-1DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE
06 January 2003
Report Item Number : 01
APPLICATION NUMBER
:
CA//01/01064/PET
PROPOSAL
:
Change of use of agricultural land to include within a
caravan park.
LOCATION OF SITE
:
Land at, Stoneway Caravan Park, Stone Street, Petham
APPLICATION TYPE
:
FULL APPLICATION
DATE REGISTERED
:
28 September 2001
EXPIRY DATE
:
23 November 2001
CONTACT OFFICER
:
Steve Davies
CONSERVATION AREA
:
NO
LISTED BUILDING
:
NOT LISTED
WARD
:
STONE STREET
APPLICANT
:
K Howard
AGENT
:
K Howard
SUMMARY:
Proposed change of use to provide a five metre strip of land around the southern and western
boundaries of the existing caravan park to allow the provision of a landscaping strip to screen
the site from the surrounding area and to replace a hedgerow previously removed.
RECOMMENDATION:
Grant;
Subject to conditions relating to the implementation and maintenance of the landscaping and
excluding the installation of domestic paraphernalia within the extended strip of land.
SITE DESCRIPTION
Stoneway Park is an established residential mobile home site. It is sited adjacent to Stone
Street, from which it is separated by a mature hedge and an open area of land. To the south
and west the site adjoins agricultural land. To the north is the residential curtilage of the
property known as Slippery Sam's. There are other residential properties near to the site on
Stone Street. A public footpath crosses the site and it is within the North Kent Downs Area of
Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). The site licence allows the stationing of up to 32 mobile
homes in the park.
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
The application seeks permission for the change of use of a five metre strip of agricultural land
along the southern and western boundaries of the site into land within the caravan park. The
land would then be used for a two metre wide boundary planting strip and for additional
amenity space for the mobile homes on the site.
-2PLANNING HISTORY
Stoneway Caravan Park was originally given approval in the early 1960's on land lying entirely
within Petham Parish. Almost immediately consent was sought to extend the park onto the
agricultural land to the south within Waltham Parish, the Parish and Park boundaries
coinciding. This was refused; the Park subsequently existed in its authorised state for a
number of years. The mobile homes on the site were in some instances extended or had
additions bolted on in a manner that did not accord with their status as mobile homes, while
the changing circumstances of site licence requirements meant that by the late 1990's the
spacing, general layout and facilities of the park were failing the site licence. At this point
Community Services required substantial improvements to be made to the site to meet the
licence requirements.
At some point in the late 1970's or early 1980's an area of land adjacent to the southern
boundary of the site was incorporated into the park and used as amenity land by the residents.
This action was never the subject of a formal planning application and the Council now has an
application for a Certificate of Lawful Existing Use on this area of land as part of the Park (Ref
No CAE02/0005/WAL).
In the early 1990's planning permission was granted for an extension to a static mobile home
on the site (Ref No CA/92/0699/PET) and for a porch to another mobile home (Ref No
CA/95/0851/PET). An application for the repositioning of residents' garages on the site and for
the creation of a recreation area and car park was refused in 1996 (Ref No CA/96/0146/PET)
and in 1997 planning permission was refused to use the area of land between the site and
Stone Street as a children's play area (Ref No CA/97/0572/PET). Various consents for works
to fell and thin trees with preservation orders on the site have been given, as well as
advertisement consent for an entrance sign (Ref No CAA99/0039/PET). In 2000 planning
permission was granted for a gas cylinder compound, part of the installation of a mains gas
system for the site (Ref No CA/99/1154/PET). Most recently a conservatory extension to one
of the mobile homes was approved (Ref No CA/01/0263/PET).
In 1998 an application for the change of use of land from agriculture to part of the Park
including the formation of a play/picnic area was submitted, the application was subsequently
withdrawn, following a site visit by the Development Control Sub-Committee (Ref No
CA/98/0965/PET).
THE APPLICANT'S CASE
Since taking over the site in the late 1990's the applicant has been investing considerable
amounts of money into improving the standard of facilities on the site. Under the site licence
legislation the Council required significant safety improvements to be made to the spacing
between mobile homes. The applicant has removed many of the older mobile homes from the
site which were in breach of the site licence requirements and has replaced most of them with
modern Park Homes laid out to the requisite standard. Since the Park was established in the
1960's mobile homes have evolved considerably and the modern Park Home is significantly
larger and luxurious.
In order to incorporate the 32 mobile homes allowed by the licence, the mobiles have been
sited close up to the original site boundaries. In certain areas of the site, particularly along the
western boundary, the proximity of the old mobile homes meant that it was necessary to
severely trim boundary hedges to prevent fire spread. It was also necessary for the previous
owner to purchase a five metre strip of the adjoining field so as to provide sufficient separation
from any activity that might be a fire risk and contravene the site licence requirements. The
extension to the site now proposed relates to this land and is required in order to formally allow
the provision of boundary planting and amenity spacing around the mobile homes.
-3The land to the south allows a rounding off with landscaping of an area, that although outside
of the originally authorised site, has been used as part of the park for some considerable time.
PLANNING POLICIES
The application should be considered with regard to Policies D1, D3, D36, R1, R2, R3 and R4
of the Canterbury District Local Plan and Policies ENV1, ENV2, ENV3, ENV4, ENV7, RS1,
RS4 and RS5 of the Kent Structure Plan.
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS
Petham Parish Council initially objected to the application on the basis of the impact of the
extension to the caravan park being intrusive into the surrounding countryside. However
having considered the amended plans indicating the proposed boundary planting it now has no
objection to the proposal.
Waltham Parish Council objects to the proposal due to the expansion of the caravan park and
its impact into the surrounding area and wishes to see the hedge reinstated along the former
alignment. Objection is also made to the fact that the proposal is retrospective and it is alleged
relates to land not owned by the applicant.
Councillor Vye has objected to the application on the basis that works have already resulted in
the loss of the existing hedgerow and that the extension will add to the intrusiveness of the site
into the surrounding countryside.
Twelve letters of support and eleven letters of objection to the application have been received.
A fourteen signature petition has also been submitted in support of the application.
The letters of support refer to the need to resolve the matter of the boundaries of the site, the
additional amenity offered by the extension and that the introduction of new boundary planting
will improve and soften the setting of the park into the surrounding area. This proposal will
complete the works to improve the site currently being implemented by the site owner.
The objectors highlight the impact that the works already carried out have had, including the
loss of the hedgerow and trees. The siting of new mobile homes has significantly increased the
visual impact of the Park into the surrounding countryside which is designated and AONB and
an Special Landscape Area. The proposal leads to a suburbanisation of the countryside.
Concern is raised about the retrospective nature of the proposal and the approach of the
applicant to the redevelopment of the Park. The proposal is considered to reduce the amenity
of local residents and that of users of footpath CB437. The applicant has already sited mobile
homes up to and in some instances outside of the boundaries of the site and is letting
residents use land outside of the site for domestic purposes. The number of mobile homes
should be reduced to fit the site. When buying the park the applicant knew that the hedge was
the boundary of the site and needed to be retained. The proposal is a fait-accompli, a fire
break around the site should be maintained, semi-mature planting should be used to ensure
the immediate effectiveness of the screen landscaping. The proposal will increase traffic using
the site which is poorly accessed off a dangerous stretch of road.
TECHNICAL CONSULTATIONS
Strategic Planning Countryside Section Under the former layout of the site the mobile homes were located hard against the original
hedged boundary, this raised concerns regarding light and outlook from these mobile homes
as well as potential fire and management problems. The previous owner brought the strip of
land presumably with this problem in mind. The new mobile homes have been installed on a
similar alignment to that previously used. It is noted that the siting of mobile homes within the
park is not a planning matter but subject to the site licence legislation. The hedge and some
protected trees along it have subsequently been removed. A boundary hedge and the trees
should be replaced. Ideally the hedge should be reinstated along its original alignment
-4however it is accepted that it would be inappropriate for mobile homes to be hard up against
the hedge, it is therefore considered to be unreasonable to object to the application. The
proposed mix for the hedgerow is acceptable and suitable species of trees should be included
within the hedgerow.
DRAINAGE CONSIDERATIONS
The proposal raises no significant drainage issues.
DISCUSSION
The main consideration of this application is the impact of the development into the
surrounding countryside which due to its visual amenity is designated an Area of Outstanding
Natural Beauty. The application specifically relates to the south and western boundaries of the
site.
The authorised southern boundary of the site is aligned with the Parish Boundary. However, it
is evident that an area of land to the south of this line within Waltham Parish has for a
considerable period of time been used as part of the caravan park having been used as
amenity ground to the adjoining mobile homes. It is separated from the adjoining field by a
fence and a Leylandii hedge. An application for a Certificate of Lawfulness of Existing Use (Ref
No CAE02/00005/WAL) in respect of this land has been applied for and it is evident that there
is sufficient evidence to say that the use of this land as part of the caravan park has become
lawful. A further report relative to the application for a lawful use certificate is also on the
Agenda for this meeting. I am advised by the Legal Section that if a certificate is issued for this
application, under the terms of the site licence this would allow the stationing of mobile homes
within the area. This is what the applicant has in fact subsequently done. The five metre strip
with landscaping would wrap around this outer limit of the site. Residents of the nearby houses
on Stone Street which back onto the farm land to the south of the caravan park have
expressed particular concern about the possible expansion of the caravan park into this area.
The permission would therefore provide the means to require a permanent fence and an
effective landscaping buffer and boundary to the caravan park.
The existing hedge along the western boundary was an established feature that had been
allowed to grow up and had become an effective screen of the site from the surrounding
countryside. However, even before the present owner took over the site, the relationship of the
hedge to the adjoining mobile homes was leading to problems with the site licence. The form
and layout of the mobile homes on the site was in breach of the site licence requirements and
Community Services responsible for enforcing the site licence were requiring significant
improvements to the layout. In order to ensure the continued siting of the mobile homes along
the western boundary it was a requirement that the hedge was kept well trimmed in order that
any fire risk was minimised.
The previous owner of the site also purchased a five metre strip of the adjoining field in order
to gain control over the land in order that the existing siting for the mobile homes could
continue.
Initially the hedge was severely trimmed and eventually cut back to ground level. Since the
bases for the new mobiles homes have been installed on the site the hedge has been grubbed
out. In several instances the bases and therefore the subsequently installed mobile homes
have been sited, in part, outside of the authorised site. The current owner is carrying out
works in compliance with the site licence. The loss of the hedgerow cannot be condoned,
however in view of the relationship to the mobile homes it is difficult to see how the two could
continue to be compatible. It is very important to the setting of the site into the surrounding
countryside that an effective landscaping screen is provided along the outer boundaries.
Although action could probably be taken under the hedgerow regulations to have the hedge
reinstated along its original alignment, the siting of most of the mobile homes would remain
unchanged and the effectiveness of the hedge planting as screening would be limited by the
-5need to ensure that site safety issues were not compromised.
Since occupying the adjoining mobile homes, residents have been using the strip of land for
domestic planting and for setting out washing lines etc which detracts from the character and
rural setting of the area. The applicant has advised that she has requested that residents
desist from doing this, however this matter can be further controlled through the imposition of
an appropriate condition.
In conclusion, although the concern regarding the outward extension of the site boundary is
acknowledged, I believe that the scheme put forward is the best way of ensuring that the park
is properly landscaped around its boundaries whilst also meeting modern safety and site layout
standards. The park would have a two metre wide hedge and a three metre wide buffer
between hedge and mobiles that would meet landscaping and site safety criteria and thus
resolve the conflict of objectives that has been a problem in the last few years. Leaving the
boundaries open without maturing planting would be visually intrusive to views across the
countryside while insisting on reinstatement of the old hedge line, even if achieved, would in
my opinion result in continuing conflict between landscaping and safety objectives and not
resolve the issue.
Permission if granted could include conditions requiring the hedge to be planted, maintained at
a proper height and any removed or diseased plant species to be replaced. These conditions
can be enforced in the event of non-compliance.
BACKGROUND PAPERS:
1. Application Ref: CA/01/1064/PET
2. Notes of Officer's site inspection, dated 19.10.01.
3. Memorandum from Strategic Planning (Landscape Section), dated 17.01.02.
4. Previous planning applications ref: CA/92/0699/PET, CA/95/0851/PET,
CA/96/0146/PET, CA/97/0572/PET, CAA99/0039/PET, CA/98/0965/PET,
CA/991154/PET, CA/01/0263/PET & CAE02/00005/WAL
5. Letters of representation received from:A G Ruth, Stoney Broke, 20 Stoneway Park, Stone Street, Petham, CT4 5PR, dated
30.08.02
Bert Ruth, Stoneway Park Residents' Association, 20 Stoneway Park, Petham, CT4
5PR, dated 30.08.02 & received 21.10.02
Miss M L Gafford, Woodlands, Stone Street, Petham, Canterbury, CT4 5PR, dated
15.11.01, 18.12.01 & 24.10.02
Mr W & Mrs J M Wearing, Holly Tree Cottage, Stone Street, Petham, Canterbury, CT5
5PR, dated 10.11.01, 16.12.01 & 23.10.02
Mr L G Marsh, Sunnyside, Church Lane, Petham, Canterbury, CT4 5RD, dated
15.11.01, 14.12.01 & 24.10.02
Mr D M & Mrs M A Thwaites, Summer Cottage, Stone Street, Petham, Nr Canterbury,
CT4 5PR, dated 14.11.01 & 05.12.01
Cllr Martin Vye, The Dacha, Patrixbourne Road, Bridge, Canterbury, CT4 5BL, dated
08.12.01
Ms J Charlton, 15 Stoneway Park, Stone Street, Petham, Nr Canterbury, CT4 5PR,
dated 01.11.01, 14.11.01, 14.12.01, 04.02.02 & 14.10.02
Ms H Child, Laurel House, 41 Old Dover Road, Canterbury, CT1 3HH, dated 30.10.01,
11.12.01 & 24.10.02
Waltham Parish Council, 4 Richdore Road, Waltham, Canterbury, CT4 5SH, dated
08.11.01, 09.11.01 & 09.12.02
H Simmonds, 3 Stoneway Caravan Park, Stone Street, Petham, Nr Canterbury, CT4
5PR, received 21.10.02
Mr & Mrs V Baker, 4 Stoneway Caravan Park, Stone Street, Petham, Nr Canterbury,
CT4 5PR, received 25.10.02
-6Mr & Mrs C D Willson, 5 Stoneway Caravan Park, Stone Street, Petham, Nr Canterbury,
dated 22.10.02
Mrs M Milner, 6 Stoneway Caravan Park, Stone Street, Petham, Nr Canterbury, CT4
5PR, dated 18.10.02
D Jeffrey, 8 Stoneway Caravan Park, Stone Street, Petham, Nr Canterbury, CT4 5PR,
received 21.10.02
S Parris, 30 Stoneway Caravan Park, Stone Street, Petham, Nr Canterbury, received
24.10.02
Mrs C A Fillingham, 1 Stoneway Caravan Park, Stone Street, Petham, Nr Canterbury,
CT4 5PR, dated 24.10.02
Mrs A Graham, Petham House, Petham, Nr Canterbury, CT4 5RX, dated 11.11.01
M J Fay, 6 Stoneway Park, Stone Street, Petham, Canterbury, CT4 5PR, dated 17.10.02
Mr A Muse, Address Witheld, , , dated 01.11.01, 12.12.01 & 24.10.02
Mrs E & M R Burrows, South Dormers, Stone Street, Petham, Canterbury, CT4 5PR,
dated 10.10.01, 16.11.01, 18.12.01 & 23.10.02
Jennifer Lonsdale, Summer Cottage, Stone Street, Petham, CT4 5PR, dated 24.10.02
Mrs A Damon, 2 Holly Tree Cottages, Stone Street, Petham, Nr Canterbury, CT4 5PR,
dated 05.11.01, 12.12.01 & 24.10.02
Petham Parish Council, 2 Queens Cottages, The Street, Molash, Canterbury, CT4 8HJ,
dated 17.11.01, 14.12.01, 16.12.01 & 22.11.02
Mrs N Paine, 12 Stoneway Park, Stone Street, Petham, CT4 5PR, received 21.10.02
-7DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE
06 January 2003
Report Item Number : 02
APPLICATION NUMBER
:
CAE/02/00005/WAL
PROPOSAL
:
Certificate of lawfulness of existing use of land as part of
adjacent caravan park.
LOCATION OF SITE
:
Land at, Stoneway Caravan Park, Stone Street, Waltham
APPLICATION TYPE
:
CERT OF EXISTING LAWFUL USE OR DEVT
DATE REGISTERED
:
14 April 2002
EXPIRY DATE
:
10 June 2002
CONTACT OFFICER
:
Steve Davies
CONSERVATION AREA
:
NO
LISTED BUILDING
:
NOT LISTED
WARD
:
STONE STREET
APPLICANT
:
Miss K Howard
AGENT
:
Graham Simpkin Planning
SUMMARY:
The proposed issuing of a Certificate of Lawful Existing Use of an area of land in Waltham
Parish adjacent to Stoneway Caravan Park as part of the caravan park. It is evident that the
land has been used as part of the caravan park for more than ten years and a certificate in
respect of this being a lawful use should therefore be granted.
RECOMMENDATION:
Grant.
SITE DESCRIPTION
Stoneway Park is an established residential mobile home site. It is sited adjacent to Stone
Street, from which it is separated by a mature hedge and an open area of land. To the south
and west the site adjoins agricultural land. To the north is the residential curtilage of the
property known as Slippery Sam's. There are other residential properties near to the site on
Stone Street. A public footpath crosses the site and it is within the North Kent Downs Area of
Outstanding Natural Beauty. The site licence allows the stationing of up to 32 mobile homes in
the park.
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
The application seeks a Certificate of Proposed Lawful Existing Use as part of the caravan
park for a rectangular parcel of land approximately twelve metres by forty-five metres located
within Waltham Parish. Recently a mobile home and a base for a second mobile home have
been sited within this area of land.
-8PLANNING HISTORY
Stoneway Caravan Park was originally given approval in the early 1960's on land lying entirely
within Petham Parish. Almost immediately consent was sought to extend the park onto the
agricultural land to the south within Waltham Parish, the Parish and Park boundaries
coinciding. This was refused; the Park subsequently existed in its authorised state for a
number of years. The mobile homes on the site were in some instances extended or had
additions bolted on in a manner that did not accord with their status as mobile homes, while
the changing circumstances of site licence requirements meant that by the late 1990's the
spacing, general layout and facilities of the park were failing the site licence. At this point
Community Services required substantial improvements to be made to the site to meet the
licence requirements.
In the early 1990's planning permission was granted for an extension to a static mobile home
on the site (Ref No CA/92/0699/PET) and for a porch to another mobile home (Ref No
CA/95/0851/PET). An application for the repositioning of residents' garages on the site and for
the creation of a recreation area and car park was refused in 1996 (Ref No CA/96/0146/PET)
and in 1997 planning permission was refused to use the area of land between the site and
Stone Street as a children's play area (Ref No CA/97/0572/PET).
Various consents for works to fell and thin trees with preservation orders on the site have been
given, as well as advertisement consent for an entrance sign (Ref No CAA99/0039/PET). In
2000 planning permission was granted for a gas cylinder compound, part of the installation of a
mains gas system for the site (Ref No CA/99/1154/PET). Most recently a conservatory
extension to one of the mobile homes was approved (Ref No CA/01/0263/PET).
In 1998 an application for the change of use of land from agriculture to part of the Park
including the formation of a play/picnic area was submitted, the application was subsequently
withdrawn following a site visit by the Development Control Sub-Committee (Ref No
CA/98/0965/PET). A planning application, CA/01/1064/PET, to extend the park by 5 metres
along its western and southern boundaries is also on the schedule for consideration at this
meeting.
THE APPLICANT'S CASE
The applicant wishes to regularise the use of land as part of the caravan park which is
contested to having been used for such purposes for more than ten years. This would involve
regularising the use of this land for siting of mobile homes as part of the caravan park.
PLANNING POLICIES
This application is not a policy issue and has to be considered on the basis of fact. If evidence
indicates that, on the balance of probability, the use has taken place for in excess of ten years
without interruption, a Certificate of Lawful Use should be issued.
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS
Waltham Parish Council objects to the application on the basis that the applicant has illegally
used land that she does not own and should not therefore be applying for this use, which is an
encroachment into the surrounding land. In earlier correspondence concerns regarding the
loss of hedges on the site and the installation of street lighting have been raised.
Petham Parish Council initially objected to the application, however following a reduction in the
area of land to which the certificate application relates it now has no objections.
Ten objections to the application have been received. In the main the objections relate to the
spread of the caravan park into Waltham Parish and the recent siting of mobile homes within
this area by the site owner. A number of objectors acknowledge that the area in question has
been used as garden area in association with the caravan park but that it has never had
anything sited upon it. The extent of the area of the application is questioned particularly in
-9respect of the field access and an area of hardstanding recently laid upon it (this area has
subsequently been deleted from the application). It is suggested that the use of the area of
land for garden for the mobile homes is a different use than that for the siting of mobile homes
that has now occurred on the land.
It is suggested in the objections that the original grant of planning permission for the caravan
park stated that the site should never be extended. If this breach of the site boundary is
allowed others will follow. Evidence put forward by the applicant is questioned as to its validity
and accuracy. Aerial photographs taken in August 2000 are submitted showing the site
boundary as it was then. Considerable concerns are raised regarding recent works carried out
within the caravan park as well as breaches of site boundaries. It is pointed out that one of the
mobile homes on the submitted plan is incorrectly sited at an angle and the plans give the
impression that mobile homes have always been sited on this land, which is not the case. The
accuracy of the plans is also questioned.
TECHNICAL CONSULTATIONS
Private Sector Housing Community Services Department No objections.
DRAINAGE CONSIDERATIONS
The proposal does not raise any specific drainage considerations.
DISCUSSION
It is apparent that at some point in the late 1970's or early 1980's the area of land adjacent to
the southern boundary of the site, as indicated on the applicant's amended plan, was
separated off from the adjoining field by a wire fence and incorporated into and used as part of
the caravan park. Subsequently a Leylandii hedge was planted around the outside of this area
of land. The enclosure of this land constituted a change of use but was never the subject of a
formal planning application.
The operation of the site as a caravan park is subject to the requirements of the site licence
issued by the City Council's Community Services Department. This allows the siting of 32
mobile homes in respect of the authorised site subject to a maximum density of 50 units to the
hectare. No plan of the authorised site accompanies the site licence. The site boundary has
only ever been formally approved by the planning permission granted in 1961. However, if the
continuous use of the land the subject of this application as part of the caravan park has taken
place for more than ten years without interruption, its use has become lawful. This application
simply seeks formal confirmation, based on fact, that use of this land as part of the caravan
site has become lawful. Provided the limit of 32 units nor the density restrictions for the park
are exceeded, there would be no breach of the site license.
The objectors' comment that this land has never been directly used for the siting of mobile
homes is noted. However, it is not possible to differentiate for the purposes of an application
for a lawful use certificate between land used for siting a mobile unit and land used for ancillary
recreational or other related purposes. The key point is whether the land has continuously
been an integral part of the park for the last ten years. Individual mobile homes on a licensed
site do not benefit from individual curtilages or garden areas, as the curtilage of the park itself
is a single planning unit. The laying out, spacing and number of mobile homes within the
boundaries of the park itself are regulated by the site licence.
The test for issuing a Certificate of Lawful Existing Use is that on the balance of probability the
use of the land as part of the caravan park for more than ten years is clearly proven. It is
evident from photographs by local residents submitted in relation to this application and to
CA/01/1064/PET that the land in question has clearly been used as part of the caravan park at
least since the early 1980's, while the Council's own aerial photographs prove the use as far
back as September 1987. In view of this clear-cut evidence I must advise that the certificate be
- 10 issued.
