1. home and garden

Planning Committee Report
8 April 2015
REPORT SUMMARY
REFERENCE NO - 15/500780/FULL
APPLICATION PROPOSAL
Demolition of existing buildings associated with disused garage workshop and petrol station
and construct 6 new dwellings.
ADDRESS Station Garage Gills Green Hawkhurst Cranbrook Kent TN18 5EP
RECOMMENDATION - GRANT SUBJECT TO SECTION 106 OBLIGATION AND
CONDITIONS (see section 11 of report for full recommendation)
SUMMARY OF REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION
-
The proposal involves the redevelopment of previously developed land and would not
have a harmful impact on the appearance of the High Weald Area of Outstanding
Natural Beauty.
-
The number of residential units and the mix of unit sizes are considered to be
appropriate on this site.
-
The traffic movements generated by the development can be accommodated without
detriment to highway safety.
-
The development would not be materially harmful to the residential amenities of
neighbouring dwellings.
-
Other issues raised by consultees have been assessed and there are not any which
would warrant refusal of the application.
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Referred by The Head of Planning Services
WARD Hawkhurst &
Sandhurst
PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL
Hawkhurst
APPLICANT Gills Green Ltd
DECISION DUE DATE
PUBLICITY EXPIRY DATE
OFFICER SITE VISIT DATE
09/04/15
09/04/15
AGENT Taylor Roberts Ltd
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY (including appeals and relevant history on adjoining
sites):
App No
Proposal
Decision
Date
TW/14/500501/OUT
Outline (Access, Layout and Scale not
reserved) - Demolition of existing buildings
associated with disused garage workshop
and petrol station and construction of 14 No.
new dwellings.
Refused
24/10/14
The application was refused for the following reasons in summary
-
Outside the Limits to Built Development (LBD), not allocated for housing and no
evidence to demonstrate a local need. Contrary to National and local policies to ensure
that the countryside is protected from new development and new residential
development should be focused on defined settlements.
-
The massing and layout of built form would appear suburban. By virtue of its location,
layout and scale it would be detrimental and out of keeping with the AONB.
-
The impact of 14 units without any financial contribution towards the delivery of
Planning Committee Report
8 April 2015
community facilities, youth facilities, library provision and adult social services
-
The development generates a need for affordable housing which was not provided.
TW/13/01428/FUL
Demolition of existing buildings associated with
disused garage workshop and petrol station;
Construction of 8 No. new dwellings
Refused
04/11/13
Appeal
Pending
The application was refused for the following reasons (in summary, although given the specific
nature of a number of the reasons these are set out in more detail than would usually be the
case):
-
Outside the Limits to Built Development (LBD), not allocated for housing and no
evidence to demonstrate a local need. Contrary to National and local policies to ensure
that the countryside is protected from new development and new residential
development should be focused on defined settlements.
-
The units at the front of the site appear cramped and, with the narrow access through to
the rear and the overall massing of the proposed built form, appears suburban in context
detrimental to the character of the street scene and the (AONB).
-
The proposal would only provide large open market housing and would not incorporate
any small or intermediate dwellings, and would not result in an appropriate housing mix.
-
The proposed means of access is not satisfactory as there is insufficient width and
turning space to facilitate a fire engine or refuse collection vehicles.
-
The proposed layout would include the provision of a communal waste storage area in
close proximity to primary amenity areas and harm from undue levels of noise, smells
and disturbance to occupants.
-
Proposed windows at first floor level of unit 5 would result in a perception of overlooking
of Clayton Cottage detrimental to residential amenity of the occupiers.
-
No provision of contribution towards the delivery of library provision in the area.
-
Any development beyond the frontage could provide 10 units or more with improved
variety of mix, without a materially greater visual impact. This would warrant the
provision of affordable housing: the provision of only market housing with no affordable
would not make the best possible use of the housing land opportunities available.
-
The provision of 10 units or more would necessitate a requirement for renewable energy
provisions for at least 10% of overall energy consumption. Any development beyond the
frontage could provide 10 units or more without a materially greater visual impact and in
the absence of any alternative renewable energy provisions, it is considered that the
proposal would not have regard to energy efficiency or wider carbon reduction targets.
TW/07/01150/OUTMJ
Outline: (Access, Layout and Scale Not
Reserved) Fourteen 2, 3 and 4 bedroom
dwellings.
Refused
27/07/07
The application was refused for the following reasons (in summary):
-
Outside the Limits to Built Development (LBD), not allocated for housing and no
evidence to demonstrate a local need. Contrary to National and local policies to ensure
that the countryside is protected from new development and new residential
development should be focused on defined settlements.
-
The location, layout and scale not in keeping with surroundings and detrimental to
character of settlement, AONB and Special Landscape Area.
-
The proposal does not respect the context of the site, trees would be lost or put at risk
Planning Committee Report
8 April 2015
and proposal would affect residential amenity.
-
Insufficient information to assess whether site is contaminated and suitable for
residential purposes.
-
Insufficient information to assess impact from adjacent traffic noise.
-
Site is in unsustainable location and pedestrian routes to Hawkhurst village involve
crossing A229 with associated risk to pedestrians.
-
Not been demonstrated that the site is incapable of accommodating 15 dwellings or
more of an appropriate size, scale and layout: 14 open market dwellings is contrary to
policy which requires a reasonable proportion of affordable housing.
-
Inadequate amenity space provision for units and no bin/cycle provision.
-
Not demonstrated that the proposal would result in appropriate dwelling mix.
MAIN REPORT
1.0
DESCRIPTION OF SITE
1.1
This site is located within Gills Green, on the west side of Cranbrook Road (A229).
