Report for Item 6 - Swale Borough Council

SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL 

PLANNING SERVICES 

Planning Items to be submitted to the Planning Committee 

22 JULY 2010 

Standard Index to Contents 

DEFERRED ITEMS Items shown in previous Minutes as being deferred from that 

meeting may be considered at this meeting 

PART 1 

PART 2 

PART 3 

PART 4 

PART 5 

PART 6 

Reports to be considered in public session not included 

elsewhere on this Agenda 

Applications for which permission is recommended 

Applications for which refusal is recommended 

Swale Borough Council’s own development; observation on 

County Council’s development; observations on development in 

other districts or by Statutory Undertakers and by Government 

Departments; and recommendations to the County Council on 

‘County Matter’ applications. 

Decisions by County Council and the Secretary of State on 

appeal, reported for information 

Reports containing “Exempt Information” during the consideration 

of which it is anticipated that the press and public will be 

excluded 

ABBREVIATIONS: 

commonly used in this Agenda 

CDA Crime and Disorder Act 1998 

GPDO 

The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 

1995 

HRA Human Rights Act 1998 

SBLP Swale Borough Local Plan 2008

INDEX OF ITEMS FOR PLANNING COMMITTEE – 22 JULY 2010 

• Minutes of last Planning Committee Meeting 

• Deferred Items 

• Minutes of any Working Party Meetings 

Deferred Items: 

NONE 

Part 1’s 

NONE 

Part 2’s: 

2.1 SITTINGBOURNE SW/10/0701 Land opposite Stumble Inn, 

Pg 1 – 10 

St Paul’s Street 

2.2 FAVERSHAM SW/10/0481 Former Garages Site at 

Pg 11 – 16 

Ennerdale 

2.3 NEWINGTON SW/10/0703 8 School Lane 

Pg 17 – 22 

2.4 BORDEN SW/10/0459 1 Lower Bannister Cottages, 

Pg 23 – 27 

Bannister Hill 

2.5 SITTINGBOURNE SW/10/0438 132 Borden Lane 

Pg 28 – 31 

2.6 NEWINGTON SW/10/0631 Land at Wardwell, 

Pg 32 – 49 

High Oak Hill 

2.7 FAVERSHAM SW/10/0502 1 Mountfield 

Pg 50 – 53 

2.8 SHEERNESS SW/10/0420 Woody’s Nightclub, Wood Street 

Pg 54 – 68 

2.9 DUNKIRK SW/10/0599 The Brotherhood Woodyard, 

Pg 69 – 82 

Gatehill 

Part 3’s: 

3.1 HERNHILL SW/10/0215 The Manor House, Church Hill 

Pg 1 – 3 

Part 4’s 

NONE

Part 5’s: 

5.1 HERNHILL Case 23174 Site at Land North West 

Pg 1 – 18 

of Thanet Way (A299) and 

South of High Street Road 

5.2 UPCHURCH SW/10/0085 2 Boxted Farm Barns 

Pg 19– 20 

5.3 NEWINGTON SW/09/1061 Hillview, 104 High Street 

Pg 21– 24 

5.4 BREDGAR SW/06/1464 Land adjacent Davids House 

Pg 25– 26 

5.5 NORTON SW/09/0687 Land adjacent Rushetts Lane 

Pg 27– 28 

5.6 THROWLEY FORSTAL Case 23231 Land and Buildings at Pool 

Pg 29 – 36 

House, rear of Mill House

PLANNING COMMITTEE – 22 JULY 2010 PART 2 

Report of the Head of Development Services 

PART 2 

Applications for which PERMISSION is recommended 

2.1 SW/10/0701 (Case 07688) SITTINGBOURNE 

Location: 

Proposal: 

Land opposite Stumble Inn, St Paul’s Street, Sittingbourne, 

Kent, ME10 2LG 

New detached 6 bedroom dwelling, with 3 associated parking 

spaces. 1.8m high brick wall to north boundary to prevent any 

vehicular access from St Pauls Street. Associated gardens, 

rainwater collection system and cycle store 

Applicant/Agent: Mr Oliver Woodmansee, c/o Mr Andreas Peyeri, 3A St Alphege 

Lane, Canterbury, Kent, CT1 2EB 

Application Valid: 7 June 2010 and additional information received 21 June 2010 

SUBJECT TO: 

Any representations received from local residents (closing date 

for responses 8 th July), and comments from the Council’s 

Technical Services Team (consultation expires 8 th July 2010). 

8 WEEK TARGET: 2 August 2010 

Conditions 

(1) The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later 

than the expiration of three years beginning with the date on which the 

permission is granted. 

Grounds: In pursuance of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning 

Act 1990 as amended by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. 

(2) No development shall take place until details have been submitted to the 

District Planning Authority and approved in writing, which set out what 

measures have been taken to ensure that the development incorporates 

sustainable construction techniques such as water conservation and 

recycling, renewable energy production including the inclusion of solar 

thermal or solar photo voltaic installations, and energy efficiency. Upon 

approval, the details shall be incorporated into the development as approved. 

Continued . . . 

1

2.1 (Contd) PART 2 

Grounds: In the interest of promoting energy efficiency and sustainable 

development, and in pursuance of policies E1, U3 and E21 of the Swale 

Borough Local Plan 2008. 

(3) Details in the form of cross-sectional drawings through the site, of the existing 

and proposed site levels shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the 

District Planning Authority before work commences and the development shall 

be completed strictly in accordance with the approved levels. 

Grounds: In order to secure a satisfactory form of development having 

regard to the height relationship with adjacent dwelling in accordance with 

Policy E1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008. 

(4) Upon completion, no further development, whether permitted by Classes A, B, 

C, D or E of Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Town and Country Planning (General 

Permitted Development) Order 1995 (as amended) (or any order revoking and 

re-enacting that Order) or not, shall be carried out without the prior permission 

in writing of the District Planning Authority. 

Grounds: In the interests of the amenities of the area and in pursuance of 

policies E1 and E24 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008. 

(5) No construction work in connection with the development shall take place on 

any Sunday or Bank Holiday, nor on any other day except between the 

following times:- 

Monday to Friday 0730 – 1900 hours, Saturdays 0730 – 1300 hours unless in 

association with an emergency or with the prior written approval of the District 

Planning Authority. 

Grounds: In the interests of residential amenity and in pursuance of 


(6) No impact pile driving in connection with the construction of the development 

shall take place on the site on any Saturday, Sunday or Bank Holiday, nor any 

other day except between the following times:- 

Monday to Friday 0900-1700hours unless in association with an emergency 

or with the written approval of the District Planning Authority. 



(7) No burning of waste or refuse shall take place on site during construction 

works other than may be agreed in writing by the District Planning Authority. 


policies E1 and E2 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008. Continued . . . 

2


(8) During construction of the development adequate space shall be provided on 

site, in a position previously agreed by the District Planning Authority to 

enable all employees and contractors vehicles to park, load and off load and 

turn within the site. 

Grounds: In the interests of highway safety and convenience in accordance 

with Policy E1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008. 

(9) Adequate precautions shall be taken during the period of demolition and 

construction to prevent the deposit of mud and/or other debris on the public 

highway. 

Grounds: In the interests of highway safety and convenience in 

accordance with Policy E1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008. 

(10) No development approved by this permission shall be commenced prior to a 

contaminated land assessment (and associated remediation strategy if 

relevant), being submitted to and approved in writing by the District Planning 

Authority, comprising: 

a) A desk study and conceptual model, based on the historical uses of the 

site and proposed end-uses, and professional opinion as to whether 

further investigative works are required. A site investigation strategy, 

based on the results of the desk study, shall be approved by the 

District Planning Authority prior to any intrusive investigations 

commencing on site. 

b) An investigation, including relevant soil, soil gas, surface and 

groundwater sampling, carried out by a suitably qualified and 

accredited consultant/contractor in accordance with a Quality Assured 

sampling and analysis methodology. 

c) A site investigation report detailing all investigative works and sampling 

on site, together with the results of analyses, risk assessment to any 

receptors and a proposed remediation strategy which shall be of such 

a nature as to render harmless the identified contamination given the 

proposed end-use of the site and surrounding environment, including 

any controlled waters. 

Grounds: To ensure any land contamination is adequately dealt with, 

pursuant to policies E1, E2 and E3 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008. 

(11) Before any part or agreed phase of the development is occupied, all 

remediation works identified in the contaminated land assessment and 

approved by the District Planning Authority shall be carried out in full (or in 

phases as agreed in writing by the District Planning Authority) on site under a 

quality assured scheme to demonstrate compliance with the proposed 

methodology and best practice guidance. If, during the works, contamination 

is encountered which has not previously been identified, then the additional 

contamination shall be fully assessed and an appropriate remediation scheme 

agreed with the District Planning Authority. 


3


Grounds: To ensure any land contaminated is adequately dealt with, 


(12) Upon completion of the works identified in the contaminated land assessment, 

and before any part or agreed phase of the development is occupied, a 

closure report shall be submitted which shall include details of the proposed 

remediation works with quality assurance certificates to show that the works 

have been carried out in accordance with the approved methodology. Details 

of any post-remediation sampling and analysis to show the site has reached 

the required clean-up criteria shall be included in the closure report together 

with the necessary documentation detailing what waste materials have been 

removed from the site. 

Grounds: To ensure any contaminated land is adequately dealt with, 


(13) No development shall take place until full details of the method of disposal of 

foul and surface waters have been submitted to and approved by the District 

Planning Authority. The approved details shall be implemented before the first 

use of the development hereby permitted. 

Grounds: In order to prevent pollution of water supplies and in pursuance 

of policy E1, E2 E3 and E4 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008. 

(14) Prior to the commencement of development, details of the finish of the velux 

rooflights and samples of the brick and timber finishing materials to be used 

on the development hereby permitted shall be submitted to and approved in 

writing by the District Planning Authority and shall be implemented in 

accordance with the approved details. 

Grounds: In the interest of visual amenity and in pursuance of policies E1 

and E19 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008. 

(15) Full details of both hard and soft landscape works, as requested by condition 

(1) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the District Planning 

Authority. These details shall include existing trees, shrubs and other 

features, planting schedules of plants, noting species, plant sizes and 

numbers where appropriate, means of enclosure, hard surfacing materials, 

and an implementation programme. 

Grounds: In the interests of the visual amenities of the area and in 

pursuance of policies E1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008. 

(16) All hard and soft landscape works shall be carried out in accordance with the 

approved details. The works shall be carried out prior to the occupation of 

any part of the development or in accordance with the programme agreed in 

writing with the District Planning Authority. 


4


Grounds: n the interests of the visual amenities of the area and in 


(17) Upon completion of the approved landscaping scheme, any trees or shrubs 

that are removed, dying, being severely damaged or becoming seriously 

diseased within five years of planting shall be replaced with trees or shrubs of 

such size and species as may be agreed in writing with the District Planning 

Authority, and within whatever planting season is agreed. 



(18) The area shown on the submitted plan as car parking space shall be kept 

available for such use at all times and no permanent development, whether 

permitted by the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted 

Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking or re-enacting that Order) or 

not, shall be carried out on the land so shown or in such a position as to 

preclude vehicular access thereto; such land and access thereto shall be 

provided prior to the occupation of the dwelling(s) hereby permitted. 

Grounds: Development without adequate provision for the parking or 

garaging of cars is likely to lead to car parking inconvenient to other road 

users and detrimental to amenity and in pursuance of policies E1 and T3 of 

the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008. 

(19) Prior to the commencement of development, details of a secure bin storage 

area shall be submitted for approval in writing by the District Planning 

Authority and shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details 

and retained in perpetuity. 

Grounds: In the interests of the amenities of the area, in pursuance of Policy 

E1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008. 

(20) Development shall not begin until a surface water drainage scheme for the 

site, based on sustainable drainage principles and an assessment of 

hydrological and hydrogeological context of the development, has been 

submitted to and approved in writing by the District Planning Authority. The 

scheme shall subsequently be implemented in accordance with the approved 

details before the development is completed. 

Grounds: To prevent the increased risk of flooding, to improve the protect 

water quality, improve habitat and amenity and ensure future maintenance of 

the surface water drainage system, to reduce the risk of flooding to the 

inhabitants of the property in pursuance of Policy E1 and E4 of the Swale 



5


(21) All ground levels shall be raised by at least 300mm relative to the existing 

ground levels on site and there shall be no lowering of the existing ground 

levels on the site and no basements/cellars shall be incorporated into the 

dwelling. 

Grounds: To prevent the increased risk of flooding, to improve the protect 

water quality, improve habitat and amenity and ensure future maintenance of 

the surface water drainage system, to reduce the risk of flooding to the 

inhabitants of the property in pursuance of Policy E1 and E4 of the Swale 


Reasons for Approval 

Having taken all material considerations into account, it is considered that subject to 

compliance with the attached conditions, the proposal would be in accordance with 

the development plan and would not cause unacceptable harm to the amenities of 

the area or prejudice highway safety or convenience. In resolving to grant 

permission, particular regard has been had to the following policies: E1, E2, E3, E4, 

E19, H2, T1 and T3 of the Swale Borough Local Plan. 

Description of Proposal 

This is a full planning application for a detached 6 bedroom dwelling on land 

previously the subject of an outline planning permission for a detached residential 

dwelling. The outline permission had all matters reserved except for the access and 

layout. The current proposal would site the dwelling in almost the same location as 

the approved outline dwelling. It would however, be orientated slightly differently so 

that it would be sited parallel with the alignment of St Pauls Street. The current 

proposed dwelling would also be 5m wider than that shown on the outline approval. 

The parking and garden arrangement would remain the same as the outline 

approval. The applicant has provided details of the boundary treatment along the 

back edge of the footpath to St Pauls Street. This would be a 1.8m high yellow stock 

brick wall. 

The proposed dwelling would be 2 storeys high with accommodation comprising 4 

bedrooms and a bathroom within the roof space. The ground floor would have a 

large living room with a wood burning stove, entrance hall and kitchen/dining room. 

The total height of the dwelling would be 10.5m. Three parking spaces are shown to 

be provided, two of which would be within a garage court that serves the properties 

in Periwinkle Close. The remaining space would be a visitor’s space that would be 

located within the 6m wide access to the garage court. 

The proposed dwelling would be of a modern design that would incorporate 

sustainable construction techniques, solar panels and rainwater harvesting. A cycle 

store would also be provided. The applicant also proposes to plant a screen of trees 

along the boundaries of the site to reduce road noise within the garden. 


6


The finishing materials would be yellow stock brick, timber louvers (slats) with 

glazing behind, powder coated aluminium windows, white render and zinc standing 

seam roof. 

Relevant Site History and Description 

This piece of land was essentially left over from the construction of the roundabout 

and highway network improvements at St Paul’s Street, Chalkwell Road and Crown 

Road. It is oddly shaped as a consequence of this. Kent Highway Services still own 

some very small pieces of land that adjoin the application site and a third party owns 

a small slither of land between the application site and 51 Church Street. 

There have been a number of planning application for the development of this site 

including its use as a car park for a vehicle hire company (SW/99/651) which was 

refused and a dismissed appeal (TN/07/0009) for the installation of a radio base 

station comprising of a 15m high telecommunications monopole. 

An outline application for the erection of 10 no. apartments (SW/08/1276) was 

submitted but was never made valid owing to the incorrect ownership certificate 

being signed. Subsequently, outline planning permission was granted under 

SW/09/1019 for the erection of one dwelling. 

This site lies within the built-up area boundary of Sittingbourne. It lies opposite the 

Stumble Inn Public House and between two rows of terraced houses fronting Church 

Street and Chalkwell Road. The surrounding area is characterised by 2 and 3 storey 

dwellings. 

Views of Consultees 

Comments from the Council’s Technical Services Team, for comments on on-street 

parking in the area are awaited and will be reported to Members at the meeting. 

The Environment Agency has no objection to the proposal noting that the site 

partially lies within flood zone 3a. They recommend conditions to ensure that the 

risk of flooding is minimised and that the development does not cause flooding 

elsewhere. They also seek land contamination conditions and provide guidance on 

the use of soakaways and the storage of fuel, oil and chemicals. 

Other Represenations 

I will update Members on any other representations received – closing date 8 July 

2010. 

Policies 

Policies E1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008 (SBLP) gives general guidance 

regarding design and amenity, amongst others. Policy E19 (SBLP) aims to achieve 

high quality design on all developments in the Borough. 


7


Policy H2 (SBLP) encourages the provision of new housing within the built up areas 

of the Borough, and in locations with good access 

Policies T1 and T3 (SBLP) deals with traffic and access, and seek to minimise the 

highways impacts of any new development through the provision of adequate 

parking, sightlines, turning space, etc. 

Policies E2 and E3 (SBLP) seeks to ensure that pollution by way of noise, air and 

contamination to ground waters is prevented. Policy E4 seeks to ensure that 

development is adequately protected against flooding. 

Discussion 

I consider the key issues to be the principle of the development, the impact on the 

visual amenities of the surrounding area, the impact on the residential amenities of 

the adjacent properties and the adequacy of parking, access and living space. 

