-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