BACKGROUND PAPERS:
1. Application Ref: CAE/02/00005/WAL
2. Notes of Officer's site inspection, dated 01.05.02.
3. Memorandum from Community Services, dated 01.05.02.
4. Previous planning applications ref: CA/98/0965/PET & CA/01/1064/PET
5. Letters of representation received from:Mrs J Charlton, 15 Stoneway Park, Stone Street, Petham, Nr Canterbury, CT4 5PR,
dated 18.05.02, 03.07.02 & 14.10.02
Ms H Child, Laurel House, 41 Old Dover Road, Canterbury, CT1 3HH, dated 20.05.02 &
23.10.02
Mr N Graham, Petham House, Petham, Nr Canterbury, CT4 5RX, dated 19.05.02
J M & W Wearing, Holly Tree Cottage, Stone Street, Petham, Nr Canterbury, CT4 5PR,
dated 21.05.02, 09.07.02 & 23.10.02
Mrs E & M R Burrows, South Dormers, Stone Street, Petham, Nr Canterbury, CT4 5PR,
dated 20.05.02, 07.07.02, 22.10.02 & 25.11.02
Mr D & Mrs M Thwaites, Summer Cottage, Stone Street, Petham, Nr Canterbury, CT4
5PR, dated 13.05.02 & 20.05.02
Miss M L Gafford, Woodlands, Stone Street, Petham, Nr Canterbury, CT4 5PR, dated
21.05.02 & 24.10.02
Mrs A Damon, 2 Holly Tree Cottages, Stone Street, Petham, Nr Canterbury, CT4 5PR,
dated 21.05.02 & 23.10.02
Mr L Marsh, Sunnyside, Church Lane, Petham, Nr Canterbury, CT4 5RD, dated
22.05.02 & 24.10.02
Petham Parish Council, 2 Queens Cottages, The Street, Molash, Canterbury, CT4 8HJ,
dated 10.05.02, 22.05.02, 14.10.02 & 16.10.02
Mr A Muse, Address Witheld, dated 14.05.02, 22.10.02 & 22.10.02
Waltham Parish Council, 4 Richdore Road, Waltham, Canterbury, CT4 5SH, dated
21.05.02, 11.11.02 & 09.12.02
- 11 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE
06 January 2003
Report Item Number : 03
APPLICATION NUMBER
:
CA//02/00255/HBA
PROPOSAL
:
Erection of two silo filtration plant towers (one
retrospective), extension to factory unit and new storage
building.
LOCATION OF SITE
:
Crown Products, Eddington Lane, Herne Bay
APPLICATION TYPE
:
FULL APPLICATION
DATE REGISTERED
:
27 February 2002
EXPIRY DATE
:
24 April 2002
CONTACT OFFICER
:
Katie Mawdsley
CONSERVATION AREA
:
NO
LISTED BUILDING
:
NOT LISTED
WARD
:
HERON
APPLICANT
:
E L Head Ltd
AGENT
:
David Fitzpatrick Associates
SUMMARY:
The application is for the extension and improvement of existing facilities on land that is in
employment use. The main issues in connection with the proposal are in respect of noise
pollution and the visual impact of the filtration towers together with the potential for problems in
connection with surface water drainage in view of the substantial size of the proposed new
building.
Plans of this development will be on display at the back of The Guildhall at the meeting.
RECOMMENDATION:
To receive the report of the Development Control (Site Visits) Panel at the meeting.
SITE DESCRIPTION
The site is located on Eddington Lane, to the north of the Old Thanet Way. Opposite the site
and to the west is land in other employment related uses. Residential development is situated
to the east. Abutting the site at the rear is a railway line and residential development is located
on the other side of the railway embankment.
The site is located within the urban area, as identified on the Local Plan Proposals Map. It
abuts the Eddington Conservation Area to the east and the land to the west is allocated for
employment use in the Local Plan.
- 12 Two large factory buildings are located towards the front of the site and occupy a large
proportion of the site area.
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
The application seeks consent for the erection of two filtration towers, an extension to the
existing factory building and a new storage building.
The filtration towers consist of a 14 metre high cylindrical metal silo on top of a brick base,
taking the height to 18 metres. One of the towers has already been erected (without
permission) and this has been painted a bright blue to match the colour of the existing factory
buildings.
The extension to the existing factory is located at the rear of the building with a pitched roof
portal frame, measuring approximately 44 metres by 16 metres, metal clad in colours to match
the existing.
The proposed new storage building would be located adjacent to the railway towards the rear
of the site. This building measures approximately 97 metres long by 41 metres wide. It is 7
metres to its eaves with an 11 metre ridge height. Again, this would be a portal frame building,
metal clad in colours to match the existing factory buildings.
PLANNING HISTORY
In 1983, outline planning permission for the industrial development of the land was granted
(Ref No CA/83/0640/HBA). Panning permissions for the factory buildings were granted in 1984
and 1985 (Ref Nos CA/84/0968/HBA & CA/85/1357/HBA). In 1989 an appeal in respect of an
application for the erection of a dust extractor and wood and waste burning boiler plant was
allowed (Ref No CA/87/1864/HBA).
PLANNING POLICIES
Policy D1 of the adopted Canterbury District Local Plan relating to general design principles is
relevant. From the emerging Local Plan, Policy ED6 is applicable, which refers to adopting a
positive approach when considering proposals for expansion of existing employment premises.
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS
Letters of objection have been received from 38 households, Councillor Law (the County
Councillor for Herne Bay East) and the Herne Bay and District Residents’ Association. These
object on the following grounds:1. The visual impact of the filtration towers, not in keeping with the surrounding area.
2. The retrospective nature of the application.
3. Noise generated by the towers and an enlarged factory; if permitted, a noise screen
between the factory and the bungalows to the rear should be erected.
4. The submitted plans are incorrect as they do not show surrounding residential property.
5. The new buildings will cause further flooding of the Plenty Brook.
6. Possible increase in toxic pollution; the current chimney emits obnoxious smells (cellulose)
and is a danger to health.
7. Any plant should be redesigned and sunk into the ground so that it is obscured by the
railway embankment.
- 13 8. Pollution from the factory, both noise and smell which are offensive and the fumes and
smoke are a health hazard.
9. The proposal represents an over intensive use of an industrial site in what is essentially a
residential area.
10. Waste off-cuts and dusts should not be burnt at the factory; this practice should end by the
use of an approved method of recycling, which could be implemented as a condition and
the chimney then removed.
11. Devaluation of surrounding properties; and
12. Concern at lack of information about the nature of the process requiring such obtrusive
structures for filtration.
One local resident has proposed that a compromise should be sort with Crown Products. This
would involve the reduction in height of the towers to 6 metres, the incorporation of a noise
screen and dust particles and timber off-cuts to be removed from the site which would enable
the existing chimney to be removed.
TECHNICAL CONSULTATIONS
Highways Management Unit Concern was initially expressed in respect of a shortfall of approximately 200 car parking
spaces, based on the Kent Parking Standards. It was recognised however that employee
numbers are low and the company employs locally. This, together with shift working and the
proximity to the railway station, eased the concern to some extent. A Traffic Statement was
subsequently submitted, which enabled the Highway Manager to support the application.
Drainage Section The proposals for surface water drainage are acceptable.
Environmental Protection & Street Scene The application represents an upgrade to the dust filtration systems at the factory and the
proposals do not alter the nature of the waste combustion (boiler) or the wood coating aspects
of Crown’s operation. The main concerns regarding this application relate to the adverse
impact on residential amenity caused by noise from the new dust filtration system. While the
old filtration system already generates some noise, the new unit produces additional and
different elements of noise - most notably a strong, low rumble or throb, which has a marked
impact on nearby properties (e.g. Cherry Gardens) and can best be likened to the underlying
noise one hears on a car ferry.
Objective noise measurements of the tower as originally erected indicate that complaints are
likely from the operation of a single unit; the arrival of a second similar new system would
further exacerbate this situation. At present Crown Products hours of operation are confined to
the daytime, generally ceasing by 1800 hours. The operation of a further new dust extraction
system would generate even more serious noise issues.
Subsequent to these comments being made, noise mitigation work has been carried out on the
one new filtration unit. This has produced a substantial improvement. A two part condition is
suggested which would allow for the system to be used at current, typical production times
without compromising residential amenity. The operation of the systems into more sensitive
time periods will potentially have a greater impact on residential amenity and the second part
of the condition gives a stricter noise limit to meet during these more sensitive times. It is
unlikely that this can be met without further attenuation to noise control.
- 14 Southern Water No objection to the proposed method of foul sewage disposal. In view of the nature of the
subsoil in the area, it is understood that soakaways may not provide an adequate means of
disposal of surface water for the proposed development. The Environment Agency and
Council’s own Drainage Engineers should be consulted on the suitability of soakaways. Should
these not be considered satisfactory, other possible means of surface water disposal should
be investigated that do not involve discharge to the public foul and surface water sewers,
which do not have adequate capacity for any additional surface water flows. There is no right
of connection for industrial premises to the sewers. It is essential that the Applicant
demonstrates that adequate means of surface water disposal can be provided before planning
permission is granted.
DRAINAGE IMPLICATIONS
Given the location of the site, close to the Plenty Brook, a Surface Water Drainage Impact
Assessment has been submitted with the application. This explains that the planning
permission granted in 1983 to develop the site had a condition attached to the permission,
which stipulated the maximum quantity of surface water disposal from the site. The application
was for the full development of the site with buildings and hard surfaced parking areas;
approximately 6000m2 of the car parking has not been constructed and remains as a grassed
area.
Site investigations at that time confirmed that the subsoil precluded the use of deep bore
soakaways so a system of large diameter pipes with a storage tank was designed and installed
to limit the discharge of surface water into the culvert north of Plenty Brook at a rate of 56 litres
per second, using a 1 in 2 years return period designed assuming that the whole site was to be
developed.
It is proposed to keep the existing orifice at the holding tank, discharging at 56 litres/second
and provide additional on site storage for the 6000m2 of site that has not been developed
using a 1 in 30 year return period.
Calculations have indicated that for a fully developed site, using the 1 in 2 year return period,
the existing surface water storage arrangements on site are adequate and no flooding will
occur. Keeping the discharge rate into the Plenty Brook at 56 litre/second and using a 1 in 30
year return period for the 6000m2 permeable area, then a further 117m3 of surface water
storage capacity needs to be added to the existing storage to avoid any flooding. It is
proposed that this additional storage capacity is provided.
DISCUSSION
The site is occupied by a well established company, Crown Products, which manufactures
kitchen cupboards and bedroom furniture and currently employs 173 people. In order to
achieve better efficiency and productivity the Company needs to upgrade its filtration plant,
provide further on site storage and extend the existing factory building. The new development
will result in a need for an additional 23 employees.
One of the main grounds of objection to the application has been in respect of noise; the noise
impact of the dust filtration plant and fans is also the element of the application causing most
concern to Officers. When originally erected, Environmental Protection Officers were
concerned about the adverse impact on residential amenity caused by the noise from the new
system.
Remedial work has now been carried out to the new system; this noise mitigation has
produced a substantial improvement and resulted in noise levels that are considered to be
acceptable for a daytime operation. If similar measures are applied to the other proposed unit
then this would allow the applicant to operate his current typical production times without
compromising surrounding residential amenity.
- 15 The operation of the filtration system into more sensitive time periods such as night-time will
potentially have a greater adverse impact on residential amenity. It is therefore proposed that
if planning permission is granted, a two tiered condition is attached. This would allow for the
operation of the filtration towers at the present noise levels of the existing tower during the
daytime. If the applicant wishes to use the filtration systems between 7.00 pm and 7.00 am
weekdays, after 1.00 pm on Saturdays or at any time on Sundays, this would require further
remedial measures to reduce the combined noise level of the two towers.
The application has also provoked public concern over air pollution issues, with many
objectors referring to toxic fumes, obnoxious smells and the burning of cellulose. The proposal
relates to a dust filtration system at the factory and represents an upgrade to the existing
system. The new plant involves air being sucked from inside the factory into the silo towers
where it is filtrated for dust particles, which are then collected before the air is released back
into the factory. The silos are sealed structures and therefore there are no external emissions
released from them. The proposals do not alter in any way the nature of the waste combustion
(boiler) or the wood coating aspects of Crown’s operation. The regulatory provisions of the
Environmental Protection Act 1990 is the relevant legislation to deal with air quality matters
relating to any emissions from Crown’s operations and will not be affected in any way by the
current proposals.
Many of the objections relate to the visual appearance of the filtration towers. Due to its
height, 18 metres in total, the tower that has already been erected is visible both from the
south and from the rear gardens of the residential properties located to the north on the other
side of the railway embankment. The new tower would be as equally visible. At present the
tower is painted a strong blue, matching some of the existing buildings on site. It is considered
that the visual impact of the towers could be mitigated if these were painted a more subdued
colour, such as dark green or grey and the applicant has agreed to this suggestion. It is
therefore proposed that if planning permission is granted, a condition is attached requiring the
silos to be painted an appropriate colour.
The proposed new storage facilities building is to be located at the rear of the site, adjacent to
the railway line. This is a substantial building, measuring nearly 100 metres long by 40 metres
wide. The height of the building is 11 metres, which is a metre lower than the existing main
factory building. It will not be visible from the residential properties to the rear due to the
intervening railway embankment which is heavily treed. Views from the front will be limited due
to the screening effect of existing buildings located in front of it and viewed in the context of the
industrial site. This proposed building is therefore considered to be acceptable in visual terms.
In respect of highways issues, the Highway Manager initially expressed concern with regard to
the number of available parking spaces relative to the size of the factory buildings. A Traffic
Management Assessment has subsequently been submitted, which has demonstrated the
adequacy of the car parking proposals.
The Assessment explains that the planning permission granted in 1983 for the factory building
required 292 parking spaces to be provided. These spaces have never been fully utilised.
The area of the proposed new storage building is on part of the site designated for parking
spaces. The new development will reduce the number of allocated car parking spaces from
292 to 124. The assessment has revealed the number of car parking spaces currently
occupied on the site to be 68, which gives an additional 56 spaces in reserve in case there is
additional demand at a future date. The Highway Manager is satisfied with this synopsis and
supports the application.
A Drainage Impact Assessment has been submitted which is detailed in the above section.
The Drainage Engineers are satisfied that the proposed increase in capacity for surface water
is satisfactory and that the development will not exacerbate existing flooding problems in the
- 16 locality.
In conclusion, the proposal is considered to be acceptable; the application is on land that is in
existing employment use and it is the policy of this Council to encourage proposals promoting
employment. While some concerns have been raised, namely in respect of noise pollution, the
visual impact of the towers and the potential for problems in connection with surface water
drainage, the imposition of appropriate conditions will result in these issues being overcome
and the proposal is therefore recommended for approval.
BACKGROUND PAPERS:
1. Application Ref: CA/02/0255/HBA
2. Notes of Officer's site inspection, dated 04.04.02
3. Memoranda from Highway Manager, dated 27.03.02 & 09.10.02
4. Memoranda from Environment & Street Scene, dated 05.07.02 & 20.11.02
5. Memorandum from Drainage Section, dated 07.11.02
6. Previous planning applications ref: CA/83/0640/HBA, CA/84/0968/HBA,
CA/85/1357/HBA & CA/87/1864/HBA
7. Letters of representation received from:G E & S P Cuckoo, High Winds, 61 Cherry Gardens, Herne Bay, Kent, CT6 5QY, dated
26.03.02, 02.04.02 & 23.04.02
A Lines, 18 Spencer Road, Herne Bay, Kent, dated 15.04.02
Mr J Packman, 11 Nurserylands, Herne Bay, Kent, CT6 5TF, dated 14.04.02
Mr J K Holmes, 23 Cherry Gardens, Herne Bay, Kent, CT6 5QY, dated 15.04.02 &
08.12.02
Kent County Council, Cllr J Law, Members' Suite, Sessions House, County Hall,
Maidstone, ME14 1XQ, dated 12.02.02 & 11.04.02
Mr D A & Mrs M A Carden, 50 Spenser Road, Herne Bay, Kent, CT6 5QN, dated
14.04.02
Mrs P A Wilson, 47 Cherry Gardens, Herne Bay, Kent, CT6 5QY, dated 08.04.02
Herne Bay and District Residents’ Association, c/o Herne Bay Books, 2 Stanley Road,
Herne Bay, Kent, CT6 5SH, dated 11.04.02
The Owner/Occupier, 25 Cherry Gardens, Herne Bay, Kent, CT6 5QY, dated 08.04.02
Mr & Mrs R Clarke, Sunnybank, 6 Cherry Gardens, Herne Bay, Kent, CT6 5QZ, dated
09.04.02
Mrs M Parker, 30 Station Road, Herne Bay, Kent, CT6 5QJ, dated 12.04.02
Miss A Lait, Stanmore, 22 Station Road, Herne Bay, Kent, CT6 5QJ, dated 12.04.02
Mr D P J Coward, 9 Nurserylands, Herne Bay, Kent, CT6 5TF, dated 12.04.02
Miss K Willoughby & Mr K White, 83 Cherry Gardens, Herne Bay, Kent, CT6 5QY, dated
11.04.02
Mrs D & Mr L A Johnstone, 57 Cherry Gardens, Herne Bay, Kent, CT6 5QY, dated
25.03.02 & 09.04.02
Mr P Uzzell, 25 Nurserylands, Herne Bay, Kent, CT6 5TF, dated 09.04.02
Mr C Murphy, 12 Spenser Road, Herne Bay, Kent, CT6 5QL, dated 06.04.02
B W McWhir, 32 Cherry Gardens, Herne Bay, Kent, CT6 5QZ, dated 08.04.02
The Owner/Occupier, 12 Nurserylands, Herne Bay, Kent, CT6 5TF, received 08.04.02
Mrs D M Thompson, 26 Cherry Gardens, Herne Bay, Kent, CT6 5QZ, received 08.04.02
Mr D L & Mrs J Nicholls, 28 Cherry Gardens, Herne Bay, Kent, CT6 5QZ, dated
05.04.02
Mrs V Carter, 39 Cherry Gardens, Herne Bay, Kent, dated 01.04.02
Misses Maddock & Foxwell, 14 Spenser Road, Herne Bay, Kent, CT6 5QL, dated
27.03.02
Mr K G Meager, 14 Nurserylands, Herne Bay, Kent, CT6 5TF, dated 30.03.02
Mr R Batchelor, 67 Cherry Gardens, Herne Bay, Kent, CT6 5QY, dated 26.03.02
The Owner/Occupier, 27 Cherry Gardens, Herne Bay, Kent, CT6 5QY, dated 26.03.02
Mrs M Murray, 71 Cherry Gardens, Herne Bay, Kent, CT6 5QY, dated 26.03.02
- 17 Southern Water Services, Kent Division, Southern House, Capstone Road, Chatham,
ME5 7QA, dated 27.03.02
Mr B A & Mrs E P Goodsell, 24 Cherry Gardens, Herne Bay, Kent, CT6 5QZ, dated
25.03.02
Mrs J E Mortimer, 75 Cherry Gardens, Herne Bay, Kent, CT6 5QY, dated 27.03.02
Mr J S Brown, 17 Cherry Gardens, Herne Bay, Kent, CT6 5QY, dated 28.03.02
Mrs L A Mortimer, 73 Cherry Gardens, Herne Bay, Kent, CT6 5QY, dated 27.03.02
Mr & Mrs F Witton, 59 Cherry Gardens, Herne Bay, Kent, CT6 5QY, dated 21.03.02 &
02.04.02
Mrs R D Spiller, 65 Cherry Gardens, Herne Bay, Kent, CT6 5QY, dated 25.03.02
M K Taylor, 20 Spenser Road, Herne Bay, Kent, dated 20.03.02
Mr & Mrs H A Pullen, 51 Cherry Gardens, Herne Bay, Kent, CT6 5QY, dated 24.03.02
H F Perfect, 55 Cherry Gardens, Herne Bay, Kent, CT6 5QY, dated 25.03.02
Mrs I Burnett, 45 Cherry Gardens, Herne Bay, Kent, CT6 5QY, dated 08.04.02
Mrs G Bolton, 43 Cherry Gardens, Herne Bay, Kent, CT6 5QY, dated 08.04.02
Mr R Batchelor, 79 Cherry Gardens, Herne Bay, CT6 5QY, dated 08.12.02
- 18 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE
06 January 2003
Report Item Number : 04
APPLICATION NUMBER
:
CA//02/00650/CAN
PROPOSAL
:
Change of use from solicitors to five dwellings;
replacement rear extension, alterations to windows and
doors, formation of car parking area.
LOCATION OF SITE
:
3, 7, Dane John, Canterbury
APPLICATION TYPE
:
FULL APPLICATION
DATE REGISTERED
:
23 July 2002
EXPIRY DATE
:
17 September 2002
CONTACT OFFICER
:
Robert Britnell
CONSERVATION AREA
:
CANTERBURY CITY No.1 - AMENDED
LISTED BUILDING
:
GRADE 2
WARD
:
WESTGATE
APPLICANT
:
Girlings Solicitors
AGENT
:
Clague
SUMMARY:
The application proposes the change of use of the Solicitors' offices at Nos. 3-7 Dane John
back to residential use. Minor external alterations and extensions are proposed at the rear
facing the Watling Street car park and these will improve the building visually. To support the
residential conversion it is proposed that four car parking spaces be provided within the garden
of two of the properties, accessed from the public car park. This will entail some limited
remodelling of the car park but no reduction in the number of spaces available.
RECOMMENDATION:
Grant,
Subject to appropriate conditions to secure restoration of the boundary walls as proposed and
to safeguard the quality of the alterations to the building and archaeology.
SITE DESCRIPTION
At the entrance to the Dane John Gardens stands a terrace of six Regency houses, now
occupied as offices, five of these, excluding that nearest Watling Street, are occupied by a firm
of Solicitors and these comprise the application site, Nos. 3-7 Dane John. Numbers 4-7 retain
their rear gardens with much of the original boundary walling, although some has been lost
and some is in poor repair. Cartographic evidence suggests that Nos. 2 and 3 did not have
rear gardens although they, along with Nos. 4-7, did benefit from a rear pedestrian access, the
last vestiges of which still remain, demarcated by chestnut paling fences to the Watling Street
car park boundary. The whole of the rear of the site is surrounded by the Watling Street car
park on three sides.
- 19 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
The application proposes reversion of the offices to five dwellings as originally constructed; at
the rear minor door and window changes are proposed and at the rear of No. 3 a 20th century
addition adjoining the car park is to be modified and visually improved.
At the rear it is proposed that the chestnut paling fences demarcating the car park be removed
and the car park extended to include what was once the rear pedestrian accesses, this will
allow for the remodelling of the car park layout and provision of vehicular access to the
boundary of the application site in two places. It is proposed that two car parking spaces be
formed in each of the rear gardens of Nos. 4 and 6, providing Nos. 4-7 with one car parking
space each. The car spaces to the rear of No. 4 will take access at a point where the original
wall has been almost totally removed and replaced by poor fencing. The spaces to the rear of
No.6 will require demolition of a small section of wall to the rear of the garden. The car parking
spaces will then be gated to maintain the original boundary lines. Within the site new
boundary walls will be constructed to the parking areas and original boundary walls rebuilt or
replaced where missing.
PLANNING HISTORY
Numbers 3-6 appear to have been offices since before records began and No. 7 was added
with permission in 1959. In 1981 and 1986 permissions were given for change of use to
residential but not implemented. In the late 1990's permission and consent was given for
various works of reinstatement at the front of the building.
THE APPLICANT'S CASE
The change of use is uncontentious in itself. The addition of car parking spaces will enhance
the value and saleability of the houses and thus help facilitate the change of use. The original
scheme has been modified in discussion with officers of the Development Control and Estates
Sections to ensure that it is acceptable to the Council as landowner of the car park and to
address concerns raised about fragmentation of the gardens. The addition of land to the car
park will allow the new accesses to be formed without loss of public car parking spaces.
PLANNING POLICIES
The site lies within the City Centre Conservation Area and the Canterbury Area of
Archaeological Importance. The buildings are listed Grade II. District Local Plan Policies D1,
D8-D12, D17, D21, D29-30, C1-C3 and C5 are all appropriate.
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS
Canterbury Conservation Advisory Committee and St Mildred's and St Margaret's Area
Conservation Society both object to the loss of the original garden walls to the rear of the
properties.
TECHNICAL CONSULTATIONS
Kent County Constabulary Force Architectural Liaison Officer supports the proposal to bring residents into the area as
their presence will contribute to the informal policing of the area.
Southern Water No objections are raised.
Canterbury Highway Manager Would support a car free scheme in this central location if there were a conservation objection
to the parking.
Environment Agency No objections are raised.