The site measures some 0.339 hectares in area. It has a 27 metre frontage to
Cranbrook Road, increasing to 55 metres wide at the rear, and incorporates land to
the rear of 1 and 2 Southview and Station Garage Cottage. The site is about 85
metres deep. Site levels comprise a rise of some 1.5 metres from the east to the
west, and 2 metres from south to north.
1.2
There are a number of former commercial garage buildings with an associated area
of hard-standing on the site. The principle building is a two-storey structure which
fronts the highway behind a narrow forecourt which includes two fuel pumps. This
building is brick built at ground floor level, with timber construction above. The ground
floor consists of a vehicle workshop and a small office and shop area. This building is
connected to Station Garage Cottage on its south side. There are single-storey
elements to the rear; a concrete-framed, pitched-roofed building with a cement
asbestos sheet roof, a brick built workshop/store with timber elements and a
corrugated metal roof, and an open-sided lightweight structure with a shallow monopitched roof. To the north of the main building there is also a single-storey whitepainted brick building with corrugated roof sheets, with a timber lean-to element to its
rear. There is previously undeveloped grassland further to the rear of the site.
1.3
There is a pair of semi-detached properties to the north referred to as (1 and 2)
Southview, and the larger, detached ‘Old Station House’ adjoins the northern
boundary. To the south there is a row of cottages fronting Cranbrook Road. Directly
opposite the access to this site on the east side of Cranbrook Road there is a
detached property known as ‘Gillsleigh’. There is agricultural land to the west, which
is screened by a row of trees and mature hedgerow.
2.0
PROPOSAL
2.1
The proposal involves the removal of all the existing garage and commercial
buildings from the site and the taking up of existing areas of hardstanding. The
demolition of the existing garage building would result in the adjoining Victorian
dwelling (Station Garage Cottage) becoming a semi-detached property attached to
Plot 3 of the proposed layout.
Planning Committee Report
8 April 2015
2.02
The submitted layout is for six two storey dwellings (four detached and a semidetached pair), arranged around a cul-de-sac. Fronting Cranbrook Road is the semidetached pair on the site of the main garage building with Station Garage Cottage
attached. Also on the frontage is a detached unit adjacent to the southern boundary
of Southview. The access road enters the site between these frontage units, leading
to the remaining three detached houses. These units are now more clustered in the
mid-part of the site, not extending across the rear of the site as in the previous
proposal or across the entire width of the site as in the 2013 proposal which is still the
subject of an appeal. Parking is shown in a combination of integral garages and open
spaces.
2.03
There are three three-bedroom and three four-bedroom dwellings ranging in size
from 87 to 149 square metres. The overall density is low at approximately 18
dwellings per hectare. Following the last refusal the applicants met officers to discuss
a way forward. They took note of concerns that the previously developed nature of
the site only extended over the front part occupied by the existing buildings and areas
of hardstanding, and not over the areas to the rear of the site and behind Southview
which has a more undeveloped appearance. In this context agreement was reached
during these discussions as to the extent of the previously developed land (PDL) and
the applicant came up with two initial options for developing the site. One quite rigidly
laid out within the agreed extent of PDL and the alternative with units in a looser
arrangement extending marginally into the undeveloped land. The latter layout was
seen as preferable as it related in a less constrained pattern for the development
making for better living conditions for future occupiers while not impinging on the
undeveloped area to a material degree or impacting on the amenities of neighbours.
2.04
The application is accompanied by a Structural Feasibility Survey which concludes
that the main garage building is likely to require considerable repair to its first floor
timber framed structure before any alternate use could be considered, and all the
buildings are in generally poor condition and unsuitable for conversion due to their
generally lightweight construction and as such, the conversion of any of them to
alternate uses is uneconomic, particularly as there is also the consideration of having
to carry out remediation of on-site contamination resulting from the sites’ previous
use. A Geo-Environmental Investigation also accompanies the application which
confirms that such remediation is necessary particularly as there are remaining
underground fuel storage tanks which would need to be removed before any
redevelopment could proceed.
2.05
A submitted Ecological Assessment indicates that a buildings survey and bat
emergence surveys indicate that no bats were recorded using the buildings and their
potential for being used is low. The potential for the site to accommodate other
protected species is low or negligible. It recommends that all boundary planting is
retained and enhanced and cavity bat boxes are incorporated in the new buildings
and bird boxes are also provided.
2.06
The applicant has submitted a draft Legal Agreement to secure developer
contributions as required by Kent County Council (KCC).
3.0
SUMMARY INFORMATION
Existing
Site Area (Hectares)
0.339
13/01428
14/500501
Current
Proposal
Change
(+/_)
Planning Committee Report
8 April 2015
No. of units
-
8
14
6
+6
No. of bedspaces
-
36
55
27
+27
Building footprint
(sq.m.)
376
478
650
516
+140
Garages footprint
-
159
108
n/a
Parking spaces
-
16
32
14
4.0
Inc. garages
n/a
PLANNING CONSTRAINTS
LBD – Outside
AONB - (statutory protection in order to conserve and enhance the natural beauty of
their landscapes - National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act of 1949 &
Countryside and Rights of Way Act, 2000)
Potentially Contaminated Land
5.0
POLICY AND OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)
National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG)
Development Plan:
Tunbridge Wells Borough Core Strategy 2010
- Core Policy 1 - Delivery of Development
- Core Policy 3 - Transport Infrastructure
- Core Policy 4 - Environment
- Core Policy 5 - Sustainable Design and Construction
- Core Policy 6 - Housing Provision
- Core Policy 7 - Employment Provision
- Core Policy 8 - Retail, Leisure and Community Facilities Provision
- Core Policy 14 - Development in the Villages and Rural Areas
Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan 2006
- Policy LBD1 – Development Outside the Limits to Built Development.
