and its size. It would be overbearing, overpowering and intrusive and may breach the 45° angle of light.

• Overlooking to the rear bedroom and possibly the lounge of Small Downs and its rear patio and garden area.

• The extension will be visually overbearing when viewed from Small Downs; this will be exacerbated as Small Downs is on lower ground. The limit of the cone of vision shown on the plan is disputed.

• The extension would result in loss of light and overshadowing, particularly in the afternoon and evening, into the rear windows of Small Downs and a large proportion of the garden would be permanently in the shade.

• The extension would form a wall, which would tower above Small Downs, making it overpowering, intrusive and domineering, almost doubling the size of the original dwelling.

• The extension will be seen from all but one of the windows at Small Downs.

• Noise concerns from the proposed music room, due to the large opening doors or windows and the position of the patio doors.

• No mention has been made regarding the removal of trees through foundation excavation or whether heavy plant site access will destroy the existing boundary hedging.

• Loss of light to the conservatory at Seaways. Seaways is lower down the hill and the mid afternoon and evening sun extends downward through the gap to be filled in by the proposed extension.

• No assessment has been made of the impact of sunlight/daylight on neighbouring properties in accordance with the BRE report.

• A 65% increase cannot be considered a modest extension.

• The proposed sedum roof would attract seagulls, squirrels and rats.

Design and impact on Street Scene

• The extension would be out of character with the existing property.

• The extension will dominate and compete with the existing house and will appear visually overbearing.

• A pitched roof would be more in keeping.

• A nearby house (South Sands) was refused an application due to design. The proposed extension should be assessed against the same policies.

• The property is adjacent to the Special Landscape Area and Walmer Castle and the road is widely visible from along Wellington Parade.

• The extension, due to the height of the property on the hill, would be visible from Walmer Beach.

• Should the shrubbery on the seaward side of Hawkshill Common be removed, the extension would be visible from the Common.

• The part of the extension that extends past the sidewall of the existing property will be clearly visible from Hawkshill Road and from the cottage Hawkshill Cottage further down the road.

• The wood cladding and flat roof would be out of keeping with the style and materials of the existing building.

Parking

• Parking on the verges is discouraged.

• It is not possible to park along the road without blocking it.

• There is only one parking space within the site as the garage has been converted into living space. Kent Design recommends up to 3 parking spaces for houses with four or more bedrooms.

• Letters also referred to the inclusion of an additional driveway, which was not advertised.

One letter of support was received, which states that: -

• The large two storey rear extension at Greensleeves (to the immediate west) is larger, blocking out any evening sunlight to Saltwood and sets a precedent.

• Overlooking of Small Downs would be difficult, due to the proposed design of the extension.

• Tall trees run along the boundary and the property is on a downward slope, so there is little evening sun to Small Downs.

• The impact on Seaways (to the east) would be negligible, due to its considerable distance away.

• The extension would only be a window’s width wider than the existing house and so would only be visible from the front when standing immediately opposite the house.

Other issues

• Concern as to whether fire precautions are needed for a large wooden structure in close proximity to a large wooded area.

• Concerns raised regarding the adequacy of the sewage and drainage facilities to maintain a structure double the size of the property for which the cesspool was designed.

• The plans showing the positions of Greensleeves and Small Downs are incorrect.

Further to the readvertisement of the proposal and the submission of plans, the following additional material objections have been made:-

Accuracy of Plans

• The accuracy of the plans is still questioned, including the position of the garage at Small Downs.

• The distance of the garage from the boundary hedge has not been mentioned in the report.

Impact of Extension

• The extension will tower above the boundary hedge. Small Downs is angled to Saltwood and the extension will considerably reduce the afternoon and evening sunlight to the property.

• There are other parts of the property that could be sympathetically extended with minimal disruption to the neighbours.

• If Greensleeves has set a precedent, the design and materials of this extension matched that of the main house.

Highways Issues

• The latest proposal for off-road parking is a token gesture. The access has not been widened.

• Parking spaces of 5m by 3m should be provided to accommodate two cars.

The two additional letters of support raise no specific points.

f) 1. The Site and the Proposal

1.1 This is a red brick detached property sited within a fairly large curtilage in Hawkshill Road. The dwelling is within the countryside and is close to a Special Landscape Area, which lies to the south of Hawkshill Road. The properties along the road are all fairly large detached dwellings with large rear gardens and are on land that slopes down to the east.

1.2 A public footpath runs behind the properties in Hawkshill Road, but the properties are not readily visible from along this path, due to their distance away and the screening afforded by the boundary fences and trees.

1.3 The property has an existing single storey rear extension to the rear, which would be demolished as part of the proposed scheme.

1.4 Greensleeves, the property to the west, has a large two-storey flat roof extension. It is divided from Saltwood by a 2m high hedge.

1.5 Small Downs, the neighbouring property to the east, has a single storey garage extension that projects into the rear garden by about 7m and is built close to the dividing boundary. A hedge, about 1.5m in height, divides the application site from Small Downs.

1.6 The proposal was included within the agenda for Planning Committee on 5 April 2007 (Item no. 7). However, due to the receipt of a number of letters, raising a number of issues, the application was deferred in order to prepare another report addressing the additional issues raised.

1.7 The proposal seeks full planning permission for the erection of a two-storey rear extension. The extension would be 4.5m in depth, 7.5m in width at first floor level and 10.5m in width at ground floor level. It would have a flat roof, which would reach the eaves of the house at 5.5m. The extension would extend past the side wall of the house by just under 1m and would be 1.4m from the boundary with Small Downs at its closest point. The extension has been designed with an angled corner, in an attempt to reduce its impact on Small Downs.

1.8 The extension would have a ground floor window and an obscure glazed, fixed shut first floor window on the west facing elevation facing Greensleeves. There would be no windows on the east facing elevation facing Small Downs. The extension would have two front facing windows and rear facing windows and doors.

1.9 The extension would be finished in hardwood cladding and white rendered walls, with a sedum planted flat roof.

1.10 The applicant’s agent has submitted a number of letters, particularly in response to objections raised. A number of issues also required clarification. Further plans and details have since been provided, in response to the concerns raised. In summary, the agent has stated the following:-

• A precedent has been set by the extension at Greensleeves.

• No overlooking would result from the proposed extension –there would be no direct or oblique views from the sides facing the neighbouring properties and the additional second bedroom at the back of the proposed extension is well presented and would only allow for some additional views to the back end of the neighbours’ gardens.

• The materials have been chosen to blend in much better with the rural street scene and to be more in keeping with the increased focus on the environmental impact of buildings and modern architectural and building best practice. The agent has confirmed that the cladding to the north east elevation would be acceptable under Building Regulations.

• The additional driveway has been withdrawn from the scheme and plans show the provision of space for two cars to be parked within the curtilage, using the existing driveway.

• Amended plans show the property in relation to Small Downs, the neighbouring property, which the agent has confirmed are now accurately drawn.

• The amended plans show the cone of vision from the bedroom window and the agent has stated that the extension does not produce unacceptable overshadowing or a sense of enclosure, according to the Council’s guidance and the BRE’s information paper Site layout planning for daylight and sunlight (The BRE document is not mandatory, but aims to ensure good conditions in the local environment, with enough sunlight and daylight on or between building for good interior and exterior conditions).

• The advised 25° angle for measuring whether the proposal would affect the neighbours’ sunlight (as set out by BRE) would fall mostly on Small Down’s garage roof.

• The proposal will not involve the removal of any trees and site access will be through the existing driveway entrance.

• The cesspit has not caused any problems and the number of residents using the sanitary arrangements will remain the same. The rain water pipe that discharges into the system will be re-routed to a new soak-away, as advised by Building Control.

• The existing living room is currently used for music practice. It is of sub-standard construction, and no objections to noise have been received from neighbours. The extension will be rendered with the cavities filled with insulating material and lined with plasterboard and the sedum blanket on the roof will provide further insulation. The windows will be triple glazed. None of the instruments will be amplified.

• Plans and photographs taken by the Case Officer from the rear of Small Downs will be on display.

1.11 For clarity and in response to objectors' queries regarding the accuracy of the plans, the agent has agreed to submit a full set of amended plans.

2. Planning Policy

2.1 The relevant policies are listed above at (c).

2.2 KMSP Policy QL1 requires that all development should be well designed and be of high quality and DDLP Policy DD1 states that development should be acceptable in terms of its layout, scale and design and privacy and amenity.

2.3 DDLP Policy DD8 seeks to ensure that extensions to residential properties will be appropriate in their setting in terms of design, scale

and materials and that they have no adverse impact on the amenity of the neighbouring properties.

2.4 KMSP Policy EN1 and DDLP Policy CO1 require that development in the countryside should seek to maintain or enhance it and that development which will adversely affect the countryside will not be permitted unless there is an overriding need for it.

2.5 KMSP Policy HS5 lists a number of criteria against which housing development in the countryside should be judged. One criterion is that the development relates to the modest extension of a dwelling currently in residential use.

2.6 The Walmer Design Statement states that development should be consistent with the policies of the Local Plan and the principles and objectives of Kent Design and should acknowledge, preserve or enhance the built and natural heritage of the parish of Walmer (Policy WDS1). Development should respect the origins and reflect strongly the character, appearance and design details of the Character Area (WDS2), which in this case is Walmer Seafront. The scale, materials and boundary treatments used in development should be appropriate to their surroundings and the design details of the character area in which the development is proposed (Policy WDS3) and, in accordance with Kent Design (2000), a confused application of architectural styles or inappropriate historic imitation should be avoided (Policy WDS4).

3. Assessment

3.1 The main issues for consideration are: -

• The visual impact of the extension on the character and appearance of the area and the street scene.

• The impact of the extension on the residential amenity of surrounding properties.

• Highway issues.

The visual impact of the extension on the character and appearance of the area and the street scene.

3.2 A number of objections have been received regarding the size, design and scale of the extension and its impact from along Hawkshill Road, on the adjacent Special Landscape Area, Walmer Castle, Wellington Parade and Hawkshill Common.

3.3 DDLP Policy states that extensions to dwellings with pitched roofs should also have pitched roofs unless specific circumstances warrant otherwise, for instance, if it is an extension to an existing flat roofed extension, or the extension is very small or unobtrusive.

3.4 In this case, however, it is considered that as the extension would be sited to the rear of the property, it would not be readily visible from the street. The small section that would project past the side wall of the

existing house would be modest in scale and size and would be set back from the road by about 14m from Hawkshill Road, so would not appear prominent within the street scene. Due to its distance from the footpath to the rear, and the foliage that runs along the footpath, the extension would not be readily visible from along here either.