- 20 Canterbury Archaeological Trust An archaeological evaluation is requested prior to determination.
DRAINAGE CONSIDERATIONS
No matters to consider.
DISCUSSION
Restoration of the buildings to their original residential use is to be welcomed and the minor
changes proposed are all considered to be beneficial. In terms of policy there can be no
objection to that part of the application.
The introduction of the car parking at the rear has proved more problematic; the original
scheme swept away the internal divisions between gardens to create a shared car park with a
single access point, leaving the gardens truncated. This was considered to be unacceptably
damaging to the setting of the listed buildings. The scheme as now put forward has the benefit
of respecting historic boundary divisions between the properties and is beneficial in replacing
damaged or degraded boundary features with new walling. The new scheme is less damaging
to archaeology and I would suggest therefore that this can be dealt with by condition rather
than prior evaluation.
Whilst I do not consider it to be essential that these houses be provided with parking, the
applicant considers it to be an important facility given the nature of the properties and the
Council could not consider surrendering dedicated spaces within the public car park to support
these dwellings. I consider that the scheme now put forward will provide a car parking space
for 4 of the new houses in an acceptable manner that will not adversely affect the setting of the
buildings or the character of the Conservation Area and I can find no reason therefore to object
to this proposal.
BACKGROUND PAPERS:
1. Application Ref: CA/02/0650/CAN
2. Notes of Officer's site inspection, dated 05.12.02
3. Memorandum from Highway Manager, dated 20.06.02
4. Letters of representation received from:St Mildred's and St Margaret's Conservation Society, 58 Castle Street, Canterbury, CT1
2PY, dated 17.06.02
Kent County Constabulary, Strategic Crime Reduction Dept, Police Headquarters,
Sutton Road, Maidstone, ME15 9BZ, dated 14.06.02
Southern Water Services, Kent Division, Southern House, Capstone Road, Chatham,
ME5 7QA, dated 17.06.02
Canterbury Conservation Advisory Committee, c/o Canterbury Environment Centre, St.
Alphege, Canterbury, CT1 2EB, received 24.06.02 & 09.12.02
The Environment Agency, Orchard House, Endeavour Park, London Road, Addington,
Kent, ME19 5SH, dated 25.06.02
Canterbury Archaeological Trust, 92a Broad Street, Canterbury, Kent, CT1 2LU, dated
23.08.02
- 21 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE
06 January 2003
Report Item Number : 05
APPLICATION NUMBER
:
CA//02/00968/CAN
PROPOSAL
:
LOCATION OF SITE
:
Variation of condition 01 of planning permission
CA/97/0449/CAN to extend opening hours.
Studio 41, 41, St. George's Place, Canterbury.
APPLICATION TYPE
:
VARIATION OR DELETION OF CONDITION(S)
DATE REGISTERED
:
19 July 2002
EXPIRY DATE
:
13 September 2002
CONTACT OFFICER
:
Robert Britnell
CONSERVATION AREA
:
CAN - OLD DOV RD/OATEN HILL/ST LAWRENCE
LISTED BUILDING
:
NOT LISTED
WARD
:
BARTON
APPLICANT
:
Studio 41
AGENT
:
Malcom Judd & Partners
SUMMARY:
This application is submitted solely to vary the trading hours of the discotheque/night-club area
for a temporary 12 month period, extending hours of operation to 2.00 am on Friday and
Saturday nights only, with other nights of the week remaining unchanged.
RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse;
On grounds related to likely additional noise, nuisance and disturbance to residents in the
surrounding area.
SITE DESCRIPTION
Studio 41 is the former Planet Studios/Club Airlock/Planet Lazer premises situated on the first
floor of the former Martin Walters garage in St George's Place, adjoining The Chicago Rock
Cafe (formerly Churchills) and above the shop, Bamboo Tiger. Access to/from the club can be
taken through two sets of doors from the street, one adjoining The Chicago Rock Cafe which
accesses the disco/cabaret area directly and functions solely as an exit and the other from the
end of the building adjoining the Baptist Church which gives access to the restaurant area and
the lazer games arena and through them to the discotheque/clubroom floorspace.
The permitted hours of use under the terms of the planning permission are 12 midnight
throughout the week and 10.30 pm on Sundays. For entertainment licensing purposes the club
is licensed for a maximum of 200 persons, this being the maximum permissible with the
current means of fire escape from the premises. The Entertainment License restricts the hours
of usage for entertainment purposes to 6.00 pm to 1.00 am Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday
nights, 6.00 pm to 2.00 am Thursday, Friday and Saturday nights and 9.00 pm to 10.30 pm
- 22 Sunday. Both the permission and license extend the hours of use on New Year's Eve.
The premises are insulated against noise breakout and despite initial problems that now
seems to be effective in controlling noise pollution from the premises.
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
This application, which should be read in conjunction with CA/02/0969/CAN, is for variation of
condition 01 of the 1997 planning permission for a 12 month period to allow the
discotheque/night-club use to operate until 2.00 am on Friday and Saturday nights only.
PLANNING HISTORY
The application is submitted to vary the terms of conditions 01 imposed on the grant of
planning permission under reference CA/97/0449/CAN; that application in turn was submitted
to vary the terms of an earlier grant of permission under reference CA/95/0526/CAN, which in
turn superseded the terms of the original permissions granted in 1993 for use of the premises
as a lazer games centre. The 1995 permission granted use retrospectively for a mixed use of
lazer games centre and amusement centre and was subject to two relevant conditions;
condition 01 indicated that the use should not be operated between the hours of 10.30 pm and
10.00 am on any day of the week and condition 02 indicated that the premises should not be
used for the purposes of a discotheque or dance hall.
In 1997 permission was sought and obtained for the retention of the development without
compliance with these two conditions of the 1995 permission to allow part of the premises to
be used for multi-functional purposes including discotheque or dance hall usage. Conditions
imposed on that grant of permission were, in synopsis: 01 Use not to be operated between
midnight and 9.00 am on any day of the week or after 10.30 pm Sundays except on the 1st
January in any year when the time limit is 1.00 am; the building to be cleared of customers by
those times. 02 No part of the premises except the specified multi-function room to be used for
discotheque or dance hall purposes. 03 Prior to any discotheque or dance hall use a scheme
of noise attenuation to be approved and implemented. 04 The multi-function room only to be
used in conjunction with the rest of the premises and not to be used as an independent unit or
in conjunction with adjoining premises.
In 1998, under reference CA/98/0027/CAN, the operators applied for permission to vary the
terms of condition 01 of the 1997 permission to allow the club to open until 1.00 am on
Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday nights and 2.00 am on Thursday, Friday and Saturday
nights, Sundays remained unchanged at 10.30 pm. That application was granted for a
temporary period of 12 months expiring on 31st March 1999 after which hours were to revert to
those permitted in 1997.
In 1999 application was made to continue those hours on a permanent basis; that application,
reference CA/99/0325/CAN, was refused on grounds relating to the likelihood of late night
noise and disturbance being caused in the City by those leaving the premises. An appeal was
lodged against that refusal of permission. In 2000 a subsequent application was made with
the same objective, reference CA/00/0293/CAN, that was similarly refused and an appeal was
lodged. Both of the appeals were heard together as both were essentially for the same
development although the hours proposed varied between the two proposals. In determining
the appeals the Inspector did not permit an extension of hours beyond 12 midnight but did vary
the terms of the condition imposed by deleting the requirement that the premises be cleared of
customers by that time, leaving a slight ambiguity as to how the cessation of use was to be
defined if customers were still permitted to remain in the building; it may be that the Inspector
had in mind that the revised wording would allow for a slower dispersal of customers from the
premises after the discotheque use had ceased.
At the time that those appeals were being heard the Planning Inspectorate was also
considering an appeal by Churchills arising from the Council's refusal of planning permission to
- 23 increase the numbers permitted in their premises from 500 to 575, application
CA/98/0956/CAN refers. That appeal was allowed.
Following that decision the unsuccessful
appellants in respect of the application premises challenged their dismissals by way of judicial
review, considering that the Churchills' decision should have guided the Inspector on their
appeals. The judicial review did not find in the appellants favour and the appeal decisions
stand unchanged.
Subsequently, in 2001 a further application, CA/01/1249/CAN was submitted and reported to
Committee on a number of occasions, the applicant's ambition being to both extend the hours
of opening of the discotheque/night-club and to extend the floorspace that could be used for
that purpose. Amidst some confusion as to the Committee's views, an appeal was first lodged
against non-determination of the application and then withdrawn. The application was
eventually refused planning permission and hours of use and floor area should, but have not,
reverted to those permitted in 1997. A duplicate application CA/02/0336/CAN was refused
permission under the exercise of delegated powers.
THE APPLICANT'S CASE
In support of the proposal the applicant points out that the capacity of the discotheque/nightclub area is limited by fire certificate to 200 persons and that this is less than 10% of the
overall capacity of late night entertainment venues in the City; what is sought is a measure of
parity with other users such as the Chicago Rock Cafe adjoining the site. There is already a
significant level of activity at night in the City, created by homegoers from other venues and the
part that this would play would be small by comparison, given the limited capacity of the
premises. Without the post midnight trading the premises cannot succeed and the venue,
including the lazer games arena, would be lost to the City.
In consultation with Police and Environmental Health considerable improvements have been
made to the premises and its operation and supporting information details introduction of
sound proofing, a late night bus service, CCTV, and goes on to draw attention to the operation
of the premises for more mature clientele, ticket only live events and refers to the need for
cultural diversity in the City.
Following dismissal of the 'Slug and Lettuce' appeal regarding the site in Burgate the
applicant's agent sought the opportunity to analyse that decision and its relevance if any to this
site. The agent concludes that in terms of location, the physical nature of the area, the
presence or absence of nearby residents, the mix of uses, the intensity of the use proposed
(i.e. numbers) and the potential for noise breakout, the two site locations are very different and
therefore that decision should not influence the decision on this application.
PLANNING POLICIES
The existing Local Plan has no policies specifically relevant to this proposal although Policies
D1 and D52 have some limited relevance. The Deposit Draft of the Review Local Plan
indicates in proposed Policy TC8 that within the City centre permission will be granted for
development leading to significant late night activity provided that this would not lead to a
proliferation of such uses where there was already anti-social behaviour, that residential
amenity would not be adversely affected and that adequate measure were incorporated to
tackle crime and anti-social behaviour. Given that the Review Plan is not yet an adopted
document the weight that can be given to this policy must be moderated, as it could yet be
changed.
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS
Canterbury Baptist Church adjoining the premises raises no objection but observes that noise
from the premises is likely to affect nearby residents and that the Church buildings and
forecourt are subject to misuse during the night, which it fears will get worse if hours are
extended.
- 24 Fifteen letters of objection have been received, almost all from local residents or businesses
but including the Oaten Hill and District Society and the local Neighbourhood Watch Coordinator. All refer to problems of late night noise and nuisance in the area and several
question the appropriateness of this site for the use in what is seen as a predominantly
residential area.
Seven letters of support have been received from customers of the premises, but none are
from persons local to the site.
TECHNICAL CONSULTATIONS
Kent County Constabulary No objections to the proposed 12 month trial period or to the extended floorspace provided that
numbers are limited.
Kent Fire Brigade No objections are raised.
Environment Agency No objections are raised.
DRAINAGE CONSIDERATIONS:
The application is not considered to have any drainage implications.
DISCUSSION
At present, for late night entertainment purposes the City is served by The Chicago Rock Cafe,
Alberrys, The Bizz and The Works which are all licensed for entertainment purposes until 1.00
am or 2.00 am as sought by the applicants and which cumulatively have a capacity of 1885
persons. In addition The Venue at UKC is licensed for about 1400 persons and various
Colleges have their own in-house facilities. There is already therefore significant provision
made for those seeking post midnight entertainment, music and dancing and earlier in the
evening there are numerous public houses and restaurants catering to the needs of the City’s
inhabitants. At present the application premises are licensed to accommodate 200 persons
but are restricted as to hours of opening, which are limited by planning condition to 12
midnight.
The applicant's agents make the point that in terms of overall numbers these premises are only
a small contributor, somewhere about 10% of the total licensed late night entertainment
numbers for the City as a whole. As such it is perceived by the applicant that any extra antisocial behaviour arising from the Club's home going patrons would be negligible in this wider
context. As a 'half way house' the applicant suggests that a one year temporary extension of
hours be granted, during which time the affect, if any, of the use could be monitored and an
assessment then made in a year's time as to whether a permanent extension of hours should
be granted.
In the recent appeals, determined in March 2001, the affect of post midnight noise and
nuisance from homegoing patrons of this and other premises was the principal issue
discussed. The Inspector commented that both parties look upon the main issue as a matter of
balance, between the acknowledged benefits of late night entertainment in a sustainable
location and the cumulative harm done to residential amenity. He went on that the 1995 and
1997 planning permissions allow the laser arena to operate until a reasonable hour in the
evening and the night-club to operate until midnight normally. This provides a great deal of
valuable entertainment in a sustainable location; and the disturbance is broadly tolerable from
the local residents point of view. He thought that the condition made the night-club activity
acceptable and was justified in terms of Circular 11/95. Later in the decision he commented on
the fact that the premises were at that time open until 0100 or 0200 hours and stated that up to
200 patrons leave at a time when many other clubbers are going home. This contributes to a
- 25 high level of activity in the small hours. Residents find it intolerable. In this context he did not
think that a fresh condition, extending activity into the early morning, would be acceptable.
In conclusion the Inspector stated that having considered the various permutations of opening
hours discussed at the Inquiry, he found that the balance fell firmly in favour of adhering to the
existing condition. The midnight closure was thus restated by the Inspector, save that the
condition was reworded to delete the requirement that the building be cleared of customers by
that time.
Whilst I understand the applicant's position and case, I do not consider that there has been any
change in circumstances locally to lead me to consider that what an Inspector found
unacceptable in March 2001 has now become acceptable. Nothing put forward by the
applicant demonstrates any change in local conditions since that time and I am unable to do
otherwise than to recommend that the Committee adheres to its previous decision not to allow
any extension of opening hours, accepting that in doing so it may well impact adversely on the
economic health of the business as a whole. Should Members be minded to allow some trial
period, say for a year as sought by the applicant, it would be difficult to monitor any change in
the local situation given that the use is already taking place and a firm baseline against which
change could be assessed cannot therefore be established. Any such monitoring could only
realistically be carried out with the extensive co-operation of local residents and would be open
to challenge by the applicant unless he were party to the monitoring arrangements.
BACKGROUND PAPERS:
1. Application Ref: CA/02/0968/CAN
2. Previous planning applications ref: CA/95/0526/CAN, CA/97/0449/CAN,
CA/98/0027/CAN, CA/99/0325/CAN, CA/00/0293/CAN, CA/01/1249/CAN &
CA/02/0336/CAN
3. Letters of representation received from:Kent Fire Brigade, Canterbury Fire Safety Office, Upper Bridge Street, Canterbury, Kent,
CT1 2NH, dated 16.08.02
Oaten Hill & District Society, 32 Dover Street, Canterbury, CT1 3HQ, dated 04.09.02
M J Goggin, Neighbourhood Watch Co-ordinator, 32 Dover Street, Canterbury, CT1
3HQ, dated 04.09.02
Mr R S Adkins, 28 Oaten Hill, Canterbury, CT1 3HZ, dated 04.09.02
C Manning, 34 Oaten Hill, Canterbury, CT13 3HZ, dated 04.09.02
Ms C Edrich, 22 Nunnery Fields, Canterbury, Kent, CT1 3JN, dated 09.09.02
Cynthia M Goggin, 32 Dover Street, Canterbury, Kent, CT1 3HQ, dated 09.09.02
Mrs J Butcher, 5 Vernon Place, Canterbury, Kent, CT1 3HG, dated 10.09.02
Mrs R A Dennis, 8 Nunnery Fields, Canterbury, Kent, CT1 3JN, dated 10.09.02
R Heslop, The Shrubbery, Dover Street, Canterbury, Kent, CT1 3HD, dated 12.09.02
M Kingsley, 11 Empire Terrace, Margate, Kent, CT9 4BY, dated 29.08.02
Mr R Brine, 27 Tunstall Road, Canterbury, Kent, received 13.09.02
Mr M Clubb, Reveille Cottage, Old Roman Road, Martin Mill, Dover, Kent, CT15 5JY,
received 13.09.02
Miss S Beattie, 9 Burma Crescent, Canterbury, Kent, CT1 1AQ, received 13.09.02
Mr C Claridge, 54 Ivy Lane, Canterbury, Kent, CT1 1TU, dated 12.09.02
Mr M Steed, 35 Dover Street, Canterbury, Kent, CT1 3HQ, dated 02.09.02
J Shalet, 27 Tunstall Road, Canterbury, CT2 7BX, dated 10.09.02
L Askham, 35 Sturry Road, Canterbury, CT1 1BU, dated 11.09.02
Mr T Whiddett, 16 Cavendish Road, Herne Bay, CT6 5BA, dated 11.09.02
Kent County Constabulary, Strategic Crime Reduction Dept, Police Headquarters,
Sutton Road, Maidstone, ME15 9BZ, dated 16.09.02
Bamboo Tiger, Heppington Barn, Stone Street, Lower Hardres, Canterbury, CT4 5PW,
dated 09.09.02
Dr R Sarkhel, 10 Oaten Hill Place, Canterbury, Kent, CT1 3HJ, dated 20.09.02
- 26 The Environment Agency, Orchard House, Endeavour Park, London Road, Addington,
Kent, ME19 5SH, dated 18.09.02
Canterbury Baptist Church, St Georges Place, Canterbury, Kent, CT1 1UT, dated
12.09.02
Deirdre Hawkes, 40 Dover Street, Canterbury, CT1 3HQ, dated 10.09.02 & 13.09.02
- 27 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE
06 January 2003
Report Item Number : 06
APPLICATION NUMBER
:
CA//02/00969/CAN
PROPOSAL
:
LOCATION OF SITE
:
Variation of condition 02 of planning permission
CA/97/0449/CAN to increase floorspace.
Studio 41, 41, St. George's Place, Canterbury.
APPLICATION TYPE
:
VARIATION OR DELETION OF CONDITION(S)
DATE REGISTERED
:
19 July 2002
EXPIRY DATE
:
13 September 2002
CONTACT OFFICER
:
Robert Britnell
CONSERVATION AREA
:
CAN - OLD DOV RD/OATEN HILL/ST LAWRENCE
LISTED BUILDING
:
NOT LISTED
WARD
:
BARTON
APPLICANT
:
Studio 41
AGENT
:
Malcom Judd & Partners
SUMMARY:
The application is submitted to approve an increased floor area within the building for
discotheque/night-club or related purposes, with an invitation to the Council to impose a new
restriction on that use limiting numbers to 200 persons in line with the current entertainment
license.
RECOMMENDATION:
Grant,
Subject to imposition of a condition to limit use of the premises as a dance hall or discotheque
to the defined areas in the application and to restrict numbers in such areas to 200 persons.
SITE DESCRIPTION
For a general description of the site please see the preceding report in respect of application
CA/02/0968/CAN. Within the building the entrance staircase at the southern end leads to an
"entertainment restaurant" area, with beyond that the laser games arena and a passageway
which bypasses the arena and leads to the "live cabaret - disco" area which includes bars, a
stage and a mezzanine above which contains toilets and a private suite. From this latter area
a fire escape staircase leads down to the street. The "cabaret-disco" area has a floor area of
about 244 sq m, which is about twice the size of the area originally permitted to be used for
discotheque/dance hall purposes.
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
The application is submitted to vary the terms of the current permission, CA/97/0449/CAN,
condition 02 of which limits the discotheque or dance hall use to a specified and limited area of
the building. That condition was imposed to restrict the level of activity at the building in the
- 28 interests of the amenities of local residents; for the same reason a separate condition was
imposed preventing the merging of that floor area with the adjoining premises.
The application now proposes that the discotheque/night-club use be permitted throughout the
building with the exception of the games arena; in return the applicant is suggesting that a
condition be imposed restricting occupancy of this extended area to 200 persons and this
would accord with the entertainment license for the building.
PLANNING HISTORY
A full description is included in the report preceding, application CA/02/0968/CAN.
THE APPLICANT'S CASE
For a general description of the applicant's assessment of the role these premises play in the
City please see the report referred to above in respect of CA/02/0698/CAN.
The applicant's agent suggests that the Council's previous objections can be met, at least in
part, by imposition of a 'numbers' condition and this would be acceptable to the applicant.
Explaining the current proposals the agent indicates that customers must access the building
by the southern entrance, adjoining the Baptist Church and then must pass through the
restaurant area and corridor to get to the disco area. The restaurant supports the cabaret-disco
use, customers pass freely between the two and this area will function as an end of evening
'chill out' area for customers before they go home. It is appropriate therefore to include this
area within the variation sought.
The original dance area was very cramped according to the agent and has been extended to
include a stage and seating area which were not previously available; a mezzanine floor has
been added but this is limited in space and provides only a private room and toilet facilities.
Numbers within the premises are limited by license and by the fire certificate as the means of
escape from the building are inadequate for a greater number of persons. The club cannot
expand their exit facilities as they do not own or control the means of doing so and the
numbers will always remain limited by this. A condition to restrict numbers to 200 would be
acceptable to the applicant.
PLANNING POLICIES
Please refer to the report in respect of application CA/02/0698/CAN.
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS
Letters of objection are generally as reported elsewhere in respect of application
CA/02/0698/CAN, comprising 16 letters from residents and local businesses, one from the
Neighbourhood Watch Co-ordinator, one from the Oaten Hill and District Society and one from
the Baptist Church.
TECHNICAL CONSULTATIONS
Please see representations reported earlier in respect of application CA/02/0968/CAN.
DRAINAGE CONSIDERATIONS
There are no relevant drainage issues.
DISCUSSION
For discussion of general issues please refer to the report proceding in respect of application
CA/02/0698/CAN.
Specific to this application is the extension of the 'cabaret-disco' use throughout most of the
building. Even though large parts of it would not be used for dancing, they would support the
main dance hall area as well as providing for other activities, e.g. it is known that the
- 29 'entertainment restaurant' is used for karaoke. It is for this reason that the applicant argues the
permission should be extended to all this floorspace, with restriction limited to a newly imposed
numbers restriction. I had previously reservations about the ability to impose the condition
suggested but I am now reassured by legal advice that this can be done.
The existing premises have, in their entirety, a permission for use for Class D2 purposes and
this includes use as a cinema, concert hall, bingo hall, casino, dance hall, swimming bath,
gymnasium etc; it does not however include use as a night-club, which is not a use defined in
planning legislation and which is generally held to be outside any Use Class. Unfortunately
changes in planning legislation have not kept pace with changes in the entertainment industry
and many public house and discotheque/dance hall establishments now contain elements of
what would be commonly accepted as night-club usage. This does not necessarily mean that
a material change of use has taken place however and any use has to be looked at in its
totality to assess the primary usage. In this case the laser games arena is clearly within Use
Class D2, as is the disco area when used for that purpose, as it appears primarily to be. The
restaurant principally supports the other uses and I am satisfied therefore that the overall use
remains within the permitted Use Class D2, albeit that the area used for discotheque/dance
hall purposes has enlarged and is now twice the size of that originally permitted.
Clearly there is an issue that if fire exit from the building could be improved the floor space
could support a much greater number of customers and a figure in excess of 500 has been
previously suggested by the Fire Brigade; there is also anecdotal evidence that the permitted
numbers have been exceeded although I have no knowledge as to whether this was on an
isolated occasion leading up to Christmas or whether this is normal.
The reason for previous imposition of a restriction on floorspace was to limit numbers in order
to safeguard the amenities of local residents. Less people exiting the building would limit
potential for late night noise and disturbance. Arguably, the imposition of a condition as
suggested would achieve the Council's objective just as successfully as limiting the floor area
although it would not be as easy to police the restriction and the opportunities for breaches
would be greater. However, that restriction would match the current restrictions imposed on
the license and by the fire certificate and those have to be policed at present. Whilst therefore
I have some reservations, I can think of no overriding reason why variation of the permission
should be resisted, provided that the suggested numbers restrictive condition is imposed, and I
recommend accordingly.