Principle 

Policy H2 of the Local Plan notes that permission for new housing will be granted for 

sites within the defined built-up areas as shown on the proposals map. All proposals 

will be expected to make the most efficient use of land and provide house types 

appropriate to its location. The proposed dwelling would be amongst other 

residential properties and would therefore be in keeping with the character of the 

surrounding area. The oddly shaped site and restricted access also restricts the 

number of dwellings able to be provided at the site. I therefore consider that the 

proposal would make the most efficient use of this land. I am also mindful of the 

extant outline planning permission for the erection of one dwelling on this site. The 

applicant could have submitted a detailed application via the reserved matters 

procedure whereby the principle of the development would not have been a 

consideration. As the application site is within the built-up area boundary of 

Sittingbourne, I consider that the proposal would comply with Policy H2 and would 

therefore be acceptable in principle. 

Visual amenities 

A detached dwelling in this location would not be like any of the other properties 

within the vicinity. Most properties within the surrounding area are terraced. 

However, in my view, this should not prohibit the development of a detached 

dwelling in this case. The position of the dwelling would ensure that it would be 

viewed in relation to the two storey end of terrace dwelling, 51 Church Street. It 

would also be seen against a backdrop of three storey townhouses. In this context, I 

consider that it would merely add to the variety of built form in the immediate area. I 

also consider that its modern design would be appropriate here. The site is very 

prominent and any new building would have a significant impact on the street scene. 

The quality of the design proposed is of a high standard in my view. I consider that 

the position and design of the fenestration would be well proportioned with the 

dwelling in my view and the timber slats and use of a mix of render and yellow stock 

bricks would articulate the elevations in an interesting and acceptable manner. The 

yellow stock bricks and white render would pick up on finishing materials 

characteristic to the surrounding area. 


8


The pitched roof would reflect the form of the adjacent dwellings and the height of 

the new dwelling would, in my view, bridge the difference in height between the two 

storey dwellings fronting Church Street and Chalkwell Road and the very prominent 

three storey townhouses fronting Periwinkle Close. In this respect, I do not consider 

that the dwelling would look out of place. 

Residential amenities 

The proposed dwelling would also be over 28.5 metres from the rear of the 

properties fronting Periwinkle Close and 42 metres from the properties fronting 

Chalkwell Road. I therefore consider that this distance will limit the potential for 

overlooking between properties. As Members are aware 21 metres is the 

recommended back to back separation distance between properties to avoid 

overlooking. I therefore consider that this proposal would have no undue 

overlooking impact. I also consider that the townhouses within Periwinkle Close and 

the properties within Chalkwell Road would not significantly overlook the private 

amenity space of the propose dwelling. 

The proposed dwelling is shown to be 8m from the rear elevation of no. 51 Church 

Street. The proposed dwelling would be to the west of this neighbouring property, 

only potentially affecting the evening sunlight by a small amount. Members should 

note that the proposed dwelling is at an angle to no. 51 and that the proposed 

dwelling would not be directly in line with the rear elevation of this property. I 

consider that the dwelling would be an adequate distance from this neighbouring 

property, to ensure that there would be no overshadowing or overbearing effect. 

The windows within the elevation facing no. 51 are at an oblique angle to this 

neighbouring property. There would be no direct line of sight to the area of important 

private amenity space, immediately to the rear of this property. I therefore consider 

that the proposed dwelling would not unduly overlook no. 51 Church Street. 

Adequacy of Accommodation 

The proposed development would have a large garden area to the west of the 

dwelling. Although perhaps unconventional in shape, I am of the view that its size 

will ensure that the quality is of a standard that it would not disadvantage future 

occupants. Internal sizes of rooms are more than sufficient to cater for one family. 

Highway Implications 

I am awaiting comments from the Council’s Technical Services Team regarding the 

potential impact on the amenities of the area reagarding on-street parking. However, 

the provision of 3 parking spaces would comply with the relevant parking standards 

for a 6 bedroom dwelling. 

In respect of the access, I am aware that residents are concerned that they will loose 

the ability to park within this access should the development be allowed. This would 

be as a consequence of the land owner (the applicant) enforcing against the said 

parking on his land. In my opinion, this is a private legal matter separate from this 

particular application. If the legal powers exist to enforce against parking on his 

land, then residents could be at risk of this happening at any time. It is also not 


9


appropriate for the Council to become involved in what could be a legal dispute 

regarding landownership. In this case, the applicant has declared that he owns all of 

the land outlined in red on the submitted plans and this includes the access. I have 

no evidence to dispute this claim and this matter should not therefore influence the 

outcome of the application. 

Other matters 

Access for emergency services to the site could potentially be taken from St Paul’s 

Road as there is an existing vehicular access to the land. The applicant has been 

discouraged from using this access by Kent Highway Services. However, it is 

possible that it could be used in an emergency if necessary. 

With regards to refuse vehicles, the recommended carry distance, under building 

regulations, for refuse from the front door of a dwelling to a secure storage area is 

30m. In addition, the bin store can be located at a point 25m from the refuse 

collection point i.e. the highway. A total of 55m is therefore allowed, in refuse 

collection terms, between the front door of a dwelling and the public highway (or 

other collection point). In this case, the total distance would be 45m and would 

therefore be adequate. I have asked for details of a bin storage area to be submitted 

under condition (19). This will ensure that permanent, tidy and secure storage is 

provided for refuse within 25m from the highway. 

Recommendation 

Having considered the relevant planning policies, I am of the view that this proposal 

complies with Policy H2 and is therefore acceptable in principle. I also consider that 

the design of the dwelling would be of a high standard that would have no detriment 

to the visual amenities. The garden area would be of a reasonable size for such a 

house in my view and there would be the required number of parking spaces 

provided within the application site to ensure no significant highway implications. 

Taking the above into account I recommend that planning permission be granted 

subject to any outstanding comments from local residents and the Council’s 

Technical Services Team. 

___ __________________________________________________________ 

Responsible Officer: Rob Bailey (Area Planning Officer) 

__ ____________________________________________________________ 

List of Background Documents 

1. Application papers for SW/10/0701. 

2. Correspondence relating to SW/10/0701. 



10

PART 2 

2.2 SW/10/0481 (Case 21809) FAVERSHAM 

Location: 

Proposal: 

Former Garages Site at Ennerdale, Faversham, Kent, ME13 

8JE 

Application for a new planning permission to replace an extant 

planning permission, Application SW/07/0058 Approved 1 May 

2007, in order to extend the time limit for implementation for the 

demolition of remaining garage units and redevelopment of the 

site to provide 2 two bed (wheelchair accessible) semi-detached 

bungalows and associated parking plus 22 additional (non 

allocated) parking spaces for local residents 

Applicant/ Agent: Swale Housing Association, c/o CYMA Architects Ltd, 

Crouchers Manor Barn, Westwell Lane, Westwell, Ashford, 

Kent, TN25 4JN 

Application Valid: 13 April 2010 

8 WEEK TARGET: 8 June 2010 

Conditions 


than the expiration of five years beginning with the date on which the 


Grounds: 

Act 1990. 

In pursuance of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning 

Pre-commencement conditions 

(2) No development shall take place until details in the form of samples of 

materials to be used on the external surfaces have been submitted to and 

approved in writing by the District Planning Authority. 



(3) No development shall take place until full details of both hard and soft 

landscape works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the 

District Planning Authority and these works shall be carried out as approved. 

These details shall include existing features, planting schedules of plants, 

noting species, plant sizes and numbers where appropriate, means of 

enclosure, hard surfacing materials, and an implementation programme. 




11


(4) No development shall take place until details have been submitted to, and 

approved in writing by the District Planning Authority, which set out what 

measures will be taken to ensure that the development incorporates 

sustainable construction techniques such as rainwater harvesting, water 

conservation, energy efficiency and, where appropriate, the use of local 

building materials, and provisions for the production of renewable energy such 

as wind power, or solar thermal or solar photo voltaic installations. Upon 



development, and in pursuance of Policies U3 and E21 of the Swale Borough 

Local Plan 2008. 

Non-pre-commencement conditions 

(5) The areas shown on the submitted layout plan as vehicle parking spaces shall 

be provided, before the dwellings hereby permitted are first occupied, and 

shall be retained for the use of the occupiers of, and visitors to, the premises, 

and for residents of the area as a whole and no permanent development, 

whether permitted by the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted 

Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order), 

shall be carried out on that area of land so shown or in such position as to 

preclude vehicular access to these areas. 




the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008 

. 






pursuance of policies E1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008 


removed, dying, being severely damaged or becoming seriously diseased 

within five years of planting shall be replaced with trees or shrubs of such size 

and species as may be agreed in writing with the District Planning Authority, 

and within whatever planting season is agreed. 


pursuance of policies E1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008 


12



Having taken all material considerations into account, it is considered that, subject to 



the area or prejudice highway safety. In resolving to grant permission, particular 

regard has been had to the following policies: E1, E19, E21, H2 and T3 of The Swale 

Borough Local Plan 2008 


The application is essentially a renewal of the planning permission approved under 

reference SW/07/0058 for the demolition of 26 existing garage units currently on site 

and for the erection of 2 two bedroom (wheelchair accessible) semi-detached 

bungalows and associated parking; plus an additional 22 (non allocated) parking 

spaces for local residents. 


The site is located in Ennerdale, within a large housing estate in Faversham. The 

site is within Faversham’s built up area boundary where the principle of new houses 

is acceptable. There are 26 garages currently on site, which appear to be in various 

states of poor repair. 

An application for 3 two bed terraced houses and 2 two bed semi detached 

bungalow units was withdrawn in 2006. 

SW/07/0058 for the proposed demolition of existing garages and redevelopment of 

the site to provide 2 two bed (wheelchair accessible) semi-detached bungalows and 

associated parking plus 22 additional (non allocated) parking spaces for local 

residents was approved in May 2007 after taking into account details of garage 

usage and local parking capacity. 


Faversham Town Council recommend approval of the application subject to works 

commencing within one year to ensure that the site, which is at present used for 

tipping rubbish, is tidied up as soon as possible. 

Kent Highway Services raise no objections to the proposal. 

Other Representations 

The application was first received on 13 April 2010. Local notification unfortunately 

referred to the original description of the earlier 2006 application (3 houses and 2 

bungalows) and seven letters of objection were received. When the error was 

noticed, local residents were re-consulted on 2 June 2010 and 3 further letters of 

objection have since been received. Relevant issues raised cover the following 

summarised concerns: Continued . . . 

13


• The estate was built 30 years ago and parking needs have increased since 

then – the situation is very different in the evenings from during the day 

• The 22 proposed spaces are not allocated, and will not be adequate to serve 

48 houses 

• There is no front access to houses and all that would be provided is a 3m 

wide vehicular access to one of the houses 

• All the remaining garages will be demolished and there will be no access to 

either the front or back of our house 

• What justification is there for 2 dwellings with 2 parking bays when parking 

facilities have been taken from 48 houses 

• Housing, parking and access could be made which would enhance the area 

rather than putting 2 bungalows of a completely different style and colour 

which will not be in keeping with the area 

• This is an open plan estate, the bungalows will spoil the layout, and the picket 

fences are out of place. 

• Cobble paving next to disabled properties and near Ambleside (for elderly 

tenants) is surely inappropriate? 

• 2 or 3 purpose built houses would be more in keeping 

• Reversing into the main access will be dangerous, access for emergency 

vehicles will be restricted 

• Not all garages are in a poor state of repair – some are used for storage by 

the Housing Association – although the Housing Association have been asked 

to carry out repairs 

• The development will devalue nearby homes and affect privacy 

• Building more houses will only exacerbate problems of vandalism and bad 

youth behaviour which the Housing Association do not control 

• The site is a long walk from any amenities 

• Has subsidence been taken into account? 

Policies 

The following policies of The Swale Borough Local Plan 2008 are relevant: 

Policy SP1 Sustainable Development 

Policy SP4 Housing 

Policy E1 General Development Criteria 

Policy E19 Achieving High Quality Design and Distinctiveness 

Policy E21 Sustainable Design and Build 

Policy H2 Providing for New Housing Policy 

Policy H3 Providing Affordable Housing 

Policy T1 Providing Safe Access to New Development 

Policy T3 Vehicle Parking for New Development 


14


Discussion 

I consider that the main considerations in determining this application remain 

unchanged and are whether or not the proposed design of the buildings are 

suitable to the location, and whether or not the proposal, or the loss of the existing 

garages, will have any significant adverse impacts on the surrounding area. 

I consider the approved design of the proposed buildings is acceptable, The 

proposal offers a different type of dwelling to those which are currently available, and 

when the location of the site is considered, (centrally located within an existing 

estate), the proposed form of development is more appropriate here than a proposal 

which would seek to replicate the existing buildings. Single storey bungalows, by 

their very nature have far less visual impact both in terms of overlooking 

neighbouring properties and also in terms of their intrusion upon the wider area, as 

opposed to two storey houses. The applicants in their previously submitted design 

and access statement informed us that the buildings have been designed to meet a 

‘very good’ Eco-Homes Standard, minimising energy and water usage as well as 

measures to reduce energy construction during their construction. I therefore 

believe the scale and design of the development to be acceptable. 

Kent Highway Services, raise no objection to either the loss of the garages or to the 

amount of additional parking spaces that have been proposed. 

It is clear that the garages are in a state of disrepair and that it is not economically 

viable for them to remain in their current use. Many appear to have been boarded 

up for some time and parking seems to occur mainly on the surrounding streets. 

The applicants reiterate that the garages are at the end of their useful life and 

becoming unlettable due to their poor structural state. 

The applicants have submitted a supporting letter which explains that they have 

recently received funding from the Homes and Communities Agency to develop the 

site and are working with their consultants to tender the build contract but will not 

have let the contract in time to start work on the site by 1 May 2010 when the 

planning permission expires. Hence this application. 

It is my considered view that the proposal represents an opportunity to enhance the 

local environment whilst providing suitable accommodation for disabled people and 

more useable parking facilities for local residents. 


The proposal site is within Faversham’s built up area, where the principle of new 

dwellings is acceptable. The proposal also seeks to provide some much needed 

social housing. Circumstances and planning policies have not changed materially 

since 2007 and I see no justification for the Council refusing planning permission 

now. 


15


It is regrettable that residents were initially lead to believe that a more intensive 

development was proposed, and it is noticeable that far less comments have been 

received since the current details have been circulated. I have considered all the 

objections to the application but for the reasons that have been stated above, I 

recommend that planning permission be granted. 

Responsible Officer: 

Graham Thomas (Area Planning Officer) 


1. Application Papers and correspondence for Application SW/10/0481 

2. Application papers for Application SW/07/0058 

16

PART 2 

2.3 SW/10/0703 (Case 04811) NEWINGTON 

Location: 

Proposal: 

8 School Lane, Newington, Sittingbourne, Kent, ME9 7LB 

Double storey front extension to enclose existing ground floor 

porch and family room and new garage with first floor bedrooms 

over 

Applicant/Agent: Mr Paul Taylor, c/o Mr Ken Crutchley, 67 Adelaide Drive, 

Sittingbourne, Kent, ME10 1XU 

Application Valid: 8 th June 2010 

SUBJECT TO: 

Any comments from Newington Parish Council 

8 WEEK TARGET: 3 August 2010 

Conditions 






(2) Prior to the commencement of development, details in the form of samples of 

external finishing materials to be used in the construction of the development 

hereby approved shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the District 

Planning Authority and shall be implemented in accordance with the approved 

details. 

Grounds: In the interest of visual amenity and the setting of the listed 

building and in pursuance of policies E1, E14 and E19 of the Swale Borough 


(3) No development hereby permitted shall take place until a schedule of tree and 

shrub planting along the front section of the western boundary of the site, with 

a plan giving species and planting densities, has been submitted to and 

approved by the District Planning Authority. The schedule shall include the 

timescale for implementation, and planting shall be carried out in accordance 

with the approved timescale. Any trees or shrubs removed or dying within 5 

years of planting shall be replaced with trees or shrubs of such size or species 

as may be agreed in writing by the District Planning Authority. 


17


Grounds: In the interests of the visual amenities of the area and the 

setting of the listed building and in pursuance of policies E1 and E14 of the 

Swale Borough Local Plan 2008. 

(4) The garage hereby permitted shall be used only for the parking of a private 

motor car or cars or for uses ordinarily incidental to the enjoyment of the 

occupiers of the dwelling house and no development, whether permitted by 

the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 

(or any order revoking or re-enacting that Order) or not, shall be carried out on 

the site, in such a manner or in such a position as to preclude vehicular 

access to the garage. 





(5) Before the development hereby permitted is first used, the proposed window 

in the first floor west flank elevation to the property shall be obscure glazed 

and shall be incapable of being opened except for a high level fanlight 

opening at least 1.7m above inside first floor level and shall subsequently be 

maintained as such. 

Grounds: To prevent overlooking of adjoining properties and to safeguard the 

privacy of neighbouring occupiers and in pursuance of policies E1 and E24 of 






the area or prejudice highway safety or convenience and would preserve the setting 

of the adjacent listed building. In resolving to grant permission, particular regard has 

been had to the following policies: E1, E15, E19, E24 and T3 of the Swale Borough 



This proposal seeks planning permission for the erection of a two storey front 

extension to enclose an existing ground floor porch and family room projection. A 

garage would be provided at ground floor and bedrooms at first floor. The extension 

would project a total of 5.7 metres at first floor and 6.7 metres at ground floor. A 

canopy would stretch across the front elevation from the garage to the east flank of 

the property. The distance between the proposed front elevation and the front 

boundary of the property would be 11m. 