- Policy EN1 – Design and Other Development Control Criteria
- Policy EN25 – The Rural Landscape
- Policy H2 – Small and Intermediate Sized Dwellings
- Policy H6 – Housing Allocations on Previously-Developed Sites
- Policy H8 – Affordable Housing Outside the Limits to Built Development
- Policy TP4 – Access to the Road Network
- Policy TP5 – Vehicle Parking Standards
Supplementary Planning Documents:
- The Borough Landscape Character Area Assessment 2002: Second Edition
Adopted October 2011
- Renewable Energy Supplementary Planning Document (April 2007)
Planning Committee Report
8 April 2015
- Site Allocations Development Plan Document Consultation Draft (March 2013)
- Site Allocations Development Plan Document Submission Draft (February 2015)
Other Documents:
High Weald AONB Management Plan (2014)
6.0
LOCAL REPRESENTATIONS
6.01
A site notice was posted at the site on 26th February 2015.
6.02
A newspaper advertisement was published on 20th February 2015.
6.03
No representations have been received.
7.0
CONSULTATIONS
7.01
Hawkhurst Parish Council
(11/03/15) – No Objection. Good design.
7.02
7.03
7.04
7.05
Environment Agency
(26/02/15) – No objection subject to conditions as follows:
- a remediation strategy to deal with risks associated with contamination to
include a preliminary risk assessment, a site investigation and a verification
plan. Note that the submitted Environmental Investigation dates from 2012
and should be updated;
- a verification report demonstrating the completion of the works set out in the
remediation strategy;
- if any previously unidentified contamination is found then a further
remediation strategy is required;
- piling of foundations is not to be permitted in order to protect groundwater;
- No drainage of surface water directly into the ground. Foul drainage should
be via mains drainage.
- Informatives to cover dealing with site waste, fuel, oil and chemical storage
and the decommissioning of underground tanks, piling and foul drainage.
KCC Highways
(27/03/15) – No objection subject to conditions to cover the provision of visibility
splays, parking and turning. The frontage footway should also be detailed by
condition to ensure that it is sufficiently wide to enable the visibility splays to be
provided. The access and parking areas should have a bound finish and no run-off
drainage should be permitted back onto the highway. Standard informative required
to refer to a Section 278 highway agreement.
KCC Development Contributions Team
(24/02/15) - Advises that financial contributions are required for community learning,
youth facilities, local libraries and adult social services.
Southern Water
(20/02/15) - There is no detail of the means of foul drainage. A formal application to
Southern Water will be required for connection to the foul sewer. There are no public
surface water sewers in the vicinity so an alternate means of such drainage is
required. This should not be to the public foul sewer.
Upper Medway Internal Drainage Board
Planning Committee Report
8 April 2015
7.06
7.07
(05/03/15) - This site is outside the Board’s district.
TWBC Planning Policy Manager
(16/03/15) - The main reasons for refusals of planning permission on this site have
related to the fact that the site is outside of the LBD of Hawkhurst, it is predominantly
a greenfield site and lies within the High Weald AONB.
It is noted that this new application follows a pre-application discussion between
Officers and the applicant, when the Appeal of the previous scheme was discussed
and a discussion was had of an acceptable way forward for the site. Officers from
Planning Policy were not involved in these discussions.
The main policy objection raised previously related to the fact that the site is part
greenfield and outside of the LBD within the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural
Beauty. The main change from the policy point of view is the fact that the new
planning application relates to the PDL element of the site only and therefore no
development is proposed for the greenfield element. Therefore, consideration needs
to be given to this site as a PDL site outside of the LBD of Hawkhurst.
In terms of the Hawkhurst/Gills Green area there are similar sites in the locality and it
could be considered that this site should be considered in the same way as the
allocated site at Hawkhurst Castle, also situated along Cranbrook Road towards Gills
Green, although Hawkhurst Castle is arguably slightly closer to the centre of
Hawkhurst. Therefore, although this site is still considered to be outside of the LBD
of Hawkhurst it is considered to be a PDL site.
Additionally, since the time of the last planning application (October 2014), a number
of changes have been made to the allocation of sites at Hawkhurst, in response to
objections made by the Parish Council and local residents. This has resulted in the
removal of greenfield land at Highgate Hill as an allocation for future housing
development and the allocation of two PDL sites (Land at Woodham Hall and the
Former Springfield Garden Centre). Hawkhurst Parish Council supports the
allocation of these two sites as well as the redevelopment of Station Garage which is
the subject of this planning application.
Therefore in light of the above and taking all factors into account there is no policy
objection raised to this planning application for residential development on the PDL
element of this site only.
7.08
TWBC Environment and Street Scene
(23/03/15) – No objection subject to conditions relating to contaminated land
measures and the submission of an acoustic report. Any asbestos found should be
disposed of only by a licensed contractor.
8.0
APPLICANTS SUPPORTING COMMENTS
8.01
No comments received.
9.0
BACKGROUND PAPERS AND PLANS
Design and Access Statement by Taylor Roberts dated December 2014;
Planning Statement by G L Hearn dated January 2015;
Geo-Environmental Investigation by Ground and Environmental Services Ltd dated
September 2012;
Report on Engineering Feasibility by Crofton Consulting Engineers;
Transport Technical Note by Peter Brett Associates dated 9th January 2015;
Planning Committee Report
8 April 2015
Extended Ecological Assessment by ECOSA dated May 2013;
Tree Condition Survey by Ruskins revised April 2013
Drawing numbers
14/01/17 Rev. A; Plots 2 and 3 Plans and Elevations
14/01/18 Rev. A; Plot 4 Plans and Elevations
14/01/19 Rev. A; Plot 5 Plans and Elevations
14/01/21 Rev. C; Proposed Coloured Site Plan
13185 S1; Site Survey
All received on 28th January 2015
14/01/15 Rev. D; Proposed Site Plan
14/01/16 Rev. A; Plot 1 Plans and Elevations
14/01/20 Rev. B; Plot 6 Plans and Elevations
14/01/23 Rev. A; Site Location Plan
13185 S2; Survey Drawing Elevations
Received on 12th February 2015
10.0
APPRAISAL
Background
10.01 The previous application at this site, TW/14/500501, located 14 dwellings across the
entire site, and the application before that, TW/13/01428 sited eight dwellings across
the frontage and in a row across the centre of the site. This current application sites
six dwellings in the front part of the site with the rear undeveloped parts given over to
private gardens. The key issues in the determination of this application remain- Whether the principle of development is acceptable;
- Its impact on visual amenity and the AONB;
- Density and housing mix;
- Impact on neighbouring residential amenity;
- Access and car parking issues;
- Contamination;
- Developer contributions;
- Ecology; and;
- Other matters.