BACKGROUND PAPERS:
1. Application Ref: CA/02/0969/CAN
2. Previous planning applications ref: CA/95/0526/CAN, CA/97/0449/CAN,
CA/98/0027/CAN, CA/99/0325/CAN, CA/00/0293/CAN, CA/01/1249/CAN &
CA/02/0336/CAN
3. Letters of representation received from:Ms S Tyler, 30 Dover Street, Canterbury, CT1 3HQ, dated 09.09.02
Canterbury Baptist Church, St. George's Place, Canterbury, CT1 1UT, dated 12.09.02
Kent Fire Brigade, Canterbury Fire Safety Office, Upper Bridge Street, Canterbury, Kent,
CT1 2NH, dated 15.08.02
Oaten Hill & District Society, 32 Dover Street, Canterbury, CT1 3HQ, dated 04.09.02
M J Goggin, Neighbourhood Watch Co-ordinator, 32 Dover Street, Canterbury, CT1
3HQ, dated 04.09.02
Mr R S Adkins, 28 Oaten Hill, Canterbury, CT1 3HZ, dated 04.09.02
C Manning, 34 Oaten Hill, Canterbury, CT1 3HZ, dated 04.09.02
Trevor Tophill, 14 Vernon Place, Canterbury, CT1 3HG, dated 05.09.02
M H Gabb, 19 Dover Street, Canterbury, CT1 3HD, dated 06.09.02
Ms C Edrich, 22 Nunnery Fields, Canterbury, Kent, CT1 3JN, dated 09.09.02
Mrs J Butcher, 5 Vernon Place, Canterbury, Kent, CT1 3HG, dated 10.09.02
Cynthia M Goggin, 32 Dover Street, Canterbury, Kent, CT1 3HQ, dated 09.09.02
- 30 Mrs R A Dennis, 8 Nunnery Fields, Canterbury, Kent, CT1 3JN, dated 10.09.02
R Heslop, The Shrubbery, Dover Street, Canterbury, Kent, CT1 3HD, dated 12.09.02
Mr C Claridge, 54 Ivy Lane, Canterbury, Kent, CT1 1TU, dated 12.09.02
Mr M Steed, 35 Dover Street, Canterbury, Kent, CT1 3HQ, dated 02.09.02
Deirdre Hawkes, 40 Dover Street, Canterbury, Kent, CT1 3HQ, dated 10.09.02 &
13.09.02
Kent County Constabulary, Strategic Crime Reduction Dept, Police Headquarters,
Sutton Road, Maidstone, ME15 9BZ, dated 16.09.02
Dr R Sarkhel, 10 Oaten Hill Place, Canterbury, Kent, CT1 3HJ, dated 20.09.02
Bamboo Tiger, Heppington Barn, Stone Street, Lower Hardres, Canterbury, CT4 5PW,
dated 09.09.02
- 31 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE
06 January 2003
Report Item Number : 07
APPLICATION NUMBER
:
CA//02/01036/WHI
PROPOSAL
:
Erection of beach cafe.
LOCATION OF SITE
:
The Red Spider Cafe, West Beach, Whitstable.
APPLICATION TYPE
:
FULL APPLICATION
DATE REGISTERED
:
06 August 2002
EXPIRY DATE
:
01 October 2002
CONTACT OFFICER
:
Katie Mawdsley
CONSERVATION AREA
:
WHITSTABLE TOWN
LISTED BUILDING
:
NOT LISTED
WARD
:
HARBOUR
APPLICANT
:
Whitstable Oyster Fishery Co Ltd
AGENT
:
Peter Jackson
SUMMARY:
The proposed café building is to replace a facility that was once there, albeit smaller in size
and about 10 metres to the west, but was removed by the Council to facilitate improvements to
the sea defences. No objection has been received from the relevant statutory bodies in respect
of issues relating to flooding and nature conservation. The design of the building is felt to be
acceptable as is its effect on the surrounding Conservation Area and locality generally. Given
the distance from the nearest dwellings and proposed hours of opening, it is considered that
the proposal would have little impact on residential amenity.
Plans of this development will be on display at the back of The Guildhall at the meeting.
RECOMMENDATION:
To receive the report of the Development Control (Site Visits) Panel at the meeting.
SITE DESCRIPTION
The site consists of part of the shingle beach located in front of the tennis courts on West
Beach, with the building proposed to be located abutting the promenade. The siting of the
proposed building is almost directly in front of the public conveniences.
The site is within the Whitstable Conservation Area and is a designated Site of Special
Scientific Interest (SSSI), Ramsar site and a Special Protected Area (SPA).
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
The application seeks permission for a new café building measuring approximately 8 metres
by 5 metres with an additional 16 sq. metres of decking area. It is proposed that the building
- 32 would be constructed from timber weather-boarding, painted white with a slate roof. Shutters to
the windows and doors are proposed which would be painted red. The proposal incorporates
an open beach shower.
The building would be a permanent structure, built off driven timber piles. The floor would be
raised above the beach and approached by timber steps on the seaward side, with level
access from the promenade on the landward side. Internally a small kitchen/servery is
proposed with additional serving hatches provided direct to the outside. It is proposed that the
café will sell hot and cold drinks and light snacks. The intended hours of opening are 9.00 am
to 6.00 pm on a daily basis during the summer and on weekends and bank holidays only in
spring and autumn. It is not proposed to open the facility during winter months.
PLANNING HISTORY
The original Red Spider Café was demolished in the late 1980's to enable essential sea
defence works to take place. The owner (the Whitstable Oyster Fishery Company) agreed to
the demolition of the building by the Council, subject to the premises being rebuilt in identical
form. The owner subsequently requested that a larger café be built than that demolished to
enable toilet facilities to be provided and to ensure the continued viability of the café. The
Council was contractually obliged only to reinstate the building in its original form. It was
therefore agreed to pay the Whitstable Oyster Fishery Company (WOFC) the amount provided
within the Sea Defence Contract for the reconstruction of the building on the understanding
that this would discharge all liability on the Council in connection with the matter. This then left
the way open to the WOFC to apply for planning permission for the larger replacement building
that they desired.
In 1989 an application for a larger replacement café building was submitted (Ref No
CA/89/1015/WHI). This measured approximately 15 metres long by 10 metres wide, which is
approximately 50 per cent larger than the previous building. Planning permission was granted
in July 1990, however this permission was not implemented and the permission has now
expired.
THE APPLICANT’S CASE
The original Red Spider Café was a popular feature of the area for many years. It was
removed to allow for sea defence works but was not replaced. Since then there has been no
facility of this type available for residents or visitors and its loss has been bemoaned. The
proposal has been arranged after popular local demand. It is designed to be in traditional
style, closely reminiscent of the original building.
The proposed building will be located outside the overtopping defence wall. As such it may be
vulnerable to damage during severe storm events. There is no sleeping or dwelling
accommodation proposed and the café will be closed in the event of a bad storm so the risk of
loss or endangerment of life is very low.
PLANNING POLICIES
From the Local Plan, Policies D1, D16, D17 and W1 relating to general design principles and
development in conservation areas are applicable. Policies D31 and D35 relating to nature
conservation are also relevant.
Relevant policies from the Kent Structure Plan include ENV5, ENV15, ENV17 and NR5.
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS
In total, 191 representations have been received. The majority of these oppose the
application, although 19 of the letters are in support. Twenty of the letters are from existing
objectors reiterating their original objections to the amended plans. The main grounds of
objection raised are outlined below:-
- 33 1. Lack of notification/consultation.
2. The development and commercialisation of the undeveloped beach would ruin the open
undeveloped character of the area, obstructing views from both the public footpath which
runs directly behind the proposed building and from nearby dwellings and creating a
narrow corridor between the sea wall and the beach huts/café. If permitted it could set a
precedent for the commercialisation of the entire beach. The proposal represents new
build on a non brown-field site, which is a public open space, and to permit development
would be contrary to the provisions of the Local Plan and PPG17.
3. There is no parking for the proposal nor access for servicing, delivery vehicles or fire
engines and police cars. The development will result in traffic congestion and will deny
access by delivery vehicles to the Neptune Public House.
4. The development will have an adverse impact on nature conservation interests - the site is
an SSSI, SPA and Ramsar site and the development will impact on rare species.
Accordingly an Environmental Impact Assessment is required. As a result of raising the
foreshore a distinctive new habitat has been formed, a vegetative shingle ridge which is
recognised by the EU Habitats Directive as being of European importance. The plants that
grow here provide valuable feeding for threatened bird species.
5. The design of the building is not in keeping with the Conservation Area. The proposal
would neither preserve nor enhance the character of the Conservation Area and
development should therefore be refused. The elevations are labelled incorrectly. Being
located on the beach and constructed in timber, it will weather and look shabby or could
break up and travel through the air causing damage to property.
6. The proposal is not a reinstatement as the proposed building is much larger than the
previous and not in the same location.
7. The site is liable to flooding, is situated in front of the sea defences and the proposal
represents a threat to sea defences, as well as impeding maintenance to them. The water
and waste supply will involve a breach in the sea wall. The flood defences will be
compromised - the energy absorbing properties of the shingle beach form a vital part of the
flood defences and the design of the present sea defences is the result of engineering
calculations and simulations that are based on the particular properties of the shingle
beach. The shingle’s ability to shift under the impact of the waves enables it to absorb their
energy. The new building will modify these properties. The piles supporting the café will
have the effect of stopping the movement of the shingle under the café so that it behaves
more like a solid block than unconstrained shingle, which will weaken the ability of the
beach to protect the concrete sea wall.
8. The proposal is contrary to the provisions of Planning Policy Guidance Note (PPG)25 on
Development and Flood Risk, which state that development allowed on functional flood
plains should be wholly exceptional and limited to essential transport and utilities
infrastructure that has to be there.
9. The café will result in disturbance to local residents in terms of noise, litter and general
disturbance and will devalue surrounding houses. The facility will attract undesirables to
congregate and will be the subject of vandalism.
10. An alternative location should be sort for the café, such as the tennis pavilion or the Old
Vines.
11. The café should have its own toilet facilities.
- 34 12. There is no popular demand for the cafe and existing facilities such as the shop on Nelson
Road, the Neptune and cafes in the High Street meet the demand (there are 30 other
catering outlets within 10 minutes walk of the proposed development). The development
could result in the closure of the shop in Nelson Road and the Neptune which are open all
year and of more value to local residents. A viability analysis suggests that the facility
would require 38,000 customers per annum to break even.
13. The cafe could be used for overnight accommodation.
14. The water system is already under pressure and this will exacerbate the problem.
15. Objection to the inclusion of beach huts on the plans.
16. The proposal to reinstate takes no account of the changed nature of the beach since the
removal of the original - the level of the foreshore has been raised and the local area has
acquired a distinct character, predominantly used for quiet recreation. The development
will take up a large proportion of this narrow and heavily used area of the beach and the
local area would become congested with free access along the Sea Wall impeded and
causing obstruction to the footpath.
17. The previous permission for the replacement café has lapsed and there has been a
number of overriding material changes in circumstances since the grant of this permission.
These are the publication of PPG25 - Development and Flood Risk, The site being
designated a SSSI, SPA and Ramsar site, the publication of the 1996 Kent Structure Plan
and the 1998 Canterbury District Local Plan and PPG17 on Open Spaces and Leisure
which makes it clear that public open spaces should be preserved and enhanced which is
carried through in Policy D38 of the Local Plan relating to areas of Protected Open Space.
Licensing laws have also changed since 1990, which has liberated opening hours and
access to public houses. The High Street has seen a revival with numerous catering
establishments now present and reduced parking facilities.
18. The principle business of the applicant, WOFC, is the management of large seafront
restaurants. At its flagship facility, the Native Oyster Store, marquees have been used to
expand the internal seating area. The City Council would be powerless to prevent an
intensification of use of the café.
19. Should the application be granted, it is requested that various conditions be imposed.
These include the building to be moved up to the sea wall to eliminate the scope for
decking, removing the proposed decking, the use as A3 should be modified to restrict
abuse and the hours of opening and times of year be restricted as well as the types of food
sold.
New objections are also raised in connection with the amended plans. These relate to beach
huts still being referred to in the design statement, showers being inappropriate in conjunction
with a catering establishment, the amended structure potentially presenting an even greater
risk to sea defences, potential for blocking the footpath and the report being written prior to the
deadline for objections to be received. A further letter goes into some detail taking issue with
the committee report.
TECHNICAL CONSULTATIONS
Environment Agency No objection.
Whitstable Society Welcomes the replacement café and considers the design and materials suitable.
- 35 Kent County Council, Public Rights of Way An original objection was subsequently withdrawn.
Independence and Access Matters Welcomes the proposed café as there are no nearby facilities and it is a long way for
wheelchair users/disabled people to get to the High Street. The building should have a ramped
access. Support is expressed in respect of the amended plans.
Canterbury & District Access Group Objects as the development will restrict wheelchair users access to the beach and the
proposal does not meet Part M of the Building Regulations.
Council for the Protection of Rural England If the site is within a SSSI or a conservation area there should be good reason for any
construction that would cause disturbance.
English Nature Under Section 48 of the Conservation (Natural Habitats) Regulations consideration must be
given as to the effect of the proposal on the SSSI. The birds for which the Swale SSSI is of
European importance use the mud flats area in front of the beach at Whitstable as a feeding
area and are winter migrants. Given the degree to which the beach at Whitstable is used by
people and thus the level of existing disturbance, it is the advice of English Nature that the
positioning of a café on the beach at this location and the proposed time period of use will not
have a significant effect on the special interest of the SPA. Similarly, the shingle beach along
this particular stretch of the seafront does not support any significant vegetation that could be
considered part of the interest of the Ramsar site, again due to existing levels of usage. This
advice is based upon the structure being of single storey and of a small size - if the structure is
of a significant size then this may affect the open nature of the site and deter birds form using
the mud flats therefore having a significant effect upon the special interest of the site and
under the regulations require an appropriate assessment.
Kent County Constabulary The premises will be vulnerable to late night damage, due to poor natural surveillance and lack
of lighting. There is poor access for regular policing and the nearby shelter is already
frequented by youths that it is believed are responsible for damage in the area.
Sea Defences No objection in principle to a cafe on the beach. In respect of the plans originally submitted,
concern was expressed that the proposal would project too far into the beach so the sea
defence maintenance access would be cut off; a minimum 4 metre wide level access is
required.
Revised plans were subsequently submitted and in respect of these, the Sea Defence Section
commented that if the revised café could be sited a further 2 metres towards the eastern side,
the access width restriction can be eased and the Section would have no further comments to
make. This further revision was made and so the Section are raising no objections to
permission being granted but do make the point that the applicant should not assume that the
Council will always maintain the beach and there will always be the possibility of the café
becoming undermined and/or damaged by the sea. If permission is granted, it is requested
that a condition is imposed requiring the construction of the cafe to be such so as to allow
future beach and sea wall raising of 500mm.
Environmental Protection & Street Scene No objection in principle. There must be proper provision for the removal of foul water, which
should be to a sewer. If possible, services should be limited to snacks, sandwiches, drinks etc.
A staff toilet and hand washing facilities will need to be provided within the structure. It is
- 36 Council policy that public toilets should also be provided although applications for a waiver can
be sought.
DRAINAGE CONSIDERATIONS
None.
DISCUSSION
In terms of design, the building is considered acceptable. It is a simple timber single-storey
structure, reminiscent of the original building, proposed to be constructed of weather-boarding
with a slate roof. Cast iron gutters are proposed. The building is considered entirely
appropriate for its location and will not have a negative impact on the surrounding
Conservation Area. Amendments have been made to ensure that the facility is accessible to
wheelchair users.
Many of the objections are made on the grounds that the development would detract from the
undeveloped nature of the beach and that development should not be allowed as the beach is
an area of open space where there is a general presumption against development. Although
the beach is predominantly undeveloped (the Neptune Public House on the beach is located
further eastwards), it is not identified as an area of protection of existing open space. The use
is one appropriate for the location, providing a facility for users of the beach. The building is
sited adjacent to the sea wall where there is some built development i.e. the shelter and public
toilets. The proposed building is not large and viewed in the context of the buildings behind it, I
do not consider that it will detract to any significant effect from the openness of the beach.
Originally beach huts were included on the submitted plans, which the applicant considered did
not require planning permission. The developer was subsequently advised that beach huts
would require planning permission and these have now been omitted from the plans.
The site is located within an SSSI, Ramsar and SPA. Accordingly, English Nature has been
consulted. Given the degree to which the beach at Whitstable is used by people and thus the
level of existing disturbance, English Nature has advised that a café on the beach at this
location and the proposed time period of use will not have a significant effect on the special
interest of any of the nature conservation designations of the shingle beach along this stretch
of the seafront.
The proposed location of the café, on the beach, is not strictly within the flood plain, as it is on
the seaward side of the flood fences. In terms of assessing proposals for development
however the situation is very similar. The proposal meets the City Council’s guidelines for
development within a floodplain in that the ground floor is above the 4.6 metre threshold. The
proposed café has no living accommodation and would be closed up and not occupied during
storms so there would be no risk to life. The potential risk from storms to the property has been
made clear to the developer and that the City Council cannot guarantee to always maintain the
beach, groynes and sea wall. The site is not within the functional flood plain and the
development is not contrary to the provisions of PPG25, which permits for some development
in areas such as this providing that the appropriate minimum standard of flood defence is met
and that it will not impede flood flows or result in a net loss of flood-plain storage.
In respect of the effect of the development on the sea defences, the structural design of the
building is something that is covered by building regulations, which is the appropriate time to
ensure that the structure does not put the sea wall at risk. If permission is granted, a condition
can be attached to require that the design of the structure is such that there would be no risk of
damage to the sea wall. This will involve the piled foundations being sunk to a sufficient depth
to ensure that they reach clay.
With regard to deliveries, the applicant states that the size and level of trade will be too small
to require significant vehicular deliveries, with the operators of the facility arriving by foot,
carrying sufficient supplies daily. Whether it is run or just supplied by the WOFC, any vehicular
- 37 deliveries required would be included with normal deliveries to the restaurant cold storage and
delivered by foot, bicycle or sack barrow.
Main services were connected to the original Red Spider Café and provision remains by way of
ducting under the promenade.
Objections refer to the lack of parking facilities associated with the development and the
resulting increased demand for parking spaces, which are already at a premium. It is
considered unlikely that the proposal in itself will encourage any vehicular movements, with
customers being people already utilising the beach.
It is considered that the proposed café will have very little adverse effect on residential
amenity. It is some 40 metres from the nearest dwelling and would be in a location already
frequented by the public. The proposed opening hours are during the daytime only, with the
café closing at 6.00 pm. If permission is granted the opening times can be controlled by
condition. Some concern has been expressed in connection with the potential for erecting
marquees and thereby increasing the capacity together with limiting the types of food sold
here. Again, both these matters can be dealt with by appropriately worded conditions, should
permission be granted.
Objections have been made in respect of the original description of the proposal, namely the
“reinstatement of the Red Spider Café”. This is because the new building would be larger than
the original, not an exact replica in design and would be sited in a different location. The
original café building was approximately 7.5 m by 4.5 metres with external decking taking it to
7.5 by 5.4 metres. This structure overhung the promenade. The current proposal is for a
building 8 metres long by 5 metres wide, which is slightly larger than the original one. Decking
is proposed on each end of the building, resulting in a length of 12 metres. It should be noted
that this is somewhat smaller than the 15 metre by 10 metre replacement building granted
permission in 1990. The proposal is located approximately 10 metres to the east of the
original, in order to meet sea defence maintenance requirements. For the avoidance of doubt,
the description of the application has now been amended to “Erection of café building”.
No toilets would be provided in the café building. It is intended by the applicant that the public
conveniences located opposite the café can be used. If permission is granted for this
development, the applicant is willing to contribute a sum of money, in the region of £2,500,
towards the upkeep of these facilities. Although it is a usual requirement for food
establishments to provide toilet facilities for both customers and staff, written applications for
the standard to be waived can be made. Factors such as proximity of public WCs are taken
into consideration. It is considered, however, by the Head of Environment & Street Scene, that
staff facilities should be provided within the cafe building.
The proposed café would provide a useful amenity for visitors to the beach and replace a
facility that was once there, but was removed by the Council to facilitate improvements to the
sea defences. The application is recommended for approval although in view of the vast local
opposition to the proposal, Members may consider a visit by the Site Visits Panel appropriate.