18



There is an extensive planning history for this property which was first extended in 

the 1970s and 80s. A planning application was refused for a double garage 

extension and entrance porch in 2000. This was refused due to the detrimental 

impact on the visual amenities of the dwelling and the street scene and the 

detrimental impact on the setting of the adjacent listed building. An appeal was 

dismissed on grounds relating to the streetscene and the impact on the setting of the 

adjacent listed building. 

A garage and entrance porch extension and first floor side extension was later 

approved under SW/01/0233. 

An application (SW/06/0636) for the erection of a detached double garage in the 

front garden and the conversion of the existing garage to a habitable room was 

refused and the double garage was later dismissed at appeal on grounds relating to 

the character and appearance of the area and the setting of the adjacent listed 

building. 

An enforcement notice was served on the property in 2009 for the erection of a car 

port structure within the front garden. This structure remains but would need to be 

removed should planning permission be granted for the current proposal. 

Lastly, a planning application for a similar scheme to that currently proposed was 

withdrawn under SW/10/0348. Officers entered into discussions with the applicant at 

this time to seek an improved design. The current application represents the 

outcome of these negotiations. 

The application site lies within the built-up area boundary of Newington and is 

adjacent to a grade II listed building, Parsonage House which fronts the site at a right 

angle to the alignment of the highway. The surrounding area is characterised by a 

mix of house types and designs. Many have been extended in the past. 


Comments from Newington Parish Council are awaited and will be reported to 

Members at the Meeting. 


Three letters of objection have been received from the residents of 4 School Lane 

and Parsonage House. A summary of their comments is as follows: 

• The proposed extension would have a detrimental impact on the setting of 

Parsonage House. The extension would be overbearing and takes no 

account of the architectural style of the listed building. 


19


• A previous double garage proposal was refused and dismissed at appeal due 

to its impact on the streetscene and the setting of the listed building. 

• The extension would affect the existing streetscene of School Lane. 

• There are two inaccuracies in the drawings. These include a failure to show 

two existing windows within the west elevation of No. 8 School Lane and the 

plans show that the garage has already been converted. This is not the case. 

• The design and access statement refers to the dwelling as a bungalow. This 

is clearly not the case. 

• Detrimental impact on No. 6 School Lane in terms of loss of light, overlooking 

and disturbance during construction 

Any new letters of representation received as a consequence of the consultation will 

be reported to Members at the meeting. 

Policies 

Policies E1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008 (SBLP) gives general guidance 

regarding design and amenity, amongst others. Policy E19 (SBLP) aims to achieve 

high quality design on all developments in the Borough. 

Policy E24 (SBLP) seeks to ensure that extensions and additions to buildings are of 

an acceptable design that has no undue impact on neighbouring properties. 

Policy E14 (SBLP) seek to ensure that development that may affect the setting of a 

listed building has no detriment to its character or appearance. 

Policies T3 (SBLP) deals with traffic, and seek to minimise the highways impacts of 

any new development through the provision of adequate parking, sightlines, turning 

space, etc. 

Discussion 

I consider the key issues to be the impact of the proposed extension on the visual 

amenities of the surrounding area, the impact on the setting of the listed building, the 

impact on the residential amenities of neighbouring properties and the adequacy of 

the parking at the site. 

The front elevation of the proposed extension would be in keeping with the existing 

dwelling and the surrounding modern properties in my view. The side elevations of 

the property are somewhat awkward in design and rather bulky. However, the east 

flank elevation would not be seen at all from public vantage points and the west flank 

elevation would only be partially seen. Of note is the much lower ground level of the 

application property from the land to the west, the existing vegetation along this 

boundary and the presence of Parsonage House which would obscure views from 

the west. 


20


The proposed extension would be set away from the eastern boundary of the 

property by 2 metres at first floor. This complies with Council policy which seeks to 

ensure that a terracing effect is not introduced. The distance of the west flank 

elevation from the west boundary would not alter. I therefore consider that the 

proposed extension would not create a terracing effect. 

There is no established building line along this part, and on this side of School Lane. 

The proposed extension would actually bring the front elevation of the property in 

line with no. 6 School Lane, which would to some extent cut across the original 

stepped building line, which appears to have been deliberately designed to leave the 

façade of the listed building unencumbered. However, I do not consider that the 

proposed extension would have an unacceptably adverse impact on the visual 

amenities of the surrounding area. 

Parsonage House, a grade II listed building, is set much further forward than the 

application property. It is also some 7 metres to the west of the proposed extension. 

As mentioned above, no. 8 School Lane is set at a lower ground level than 

Parsonage House. These factors, and the improved design of the proposal, mean 

that the extension would have a limited detrimental impact on the setting of the listed 

building only. 

The proposed extension would not obscure any principle flank windows within no. 6 

School Lane and the proposed extension would project only very slight beyond the 

flank elevation (north facing) of Parsonage House and would not be directly adjacent 

to any windows within this residential property. There is also a small garage to the 

flank of Parsonage House that would limit any impact further. I therefore consider 

that the proposed extension would have no undue impact on the residential 

amenities of the neighbouring properties by way of overshadowing or an overbearing 

effect. 

There would be one small additional first floor window within the west flank elevation 

of 8 School Lane. This would serve an en suite. I have conditioned this window to 

be obscure glazed and therefore consider that there would be no overlooking of the 

adjacent properties as a consequence of the extension. 

The proposed garage would be of a size internally that would comply with Kent 

Highway Services standards. There is also space for a number of cars to park to the 

front of the dwelling. I therefore consider that there would be adequate parking to 

the site. 

Other Issues 

Neither of the inaccuracies in the plans submitted, as identified by the neighbours, 

have a fundamental impact on the determination of this application. 


21



Having considered the relevant planning policies, I am of the view that the proposed 

extension would have limited detrimental impact on the visual amenities of the 

streetscene of the surrounding area, would not on balance unacceptably harm the 

setting of the listed building, and would have no detrimental impact on the residential 

amenities of the neighbouring properties and would have adequate parking within 

the site. 

Taking the above into account I recommend that planning permission be granted. 

___ ___________________________________________________________ 


__ ____________________________________________________________ 






5. Application and appeal papers for SW/06/0636. 

6. Correspondence relating to SW/06/0636 

7. Application and appeal papers for SW/00/0087. 


22

PART 2 

2.4 SW/10/0459 (Case 13382) BORDEN 

Location: 1 Lower Bannister Cottages, Bannister Hill, Borden, 

Sittingbourne, Kent, ME9 8HU 

Proposal: 

Single storey rear extension and new retaining wall 

Applicant/Agent: Mr A Lee, c/o Home Design Services, Barham Court, Teston, 

Maidstone, Kent, ME18 5BZ 

Application Valid: 18 th May 2010 

8 WEEK TARGET: 13 July 2010 

Conditions 






(2) Details in the form of samples of the coping stone to be used on the retaining 

wall and extension hereby approved shall be submitted to and approved in 

writing by the District Planning Authority before any development takes place 

and shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details. 

Grounds: In the interest of visual amenity and preserving and enhancing the 

character and appearance of the conservation area and in pursuance of 

policies E1, E15, E19 and E24 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008. 

(3) The roof lantern (in addition to the concertina doors and window to the 

extension) hereby permitted shall be of timber construction, joinery details of 

which including fittings together with sections through glazing bars, frames 

and mouldings shall be submitted to and approved by the District Planning 

Authority before any development takes place. The development shall be 

carried out in accordance with the approved details. 

Grounds: In the interest of visual amenity and preserving and enhancing the 

character and appearance of the conservation area and in pursuance of 


(4) Working drawings of cross and longitudinal constructional sections to a scale 

of 1:20 for the extension hereby approved shall be submitted to and approved 

by the District Planning Authority before any development takes place. 


23


Grounds: In the interest of visual amenity and preserving and enhancing 

the character and appearance of the conservation area and in pursuance of 


Reason for Approval 




the area and would preserve and enhance the character and appearance of the 

conservation area. In resolving to grant permission, particular regard has been had 

to the following policies: E1, E15, E16, E19 and E24 of The Swale Borough Local 

Plan 2008. 


This application seeks planning permission for a single storey rear extension and 

new retaining wall at 1 Lower Bannister Cottages, Bannister Hill, Borden. The 

extension would provide an enlarged kitchen. It would be 2.7 metres deep, 4.4 

metres wide, 3 metres tall to flat roof height and 3.5 metres tall to the top of its roof 

lantern. The walls would be smooth rendered to match the existing dwelling and the 

roof would be mineral felt. The window would be white painted timber and the doors 

would be solid oak concertina doors. Details of the lantern materials have not been 

provided. The extension would be located 1 metre from the common boundary with 2 

Lower Bannister Cottages. 

An existing retaining wall would be moved back 2 metres from the rear of the 

property to enable the proposed extension to be built. It would feature a central set of 

steps and would be 1 metre tall. The garden beyond the retaining wall is at a higher 

level than the ground level of the property itself. 

Relevant Site History & Description 

1 Lower Bannister Cottages is a two storey end of terrace residential property. It is 

located within the built-up area boundary of Borden and the Harman’s Corner 

Conservation Area as set out in the proposals map of the Swale Borough Local Plan 

2008. 

The application site has the following planning history: 

• Planning application SW/00/0239- Two storey extension to house- approved. 


Borden Parish Council objects to the application on the following grounds: 

‘They would like to object to the application as it appears the proposed extension is 

not in keeping with the character of the building which is in a conservation area.’ 


24


Kent County Council Archaeological Officer raises no objection in light of the limited 

groundworks involved. 


One letter of objection was received from a neighbouring property which is 

summarised as follows; 

• A legal pedestrian right of way exists to serve the owners of numbers 2, 3 and 

4 Bannister Hill Cottages. These cottages enjoy the benefit of pedestrian right 

of way to the front, side and rear of numbers 1, 2, 3 and 4 Bannister Hill 

Cottages and the proposed extension would block this. 

• A previous extension at the application site had already built over the right of 

way. 

• The extension would obstruct the right of way resulting in residents using the 

right of way in the opposite direction, thereby increasing pedestrian activity for 

the houses to the north, to the detriment of residential amenity. 

• If the application is to be approved a condition should be attached requiring a 

pre-commencement alteration to the title deed amending the right of way. 

Policies 

Swale Borough Local Plan 2008 

Policy E1 (General Development Criteria) is a broadly based policy which seeks to 

ensure that all development is positive, appropriately considered and designed whilst 

protecting residential amenity and highway issues. 

Policy E15 (Development Affecting a Conservation Area) outlines that development 

within a conservation area will preserve or enhance features that contribute 

positively to the area’s special character or appearance. 

Policy E16 (Scheduled Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites) aims to 

preserve archaeological sites and their settings. 

Policy E19 (Achieving High Quality Design and Distinctiveness) encourages high 

quality design that responds positively to its environment. 

E24 (Alterations and Extensions) relates specifically to householder extensions, 

stating that the Council will only grant permission for extensions that: 

- are of high quality design; 

- are of an appropriate scale to the building and its surroundings; 

- maintain or enhance the character of the street scene; and 

- protect residential amenity. 

The Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance entitled ‘Designing an Extension: A 

Guide for Householders’, is also relevant. 


25


Discussion 

The objections from the local resident and Borden Parish Council are noted. 

However, the pedestrian right of way around the dwelling is not a material planning 

consideration in the determination of the application. This is a legal matter which 

may affect the ability of the applicant to implement the permission should it be 

approved in accordance with this recommendation. 

The main issues in the determination of this application are considered to be the 

effect of the proposal on residential amenity, visual amenity, streetscene, design and 

the conservation area. 

The proposed extension projects 2.7 metres to the rear of the property and is located 

1 metre away from the common boundary with number 2 Lower Bannister Cottages. 

This conforms with the guidance contained within the Council’s adopted 

Supplementary Planning Guidance entitled ‘Designing an Extension: A Guide for 

Householders’. Therefore minimal harm is envisaged to the residential amenity of the 

occupiers of 2 Lower Bannister Cottages as it would not lead to an overbearing 

effect or loss of light. The effect of the proposal on residential amenity is therefore 

considered acceptable. 

The retaining wall and resulting change in ground level within the rear garden would 

not create any new opportunity for overlooking into the rear garden of the 

neighbouring properties. 

The extension would be visible from Bannister Hill because this is an end of terrace 

property set on a slope. Approximately 1.5 metres of the extension would be visible 

above the fence line. However, the impact of this upon the visual amenities of the 

area is considered to be minimal given the small protrusion above the fence line and 

the modest scale of the extension. Therefore, the effect on the streetscene is also 

considered to be acceptable. 

The location within the conservation area means consideration must be given to 

whether the proposal preserves and enhances its special character and appearance. 

Condition (2) is recommended to secure satisfactory coping stone materials for the 

retaining wall and extension. Furthermore, the roof lantern materials were not 

specified within the application so condition (3) is recommended to secure a timber 

construction of an appropriate design. The window and concertina doors to the 

extension are specified as timber. The use of smooth render is considered 

appropriate. The general scale and form of the extension is considered appropriate 

to both the host dwelling and its wider setting within the terrace. The proposal is 

considered to preserve and enhance the character and appearance of the 

conservation area contrary to the objection of Borden Parish Council. 

The retaining wall will enable the construction of the rear extension. Retaining walls 

are a common feature within this terrace of dwellings and as such is considered 

acceptable. It would not be seen from public vantage points. 


26



This planning application seeks permission for a single storey rear extension and 

new retaining wall at 1 Lower Bannister Cottages. Its impact upon residential 

amenity, visual amenity, streetscene, design and the conservation area are deemed 

acceptable. 

Having taken all material planning considerations into account, I recommend that 

planning permission be granted. 

___ ___________________________________________________________ 


__ ____________________________________________________________ 


1. Application papers for SW/10/0459 


27

PART 2 

2.5 SW/10/0438 (Case 01544) SITTINGBOURNE 

Location: 

Proposal: 

132 Borden Lane, Sittingbourne, Kent, ME9 8HR 

Retrospective application for a two storey rear extension 

Applicant/Agent: Mr Peter Hyams, c/o Mr Darren Stoneman, Architecture One 

LLP, 97B Maidstone Road, Rochester, Kent, ME1 1RL 

Application Valid: 14 th May 2010 and as amended by drawings received 14 May 

2010 

8 WEEK TARGET: 9 July 2010 

Conditions 

(1) The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the 

development hereby permitted shall match those on the existing building in 

terms of type, colour and texture. 



(2) The two first floor side windows to the north east elevation hereby permitted 

shall be obscure glazed and shall be incapable of opening except for a high 

level fanlight of at least 1.7m above inside first floor level and shall 

subsequently be maintained as such in perpetuity. 

Grounds: To prevent overlooking of adjoining properties and to safeguard the 

privacy of neighbouring occupiers and in pursuance of policies E1 and E24 of 






the area. In resolving to grant permission, particular regard has been had to the 

following policies: E1, E16, E19 and E24 of The Swale Borough Local Plan 2008. 


This application seeks planning permission for a stepped two storey rear extension 

at 132 Borden Lane, Borden, Sittingbourne. Part of the ground floor to the extension 

is under construction at the moment, hence the retrospective relevance. The ground 

floor would provide an enlarged living room and kitchen, whilst the first floor would 

create two enlarged bedrooms and a bathroom. The extension would be 3 metres 

deep where it projects from the north east half of the dwelling and 2.2m deep where 


28


it projects from the southwest half of the dwelling. The extension comprises two rear 

projections both of which would have dual pitched hipped roofs to match the pitch of 

the main dwelling. The proposed materials would match those of the existing 

dwelling. 

Two first floor windows would be added to the north east elevation of the property. 

Both windows would serve bathrooms. 

Relevant Site History & Description 

132 Borden Lane is a large two storey detached property set on a generous plot of 

land. The surrounding area is residential in nature and characterised by large 

detached dwellings set on large plots. The site is located within the built up area 

boundary of Borden as defined by the proposals map of the Swale Borough Local 

Plan 2008. 

A single storey rear projection has been demolished to enable the construction of the 

extension. The extension would be 2.5m from the common boundary with 134 

Borden Lane and 2 metres from the common boundary with 130 Borden Lane. 

The planning history for the application site is as follows; 

SW/75/0663- Garage and toilet extension- approved. 

SW/79/1572- Lounge extension and patio- approved. 

SW/80/0031- Alteration to front driveway- refused. 

SW/06/0275- First floor rear extension- approved. 

SW/10/0011- First floor rear extension- approved but not constructed. The current 

proposal would incorporate the approved first floor extension with the ground floor 

extension to form the proposed 2 storey addition. 


Borden Parish Council commented that: 

‘Borden Parish Council were able to discuss the above application and object on the 

grounds that the total size of the extension seems to exceed the designated 

allowance of 50% of the original building. They also felt that there is potential for it to 

overlook the neighbouring property and they are not happy that it is a retrospective 

application.’ 

Kent County Council Archaeological Officer raised no objection. 


No other representations received. 


29


Policies 


Policy E1 (General Development Criteria) is a broadly based policy which seeks to 

ensure that all development is positive, appropriately considered and designed whilst 

protecting residential amenity and highway issues. 

Policy E16 (Scheduled Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites) aims to 

preserve archaeological sites and their settings. 