3.5 Whilst flat roofs at first floor level are not normally acceptable, it is considered, on balance, that the roof design of the extension would not make it appear prominent or intrusive and the extension would not result in any undue visual or physical harm.

3.6 In addition, it is considered that the timber-clad finish to the extension would create a softer appearance than brick and would result in an innovative but sensitive design and finish to the extension.

3.7 It is considered on balance, therefore, that the design of the extension, incorporating a flat roof with timber-clad walls, would be appropriate in this location and, as such, would be in accordance with design standards set out in policy.

3.8 Concern has been raised that the use of timber would result in a potential fire hazard. The applicant’s agent has stated that the cladding would be acceptable under the Building Regulations. The Building Control Officer has confirmed that the wooden cladding would be acceptable, provided that there is a non-combustible material, i.e. blockwork or brickwork behind the cladding, which the agent has agreed to provide.

3.9 This dwelling is not within the urban confines of Walmer, so any extensions are required under countryside policy to be modest. An objection has been raised that a 65% increase in floor area cannot be considered to be modest. However, the term modest does not only relate to floor area, but also to the scale, siting, design and overall impact of development. The siting, design, screening, scale and size of the proposal have been taken into account in assessing its overall impact. It is considered in this case that the extension in itself can be regarded as reasonably modest, particularly as it would be sited to the rear of the property and would not be especially visible in the wider area. It is considered that it would be subordinate to the form and scale of the existing house and would appear as a modest extension to it. As such, it is considered to comply with countryside policy.

3.10 Due to its siting to the rear of the property and well screened, the extension would not be readily seen from the wider Special Landscape Area and would not have a significant or harmful impact on the visual amenities of the street scene, Walmer Castle, Wellington Parade or Hawkshill Commons.

3.11 Walmer Parish Council and other objectors referred to a proposal recently refused at South Sand for a side dormer roof extension (DOV/06/1270). Whilst this current proposal is assessed in light of the same policies, it is a completely different scheme, sited to the rear of the property and as such is not directly comparable to the neighbour’s extension. In any event, each case is considered on its individual merits.

Impact on Neighbours

3.12 A number of objections have been raised, regarding the impact of the proposed extension on the residential amenities of neighbouring occupants.

Impact on Small Downs

3.13 Small Downs is the detached property to the east of the site.

3.14 The neighbours are concerned that overlooking into their rear rooms and patio and garden will result. The extension would not have any side facing windows that would overlook Small Downs – this can be controlled by condition. Due to its siting, it is not considered that the first floor front facing window would result in any unacceptable overlooking or interlooking. The rearward facing first floor window would be about 4m from the dividing boundary with Saltwood. As the houses are set at a slight angle away from each other, it is considered that any overlooking into Saltwood would be confined to the very rear of that neighbour’s garden. It is considered that only oblique overlooking would result and there would not be any unacceptable overlooking of the neighbours’ patio area or private amenity space.

3.15 The neighbours at Small Downs have a rear facing lounge window (the lounge also has a front facing window) and a bedroom window. The extension would not breach the 45° angle, which seeks to prevent unacceptable overshadowing or a sense of enclosure, when taken from either of these windows. It is not considered that the extension would result in a loss of outlook from the neighbour’s house, due to its proposed siting and distance away from Small Downs.

3.16 There is concern that the flat roof could be used as a balcony. However, if planning permission is granted, prevention of this can be dealt with by way of condition.

3.17 The neighbours are also concerned that the extension would be overbearing and would result in loss of light and overshadowing. Reference has been made to the assessment of the impact of the development on daylight and sunlight not being carried out with theBRE report. The BRE (Building Research Establishment) has published information papers on site layout planning for daylight and sunlight. The accuracy of the agent’s incorporation of the advised angles on plans has also been questioned.

3.18 The extension would be orientated to the south west of Small Downs. This may result in some overshadowing and loss of light to its gardenin the late afternoon and evening.

3.19 However, the extension has been designed so that it would have a wall that would be angled away from the neighbour’s property. The extension would be between 1.4m and 3.8m from the boundary. It would be of a fairly modest size, scale and height and would incorporate a flat roof, which would significantly reduce potential overshadowing. It is considered that any shadow cast would fall

mainly on the neighbours’ flat roof garage extension, which extends about 7m into their rear garden and along the side of their house. It is not considered that the extension would create any overshadowing that would affect the neighbours’ private amenity or garden area to an unacceptable degree.

3.20 It is considered, on balance, that the extension would not result in an unacceptable level of overshadowing or loss of light for the neighbouring occupants.

3.21 Although the extension is on more elevated ground than the house at Small Downs, the incorporation of a flat roof would significantly reduce the overall potential size and bulk of the extension. Although the extension would be seen from the neighbours’ garden, given its siting away from the neighbours’ property and its reasonably modest scale and size, it is not considered that it would result in an overbearing or enclosing form of development for the neighbours to an unacceptable degree. Although the neighbours’ garage is a single storey, low key building, it does in any case already partly enclose their rear patio.

3.22 The objections regarding the impact of the proposed extension on this property have all been considered. However, it is considered that, on balance, the extension would be of an acceptable scale, design, size and siting so as not result in an unacceptable loss of residential amenity for the occupants here.

Impact on Greensleeves

3.23 Greensleeves is the detached property to the west of the site, which has a two storey rear extension.

3.24 Reference has been made regarding the plans – objectors have stated that there is no gap between the Saltwood and Greensleeves boundary. However, the agent has confirmed that there is a gap andthis is reflected on plan. It has been observed by the Case Officer.

3.25 The first floor part of the extension would be 7m from the dividing boundary with Greensleeves. Given its distance away, and as the property at Greensleeves has a two storey rear extension, it is not considered that the extension would result in a loss of residential amenity for these occupants, by way of an overbearing impact, overshadowing or loss of light.

3.26 The extension would have one side facing window at first floor level, which would serve a hallway. The window is shown on an amended plan as fixed shut and obscure glazed up to a height of 1.7m above internal floor level, with a top hung vent, in order to prevent any unacceptable overlooking. The retention of this window as such can be controlled by condition.

Impact on Seaways

3.27 Seaways is sited to the immediate east of Small Downs and is about 15m from the application site. The occupant is concerned that the extension would reduce the light into the conservatory, patio and

garden area. However, due to the distance of the extension from the property at Seaways and its scale and size, it is not considered that the extension would have any impact on the residential amenity of the occupants.

Highway Issues

3.28 Objections were originally raised, regarding parking provision, particularly as the verge is owned by a limited company, and regarding the inclusion of an additional driveway, which was not advertised. Concerns were also raised regarding parking provision within the site and the use of the verge for parking.

3.29 County Highways originally commented that the drive shown on plan needed to be widened to 5m to allow two vehicles to park, as the extension is increasing the number of bedrooms to four.

3.30 Plans were submitted shortly after the application had originally been advertised, showing an additional driveway. The agent has now submitted a further amended plan to show parking provision for two cars within the site curtilage, with no alterations to the existing access. This provision can be conditioned to be maintained as such.

3.31 As a new access is no longer proposed, the scheme would not involve encroachment onto the verge and so notice would not need to be served on its owners. Car parking on the highway or verges is not a planning matter.

3.32 County Highways have no objections regarding the plan showing the parking to be provided.

Other Issues

3.33 Concerns have been raised regarding the proposed use of the extension and the noise levels that would result. However, the extension would be for the applicants’ private use and its use as a music room or any other living room would be part and parcel of normal domestic use and activity of a dwelling house. It is not considered reasonable to require any additional insulation measures. The agent has stated that the construction of the extension would provide more sound proofing than the existing room used as a music room does, so any potential noise levels would actually be reduced. If unacceptable noise or disturbance were to be generated from the use of the extension as a music room, then it would be likely to be a matter for Environmental Protection legislation.

3.34 Concern has also been raised regarding the removal of trees and thepossible destruction of the existing boundary hedging from heavy plant site access. However, the applicants have stated on their application form that there would be no felling of trees as part of the development and the development itself would not necessitate the removal of any trees or bushes. This has been confirmed by the applicants’ agent, who has stated that the proposal will not involve the removal of any trees and site access will be through the existing

driveway entrance. Landscaping details can be conditioned to be submitted.

3.35 An objection has been raised regarding the proposed sedum roof, as it was suggested that it would attract seagulls, squirrels and rats to the site and the neighbouring properties. However, the applicants have advised that a sedum roof would not encourage large birds and foraging animals, but would provide habitat for insects, butterflies and small birds. The Council's Ecologist advises that there is nothing to suggest that the incorporation of a sedum roof would attract rodents or seagulls any more than any other sort of roofing material.

3.36 Concerns have been raised regarding the adequacy of the drains and the cesspit. This is not a planning matter. However, the agent has confirmed that the existing cesspit has not caused any problems and the number of residents using the sanitary arrangements will remain the same. The agent has also stated that the rain water pipe that discharges into the system will be re-routed to a new soak-away, as advised by the Building Regulations Officer. In any case, these are issues that would be covered within a Building Regulations application.

Conclusion

3.37 Consideration has been given to all matters raised. The proposal is not considered to contravene the provisions of the Walmer Design Statement. Overall and on balance it is considered that the proposal would be acceptable in terms of its impact on the residential amenity of neighbouring occupants, within the street scene and countryside and in highways terms. Members will note, however, the suggestion of a site visit.

3.38 The recommendation takes account of the implications of the Human Rights Act 1998 as it relates to both the applicants and third parties. It is recognized that approval of the application may interfere with the rights of third parties as protected by Article 8 and Article 1 of the First Protocol to the Human Rights Act 1998. This has to be balanced however against the rights of others and the decision ultimately has to be made in the wider public interest.

g) Recommendation

I Subject to resolution of any outstanding matters, PERMISSION BE GRANTED subject to the following conditions: - (i) DP08; (ii) DP04V (letter and plan no. D10A received 23 March 2007, letter and plan no’s. D01B, D12A received 2 May 2007 and letter and plan No.D13A received 8 May 2007D.01/A); (iii) PA16; (iv) PD19V (no further openings at first floor level on the east and west facing walls of the extension); (v) MA37V (the west facing first floor window to be obscure glazed and fixed shut up to 1.7m in height); (vi) No part of the flat roof area of the extension shall be used at any time for sitting out or standing purposes as a balcony. Access at any time to this flat roof area shall only be for maintenance purposes (Dover District Local Plan Policies DD1 and DD8). Reason: In order to avoid unacceptable overlooking; (vii) No development shall take place until a plan identifying existing trees and shrubs/hedging to be returned along dividing boundaries has been submitted

to the Local Planning Authority. The tree and shrub planting, as shown on the submitted details, shall be retained and maintained as such and should any tree or shrub/hedge treatment become deceased, die, removed or damaged then the plant shall be replaced with a like for like sized species. (Dover District Local Plan Policy DD1). Reason: To ensure a high quality of design and in the interests of enhancing the quality and enjoyment of the environment; (viii) LA09; (ix) any other conditions to be delegated to the Development Control Manager.