BACKGROUND PAPERS:
1. Application Ref: CA/02/1036/WHI
2. Notes of Officer's site inspection, dated 28.08.02
3. Memoranda from Drainage Section, dated 03.09.02, 02.10.02 & 04.12.02
4. Memoranda from Environment & Street Scene, dated 25.11.02 & 10.12.02
5. Previous planning application ref: CA/89/1015/WHI
6. Letters of representation received from:Mr & Mrs P Ware, 102 Island Wall, Whitstable, CT5 1DY, dated 19.09.02
Mrs Clayson, 104 Island Wall, Whitstable, CT5 1DY, dated 15.09.02
- 38 Mr P McNally, 94 Island Wall, Whitstable, CT5 1DY, dated 16.09.02, 03.11.02, 06.11.02,
25.11.02 & 09.12.02
Mr J & Mrs A Fisher, 1 Wave Crest, Whitstable, CT5 1EH, dated 08.10.02
Environment Agency, Orchard House, Endeavour Park, London Road, Addington, Kent,
ME19 5SH, dated 11.11.02
The Whitstable Society, c/o Martin Taylor, 55 Northwood Road, Whitstable, Kent, CT5
2EZ, dated 12.09.02
D & A Alexander, 8 Marine Terrace, Whitstable, CT5 1EJ, dated 17.09.02, 18.09.02 &
email dated 05.12.02
Mr S Pope, 11 Marine Terrace, Whitstable, CT5 1EJ, dated 17.09.02 & 17.10.02
Mr M Gould, 12 Wave Crest, Whitstable, CT5 1EH, dated 18.09.02 & 28.11.02
P Phelan, 87 Island Wall, Whitstable, CT5 1EL, dated 18.09.02 & e-mail dated 08.12.02
J B Allen, 22 Admiralty Walk, Whitstable, CT5 4ET, dated 18.09.02
Mr D N & Mrs M M Pickles, Little Rock, Island Wall, Whitstable, Kent, CT5 1EE, dated
19.09.02
Mr J Ellis & Miss R Coward, 5 Marine Terrace, Whitstable, Kent, CT5 1EJ, dated
19.09.02
Mr R Mason, 7 Wave Crest, Whitstable, Kent, CT5 1EH, dated 19.09.02
Dr I Bride, Durrell Institute of Conservation and Ecology, University of Kent, Canterbury,
Kent, dated 19.09.02
Dr D Wright, 71 Island Wall, Whitstable, Kent, dated 19.09.02
Mr R & Mrs P Girling, The Brig, Seasalter Beach, Whitstable, Kent, CT5 4EU, dated
19.09.02
Mr Stanley-Hughes, 5 Seaway Cottages, Wave Crest, Whitstable, Kent, CT5 1EQ, dated
19.09.02
Mrs M L Senecal, 145 Island Wall, Whitstable, Kent, CT5 1DY, dated 19.09.02
Mrs S Metcalfe, 108 Nelson Road, Whitstable, Kent, CT5 1DZ, dated 19.09.02 &
28.11.02
Ms L Long, 118 Island Wall, Whitstable, Kent, CT5 1DY, dated 18.09.02 & 25.09.02
T M & L M Littlewood, 104 Nelson Road, Whitstable, Kent, CT5 1DZ, dated 17.09.02
Mr J McGregor, 67 Island Wall, Whitstable, Kent, CT5 1EL, dated 19.09.02 & 08.12.02
Mr N J Greenan, 133 Island Wall, Whitstable, Kent, dated 19.09.02
Mrs M K Phipps, 4 Daniels Court, Island Wall, Whitstable, Kent, CT5 ET, received
19.09.02
Mr M P Butler, 4 Daniels Court, Island Wall, Whitstable, Kent, CT5 1ET, dated 18.09.02
T & S Heeler, 108 Island Wall, Whitstable, Kent, dated 19.09.02
Mr J Shelton, 80 Island Wall, Whitstable, CT5 1EL, dated 20.09.02
S Clutten, 7 Wave Crest, Whitstable, CT5 1EH, dated 20.09.02 & 25.09.02
Lady Ferris, White Gables, New Road, Shiplake, Henley on Thames, Oxon, RG9 3LB,
dated 20.09.02
Mr D Marshall, 5 Ridgeway Drive, Cromford, Matlock, Derbyshire, DE4 3RJ, dated
18.09.02
Mrs P M Dixon, 14 Wave Crest, Whitstable, CT5 1EH, dated 15.10.02 & 09.12.02
Mrs A Wilks, 26 King Edward Avenue, Whitstable, CT5 1JU, dated 19.09.02, 23.09.02,
26.09.02, 28.09.02, 18.10.02 & 04.12.02
Mr J Day, East Saxon House, 27 Duke Street, Chelmsford, Essex, CM1 1HT, dated
20.09.02
Mr T Mathews, email, dated 21.09.02
N Knights, 13 Wave Crest, Whitstable, CT5 1EH, dated 20.09.02
Mr Ferris, 4 Marine Terrace, Whitstable, CT5 1EJ, dated 20.09.02 & 26.09.02
P Hendy, 90 Island Wall, Whitstable, Kent, CT5 1EL, dated 21.09.02 & 05.10.02
Nick Dewhirst, 9 Daniels Court, Island Wall, Whitstable, CT5 1ET, dated 20.09.02 &
email dated 09.12.02
J Osborne, 53 Wincheap, Canterbury, Kent, CT1 3RX, dated 20.09.02
J Fuller, 96 Island Wall, Whitstable, CT5 1DY, dated 19.09.02 & 05.12.02
Mr S Coles, 16 Wave Crest, Whitstable, CT5 1EH, dated 23.09.02
- 39 J B & M G Bright, 66 Island Wall, Whitstable, CT5 1EL, dated 20.09.02 & 04.12.02
F Campion, 18 Daniels Court, Island Wall, Whitstable, CT5 1ET, dated 23.09.02 &
04.12.02
Linda Thomson, School House, Shaftesbury Road, Whitstable, CT5 1DS, dated
24.09.02
Harriet Leppan, 45 Nelson Road, Whitstable, CT5 1EA, dated 24.09.02 & 03.12.02
Sophie Vigneron, 106 Nelson Road, Whitstable, CT5 1DZ, dated 25.09.02 & 09.12.02
Ms L Aviss, 149a Island Wall, Whitstable, Kent, CT5 1EE, dated 25.09.02
J, S & A Burningham, 14 Saxon Shore, Island Wall, Whitstable, Kent, CT5 1AB, dated
24.09.02
Mrs A & Mr M Pardoe, 143 Island Wall, Whitstable, Kent, CT5 1DY, dated 24.09.02
S Jackson, 55 Island Wall, Whitstable, Kent, CT5 1EW, dated 25.09.02
S A Baker, 7 Saxon Shore, Island Wall, Whitstable, Kent, CT5 1FB, dated 25.09.02
Julian Blades Associates, 4 Wave Crest, Whitstable, Kent, CT5 1EH, dated 23.09.02,
07.12.02 & 08.12.02
Mrs Z Slade, Waypost House, 4 Borstal Hill, Whitstable, Kent, CT5 4LX, dated 25.09.02
Mr & Mrs S P Newton, 147 Island Wall, Whitstable, Kent, CT5 1DY, dated 24.09.02
Mr E Uden, Seacourt, St Margaret's Bay, Nr Dover, Kent, CT15 6EL, dated 26.09.02
L Sundin, 92a Island Wall, Whitstable, Kent, CT5 1DY, dated 25.09.02, 08.10.02,
10.10.02 & 09.12.02
Dr M Brewer, 39 Cromwell Road, Whitstable, Kent, CT5 1NW, dated 25.09.02
Mrs D Kemp, 14 Woodlawn Street, Whitstable, Kent, CT5 1HG, dated 25.09.02
Mrs V Sturgeon, 2 The Deckhouse, 120 Island Wall, Whitstable, Kent, CT5 1EE, dated
25.09.02
Dr Joseph Milne, 3 Gladstone Road, Whitstable, CT5 1JG, dated 27.09.02
Mr & Mrs Anderson, Walnut Tree House, Luxted Road, Downe, BR6 7JS, dated
26.09.02
Betty Finn, Dolphin Cottage, 163 Island Wall, Whitstable, CT5 1EE, dated 25.09.02
Christopher Duce, Top Flat, 88 Island Wall, Whitstable, CT5 1EL, dated 25.09.02
Gaynor Carrie, 5 Preston Parade, Seasalter, Whitstable, CT5 4AA, dated 26.09.02
Ellie Cooley, 9 Wave Crest, Whitstable, CT5 1EH, dated 26.09.02 & 04.12.02
Richard Davis, Neames, Hoppers Oast, Hatch Lane, Chartham Hatch, CT4 7LP, dated
26.09.02
A M Kennedy, The Ness, Sea Wall, Whitstable, CT5 1BX, received 27.09.02
Margaret Gunwell, Upper Flat, 18 Wave Crest, Whitstable, CT5 1EH, dated 26.09.02
Bernard Sands, 97 Island Wall, Whitsable, Kent, CT5 IEL, dated 25.09.02 & 01.12.02
Daphne Stanley, 49 Cromwell Road, Canterbury, CT5 1NW, dated 26.09.02
Andrew & Sarah Pout, 10 Wave Crest, Whitstable, CT5 1EH, dated 26.09.02 & 07.12.02
Maureen Ritchie, 8 Wave Crest, Whitstable, CT5 1EH, dated 27.09.02 & 04.12.02
Cliff & Ann Willoughby, 11 Collingwood Road, Whitstable, dated 26.09.02
Kevin Bloxham, Canterbury & District Access Group, 48 Dover Street, Canterbury, CT1
3HQ, dated 26.09.02
Nigel True, email, dated 26.09.02
P Burmby, 181 Island Wall, Whitstable, Kent, CT5 1EE, dated 26.09.02 & email dated
08.12.02
J Freeman, 80 Cornwallis Circle, Whitstable, CT5 1DT, dated 26.09.02
June & Michael Morley, email, dated 26.09.02
Roger Baker, 23 West Beach, Whitstable, Kent, CT5 1EG, received 27.09.02
M Ornsby, 7 Marine Terrace, Whitstable, CT5 1ES, dated 25.10.02
Debby Klein & Robin Jones, 99 Island Wall, Whitstable, CT5 1EL, dated 27.09.02
S & N Godden, 15 Wave Crest, Whitstable, Kent, CT5 1EH, dated 25.09.02
Mrs Wehman, 45 Argyle Road, Whitstable, CT5 1JR, dated 27.09.02
English Nature, Coldharbour Farm, Amage Road, Wye, Ashford, TN25 5DB, dated
27.09.02
Val Sanders, 6 Daniels Court, Island Wall, Whitstable, CT5 1ET, dated 27.09.02
- 40 Paul Shedden, 1 The Deckhouse, 120 Island Wall, Whitstable, CT5 1EE, received
30.09.02
Mrs J Pritchard, 20 Joy Lane, Whitstable, Kent, CT5 4LS, dated 26.09.02
Elizabeth Shedden, 1 The Deckhouse, 120 Island Wall, Whitstable, CT5 1EE, dated
27.09.02
Phil & Jean Willis, Gulls Nest, 129 Island Wall, Whitstable, CT5 1DY, received 30.09.02
Gretchen & John Stone, 16 Nelson Road, Whitstable, dated 27.09.02
Laurence Barnes, 19 Daniels Court, Island Wall, Whitstable, CT5 1ET, dated 27.09.02
Dr Tessa Adams, 32a West Beach, Whitstable, dated 29.09.02
W E Ross, 35 Abbott Street, Whitstable, CT5 1HS, dated 27.09.02
Mr M Clayson, 104 Island Wall, Whitstable, CT5 1DY, dated 27.09.02
Gavin Barr, Gate Cottage, Charing, TN27 OJG, dated 27.09.02
Mr Cochran, 31 West Beach, Whitstable, CT5 1EG, dated 27.09.02 & 09.12.02
Peter Sheppard, Accenture Ltd, 20 Old Bailey, London, EC4M 7AN, dated 27.09.02
Maggie Hyde, Yamba, Spa Esplanade, Herne Bay, CT6 8EP, dated 27.09.02
Philip Guy, 30 West Beach, Whitstable, CT5 1EG, dated 27.09.02 & 09.12.02
Christine Walton, 19 Daniels Court, Island Wall, Whitstable, CT5 1ET, dated 27.09.02
Mr L Shirley, CPRE Kent, Coldharbour Farm, Wye, TN25 5DB, dated 27.09.02 &
06.12.02
Tom Brankley, 13 Daniels Court, Whitstable, dated 27.09.02
Mrs Pointer, 14 Genesta Avenue, Whitstable, CT4 4DQ, received 27.09.02 & 09.12.02
Mandy Bruce, 3 Wave Crest, Whitstable, CT5 1EH, dated 25.09.02
N Forwood, 38 Sydenham Street, Whitstable, CT5 1HN, dated 30.09.02
P & G Jackson, 53 Reservoir Road, Whitstable, Kent, dated 04.10.02
M Young, email, dated 16.10.02
Mr R Whitley, 92 Goodwin Avenue, Whitstable, Kent, CT5 2RA, dated 05.10.02
Mr D Taylor, Summerfield Avenue, Whitstable, Kent, dated 05.10.02
Mr I Firth, 135 Island Wall, Whitstable, CT5 1DY, dated 04.10.02
Sara G Marshall, 18b Wave Crest, Whitstable, CT5 1EH, dated 04.10.02
Mr T Lyfield, email, dated 27.09.02
Mr J Pollitt, New Street, Whitstable, Kent, dated 27.09.02
Mr K Flynn, The Old Neptune Public House, Marine Terrace, Whitstable, Kent, dated
27.09.02
Mr L Barnes, 19 Daniels Court, Island Wall, Whitstable, Kent, CT5 1ET, dated 27.09.02
& 09.12.02
Mrs J Cavender, 12 Waterloo Road, Whitstable, CT5 1BP, dated 27.09.02 & 03.12.02
G & T Stewart, 16 Daniels Court, Whitstable, Kent, dated 27.09.02
M Dortch, 52 Nelson Road, Whitstable, CT5 1EA, dated 27.09.02 & 05.12.02
Mr S H Willmot, 53 Pier Avenue, Whitstable, CT5 2HJ, dated 27.09.02
S & R Margetts, 7 Daniels Court, Whitstable, CT5 1ET, dated 26.09.02
Mr M Fagg, email, dated 26.09.02
J & M Bright, email, dated 26.09.02
Mr P Cook, Seafarers, 39a Victoria Street, Whitstable, CT5 1JA, dated 27.09.02
E Stevens, email, received 26.09.02
T Goddin, 6 Daniels Court, Island Wall, Whitstable, CT5 1ET, dated 19.09.02
Mr & Mrs D Kennedy, 2 Marine Cottage, Marine Gap, Island Wall, Whitstable, dated
20.09.02
Mark Barnes, email, dated 29.09.02
Mrs C Langenhoff, 189 Island Wall, Whitstable, CT5 1EF, dated 25.09.02
Mr J Tutt, 179 Island Wall, Whitstable, CT5 1EE, dated 25.09.02
Mr I Parrott, Richdore Cottage, Waltham, Canterbury, CT4 5SL, dated 25.09.02
Mrs W Fitzpatrick, No address, CT5 4RD, dated 26.09.02
Mrs F Stileman, email, dated 26.09.02
Mr A Kilburn, email, dated 26.09.02
Mr T Thomas, email, dated 07.10.02
- 41 Mrs G Turnnidge, 4 Granary Place, Gordon Road, Whitstable, CT5 4RW, dated
04.10.02 & 03.12.02
Mrs M J Shackell, 10 St Anne's Road, Tankerton, Whitstable, CT5 2DW, dated 04.10.02
Mrs J R King, 14 Nelson Road, Whitstable, Kent, CT5 1DP, dated 07.10.02
Nicola Diamond, 12 Manor Road, Tankerton, Whitstable, CT5 2JT, dated 08.10.02
John Fisher, 1 Wavecrest, Whitstable, Kent, CT5 1EH, dated 19.09.02 & 08.10.02
V Howell, Knoll Hill, Wilmington, DA2 7DE, dated 09.10.02
Ms S Newcombe, 3 Seaway Cottages, Wavecrest, Whitstable, Kent, CT5 1EQ, dated
16.10.02
Ms K Sharman, 24 Clifton Road, Whitstable, Kent, CT5 1DQ, dated 14.10.02
Mr A Keam, 20 Gosselin Street, Whitstable, Kent, CT5 4LQ, dated 14.10.02
Mr & Mrs C Klein, 29 West Cliff, Whitstable, Kent, CT5 1DL, dated 14.10.02
Mrs W Morgan, 17 Ellis Way, Broomfield, Herne Bay, CT6 7DA, dated 17.10.02 &
09.12.02
G Davies, 11 Mickleburgh Hill, Herne Bay, CT6 6AA, dated 19.10.02
Sue Dalal & Peter Thornton, 25 West Beach, Whitstable, CT5 1EG, dated 20.10.02
Barrie Fromings, 36 Monkton Road, Welling, DA16 3JU, dated 15.10.02
Kent County Constabulary, Nackington Police Office, Nackington Road, Canterbury,
Kent, CT4 7AZ, dated 21.10.02 & 09.12.02
Ms T Buchan, 59 Stanley Road, Whitstable, Kent, CT5 4NQ, dated 21.10.02
East Kent PROW, Mezzanine Floor, Maybrook House, New Street, Dover, CT17 9AJ,
dated 23.10.02 & 24.10.02
Mr James Kenroy, Prinsted Farm House, Prinsted, Emsworth, Hampshire, PO10 8HT,
dated 24.10.02
Independence & Access Matters, 22 Gosselin Street, Whitstable, CT5 4LQ, dated
01.10.02, 24.10.02 & 30.11.02
Tim Jackson, 73 Island Wall, Whitstable, dated 28.10.02
David Hayter & Chris Keating, Seapoint, 8 Kings Avenue, Whitstable, Kent, CT5 1RZ,
dated 23.10.02 & email dated 07.12.02
The Owner/Occupier, Isted, Ladham Road, Goudhurst, Kent, TN17 1DB, dated 06.11.02
Ms C Merton, 3 Daniels Court, Island Wall, Whitstable, Kent, CT5 1ET, dated 12.11.02
Whitstable Beach Campaign, P.O. Box 187, Whitstable, CT5 1YZ, dated 13.11.02 &
18.11.02
Ruth Lewis, email, dated 27.09.02
Anonymous letter, received 16.10.02
Anonymous letter, dated 10.10.02
R E Cooley, 8 Wave Crest, Whitstable, CT5 1EH, dated 25.09.02 & 03.12.02
Karen Wyles, 98 Nelson Road, Whitstable, CT5 1DZ, dated 26.09.02
Bernard Sands, 97 Island Wall, Whitstable, CT5 1EL, dated 25.09.02
Gerald Mitchell, 1 Genesta Avenue, Whitstable, CT5 4DQ, dated 02.10.02
Sonia Marriott, 94 Island Wall, Whitstable, CT5 1DY, dated 21.09.02
Jamie Coombs, 98 Island Wall, Whitstable, CT5 1DY, dated 20.09.02
Eileen Eve & Terry Goddin, 6 Daniels Court, Whitstable, CT5 1ET, dated 19.09.02
Mrs P Dixon, 14 Wave Crest, Whitstable, CT5 1EH, dated 20.09.02 & 15.10.02
Michele Bailey, email, dated 27.09.02
Carlotta, No Address, dated 19.10.02
Isobel Cooley, 8 Wave Crest, Whitstable, CT5 1EH, dated 23.09.02
Mike Judge, 66 Nelson Road, Whitstable, CT5 1EA, received 26.11.02
Mr & Mrs Ogden, 6 Eden Road, Seasalter, Whitstable, CT5 4AP, dated 23.11.02
Mrs T Gauntlett, 2 Saxon Shore, Island Wall, Whitstable, CT5 1FB, dated 26.11.02
Geoff Bush, 14 Daniels Court, Island Wall, Whitstable, CT5 1ET, dated 28.11.02
Carole Mandeville, 110 Tothill Street, Minster, Ramsgate, Kent, CT12 4AP, dated
29.11.02
Howard Paterson, 111 Millstrood Road, Whitstable, dated 21.11.02
Valerie Large, 59 Island Wall, Whitstable, dated 26.11.02
Rosa Ainley, 76 Nelson Road, Whitstable, CT5 1EA, dated 25.11.02
- 42 Miss C M Ritchie, 51 Falkland Road, London, NW5 2XB, dated 03.12.02
Lyn & Geoff Albrighton, 9 Marine Terrace, Whitstable, Kent, dated 04.12.02
Open Spaces Society, Flag House, 7 Ridgeway Road, Herne, CT6 7LL, dated 04.12.02
C G Duce, Bottom Flat, 88 Island Wall, Whitstable, Kent, CT5 1EL, dated 08.12.02
M T C Morley, Bramfield Lodge, Well Green, Bramfield, Herts, SG14 2QN, dated
06.12.02
Mrs J Atkinson, Clear Day, West Beach Caravan Site, Whitstable, dated 15.12.02
- 43 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE
06 January 2003
Report Item Number : 08
APPLICATION NUMBER
:
CA//02/01222/WHI
PROPOSAL
:
LOCATION OF SITE
:
Erection of 85 dwellings with associated highways work
and provision of open space.
Land at 49 & 53, Golden Hill, Whitstable.
APPLICATION TYPE
:
FULL APPLICATION
DATE REGISTERED
:
30 September 2002
EXPIRY DATE
:
25 November 2002
CONTACT OFFICER
:
Katie Mawdsley
CONSERVATION AREA
:
NO
LISTED BUILDING
:
NOT LISTED
WARD
:
GORRELL
APPLICANT
:
George Wimpey
AGENT
:
BDG Design (South) Ltd
SUMMARY:
The site is within the urban area of the Local Plan and is a residential allocation in the
emerging draft Local Plan. However many objections have been received from local residents
raising concern about issues including highway safety, loss of greenfield land, disturbance and
density. If permission is granted it needs to be subject to a legal agreement to deliver
affordable housing, education contribution, drainage infrastructure and management of open
space.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the site be the subject of a site visit by the Development Control Site Visits Panel.
SITE DESCRIPTION
The site extends to 2.88 hectares and is occupied by two detached bungalows set in large
gardens, a paddock at the rear and some redundant chicken sheds. It is bounded on the west
by Golden Hill, a narrow rural lane, which has continuous residential development opposite the
northern half of the application site. To the north, between the Old Thanet Way and the site is
residential housing, gardens and a caravan site. The east boundary is adjacent to the Joseph
Wilson Industrial Estate while to the south and south-east are open fields. The ground slopes
gently from its north-west to south-east corner. The site wraps around a bungalow and garden
that front onto Golden Hill in the centre portion of the site, which are excluded from the
application.
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
The proposed development comprises a mix of house sizes and designs, ranging from onebedroom flats to five-bedroomed detached houses. All the buildings are two storey with 24 of
- 44 the units incorporating rooms in their roof. The proposed development has its vehicular
access off Golden Hill at its north-western end and a footpath link is proposed to connect the
development to the nearby Tesco Superstore. An emergency link is also proposed further
along Golden Hill. It is proposed to improve Golden Hill by the installation of traffic calming
measures and alterations to the junction of Golden Hill with the Old Thanet Way to create a left
turn flare out of Golden Hill and to provide a Toucan Crossing on the Thanet Way near its
junction with Golden Hill. An area of open space is proposed centrally within the site, which
would accommodate a local play area.
PLANNING HISTORY
The site has a long planning history. Various applications for the residential development of
the northern part of the site with up to 35 dwellings were either refused or withdrawn during the
period 1973 to 1983. In 1995, permission was granted for extensions to the bungalow at No.
49 Golden Hill. An application in 1998 for the erection of a dwelling was refused (Ref No
CA/98/0605/WHI), a resubmission in 1999 was subsequently approved (Ref No
CA/99/0161/WHI). An application made in 2000 for the erection of four detached bungalows at
No. 49 was deemed withdrawn earlier in the year (Ref No CA/00/0450/WHI).
PLANNING POLICIES
Policies D1, D3, D51, D54 and D55 of the adopted Local Plan are relevant. From the
emerging Local Plan regard should be had to Policies H1, H2, BE15, NE5, C14, C22 and C27.
The site is located within the urban boundary of the current Local Plan, with the rear part of the
site allocated for employment. In the emerging Local Plan the site is a housing allocation.
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS
Thirty-one letters objecting to the development have been received. These raise the following
grounds:1. Inadequate access. Both Golden Hill and Bogshole Lane are narrow lanes, incapable of
accommodating the additional traffic. The junction at the Thanet Way is inadequate to
serve this size of development proposed. Bogshole Lane will be used as a “rat run” and
the junction at Bogshole Lane with the A290 Canterbury Road is concealed and
hazardous. Pedestrian safety will also be compromised.
2. Nature conservation grounds. The development will affect birds, mammals and insects on
the site, including slow-worms which are present here.
3. There are inadequate amenities to serve the development including schools, medical
services, electricity, public transport, gas and sewage systems.
4. This is a “green field” site and should not therefore be developed. If development occurs it
would constitute urban sprawl and could set a precedent for the loss of rural open space
and would break down the visual aspect of the land between Whitstable and Blean.
5. The development will result in flooding which is currently a local problem.
6. Disturbance, disruption, distress and general loss of amenity to local residents caused by
increased traffic flows.
7. The access to the Primrose Cottage Caravan Park will be adversely affected.
8. Loss of view; and
9. Devaluation of property.
- 45 A further letter making observations has been received. This comments that the Drainage
Impact Assessment is contradictory and unclear; the access to the site from Golden Hill is
unsafe, with the "buildouts" not being of assistance and no proposals for footpaths. The
development will affect the character of the area, with little proposed play area and no spare
parking. A site opposite the application site is put forward as an alternative, which fronts the
Thanet Way, allowing for access off this road. It is stated that drainage would be less of a
problem as the run off would go into open fields. It is suggested that a comparison of the two
sites should be made simultaneously as this would cost little extra and would enable interested
parties to air their views/objection prior to the grant of any planning permission.
The Open Spaces Society is concerned about additional development taking place and
considers it essential that plenty of open space is afforded if the development goes ahead as
the area is short of open spaces at present.
The Whitstable Society has no objection in principle to the development. There should be no
encroachment on the adjoining Special Landscape Area (SLA) and the boundary with this
should be properly landscaped. As part of the application, the developer should provide an
indication of the topography and the visual impact of the development when viewed from within
the SLA. Better information regarding the loss of trees and the general landscaping of the site
should be provided and the impact of increased traffic on Bogshole Lane be properly
assessed.
The tenants of the workshops on land to the south-east of the site have commented that their
site is bounded at the nearest point by a 2 metre high brick built retaining wall. Remedial
strengthening was carried out on the wall about 3 years ago following evidence of cracking and
water seepage due to pressure behind the wall. Concern is expressed that traffic,
excavations, or dumping causing increased load, could create further problems. It is hoped
that adequate safeguards will be taken against this possibility in any future development. The
wall forms the boundary of the tenants' parking area and at one point is only the width of the
walkway from the workshops.
All local residents have been reconsulted on the Traffic Impact Assessment (TIA) and the
revised plans and any further representations received will be included in the supplementary
report.
TECHNICAL CONSULTATIONS
Highway Manager The layout as originally submitted is uninspired, but has scope for improvement in places. It is
preferable for the traffic calming to be devised at a later date, in consultation with the Highway
Authority. The toucan crossing will need to be approved by Kent County Council. The
Highway Manager's comments are outstanding in respect of the TIA and revised plans,
however these will be included in the supplementary report.
Engineering Manager - Drainage Section In principle the proposals are acceptable with respect to drainage and flooding but there are a
number of items that require satisfactory resolution before it can be agreed to the development
going ahead. These are the use of the watercourse running beneath South Street for the
drainage outfall and further investigation of the method of dealing with the 1 in 100 year storm.
In addition a monetary contribution towards flood alleviation works on the Swalecliffe Brook is
requested.
Canterbury Archaeological Trust Arrangements for the carrying out of an archaeological field evaluation of the site have been
agreed and a brief for the evaluation prepared. An assessment of the results of the evaluation
will be forwarded when the field report is submitted.