Policy E19 (Achieving High Quality Design and Distinctiveness) encourages high 

quality design that responds positively to its environment. 

E24 (Alterations and Extensions) relates specifically to householder extensions, 

stating that the Council will only grant permission for extensions that: 

- are of high quality design; 

- are of an appropriate scale to the building and its surroundings; 

- maintain or enhance the character of the street scene; and 

- protect residential amenity. 

The Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) entitled ‘Designing an 

Extension: A Guide for Householders’ is also relevant. 

Discussion 

Borden Parish Council’s objection is noted. However, they are incorrect in quoting a 

soil limit to extensions to properties in the area. They may have been referring to a 

60% restriction placed on dwellings within the countryside. The dwelling does not 

fall within the countryside as defined by the proposals map of the Swale Borough 

Local Plan 2008 and therefore this restriction does not apply. Concerns were raised 

regarding overlooking of a neighbouring property and in order to address any 

potential overlooking as a result of the proposed side windows, condition (2) is 

recommended. This will ensure that the windows are obscure glazed and fixed shut 

apart from a top hung fanlight. Any new windows that do not comply with these 

restrictions would require the submission of a separate planning application. The 

Parish Council were also unhappy that the application is retrospective. The proposal 

must be determined on its merits and cannot simply be refused because it is 

retrospective in part. 

The main issues in the determination of this application are considered to be the 

principle of the extension, the effect on residential amenity and design. 

The site is within the built up area boundary of Borden as defined by the proposals 

map of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008 and is therefore acceptable in principle. 


30


The ground floor projection of the extension conforms with the maximum 3 metres 

advised within the Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance entitled ‘Designing 

an Extension: A Guide for Householders’. The first floor extends both 0.4 metres and 

1.2 metres beyond the 1.8 metres advised by the aforementioned SPG, however, 

this document states that leaving a gap to the boundary with a neighbouring property 

may offset this requirement to a certain extent. The extension would leave a 2.5 

metre separation distance from the common boundary with 134 Borden Lane and 2 

metres from the common boundary with 130 Borden Lane. These separation 

distances are considered sufficient to mitigate any adverse impact upon the 

residential amenity of said neighbouring properties. It should also be noted that both 

neighbouring properties have single storey rear extensions and this would limit the 

impact further. 

In terms of the design of the proposal, the extension would be subservient to the 

main dwelling and the roof pitch would match that of the main dwelling which 

accords with the guidance within the Council’s aforementioned SPG. The proposed 

materials would also match the existing property. Condition (1) is recommended to 

ensure appropriate materials are used. The design of the proposal is therefore 

considered acceptable. 

The proposal is to the rear of the dwelling and would not be visible from Borden 

Lane. The effect upon the visual amenities of the area and the character and 

appearance of the streetscene is therefore considered to be minimal. 


This application seeks retrospective planning permission for a two storey rear 

extension at 132 Borden Lane, Sittingbourne. The site is within the built up area 

boundary of Borden and is therefore acceptable in principle. The effect of the 

proposal upon residential amenity is considered acceptable due to the significant 

separation distances from the common boundaries with neighbouring properties. The 

design would dovetail well with that of the existing dwelling. 

Having taken all material planning considerations into account, I recommend that 

planning permission be granted subject to conditions. 

___ ___________________________________________________________ 


__ ____________________________________________________________ 


1. Application papers for SW/10/438 


3. Application papers and correspondence relating to SW/10/0011 

31

PART 2 

2.6 SW/10/0631 (Case 24025) NEWINGTON 

Location: 

Proposal: 

Land at Wardwell, High Oak Hill, Newington, Nr Sittingbourne, 

Kent, ME9 7HY 

Erection of poultry house and temporary stationing of mobile 

home with associated improvement of existing access and 

provision of parking and turning areas 

Applicant/Agent: Mr Steadman, c/o Mr David Bass, George Webb Finn, 43 Park 

Road, Sittingbourne, Kent, ME10 1DX 

Application Valid: 13 May 2010 as amended by plan received 30 June 2010 

SUBJECT TO: 

Comments from Kent Highway Services, Kent Wildlife Trust and 

the Council’s Tree Consultant 

13 WEEK TARGET:12 August 2010 

Conditions 




Grounds: In pursuance of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 

1990 as amended by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. 

(2) The mobile home hereby permitted shall be removed and the site restored to 

its previous condition on or before 22 nd July 2013. 

Grounds: In order that the position may be reviewed at the end of the 

period stated in pursuance of Policy E1, E6, E7, E9, RC5 of the Swale 


(3) Details of any mechanical ventilation system that is to be installed shall be 

submitted to and approved by the District Planning Authority and upon 

approval shall be installed, maintained and operated in a manner that 

prevents the transmission of odours, fumes, noise and vibration to 

neighbouring premises. 




32


(4) Details in the form of British Standards or commercial specifications of the 

proposed colouring of the external finishing materials of the poultry building 

shall be submitted to and approved by the District Planning Authority before 

the development is commenced. 

Grounds: In the interest of visual amenity and in pursuance of policies E1, 

E6, E7, E9, E15 and E19 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008. 

(5) No development hereby permitted shall take place until a schedule of tree and 

shrub planting, with a plan giving species and planting densities, has been 

submitted to and approved by the District Planning Authority. The schedule 

shall include the timescale for implementation, and planting shall be carried 

out in accordance with the approved timescale. Any trees removed or dying 

within 5 years of planting shall be replaced with trees of such size or species 

as may be agreed in writing by the District Planning Authority. 


pursuance of policies E1, E6, E7, E9 and E15 of the Swale Borough Local 

Plan 2008. 



following times:- 

Monday to Friday 0730 – 1900 hours, Saturdays 0730 – 1300 hours unless in 





(7) Adequate precautions shall be taken during the period of construction to 

prevent the deposit of mud and/or other debris on the public highway. 

Grounds: In the interests of highway safety and convenience in 

accordance with Policy E1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008. 

(8) The trees shown on the plans hereby approved as "existing trees" shall be 

retained and maintained. Any trees removed, dying, being severely damaged 

or becoming seriously diseased within five years of the date of this permission 

shall be replaced with trees or shrubs of such size and species as may be 


Grounds: In the interests of visual amenity and in pursuance of policies 

E1, E6, E7, E9 and E10 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008. 

(9) No loading/unloading, deliveries or collections shall take place outside of the 

hours of (07:00) – (18:00) Monday – Sunday. 


33




(10) The area shown on the submitted plan as turning and loading space shall be 

kept available for such use at all times and no permanent development, 

whether permitted by the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted 

Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking or re-enacting that Order) or 

not, shall be carried out on the land so shown (other than the erection of a 

private garage or garages) or in such a position as to preclude vehicular 

access thereto; such land and access thereto shall be provided prior to the 

occupation of the dwelling(s) hereby permitted. 





(11) The occupation of the mobile home hereby approved shall be limited to a 

person solely or mainly employed, or last employed locally in agriculture as 

defined in Section 336(i) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 or in 

forestry and any dependent of such a person residing with them (but including 

a widow or widower of such a person). 

Grounds: The site lies outside any area in which planning permission 

would normally be granted for a new dwelling and this permission is only 

granted because the dwelling is considered essential in the interests of 

forestry or agriculture in pursuance of Policy RC5 of the Swale Borough Local 

Plan 2008. 

Informative: 

1. The applicant should be advised that the site lies within the proximity of a 

Low/Medium/Intermediate Pressure gas main. Please therefore contact 

Southern Gas Networks at www.scotiagasnetworks.co.uk for their advice in 

respect of the construction of the poultry building and silos. 

2. The Applicant is advised to contact Kent Wildlife Trust to discuss the 

implications of the close proximity of the chickens to the woodland and the 

impact on ground flora. 





the area would preserve the character and appearance of the conservation area or 

prejudice highway safety or convenience. In resolving to grant permission, particular 

regard has been had to the following policies: SP1, SP3, SP5, TG1, E1, E2, E6, E7, 

E9, E15, E19, B2, H2, RC1, RC5, RC7, T1 and T3 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 

2008. 


34



This application seeks planning permission for the erection of a large poultry building 

(85m long x 18.6m wide x 5.71m to the ridge) to form part of a new agricultural freerange 

chicken egg enterprise on an existing agricultural unit of some 60 acres 

(24ha). 9.5ha of this land is currently grassland and the remainder is coppice 

woodland. The building would be located within an open area of land immediately 

adjacent to the woodland and at the top of a grassland slope forming part of a valley. 

Much of the grassland would be used as paddocks for the chickens. This element of 

the proposal does not form part of this planning application as such an agricultural 

use does not require planning permission. The proposed building would be of a size 

that would exceed permitted development limits for agricultural buildings, hence the 

need for planning permission. 12,000 chickens would be accommodated within the 

building which would have low level openings (pop holes) within the south flank 

elevation to allow the chickens to wonder into the open air paddocks. 

Two 5.84m high silos would be positioned at the eastern end of the proposed poultry 

building. These would be used for storing the chicken feed. A turning and loading 

area is also indicated as being within the vicinity of the silos. 

A temporary mobile home is proposed to be sited 48m to the east of the proposed 

poultry building within an area enclosed by mature trees. The mobile home would 

provide three bedrooms, kitchen, lounge/dining area and a bathroom. It would have 

a pitched artificial tile roof. The period for the siting of the mobile home has not been 

specified in the applicant’s submission. However, the normal period for this type of 

development is 3 years in accordance with PPS7 Sustainable Development in Rural 

Areas. 

The vehicular access to the site would be widened by 1.5 metres. This would be 

achieved by removing part of a hedge and a mature oak tree. The hedge to the 

south of the access would also be lowered to 1m in height. A gate would be sited 

15m from the back edge of the carriageway to allow vehicles, including HGVs, to pull 

off of the highway. 

The applicant has submitted a business plan which seeks to demonstrate that the 

business would justify, at this stage, temporary residential accommodation for the 

applicant and his fiancée. The financial projections provided in the business plan 

show that the business would be commercially viable. 

The business plan notes that manure would be removed from the building annually 

and taken to local arable farms. Bulk feed will be delivered by lorry approximately 

once a month directly to the feed silos. Eggs that have been graded and packed will 

be held in the cold room within the poultry building until they are collected once a 

week by Fridays, a well-established local packer/producer. 

There are two existing buildings on the site at present, one of which is approximately 

4m high and the other, 5.3m. These would be used as part of the free-range egg 

enterprise for storage of machinery associated with general day to day activities. 


35



There is no planning history for this site. 

The site lies within the countryside, 220 metres to the northeast of the Newington 

Church Conservation Area. The site also lies within and Area of High Landscape 

Value and within a Strategic Gap. High Oak Hill, the highway off which the access to 

the site is taken, is designated as a Rural Lane. 

Wardwell Woods, the adjacent woodland to the north, is designated as a Local 

Wildlife Site (previously known as Sites of Nature Conservation Interest) and is 

therefore important for the conservation of wildlife. 

The application site lies at the brow of a valley hill which slopes down towards 

Newington Village in a southwesterly direction. The site is partially visible (screened 

by some trees) from a public footpath that lies across the valley to the southeast of 

the site and a railway line, also to the southeast of the site. Glimpses of the 

application site can also be had when approaching from the southwest along High 

Oak Hill. 

A residential property, The Bungalow, lies immediately adjacent to the vehicular 

access to the site. This property appears to have rights of access to park vehicles 

adjacent to their property via the vehicular access included within the application 

site. 

A vehicular access to High Oak, a residential property, lies almost directly opposite 

the vehicular access to the application site and the access to Harbex – Steel 

Grinders and another residential property (formally an agricultural dwelling) is just 

70m to the north. The access to the appeal site lies on the brow of a hill. 

The wider surrounding area is characterised by woodland and rolling agricultural 

fields. 


Newington Parish Council object to the proposal on the following grounds: 

• The visual impact on the village skyline – the field slopes from South to North 

and the location of the building and silos are to the highest part of the land. 

The site lies within an area of high landscape value. 

• Rights of way and ownership dispute surrounding the access road. 

• Devastating effect on nearby properties especially The Bungalow – the traffic 

visiting the site will disturb the residents of this property. 

• Problems caused by lorry traffic to the country lanes – the traffic would be in 

the form of 8 wheeled 29 tonne feed lorries. 

• Smells affecting nearby built up area – the wind would carry the smell down 

the hillside, settling over the village. 


36


• Detrimental effect on the adjoining conservation area. 

• The business plan does not include all set up costs. 

• The proposed site plan is incorrect – the site is not adjacent to Wardwell 

Lane. 

• The proposal would have a detrimental effect on the conservation area. 

• The business plan does not include an upfront cost for the 12,000 chickens. 

The Environment Agency raise no objections. 

Southern Gas Networks notes that there is a Low/Medium/Intermediate Pressure 

gas main in the proximity of the application site. No mechanical excavations are to 

take place above or within 0.5m of the Low pressure and medium pressure system 

and 3 metres of the intermediate pressure system. Safe digging practices should be 

adopted. 

Natural England has no comment to make on the proposal. They do note however, 

that if the Council is aware of the presence of any protected species on the site then 

the Standing Advice should be referred to. Biodiversity enhancements are 

suggested. 

The Head of Environmental Services has no objection to the proposal. However, 

they recommend conditions to ensure that loading and unloading deliveries or 

collections only take place within restricted hours and that the details of any 

mechanical ventilation system are agreed before they are installed. 

The Council’s agricultural consultant has raised the following comments: 

• The design and size of the building appears in accord with what would 

typically provide for a modern unit of this size and type. The building is 

therefore necessary for the applicant’s farming plans. 

• The applicant has secured a successful outlet for the eggs in principle and a 

source for much of the funding for the required capital investment has been 

identified. There appears to be clear evidence of a firm intention and ability to 

develop the enterprise. 

• The operation of the free-range unit would generate an essential functional 

requirement for someone to be resident on the site at most times for the 

proper care of the hens. This would enable a speedy response in the event 

that the hens were attacked or panicked by other intrusion or sudden noise, 

and would provide close attention to their environment, particularly when shut 

up at night to ensure ventilation and watering is adequate. Residential 

attendance also provides necessary cover in the event of a fire, storm and 

from trespassers. DEFRA’s Welfare Code for laying hens does not specifically 

state that on-site residence is an essential condition on all free-range units, 

however the required standards relating to environment and husbandry, 

together with fire and other emergency safety precautions, amount to a strong 

case for on-site residence. The DEFRA requirements would make it difficult 

for someone living elsewhere in the area, with no direct visible or audible 

contact with what is happening on site, to meet the Welfare Code. 


37


• The business plan provided indicates a good level of potential profit against 

the amount of capital that would be borrowed. The net projecting profits are 

somewhat over-optimistic, nonetheless, based partly on proven experience of 

other producers of similar scale supplying the same outlet (Fridays), there 

should still be sufficient potential net income from a unit of this size and type 

to give an adequate return and conclude that the enterprise has been planned 

on a sufficiently sound financial basis. 

• There is no existing dwelling on the unit and The Bungalow is not available to 

buy or rent and there appears to be nothing else suitable, i.e. within sight and 

sound of the premises. 

• Commenting on the questions from local residents regarding the business 

plan, he notes: The applicant’s preferred distributor has confirmed that they 

would provide all necessary packaging and therefore the cost to the applicant 

would be nil. The price of feed will vary, but this is matched by variations in 

egg prices. Other producers without prior experience have been able to set 

up viable free-rage units of a similar size, supplying Fridays and have been 

able to demonstrate in their accounts, sufficient income to warrant the 

construction of a permanent dwelling. Farms are often able to obtain 

favourable borrowing terms who currently charge a low interest. Finally, with 

regards to the business plan, it should be remembered that the application is 

for a temporary period to prove viability and if for some reason this is not 

achieved, the mobile home would be removed. The relevant test is what is 

essential for the proper operation of the unit, not what is essential to allow the 

unit to operate. 

• It is not reasonable or practical for someone to rely on some unspecified 

combination of remote viewing or alarm systems to properly monitor, and 

quickly respond, day or night, to all identified and different risks. 

• It is reasonable that any responsible owner/occupier, committed to developing 

and managing a viable, long-term business here, should be able to utilise 

modest family-sized accommodation. The temporary accommodation is 

limited to some 82m 2 . 

• With the weight of similar allowed cases, including on appeal, it is considered 

that the Council would be vulnerable to costs at appeal if this case were 

refused on the basis of lack of function need. 

Kent Wildlife Trust have no objection subject to a condition to control where the 

chickens are allowed to roam in order to protect the ground flora of the woodland. 

Comments from Kent Highway Services, and the Council’s Tree Consultant are 

awaited and will be reported to Members at the meeting. 


The Council for the Protection of Rural England object to the proposal on the 

grounds that the development would be of an inappropriate scale and location, 

detrimental to the landscape character, resulting in an unquantified increase in traffic 

along narrow country lanes and represents an unviable business for the location. 

The proposal would severely detract from the landscape character, Area of High 

Landscape Value and would detract from the rural character of the conservation 


38


area. They also comment on the business plan noting that the interest rate on the 

loan seems too low and that feed consumption levels seem questionable and that 

the requirement for feed deliveries would be much greater than projected. No costs 

are given for the installation of a ‘small proprietary incinerator’ or the disposal of birds 

at the end of their life. Both could add to the expenditure of the business. The cost 

of dealing with the waste has not been accounted for and the environmental 

implications of disposing of such waste. The smell from the ammonia present in the 

litter would cause a nuisance to the surrounding resident in the summer months. 