II I07, I13I.

III The Development Control Manager BE AUTHORISED to resolve any outstanding matters.

Case Officer

Sarah Platts

2. a) DOV/07/0166 - Erection of one 4-bedroom detached dwelling and construction of vehicular access, land rear of 65 The Marina, Deal




Kent and Medway Structure Plan (KMSP): Policy QL1, HP2 and NR10Dover District Local Plan (DDLP): Policies HS1, HS2, WE9, DD1, DD4 and DD5PPS25 (December 2006): Development and Flood Risk


DOV/06/01233 - Erection of 2 no. 3-bedroom detached dwellings and construction of vehicular access - withdrawn.


County Highways: No objections, subject to conditions and informatives.

County Archaeologist No objection, subject to imposition of condition AR01.

Environment Agency: Objected to the application as originally submitted on flood risk grounds. The site lies in Flood Zone 3, High Probability, as defined in PPS25. The risk-based Sequential Test outline in PPS25 should be applied at all stages of the planning process and as such, residential development should only go ahead in Flood Zone 3 if the test has been applied and it is concluded that there are no alternative sites available within a lower-risk category. It is made clear (para. 22) that it is the developer’s responsibility to demonstrate that any proposals in flood risk areas are consistent with the policies in PPS25. It is also made clear that all proposals must be submitted with a Flood Risk Assessment.

Records indicate that this site is very likely to have suffered from flooding in the past. It is also very likely that the property would not benefit from any form of safe dry access in the event of a flood.

The ground floor levels are proposed to be set at 3.9m AOD. This is over a metre below the “200-year” extreme tide condition, without taking account of the new climate change figures contained within the PPS. It is the Agency’s view that further development in this part of Deal is inappropriate and should not go ahead unless it can be demonstrated that it falls in line with the Sequential Test outlined in PPS25.

In addition, with floor levels so low and no indication of mitigation measures to be incorporated into the design, the Agency cannot consider this development to be ‘safe’ as outlined in the Exception Test and, therefore, the proposals should not gain permission.

Further views awaited on the amended plans.

Deal Town Council: Supports.

Public Representations: Fifteen letters of public representation have been received, 11 in support and 4 objecting to the proposals. The objections raised the follow matters of material planning concern: -

• Loss of daylight;

• Development overbearing;

• Development will appear squeezed in;

• Interlooking from windows in the development to rooms in Mariner’s View to the west;

• Roof of dwelling too high and out of keeping;

• The new house will be overlooked from all three houses on The Marina;

• Disagree with any development in this garden and it would set a precedent for further applications in the future;

• Most suitable and efficient use of the land is to keep it as a garden; and

• Limited dimensions are included on the plan.

The letters of support raise the following material planning matters:-

• The proposal will compliment the existing house along The Marina/Harold Road;

• The application reflects the nearby Edwardian housing;

• Pleased to see the proposal provides off-street parking for the existing and new dwellings. This will reduce on-street car parking;

• Flooding should not be raised as an objection to this house as a recent building decision agreed flooding is not an issue in this area;

• The proposal will enhance and improve the residential tone of the road;

• Pleased to see attention to design detail, which is entirely in keeping with the area and would preserve the traditional character;

• The proposal will have the benefit of screening the block known as Mariner’s View;

• Creates much needed family accommodation in this area;

• It would uplift residential nature of the part of this road;

• This immediate area of Sandown Road looks dowdy and neglected with high back garden walls and blocks of garages. The new house would introduce a high quality more residential appearance to this area of Sandown Road;

• This proposal will attract families and support local businesses and schools.

Following re-consultation and re-advertisement of amended proposals which have provided flood mitigation measures and other amendments, one additional letter of representation has been received which considers the revised proposal to be out of keeping with surrounding development and to set a precedent for similar garden developments.


1.1 The site comprises an area of garden land to the rear of 65 The Marina, located at the corner of Sandown Road and Harold Road. The site has a frontage of some 18.5 metres to Harold Road and 21.5 metres to Sandown Road and its site area is given on the submitted application form as being 0.0387 hectares.

1.2 The surrounding area is residential in nature, with a mixture of forms, sizes and locations of buildings within plots and a variety in plot size. A private squash club lies opposite the site on the southern side of Harold Road and three storey town houses, forming part of Mariner’s View, lie opposite the site on the western side of Sandown Road.

1.3 The proposal seeks full planning permission for the erection of one detached four-bedroom dwelling. Three off street car parking spaces are to be provided for the proposed dwelling in the north western corner of the site, utilising an existing vehicular access from Sandown Road, with the demolition of existing garages. In addition, two tandem off street car parking spaces are to be provided as replacement car parking for the existing dwelling at 65 The Marina, approximately half way along Harold Road between Sandown Road and The Marina.

1.4 The application was first reported to the Committee on 5 April 2007 (Item 8). Consideration was deferred pending receipt of a flood risk assessment.

1.5 Following the Flood Risk Assessment, amendments have been carried out to the proposed scheme. Changes to the floor layout include the provision of a bedroom with en-suite within the roof space, to be lit be rooflights, the moving of the lounge and dining room to the first floor with the provision of a home office/studio and integral garden store/workshop on the ground floor. The family bathroom has been moved from the first floor to the ground floor. There are no changes to the footprint or overall form of the house.

1.6 With particular regard to flood risk, mitigation measures have been incorporated which include 3 permanently installed dual purpose gates/flood gates, waterproof treatment to the wall of the house and car port and replacement of the proposed boundary fence by a wall to

a maximum height of 1.5 metres above ground level. The applicant states that these measures will form ‘a completely enclosed area around the ground floor of the house’ and further states that this will meet the newly predicted 1-in-200 years tide level. Water resilient plaster shall be used at ground floor ceiling level with electrical supplies terminating at the first floor with a protected circuit dropping down to a height of approximately 1 metre above floor level. The applicant further confirms that the new dwelling will be registered with the Environment Agency’s ‘Floodline Warnings Direct’ service.

1.7 The proposals are supported by a revised Design and Access Statement which sets out the proposal and relevant planning guidance and considers the suitability of the design and form in relation to development within the surrounding area, together with flood mitigation measures set out above.

1.8 The applicant is now a member of the District Council.

1.9 Plans will be on display.

2. Planning Policy

2.1 Policy QL1 of the KMSP advises that development should be well designed and respect its setting and this is further pursued by Policy DD1 of the DDLP which sets out a range of criteria to be applied.

2.2 Policy HS1 of the DDLP restricts new housing development to being within the defined built confines. Within such areas, Policy HS2 supports housing development providing it is the most suitable land use. Policy HP2 of the KMSP states that new housing sites should, inter alia, demonstrate good accessibility and the lack of material harm from physical and environmental constraints.

2.3 Policy DD4 of the DDLP seeks adequate amenity space for family dwellings. Policy DD5 supports the development of small sites provided they are consistent with the spatial and visual character of the area and that it respects the style, scale and amenity of adjoining properties.

2.4 Policies NR10 of the KMSP and WE8 of the DDLP seek to protect new development from risk of flooding. Indeed, the former states that new development will not be permitted if it would be subject to an unacceptable risk of flooding; alternatively, if development is necessary it should be designed to mitigate the impact of flood risk.

2.5 PPS25 sets out the Government’s advice on flooding.

3. Assessment

3.1 The principal planning considerations in this case are;

• The principle of the development of this site for the erection of one residential dwelling;

• The suitability of the design and siting of the development;

• Impact on neighbouring occupiers;

• The acceptability of the proposals in highway terms; and

• Environment Agency concerns.

The principle of the development

3.2 The site lies within the urban confines of Deal and within a residential area. Policies HS1 and HS2 of the Dover District Local Plan support the principle of the development of this site for residential use.

3.3 The site is comparable in size to other plots at this section of Sandown Road. Whilst it is noted that the objections raise concern that such a proposal would set a precedent for similar development of gardens fronting Sandown Road, each application must be considered on its own merits. The site has good dimensions with two street frontages and offers adequate off street car parking for both the existing and proposed dwellings

Suitability of the design and siting of the development

3.4 The proposed dwelling would be sited close to the corner of Sandown and Harold Roads to address both street frontages. The dwelling is set on the Harold Road frontage on a line with the side of 65 The Marina. Its size, form and location within the site are all reflective of the character of the surrounding area and other residential propertieswithin the block of built development within which this site lies. This street block generally comprises of large detached individual dwellings set within large plots of land and the proposed dwelling sits well with the pattern and form of development at this junction. Policy DD5 of the DDLP supports the development of small sites provided they are consistent with the spatial and visual character of the area and that the development respects the style, scale and amenity of adjoining properties. It is considered that the submitted proposals meet these policy aims.

3.5 The design of the proposed dwelling reflects many of the design details and characteristics in Sandown and Harold Roads. Whilst it has a relatively steep roof pitch, this is not uncommon in this area of Deal and its size fits appropriately with the size of the dwelling. The roofspace is to be utilised to provide a bedroom with en-suite bathroom.

3.6 An adequately sized rear amenity area is provided which will enable the provision of some private space, complying with the requirements of Policy DD4 of the DDLP.

3.7 The proposal accords with the aims of Policy QL1 of the KMSP and Policy DD1 of the DDLP.

Impact on neighbouring occupiers

3.8 The building is set nearly 15 metres away from the dwelling at 65 The Marina and its rear elevation arranged to have fixed, obscure glazed windows at first floor level. One window to a bathroom proposes a top opener. There would be no overlooking to 65 or 66 The Marina and whilst such windows may create the feeling of being overlooked, the distance between these dwellings and between these windows and the site boundary is sufficient to overcome these concerns.

3.9 Whilst 65 and 66 The Marina are set at a higher level to the application site, again the distances between buildings and proposed boundary treatments should minimise any interlooking from the east.