- 46 Strategic Planning - Landscape Officer In urban design terms the most successful parts of the scheme are those where the dwellings
are joined together and parking located out of view in courtyards, or in concentrated rows in
front of dwellings.
The proposed wide access road and footways fail to deliver good design and the scheme has
been designed around the road rather than the buildings and open spaces first and road last.
The open space is too small for the density of development. Planting strips in rear gardens do
not work. The planting width on the southern boundary needs to be 10 metres minimum. The
boundary with Golden Hill is characterised by tall tree and hedgerow planting. It is important
that substantial planting takes place in front of the development on the lane boundary; a
minimum of 3 metres is recommended. The northern boundary will require a minimum of 3
metres screen belt planting.
Strategic Planning - Countryside Section The site could potentially be habited by slow-worms; it is impossible to determine whether they
are present at this time of the year. Slow-worms are protected under the Wildlife &
Countryside Act, however they are a widespread species and the protection afforded by the
Act is less than for other species. It should be possible to accommodate appropriate mitigation
in the development and if permission is granted a planning condition requiring the developer to
survey the site and present proposals for mitigation should be imposed.
Mouchel Property Services (on behalf of Kent County Council) The development would create the demand for extra primary and secondary school places. At
present, the additional requirement for primary places can be accommodated within local
schools however the secondary places cannot. The cost of providing these places is
£103,500.
Property services - Estates Section The Council owns the freehold of the Whitstable Enterprise Centre which is situated to the east
part of the boundary of the site. The Council’s site is much lower than the application land and
there is a substantial brick retaining wall. There have been some difficulties with this in the
past and concern is expressed that development on nearby land might have an adverse
impact on the wall. The edge of the application site is a few metres from the brick wall and
hopefully that would mean potential problems may be avoided. However there is the question
of drainage and the preservation of the existing tress and undergrowth.
Southern Water There is adequate capacity within the foul sewer system to accommodate the foul only flow
from the development.
There is sufficient spare capacity in the surface water sewer to accommodate a surface water
run off limited to 25 l/s. It will be possible to requisition the sewer from Southern Water. Any
excess surface water run-off should be discharged to soakaways if effective, or to a local land
drainage watercourse, or attenuated and stored on site.
Environment Agency No objection to the proposal. The Agency has agreed an allowable discharge rate for surface
water off site of 4 l/s/ha. The Agency is satisfied that flood risk is being properly addressed
and supports the Council in ensuring that measures are put in place to reduce the risk of
flooding downstream. The applicant must be confident that the mains foul drainage can cope
with any additional flow or loading that may occur as a result of this proposal.
Strategic Planning - Local Pans The site is previously developed/vacant land within the urban area and therefore the principle
of housing development on the site is accepted. Part of the site also overlaps across an
- 47 employment allocation in the existing Local Plan, which appears to be anomalous as access is
only reasonably possible from Golden Hill. In amenity terms residential use is better than
employment.
The site has been allocated as one plot in the emerging Local Plan. The site has not come
forward as one, making a comprehensive layout of the whole allocation impossible and the
application represents a missed opportunity, with the design and layout seriously constrained
by the shape of the site.
In policy terms there should be 26 affordable units and contributions towards education, open
space and highway works to address the impact of the development.
The density of the development should fall within the 30-50 houses per hectare range. This
scheme is 29.5 per hectare. In view of the location of the site, increasing the density to any
marked degree is not considered appropriate.
Kent County Constabulary Unable to make a response due to other pressures.
DRAINAGE IMPLICATIONS
A Drainage Impact Assessment has been submitted which deals with both foul and surface
water sewerage.
In respect of foul sewerage, a flow of 4.5 litres per second from the site to the public sewer in
Golden Hill is proposed. Because of the topography of the site, foul sewerage would be
drained to a pumping station to the south-east corner of the site and pumped up to Golden Hill
and it is likely that this will be adopted by Southern Water. A 75 mm rising main would be
required to maintain self-cleaning velocities and some additional storage would be required at
the pumping station to deal with the difference between the allowable discharge of 4.5 litres
per second and the theoretical flows of 4.63l/s. Southern Water has indicated that these
variations to the standard would be acceptable.
It is proposed to build a positive on site surface water system draining to an enclosed
underground storage tank that will attenuate a 1 in 30 year storm. This system will be offered
for adoption. In the event of a 1 in 100 year storm occurring it is proposed that flows will be
routed away from properties into percolation ditches on the perimeter of the site to utilise the
existing drainage paths. Discharges from the tank will be restricted to the parameters set
down by the Council and the Environment Agency into a requisitioned public sewer across
third party land. The developer put forward two options for this; a public surface water pipe at
the rear of No. 79 South Street (their preferred option) or a watercourse running beneath South
Street as it passes through Longtye Wood.
The No. 79 South Street arrangement is not an acceptable option as there are continuing
flooding problems in this location which have not been solved. This is one of a list of locations
in the District that the City Council has formerly requested that Southern Water make
significant improvements to the system. However, Southern Water has no improvements in its
current five year plan for this location and to add further discharge to this location would be
untenable.
No real details are given of how the difference between the 1 in 30 year and the 1 in 100 year
storm attenuation will be dealt with. Details have been requested that examine fully the
surrounding situation including assessing the flow path of flood water and exactly where it will
go, however at the time of writing this report these details are outstanding.
A request for a contribution to flood alleviation works on the Swalecliffe Brook has been made.
It is considered that the discharge from the development site, notwithstanding the proposed
- 48 attenuation, could increase current flow in the Brook. This is known to have burst its banks
and caused flooding to property in both Chestfield and Swalecliffe on a number of occasions in
recent years. The request for the developer to finance mitigation works to the Brook is
consistent with Planning Policy Guidance Note 25, paragraph 61.
Works required to the Brook include a new weed screen at the outfall of the Brook at
Swalecliffe to prevent the recently improved outfall through the seawall being blocked by
debris. The culvert at Ridgeway needs improving and other measures to improve flow would
be to improve the cross section of the river at a number of known constriction points. The cost
of these items of work are likely to be in the region of £300,000. A contribution of £10 per
square metre of impermeable area of development has been suggested which would require a
contribution of £155,000. At the time of preparing this report, the applicant's response is
awaited.
DISCUSSION
The site is located within the urban area as identified on the Local Plan Proposals Map. Policy
D54 of the Local Plan gives a general presumption in favour of the residential development of
such sites. In the emerging Local Plan the site is identified as a housing allocation.
The site comprises several different elements; a large proportion of the site is currently in
residential use. The southern section of the site is currently overgrown, however in the past
has been used for chicken farming while the south-west corner has been used as paddock.
Both these parts are historically associated with No. 53 Golden Hill.
In allocating the site for housing development in the emerging Local Plan, the site has been
regarded as previously developed/vacant land within the urban area. Part of the site has
previously been used for agriculture and cannot therefore be classified as “brown field”.
However, a large proportion of this part of the site overlaps an employment allocation in the
existing Local Plan, so the principle of development there has been previously established.
This leaves the southern most part of the site which is occupied by semi-derelict chicken sheds
and is therefore previously developed land, although as this was an agricultural use, does not
strictly comply with the definition given in Planning Policy Guidance Note 3 on housing.
PPG3 aims to promote sustainable forms of development by seeking to concentrate most
additional housing development within urban areas and making more efficient use of land by
maximising the re-use of previously developed land. In deciding whether to allocate housing in
local plans, sites should be assessed against criteria set out in paragraph 31 of the PPG.
These criteria involve the availability of previously developed sites, the location and
accessibility of the site relative to jobs, shops and services, the ability to build communities and
the physical and environmental constraints of the proposed site.
The site is in a sustainable location, being in close proximity to schools, Tesco's and
employment opportunities at the Joseph Wilson Business Park. Given the proportion of the
site that is either "brown field" or allocated for employment use (approximately 25% of the site)
and the previously developed nature of the remainder, the principle of residential development
on the site is considered to be an acceptable one.
As mentioned above, part of the site is allocated for employment purposes in the current Local
Plan. Policy D51 of the adopted Plan states that permission will not be granted for proposals
which would result in the loss of sites shown on the Proposal Map for employment use. The
proposal is therefore contrary to the provisions of this policy. The employment allocation
appears to be anomalous however as access is only reasonably possible from Golden Hill due
to changes in level between this site and the adjacent Joseph Wilson Business Park. The site
has been allocated and available for some time without any employment proposals coming
forward. In amenity terms residential use is considered preferable to employment. PPG3
recognises that employment allocations that cannot realistically be taken up are a wasted
- 49 resource and encourages Local Authorities to review their non housing allocations and
consider whether some of this land might be better used for housing or other mixed uses.
The housing allocation in the emerging draft Local Plan comprises a larger area than the
application site, as No. 51 Golden Hill has not been included. In the emerging Local Plan the
whole site is earmarked for 90 dwellings, which makes up part of the District Housing
requirements identified in the Plan. This is identified for release in the first phasing period,
2001 to 2006. If planning permission was refused this would leave the Council with a reduced
housing land supply for the planning period to 2006 and could result in more pressure to
develop green field sites, especially if not all the allocated brown field sites were to come
forward.
The omission of No. 51 has resulted in an awkwardly shaped site and it is disappointing that
the whole allocation has not come forward as one proposal as this would have resulted in the
best possible layout and most effective use of the land being made. The layout has been
designed however to enable a possible extension into the land at No. 51 Golden Hill, with
sufficient space left to connect the estate road through should this site ever come forward and
a sketch layout submitted to demonstrate how this can be achieved. In addition an access
road has been provided to allow for a potential extension into the caravan park on the northern
boundary in case this site is ever available for development.
The density of the development is 29 houses per hectare. This is just below the guidelines set
out in PPG for 30 dwellings or more per hectare. Given the semi-rural location of the site, on
the very edge of the urban area and abutting open countryside, this density is considered
appropriate. The layout proposes detached houses along the frontage to Golden Hill in an
attempt to retain the existing character of the area. Moving through the site the house designs
change to be a more joined up style and the density rises. An area of open space is proposed
centrally within the site, this will accommodate a Local Area of Play in line with the Adopted
Local Plan Policy “Standards for Play Spaces”.
Despite being located within the urban boundary, the site is semi-rural in nature and is best
described as constituting part of the urban/rural fringe. If permitted, the development will result
in a much more defined edge to the boundary of the urban area. A 2 metre wide planting strip
is proposed along the Golden Hill road frontage to maintain the feel of the country lane and
three metres of planting is proposed to the northern boundary. The southern boundary of the
site forms the boundary of the urban area and comprises agricultural land on its southern side
which is designated a Special Landscape Area. A fully landscaped buffer is considered
necessary here to properly define the urban boundary and it is proposed that the existing
hedge along the southern boundary is to be supplemented to a depth of 3 metres, with variable
wider bands of planting at intervals along the boundary. Wider planting strips as suggested by
the Landscape Officer would reduce the density still lower and is not in my opinion essential.
Although the landscaping will soften the impact of the development, due to the form of the land
which falls away southwards towards the new Thanet Way, views into the site will be
permissible from this direction. The development will of course also be visible from Golden Hill.
The houses have been set well back from this road frontage and supplementary planting along
the boundary with the road is proposed. This will assist in retaining the rural character of the
lane and again will soften the impact of the new development.
Revised plans have now been submitted that seek to address concerns in respect of the layout
and house designs. These represent an improved layout, with a less formal road layout in
places, more joined up housing and the open spaces amalgamated into one area to produce a
larger single space which is overlooked by more houses. The revised layout also satisfies
original highway concerns. Amendments to the house designs have also been made, to
address Officer concerns in connection with the lack of any local distinctiveness presented in
the original plans. The proposed house designs now have a greater unity, utilising a reduced
palette of materials and the houses incorporating arched window heads which has resulted in
- 50 a more traditional rural appearance with a common link between the various house types.
Originally submitted, 26 of the proposed dwellings were to be affordable housing. Due to
significantly reduced grant funding being available than originally allowed for, the developer
has now reduced this figure to 21 units, which represents 25 per cent of the total housing
proposed. This is to comprise 13 per cent rented, 6 per cent shared ownership and 6 per cent
key worker housing. This mix is in accordance with the Housing Section's requirements. The
affordable housing takes a linear form, concentrated along the eastern boundary either facing
or abutting private housing. The mix of houses range from one- bedroom flats to four-bedroom
houses to ensure that a variety of house types are available to meet demand and that the mix
of house types is similar to the remainder of the site. This approach is considered acceptable.
The access to the development is proposed from Golden Hill. The use of this lane to serve the
development has been the subject of many of the objections, with local residents concerned
about the suitability of this lane and its junction with the Old Thanet Way to accommodate the
additional traffic. The Highway Manager is satisfied that Golden Hill can accommodate the
additional traffic that would be generated by the development. The road is 5.5 metres in width
to the proposed access into the site and an additional 1.5 metre wide footpath is to be
provided. The junction with the A2990 (Old Thanet Way) has ample spare capacity to deal with
the number of dwellings proposed added to existing development. A Transport Statement has
been submitted which proposes minor widening to be undertaken at the T-junction in order to
create a short left turn flare out of Golden Hill, which will increase capacity at this junction even
further.
Local Residents are also concerned about the potential for rat running along Bogshole Lane to
reach the A290 Canterbury to Whitstable Road. This is a very narrow road with few passing
places and very poor visibility at its junction with the A290. The Traffic Statement has
concluded that the proposed development would have a negligible impact on traffic conditions
on Bogshole Lane. This is because this would provide a low standard route with a junction of
poor quality that is difficult to negotiate. In comparison, the strategic road network would offer
a high quality route to the south. The proposed junction with Golden Hill would offer adequate
capacity and would not generate any delay.
A pragmatic assessment indicates that the
proposal is unlikely to generate more than 1 trip every 10 minutes on Bogshole Lane in either
the morning or evening peak.
If permission is granted, the developer will be required to provide a footpath between the site
and Tesco (off the Thanet Way) and a toucan crossing on the Thanet Way close to the Golden
Hill junction to make crossing to Golden Hill North much safer. This will also improve turning
movements at the junction because of the gaps in traffic flow created. Traffic calming
measures along the section of Golden Hill to the access into the site would also be required.
The overall approach set out in the applicant's drainage impact assessment is considered
acceptable subject to more calculations concerning the proposed method of dealing with a 1 in
100 year storm event, the utilisation of the option for using the watercourse beneath South
Street for surface water and a suitable financial contribution for mitigation works to Swalecliffe
Brook.
In conclusion, the principle of residential development of the site is considered to be
acceptable. In view of the objections raised by local residents and the semi-rural nature of the
site it is recommended that the application be the subject of a Panel site visit to assess the
detailed issues discussed in this report. If following the Panel visit Members are in favour of
the proposed development, it is proposed that a Section 101 delegated authority is given to
grant the application subject to the satisfactory resolution of outstanding drainage issues and
a legal agreement to deal with:-
- 51 a) local education needs;
b) off site highway works;
c) improvements to the Swalecliffe Brook;
d) affordable housing within the scheme; and
e) provision and maintenance of the public open space.
BACKGROUND PAPERS:
1. Application Ref: CA/02/1222/WHI
2. Notes of Officer's site inspection, dated 09.10.02
3. Memorandum from Highway Manager, dated 17.10.02
4. Memorandum from Strategic Planning (Landscape and Horticulture Section), dated
10.10.02
5. Memorandum from Property Services - Estates Section, dated 10.10.02
6. Memorandum from Strategic Planning (Local Plans Section), dated 10.10.02
7. Memorandum from Drainage Section, dated 03.12.02
8. Previous planning applications ref: CA/73/0180/WHI, CA/74/0447/WHI,
CA/75/1239/WHI, CA/78/0046/WHI, CA/83/0441/WHI, CA98/0605/WHI,
CA/99/0161/WHI, CA/99/0978/WHI & CA/00/0450/WHI
9. Letters of representation received from:B Grover & H Newlyn, 26 Golden Hill, Whitstable, CT5 3AR, received 30.10.02
F D & P P Dalton, 28 Golden Hill, Whitstable, CT5 3AR, dated 30.10.02 & received
30.10.02
Mr & Mrs D A Barns, 30 Golden Hill, Whitstable, CT5 3AR, dated 25.10.02 & 28.10.02
Mr & Mrs Earles, 36 Golden Hill, Whitstable, CT5 3AR, dated 28.10.02 & received
30.10.02
The Occupier/Owner, 47 Golden Hill, Whitstable, received 30.10.02 & 30.10.02
Mr & Mrs L Williams, 47a Golden Hill, Whitstable, CT5 3AR, dated 30.10.02 & received
30.10.02
J & D Ingram, Mon Abri Farm, Golden Hill, Whitstable, CT5 3AR, received 30.10.02
Canterbury Archaeological Trust, 92a Broad Street, Canterbury, Kent, CT1 2LU, dated
16.10.02 & 11.12.02
Mrs T J Lucchesi, Lincey, Bogshole Lane, Whitstable, CT5 3AS, dated 15.10.02 &
received 30.10.02
Mr K Little, Santa Maria Properties Ltd/Total Services Ltd, dated 15.10.02
Mr & Mrs Brunger, Golden Meadow, 57 Golden Hill, Whitstable, CT5 3AR, dated
26.10.02 & 05.11.02
Mrs B Hurlock, Burgess Farm, Bogshole Lane, Whitstable, Kent, CT5 3AS, dated
17.10.02
Mr R Denny, Ferndale, 32 Golden Hill, Whitstable, Kent, CT5 3AR, dated 17.10.02 &
received 30.10.02
Mr D & Mrs G Johnson, Long Meadow, Burgess Farm, Bogshole Lane, Whitstable, CT5
3AS, dated 23.10.02 & received 30.10.02
Mr L Daborn, Paddock End, Clapham Hill, Whitstable, Kent, CT5 3DL, dated 22.10.02
Open Spaces Society, Flag House, 7 Ridgeway Road, Herne, CT6 7LL, dated 21.10.02
Southern Water Services, Kent Division, Southern House, Capstone Road, Chatham,
ME5 7QA, dated 24.10.02
The Enterprise Agency of East Kent, 45 North Lane Canterbury, Kent, CT2 7EA, dated
23.10.02
Mrs A Wilks, 26 King Edward Street, Whitstable, CT5 1JU, dated 25.10.02
Mr B Campbell, Primrose Cottage Caravan Park, Golden Hill, Whitstable, Kent, CT5
3AR, dated 27.10.02 & received 30.10.02
Myra Field, Martell Lodge, Golden Hill, Whitstable, Kent, CT5 3AR, received 30.10.02
- 52 Mr R Warne, The Downs Cottage, Golden Hill, Whitstable, Kent, CT5 3AR, dated
27.10.02
Mrs M Simms, 38 Golden Hill, Whitstable, CT5 3AR, received 30.10.02
D Chambers, 34 Golden Hill, Whitstable, CT5 3AR, received 30.10.02
Mrs S M & Miss F S King, Primrose Cottage, Golden Hill, Whitstable, CT5 3AR, received
30.10.02 & 30.10.02 & undated
A J Strand & Sons, Burgess Farm, Bogshole Lane, Whitstable, received 30.10.02
The Environment Agency, Orchard House, Endeavour Park, London Road, Addington,
Kent, ME19 5SH, dated 21.11.02
The Whitstable Society, C/O Martin Taylor, 55 Northwood Road, Whitstable, Kent, CT5
2EZ, dated 11.10.02
Mouchel Property Services, 23-29 Albion Place, Maidstone, Kent, ME14 5TS, dated
09.10.02
- 53 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE
06 January 2003
Report Item Number : 09
APPLICATION NUMBER
:
CA//02/01239/BRI
PROPOSAL
:
Erection of bungalow.
LOCATION OF SITE
:
Land adjacent to Trees, Bridge Hill, Bridge.
APPLICATION TYPE
:
FULL APPLICATION
DATE REGISTERED
:
09 October 2002
EXPIRY DATE
:
04 December 2002
CONTACT OFFICER
:
Katie Mawdsley
CONSERVATION AREA
:
BIS/BRI - BOURNE PARK
LISTED BUILDING
:
NOT LISTED
WARD
:
NORTH NAILBOURNE
APPLICANT
:
Mrs M M S Hoare
AGENT
:
Mervyn Gulvin
SUMMARY:
The proposed erection of a new bungalow in the side garden of an existing dwelling is
considered unacceptable due to the restricted plot size and a cramped development in this
area would appear detrimental to the character of a designated conservation area.
RECOMMENDATION:
To receive the report of the Development Control (Site Visits) Panel at the meeting.
SITE DESCRIPTION
The site currently forms part of the side garden to “Trees”, a bungalow constructed in the
1950's. This is the end property in a row of nine that front towards Bridge Hill but are set back
from the main road and separated from it by a tree belt located between the road and the
access track that serves these dwellings. As well as residential development on either side of
the application site, there is residential development to the rear and the site is bounded to this
side by a 2.5 metre high wall. The site is located within the Bourne Park Conservation Area
and is also located within a Special Landscape Area and within the Kent Downs Area of
Outstanding Natural Beauty.
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
The application seeks permission for a single-storey one-bedroom dwelling in the side garden
of the existing bungalow “Trees”. The building is proposed to be sited end onto the road and
incorporates a large glazed panel in its front elevation. A parking space is proposed in the tree
belt adjacent to Bridge Hill, which is located on the opposite side of the access road to the
properties situated on Bridge Hill. The application also proposes improvements to the junction
of the private access road with Higham Lane to allow for better visibility. Amended plans have
- 54 been submitted which show the bungalow set back by a further 2 metres towards the rear
boundary wall, to bring the front elevation behind the front most line of "Trees" to reduce its
prominence at a distance of 7.2 metres from the private road. There is a 4 metre gap to the
side boundary on one side and 3.5 metre gap to the other side.
PLANNING HISTORY
Permission was granted in 1952 for the erection of the bungalow and garage in which garden
is the subject of the current application. An outline application in 1962 for the erection of a
bungalow in the garden was withdrawn.
THE APPLICANT'S CASE
• The proposed bungalow is set in a site where much of the existing outbuildings are yet to
be demolished thus there is not a clear visual impression at present of the true space
between the building and its boundaries and "Trees".
•
The parking area located on the other side of the private road will amply contain two car
spaces without any risk to the mature trees and screening will be provided to the Bridge Hill
boundary. The overall site area is substantial for this small bungalow and would bear
comparison with other recent infill developments.
•
Government policy is to encourage infill, to make greater use of land within developed
areas by increasing density. This scheme fulfills those criteria yet still retains significant
space around the building.
PLANNING POLICIES
Policies D1, D16, D17 and R7 of the Local Plan are relevant which all deal with design
principles of new development, both generally within the District and specifically to new
buildings in the countryside and within conservation areas.
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS
Six letters objecting to the proposal have been received.
grounds:-
These object on the following
1. The proposal would introduce additional traffic onto the private road, which has a
dangerous entrance.
2. The bungalow is located too close to the adjacent house and would overshadow the
garden.
3. Access to and from the proposed parking space would be dangerous.
4. The proposal would be out of keeping with the surrounding area, which is a conservation
area, being cramped into a too small space in an area which is currently low density.
5. A similar application at The Cottage, Bridge Hill, has recently been refused.
6. Existing surface water drainage problems would be exacerbated.
7. The erection of a separate dwelling between two existing dwellings would result in a
reduction in amenity.
8. The proposal could set a precedent.
9. The proposal would result in the loss of trees and shrubs.
10. If permitted, it is likely that further applications to extend the property would be received.
- 55 In respect of the amended plans, four further letters have been received commenting that
these do not address their previous concerns.
The Parish Council has also objected, considering the land to be too tight, as shown by the
required demolition of the existing garage, the provision of car parking for this and the adjacent
house opposite and the necessity to have the entrance at right angles to the road. A further
letter has been received commenting that the amended plans do not address its concerns.
A letter in support of the application has been received from the Ward Councillor, who gained
the undertaking to enlarge the entrance to the private road which will improve the safety of the
junction of Higham Lane and Bridge Hill.
TECHNICAL CONSULTATIONS
Canterbury Archaeological Trust Requests than an archaeological evaluation is carried out prior to the application being
determined; the site is within an area of intensive Iron Age activity and Roman settlement and
abuts the north side of the former alignment of the Roman Road, connecting Dover to
Canterbury. Roman and Anglo-Saxon burial mounds are located on the south side of the road
immediately opposite the development site.