Principle of Development
10.02 This site lies outside of any of the LBD as defined in the Local Plan including that
drawn around the Economic Development Area at the former Hawkhurst Station to
the north. The principle of new housing would not normally be considered at this
location which is considered unsustainably located and removed from the services
and facilities on offer in Hawkhurst or Cranbrook.
10.03 The application site was promoted by the owners for allocation for housing in the
emerging Site Allocations Development Plan Document (SA DPD - Site No. 360 Ash
Garage). The current situation in respect to the allocation of sites is set out above in
the Planning Strategy Manager’s comments at paragraph 7.07. As it stands this site
remains unallocated and therefore development is contrary to Core Policy 1, but it is
acknowledged that it is in part previously developed land and similar to other sites
that are allocated
10.04 When considering the earlier applications the Council has accepted submitted
Marketing and Availability Reports that indicate that the site has been advertised from
December 2011 without success. The Hawkhurst Station Business Park is located
within relatively close proximity to the north of the site. As such, there is not
Planning Committee Report
8 April 2015
considered to be any strong economic reasons why the loss of the existing
commercial provision would be considered inappropriate, in accordance with Core
Policies 7 and 14(4) of the Core Strategy.
10.05 Paragraph 111 of the NPPF states that LPA’s “should encourage the effective use of
land by re-using land that has been previously developed (brownfield land), provided
that it is not of high environmental value”. The applicant has previously submitted a
sworn affidavit which states that the various outbuildings to the rear of the site were
previously used as part of the garage business. These outbuildings are scattered to
the rear of the site and so the boundary of the previously developed part of the site
may not be as clearly defined as that to the front of the site, particularly in terms of
the land to the rear of Southview. However, since the last refusal, the applicant has,
in discussion with Officers, agreed what may be taken as a fair interpretation of the
extent of the previously developed land. The proposed layout takes up this area plus
a part of the margin which has allowed a suitable layout for the three plots at the rear.
The table in section 3 above compares the existing and proposed building footprint.
10.06 It is now considered that the resulting scale of the development and its extent in
terms of coverage now compares more favourably than the previous refused
scheme, and relates more closely to the interpretation of the extent of PDL, and is
thus a more acceptable proposal for this site notwithstanding its location outside of
any defined LBD.
Visual Impact
10.07 The site is within the AONB. The NPPF sets out that great weight should be given to
conserving landscape and scenic beauty in the AONBs and confirms they have the
highest status of protection in relation to landscape and scenic beauty. Major
development will normally be refused except in exceptional circumstances and where
it can be demonstrated that it is in the public interest.
10.08 The NPPG states whether a proposal in the AONB “should be treated as a major
development, to which the policy in paragraph 116 of the Framework applies, will be
a matter for the relevant decision taker, taking into account the proposal in question
and the local context”. Given that Gills Green is not a settlement with defined LBD
and comprises a relatively small number of residences, it is considered appropriate
that this proposal be considered a major development in the AONB. It is important to
clarify that Para 116 does not require that all the criteria are unequivocally satisfied,
but rather that all are assessed as part of a proposal.
Need for the development and the impact of permitting it or refusing it on the local
economy
10.09 In terms of need, the Council considers that it has a suitable 5 year housing land
supply and that there are no additional sites required in addition to those allocated or
proposed to be allocated. However it is clear that this site should be looked at as a
PDL opportunity.
10.10 It is not considered that there are strong economic reasons for resisting the loss of
the existing facility given that it has been unsuccessfully marketed. There may be a
short-term economic benefit through permitting the scheme through construction
employment, although that would be largely dependant on the use of local labour and
suppliers.
Cost of, and scope for, developing elsewhere outside the designated area, or
meeting the need for it in some other way
Planning Committee Report
8 April 2015
10.11 The comments of the TWBC Planning Policy Manager detail recent changes to sites
now allocated for development, but that although these are seen as more appropriate
sites for the provision of housing, this site is now appropriately considered as a PDL
site, appropriate for limited development subject to all other planning considerations.
Effect on environment, the landscape and recreational opportunities, and extent to
which that could be moderated
10.12 Although a previously submitted landscape appraisal identifies this site as well
contained and sets out that it may not have any significant impact upon views from
some surrounding viewpoints, it is considered that, as it incorporates a large frontage
it would be a highly visible element of the street scene at Gills Green. There is
currently a substantial gap in the frontage ensuring a relatively uninterrupted view
through the site to the tree line on the rear boundary. Also the existing building on the
north side of the frontage, between the main garage building and Southview, is set
well back increasing this sense of space and comparative openness.
10.13 As in the previous application this proposal sites three dwellings on the road frontage
with access between, wide enough to allow vehicles to pass, maintaining a more
open feel across the frontage allowing some views into the rear of the site. The
reduced scale of development behind the frontage, together with its courtyard style of
layout and the design style of the dwellings nonetheless makes for an intensive style
of development but one that relates better to the layout of the existing buildings and
hard surfaced (PDL) areas of the site as it exists. By avoiding built development on
the rear, greenfield part of the site, this makes for a more acceptable form of
development in the AONB. This change is considered to represent a significant
advance when compared to the previous refusal.