3.10 To the west lies Mariner’s View, a terrace of 7 three storey town houses. Concern has been raised that the proposed windows within the western elevation of the dwelling will enable overlooking of the habitable rooms of properties in Mariner’s View. However, the buildings are set some 13.5 metres apart and either side of Sandown Road. In view of this, it is considered that such a distance or relationship between buildings is not unreasonable to be found in any urban residential road and it would therefore be unreasonable to recommend refusal for this reason. The southern side of the site faces an existing squash club building and electricity sub station and there are no overlooking concerns. To the north, no windows are proposed in the northern elevation and again there are no overlooking concerns.

3.11 The proposal is therefore considered to comply with the aims of Policy QL1 of the KMSP and Policies DD1 and DD5 of the DDLP.

The acceptability of the proposals in highway terms

3.12 County Highways are satisfied with the proposals and raise no objections. Conditions are recommended.

Flood Risk Issues

3.13 Policy WE8 states that applications for residential development will not be permitted in areas at risk to tidal flooding unless developers can demonstrate that the development will not be at risk from flooding. Furthermore, residential development must be a minimum of two storeys high with no sleeping accommodation provided below 6.18 metres AOD. The first floor level of the dwelling is shown as being set at 6.9 metres Above Ordnance Datum, complying with Policy WE8 of the Dover District Local Plan.

3.14 However, PPS25: Development and Flood Risk states that its policies may supersede development plan policies. It sets out that the Government expects local planning authorities to apply a risk-based precautionary approach to the preparation of Development Plans and their decisions on development control through a sequential test. This is highlighted by the Environment Agency. It would be expected that development will first be restricted to those areas at little or no risk,

then medium to low risk and then only finally within the high risk category. It is clear that, in the opinion of the Environment Agency, the defences in Deal do not provide the appropriate standard of defence and therefore other sites should be developed first.

3.15 The Agency’s view needs to be balanced with other policies and Government guidance which promote residential development within sustainable locations in terms of the need to travel to obtain goods and services. The site’s location within Deal is in a good sustainable location in this latter respect and is in an established built up area. The site is of a brownfield nature.

3.16 The applicant has now submitted a Flood Risk Assessment which has been forwarded to the Environment Agency. At the time of writing this report, the Agency's comments had not been received. They are, however, expected prior to Planning Committee and will be reported verbally at Committee.

3.17 In similar cases recently, the District Council has applied conditions requiring details of mitigation measures, including registration on the Environment Agency’s Flood Risk Warning System. Conditions requiring mitigation measures can be imposed in this case.

Conclusions

3.19 The public support for this application has been noted. The form, scale and design of the proposal sit well within its surroundings and meets design policy guidance. The views of the Environment Agency are important and a decision should not be made without the opportunity to consider its views. It is possible that conditions requiring mitigation measures could be applied to a planning permission and that it would be unreasonable to refuse planning permission in those circumstances for one dwelling in this existing heavily built up location within the urban area solely on flood risk grounds. Consideration has been given to all the matters raised, including the fear of precedent. None are such as to override the conclusion that, subject to the Environment Agency's further comments, the proposal is acceptable.

3.20 Any decision will need to give consideration to the implications of the Human Rights Act 1998 as it relates to both the applicant and third parties. A decision will need to be made which takes account of third party and consultee views; that decision will therefore need to be a balanced one made in the wider public interest.

g. Recommendation

I SUBJECT to receipt of the Environment Agency's views, PERMISSION BE GIVEN subject to conditions to be delegated to the Development Control Manager.

II The Development Control Manager BE AUTHORISED to resolve all outstanding matters.

III I07/I13.

Case Officer Jane Scott

3. a) DOV/07/0219 – To fell three trees; Beech, Sycamore and Holm Oak, Kearsney Court, Alkham Road, Temple Ewell.


Permission be refused in respect of the three trees, but granted for two trees. Crown reduction work be permitted for the third tree.


Kent and Medway Structure Plan (KMSP): Policy EN9.


TPO No. 2, 1963

DOV/07/067 – Erection of detached 4 no. bedroom dwelling, Plot B, Kearsney Court. Refused.


The Garden History Society: Does not wish to comment.

Temple Ewell Parish Council: Objects strongly to any relaxation of the Tree Preservation Orders (TPO) on these trees in the absence of a Tree Surgeon’s full report showing the extent of any problems and that works are essential.

CPRE: Objects to any work that might be interpreted as clearing the way for future development.

Public Representations: Eleven representations have been received. Considerable emphasis is placed on planning application DOV/07/067 for a dwelling, with special reference to the lack of any previous interest in the trees by the owners and the prior maintenance of trees falling on the residents of Kearsney Court. In particular, the management of the Holm Oak (T1 in the application) is mentioned and the view of one objector is that lesser works than felling would make the tree safe.

The Ward Councillor also objects to this proposal and asks for it to be brought to Committee, as there are concerns that the wrong trees have been included. There are fears that removal of diseased trees could help the planning application for a dwelling (DOV/07/067).


1.1 Kearsney Court is an Historic Garden, listed by English Heritage subsequent to submission of this application. The land in question consists of a parcel that wraps around the existing house (subdivided into 7 properties) and their private gardens. The land is generally unmanaged, consisting of mature and semi-mature trees and scrub. The Holm Oak (T1) is situated close to the access drive to Kearsney Court, near to a private house “Wayside”. T2 (identified at T22 in the application), a Sycamore, grows on the opposite side of the driveway, some way off from it and close to the main house. T3 (T35 in the application – also referred to erroneously as T53), the Beech, is at the

other end of the property in woodland near Bushy Ruff. All three trees are situated such that they may have been impacted by the planning application DOV/07/067. It should be noted that Committee refused this application (Item 1, 26 April 2007).

1.2 The proposal seeks consent to fell all three trees on the basis of decay and damage. The reasons given are decay and hazard (T1), decay, storm damage and poor leaf cover (T2) and major base decay (T3).

2. Planning Policy

2.1 KMSP Policy ENV9 seeks the maintenance of tree cover and its enhancement where this would improve the landscape or biodiversity.

3. Assessment

3.1 The three trees have been individually assessed, as follows: -

• T1: Holm Oak - This tree divides into three from just above the base where one stem is missing (apparently 1987 storm damage). A second stem has been hard pruned but has good regrowth. The third stem grows vertically and splits at about 4m into a crown. Where the first stem is missing, the heartwood appears sound and rot free. However, areas of "included" bark between the two remaining stems have been found indicative of structural weakness. Historically, it would seem that this weakness has not been a problem, but re-trimming of the pruned stem and height reduction of the vertical stem would give further assurance of tree stability. Felling is not desirable.

• T2: Sycamore - This tree is an old pollard with a main stem of some 4 metres. The crown is sparse and shows some unusual dieback that may be associated with sooty bark disease. At the base of the tree in one buttress there is evidence of the sporophore (fruiting body) of Kretschmaria deusta, a dangerous butt rot disease. Although the disease is in the early stages, it is considered that the proximity of the drive and house render this tree dangerous. This tree should be felled and a replacement planted.

• T3: Beech - This is a mature tree of considerable stature, possibly 30 metres in height. It carries extensive ivy growth. At the base there is severe decay. This consists of a wound cavity some 1.2 metres high and 30cm across that has rotted through over 50% of the heartwood. There is active soft rot. The tree is in woodland, but there are informal paths and, consequently, a small safety risk. It would be unreasonable not to allow the tree to be made safe. The age of the tree, its condition and the ivy are such that it is likely to provide a wildlife habitat resource. Any felling of the tree should be carried out in such a manner as to provide a standing stem of 5 metres, which may continue to provide some wildlife resource whilst removing any significant safety risk.

3.2 The recommendation is made accordingly. Consideration has been given to the objections raised by third parties. It is considered that the recommendation reflects an appropriately balanced judgement taking into account all material considerations.

3.3 In preparing this report consideration has been given to the implications of the Human Rights Act 1998 as it relates to both the applicant and third parties. It is recognised that the recommendations in respect of the trees may interfere with the rights of the owner and third parties as protected by Article 8 and Article 1 of the First Protocol to the Act. Permission to fell all three trees is recommended for refusal, but the alternative as set out is recommended in the wider public interest, subject to conditions.

g) Recommendation

I Permission to fell three trees BE REFUSED.

II Permission BE GRANTED for the crown reduction of the Holm Oak (T1) by a maximum of 30% and re-trimming of the pruned stem growing towards the access.

III Permission BE GRANTED to fell Sycamore (T2) on condition that a standard size tree, species to be agreed with the Local Planning Authority, is planted nearby within six months of felling.

IV Permission BE GRANTED to fell Beech (T3) subject to retention of 5 metres of the basal stem, in the interests of bio-diversity.

V I07/I13

Case Officer

Nick Delaney

4. a) DOV/07/0332 - Change of use, conversion and extensions to existing stable building to form one dwelling, erection of car port and store and alterations to vehicular access (existing garage to be demolished and trees removed), The White House, Sandwich Road, Eastry.


Listed Building Consent be granted.


Kent and Medway Structure Plan (KMSP): Policies QL6 and QL8Dover District Local Plan (DDLP): Policies HE2 and HE4PPG15: Planning and the Historic Environment


DOV/07/0333 - Change of use, conversion and extension to existing stable building to form 1 no. dwelling, erection of car port and store and alterations to vehicular access (existing garages to be demolished and trees removed) – current.

DOV/07/0391 - Erection of 4 no. bedroom detached dwelling and construction of vehicular access on to Sandwich Road. Planning permission refused.

DOV/07/0392 - Provision of new vehicular/pedestrian access for new dwelling in boundary wall fronting Sandwich Road and blocking up of outstanding access. Listed Building Consent granted.

DOV/07/0434 - Erection of a four bedroom detached dwelling and garage. Construction of vehicular access onto Woodnesborough Road. Planning permission refused.

DOV/07/0435 - Provision of new vehicular/pedestrian access for new dwelling in boundary wall fronting Woodnesborough Road. Listed Building Consent refused.


Eastry Parish Council: Objects to the application as it considers that the proposed extension to the Stable block will be visible from the road and the existing stable block will be more prominent once the overgrown vegetation and trees have been removed. Consequently, it will have a detrimental effect on the look and feel of the Conservation Area. Additionally, considers that the speed and frequency of traffic using Woodnesborough Lane has increased significantly since the existing access was used and that there are insufficient sightlines to allow safe use of the entrance (This latter point is not material to a listed building application).

Public Representations: Three letters of objection have been received, which raise the following conservation concerns: -

• Alterations to the existing access to create vision splays will detract from the character of the Conservation Area;

• The loss of mature trees, which are a significant feature in the street, will detract from the character of the area;

• The alterations to the Stable block will not be sympathetic to the Listed Building and the Conservation Area.