Highway Manager No objection, subject to inclusion of specified condition relating to parking.
Drainage Section There are no records of surface water drainage problems but due to the steepness of the land
run-off from drives and gardens would be rapid. Soakaways would work well, provided that
they are properly constructed and the development is not opposed on drainage or flooding
grounds.
DRAINAGE IMPLICATIONS
None.
DISCUSSION
The site is surrounded by other residential development and is considered to be within the built
confines of the village. The main issues for consideration are the effect of the development on
the locality in visual terms, the impact on neighbouring properties and highways matters.
The proposed dwelling is to be sited on an area that currently forms the side garden to an
existing property. This part of the site measures 13 metres wide by 20 metres long. The
average width of plot along this section of road frontage is approximately 35 metres with the
general character of the area being one of low density housing set in well landscaped gardens.
Policy D16 of the Local Plan requires planning applications to preserve or enhance the
character or appearance of conservation areas. Policy D17 requires new development within
conservation areas to respect its surroundings in terms of, amongst other things, height,
massing and plot width. Policy D1 requires development to be of a high standard of design
which is sympathetic to the character and appearance of the surrounding area and appropriate
in scale, density, mass and appearance, having regard to the adjoining buildings and views.
Viewed in the context of the surrounding development, the proposed building will seem
cramped and out of keeping with the general character of this part of Bridge and therefore
contrary to the policies referred to above. A similar proposal for a new dwelling was refused
on land at The Cottage, Bridge Hill in 1988.
- 56 It is proposed that the dwelling is single storey, sitting gable end on to the road. The ridge
height is approximately a metre higher than the adjacent bungalow and full height glazed
panels are incorporated on the front elevation. I do not consider the extensive glazing to the
front to be the most appropriate design solution and if the application was not recommended
for refusal I would seek to negotiate an alternative detail. However I have concluded that in
the context of the style of neighbouring buildings this glazed detail is not so unattractive as to
justify a design ground of refusal.
It is not considered that the development would have an adverse impact on surrounding
properties, being sited a sufficient distance from the existing neighbouring dwellings and their
boundaries.
In respect of highways matters, there is no objection from the Highway Manager to the
application. While the proposed alteration at the junction of the private road with Higham Lane
would improve visibility here, this benefit is not considered to be of sufficient importance to set
aside concern about the principle of a dwelling on such a restricted site.
BACKGROUND PAPERS:
1. Application Ref: CA/02/01239/BRI
2. Notes of Officer's site inspection, dated 18.10.02
3. Memorandum from Highway Manager, dated 23.10.02
4. Memorandum form Drainage Section, dated 18.11.02
5. Letters of representation received from:R & J Bickerton, Lantern Cottage, Bridge Hill House Drive, Higham Lane, Bridge, CT4
5AY, dated 21.10.02
Mr C B Swadling & Ms A L Payne, The Paddock, Higham Lane, Bridge, Canterbury,
CT4 5AY, dated 08.11.02
Canterbury Archaeological Trust, 92a Broad Street, Canterbury, Kent, CT1 2LU, dated
17.10.02
Gerard & Joan Masterson, Gardenways, Bridge Hill, Bridge, Canterbury, CT4 5AX,
dated 23.10.02 & received 06.12.02
G N Hilary, The Cottage, Bridge Hill, Bridge, CT4 5AX, dated 21.10.02 & 03.12.02
G C & J M Higson, The Dell, Bridge Hill, Bridge, Canterbury, CT4 5AX, dated 03.11.02
Mrs U C Bettany, "Elsinore", Bridge Hill, Bridge, CT4 5AX, dated 05.11.02 & 05.12.02
G T G Upton, High Banks, Bridge Hill, Bridge, Canterbury, CT4 5AX, dated 07.11.02 &
02.12.02
Cllr Bill Oakey, 4 Brewery Lane, Bridge, Canterbury, CT4 5LD, dated 12.11.02
Bridge Parish Council, 14 St Mary's Close, Etchinghill, Folkestone, CT18 8NX, dated
15.11.02 & 10.12.02
- 57 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE
06 January 2003
Report Item Number : 10
APPLICATION NUMBER
:
CA//02/01271/CAN
PROPOSAL
:
Rear extensions to form residential unit.
LOCATION OF SITE
:
22, Palace Street, Canterbury.
APPLICATION TYPE
:
FULL APPLICATION
DATE REGISTERED
:
08 October 2002
EXPIRY DATE
:
03 December 2002
CONTACT OFFICER
:
David Jukes
CONSERVATION AREA
:
CANTERBURY CITY No.1 - AMENDED
LISTED BUILDING
:
GRADE 2
WARD
:
WESTGATE
APPLICANT
:
Mr S Skelton
AGENT
:
Lee Evans de Moubray
SUMMARY:
It is proposed to erect rear extensions in order to create a ground floor residential unit,
elements of which have already been authorised by a previous planning permission which
remains valid. Objections to the proposals have been received. The proposals meet Local Plan
policy criteria. I take the view that the development is acceptable in principle, subject to
amendments to aspects of detailed design and construction. It is therefore recommended that
delegated authority be given for planning permission and listed building consent to be granted
subject to the receipt of suitably revised drawings.
RECOMMENDATION:
Grant, Section 101 Delegation.
That the Head of Development Services be given delegated authority to grant planning
permission and listed building consent, subject to the receipt of suitably revised drawings
relating to detailed design issues. Permission and consent to be subject to the standard time
limit conditions and conditions relating to archaeology, joinery and construction, materials and
other matters of detail as may be considered to be appropriate.
SITE DESCRIPTION
The site is on the west side of Palace Street. The main building is three storeys in height with a
two-storey and single-storey rear wing, the latter element being a relatively modern addition.
There is an L-shaped rear garden area. The ground floor of the main building is in retail use
with a separate door on the frontage giving access to the rear wing, which is currently unused,
and to the upper floors which accommodate three flats.
- 58 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
It is proposed to erect a single-storey extension to the rear of the existing rear wing. The
extension would be 7.3 metres deep by 4.1 metres wide with elevations in brick and weatherboarding and with a tiled, double-pitched, hipped roof. It is also proposed to build an orangery
of 6.0 metres by 2.3 metres on the north side of the existing rear wing and a garden room of
4.7 metres by 3.1 metres on the south side. Both of these elements are indicated as having
brick bases but with the upper parts in mainly glass and timber. In addition, a small freestanding workshop building is proposed in the northern corner of the site. The extensions,
together with rooms within the existing rear wing, would create a two-bedroomed residential
unit.
There is a concurrent listed building application, submitted under reference CAL02/0138/CAN,
for the extensions and associated alterations.
PLANNING HISTORY
CA/95/0407/CAN - Planning permission was granted in January 1997 for ‘single-storey rear
extensions to shop and residential; conversion of part ground floor and upper floors to four
flats; external alterations including new door in shopfront’.
PLANNING POLICIES
Policy D1 of the District Local Plan sets out criteria that are to be considered in assessing new
development. Policies D8, D9 and D11 relate to safeguarding the character, appearance and
continued use of listed buildings. Policies D16 and D17 relate to the preservation and
enhancement of the character and appearance of conservation areas and the design of new
development within those areas.
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS
Canterbury Conservation Advisory Committee suggests that this is an extensive scheme,
creating a separate whole unit, and whilst an attractive design it would gobble up the rear
garden. The Committee states that the proposal should be resisted on grounds of intrusion in
the rear garden area and recommends refusal.
TECHNICAL CONSULTATIONS
Canterbury Archaeological Trust Recommends an archaeological evaluation since it is believed that archaeological features
and deposits worthy of record may be revealed during the development.
DRAINAGE CONSIDERATIONS
There are no drainage implications.
DISCUSSION
The main element of the currently proposed extensions together with the creation of the fourth
residential unit were approved as part of the previous planning permission. That permission
remains valid since part of the development was implemented. In effect, therefore, the present
application relates to additional accommodation consisting of the orangery, the garden room
and the workshop.
I take the view that the proposals are acceptable in principle in relation to the size and general
form of the extensions and to the creation of a slightly larger unit to that already permitted.
However, I feel that there are detailed design features which could be improved and that it
would be appropriate for the orangery and garden room to be of a light-weight construction
throughout. I have had discussions regarding these issues and revised drawings are awaited.
I have noted the views expressed in the representations but am of the opinion that the
proposals will not have a significant effect on the character and appearance of the listed
building or on its setting with particular reference to the garden area. The buildings proposed
- 59 are to the rear of the street frontage buildings and of a scale and proportion suitable for a rear
garden location. Therefore, I can advise that the development will not have a significant effect
on the general character and appearance of the Conservation Area or on the amenities of the
occupiers of adjoining properties. The proposals meet Local Plan policy criteria.
I therefore recommend that delegated authority be given for planning permission and listed
building consent to be granted subject to the receipt of suitably revised drawings.
BACKGROUND PAPERS:
1. Application Ref: CA/01/1271/CAN
2. Notes of Officer's site inspection, dated 28.11.02
3. Previous planning application ref: CA/95/0407/CAN
4. Letters of representation received from:Canterbury Archaeological Trust, 92a Broad Street, Canterbury, Kent, CT1 2LU, dated
05.11.02
Canterbury Conservation Advisory Committee, c/o Canterbury Environment Centre, St.
Alphege Lane, Canterbury, CT1 2EB, dated 07.11.02
- 60 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE
06 January 2003
Report Item Number : 11
APPLICATION NUMBER
:
CA//02/01298/WHI
PROPOSAL
:
LOCATION OF SITE
:
Erection of two two-storey and one four-storey office
blocks.
Plots A, B and C, John Wilson Business Park, Thanet
Way, Reeves Way, Whitstable.
APPLICATION TYPE
:
FULL APPLICATION
DATE REGISTERED
:
18 October 2002
EXPIRY DATE
:
13 December 2002
CONTACT OFFICER
:
Katie Mawdsley
CONSERVATION AREA
:
NO
LISTED BUILDING
:
NOT LISTED
WARD
:
CHESTFIELD
APPLICANT
:
George Wilson Developments Ltd
AGENT
:
Tyler Partnership & Associates
SUMMARY:
The application is for the erection of an office block complex on vacant land that forms part of
the John Wilson Business Park. The main considerations in respect of the application are the
height of the buildings, drainage and flooding considerations and the loss of an area of
protection of existing open space to car parking.
Plans of this development will be on display at the back of The Guildhall at the meeting.
RECOMMENDATION:
Grant Section 101 Delegation.
That the Head of Development Services be authorised to grant planning permission under
delegated powers subject to:a) a Section 106 legal agreement requiring a contribution to flood alleviation works; and
b) the submission of revised plans showing additional landscaping; and
c) confirmation that the Environment Agency has approved the proposed discharge to the
river; and
d) the imposition of conditions relating to parking, cycle facilities, landscaping, materials,
drainage and flood protection, protection of sewers and any other conditions that he
may consider appropriate.
SITE DESCRIPTION
The site is comprised of two parts. The site of the proposed office buildings is bounded on two
sides by the access roads into the John Wilson Business Park. It is adjacent to existing
industrial units comprising part of the Business Park to two sides and a car park serving
- 61 another industrial premises to another. This site is vacant overgrown land and has no
designation in the Local Plan.
On the opposite side of Reeves Way is the site of the proposed parking area. This is open
land situated immediately adjacent to the Swalecliffe Brook. There is a further section of open
land on the east side of the Brook, then the land rises steeply up to residential development in
Primrose Way. This part of the site is identified as “Protection of Existing Open Space” in the
Local Plan.
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
The application seeks permission for the erection of three office blocks on vacant land
adjacent to existing industrial units at the Business Park. The three blocks are proposed to be
sited in a ‘U’ shape, with the two blocks forming the sides being a continuation of the form of
two of the existing workshop buildings of the Business Park. These are proposed to be two
storey, while the end block, fronting onto Reeves Way is four storeys.
Parking is proposed within the courtyard that is created and in the basement level of the fourstorey block in addition to 75 spaces on land adjacent to the Swalecliffe Brook on the opposite
side of Reeves Way.
PLANNING HISTORY
Planning permission was granted on this site in 1996 for a three-storey office block complex
(Ref No CA/96/0921/WHI). In 1994 an application was made for the erection of fourteen
industrial units on the site however this was subsequently withdrawn, as was an application
made in 1990 for the erection of a three-storey office block on the site.
PLANNING POLICIES
Policies D1 and D38 of the adopted Local Plan are relevant. Regard should also be had to
Policies ED1, ED6 and C28 of the emerging Local Plan.
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS
Chestfield Parish Council has commented that its main concern is in respect of drainage and
the potential effects the development might have on both surface water and foul drainage and
considers that a Drainage Impact Assessment should be carried out. The car park appears to
abut the Swalecliffe Brook and there is concern as to how the developer is proposing to
protect/maintain this section of the watercourse. If permission is granted, improvements and
landscaping to Swalecliffe Brook should be undertaken. It is considered that Form 1a
submitted by the applicant is misleading. It is understood that Canterbury and Thanet Health
Trust are to be the occupants of at least part of the proposal. The agent’s inability to give
numbers of staff, cars etc is not acceptable to ascertain the effect the development will have
on Reeves Way and its junctions.
A letter from the occupier of an existing unit adjacent to the site is concerned that the proposed
building is too close and will result in loss of natural light to the windows in his office area and
will dominate the existing structure and overshadow the showroom and forecourt. It is not
considered the parking provision is sufficient.
TECHNICAL CONSULTATIONS
Highway Manager Fifteen cycle spaces should be provided and confirmation that shower/changing facilities will
be available to all cyclists. Subject to the above, no objection.
Economic Development The proposed development is in response to client demand and completes the development of
this Business Park. The developer has a number of small businesses interested in taking
accommodation on the site. The proposals will help to meet anticipated demand identified in
- 62 the recent Business Accommodation study.
Local Plans Modern office development is much sought after as it enables a diversified economy and wider
employment opportunities. The site is part of a recognised hub, falling within a recognised
employment cluster in the draft Local Plan. As such, office schemes are acceptable in this
location as well as making the most of existing vacant land on the John Wilson Estate. In
Planning Policy Guidance Note 6 terms, an office scheme that generates a high level of activity
and vehicular movements is considered better located in or adjacent to the town centre.
However there are no office allocations in the Plan that are sequentially better. The Estate
does have good accessibility and is within walking distance of retail, industrial and medical
uses as well as public transport.
Southern Water No objection to the discharge of foul sewage to the public foul sewer. It is understood that the
proposed method of surface water disposal is to discharge the additional surface water run off
direct to the nearby Swalecliffe Brook, with flows restricted in line with the Council and
Environment Agency’s requirements. If permission is granted, it is requested that a condition
is attached requiring measures for protection of existing sewers in the vicinity to be agreed,
prior to the commencement of development.
Environment Agency No objection. It should be noted that part of the proposed development within the flood plain is
not defended by a conventional wall and so it is for interpretation as to whether the
development is compliant with PPG25. However, there is a long standing agreement for
development at the site, the floor levels are significantly raised, there will be no loss of flood
storage or obstruction to flood flow and the occupants can evacuate from the blocks safely. It
is requested that the proposed floor level of 10m (minimum), removing some of the bank at the
back of Block B and the allowable maximum surface water discharge rate from the site of 4
l/s/ha are made conditions of any permission. In addition the Agency requires that a condition
is imposed to ensure no land raising at the site.
Drainage Section The Drainage Impact Assessment has been considered and following the submission of
revised calculations of the discharge rate and storage capacity resulting from the office block,
no objection is raised. A contribution of £11,500 towards flood alleviation works on the
Swalecliffe Brook is requested. Approval for both the discharge into a main river and for
building in the flood plain are required from the Environment Agency.
DRAINAGE CONSIDERATIONS
A flood risk and drainage impact report has been submitted with the application.
The report recognises that the site is at risk from fluvial flooding and that it is important that any
development here does not reduce the available flood storage capacity. Block B and the end
of Block C extend over the area that is liable to flooding. The offices have been designed on
columns so as not to reduce the flood storage capacity, however there will be some small loss
due to the area taken up by the columns and this is to be compensated by removing some of
the existing bank at the back of Block B.
The car park adjacent to the Swalecliffe Brook is to be constructed slightly below existing
ground levels to increase the amount of flood storage capacity. The occupied parts of the
buildings, the ground floors of which will be at least 10m above ODN, will be well above the 1
in 100 year flood level.
In respect of drainage, the rate of discharge of surface water from the office development was
originally proposed to be restricted to a maximum of 4 l/s per hectare which required the
- 63 construction of a storage tank. The Council’s Drainage Engineers required a reassessment of
this figure which has resulted in revised proposals with flows being limited to 1.4 l/s per hectare
and an enlarged storage tank.
The proposed car park adjacent to the watercourse will flood when the watercourse breaks its
banks and in these circumstances there can be no surface water outflow to the watercourse.
When the watercourse is not in flood, run off from the car park to the watercourse would need
to be limited to 1.2 litres per second.
In PPG25, paragraph 61 there is allowance for development being permitted that requires the
provision of flood defence and mitigation works. For this site it is considered that a developer
contribution is valid because the development would increase the risk of flooding at other
locations but it will not have a significant adverse impact. Various flood alleviation works along
the Swalecliffe Brook will help to reduce flooding and offset the effects of the development.
The PPG states that the requirements for the developer to pay for construction of flood
mitigation works applies even where a proposed development does not require additional
works but such works are necessary to prevent consequential additional flood risk to other
areas and properties, which is the case here.
Works required to the Brook include a new weed screen at the outfall of the Brook at
Swalecliffe to prevent the recently improved outfall through the seawall being blocked by
debris. The culvert at Ridgeway needs improving and other measures to improve flow would
be to improve the cross section of the river at a number of known constriction points. The cost
of these items of work are likely to be in the region of £300,000. A contribution of £10 per
square metre of impermeable area of development is suggested which would require a
contribution of £11,500.
DISCUSSION
The general principle of this type of development in this location is considered acceptable.
The proposed office development will introduce a much sought after facility in the District and
bring with it the associated economic benefits. The location is on vacant land within the John
Wilson Business Park and part of an existing employment hub and is also well served by
public transport.
The parking area is proposed to the east of Reeves Way on land that is identified in the Local
Plan as an area of Protected Open Space. Such areas are identified on the basis of visual
amenity and/or recreational value. Policy D38 of the Local Plan states that proposals which
will result in the loss of such spaces will only be permitted if one or more of three criteria would
be met. The first of these is that there would be no material harm to the contribution the
protected space makes to the visual or recreational amenity of the area. This is considered to
be the situation here; the land at present is open scrubland. It is proposed to use grasscrete as
the surface for the car parking area and associated landscaping will improve the visual
appearance. The parking area has been reduced from that originally submitted and represents
only a small proportion of the overall area of protected open space.
The design of the buildings is felt to be acceptable. They are proposed to be constructed in
yellow stock brick with contrasting soldier courses and will have pitched roofs of artificial slate.
The two-storey buildings will be higher than the workshops that they are located immediately
adjacent to. The impact to these units from overshadowing and loss of light is minimised by the
incorporation of hipped roofs. The third block is four storeys in height, which is higher than any
of the nearby buildings. It is not considered that the building will be readily visible from outside
of the Business Park, with the exception of views from Primrose Way, when it will be seen
within the context of the surrounding industrial uses. The height has been minimised through
the incorporation of a shallow pitched roof. In view of the economic benefits associated with
the development, the height is considered acceptable in this instance.
- 64 Drainage matters are dealt with in detail in the section above. Southern Water, the
Environment Agency and the Council's Drainage Engineers are now satisfied with the
proposals and the applicant has agreed to make the required contribution towards off site flood
alleviation measures on the basis that this will be provided once the development has been
constructed. This will need to be tied into a legal agreement. The consent of the Environment
Agency will be required to discharge flows directly into the Swalecliffe Brook.
At the Highway Manager’s request the proposed parking arrangements have been amended
and now incorporate the required cycling facilities, including changing and shower facilities for
each of the office blocks. The proposed number of car parking spaces has been reduced to
125, which is acceptable from a Highway point of view and results in less intrusion into the
area of protected open space which is considered advantageous.
It is therefore considered that the application proposals are acceptable and that planning
permission be granted, subject to the completion of a satisfactory legal agreement to deal with
the developer contribution to flood alleviation works.
BACKGROUND PAPERS:
1. Application Ref: CA/02/1298/WHI
2. Notes of Officer's site inspection, dated 31.10.02
3. Memorandum from Highway Manager, dated 07.11.02
4. Memorandum from Strategic Planning (Local Plans), dated 06.11.02
5. Memorandum from Strategic Planning (Economic Development), dated 05.11.02
6. Memorandum from Drainage Section, dated 04.12.02
7. Previous planning applications ref: CA/90/1355/WHI, CA/94/0946/WHI &
CA/96/0921/WHI
8. Letters of representation received from:Southern Water Services, Kent Division, Southern House, Capstone Road, Chatham,
ME5 7QA, dated 13.11.02
Mr B Skeats, 10 Mount View Road, Herne, Herne Bay, Kent, CT6 7DJ, dated 13.11.02
Chestfield Parish Council, 1 Tankerton Road, Whitstable, CT5 2AB, dated 19.11.02
The Environment Agency, Orchard House, Endeavour Park, London Road, Addington,
Kent, ME19 5SH, dated 27.11.02
- 65 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE
06 January 2003
Report Item Number : 12
APPLICATION NUMBER
:
CA//02/01375/CAN
PROPOSAL
:
LOCATION OF SITE
:
Change of use from offices to drug and alcohol service
centre.
Eclipse Building, Site 34, Simmonds Road, Wincheap
Industrial Estate, Canterbury.
APPLICATION TYPE
:
FULL APPLICATION
DATE REGISTERED
:
01 November 2002
EXPIRY DATE
:
27 December 2002
CONTACT OFFICER
:
Steve Davies
CONSERVATION AREA
:
ADJACENT - HISTORICAL
LISTED BUILDING
:
NOT LISTED
WARD
:
WINCHEAP
APPLICANT
:
KCA (UK)
AGENT
:
KCA (UK)
SUMMARY:
Proposed use of a building on the Wincheap Estate as a centre for counselling and generally
rehabilitating people with drug and alcohol problems. Objections concerning the perceived
harm to local amenity caused by users cannot be substantiated and the specific premises are
considered to be suitable for the use concerned.
RECOMMENDATION:
Grant;
Subject to conditions requiring the submission of a management plan for the premises and the
provision of a security fence along the back boundary of the site.
SITE DESCRIPTION
The application site consists of a modern two-storey flat roofed building. It is brick built with
timber facing. There is a parking area to the front of the building. To the north-east is a smaller
but similarly constructed building occupied by a security firm, beyond which is the rear car park
to the Wincheap Guest House. To the south-west is a vacant parcel of land which has planning
permission for a light industrial development. To the south-east the site backs onto the rear
gardens of houses and commercial properties in Wincheap. Opposite the site in Simmonds
Road is a warehouse.
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
The applicant seeks permission for a change of use of the premises from a B1 (Office and light
industrial use) to instructional, counselling and guidance purposes for people with drug and
alcohol problems. This would fall within class D1 (Non-residential institutional use).
- 66 PLANNING HISTORY
The building was built as a laboratory in the early 1970's, permission to use it as offices, studio
and darkroom for a commercial photographers was granted in 1982 (Ref No
CA/82/0652/CAN). The building has been used most recently for purposes within Class B1.
THE APPLICANT'S CASE
The applicant is KCA an established charity tasked with providing community services for drug
and alcohol rehabilitation, smoking cessation, primary health care and counselling across
Kent. All services are provided by people who are professionally competent and in cooperation with the Health Authority, KCC Social Services and Kent Probation Service. The
charity currently employs 150 paid staff and 30 volunteers with an annual budget in excess of
£4.2 million. KCA has been active in East Kent for over ten years.
KCA has been providing drug and alcohol services from their premises at No. 39/41 Wincheap.
Over the last five years the range of services has increased considerably, the existing
premises are useful for some activities undertaken, but are not suitable for group programmes
nor provide the space required for the range of services offered elsewhere. The larger
premises sought will offer the space to run structured day programmes for groups of clients.