They conclude that the project is not economically viable. They also comment on 

the mobile home stating that it is unnecessary as there are suitable dwellings 

available in nearby areas and that the presence of one person does not require a 

three-bedroom mobile home. 

Eight letters of objection have been received. A summary of their comments is as 

follows: 

• Inappropriate development adjacent to a conservation area; 

• The wildlife within the adjoining wood would be adversely affected; 

• The removal of the oak tree at the entrance of the site should not be allowed; 

• The area is liable to flooding and the increase in hardstanding would increase 

this; 

• The narrow lanes are unsuitable for lorries; 

• The development would create smells and pollution; 

• The value of properties would be adversely affected; 

• The development would set a precedent; 

• There are already two egg farms in the area, an additional one would ruin the 

character of the area; 

• The proposed mobile home would overlook The Bungalow; 

• The manure would be stockpiled if only collected from the site annually and 

this would create a foul smell and constitute a health hazard; 

• Views would be spoilt; 

• The access to the site is dangerous; 

• The noise from 12,000 chickens should be considered; 

• The traffic would be significantly increased – the business plan does not 

account for the movement of manure from the site and the delivery of hens; 

• Harbex, a metal-working company based close to the application site, already 

has restrictions on lorry movements; 

• The loss of the oak tree and hedge at the access to the site would impact on 

wildlife; 

• Issues of leaching and contamination of watercourses from stockpiled waste 

have not been addressed; 

• The plans do not show the area required for range access; 

• There are other agricultural uses that would not require such a large building 

or mobile home; 

• The application is a ploy to gain planning permission for a permanent dwelling 

within the countryside; 

• The large building could be turned into another use if the business is not 

successful, such as a base for manufacturing; 


39


• The lorries driving passed The Bungalow would vibrate the house; 

• The development would create a private nuisance; 

• The location of the free-range chicken farm next to woodland which is a 

habitat for foxes and badgers is like feeding gladiators to the lions; 

• The development would attract vermin; 

• The business plan is not viable – it does not give realistic interest rates on the 

loan, a possible large arrangement fees for the loan is not accounted for, an 

overdraft fee hasn’t been included, no insurance has been included in the 

figures, no cost for the packing of eggs prior to transport has been included, 

no contingency has been included. The business case is weak; 

• The letter from Fridays (the producers/packers) confirming willingness to 

issue a contract to the applicant expires at the end of September 2010. The 

development would not be built in time. 

• The applicant currently lives 6 minutes drive away. Walking from the location 

of the proposed mobile home to the poultry shed would take 4 minutes. 

Currently farmers are installing remote monitoring systems. This is a perfectly 

viable option that would be inexpensive to set up. The fact that the Rural 

Consultant is not familiar with such systems does not make them unviable. 

There are a number of properties for sale within 2 minutes drive of the site. 

There is no need for accommodation on site, particularly a 3 bedroom 

dwelling. 

• Each business case should be considered on its merits. Views on the 

potential success of a business should not be influenced by past experience 

of similar set ups elsewhere. 

• The figures suggest that the applicant and his fiancé would be working on less 

then the minimum wage. 

• The development would be too close to Oak Hill. 

• Agricultural dwellings should be commensurate with the functional 

requirement of the unit in accordance with PPS7. 

• The proposed dwelling cannot be easily dismantled. 

• Fridays will be likely to use 6 wheel, 20 ton lorries and these are not small as 

the application documents claim. 

Policies 

Policy SP1 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008 (SBLP) seeks to ensure that 

development accords with the principles of sustainable development. Policy SP3 

(SBLP) seeks to ensure that that support is given to appropriate employment 

opportunities in the rural areas to sustain local communities. 

Policy SP5 (SBLP) seeks to increase local self-sufficiency and satisfy local needs 

within rural communities. Importantly, it looks to protect the countryside from 

unnecessary development and support proposals that assist its sustainable 

management. 

Policy TG1 (SBLP) identifies the application site as being within the Thames 

Gateway Planning Area. This aims to increase local self-sufficiency in rural 

communities by initiatives to diversity the rural economy. 


40


Policies E1 (SBLP) gives general guidance regarding design and amenity, the 

protection of the natural environment, provide safe access, amongst others. Policy 

E2 (SBLP) seeks to ensure that development does not harm human health, 

residential amenity, flora and fauna and, rural areas by way of pollution. Policy E19 

(SBLP) aims to achieve high quality design on all developments in the Borough by 

providing development that is appropriate to its context in respect of scale, height 

and massing. 

Policy E6 (SBLP) seeks to protect the countryside of the Borough for its own sake by 

restricting unnecessary development. Development proposal will only be permitted 

where it is demonstrated to be necessary for agriculture among other criteria. Policy 

E7 (SBLP) seeks to maintain the separation of settlements. Within the gaps 

between the main settlements, planning permission will not be granted for 

development that would result in the merging of settlements or, the encroachment or 

piecemeal erosion of land or its rural open and undeveloped character or, prejudice 

the Council’s strategy for the redevelopment of urban sites. 

Policy E9 (SBLP) seeks to protect the quality and character of the Borough’s 

landscape. Within Areas of High Landscape Value (AHLV), the priority is the 

protection and enhancement if the integrity, character and local distinctiveness of 

these Borough assets, whilst considering the needs of local communities. 

Policy E15 (SBLP) notes that development affecting the setting or views from, or into 

the conservation area, will preserve or enhance all features that contribute positively 

to the area’s special character or appearance. 

Policy B2 (SBLP) seeks to provide development for new employment within rural 

areas in accordance with Policy RC1. Policy RC1 (SBLP) seeks to revitalise the 

rural economy. Proposals that would help to diversify the rural economy, provide 

new rural jobs and services will be permitted provided that: the proposal is of an 

appropriate scale with its locality and the site retains its rural character, there is a 

positive impact on, or no detriment to, landscape character, biodiversity or 

countryside conservation, the use would not result in a significant increase in traffic 

to the detriment of the character, quiet enjoyment or safety of lanes to and from the 

site, maximum use is made of existing buildings and previously developed sites in 

preference to development on Greenfield land. 

Policy H2 (SBLP) notes that permission for new residential development will be 

granted for sites within the defined built-up area boundaries. Outside of these area, 

permission for new residential development will only be granted in accordance with 

the exceptions to Policy E6 (demonstrated that necessary for agriculture) and RC3 

(meeting rural housing needs). 

Policy RC5 (SBLP) states that planning permission for agricultural and other 

occupational dwellings in the countryside will be permitted provided: it is essential for 

the proper functioning of the enterprise for one or more full-time workers to be readily 

available at most times; that there is no available suitable dwelling in a nearby 

settlement; the location, scale and design of the dwelling maintains or enhances 


41


landscape and countryside character and; the siting of the dwelling should, firstly, 

explore whether there are suitable buildings available for conversion at the 

enterprise, or, in the case of a demonstrated need for a new building, that it is 

located as close as possible to existing buildings on previously-developed land at the 

enterprise, or if this is not possible, within the immediate locality on an accepted site. 

The supporting text to this policy states that whether a new dwelling is essential in a 

particular case will depend on the needs of the enterprise concerned and not on the 

personal preferences or circumstances of any individual. Importantly, it notes that it 

will normally be appropriate for permission to be initially granted for a caravan or 

temporary structure for a limited period, thus enabling the situation to be reassessed 

in light of the operation of activity. 

Policy T1 (SBLP) seeks to ensure that safe accesses are provided for new 

development. It notes that development that would generate volumes of traffic in 

excess of the capacity of the highway network, and/or result in a decrease in safety 

on the highway network, will not be permitted. Development will also not be 

permitted where the development would lead to the intensification of any existing 

access onto a primary or secondary road unless the access can achieve a high 

standard of safety through design. 

Policy RC7 (SBLP) seeks to ensure that development is not permitted that would 

either phycically, or as a result of traffic levels, signficiantly harm the character of the 

rural lane. 

Policies T3 (SBLP) deals with traffic, and seek to minimise the highways impacts of 

any new development through the provision of adequate parking, sightlines, turning 

space, etc. 

Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 1 - Delivering Sustainable Development notes that 

planning should facilitate and promote sustainable and inclusive patterns of urban 

and rural development by: 

– making suitable land available for development in line with economic, 

social and environmental objectives to improve people’s quality of life; 

– contributing to sustainable economic development; 

– protecting and enhancing the natural and historic environment, the 

quality and character of the countryside, and existing communities; 

– ensuring high quality development through good and inclusive design, 

and the efficient use of resources; and, 

– ensuring that development supports existing communities and 

contributes to the creation of safe, sustainable, liveable and mixed 

communities with good access to jobs and key services for all 

members of the community. 


42


Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 7 - Sustainable Development in Rural Areas states 

that the Government’s objective for rural areas is to raise the quality of life and the 

environment through the creation of sustainable rural communities, sustainable 

economic growth whilst preventing urban sprawl. Annex A of PPS7 refers 

specifically to new agricultural dwellings within the rural area and sets out five tests 

for assessing the appropriateness of such development. These are as follows: 

1. clear evidence of a firm intention and ability to develop the enterprise 

(significant investment in new farm buildings is usually a good indication); 

2. functional test i.e. the need for accommodation to be on site; 

3. clear evidence that the proposed enterprise have been planned on a sound 

basis; 

4. the functional need could not be fulfilled by another existing dwelling on the 

unit, or any other existing accommodation in the area which is suitable and 

available for occupation by the workers concerned; 

5. other normal planning requirements e.g. on siting and access, are satisfied. 

Annex A of PPS7 also notes that if a dwelling is essential to support a new farming 

activity, it should normally, for the first three years, be provided by a caravan or other 

temporary accommodation. 

Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 4 - Sustainable Economic Growth notes that the 

principle aim is to achieve sustainable economic growth. At Policy EC6: Planning for 

Economic Development in Rural Areas, it seeks to ensure that the countryside is 

protected for its own sake. Economic development in areas of open countryside 

should be strictly controlled. Councils should support farm diversification for 

business purposes that are consistent in their scale and environmental impact with 

their rural area. 

Planning Policy Guidance Note (PPG) 24 - Planning & Noise seeks to ensure that 

development achieves acceptable noise levels, appropriate to the area within which 

the development is proposed. 

The Swale Landscape Character Assessment and Guidelines document (March 

2005) identifies the site as being within the ‘Iwade Arable Farmlands’ character area. 

The guidelines for development within this area are classified as ‘conserve and 

create’. The objective is to conserve the remaining landscape structure of the 

woodland, hedgerow, orchard, ditches and shelterbelts and look for opportunities to 

recreate such features to restore a strong landscape structure. It also seeks to 

conserve the distinctive landscape character of the valley and hills, covered by 

woodland, trees, pasture/grassland and orchards, that form the eastern and northern 

landscape setting of the village of Newington. 

Discussion 

I consider the key issues to be the principle of the development, the impact on the 

visual amenities of the surrounding area and the character and appearance of the 

landscape, the impact on the setting of the conservation area, the impact on local 

residents in terms of noise and disturbance and the highway implications. 


43


Principle 

The erection of an agricultural building on agricultural land is wholly compatible with 

local and national policies and guidance which seeks to encourage sustainable 

economic development within the rural area. These policies and their principle aims 

as they relate to this application are set out in detail above. The Council’s 

agricultural consultant accepts that the size and design of the building is necessarily 

required for the proposed agricultural enterprise. I therefore consider that the 

proposed poultry building is acceptable in principle. 

The mobile home requires a more detailed level of consideration. Policy RC5 and 

Annex A of PPS7 sets out the criteria that must be met in order that the temporary 

siting of a mobile home can be accepted on an agricultural site. The main tests of 

this policy/guidance are set out in detail above and I am satisfied, having received 

confirmation from the Council’s consultant, that the proposal satisfies each of them. 

Local residents have strongly opposed the application and have carefully responded 

in detail to the financial appraisal submitted by the applicant. Assumptions regarding 

the set up costs, interest rates for the business loan, on going cost of running the 

business and projected profits have been called into question. These comments 

have been passed back to the agricultural consultant for his consideration. He has 

addressed these in the last four bullet points of his comments set out above. He 

concludes that the proposal, based on his experience of similar enterprises and the 

submitted business plan, would be viable and that it is necessary for accommodation 

to be within sight and sound of the poultry building. Moreover, the true test of the 

viability of the business and the need for on site accommodation will be after the 

temporary permission expires, at which point the applicant can present his financial 

records to demonstrate how sustainable and viable the business really is. Members 

should note that at this time the applicant would need to submit a new planning 

application for the retention of the mobile home or, its replacement with a permanent 

dwelling. Regardless, at this initial stage, the professional view of the agricultural 

consultant is that the business plan demonstrates that at least a temporary 

permission should be granted in line with the advice within Policy RC5 and Annex A 

of PPS7. It would be unwise, in my view, to ignore this advice despite what some 

residents consider to be a floored financial projection. 

It is my view that if Members were minded to grant planning permission for the 

mobile home, this should be on a three year temporary basis in accordance with the 

advice within Annex A of PPS7. I am of the strong view that this element of the 

proposal is acceptable in principle, subject to the limited time period. Members 

should be clear that financial viability is only a consideration in respect of the siting of 

a mobile home on the site, not the erection of the poultry building. 

I have considered the proposal against Policy E7 – Strategic Gap and consider that 

the development would not lead to an erosion of the rural open and undeveloped 

character of the area. The scale of the development is such that the impact on the 

strategic gap would be inconsequential in terms of the aims of this policy which seek 

to ensure that settlements do not merge together. I therefore continue to consider 

that the proposal would be acceptable in principle. 


44


Visual amenities 

Whilst the height, width, form and finish of the building is perhaps what one might 

expect within an agricultural complex, the length of the building is extensive and this 

would significantly contribute to its scale in my view. There is no doubt that there 

would be some impact on the visual amenities of the surrounding area. However, 

this must be weighted up against the positive impact that this development would 

have on the rural economy. It should also be noted that the building is for a new 

agricultural enterprise, a use that is wholly accepted as being part of the rural area. 

On balance, I consider that any detriment caused to the visual amenities of the 

surrounding area would be outweighed by the positive economic impacts in this 

case. The poultry building would be visible from public vantage points at the bottom 

of the valley. Its impact on the landscape will be discussed below. 

The proposed silos would be of an industrial/agricultural appearance that might be 

considered to be at odds with the rural appearance of the area. However, such 

features are common on agricultural land. They would be located close to the 

poultry building and would not therefore stand out as jarring features within the site. 

Their scale and height would be set against the large poultry building. I therefore 

consider that there would be no significant impact on the visual amenities of the 

surrounding area as a consequence of this element of the proposal. It can also be 

argued that such structures could be considered to be permitted development under 

Schedule 2, Part 6 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted 

Development) Order 1995. 

The proposed mobile home would be located behind a row of existing trees. The 

plans show that there would be additional trees planted within the vicinity of the 

mobile home and this would limit the visual impact further in my view. I am mindful 

that this element of the proposal is temporary and therefore, any impact on visual 

amenities would be temporary. In any case, the mobile home would not be visible 

from long-distance views due to the positioning of mature trees within the application 

site. I therefore consider that the proposed mobile home would have no significant 

impact on the visual amenities of the surrounding area. 

The proposed hardsurface to the turning and loading area would only have a limited 

visual impact on the immediate area in my view. It would not be seen from any 

public vantage points due to its location and the screening provided by buildings and 

trees at the site. Such a development would be typical of an agricultural complex 

and could be considered as permitted development under Schedule 2, Part 6 of the 

Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 in any 

case. 

The removal of the oak tree and hedge to the vehicular access is regrettable but this 

tree is not protected and could be removed at any time. I have asked the Council’s 

Tree Consultant to comment on the health and amenity value of the tree. His 

response will be reported to Members at the meeting. Only a small length of the 

hedge would be removed (1.5m) and I consider that this would have an insignificant 

impact on the visual amenities of the surrounding area. 


45


Impact on landscape 

In assessing this impact, I have given careful consideration to the guidance with the 

Council’s Landscape Character Assessment (2005). The application site is identified 

as falling within the Iwade Arable Farmlands area, characterised by its gently 

undulating rural landscapes. The medium and large-scale fields provide for long 

views across the open arable landscape. Isolated farmsteads and cottages are 

found within the landscape. Wardwell Woods forms one of the few wooded area, 

perched on a hill dominating this part of the landscape. The woodland overlooks a 

valley providing a setting for Newington village. The poultry building would be set in 

front of these woods. 

The only element of the proposal that would be immediately visible within the 

landscape would be the proposed poultry building. The mobile home would be 

entirely screened by trees during the summer months and partially screened during 

the winter once the trees have shed their leaves. However, the trees would remain 

the dominant feature within the landscape in relation to the mobile home throughout 

the year in my view. 

The poultry building would have a large presence within the landscape in my opinion. 