1.1 The site is located within the grounds of The White House, fronting Woodnesborough Road. Vehicular access for The White House is from Sandwich Road; however, it also has vehicular access onto Woodnesborough Road. The former Stable block is an outbuilding for The White House, which is Grade II listed and falls within the Eastry Conservation Area.

1.2 The Stable block is of brick construction at ground floor with weatherboarding at first floor level, under a slate roof. It is a simple utilitarian building, reflecting its former use. It is now in a very poor state of repair and requires extensive work in order to secure its long-term future.

1.3 The applicants are seeking to repair, convert and extend the Stables in order to provide a dwelling and provide an economic use for the building. In order to achieve this, it is proposed to extend the building with a first floor extension to the south and a single storey extension to the north. This will provide a small two-bedroom unit, independent of the existing White House. The existing garage, which is also in very poor condition and of no particular architectural interest, would be demolished and replaced by a car port and store. The new structure will allow vehicles to manoeuvre on site, so they can exit in a forward gear. The existing entrance to Woodnesborough Lane is to be alteredby reducing the height of part of the boundary wall, and setting the gates further back into the site, with the provision of vision splays in order to improve road safety.

1.4 A small private garden for the dwelling is to be created by the provision of fencing, thus separating it off from the existing grounds of The White House.

2. Planning Policy

2.1 The policies relevant to the consideration of this application are identified at (c) above.

2.2 Policies HE2 and QL6 seek to ensure that development within a Conservation Area preserves or enhances the character or

appearance of these areas. Harmful development will not be permitted.

2.3 Policies HE4 and QL8 seek to preserve the architectural/historic integrity and character of Listed buildings.

3. Assessment

3.1 These proposals raise the following main issues from a Conservation point of view: -

• Impact on the character of the Listed building;

• Impact on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.

Character of the Listed Building

3.2 The proposals seek to give a long-term economic use to the existing Stable block by its extension and conversion to a single dwelling, with independent vehicular access on to Woodnesborough Road. In order to achieve this, it is proposed to retain and repair the existing structure, which is currently in a very poor structural condition, particularly at first floor level, reusing existing openings where possible. It is proposed to provide a first floor extension to the south over an existing single storey structure. This will be set slightly lower than the existing two storey building, with weatherboarding to first floor elevations, under a double pitched slate roof. At the northern end of the Stables, an existing single storey structure under a corrugated iron roof will be extended in width and given a more traditional double-pitched slate roof. It is considered that the proposals are modest in scale and work with the ‘grain’ of the building, using traditional materials and design concepts.

3.3 The proposals also include the demolition of the existing garage, which is of no historic or architectural merit and its replacement with an open sided carport and store. This has been designed to have the appearance of a simple agricultural building, being constructed of traditional materials under a double-pitched slate roof, which runs at right angles to the boundary wall, fronting Woodnesborough Road. This simple structure will not detract from the setting of the listed building and will be an improvement over the existing garage.

3.4 In order to improve the existing vehicular access on to Woodnesborough Road, part of the existing wall fronting this road, is to be replaced with lower walls, splayed back into the site with timber gates. These minor amendments will not detract from the setting of the listed house or the stables.

Character and Appearance of the Conservation Area

3.5 The main alterations to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area revolve around the extensions to the existing Stables, the proposed carport and store, the amended vehicular access and the loss of some trees.

3.6 As referred to above, it is considered that the extensions to the Stable block have been designed in a sympathetic manner to the host building, using traditional forms and materials. Consequently, in the same way that they will not detract from the Listed building, they will also not detract from the character or appearance of the Conservation Area. The extended building will still have the appearance of a simple outbuilding and will not dominate or detract from the setting of the main Listed house.

3.7 The existing garage is of poor quality and does not enhance the setting of the Listed building or contribute to the character of the Conservation Area. The proposed carport and store has been designed so that it has the appearance of a simple agricultural building, using traditional forms and materials, under a double-pitched roof. As the boundary wall to Woodnesborough Road is some 3 metres high, only the gable of the carport will project above it. Consequently, it is considered that it will have very little impact on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and will certainly not detract from it.

3.8 Turning to the proposals for the vehicular access, part of the existing wall is to be replaced with lower splayed walls, with timber gates, set some 1.5 metres back into the site. Whilst this will certainly change the appearance of the entrance, it will not detract from it.

3.9 The loss of trees has been raised as a concern by objectors. Whilst this is not a Listed Building issue, it should be noted that the trees which are to be removed are either in a poor condition or are insignificant, bearing in mind the large number of trees on the site, the majority of which will remain. There are not considered to be any planning objections to the loss of these trees.

Conclusion

3.10 It is considered that the proposals are modest and well designed using traditional forms and materials and, as such, will not detract from the character or appearance of either the Listed building or the Conservation Area, and as such will not be in conflict with the policy context identified above. It is, therefore, recommended that Listed Building consent be granted for the works.

3.11 Members will note from (d) above that the companion planning application has not yet been determined.

3.12 In making this recommendation, consideration has been given to the implications of the Human Rights Act 1998 as it relates to both the applicants and third parties. A balanced decision should be taken in the wider public interest.

g) Recommendation

I CONSENT BE GIVEN, subject to the following: - (i) LB25; (ii) LB02; (iii) LB04; (iv) LB12; (v) LB14; (vi) LB22; (vii) LA30; (viii) Any other conditions to be delegated to the Development Control Manager.

II The applicants BE INFORMED that the decision does not imply any commitment to the approval of the planning application.

II I07. I13.

Case Officer

Clive Alexander

5. a) DOV/07/0371 – Erection of a detached building incorporating 2 No. two bedroom flats and 4 No. one bedroom flats, alterations to existing vehicular access and associated car parking. Site of former garage adjoining Dodds Lane, Dover.




Kent and Medway Structure Plan (KMSP): Policies QL1, HP2, HP4, HP6 and TP19Dover District Local Plan (DDLP): Policies DD1, DD4, DD5, LE1, HS1, HS2, HS11, ER4, TR7PPS1 – Delivering Sustainable DevelopmentPPS3 – HousingPPG23 – Planning and Pollution Control


DOV/06/0777 - Planning permission was granted for the erection of 3 No. three bedroom dwellings, alterations to existing vehicular access and associated car parking.


County Highways: No objection subject to conditions, the provision of cycle storage and the extension of the footway to abut the driveway.

Environmental Health Comments: No objection subject to a condition.

Environment Agency: No objection subject to conditions.

Dover Town Council: No objection.

Third Party Representation: 13 letters of objection received; comments are summarised as:

• Parking problems exist;• Not enough space for visitors;• Three storey block would be out of context with the street scene;• Six flats is too much;• Overshadowing and loss of light;• Trees have already been felled.


1.1 The site comprises an irregularly shaped piece of land situated at the head of Dodds Lane at the junction with Brookfield Road. The site was formerly occupied by a commercial garage which has been demolished and the site cleared. The topography of the site varies significantly at the boundaries; it appears the land has been excavated

to create a surface level comparable with the surrounding area. The site has some natural vegetation screening on the boundaries and some mature trees have been retained, although local residents claim that some trees have already been felled.

1.2 The area is wholly residential and is characterised by two storeyterrace dwellings. The dwellings immediately adjacent to the site in Dodds Lane were granted planning permission in 2001 and are somewhat bland in design, lacking identity and any desirable characteristics which should be reflected in this site. The dwellings in Brookfield Road are of the 1960’s era and like the new dwellings in Dodds Lane are of no architectural merit. The topography of Dodds Lane rises to the east and north. The existing houses are stepped up the road following the contours of the street; the natural variation in land level also places those dwellings at the rear of the site on much higher land level.

1.3 Planning permission is sought for the erection of a three storeybuilding which would accommodate in total four no.1 bedroom units and two no. 2 bedroom units. The flats would be arranged as two units on each floor of the building and would achieve a density of 59 dwellings per hectare. Car parking has been provided at a ratio of 1:1; therefore 6 car parking spaces have been arranged at the front of the building on a proposed block paved area. The design of the proposal is contemporary in appearance with feature glazing and a mix of materials and colour.

2. Planning Policy

2.1 Kent and Medway Structure Plan policies:

2.2 QL1: Seeks to ensure that all development will be well designed and be of a high quality. It should respond positively to the scale, layout, pattern and character of their local surroundings.

2.3 HP4: States that as well as achieving high quality design the density of the site should be between 30-50 dwellings per hectare.

2.4 HP6: Aims to achieve a range and mix of housing provision in the District.

2.5 TP19: Ensures that the proposal will comply with the respective maximum vehicle parking standards as adopted by Kent County Council.

2.6 SPG4: Supplementary Planning Guidance 4 – Kent Vehicle Parking Standards.

2.7 NR1: Seeks to ensure sustainable construction techniques are used and the prudent use of energy.

2.8 Dover District Local Plan policies:

2.9 DD1: Sets out design criteria for development, which has to be acceptable in terms of layout and functional need; massing and scale; spatial and visual character; landscaping and landform; privacy and amenity and the avoidance of pollution etc.

2.10 HS1: Housing development will not be permitted on land outside the urban boundaries and village confines shown on the Proposals Map unless justified by other development plan policies.

2.11 HS2: On unallocated sites within the urban boundaries and village confines, housing development will be permitted provided housing is the most suitable land use. In the case of housing proposals for new large sites permission will only be granted if it would not result in the planned housing provision for the District being significantly exceeded.

2.12 HS11: Requires the need for small households to be provided for.

2.13 LE1: Seeks LE1: Seeks to protect land currently with planning permission for employment use, planning permission for other uses will only be granted if the proposed development would not seriously prejudice the availability of employment land and premises in the area, and i) alternative use or development would bring with it social or environmental benefits, or ii) the land or premises has been appropriately marketed without success.

2.14 ER4: establishes the criteria which will be applied in determining applications which will be applied in determining applications on land which is or is suspected to be contaminated.

2.15 TR7: relates to the provision of adequate access arrangements and parking provision

Planning Policy Guidance

2.16 PPS1 Delivering Sustainable Development: Seeks to ensure good quality design which is sustainable in layout and function whilst enhancing residential amenities.

2.17 PPS3 Housing: Seeks to make the best use of previously developed land within the urban area, with a view to resisting the development of fresh land.

2.18 PPS23 Planning and Pollution Control: sets out that the potential for contamination to be present; this must be considered in relation to the existing use and circumstances of the land and provision has to be made in respect of the possibility of encountering contamination during development. Development must incorporate necessary remediation and management measures where appropriate.