10.14 This proposal, notwithstanding its intensive nature and its position outside of any
LBD, is considered to amount to a reasonable redevelopment of a site considered to
constitute PDL. It does not have a materially detrimental impact on the environment
and, as set out below is also considered acceptable in terms of residential amenity,
contamination and biodiversity. In policy terms the development can be considered to
constitute an exception to the general presumption against development in such a
location.
Density and Housing Mix
10.15 As mentioned previously it is considered that the overall density as proposed, at
about 18 dwellings per hectare, is low. The main reason for this is that the
development is being confined to that part of the site considered as PDL, and not to
the entire site which includes a substantial proportion of land considered to be
greenfield and not previously developed. In order to achieve a reasonable
development in terms of its impact and appearance it is considered that this lower
density is acceptable in this instance.
10.16 Paragraph 50 of the NPPF states LPAs should plan for a mix of housing based on
current and future demographic trends, market trends and the needs of different
groups in the community. Notwithstanding the fact that this site is not allocated Core
Policy 6 (Housing Provision) requires that at least 65% of new housing will be
delivered on previously developed land during the plan period. It is considered that a
reasonable mix of development in terms of dwelling sizes, ranging from 87 – 149
square metres floorspace in both three and four bedroom forms. Having regard to the
circumstances of this site and the fact that the applicant will also be aware of market
Planning Committee Report
8 April 2015
trends, despite the fact that the proposal is not in conformity with Local Plan Policy
H2, it is considered that the proposal is acceptable.
Impact on Residential Amenity
10.17 There has been a history of objections to previous proposals, mostly in terms of
overlooking and loss of privacy. No such representations have been made in respect
to this application and there are no concerns raised by officers. Loss of privacy to
adjoining dwellings is kept to a minimum with some overlooking of the rear garden of
Station Garage Cottage from first floor bedrooms but there is now no overlooking of
Clayton Cottage, which lies further to the south and which shares a common rear
garden boundary with the site. Conditions are suggested in the recommendation
which restrict new windows in certain elevation to the houses on plots 1, 4 and 6.
Access and Car Parking
10.18 KCC Highways are raising any objection to the scheme as traffic generation from the
proposal is considered acceptable, particularly in view of the existing use of the site.
The widened access has addressed the highways reason for which 13/01428 was
refused. Parking provision is considered acceptable with two spaces provided per
dwelling plus provision being made for visitors. Conditions are suggested to secure
detailing as suggested by the Highways officer
Contamination
10.19 The previous use of the site is likely to have left ground contamination. This
application has been accompanied by the previously submitted Geo-Environmental
Investigation dated September 2012, which details the desk top study, initial
walkover survey, site investigation, sampling and analysis. This makes a number of
recommendations, including the removal of buildings, concrete and made ground by
a licensed waste carrier, the placement of a gas membrane under each property with
passive gas control and employment of specialist contractors to investigate, remove
and dispose of potential asbestos on the site prior to demolition.
10.20 This approach has previously been considered to be satisfactory, subject to the
imposition of conditions to any approval relating to the submission and
implementation of a remediation scheme, reporting of unexpected contamination and
long-term monitoring and maintenance. As such, the proposal is considered to be
satisfactory in this regard, in accordance with Core Policy 5(4) of the Core Strategy.
Developer Contributions
10.21 Core Policy 8(6) of the Core Strategy requires all new development that generates an
additional need for cultural and community facilities will provide for an adequate
amount of such facilities in easily accessible locations. This is considered to be in
conformity with the NPPF, which says at paragraph 70 that decisions should plan
positively for the provision of facilities and other local services.
10.22 KCC has recommended that contributions would be required towards community
learning facilities, youth facilities, local library provision and adult social services. The
applicant has agreed such provision and negotiations are underway to secure such
contributions as part of the Section 106 Agreement. Progress on this matter can be
provided at Committee, and if still unresolved the recommendation can reflect this
matter.
10.23 It is noted that there was a change to the National Planning Policy Guidance (NPPG)
in late November 2014 which sets out that LPAs should not be seeking “tariff style”
contributions for developments of 10 residential units and less and where the gross
floor area is less than 1,000 sq. m. However, there has not been a change to the
Planning Committee Report
8 April 2015
national policy (i.e. the NPPF) to reflect this. In officers' opinion there is still some
uncertainty in this matter stemming from conflicting appeal decisions and legal
advice. Accordingly, until there is greater certainty on this matter the Council will
continue to seek obligations which meet the tests in the NPPF and are required to
mitigate the impact of a proposal. In the event that it is subsequently clarified that this
approach is not in accordance with the wider policy context then this could be
addressed through variation of the Section 106 Agreement.
Ecology
10.24 A previously submitted Extended Ecological Assessment and Phase 2 Bat Survey
has been submitted to accompany this application. It is considered that the indication
given in that document that the likelihood of bats is low should be accepted.
However, it is considered that this development would provide opportunities for the
integration of ecological enhancements, such as bat and/or bird boxes and so an
appropriate condition could be imposed to any approval, in accordance with Core
Policy 4 of the Core Strategy.
Other Matters
10.25 Having regard to the comments made by the Environment Agency (in respect to
contamination), Southern Water (in respect to foul and storm water drainage) and the
Environment Services Manager (in respect to contamination and traffic noise), it is
considered that such details can be required by condition or notified formally by
Informatives.