However, I consider that there are number of features within the landscape that 

would lessen its effect. Its location at the top of a valley would ensure that it would 

not spoil the valley slope itself, which forms an important setting for Newington 

Village. It would also be a significant visual distance from the Newington Church 

which is a landmark feature. The two structures would not visually compete in my 

view. Also of consideration is the fact that the building would be set against a 

backdrop of dense woodland which contains mature trees that would be higher than 

the ridge of the poultry building. The skyline at the top of the valley slope would not 

therefore be affected by the presence of the proposed building in my opinion. There 

is a small barn already close to the top of the hill and close to the location of the 

proposed building. This gives a good reference point for identifying the location of 

the proposed poultry building and assessing its impact. To an extent, it could be 

argued that the smaller building has already impacted on the landscape. It is 

possible for a condition to be used to ensure that the colour of the poultry building is 

a dark green. In this case, I consider that it would blend into the backdrop of the 

trees to a certain extent. 

The Landscape Character Assessment classifies the condition of this particular 

landscape as ‘moderate’. It also classifies its sensitivity as ‘moderate’. This 

guidance notes that features such as the A249, flytipping and barriers across 

entrances to fields have downgraded the aesthetic quality of certain areas. It is of 

note that long views include the two overhead cable routes, which are, according to 

the Landscape Character Assessment, ‘prominent and intrusive elements that cut 

across the land’. The tops of two pylons would be visible from behind the poultry 

building. The assessment also notes that the gently undulating topography, 

dispersed tree cover and broken hedgerows, help to provide a general sense of 

enclosure. I have taken these factors into consideration when assessing the 

landscape impact. 


46


Weighing up the positive economic impacts of this proposal and the potential impact 

on the landscape, I am of the opinion that, on balance, the poultry building, mobile 

home and silos would be acceptable. I do not consider that the objectives of policy 

E9 – Area of High Landscape Value would be compromised by this proposal. 

Impact on Conservation Area 

The Newington Church Conservation Area lies 220m to the south of the application 

site. There is the potential for the proposed poultry building, due to its size and 

location, to have an impact on the setting of the conservation area. The test that 

should be applied when assessing the acceptability of such an impact is whether the 

proposal would preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the 

conservation area. Much of this assessment is bound up in the discussion above 

which identifies the way in which the proposed development would impact on the 

setting of Newington village and its important landmark feature, the church. I am of 

the view that in consideration of the above, the proposed development would 

continue to preserve the setting of the conservation area and due to the distance 

between the application site and the edge of the conservation area, would have a 

very limited impact. 

Impact on local residents 

Local residents have expressed serious concerns about the impact of the proposal 

on them in terms of noise, smells and disturbance. This is from the business itself as 

well as from the traffic that would be generated by the business. Members should 

note however, that this is an agricultural site. Many forms of agricultural 

development can produce a large amount of traffic, usually in the form of lorries or 

large vehicles, as well as noise and smells. A traditional dairy farm for example, can 

produce strong smells and a fruit farm can attract a large number of vehicles to it. 

The proposed poultry enterprise should be viewed no differently in my opinion. 

Nonetheless, I am of the view that the matter of smell from the poultry building can 

be adequately controlled under Environmental Health legislation and should not be 

used as a reason for refusal in this case. Any noise from the chickens themselves 

would be minimal in my view. The Bungalow is the closest neighbouring property 

and would be 175m from the poultry building. I consider that at this distance, the 

chickens would not be audible. 

The traffic issues relating to highway safety will be addressed below. However, the 

number and type of vehicles generated by this development is of concern to local 

residents. The residential use of the mobile home would obviously produce some 

traffic but this would be at a low level and would therefore have a limited impact on 

local residents. The most impact would potentially be caused by passing HGVs or 

smaller lorries in association with the poultry building. As I have concluded above, 

the siting of a poultry building in this location would be acceptable in principle. It is 

therefore reasonable to expect that there would be some traffic generated as a 

consequence. Indeed, the access to this agricultural land would have, in the past, 

seen a certain amount of use in association with the existing agricultural activity at 

the site. 


47


The applicant states that the manure produced by the chickens would be removed 

from the building annually. The waste is allowed to build up within the building and 

then once a year, the chickens are relocated and the building striped of the manure 

which fills approximately 25 trailer loads. This is immediately taken to a local arable 

farm for spreading and incorporation. As such, once a year there would be a 

noticeable increase in vehicular movement to and from the site. Due to the 

infrequency of the arrangement, I do not consider that this would be nuisance to 

local residents. 

Feed produce would be delivered to the site once a month by way of large lorries 

and the eggs would be collected once a week by Fridays in small lorries. Therefore, 

any traffic created by the proposed development would be occasional and 

infrequent. Local residents would not have to experience constant traffic using the 

rural lanes. I have recommended condition (9) which would ensure that 

deliveries/collections are not made at unsociable hours. 

I therefore consider that the proposal would have no undue impact on the residential 

amenities of the neighbouring properties. 

Highway Implications 

I am awaiting comments from Kent Highway Services in respect of highway safety, 

particularly the use of the access and the potential increase in traffic along High Oak 

Hill, a narrow country lane. These will be reported to Members at the meeting. 

I have considered the proposal against policy RC7 – Rural Lanes and am of the view 

that this agricultural enterprise would not create a level of traffic that would be to the 

detriment of the character of this country lane. 

Other Issues 

A number of residents have commented on the potential impact of the proposal on 

the wildlife within the adjacent woodland and the impact on wildlife as a 

consequence of the removal of the oak tree. I note that Kent Wildlife Trust raise no 

objection subject to restricting the areas where the chickens are allowed to roam. I 

have therefore imposed an informative to this effect. Members should also note that 

no protected species have been identified by local residents or the applicant as 

being on the application site itself and I do not therefore consider a protected species 

survey is necessary. 

Members should note that the Council has written to the applicant with a screening 

opinion under Regulation 7 of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental 

Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999. The conclusion was 

that the proposal would not have a significant impact on the environment and that an 

Environmental Impact Assessment was not required. 

Overlooking of The Bungalow has been raised by an objector. Owing to the distance 

between the properties, I do not consider that there would be any overlooking in this 

case. Continued . . . 

48


I do not consider that a condition controlling the areas that the chickens are allowed 

to enter would be reasonable in this case. Planning permission is not required for 

the use of the land for chickens to graze and the application site is restricted to the 

red line only which is drawn tightly around the proposed buildings and access. A 

better approach would be for the applicant to contact Kent Wildlife Trust to discuss 

the potential impact on flora within the woodland and I have recommended an 

Informative to this effect. 


Having considered the relevant planning policies, comments from local residents, the 

parish council and consultees, I am of the view that the proposed development is 

acceptable in principle. This would be agricultural development on agricultural land 

and the mobile home has been justified on a temporary basis in my view and that of 

the Council’s agricultural planning consultant. The impact of the development on the 

visual amenities, landscape and conservation area has been assessed in detail 

above. I have concluded that, on balance, weighted against the positive impacts that 

this development would have on the rural economy, the proposal would be 

acceptable in this respect. The poultry business would not generate a significant 

amount of traffic and I am of the view that there would be no significant disturbance 

to local residents as a consequence of the traffic travelling past their properties. The 

smell can be controlled by Environmental Health legislation and I do not consider 

that there would be any significant noise created by the chickens themselves. The 

implications for highway safety are yet to be considered in full as I am awaiting 

comments from Kent Highway Services. 

Taking the above into account I recommend that planning permission be granted 

subject to comments from Kent Highway Services and the Council’s Tree 

Consultant. 

___ ___________________________________________________________ 


__ ____________________________________________________________ 




49

PART 2 

2.7 SW/10/0502 (Case No 23866 ) FAVERSHAM 

Location: 

Proposal: 

1 Mountfield Faversham Kent ME13 8SZ 

2 storey side and rear extension and room in roof 

Applicant/Agent: 

Mr M Eaglestone & Miss L Evans, c/o Peter Hutchinson 

Architects, 50 Ospringe Street, Faversham, Kent, ME13 8TN 

Application Valid: 15 April 2010 and as amended by drawings received 16 and 23 

June 2010 


Conditions 






(2) Prior to the commencement of development, details of the external finishing 

materials to be used on the development hereby permitted shall be submitted 

to and approved in writing by the District Planning Authority and shall be 

implemented in accordance with the approved details. 

Grounds: In the interests of visual amenity and in pursuance of policies E1 






the area. In resolving to grant permission, particular regard has been had to the 

following policies: E1, E19 and E24 of The Swale Borough Local Plan 2008 


It is proposed to construct a 2 storey side/rear extension and single storey side 

extension along with the relocation of the vehicle access and hardstanding for 2 

vehicles. The existing roof would be replaced in slate along with the windows in 

UPVC which would also involve changes to the size of the openings. 


50


The scheme now proposed has been the subject of much discussion having 

originally been submitted for pre-application advice. The applicant was informed that 

the proposed extensions would be unlikely to receive approval due to the scale, 

design and siting – being regarded as cramped, overdevelopment of the site, out of 

keeping with both the existing building and surrounding area. 

After further pre-application discussions, the current scheme of reduced scale was 

submitted, but objections were again received – including objections from the Town 

Council due to the scale, design and siting. Further advice was given to reduce the 

height of the ridge to the 2 storey extension, to replace the large velux rooflights with 

smaller conservation style ones and to omit the awkward single storey element to 

the rear of the proposed single storey side extension. The amendments to the 

scheme as now proposed represent some heed to the advice given – although a 

small area of flat roof has now been included which was not previously discussed. 

The architect has pointed out that the ridge line of the extension has been lowered 

as requested, and the flat-roofed area would not be seen as such but as a ridgeline. 

The extension has also been narrowed and a solar panel omitted. 


1 Mountfield is located to the south of the highway. Set back from the highway by 

some 4.5m, the property comprises a neat, detached building with attached garage. 

Partly rendered with concrete tile over, the building sits in line with the adjoining 

property Number 2 and is of similar architectural style to the other dwellings in the 

area. 

Mountfield is a cul-de-sac development which is excluded from the Faversham 

conservation Area. With the exception of 3 pairs of semi-detached properties to the 

north east of the application site, the dwellings are detached and set well back from 

the highway. There is off road parking provided by way of garages and 

drives/hardstanding. The houses opposite are set slightly lower than the level of the 

highway 

Other than the history described above, given the information available, there 

appears to be no other relevant planning history to the site. 


Faversham Town Council recommend refusal of the application (even as amended) 

as being too large for its surroundings and in relation to the existing building. They 

also refer to a possible terracing effect. In response to amendments the Town 

Council say that the changes are insufficient to change their view. 


The Faversham Society object to the application because the works would 

completely disguise the original form of the property, with fenestration not related to 

the remainder of Mountfield, harming the character and appearance of the 

conservation area and resulting in loss of amenity to neighbours. They also oppose 

the room in the roof and loss of garden area. 


51


I have consulted neighbours on the application as originally submitted and as 

amended. I have received two letters prior to amendments and one since, opposing 

the proposals on the following summarised grounds: 

1. Properties in Mountfield do not have dormer windows, so the proposed rear 

dormer is out of character and rooflights would be more appropriate. 

2. The rear “Juliet” balcony should be omitted. 

3. The drawings do not specify measurements from the extensions to the 

boundaries 

NOTE: 

The amended block plan now specifies these dimensions. 

4. The size of the resultant property would not be in keeping with Mountfield and 

the surrounding area. It more than doubles the size of the house and fails to 

reflect its character. 

5. Loss of the garage will result in car parking on local roads – especially with 

the additional bedrooms proposed. 

6. Windows on the east elevation will overlook property in Upper St Ann’s Road. 

The extension will also cast shadow over adjacent gardens. 

7. It may set a precedent for other properties in the area. 

Policies 

E1, E19, E24 and T3 of The Swale Borough Local Plan 2008 which aim to ensure 

that development is of a high quality, with little adverse impact on the environment 

and residential amenity 

Supplementary Planning Guidance: ‘Designing an Extension’ is also relevant. 

Discussion 

Policy E24 of The Swale Borough Local Plan 2008 requires that alterations and 

extensions are of high quality and in scale by height and massing with regard to the 

surrounding area or its individual details. Extensions are also required to maintain or 

enhance the character of the streetscene. In this regard it should be noted that the 

property abuts the Faversham conservation area. 

In this case the proposed 2 storey side extension (as amended) would reach an 

overall height below that of the existing ridge height of the dwelling, although this 

would be achieved by way of the inclusion of a flat roof in order to provide a room 

within the roof space. When viewed from the front, the proposed 2 storey extension 

would relate well to the original dwelling as the existing window openings would be 

altered in size and the windows replaced with a different style. I do not find this 

unacceptable per se as the existing building is of little architectural merit but it must 

then be accepted that the resulting building wll not resemble the original dwelling. 


52


The proposed single storey side extension to the western elevation would be 

relatively low key and in scale with the original dwelling. 

The character of the streetscene is that of fairly similar, detached dwellings with 

steep hipped and tiled roofs and attached or integral garages. Properties, although 

fairly close to side boundaries, are set well back from the road and the streetscene 

has good spatial quality representative of the era in which the houses were 

constructed. The extension would not visually link properties, and I cannot see any 

potential terracing effect. 

The 2 storey element would have just one obscure glazed window to the flank wall 

serving a bathroom. Properties adjoining the site in Upper St Anns Road are some 

25m from the eastern boundary and, although would be able to clearly see the new 

flank wall of the extension, would not suffer such detriment as to warrant refusal on 

grounds of loss of overlooking, privacy, dominance or light. 

The scheme comprises 4 bedrooms with a children’s play room and shower room in 

the roof. According to the revised drawings there would be space to the side of the 

dwelling sufficient for the parking of 2 cars off road. A new access/dropped kerb 

would also be provided and a front garden area created where the existing drive is 

located. 


Although this extension is larger, and the drawings show slate rather than tile to all 

existing and proposed roof slopes, I see no reason to oppose it on this generous 

site. I note local concerns, but can find no substantial harm arising from the 

proposals. Accordingly, I recommend that planning permission is granted. 

___________ 

Responsible Officer: Graham Thomas (Area Planning Officer) 

List of Background Papers 

1. Application papers and correspondence for Application SW/10/0502 

2. Application papers and correspondence Relating to Application SW/10/0013 

53

PART 2 

2.8 SW/10/0420 (Case 03009) SHEERNESS 

Location: 

Proposal: 

Woody’s Nightclub, Wood Street, Sheerness, Kent, ME12 1UA. 

Amendment to existing (implemented) planning permission 

SW/05/0401 – Replacing Medical Centre with lock up 

commercial accommodation together with 7 flats over. 

Applicant/Agent: Accent Peerless HSG Assc C/O Mr Peter Cook, Cook 

Associates, 1 Limes Place, Preston Street, Faversham, Kent 

Application Valid: 15 April 2010 and as amended by drawings received 14 June 

2010 


Conditions 






(2) The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the 

approved drawings 002, 003 Rev A, 003A, 004A, 005A, 006, 007, 550 

received on 6 th April 2010 and 14 th June 2010. 

Grounds: 

For the avoidance of doubt. 

Pre-commencement conditions 

(3) No development approved by this permission shall be commenced prior to a 

contaminated land assessment (and associated remediation strategy if 

relevant), being submitted to and approved in writing by the District Planning 

Authority, comprising: 

a) A desk study and conceptual model, based on the historical uses of the 

site and proposed end-uses, and professional opinion as to whether 

further investigative works are required. A site investigation strategy, 

based on the results of the desk study, shall be approved by the 

District Planning Authority prior to any intrusive investigations 

commencing on site. 


54


b) An investigation, including relevant soil, soil gas, surface and 

groundwater sampling, carried out by a suitably qualified and 

accredited consultant/contractor in accordance with a Quality Assured 

sampling and analysis methodology. 

c) A site investigation report detailing all investigative works and sampling 

on site, together with the results of analyses, risk assessment to any 

receptors and a proposed remediation strategy which shall be of such 

a nature as to render harmless the identified contamination given the 

proposed end-use of the site and surrounding environment, including 

any controlled waters. 

Grounds: To ensure any contaminated land is adequately dealt with, in 

pursuance of Policies E1, E2 and E3 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008. 

(4) No development shall take place until full size joinery details of the windows 

and doors to include the shopfront to be used in the development hereby 

permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the District 

Planning Authority. The development shall then proceed in accordance with 

the approved details. 

Grounds: To preserve or enhance the special character or appearance of 

the conservation area and the setting of the adjacent Listed Buildings, as 

supported by Policies E1, E14, E15 and E19 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 

2008. 

(5) No development shall take place until full constructional details for the roof 

eaves, ridges, verges, Juliet balconies, metal gate, and brick arches and brick 

quoins of the new building, at a scale of 1:5, have been submitted to and 

approved in writing by the District Planning Authority. The works shall then be 

carried out in accordance with the approved details. 




2008. 

(6) No development shall take place until samples of the materials (including a 

1m square sample panel of brickwork) to be used in the construction of the 

external surfaces of the development hereby permitted have been submitted 

to and approved in writing by the District Planning Authority. The 

development shall then be carried out in accordance with the approved 

details. 




2008. 


55


(7) No development shall take place until full details of hard landscape works 

have been submitted to and approved in writing by the District Planning 

Authority and these works shall be carried out as approved. These details 

shall include means of enclosure, hard surfacing materials, and an 

implementation programme. 


pursuance of Policies E1 and E19 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008. 

(8) No development shall take place until details of the making good of the party 

wall between the application site and the Listed Building at 97 High Street 

have been submitted to and approved in writing by the District Planning 

Authority. The development shall then be constructed in accordance with the 

approved details. 