3. Assessment

Principle

3.1 The site is within the urban confines of Dover but has not been specifically allocated for residential development; however within the context of policies HS1 and HS2 the principle of residential development is acceptable. As residential development on this site would lead to the loss of employment land, policy LE1 requires a marketing exercise to be carried out. However in light of the previous permission for the development of three houses the need is negated with this application.

3.2 The principal planning issues therefore are:

3.3 • The siting, design, appearance and landscaping;• Car parking, manoeuvring and turning facilities; and• Residential amenities.

The Siting, Design, Appearance and Landscaping

3.4 The building line in Dodds Lane is slightly staggered and the siting of the new building reflects this. It is acknowledged that the depth of the proposed building is deeper than that of the adjacent dwelling No. 27, but not significantly and therefore it would not look incongruous within the street scene. The proposed building is 3 storeys, with the third storey accommodated within the roof space. The overall height is 10m, approximately 1m higher than those dwellings in Dodds Lane. As stated above the land height increases and therefore an increase in building height reflects the natural changes in land level. Furthermore being a corner plot a taller building is acceptable as it creates a feature. The contemporary design of the building is welcomed as it adds character and interest to what is currently a residential street lacking identity. Whilst car parking at the front of the building is not normally an ideal urban design solution, in this instance it is considered to be acceptable as the main entrance to the building is a glazed double door and is seen centrally to the car park. It provides a clear and dominant feature giving the building a strong sense of orientation. It is considered that the materials and the colours of the elevation are fundamental to the success of the appearance of the building, therefore details and samples should be requested as a condition should planning permission be granted. New landscaping has been proposed; the site plan shows vegetation at the front of the site to soften the appearance of the car park and new landscaping to create pleasant amenity spaces to the rear and side of the building. To ensure that the vegetation species proposed are acceptable a landscape plan should be requested by condition together with a management plan to ensure future maintenance submitted.

Car Parking, Manoeuvring and Turning Facilities

3.5 As stated above 100% car parking has been provided which is slightly below the County minimum as recommended in Supplementary

Planning Guidance 4 – Kent Vehicle Parking Standards (SPG4). This level of car parking provision is considered to be acceptable as the previous commercial use of the site would have generated a greater demand for car parking and a much higher traffic flow. The site is also within walking distance of bus routes and local amenities, therefore the reduction in the car parking standard is in accordance with the aims of PPG13 Transport. PPG13 also states that local planning authorities should not require developers to produce more car parking then they themselves wish other than in exceptional circumstances. PPG13 also states that planning permission should not be given for densities less than 30 dwellings per hectare as it is considered not to be sustainable; PPS3 Housing also reiterates this threshold and abolishes a maximum level in order to make the best use of previously developed land.

3.6 Whilst the concerns raised by the local residents concerning available parking existing in the area and the likely consequence of the development are material issues to the determination of this application, they would not justify a reason for refusal. As discussed above the proposal is in accordance with government guidance and furthermore the application is supported in principle by Kent County Council Highways.

3.7 The manoeuvring and turning facilities within the site are adequate and comply with the guidelines in SPG4. County Highways are satisfied with the layout subject to conditions requiring the development to be completed in accordance with the plans if approved.

3.8 County Highways have requested that in addition to the off-street car parking facilities a cycle store is provided and to improve pedestrian safety on the public footway that the footpath be extended up to the edge of the driveway. To date the agent has not provided these details. It is considered reasonable that if Members are minded to grant planning permission a condition be imposed requesting that these details are submitted and implemented.

Residential Amenities

3.9 As the lawful existing use of the site is commercial a residential use for this site would bring benefits to the adjacent residents in terms in the reduction of noise and the number of vehicle movements which could potentially be associated with a commercial use. As described above the proposed building shares a similar building line to No. 27, the block plan clearly shows a projection in front of and behind the building line but it does not impinge on the 45 degree line. This general rule of thumb indicates that the proposed building would not have a significantly detrimental impact on the outlook or the sense of enclosure to those occupiers of No. 27. The building is set a sufficient distance away (some 21 metres) from No. 24 Brookfield Road; therefore it would not have a negative impact on natural light or outlook or cause a loss of privacy.

3.10 There are no windows in the side elevations of the building as the outlook is purely to the front and to the rear of the site.

3.11 The amenities of the future occupiers of the building are considered to be acceptable. The room sizes and overall sizes of the flats comply with the guidelines set in the Flat Conversion Guideline, which whilst not strictly applicable to this case does provide a useful bench mark. The flats have been designed to give the principal rooms adequate outlook and natural light; their layout avoids unnecessary noise and disturbance which could arise by other users of the building.

Conclusion

3.12 There are clear benefits in the cessation of the use of the land for employment purposes to the immediate neighbours and the wider andnatural environment. The development is acceptable in terms of the scale and number of units proposed and it would not harm the residential amenities of the existing residents.

3.13 There must be concern that the refusal of planning permission could result in the full resumption of a commercial activity. However, notwithstanding that, it is considered necessary to ensure Development Plan policies and Government advice is followed in the wider interest.

3.14 In determining the application, the Committee needs to bear in mind the rights of the applicant and third parties, particularly under Article 8 and Article 1 of the First Protocol to the Human Rights Act 1998.

Recommendation

I PERMISSION BE GRANTED subject to:- (i) DP08; (ii) MA04; (iii) PA07; (iv) AC12; (v) AC24; (vi) Public footway extension; (vii) Land contamination assessment; (viii) Cycle store details; (ix) LA08; (x) LA24; (xi) LA31; (xii) LA33; (xiii) Any other conditions which are considered to be necessary to be delegated to the Development Control Manager.

II IPH1/I15d/I39.

III I07.

Case Officer

Rachel Ellwood

6. a) DOV/07/432 – Erection of side conservatory extension, 5 Farthingloe Cottages, Folkestone Road, Dover.


Planning Permission be granted.


Kent and Medway Structure Plan (KMSP): Policies QL1, QL4, EN1, EN4, EN5, HP5.Dover District Local Plan (DDLP): Policies DD1, DD8, CO2, CO3.


DOV/90/988 - Erection of a single storey rear and side extension – Granted.


Dover Town Council: No comments received.


1.1 The site is outside the settlement confines of Dover and is within a Special Landscape Area and an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The dwelling is a two-storey semi-detached house, which is set back from the road by around 5m, behind the 2.5m high boundary hedge to the front of the property which screens the ground floor level of the house from Folkestone Road to the south.

1.2 On the other side of Folkestone Road is a 3m high hedge surmounting a 2m high bank, which effectively screens the house from the countryside to the south of Folkestone Road. To the east of the site is Little Farthingloe Farm, which is screened from 5 Farthingloe Cottages by a 2m high boundary hedge. To the west is Alpine, which is the other half of this semi-detached pair, and which is screened from No. 5 by a 2.5m high boundary hedge. To the north, the rear of the site backs onto fields which are partially screened from view by the rear boundary hedge, some 1.5m high, and some taller mature trees. The proposal seeks full planning permission to erect a pitched roof conservatory to the side of the house. This would project from the side of the house by 2.5m and would be 3.5m long, around 2.5m high to the eaves, and 3.5m high to the ridge.

1.3 The application is being reported to Committee, as one of the applicants is a Councillor.

2. Planning Policy

2.1 KMSP Policy QL1 requires that all development should be well designed and of high quality. Developments, individually or taken together should respond positively to the scale, layout, pattern and character of their local surroundings. Development should not be

detrimental to the built environment, amenity of character of settlements.

2.2 KMSP Policy EN5 and DDLP Policy CO3 seek the protection of the rural character and appearance of the Special Landscape Area.

2.3 DDLP Policy DD1 states that proposals for development will not be permitted unless they are acceptable in terms of layout and functional needs of the development, siting, massing and scale of new buildings, architectural style and materials, spatial and visual character of the area and privacy and amenity.

2.4 DDLP Policy DD8 states that proposals for extensions to dwellings will be permitted provided they are acceptable in design, massing, scale and form, are constructed of materials respecting the existing dwelling and do not result in loss of residential amenity to neighbouring properties.

2.5 KMSP Policy EN4 and DDLP Policy CO2 seek to protect the rural character and landscape beauty of the Area of Natural Beauty.

2.6 KMSP Policies EN1, QL4 and HP5 seek to protect and enhance the character of the countryside, safeguarding the open and undeveloped character of the countryside around settlements, and limiting housing development such that extensions outside settlement confines must be modest in nature.

3. Assessment


• The visual impact of the extension on the character and appearance of the area.

• The impact of the extension on the residential amenity of the surrounding properties.

Impact on the character and appearance of the area

3.2 Due to its size, scale and form, the conservatory would be subordinate to the existing dwelling. It would be finished in matching materials, in a design that is complementary to the architectural style of the existing house. The conservatory would be of a modest size, and due to the screening provided by the boundary hedges, it would not be particularly visible outside the site. The perceived bulk of the house would therefore remain much the same. It would be unlikely to harm the visual amenity of the street scene, the open character of the countryside or the beauty of the SLA or AONB.

Impact on the residential amenity of surrounding properties

3.3 Due to the position of the conservatory, it would be screened from the only nearby residential property, Alpine, by the house itself, and would therefore be unlikely to have any impact on the residential amenity of Alpine. The conservatory would be very unlikely to result in loss of

light or outlook to this neighbour, nor would it have an overbearing impact or overlook Alpine.

3.4 The farm to the east of 5 Farthingloe Cottages would be largely screened from the conservatory by the boundary hedge and the existing garage to the east side of the house, and would moreover be around 10m from the nearest side of the conservatory. The amenity of this building would therefore be unlikely to be affected.

Conclusion

3.5 On balance, it is considered that the low key nature of the development and the screening provided by the boundary hedges would result in a form of development unlikely to have an adverse impact on the street scene or the open and undeveloped character of the countryside, or the beauty of the SLA and AONB, nor would it be likely to result in any harm to the residential amenity of the neighbouring properties.

3.6 The recommendation takes account of the provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998 as it relates to the applicants and third parties.

g) Recommendation

PERMISSION BE GRANTED subject to the following conditions: - (i) DP08; (ii) MA01.

Case OfficerCatherine Todd

7. a) DOV/07/0451 – Erection of 2.2 metre high 'rocket' extension to existing tower, Cottington Court Farm, Sandwich Road, Sholden.