10.26 As previously the applicant has referred to planning history at the Former Throws
Garage, Rye Road, and Santers Court, Gills Green, close to the current site. The
context of these grants of planning permissions are considered to be materially
different to the context for this current application:
-
The policy context at the time did not include the Core Strategy or indeed the
Local Plan but did refer to the Kent Structure Plan, and importantly the NPPF
and its particular requirements of paragraph 116 related to major
development within the AONB, was not in place;
- The degree of harm to the AONB caused by the existing buildings and size
and intrusiveness of the site layout (in relation to open countryside) was
considerably greater:
- The Former Four Throws Garage contained a particularly unattractive
forecourt, canopy and building and was in a very prominent position;
- Santers Court was almost entirely covered in hardstanding, contained a
number of buildings and other structures and extended significantly into the
open countryside on the eastern side of the A229.
10.27 It is considered that the planning history at these two sites does not have a particular
bearing on the consideration of this current proposal.
10.28 In conclusion, while this site is in a relatively unsustainable location where the
principle of new housing would not normally be considered, it is agreed that part of
the site is previously developed land and is not considered to have a high
environmental value. Therefore some replacement housing can be supported, and,
as a way forward Officers have agreed a reasonable extent of the previously
developed part of the site. The extent of the housing now proposed extends
marginally beyond these agreed limits but is considered to be acceptable in order for
the developer to be able to site a reasonable scale of development on the site, laid
out in an acceptable fashion, and providing a reasonable amount of residential
amenity for its future occupiers, while protecting the amenity of existing adjoining
Planning Committee Report
8 April 2015
residents. It is not significantly detrimental to the appearance of the AONB and
provides sufficient on-site car parking. The development as laid out does not impinge
heavily into the currently undeveloped part of the site, or that which is considered to
be more greenfield in character, unlike the previous proposal which developed the
whole site with a cul-de-sac development very urban in nature or the previous
proposal to that which had an intensive development taking up the width of the site
as well as a substantial depth.
10.29 It is considered that this proposal is of a scale and layout that can now be supported.
11.0
RECOMMENDATION – GRANT Subject to:
A. THE COMPLETION OF A LEGAL AGREEMENT UNDER SECTION 106 OF THE
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 AS AMENDED BY THE PLANNING
AND COMPENSATION ACT 1991, IN A FORM TO BE AGREED BY THE LEGAL
SERVICES MANAGER BY 8th June 2015 (UNLESS A LATER DATE BE AGREED
BY THE HEAD OF PLANNING SERVICES) TO SECURE THE FOLLOWING:
(i)
Securing developer contributions upon the commencement of the
development towards:
- Community learning facilities - £45.48;
- Youth facilities - £238.47;
- Local library provision - £1633.98;
- Adult social services provision - £441.18
(ii)
Payment of the Council’s reasonable legal fees for the negotiation and
satisfactory completion of the legal agreement.
And subject to the following conditions:
(1) The works hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from
the date of this permission.
Reason: In pursuance of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as
amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
(2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the
following approved plans and documents:
Design and Access Statement by Taylor Roberts dated December 2014;
Planning Statement by G L Hearn dated January 2015;
Geo-Environmental Investigation by Ground and Environmental Services Ltd dated
September 2012;
Report on Engineering Feasibility by Crofton Consulting Engineers;
Transport Technical Note by Peter Brett Associates dated 9th January 2015;
Extended Ecological Assessment by ECOSA dated May 2013;
Tree Condition Survey by Ruskins revised April 2013
Drawing numbers
14/01/17 Rev. A; Plots 2 and 3 Plans and Elevations
14/01/18 Rev. A; Plot 4 Plans and Elevations
14/01/19 Rev. A; Plot 5 Plans and Elevations
14/01/21 Rev. C; Proposed Coloured Site Plan
All received on 28th January 2015
14/01/15 Rev. D; Proposed Site Plan
Planning Committee Report
8 April 2015
14/01/16 Rev. A; Plot 1 Plans and Elevations
14/01/20 Rev. B; Plot 6 Plans and Elevations
14/01/23 Rev. A; Site Location Plan
Received on 12th February 2015
Reason: To clarify which plans and documents are approved.
(3) Unless otherwise agreed by the Local Planning Authority, development other than
that required to be carried out as part of an approved scheme of remediation must
not commence until conditions requiring investigation of site contamination and
details of a remediation scheme have been complied with. If unexpected
contamination is found after development has begun, development must be halted on
that part of the site affected by the unexpected contamination to the extent specified
by the Local Planning Authority in writing until the remediation scheme condition has
been complied with in relation to that contamination.
Reason: To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land
and neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters,
property and ecological systems, and to ensure that the development can be carried
out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other offsite
receptors.
(4) An investigation and risk assessment, in addition to any assessment provided with
the planning application, must be completed in accordance with a scheme to assess
the nature and extent of any contamination on the site, whether or not it originates on
the site. The contents of the scheme are subject to the approval in writing of the
Local Planning Authority. The investigation and risk assessment must be undertaken
by competent persons and a written report of the findings must be produced. The
written report is subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority. The
report of the findings must include:
(i) a survey of the extent, scale and nature of contamination;
(ii) an assessment of the potential risks to:
 human health
 property (existing or proposed) including buildings, crops,
 livestock, pets, woodland and service lines and pipes.
 adjoining land,
 groundwaters and surface waters,
 ecological systems,
 archaeological sites and ancient monuments;
(iii) an appraisal of remedial options, and proposal of the preferred option(s).
This must be conducted in accordance with DEFRA and the Environment Agency's
'Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination, CLR 11'.
Reason: To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land
and neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters,
property and ecological systems, and to ensure that the development can be carried
out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other offsite
receptors.
(5) A detailed remediation scheme to bring the site to a condition suitable for the
intended use by removing unacceptable risks to human health, buildings and other
property and the natural and historical environment must be prepared, and is subject
to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority. The scheme must include
all works to be undertaken, proposed remediation objectives and remediation criteria,
Planning Committee Report
8 April 2015
timetable of works and site management procedures. The scheme must ensure that
the site will not qualify as contaminated land under Part 2A of the Environmental
Protection Act 1990 in relation to the intended use of the land after remediation.