2008. 

(9) No development shall take place until details of the design and decoration of 

temporary hoardings to the proposed shop fronts (if these are to be left 

exposed), together with details of the shop front themselves at a scale of 1:20 

and full scale have been submitted to and approved in writing by the District 

Planning Authority .The development shall then be constructed in accordance 

with such approved details. 




2008. 

(10) No development shall take place until design details of the metalwork of the 

gate hereby permitted shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the 

District Planning Authority. The development shall then be constructed in 

accordance with such approved details. 




2008. 

(11) No development shall take place until details have been submitted to, and 

approved in writing by the District Planning Authority, which set out what 

measures will be taken to ensure that the development incorporates 

sustainable construction techniques such as rainwater harvesting, water 


56


conservation, energy efficiency and, where appropriate, the use of local 

building materials; and provisions for the production of renewable energy such 

as wind power, or solar thermal or solar photo voltaic installations. Upon 



development, and in pursuance of policies E1 and E21 of the Swale Borough 

Local Plan 2008 

(12) No development shall take place until a surface water drainage scheme for 

the site, based on sustainable drainage principles and an assessment of the 

hydrological and hydroecological context of the development has been 

submitted to and approved in writing by the District Planning Authority. The 

scheme shall be subsequently implemented in accordance with the approved 

details prior to the occupation of any part of the development hereby 

approved. 

Grounds: To mitigate against impact of flooding and in pursuance of policies 

E1 and E4 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008. 

(13) No development shall take place until details outlining flood-proofing 

measures have been submitted to and approved in writing by the District 

Planning Authority. The scheme shall then proceed in accordance with the 

approved details. 



Non pre-commencement conditions 

(14) Before any part or agreed phase of the development is occupied, all 

remediation works identified in the contaminated land assessment and 

approved by the District Planning Authority shall be carried out in full (or in 

phases as agreed in writing by the District Planning Authority) on site under a 

quality assured scheme to demonstrate compliance with the proposed 

methodology and best practice guidance. If during the works, contamination 

is encountered which has not previously been identified, then the additional 

contamination shall be fully assessed and an appropriate remediation scheme 




(15) Upon completion of the works identified in the contaminated land assessment, 

and before any part or agreed phase of the development is occupied, a 

closure report shall be submitted which shall include details of the proposed 

remediation works with quality assurance certificates to show that the works 


57


have been carried out in accordance with the approved methodology. Details 

of any post-remediation sampling and analysis to show the site has reached 

the required clean-up criteria shall be included in the closure report together 

with the necessary documentation detailing what waste materials have been 

removed from the site. 



(16) The commercial units hereby permitted shall only be used for uses falling 

within class A1 (retail), A2 (financial and professional services) or B1 

(business) of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (as 

amended) 

Grounds: In the interests of the amenities of the area, in pursuance of 

Policies E1 and B3 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008. 

(17) All hard landscape works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved 

details. The works shall be carried out prior to the occupation of any part of 

the development or in accordance with the programme agreed in writing with 

the District Planning Authority. 


pursuance of Policies E1 and E19 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008. 

(18) The buildings hereby permitted shall not be occupied until space has been 

laid out for cycle parking within the site in accordance with details to be 

submitted to the District Planning Authority for approval in writing. 

Grounds: In the interests of highway safety and in pursuance of Policies 

E1 and T3 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008. 

(19) The area allocated for parking and/or turning on the submitted plan shall be 

kept clear of obstruction and shall not be used other than for the parking of 

vehicles in connection with the development hereby permitted. 

Grounds: In the interests of amenity and road safety and in pursuance of 

Policy T3 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008. 

(20) No impact pile driving in connection with the construction of the development 

shall take place on the site on any Saturday, Sunday or Bank Holiday, nor on 

any other day except between the following times: 

Monday to Friday 0900 – 1700 hours unless in association with an emergency 

or with the prior written approval of the District Planning Authority. 


Policies E1 and E2 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008. 


58




following times: 

Monday to Friday 0730 – 1900 hours, Saturday 0730 – 1300 hours unless in 




Policies E1 and E2 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008. 

(22) The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out otherwise than in 

complete accordance with the approved plans and specifications. 




2008. 

(23) All rainwater goods to be used as part of the development hereby permitted 

shall be of cast iron. 




2008. 

(24) The brickwork to be laid on the front elevation of the building hereby permitted 

shall be laid in Flemish Bond. 




2008. 

(25) The finished floor level for all living accommodation shall be no lower than 

6.4maODN. 







the area or prejudice highway safety or convenience or cause unacceptable harm to 


59


the special character or appearance of the Conservation Area or the setting of the 

adjoining Listed Buildings. In resolving to grant permission, particular regard has 

been had to the following policies: E1, E2, E4, E14, E15, E19, E21, B3 & T3 of the 

Swale Borough Local Plan 2008. 

Introduction 

Planning permission and Conservation Area Consent was granted in March 2006 for 

the demolition of the former Woody’s nightclub and the erection of a two storey 

medical centre and 23 apartments under SW/05/0401 and SW/05/0191 respectively. 

The first phase (excluding the medical centre part of the development) has been 

completed and these apartments are now occupied. 

However the Primary Care Trust have funded and built another medical centre less 

than 400m away from the site and no longer have a requirement for one on the 

application site. 

This application is a resubmission following refusal of planning permission for a 

similar scheme by the planning committee in 2009 under planning reference 

SW/08/0644 which sought to replace the approved medical centre with lock up 

commercial facilities with apartments over. This application was refused against my 

recommendation to approve for one reason based on overintensification of the site. 

The specific reason read as follows: 

“The proposed building by reason of its height, bulk and mass would represent an 

overintensification of development on this site and would neither preserve or 

enhance the setting of the adjacent Listed Buildings nor the character or appearance 

of the Sheerness Mile Town Conservation Area contrary to Policies E1, E14, E15 

and E19 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008 and Policies Ql1, QL6 and QL8 of 

the Kent and Medway Structure Plan and to the Council’s Supplementary Planning 

Guidance entitled Conservation Areas and Listed Buildings: A Guide for Owners and 

Occupiers.” 

The decision followed a well-attended site meeting where the impact on views to the 

Sheerness windmill was high on the agenda. 

Description of Proposals 

The current application also seeks an amendment to the approved two storey 

medical centre with what would be mainly a three storey building with some four 

storey elements comprising of seven additional flats over two lock up commercial 

retail or financial/ professional units. Members may note that in condition (15) above 

I have recommended permitting B1 (business) use as I consider offices here would 

be an acceptable use of the ground floor units. 


60


In terms of the similarities and differences to the most recently refused scheme, the 

site layout, building layout and ground, first and second floor layouts are very similar. 

However, the third floor would only feature one apartment with one bedroom, 

whereas under the previous scheme two apartments were proposed, both with two 

bedrooms on the third floor. 

The biggest change to the scheme is how the front elevation of the building has been 

treated. The design has been altered to reduce the appearance of bulk and scale by 

altering the heights of parts of the building. The second phase of the building has 

been designed using a range of different materials, different styles and different 

heights so that the building reads as four different parts rather than one long 

unbroken elevation. The section immediately adjacent to the first phase of the 

development has been reduced from four storeys under the previous scheme to 

three storeys in the current scheme and subsequently the height has been reduced 

from approximately 14 metres to approximately 11.6 metres to the top of the pitch. 

The rear elevation has been treated in a similar manner to the front elevation by 

featuring different building styles and materials to reduce the appearance of bulk and 

scale. 

A parking court would be provided to the rear of the building accessed via the 

existing underpass constructed as part of the first phase of the development. Nine 

parking spaces would be provided, two of which would be designated disabled 

spaces. A lockable secure cycle parking area is also proposed. A refuse store is 

proposed at ground floor level accessed via the rear of the building. 

The two commercial units would be accessed via Wood Street itself and the 

elevational drawings show active shop fronts. The first commercial unit would have 

a floorspace of 31 square metres and the second 52 square metres. 

The application is accompanied by a Design and Access Statement. Extracts read 

as follows: 

“In 2009, an application was made for an amendment to the extant consent. This 

was for 9 flats to replace the medical centre. It was rejected by Members by one 

vote. This was primarily because the development of the flats had enabled the 

adjoining landowner to erect a pastiche windmill on the stump of a former windmill, 

the stump being listed. Some Members had expressed concerns that existing views 

of that windmill would be lost. In fact, this was a false argument as there were no 

existing views as will be explained. At the time it was not made clear to Members 

that the Environment Agency had requested the Applicants, and the Officers had 

obliged them then imposed an obligation on them, to build above the notional 1,000 

year flood plain. That is, there was an imperative laid on the Applicants to build the 

lowest floor of their residential accommodation 4.3m above the ground level. This 

self-evidently raises both the overall height of the development by 4.3m, but also 

substantially increases the cost of the development by circa £20,000.00 per unit. 


61


At the time it was also not sufficiently made clear to Members, that the car park site 

on the other side of the road from the development site is zoned in the Local Plan for 

residential development and that development too will have to be at a height of circa 

4.3m above the existing ground level with the ongoing increase in development cost. 

The development has been designed to introduce materials and a form that 

distinguishes it from the 23 units already adjoining. This is to give it a more organic 

appearance and this design approach is also significantly smaller than the bulk of the 

scheme already approved and constructed and smaller that the bulk of the cinema 

building that previously occupied the site. It is smaller than the previous application. 

The development will utilise both red and yellow stock bricks and also a black stained 

featheredged weatherboard. This will distinguish it from the existing that has a pastel 

weatherboard, cedar boarding and yellow brick. Materials are detailed on the 

drawings. 

The development is distanced from the rear of the adjoining listed building. This was 

formerly attached to the cinema. The wall of the cinema remains to weatherproof the 

listed building as the latter has been utilising the cinema wall as its external cladding. 

However, because the remaining wall is not of high aesthetic value, a new wall and 

gate are to be constructed to screen it. This has been discussed and agreed with 

Officers. 

It is not considered that the proposal will have a negative impact on others. It 

continues the built-up frontage to Wood Street. It is distanced from the listed 

building. The impact of development above 2-storeys has been questioned by the 

Developer of the windmill project. With respect to that we note the following: 

(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

there were no views of the windmill from the street when the site was 

occupied by the cinema; 

there would have been no views of the windmill from Wood Street if the 

medical centre had been constructed. Any difference in height between the 

current proposal and the medical centre are irrelevant to this fact as 

demonstrated by the sections submitted as part of this application. Therefore 

in terms of impact and views there is no difference between 2 and 3-storey 

accommodation. 

the car park in Wood Street is zoned for development and this would close 

down any more distant views. However, the existing apartments already 

constructed already close down those views as do the commercial buildings 

immediately opposite the site. In other words the only potential view would be 

from Wood Street, immediately outside the development, but even 2-storey 

development precludes this view. There is a view at the moment solely 

because the existing development has not been completed by construction of 

the medical centre building, but that building could still be constructed. 

Therefore there is no loss of view arising from the current development 

proposal and that is a demonstrable fact, illustrated as part of this application. 

The development is in accordance with Local Plan Policy and national guidance. 

This has been acknowledged by the Planners. It is considered that there would be 

no loss of amenity and the special character of the conservation area would be 

upheld. 


62


. Objection has previously been made by a Developer that the proposal would impact 

on his windmill pastiche development. There is no impact. Argument has been put 

forward that a view of the windmill will be lost by development of this site. This is 

demonstrably false. There was no view when the cinema stood and there was no 

application for development of the windmill until after application had been made for 

the 23 apartments and medical centre. The development of the windmill project was 

therefore carried out in the full knowledge that there would be no views from it 

towards Wood Street and no views from Wood Street towards it. This proposed 

development is therefore not having a negative impact on the commercial viability of 

the windmill development.” 


This application relates to an area of land on the east side of West Street formerly 

comprising of the large rectangular shaped building known as Woody’s Nightclub. 

The site is located within the Sheerness Mile Town Conservation Area. 

To the rear of the former Woody’s building is the newly reconstructed Rides Mill 

windmill, which is a Grade II Listed Building. Members will note that both planning 

permission and listed building consent were granted for the alteration, renovation 

and extension of this building to form 3 residential units. These permissions have 

been implemented and work on this development is nearing completion. However, 

very recently the owner of Rides Mill has been granted planning permission to 

change the use of the windmill to A2 (financial and professional services) use. 

However the existing extension to the windmill would remain in residential use under 

this new permission (application reference SW/10/0569). Beyond this is Portland 

Terrace – a terrace of 2 storey houses located at right angles to the application site. 

Opposite the site is Rose Street Car Park and the service yards to various shops 

which front onto Sheerness High Street. To the south of the site is a large telephone 

exchange building beyond which are 2 storey terraced housing. To the north east 

side of the application site is a row of mainly 2 and 3 storey terraced commercial 

buildings which front onto the High Street, including No. 97, a Grade II Listed 

Building. 

In terms of the planning history of the application site, permission was granted in 

March 1979 for the change of use of the building to a nightclub/discotheque (Ref: 

SW/78/538). However as mentioned above more recently there have been two 

applications, the first for the demolition of Woody’s and erection of a two storey 

medical centre and 23 apartments which was granted in March 2006 (Ref: 

SW/05/0401 and SW/05/0191). Following that was an application to amend that 

scheme to replace the medical centre with lock up commercial facilities with 

apartments over, which was refused by the Planning Committee. 

Views of Consultess 

The Environment Agency whilst acknowledging that the site is known to be at risk 

from flooding raise no objection to the application provided that the local authority 

are content that the site meets the requirements of the sequential test. The Agency 

have also recommended three conditions preventing flood risk be attached to the 

permission should Members be mindful to approved the scheme. 


63


The Council’s Head of Environment and Amenities raises no objection and 

recommends conditions relating to any potential contamination, limiting the hours of 

construction work and hours of any potential impact pile driving, restricting the 

opening hours of commercial units, and a programme of dust suppression. 

Kent Highway Services have raised no objection to the application. They have 

recommended two conditions relating to parking. 


Four letters of objection have been received from neighbouring residents. Their 

comments can be summarised as follows; 

• Object as the flats that have already been built were altered without any 

notice to residents (a storey higher than they should have been) 

• The top flat overlooks our garden and verandas look into our conservatory 

and garden 

• Is far less satisfactory than the one that was granted permission 

• The height of the buildings are much too tall immediately adjacent to no’s 95 

& 97 High Street 

• Accept that the scheme is slightly lower than the original building, however, 

have to consider the setting of the grade II listed windmill 

• The restored windmill will reinstate a long-absent historic landmark and its 

presence should be a determining influence on any neighbouring new 

development 

• Do not suggest that the mill should be isolated and fully visible, but the scale 

of surrounding buildings should improve rather than impair its visibility 

• A stepped construction from a single storey building up to meet with the 

existing units should be required 

• Is it prudent to develop more commercial units particularly off the High Street 

in the present economic climate? 

• Or are the commercial units a means to lift the living accommodation above 

the ground floor above flood risk level 

• This should be refused on the grounds of replacing one over-scaled and 

architecturally undistinguished building with another tall building 

• Must protect the visual amenity in a conservation area by taking advantage of 

the removal of the Woody’s building 

• This represents crude over-development of the site 

• Is appalling that another such intrusive application has been put forward, 

particularly in view of the close proximity of the listed Rides Mill and 

conservation area 

• Fails abysmally to respect the integrity of the historic site 

• The Island is proud of its beautiful landmark windmill which the owner has 

courageously strove to authentically restore 

• The original plans were presented to Members of the Planning Committee 

with a favourable impression of a mixed healthcare/ housing scheme which 

increased the acceptability of the scheme 


64


• Would be interested to know the opinion of the Conservation Officer with 

regards to boxing the windmill in with yet another high-density overbearing 

development 

• Would be undesirable anywhere within a town centre, but this is also a 

conservation area 

• Suggest that you take advice from Cranbrook Councillors as Cranbrook 

windmill is the sister mill to the Great Mill of Sheerness 

• If the application is granted it will fly in the face of the provisions in current 

legislation for the protection of listed buildings 

A letter from Sheerness Society objecting to the development has been received 

repeating exactly the concerns raised by the writer in his personal response and 

summarised above. 

Sheppey Local History Society and Gatehouse Museum have also raised objection. 

Their comments can be summarised as follows; 

• Have been delighted to see the restoration of the derelict Mill which is now a 

monument for the town and illustrates aspects of our history 

• The potential of the renovation has been reduced already by the construction 

of flats rather too close. 

• The opportunity to improve the area is being lost 

• The new buildings attempt to reflect the character of the surroundings in a 

modern way but the ground level is unattractive 

• The height level appears to be unfortunate 

• The need for further retail space is questioned 

• Also surprised there is a demand for flats at present 

• It is shame this area could not be landscaped and the development built on 

another site nearby 

• The whole area between Hope Street and the mill requires a proper plan 

Relevant Policies 

Planning Policy Statement (PPS5) – Planning for the Historic Environment, Policies 

E14 & E15 (Development involving listed building and conservation areas) of the 

Swale Borough Local Plan 2008 are relevant to the consideration of this application. 

The Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance Note entitled “Conservation Areas” 

should also be noted. 

Policies E1 and E19 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008 also address design 

issues, whilst Policy T3 (parking) of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008 is also 

pertinent. 