Kent and Medway Structure Plan (KMSP): Policies QL1, EN1 and SS8Dover District Local Plan (DDLP): Policies DD1, CO1 and TR13PPG8 – TelecommunicationsCode of Best Practice


DOV/03/0563 - Emergency services installation, consisting of a 20m lattice tower, antenna, cabinets and fenced compound - approved.


County Highways: No objection.

Environmental Health comments: No objection.

Ecology comments: No objections – no impact on the wildlife habitat.

Sholden Parish Council: No objection as the mast is for the emergency services only and there is poor reception in the area.

Natural England: No comments received.

Kent Wildlife Trust: No comments received.


1.1 This application has been submitted on behalf of Airwave 02 Limited, for the purpose of gaining planning permission to increase the height of the existing lattice mast by 2.2 metres. The mast is owned by Airwave 02 Limited. Airwave 02 currently provide communication coverage for Kent Police Force and other emergency services. Due to a need to improve the coverage for the emergency services in the area Airwave 02 have a requirement to increase the height of the antenna.

1.2 The plans show the existing mast surrounded by a fenced compound, which is sited adjacent to an area of mature woodland. The trees within the vicinity of the compound are identified as being approximately to a height of 19.5m. The existing antenna at the top of the mast exceeds the height of the trees by approximately 4m and therefore with the proposed extension, the mast and antenna would exceed the height of the trees by some 6.2m.

1.3 The site is located some 120m to the north east of a group of residential properties and is of a similar distance from Cottington Lakes to the east. The character of the area is essentially rural, being approximately 400m from the urban confines of Deal as defined by the Dover District Local Plan. To the north east of the site is a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), which is also subject to a Ramsar designation.

1.4 In support of the application, the agent has provided the following explanatory information:-

"The Airwave service is a modern, dedicated, fully integrated, national, digital, mobile radio communications service designed to serve the needs of the police and other public safety organisations. It has been commissioned by the Home Office for all the police forces in England, Wales and Scotland, and will enable forces to communicate with each other, which was not possible with the analogue systems that have recently been replaced. It can be used both in-car and on the beat, and offers a large number of significant benefits to its users including:-

• Digital voice quality, much faster call connection and the filtering out of ambient noise.

• Encryption facilities designed to prevent unauthorised monitoring of police calls.

• A one touch help button to summon assistance.

• Extensive geographical coverage (in-car coverage and hand-portable coverage in areas of population density).

It is anticipated that these new benefits will provide more effective use of control room resources when dealing with complex incidents within and between forces, improving the safety of the public and the communities in which they live and the safety of individual police officers".

1.5 The agent has also provided coverage plots showing existing and proposed coverage. The plots show the proposed installation covering a large part of Deal and the rural hinterland to the northwest including part of the Deal-Sandwich Road. The applicant states that the addition to the existing mast is required to improve coverage within the area.

2. Planning Policy

2.1 Policies QL1 and DD1 have somewhat similar aims in seeking development of suitable design and quality which, inter alia, does not detrimentally affect the built environment or residential amenity.

2.2 Policies EN1 and CO1 both seek to protect, conserve and enhance the countryside for its own sake. Development which would adversely affect the countryside will not be permitted unless there is an overriding need for it which outweighs the requirement to protect the

countryside. Development should include appropriate mitigation and/or compensation.

2.3 Policy TR13 states that development will be permitted provided there is no conflict with other policies and if there is conflict it has to be reduced to acceptable levels through design measures; or when design can not resolve the conflict there are no alternatives such as resiting or mast sharing.

3. Assessment

3.1 This application has been brought to Committee in accordance with normal practice. In assessing the proposal against Policy TR13, the main consideration relates to the visual impact of the development on the open countryside.

3.2 As described above, the top of the mast is seen above the trees. The addition to the mast is a slimline pole with one antenna attached. In view of the existing woodland and the character of the surrounding area which is in part wooded, the mast would barely be seen from public vantage points. It is considered that whilst the proposal would to some extent conflict with policies to protect the visual appearance of the environment, this impact would not be so great as to warrant refusal of the application on visual impact grounds. In reaching this view, regard has been had to the justification for the installation as reflected by Policy TR13.

3.3 The applicant has not sought to identify other alternative locations within the area; however, during the site search process for the previous submission a number of sites were investigated. They were, however, discounted for reasons of visual impact, proximity to residential properties and insufficient available space. The view has been taken that further site selection is not necessary due to the suitable location of the existing mast and the advice given in PPG8 that encourages mast sharing. Guidance encourages this option to keep the overall environmental impact to a minimum and to reduce the proliferation of telecommunication sites and in particular for ground based masts. The sharing of masts is always progressed where it is technically and legally possible and where it is the Local Authority's preferred environmental solution. Furthermore, it negates the need for an additional installation in the immediate area and is believed to be the best option in terms of meeting coverage objectives whilst minimising the visual impact on the amenity of the area.

3.4 In light of the above, it is considered that the proposal satisfies Policy TR13. At the time of writing this report no contrary third party comments had been received. However, one of the most common concerns relates to the unknown impact on health. Health considerations can in principle be material considerations in determining applications. Whether such matters are material in a particular case, however, PPG8 (Planning Policy Guidance –Telecommunications) states that 'it is ultimately a matter for the courts'. As stated in PPG8, 'it is the Government's firm view that the planning system is not the place for determining health safeguards. It remains Central Government's responsibility to decide what measures

are necessary to protect public health. In the Government's view, if a proposed mobile phone base station meets the ICNIRP guidelines for public exposure, it should not be necessary for a local planning authority, in processing an application for planning permission or prior approval, to consider further the health aspects and concerns about them'. Environmental Health has been consulted regarding this application and has not raised an objection as the applicant's agent has confirmed that the mast is ICNIRP compliant.

Conclusion

3.5 Overall, it is considered that the proposed siting and design is the optimal environmental and network solution. The proposed design represents the best compromise between minimising the visual impact of the proposal on the surrounding area and meeting the technical coverage requirement of the site.

3.6 In preparing this report, consideration has been given to the implications of the Human Rights Act 1998, as it relates both to the applicant and third parties. It is recognised that the granting of planning permission may interfere with the rights of third parties as protected by Article 8 and Article 1 of the First Protocol to the Act. However, these must be balanced against the rights of the applicant. Therefore, in this instance, planning permission is recommended in the wider public interest, subject to conditions.

g) Recommendation

I PERMISSION BE GIVEN subject to:- (i) DP08.

Case Officer

Rachel Ellwood

8. a) DOV/07/0554 - Dormer roof extension and erection of balcony, Flat 4, 42 The Marina, Deal




Kent and Medway Structure Plan (KMSP): Policy QL1Dover District Local Plan (DDLP): Policies DD1 and DD8


None.


County Highways: No highway implications.

Deal Town Council: Comments awaited.

Public Representation: Four letters of objection have been received saying: -

• Although the balcony is on the top of the roof, by allowing this application, the top line of the whole block would be spoilt, leaving an unbalanced roofline;

• A single balcony in the middle of the terrace on the top floor would disturb the aesthetics of the building and destroy its unique appearance as one of the recently restored historical buildings on Deal’s seafront;

• The buildings should not be messed around with and should be Listed;

• Regarding the point made about a fire escape, the existing dormer is adequate to gain access on to the roof;

• The front of the building has been maintained as clutter-free and alterations should be to the rear elevation only;

• The balcony should not affect the light or view from flat 3.

f. 1) The Site and the Proposal

1.1 The application relates to a large, three storey building in The Marina, which has been divided into flats. The building overlooks the front and is built close to the main road. It is not located within a Conservation Area and the building is not listed.

1.2 The proposal seeks full planning permission for a balcony area 2.2m in depth and 2.8m in breadth, which would be built into the existing roof slope. 1m high wrought iron guardrails would enclose the balcony.

1.3 The existing dormer would also be extended by 1.5m in width to provide French doors to open out onto the balcony and would be finished in white weatherboard.

1.4 In submitting the application, the agent refers to similar features on other buildings in the area.

1.5 Plans and photographs will be on display.

2. Planning Policy


2.2 KMSP Policy QL1 requires that all development should be well designed and be of high quality and DDLP Policy DD1 states that development should be acceptable in terms of its layout, scale, design, privacy and amenity.

2.3 DDLP Policy DD8 seeks to ensure that extensions to residential properties will be appropriate in their setting in terms of design, scale and materials and that they have no adverse impact on the amenity of the neighbouring properties.

3. Assessment


• The impact of the extension on the street scene; and• Its impact on neighbouring properties.

The impact of the extension on the street scene

3.2 The balcony would be built into the existing roof slope and would extend to the eaves of the building. Due to the height of the building and its proximity to the road, the existing roof and dormer window are very difficult to see, even from long views the existing dormer can only be glimpsed from certain angles from the sheet.

3.3 For this reason, it is not considered that the dormer roof extension would be readily visible within the street scene and so would not have any significant or harmful impact on the visual amenities of the surrounding area.

3.4 Although the railings may in part be visible from along the road, the existing parapet would provide some screening – the railings are shown on plan to project 0.5m above the parapet. Given their location at the top of the building and their partial screening, it is not considered that the railings would unacceptably detract from the appearance of the main building or make the building appear prominent or intrusive within the street scene. They could be conditioned to be black painted to ensure they blend in to the roof finish.

3.5 The objectors’ comments have been noted and taken into account. However, the design and scale of the proposal is acceptable and the dormer and balcony would have little impact. It is not considered that the proposal would result in unacceptable harm to the appearance of

the building or to the visual amenities of the street scene. The building is not within a sensitive Conservation Area and is not listed.

The impact of the extension on neighbouring properties

3.6 It is not considered that the balcony and dormer extension would have any unacceptable impact on neighbouring occupants, due to its siting at the top of the building.

Conclusion:

3.7 Overall and on balance it is considered that the proposal would be acceptable in terms of its impact on the street scene and that it would not result in harm to neighbouring properties. As such, it is considered to be in accordance with policy.

3.8 The recommendation takes account of the implications of the Human Rights Act 1998 as it relates to both the applicant and third parties. It is recognised that approval of the application will interfere with the rights of third parties as protected by Article 8 and Article 1 of the First Protocol to the Human Rights Act 1998. This has to be balanced however against the rights of others and the decision ultimately has to be made in the wider public interest.

g) Recommendation

I Subject to the receipt of no further representations raising additional points, PERMISSION BE GIVEN subject to the following conditions: (i) DP08; (ii) MA01; (iii) Condition covering painting of the railings; (iv) Any other conditions to be delegated to the Development Control Manager.