Reason: To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land
and neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters,
property and ecological systems, and to ensure that the development can be carried
out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other offsite
receptors
(6) The approved remediation scheme must be carried out in accordance with its terms
prior to the commencement of any development (other than development required to
enable the remediation process to be implemented) unless otherwise agreed in
writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Local Planning Authority must be given
two weeks written notification of commencement of the remediation scheme works.
Following completion of the measures identified in the approved remediation
scheme, a verification report (referred to in PPS23 as a validation report) that
demonstrates the effectiveness of the remediation carried out must be produced, and
is subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land
and neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters,
property and ecological systems, and to ensure that the development can be carried
out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other offsite
receptors.
(7) In the event that contamination is found at any time when carrying out the approved
development that was not previously identified it must be reported in writing
immediately to the Local Planning Authority. An investigation and risk assessment
must be undertaken in accordance with the requirements of the associated condition,
and where remediation is necessary a remediation scheme must be prepared in
accordance with the requirements of the associated condition, which is subject to the
approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority.
Following completion of the measures identified in the approved remediation scheme
a verification report must be prepared, which is subject to the approval in writing of
the Local Planning Authority in accordance with the associated condition.
Reason: To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land
and neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters,
property and ecological systems, and to ensure that the development can be carried
out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other offsite
receptors.
(8) Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, a scheme to
demonstrate that the internal noise levels within the residential units will conform to
the levels given in Table 4 design range for rooms as specified times identified by BS
8233 2014, Guidance for Sound Insulation and Noise Reduction for Buildings - Code
of Practice, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority. The work specified in the approved scheme shall then be carried out in
accordance with the approved details prior to the first occupation of the dwellings and
be retained thereafter.
Within 3 months of completion of the development, an Acoustic Compliance Report
demonstrating compliance (or otherwise) with agreed noise levels for traffic noise
shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority. In the event that the noise levels
do not accord to the agreed levels, proposals for rectifying this, including an
Planning Committee Report
8 April 2015
implementation program shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for
approval, and a further Acoustic compliance report demonstrating compliance shall
be submitted.
Reason: In order to protect the occupiers of the dwellings from undue disturbance by
noise.
(9) Prior to the commencement of the development samples of bricks, tiles and cladding
materials be used externally shall be provided for inspection at the site, and these
materials will need to be the subject of approval in writing by the Local Planning
Authority and the development shall be carried out using the approved external
materials.
Reason: In the interests of visual amenity.
(10) The area shown on the approved drawing as vehicle parking space, garages and
turning shall be provided, surfaced and drained in accordance with details submitted
to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before the use is
commenced or the premises occupied, and shall be retained for the use of the
occupiers of, and visitors to, the development, and no permanent development,
whether or not permitted by the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted
Development) Order 1995 or the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted
Development) (Amendment) (No 2) (England) Order 2008 (or any Order revoking
and re-enacting that Order), shall be carried out on that area of land so shown or in
such a position as to preclude vehicular access to this reserved parking space.
Reason: Development without provision of adequate accommodation for the parking
of vehicles is likely to lead to parking inconvenient to other road users and be
detrimental to amenity.
(11) No development shall take place until details of the proposed hard and soft
landscaping, and any boundary treatments, have been submitted to and approved in
writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall include a planting
specification, a programme of implementation and a 5 year management plan.
Reason: To ensure a satisfactory setting and external appearance to the
development.
(12) The approved details of landscaping and boundary treatments shall be carried out in
the first planting and seeding season following occupation of the buildings or the
completion of the development, (whichever is the earlier) or in accordance with a
programme agreed with the Local Planning Authority. All hard and soft landscape
works shall be carried out in accordance with the appropriate British Standards or
other recognised Codes of Good Practice. All new planting shall be adequately
staked and tied and shall be maintained for a period of 5 years. Any trees or plants
which, within this period, are removed, die or become, in the opinion of the Local
Planning Authority, seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next
planting season with others of the same species, size and number as previously
approved, unless the Local Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation.
Reason: Pursuant to Section 197 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and to
protect and enhance the appearance and character of the site and locality.
(13) Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved a scheme of
Biodiversity enhancement shall be submitted to and be approved in writing by the
Planning Committee Report
8 April 2015
local planning authority and the development shall be carried out in accordance with
the approved details and shall thereafter be retained unless agreed otherwise in
writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: In the interests of nature conservation.
(14) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted
Development) (Amendment) (No 2) (England) Order 2008 (or any Order revoking
and re-enacting that Order), no windows, or similar openings shall be Inserted in the
first floor of the rear (north) elevation of the house on Plot 1, the rear (south)
elevation of the house on Plot 4 or the side (east) elevation of the house on Plot 6
other than as hereby approved.
Reason: In the interests of the amenity of occupants of the adjoining property.
(15) Piling or any other foundation designs using penetrative methods shall not be
permitted other than with the written consent of the Local Planning Authority, which
may be given for those parts of the site where it has been demonstrated that there is
no resultant unacceptable risk to groundwater. The development shall be carried out
in accordance with any approved details.
Reason: To protect groundwater and to comply with the requirements of the NPPF.
(16) No infiltration of surface water drainage into the ground at the site shall be permitted
other than with the written consent of the Local Planning Authority, which may be
given for those parts of the site where it has been demonstrated that there is no
resultant unacceptable risk to controlled waters. The development shall be carried
out in accordance with any approved details.
Reason: To protect controlled waters and to comply with the requirements of the
NPPF.
(17) As an initial operation on site, before any other work commences, the area of land
within the vision splays shown on the approved plan shall be reduced in level as
necessary and cleared of any obstruction exceeding a height of 0.6 metres above the
level of the nearest part of the carriageway and be so retained in accordance with the
approved plan
Reason: In the interests of highway safety.