The existing premises in Wincheap will be retained and the proximity of the premises to this
and to the Kent Probation Services offices in Cushman Road will assist clients using the range
of services on offer and also enable close management supervision. KCA stress that clients
who attend their services are those who are motivated to end substance abuse, have moved
away from the chaotic lifestyles and who accept KCA's attendance requirements and
standards of behaviour.
PLANNING POLICIES
The application should be considered with regard to Policies D1 and D52 of the Canterbury
District Local Plan relating to amenity issues and unneighbourly developments.
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS
Seven letters of objection have been received to this application. The principal objections
relate to anti-social behaviour, criminal activity and harm to public safety being caused in the
surrounding area by people attending the premises. Concerns are raised regarding potential
for access to be made from the premises to the rear gardens of properties in Wincheap for
nefarious purposes, the impact on local businesses, particularly for guest houses and the
likelihood of syringes and bottles being strewn around the local area. One writer points out that
they have a garden gate to the rear of the building. The safety of users of the Wincheap Guest
House car park in Simmonds Road is specifically raised, as is that of the unlit alley linking
Simmonds Road and Wincheap to the north-east of the site.
TECHNICAL CONSULTATIONS
Environment and Street Scene No objection.
Kent County Constabulary The building should have adequate security to ensure clients are unable to gain entry after
hours.
DRAINAGE CONSIDERATIONS
The application does not raise any specific drainage matters.
DISCUSSION
The building is considered to be suitable for the proposed use in terms of parking and servicing
and due to the limited potential for disturbance caused to occupiers of surrounding properties
from the activities taking place within the building.
- 67 The principal concern raised by this application is the perceived harm caused to the amenity of
the surrounding area by people attracted to the premises. It has been held that the perceived
threat of anti-social behaviour is a material consideration and should be given appropriate
weight in any decision reached. In this instance however, no evidence is apparent of any
specific behavioural or anti-social problems resulting from the proposed activity currently taking
place at the applicant's existing premises in Wincheap and in view of the applicant's
experience in managing similar facilities elsewhere it is not considered that in this instance the
perceived threat to the amenity of the area is sufficient to refuse planning permission. It is
envisaged that use of the building will be generally a day time activity, however the applicant
has not ruled out the need for some evening activities to take place.
As part of any planning permission, it is suggested that a condition is imposed requiring the
submission for approval of a management plan for the premises. In particular this would show
how the activity immediately around the centre will be managed, including the provision of a
specific point of contact for the public to notify KCA of any concerns. It is also considered to be
expedient to impose a condition requiring the installation of a security fence along the rear
boundary of the site with the gardens of properties in Wincheap. It is understood that the
access referred to by one of the objectors is unauthorised and that the land agents are
investigating its permanent closure.
BACKGROUND PAPERS:
1. Application Ref: CA/02/1375/CAN
2. Notes of Officer's site inspection, dated 15.11.02.
3. Memoranda from Environment & Street Scene, dated 21.11.02 & 27.11.02.
4. Previous planning application ref: CA/82/0652/CAN
5. Letters of representation received from:Mrs F Ely, 106 Wincheap, Canterbury, CT1 3RS, dated 24.11.02
Ms Blanks, 108 Wincheap, Canterbury, CT1 3RS, received 27.11.02
Fiona Gilbert, 112 Wincheap, Canterbury, dated 03.12.02
Tony Smith, Right Guard Security Services Ltd, Simmonds Road, Canterbury, dated
22.11.02
Joe Lassey, Wincheap Guest House, 94 Wincheap, Canterbury, CT1 3RS, dated
03.12.02
Kent County Constabulary, Nackington Police Office, Nackington Road, Canterbury,
CT4 7AZ, dated 13.11.02
J Jones, 50 Claremont Place, Canterbury, CT1 3SU, received 02.12.02
Mr Derek Fairweather, Wincheap Guest House, 94 Wincheap, Canterbury, CT1 3RS,
dated 03.12.02
- 68 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE
06 January 2003
Report Item Number : 13
APPLICATION NUMBER
:
CA//02/01384/CAN
PROPOSAL
:
Construction of brick flue to incorporate extract ducting to
rear of public house. (Resubmission).
LOCATION OF SITE
:
Monument P.H., 37, St. Dunstan's Street, Canterbury.
APPLICATION TYPE
:
FULL APPLICATION
DATE REGISTERED
:
04 November 2002
EXPIRY DATE
:
30 December 2002
CONTACT OFFICER
:
David Jukes
CONSERVATION AREA
:
CANTERBURY CITY No.1 - AMENDED
LISTED BUILDING
:
GRADE 2
WARD
:
WESTGATE
APPLICANT
:
Shepherd Neame Ltd
AGENT
:
John R Woodley
SUMMARY:
It is proposed to erect a brick-built chimney, attached to the rear wing of the building, with an
overall height of 6.35 metres. The proposal is intended to replace the existing unauthorised
flue, subject of enforcement action. Objections to the proposal have been received from local
residents.
This is a repeat of an earlier application refused planning permission in May 2002 but now
submitted again in the context of conclusions drawn in the Planning Inspectorate’s decision
letter of August 2002 relating to the Enforcement Notice appeal.
Members' decision on the earlier application is acknowledged but I feel that it is appropriate to
give further consideration to the proposal in view of the issues raised in the Enforcement
appeal decision. I remain of the opinion that, subject to amendments to the external design of
the chimney, this is the best option of the various alternatives that have previously been
explored at length.
RECOMMENDATION:
To consider.
SITE DESCRIPTION
The Monument Public House stands on the north-east side of St Dunstan's Street at its
junction with Whitstable Road and London Road. It is a mediaeval timber-framed building
refaced in the early nineteenth century. The original main frontage building is two storeys in
- 69 height with attic accommodation in the roof. There is a single-storey rear wing with a pantiled
roof, which dates from the nineteenth century. There are also two small modern flat-roofed
extensions attached to the rear of the main building and a recent glazed infill extension.
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
It is proposed to erect a brick-built chimney attached to the rear elevation of the single-storey
rear wing of the building. The chimney would enclose metal ducting with a diameter of 330 mm
that would provide the extract from the pub kitchen now located in the rear wing. The
submitted drawings indicate that the chimney would be constructed in brickwork to match
existing. The chimney would be square in section with sides of 550 mm and with an overall
height of 6.35 metres, including an exposed section of the metal ducting at the top that would
be painted to match chimney pots. The drawings show that the top of the chimney would be 1
metre below the ridge of the main building. The drawings also indicate a turbo fan within the
roofspace above the kitchen fitted with an in-line silencer and mounted on anti-vibration
mounts.
PLANNING HISTORY
CA/96/1206/CAN - Planning permission was granted in February 1997 for a single-storey rear
extension comprising a glazed infill structure within the rear yard area.
CA/00/0916/CAN relating to the same infill extension and external alterations to the rear wing
also proposed the provision of an extract flue chimney and external ducting attached to the
rear of the main building. After consideration by the Sub-Committee and the Site Visits Panel
on a number of occasions planning permission was refused in July 2001 on a ground relating
solely to the extract flue chimney and external ducting. Listed building consent was also
refused a short time later under reference CAL00/0103/CAN. Appeals against both refusals
were lodged in December 2001. The appeals were dismissed in August 2002.
A listed building enforcement notice requiring the removal of the unauthorised flue chimney
and ductwork was issued in January 2002. An appeal against the enforcement notice was
lodged in March 2002. This appeal was also dismissed in August 2002 but with the wording of
the notice amended to require compliance within twelve months, rather than the three months
originally stipulated.
CA/02/0186/CAN relating to the construction of a brick flue to incorporate extract ducting
attached to the rear wing of the building was submitted in February 2002. Planning permission
was refused on 01 May 2002 on the following grounds:1.
The use of the chimney in the form proposed and in this location in close proximity to
residential properties would detract from the amenities of residents by reason of air
pollution from cooking smells and disturbance from noise created by the operation of
the associated turbo fan and extraction equipment. Consequently the proposal would
be contrary to the aims of Policy D1 of the adopted Canterbury District Local Plan.
2.
By reason of its appearance, form and materials the section of exposed metal ducting
above the brick stack would be detrimental to the character and appearance of the
listed building and would adversely affect the general appearance of the locality within
the conservation area. Consequently, the proposal would be contrary to the aims of
Policies D9, D16 and D17 of the adopted Canterbury District Local Plan.
THE APPLICANT'S CASE
A letter accompanying the application highlights and interprets comments in the Planning
Inspectorate’s appeal decision letter, as follows:-
- 70 1.
The need to take into account the national policy advice to assist small businesses as
set out in Planning Policy Guidance Note 14.
2.
Removal of the extract system would significantly affect the operation of the business
unless satisfactory alternative extract arrangements are provided.
3.
The reason that the enforcement notice was varied to give twelve months for the
removal of the unauthorised flue was to allow for satisfactory alternative arrangements
to be agreed.
It is requested that the Planning Inspector’s comments be taken into consideration.
PLANNING POLICIES
Policy D1 of the District Local Plan sets out criteria that are to be considered in assessing new
development. Policies D8, D9 and D11 relate to safeguarding the character, appearance and
continued use of listed buildings. Policies D16 and D17 relate to the preservation and
enhancement of the character and appearance of conservation areas and the design of new
development within those areas. Policies Cl, C2 and C3 also refer to these matters.
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS
Canterbury Conservation Advisory Committee suggests replacement of the exposed section of
flue with a custom-made chimney pot to make the stack the same height as the existing
chimney. It is recommended that permission be granted.
Individual letters of objection to the proposal have been received from seven local residents
together with another letter signed by those seven plus two other residents. The objections
may be summarised, as follows:1.
Size, proportions and appearance inappropriate in a sensitive location within a
conservation area and attached to a listed building.
2.
Adverse effects on the amenities of residents caused by noise from extraction
equipment and by cooking smells, inadequately controlled and spread because of
prevailing winds. Concerns made worse by problems experienced with the existing
system and its operation. References made to the Environmental Protection Act 1990
and the Noise and Statutory Nuisances Act 1993.
3.
Intrusion into views.
4.
Suggestions that use of the kitchen in the main building would be the best solution.
5.
The legality of the resubmission application without changes to any details is
questioned.
One other resident urges acceptance of this application as the best compromise solution so
that the present unapproved monstrosity can be removed without further delay.
TECHNICAL CONSULTATIONS
The Director of Community Services (Environmental Protection) Comments made in relation to the earlier application. It is hoped that the turbo fan to be
installed as part of the system will help to disburse any fumes and odours. Under the
circumstances, it is felt that the chimney at the height now proposed can be accepted from the
Environmental Health viewpoint. Attention is drawn to the extra care and vigilance that will
need to be taken over the cleaning and maintenance of the filtration system because of the
location of the system.
- 71 Canterbury Archaeological Trust Recommends an archaeological watching and recording brief since it is believed that features
and deposits worthy of record may be revealed during the development.
DRAINAGE CONSIDERATIONS
There are no drainage implications.
DISCUSSION
The protracted history of the unauthorised flue, including the refusal notices, the subsequent
enforcement action and the earlier planning application for an alternative solution is set out
above.
The current proposal is a repeat of the proposal subject of the earlier application
CA/02/0186/CAN. However, the submission highlights comments made by the Planning
Inspector in the appeal decision letter which was issued after Members’ decision on the earlier
application.
The applicant’s references to the appeal decision are set out above. In addition I note that the
Planning Inspector, referring to the unauthorised flue, states that ‘there must be a far less
harmful way of satisfactorily extracting smells and fumes from the relatively small kitchen at
ground floor level’.
I remain of the opinion that, subject to amendments to the external design of the chimney, this
is the best option of the various alternatives that have previously been explored at length.
However, I acknowledge Members’ decision to refuse planning permission in relation to the
earlier application. Nonetheless, I feel that it is appropriate to give further consideration to the
proposal in view of the issues raised in the appeal decision. I therefore recommend
accordingly.
BACKGROUND PAPERS:
1. Application Ref: CA/02/1384/CAN
2. Notes of Officer's site inspection, dated 15.11.02
3. Memorandum from the Director of Community Services - Environmental
Protection, dated 18.03.02 on application ref: CA/02/0186/CAN
4. Previous planning applications ref: CA/96/1206/CAN, CA/00/0916/CAN &
CA/02/0186/CAN
5. Letters of representation received from:A W Bargery, 1 Roseacre Close, Canterbury, CT2 7HN, dated 18.11.02
Ms R Lloyd, 36 St Dunstan's Street, Canterbury, CT2 8BZ, dated 24.11.02, 28.11.02 &
04.12.02
Mrs E M Scott, 4 Whitstable Road, Canterbury, CT2 8DH, received 29.11.02
Canterbury Archaeological Trust, 92a Broad Street, Canterbury, Kent, CT1 2LU, dated
19.11.02
Mrs D Couchman, The Briars, 1a Roseacre Close, Canterbury, Kent, CT2 7HN, dated
26.11.02
Mr J S Thornton, The Annexe, 36 St Dunstan's Street, Canterbury, Kent, CT2 8BZ,
dated 27.11.02
B Acton, The Briars, 1b Roseacre Close, Canterbury, CT2 7HN, dated 29.11.02
Canterbury Conservation Advisory Committee, c/o Canterbury Environment Centre, St.
Alphege Lane, Canterbury, CT1 2EB, dated 05.12.02
- 72 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE
06 January 2003
Report Item Number : 14
APPLICATION NUMBER
:
CAM/02/00020/BLE
PROPOSAL
:
LOCATION OF SITE
:
Installation of 15 metres high telecommunications mast
with three antennae, two dishes and equipment cabinets
within a compound with access from Tyler Hill Road.
Land at Amery Court, Chapel Lane, Blean.
APPLICATION TYPE
:
TELECOMMUNICATIONS MAST - 56 DAYS
DATE REGISTERED
:
02 December 2002
EXPIRY DATE
:
27 January 2003
CONTACT OFFICER
:
Nan Barton
CONSERVATION AREA
:
NO
LISTED BUILDING
:
NOT LISTED
WARD
:
BLEAN FOREST
APPLICANT
:
Orange Personal Communications Services
AGENT
:
Harlequin Ltd
SUMMARY:
This is a prior notification of a permitted development telecommunications installation by
Orange Personal Communications Services; due to the type of application it is a requirement
that a decision be issued within 56 days of receipt and the Council can only consider siting and
appearance not the principle of the proposal. The application consists of a 15 metres high
monopole with 3 antennae, 2 dishes, associated equipment and works.
RECOMMENDATION:
Section 101 Delegation.
To raise no objection, subject to revised drawings showing a slimline monopole and
landscaping.
SITE DESCRIPTION
The site is between Tyler Hill Road 150 metres to the south and Amery Court 700 metres to
the north. Access is from Tyler Hill Road via a farm access road and public right of way that
continues northwards to Amery Court and beyond; this path is also the Canterbury to
Whitstable cycle route. The surrounding land is agricultural with trees to the southern boundary
of the proposed installation and along the north-eastern side of the public right of way.
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
The application as submitted showed a column tower with a triangular headframe carrying 6
antennae and four dishes. At the time of writing this report the applicant is proposing to amend
the scheme to a 15 metres high slimline monopole, coloured brown, with back-to-back
antennae and dishes. The overall height of the installation will be 17 metres including the
- 73 antennae. Equipment cabinets will be located within a compound at the base of the mast.
PLANNING HISTORY
None.
PLANNING POLICIES
Policies D1, D66 and R2 of the Local Plan, Policy C38 of the Draft Local Plan and Policies
ENV1 and RS1 of the Kent Structure Plan relating to the visual impact of the proposal, the
need for the installation and the consideration of alternative sites are relevant.
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS
Canterbury Archaeological Trust has expressed interest in the site.
At the time of writing fourteen letters of objection have been received to the submitted scheme
relating to visual impact, noise from the installation, health concerns, proximity to dwellings and
increased use of the access road. The type of installation is to be changed to reduce its impact
but due to the time constraints it will not be possible to carry out reconsultations.
The last date for the receipt of representations is 03 January 2003; any further letters will be
detailed on a supplementary sheet.
DRAINAGE CONSIDERATIONS
None.
DISCUSSION
The installation is to provide improved coverage to Blean, Tyler Hill and the surrounding area.
The applicant has provided justification of the need for the installation and proof of the
necessary consideration of alternative sites in the locality. Indeed applications have been
made by this operator in the past to erect a mast in the Blean area and have been refused.
Most recently an application for a mast at the reservoir site was refused and before that
smaller microcell installations along the main road were resisted.
Although not a matter for consideration the installation is stated to conform to current health
and safety regulations.
The scheme is likely to be amended in order to minimise visual impact; a slimmer mast with
fewer antennae and dishes in a back-to-back format is to be submitted in place of the bulkier
mast and headframe originally proposed. Views of the compound and lower part of the mast
can be reduced further by the provision of additional planting. I am at the time of preparing this
report awaiting revised plans.
The nearest dwellings are approximately 200 metres away on Tyler Hill Road to the south,
views of the mast from these properties are not considered to be unacceptable. It is
approximately 0.5 kilometre to dwellings within Blean village and 0.9 kilometre to those in Tyler
Hill; the school in Blean is about 1 kilometre from the site.
Views of the mast from Tyler Hill Road, 150 metres to the south, will be limited; the installation
will be visible from the public right of way but will not affect its use. The site is close to the
Amery Court Conservation Area but impact on the Conservation Area will be limited.
Taking all factors into account it is considered that the visual impact of the installation, as
amended, is not unacceptable and it has the advantage of not being clearly visible from any
nearby houses. The application therefore accords with the aims of the policies quoted above
and for this reason it is recommended that delegated authority be given to raise no objection
subject to suitable revised plans being received.
- 74 BACKGROUND PAPERS
1. Application Ref: CAM02/00020/BLE
2. Notes of Officer's site inspection, dated 09.12.02
3. Letters of representation received from:Ms M Connolly, Hothe Lodge, Tyler Hill Road, Blean, Nr Canterbury, CT2 9HU, dated
09.12.02 & 13.12.02
Mr G Parish, 108 Whitstable High Street, Whitstable, CT5 1AF, dated 12.12.02
Miss F Roberts, 59 Bennells Avenue, Whitstable, Kent, dated 12.12.02
Canterbury Archaeological Trust, 92a Broad Street, Canterbury, Kent, CT1 2LU, dated
05.12.02
Mr P Connolly, Hothe Lodge, Tyler Hill Road, Blean, CT2 9HU, dated 10.12.02
A Barton, Sparrow Court Farm, London Road, Dunkirk, Faversham, received 17.12.02
C Waterman, The Bounty, Harriets Corner, Pilgrims Lane, Whitstable, CT5 3BL,
received 17.12.02
Mr A E & Mrs C A Hopkins, 36 Chapel Lane, Blean, Canterbury, CT2 9HE, received
19.12.02
Mr R Parkin, 15 St Stephen's Close, Canterbury, CT2 7HY, dated 14.12.02
Karen Donahay, 27B Fielding Street, Faversham, Kent, ME13, dated 14.12.02
The Owner/Occupier, 15 Whitehall Bridge Road, Canterbury, CT2 5BE, dated 14.12.02
Florence Bayliss, 10 Jesuit Close, Canterbury, CT2 7DB, dated 12.12.02
The Owner/Occupier, 1 The Gap, Trueman Close, Canterbury, CT2 9HQ, dated
12.12.02
The Owner/Occupier, 5 Churchwood Close, Rough Common, Canterbury, dated
14.12.02
- 75 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE
06 January 2003
Report Item Number : 15
APPLICATION NUMBER
:
CAM/02/00021/STU
PROPOSAL
:
LOCATION OF SITE
:
Installation of 15 metres high telecommunications mast
with three antennae, two dishes and equipment cabinets
within a compound.
Land to rear of Eureka, Island Road, Sturry.
APPLICATION TYPE
:
TELECOMMUNICATIONS MAST - 56 DAYS
DATE REGISTERED
:
28 November 2002
EXPIRY DATE
:
23 January 2003
CONTACT OFFICER
:
Nan Barton
CONSERVATION AREA
:
NO
LISTED BUILDING
:
NOT LISTED
WARD
:
STURRY SOUTH
APPLICANT
:
Orange
AGENT
:
Harlequin Ltd
SUMMARY:
This is a prior notification of a permitted development telecommunications installation
consisting of a 15 metres high column mast with associated equipment and works.
RECOMMENDATION:
Grant, and no further details required.
SITE DESCRIPTION
The site is approximately 75 metres north of Island Road; it is bounded on three sides by
uncultivated fields that are uneven and marshy in places with scattered trees/bushes. Access
is provided by an existing gateway in the hedge bounding the A28 to the south-east. There is a
dwelling approximately 35 metres to the south of the site fronting Island Road; there is a gap of
about 10 metres between its rear boundary and the application site where there are trees
about 10-12 metres in height. To the south-west is a depot used by Kent County Council; a
mast of a similar height to that proposed is in the south-western corner of the yard. To the
north are gravel pits and undeveloped land, other properties to the north of Island Road are at
least 180 metres from the site and predominantly obscured by trees while dwellings to the
south of Island Road are more than 100 metres from the site. It is approximately 475 metres to
the boundary of the nearest school.
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
A 15 metres high slimline column mast is proposed with back-to-back dishes and antennae;
the overall height of the installation will be 17.3 metres. Equipment cabinets will be located at
ground level within a fenced compound at the base of the mast. No alterations to the access
- 76 are proposed.
PLANNING HISTORY
A planning application in respect of this installation was made on 01 October 2002. This was
inappropriate; the mast itself does not exceed 15 metres in height so the works are permitted
development requiring prior notification and not planning permission. The planning application
was subsequently withdrawn, the paperwork transferred to this prior notification and the Parish
Council and representees advised of the situation.
PLANNING POLICIES
Policies D1, D66 and R2 of the Local Plan, Policy C38 of the Draft Local Plan and Policies
ENV1 and RS1 of the Kent Structure Plan relating to the requirement to minimise the visual
impact of the proposal, the need for the installation and the consideration of alternative sites
are relevant.
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS
Sturry Parish Council objects to the proposal drawing attention to the proximity of the
installation to dwellings, health concerns, lack of information/consultation and the visual impact
of the mast.
Three letters of objection have been received from local residents relating to visual impact,
health concerns and proximity to dwellings, the Westbere Butts Public House and the
Montgomery School.
DRAINAGE CONSIDERATIONS
None.
DISCUSSION
The installation is to provide improved coverage to the south-east of the Sturry area, Westbere
and Hersden.
The applicant has provided justification of the need for the installation and proof of the
necessary consideration of alternative sites in the locality. Although not a matter for
consideration the installation is stated to conform to current health and safety requirements.
The mast, arrangement of the antennae and dishes, together with a position largely screened
from public places by trees has been chosen to minimise visual impact. The height of the
installation has been kept to a minimum.
The applicant has provided all the information needed and consultations have been carried out
in accordance with current requirements.
The nearest dwelling is to the south of the site. Views of the compound and the lower part of
the mast will be screened by trees some 10-12 metres in height; the upper part of the mast will
be visible from the house itself and the garden immediately behind, visibility will decrease as
the rear boundary is approached. Other dwellings are a minimum of 100 metres from the site,
the Westbere Butts PH about 160 metres and the school approximately 475 metres; any
potential views of the mast from these properties are not considered to be unacceptable.
Views of the mast from the A28, 75 metres away at the nearest point, will be limited.
Taking all factors into account it is considered that the visual impact of the proposed
installation is not unacceptable and therefore does accord with the aims of the policies quoted
above and for this reason it is recommended that the siting and design details be agreed.
BACKGROUND PAPERS
1. Application Ref: CAM02/00021/STU
2. Notes of Officer’s site inspection, dated 17.10.02
- 77 3. Letters of representation received from:E & B Woods, Eureka, Staines Hill, Westbere, Canterbury, CT2 OEG, dated 31.10.02
Ms D M McCullagh, Russett Orchard, Staines Hill, Westbere, Canterbury, dated
06.11.02
Sturry Parish Council, 38 High Street, Sturry, Canterbury, CT2 0DB, dated 31.10.02 &
21.11.02
Mr N Munday, 34 Hoades Wood Road, Sturry, CT2 0LZ, dated 08.11.02