II I07, I13I

Case OfficerSarah Platts

9. a) DOV/07/0580 – Erection of two storey side extension (existing porch and garage to be demolished), Braeside, Queensdown Road, Kingsdown.


Planning Permission be granted.


Kent and Medway Structure Plan (KMSP): Policy QL1.Dover District Local Plan (DDLP): Policies DD1 and DD8.


None.


County Highways: No objections, subject to condition PA16 (parking).

Ringwould Parish Council: Views awaited.

Public Representations: Six letters of objection have been received, raising the following material points:-

Design of Extension and Impact on Street Scene

• The extension will be significantly different to the cottage.

• The extension will be twice the size of the cottage and is too big.

• The property is on the edge of the village and close to the village confines.

• The extension will cover the entire plot and will stand out in the street scene, from the nearby golf course and from the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

Highways Issues

• There will be insufficient parking.• Vehicles will be parking in the street, causing congestion and

hampering emergency vehicles.

Impact on Neighbours

• The windows will be close to the boundary and will overlook neighbouring properties and gardens, resulting in a loss of privacy.

Reference is also made to a breach of human rights.


1.1 The application site relates to a white rendered semi-detached property in Kingsdown. The house is sited at the end of the built-up part of Queensdown Road, with a wooded area to the southeast. The land slopes down to the east.

1.2 There is a Special Landscape Area to the east of Northcote Road, which runs to the east of the site. The Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty is further away, to the east and south.

1.3 To the rear, the property is divided from the adjoining property by a 1.8m fence and the neighbours have a garage in their rear garden, built close to the dividing boundary.

1.4 The site is well screened to the rear, with 3m high hedging along the rear boundary. A detached property (Southcote) is located to the northeast of the site, with its land wrapping around the application property in an L-shape, to the side and rear. The land belonging to Southcote, which is adjacent to Braeside, is open and rather unkempt, with fairly thick foliage and an access and garage which is sited slightly further back than Braeside.

1.5 The proposal seeks full planning permission for the erection of a two storey side extension. This would involve the demolition of the existing garage and entrance porch.

1.6 The proposed extension would be set back from the front wall of the house by 2m. It would be, at most, 4m in width and about 9m in length, projecting slightly further into the rear garden than the existing rear wall of the house.

1.7 The extension would provide two additional bedrooms, a bathroom and an en-suite on the first floor and a family room, a utility room and a study on the ground floor. There would be ground floor and first floor level windows to all elevations and steps would lead from the family room down into the rear garden.

1.8 Plans also show that the existing driveway will be widened and repaved in order to provide two parking spaces.

1.9 Amended plans have been submitted, showing a screen to be erected along the side of the steps that lead from the extension into the rear garden. The screen would be 1.65m in height.

1.10 Plans will be on display.

2. Planning Policy


2.2 KMSP Policy QL1 requires that all development should be well designed and be of high quality.

2.3 DDLP Policy DD1 states that development should be acceptable in terms of its layout, scale and design, and privacy and amenity.

2.4 DDLP Policy DD8 seeks to ensure that extensions to residential properties are appropriate in their setting in terms of design, scale and materials, and that they have no adverse impact on the amenity of the neighbouring properties.

3. Assessment

3.1 The principal planning considerations are:-

• The impact of the proposal on the street scene.

• The impact of the proposal on the neighbouring occupants.

• Highways issues.

The Impact of the Proposal on the Street Scene

3.2 Objections have been raised regarding the scale, size and design of the extension – that it would be out of keeping with the main dwelling and inappropriate for a dwelling close to the village confines.

3.3 The house is clearly within the confines of Kingsdown, so there are no restrictions requiring extensions to be modest. Nevertheless, policy still requires that development shall be acceptable in terms of its siting, design, massing and sale, and in terms of its impact on the surrounding area.

3.4 The extension would be 4m in width and set back 2m from the front, with a ridge height 0.7m below that of the existing ridge, which will help to make the extension appear subordinate to the main dwelling. A gap of between 1.2m and 1.6m has been maintained between the extension and the side boundary, which is considered to be acceptable, particularly as the extension would not result in the closure of a gap, as there are no buildings sited to the southwest.

3.5 When approaching the house from the northwest, the extension would, due to its set back, not be seen until standing immediately opposite the house. From the southeast, the extension would be set back from the front wall of the house, and would be read against the main house, so it is not considered that it would appear prominent from here.

3.6 Overall, it is considered that the extension is of an acceptable scale, size and design, in keeping with and in proportion to the main dwelling. It is not considered that the extension will make the house appear prominent or intrusive and would not result in an unacceptable impact on the visual amenities and character of the area.

3.7 For the above reasons, and due to its distance from the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, it is not considered that the extension would have any significant or unacceptable impact in this respect.

3.8 Similarly, it is considered that the extension would be of an acceptable scale such as to have no significant or harmful impact on the adjacent Special Landscape Area.

The Impact of the Proposal on the Neighbouring Occupants

Impact on Adjoining Property to the West:

3.9 In order to prevent any unacceptable overlooking into the adjoining property, the agent has submitted amended plans to incorporate a screen along the side of the proposed steps. This is considered to be sufficient to overcome any loss of privacy through overlooking, and its appearance, finish and retention can be controlled by condition.

3.10 As bedroom 1 on the first floor would be rear facing and its window would be 5.5m from the dividing boundary, it is not considered that an unacceptable loss of privacy through overlooking would result.

3.11 Due to its siting to the side of the house, and its distance from the adjoining property, it is not considered that the proposed extension would result in any loss of residential amenity for these occupants. No objection letters have been received from the occupants.

Impact on Southcote:

3.12 Objectors have commented that the proposed windows to the extension will be close to the boundary and will overlook neighbouring properties and gardens, resulting in a loss of privacy.

3.13 The side windows to the extension would face onto an open area of 'side' garden to Southcote. This area is open to the street and not 'private' as such. The windows are some 20m away from Southcote's private amenity area, which in any case is completely screened by the boundary hedging.

3.14 Due to its distance from Southcote, it is not considered that the extension would result in a loss of residential amenity for these occupants in any other respects.

Highways Issues

3.15 The existing garage would be demolished as part of the scheme. The extension has been set back from the front wall of the house, so two parking spaces can be provided to the front of the extension, which is shown on the plan. County Highways have no objection to the proposal.

Conclusion

3.16 The material concerns of objectors have been taken into account. However, it is considered that the scale and design of the extension would be acceptable and that it would not make the house appear unduly dominant or intrusive within the street scene or surrounding area. It is considered to be acceptable in terms of its impact on the

residential amenities of neighbouring properties and County Highways have no objection to the scheme. As such, it is considered that the proposal complies with policy.

3.17 The recommendation takes account of the implications of the Human Rights Act 1998, as it relates to both the applicants and third parties. It is recognised that approval of the application will interfere with the rights of third parties as protected by Article 8 and Article 1 of the First Protocol to the Human Rights Act 1998. This has to be balanced however against the rights of others and the decision ultimately has to be made in the wider public interest.

3.18 Members will note that at the time of writing this report, the publicity period related to this application has not ended. Any third party views received in the meantime will be reported verbally to the meeting.

g) Recommendation

I Subject to no further matters being raised by third party objections, PLANNING PERMISSION BE GRANTED, subject to: (i) DP08; (ii) DP04v (letter and plans received 4 June 2007); (iii) MA01; (iv) PD19v (no openings to the northwest facing elevation); Reason: To safeguard the residential amenities of neighbouring occupants; (v) No development shall take place until elevations and details of the imperforate privacy screen to the north-west side of the balcony, as shown on the plan received on 4 June 2007, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The screen shall be erected prior to the first use of the development, in accordance with the approved plans, and shall thereafter be maintained as such unless otherwise agreed by the Local Planning Authority; (vi) Any other conditions to be delegated by the Development Control Manager.

II I07, I131.

III The Development Control Manager BE AUTHORISED to resolve all outstanding matters.

Case Officer

Sarah Platts

10. a) DOV/07/588 – Erection of a single storey rear extension, 55 Archers Court Road, Whitfield.


Grant Planning Permission.


Kent and Medway Structure Plan (KMSP): Policies QL1.Dover District Local Plan (DDLP): Policies DD1 and DD8.


None.


Whitfield Parish Council: Views awaited.

County Archaeologist: Views awaited.


1.1 The proposal relates to a detached bungalow. It is proposed to erect a flat roof rear extension to provide a utility room. The extension has a floor area 3m x 2m. It occupies the 3m wide recess between the flank wall of the main part of the house and the rear projection.

1.2 This application has been brought before Committee because the applicants are employees of the District Council.

2. Planning Policy

2.1 Policies DD1 and DD8 seek to ensure that the development is appropriate in its setting in terms of siting, massing, scale , design and materials, and has no adverse impact on the spatial and visual character of the surrounding area, or on the residential amenity of neighbouring properties.

2.2 Policy QL1 requires that development is well designed and respects its setting, and that the character of the area should be conserved and enhanced.

3. Assessment

3.1 The principal planning considerations here are whether the proposal would:-

• have a detrimental impact on the street scene;

• have a harmful impact on the neighbouring properties.

Visual Amenity

3.2 Only the flank wall of the extension would be visible from Archers Court Road, and it will not form a prominent part of the street scene, since the house is set well back from the road (15m) and the proposed extension is on the rear elevation. As such, it is considered that the extension will not have a detrimental impact on the street scene, and accords with Policies QL1, DD1 and DD8.

Residential Amenity

3.3 The proposed extension is 4m from the boundary with No. 57. The flank wall of No. 57 is 1.5m from the boundary. It has two habitable room windows which are not directly opposite the proposed side facing utility room window, but particularly the nearest one could be overlooked by it. The current boundary screening is not sufficient to prevent overlooking – a hedge only 1m high. The window needs to be opaque glass or a fence needs to be erected. Opaque glass is probably the better option so that no light is lost to the neighbour's rooms. This can be controlled by condition, and would result in no loss of residential amenity to the residents of No. 57 in accordance with Policy QL1 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan and Policies DD1 and DD8 of the Dover District Local Plan.

3.4 In light of the above, it is considered that the application can be approved with conditions. In making this recommendation, consideration has been given to the implications of the Human Rights 1998 as it relates to both the applicants and third parties and it is concluded that the recommendation below would not result in a violation of the rights of the applicants and third parties under the Human Rights Act.

g) Recommendation

PERMISSION BE GIVEN subject to:- (i) DP08; (ii) MA01; (iii) MA37v.

Case Officer

Maxine Hall

the officer to whom reference should be made concerning

Documents