B REFUSE PERMISSION FOR THE REASON SET OUT BELOW IF THE
AGREEMENT IS NOT COMPLETED BY 8TH JUNE 2015 (OR SUCH EXTENDED
TIME AGREED BY THE HEAD OF PLANNING SERVICES)
(1) In the absence of a completed legal agreement, the proposal would not provide
developer contributions towards community learning, youth services, local library
provision and adult social services as requested by Kent County Council, and would
therefore conflict with Core Policy 8 of the Tunbridge Wells Borough Core Strategy
2010, the National Planning Policy Framework and the National Planning Practice
Guidance,
Planning Committee Report
8 April 2015
INFORMATIVES
1. A formal application for connection to the public sewerage system is required in order
to service this development. Please contact Southern Water, Sparrowgrove House,
Sparrowgrove, Otterbourne, Hampshire, SO21 2SW (Tel: 0330 303 0119) or
www.southernwater.co.uk
2. No surface water sewer is available to serve this development. Alternative means of
draining are required which must not involve the public foul sewer. The applicant is
advised to discuss this matter with contact Southern Water, Sparrowgrove House,
Sparrowgrove, Otterbourne, Hampshire, SO21 2SW (Tel: 0330 303 0119) or
www.southernwater.co.uk
3. Your attention is drawn to the Council’s Environmental Code of Development
Practice for Construction Sites, the terms of which should be met in carrying out the
development.
4. The CLAIRE Definition of Waste: Development Industry Code of Practice (version 2)
provides operators with a framework for determining whether or not excavated
material arising from site during remediation and/or land development works are
waste or have ceased to be waste. Contaminated soil that is, or must be disposed of,
is waste. Therefore, its handling, transport, treatment and disposal is subject to waste
management legislation, which includes:
• Duty of Care Regulations 1991
• Hazardous Waste (England and Wales) Regulations 2005
• Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010
• The Waste (England and Wales) Regulations 2011
5. Any facilities for the storage of oils, fuels or chemicals shall be provided with
secondary containment that is impermeable to both the oil, fuel or chemical and
water, for example a bund, details of which shall be submitted to the local planning
authority for approval. The minimum volume of the secondary containment should be
at least equivalent to the capacity of the tank plus 10%. If there is more than one tank
in the secondary containment the capacity of the containment should be at least the
capacity of the largest tank plus 10% or 25% of the total tank capacity, whichever is
greatest. All fill points, vents, gauges and sight gauge must be located within the
secondary containment.
The secondary containment shall have no opening used to drain the system.
Associated above ground pipework should be protected from accidental damage.
Below ground pipework should have no mechanical joints, except at inspection
hatches and either leak detection equipment installed or regular leak checks. All fill
points and tank vent pipe outlets should be detailed to discharge downwards into the
bund.
6. During the decommissioning of storage facilities, product could be lost to ground as a
result of either deliberate or accidental release during dismantling and removal of
tanks and pipework. In addition, a risk could arise off-site if contaminated tanks and
pipework are not disposed of in an appropriate manner.
It would be preferable to remove all redundant tanks and pipework. If tanks are left
in-situ, a risk could arise if any residual product remains in the tanks. As the integrity
of the equipment would no longer be maintained or monitored, the potential risk
posed might be greater than during the operational lifetime of the site.
Planning Committee Report
8 April 2015
Any residual product should be removed from the tanks. This process is known as
bottoming. Care must be taken to ensure that no product is lost to ground. Following
bottoming, the tanks need to be made safe by the removal of any explosive vapours.
One method involves filling the tanks with inert gases or water.
All tanks must be bottomed and made safe before removal from the ground. Similar
methods should be employed prior to removal of pipework.
As water used for this purpose will become contaminated with the residual product, a
risk of contamination of controlled waters could arise if this water is not disposed of
in a manner appropriate to the degree of hydrocarbon contamination. Typically this
would involve consignment to a suitable waste treatment facility or, possibly,
discharge to foul sewer.
It is normal good practice to remove tanks, pipework and dispensers. If tanks are be
left in-situ, they must be made safe. Following bottoming and making safe, tanks
should be filled with either:
• a sand and cement slurry;
• hydrophobic foam; or
• foamed concrete.
7. All precautions must be taken to avoid discharges and spills to the ground both
during and after construction. For advice on pollution prevention, the applicant should
refer to our guidance “PPG1 – General guide to prevention of pollution”, which is
available on our website at
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/29012
4/LIT_1404_8bdf51.pdf.
8. With regard to any proposals for piling through made ground, the applicant is referred
to the Environment Agency document “Piling and Penetrative Ground Improvement
Methods on Land Affected by Contamination: Guidance on Pollution Prevention”.
NGWCL Centre Project NC/99/73.
9. The planning application indicates that the proposals for foul drainage are unknown.
In the first instance such drainage should be to mains drainage. If no foul sewer is
available the applicant is advised to refer to the Environment Agency Pollution
Prevention Guidelines (PPG) 4: “Treatment and Disposal of Sewerage where no
Foul Sewer is Available” which can be found on the Environment Agency website at:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/sewage-treatment-and-disposal-wherethere-is-no-foul-sewer-ppg4
10. The applicant is informed that a Section 278 Highway Agreement is required for the
creation of the access and footways and that detailed design work should be
undertaken by consultants on the KCC approved list. For further information please
contact the Agreement Engineer [email protected]
Case Officer: Tim Archer
NB
For full details of all papers submitted with this application please refer to the relevant
Public Access pages on the council’s website.
The conditions set out in the report may be subject to such reasonable change as is
necessary to ensure accuracy and enforceability.
Planning Committee Report
8 April 2015