Policy E3 deals with land contamination and Policy E4 with flood risk. Policy B3 

aims to maintain vitality and viability in town centres. This site lies in a secondary 

shopping frontage as defined on the Local Plan proposals map. 


65


Policy E21 discusses sustainable construction. 

Members should also note that Planning Policy Statement 1 (PPS1) seeks to 

promote sustainable development, partly locating new dwellings within existing urban 

areas and close to transport links. PPS3 (Housing) stresses the importance of 

making the best use of land and the importance of creating mixed communities by 

size and type of dwelling and designing for quality. 

Discussion 

I consider the key considerations in this case are whether or not the proposal will 

have an unacceptable impact on the neighbouring listed buildings and surrounding 

conservation area. 

Having considered this at some length, and bearing in mind that the footprint of the 

building has not changed, and there has been the removal of one apartment from the 

scheme, I consider that the architect has addressed Members’ previous concerns 

regarding the bulk and height of the building. In his use of materials, colours and 

different design principles, the architect has in my view taken on board the previous 

criticisms and managed to retain the value of the accommodation, whilst significantly 

improving the design by reducing the visual perception of a bulky and over-intensive 

development. I considered the previous scheme to be of an acceptable scale and 

height, and this scheme is lower. 

I note that the current scheme remains taller than the approved 2005 scheme. 

However, as before, I do not consider that the building would appear out of keeping 

with the urban form of the area, which is surrounded by a variety of building heights 

and styles. It should also be noted that the building would not be located 

immediately adjacent to the two storey listed building, but would be visually 

separated by a wall and access gate. I must also stress to Members that not only do 

I consider the current building form to be acceptable in its own right, but also taking 

into consideration the profile and form of the former Woody’s building which until 

recently was located on the site, this development would amount to a significant 

improvement on the setting of the adjacent listed buildings and the character of the 

conservation area. 

Demolition of the former Woody’s building was approved in March 2006 given that 

the building’s scale and appearance, it made a poor contribution to the character and 

appearance of the Conservation Area. 

Since the 2009 refusal there has been a change in planning policy and legislation 

which should be noted and taken into consideration in the determination of this 

application. Firstly, the Kent & Medway Structure Plan has been superseded and 

Planning Policy Guidance 15 has been replaced with Planning Policy Statement 5 

(PPS5) which advises on Planning for the historic environment. The essential 

messages contained within PPS5 which are of relevance to this application are not 


66


particularly new and follow similar advice to that contained within its predecessor. 

However, PPS5 does require applicants to provide a description of the significance 

of the heritage assets affected by a proposal. It expects the level of detail should be 

proportionate to the importance of the heritage asset. 

I note from the correspondence received in respect of the application that the impact 

of the development on the adjacent listed buildings (particularly the recently restored 

mill) remains of significant concern to neighbouring residents and interested groups. 

I have considered this point at length and walked around the surrounding area to 

gain a good understanding of where there are currently view points of the mill. 

Currently the best public view point of the mill (other than the access to the mill) is 

directly outside of the rear of Hope Street church. Here the mill can be seen above a 

tree and also to the side of phase 1 of the development. However, as you move 

closer towards Bethel Sunday School, the mill becomes obscured by buildings 

fronting Rose Street, including the Sheerness Heritage Centre. In Wood Street itself, 

it is very hard to see the windmill at all, other than from very close range where even 

the approved two storey building would obscure the view entirely. I therefore do not 

consider that the current proposal would significantly obscure existing or long-term 

views of the windmill, which up until recently would have been almost entirely 

obscured by the former Woody’s building, as the current views of the Mill are pretty 

limited. To the rear the mill is surrounded by modern housing and shop extensions 

which are not particularly beneficial to its setting. I consider the removal of the 

former Woody’s building and its replacement with the current proposal would have a 

significantly beneficial impact on the setting of not only the mill, but the adjoining 

listed estate agents, and would enhance the character of the conservation area. 

In respect of other planning considerations, I consider the site does meet the 

requirements of the sequential and exception tests in respect of flood risk. Within 

Planning Policy Statement 25 (Flooding), dwellings are described as a more 

vulnerable land use and for proposals for dwellings within flood zone 3a, firstly the 

Sequential test should be applied. This seeks to steer new development to areas at 

the lowest probability of flooding. Within Sheerness, this is not easily possible as the 

whole of the town is located within that flood zone. Following this, the Exceptions 

test should be applied. This states that there must be wider community benefits, the 

development must be on previously developed land and the Flood Risk Assessment 

(FRA) must demonstrate that the development would be safe without increasing 

flooding elsewhere. I would argue that this has been demonstrated as the submitted 

information makes clear that the apartments would have a floor level above 6.4m 

ODN and I have also recommended a condition ensuring this is the case. In addition 

the Environment Agency have not raised objection to the application. 

In terms of any impact on residential amenity the nearest residential are those at 

Portland Terrace at present (which are at right angles to the proposed development) 

although when completed the extended part of the Listed Windmill will be the closest 

residential development to this site. Nevertheless it is important to recognise that 

whilst the rear wall of the proposed development would only be 16.7m from the 

restored listed windmill it would still be further away than the previous Woody’s 


67


building which was 8.5m and also the previous health care building was 

approximately 13.8m from the Windmill, both of which had many windows and doors 

within their rear elevations. I therefore consider that whilst the separation distance of 

16.7m between habitable windows would be less than the 21m the Council normally 

seeks, this is a town centre brownfield site, which would still have a greater 

separation distance than previously occurred at the site. 

I therefore consider that any overlooking, overshadowing, or loss of privacy would 

not be so significant to warrant withholding consent for this reason alone. 

In terms of parking and highway safety, I am content that the scheme is acceptable 

and note that Kent Highway Services has not raised objection. 


This scheme has been amended to address the concerns of Members raised in 

refusing the previous scheme in respect of overdevelopment of the site due to the 

height, bulk and mass of the building. I am content that the re-designed scheme 

satisfies the statutory tests that are material considerations in this case i.e. that the 

development does not cause harm to the special character or appearance of the 

conservation area or to the setting of the adjoining listed buildings. This view is 

further formed by the consideration of the benefits to the character and appearance 

of the area brought about by this scheme compared to what the existing situation 

was prior to the demolition of the former Woody’s building. 

I therefore recommend that planning permission be granted. 



1. Application Papers for Application SW/10/0420 

2. Application Papers and correspondence for Application SW/08/0644 

3. Application papers and correspondence for applications SW/05/0191, 

SW/05/0401 and SW/78/0538. 

68

PART 2 

2.9 SW/10/0599 (Case 02092) DUNKIRK 

Location: 

Proposal: 

The Brotherhood Woodyard, Gatehill, Dunkirk, Nr Faversham, 

Kent, ME13 9LN 

The use of land for the stationing of caravans for residential 

purposes for 4 gypsy pitches (2 single pitches, 1 double pitch) 

together with the formation of additional hard standing, 

utility/dayrooms ancillary to that use and the retention of an 

existing stable block 

Applicant/Agent: Mrs Joseph Robb, c/o Mr Matthew Green, Green Planning 

Solutions LLP, Unit D, Lunesdale, Upton Magna Business Park, 

Upton Magna, Shrewsbury, SY4 4TT 

Application Valid: 18 May 2010 

SUBJECT TO: 

Clarification of the Forestry Commission’s findings regarding 

tree felling 

13 WEEK TARGET:17 August 2010 

Conditions 






(2) There should be no more than three pitches on which no more than seven 

caravans, as defined in the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 

1960 and the Caravan Sites Act 1968, shall be stationed at any time, of which 

no more than four shall be residential mobile homes. 

Grounds: In accordance with the terms of the application and in the 

interest of the amenities of the area, and in pursuance of policies E1, E6, E9, 

E19 and H4 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008 

(3) The caravans shall be sited in accordance with plan No. 09_308_003 A 





69


(4) The site shall not be occupied by any persons other than gypsies and 

travellers as defined in paragraph 15 of ODPM Circular 01/2006. 


interest of the amenities of the area, and in pursuance of policies E1, E6 and 

H4 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008 

(5) The erection of the utility/day rooms hereby approved shall not take place 

until samples of the materials to be used in the construction of the external 

surfaces of the building have been submitted to and approved in writing by the 

local planning authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with 



interest of the amenities of the area, and in pursuance of policies E1, E6, E9 

and E19 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008 

(6) The site shall only be used for residential purposes, and it shall not be used for 

any business, industrial or commercial use other than agriculture and the 

keeping or breeding of animals. In this regard no open storage of plant, 

products or waste may take place on the land, and no vehicle over 3.5 tonnes 

shall be stationed, parked or stored on the land. 




(7) No floodlighting, security lighting or other external lighting shall be installed or 

operated at the site, other than in accordance with details that have first been 

submitted to and agreed in writing by the local planning authority. 



E9 and E12 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008 

(8) No development shall take place until full details of both hard and soft 

landscape works, including details of proposed fencing to areas for the 

keeping of livestock, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the 

District Planning Authority. These details shall include existing features, 

planting schedules of plants, noting species, plant sizes and numbers where 

appropriate, means of enclosure, surfacing materials, and an implementation 

programme. 

Grounds: In the interests of the visual amenities of the area, and in 

pursuance of Policies E1, E6, E9 and E19 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 

2008. 


70








2008. 


removed, dying, being severely damaged or becoming seriously diseased 

within five years of planting shall be replaced with trees or shrubs of such size 

and species as may be agreed in writing with the District Planning Authority, 

and within whatever planting season is agreed. 



2008. 

(11) No further materials including aggregates or topsoil shall be brought on to the 

site in connection with enhancement of the paddock, the creation of the 

garden or the creation of further hardstanding unless details of its nature, 

specification and origin have been submitted to and approved the District 


Grounds: In the interests of the amenities of the area, and in pursuance of 

Policies E1, E2, E6, E9 and E19 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008. 





the area or prejudice highway safety or convenience. In resolving to grant 

permission, particular regard has been had to the following policies: E1, E2, E6, E9, 



This application proposes to re-organise and increase the number of pitches and 

caravans on an existing private gypsy site. It is proposed to move from the 2007 

approved layout of two pitches (each with a mobile home and touring caravan) to 

four pitches – two single pitches and one double pitch. The single pitches would 

have one mobile home and one touring caravan, whilst the double pitch would have 

two mobile homes and one touring caravan. 


71


The application also proposes retention of an existing stable building, and erection of 

a permanent day room on each pitch. For the single pitches these would measure 

6.5m x 3.4m, and for the double pitch 10m x 6m. 

The final part of the application is the “enhancement” of an area of recently partly 

cleared and hard-cored woodland to create a paddock for keeping horses, the 

provision of an area of proposed hardstanding along with a garden area. 

The application is supported by a Design and Access Statement from which I draw 

the following points: 

• The day rooms will provide facilities that enable the occupants of the caravans 

to minimise hazards associated with cooking and fire in the close confines of 

caravans, and provide washing facilities. 

• Additional native hedgerow planting will be undertaken 

• The site is not in a location at risk from flooding 

• Foul drainage will be via an existing mains connection 


The site is well hidden, located to the south of the A2 slip road at Gate Hill. It is well 

screened from all directions by extensive areas of woodland, albeit some has 

recently been felled leaving isolated mature trees. The site is not visible from the A2, 

and is screened from the adjacent public footpath by a close boarded fence. Open 

wooded countryside lies to the side and rear of the site. This forms part of the Blean 

Woods Special Landscape Area, and the Blean Woods, South Local Wildlife Site as 

defined on the proposals map of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008. 

Planning permission was granted to the site in 1997 under planning reference 

SW/97/0923 for the retention of a mobile home. This granted temporary permission 

for a two year period. The mobile should have been removed from the site by 1999, 

but it appears that it was still on the site in 2007. 

Prior to this planning permission was granted in 1981 for the site to be used as a 

fencing yard. This permission was renewed under planning reference SW/86/1053 

in 1986, extending the use to 1991. Outline and later detailed, permission for a 

workshop building on the site were approved in 1991, 1994 and 1996. 

More recently and significantly, permanent but personal planning permission for two 

mobile homes and two touring caravans arranged as two pitches for gypsies, was 

granted in October 2007 (SW/07/0950). This area was, and remains, fully 

hardsurfaced. Members visited the site as part of one of their annual reviews of the 

Borough. Those applicants have recently vacated the site and the current applicant 

has taken over its occupation. 


72


It is worth noting that the area of the currently proposed caravan pitches does not 

enlarge the area that the 2007 permission extended to. The area of woodland which 

has recently been felled was not protected by a Tree Preservation Order (TPO), and 

this area is now largely proposed as paddock, but with a small additional area of 

proposed hardstanding and garden. 

This felled area has since been cleared around the retained trees and a large 

quantity of material has been brought in to create a level hardcore base which, I 

understand, the applicant wishes to cover in topsoil to create a well drained paddock 

where he can keep horses. 


Dunkirk Parish Council object to the application on the following grounds: 

“1. “The application only has any basis if the very considerable work 

already carried out on the site is accepted”. 

2. The application provides no details of waste storage and recycling 

facilities. There must be such facilities for what will in effect be four 

households. 

3. No vehicle parking is shown on the drawings/forms. 

4. Whilst the site may not be at risk from flooding there are water courses 

nearby, and this needs further examination, especially if the paddock 

area is to be used for grazing horses. 

5. The local area is known for its wildlife significance and it is 

unbelievable that work on the site has not been subjected to more 

rigorous examination. 

6. The application says no trees are to be felled, but four acres of 

woodland have already been removed, which were part of a local 

landscape area. 

7. Does a gypsy pitch not count as a residential unit?” 

The Environment Agency see the proposal as posing low environmental risk, and 

has confirmed that they do not wish to comment on this application. 

The Highways Agency offers no objection to the application. 

Natural England have queried the existence of trees on the site, and note that the 

proposals have the potential to adversely affect woodland classified on the ancient 

Woodland inventory, and have referred me to their Standing Advice on ancient 

woodland. This essentially advises that planning permission should not be granted 

for any development that results in loss or deterioration of ancient woodland unless 


73


the need for, and benefits of, the development in that location outweigh the loss of 

the woodland habitat. Local authorities are encouraged to include a policy requiring 

strict protection of ancient woodland from loss or deterioration in its core strategy. It 

is made clear that open land both temporary and permanent, is an important 

component of woodlands. However, loss of trees and the understorey and even loss 

of the soil, can damage the value of ancient woodland. 

Natural England’s Standing Advice on ancient woodland refers to the possibility of 

disturbance to protected species, and to require relevant surveys if these are thought 

likely to be affected. Natural England has not pointed to any likelihood of protected 

species being affected by the proposals. 

Kent Wildlife Trust notes that the site lies within the 665ha of the designated Blean 

Woods South Local Wildlife Site, as first identified in 1985 and extended to include 

land around Chartham Hatch in 1995. They add that the site lies immediately 

adjacent to ancient woodland and that the area is noted for its varied ground flora. 

By reference to aerial photographs from 2007 the Trust notes that the recently felled 

area is larger than the original woodyard which the 2007 planning permission related 

to, and that the clearance is a clear breach of planning policy in PPS9, which aims to 

prevent harm to biodiversity unless that loss is outweighed by the need for 

development, and is adequately mitigated against or compensated for. 

In “the absence of an exceptional case of justification for felling Ancient Woodland 

and any compensatory measures” the Trust objects to the grant of planning 

permission, and urges that Enforcement action be taken to halt all uses of the former 

ancient woodland, and to secure its boundaries so that it might be left to ‘naturalise’. 

The Trust suggests that a felling licence may have been required and that the 

Forestry Commission should be invited to comment, and that if permission is to be 

granted conditions should prevent floodlighting of the site and control the disposal of 

animal waste and water to avoid further damage to the remaining woodland. The 

Trust do not refer to any likelihood of protected species being affected by the 

proposals. 

The Forestry Commission have provided factual information in the form of the 

Government’s forestry policy, and definition of woodland types and ancient woodland 

inventory. This highlights the importance of ancient woodland and strongly 

discourages development that results in its loss, unless there are overriding public 

benefits arising from the development. 

The Commission do not comment on the legitimacy of recent felling, or on whether 

they are or not contemplating action to require re-planting of the woodland via a restocking 

notice. The Commission have sent a map showing that the southern part of 

the recently felled area was Conifer plantation on former ancient woodland, and that 

the northern part was ancient and semi-natural woodland albeit part of a small area 

relatively cut-off from the wider ancient woodland by the plantation and other 

permanent development. 


74


The County Planning Applications Group has commented that recent works have 

included importation of crushed concrete, hardcore and road planings to develop 

paddocks for the keeping and breeding of horses, which constitutes a matter to be 

dealt with at District level. 


I have one letter of objection to the proposal from a local resident, who raises the 

following summarised points: 

• There has already been quite a lot of work carried out on this site recently, 

and there are already caravans there. 

• Was planning permission granted? 

• The site access is off a slip road exiting the service station and may become 

an accident black spot 

• If the site is not properly policed it could become a no-go area and used for 

fly-tipping 

• Will the Council guarantee our safety, and protect our property, from the 

travellers? 

• It could set a precedent to anybody with a caravan who wants to live there. 

Travelodge, who run a hotel at The Gate Services, object to the application as they 

have experienced problems from sites close to their hotels including harassment of 

customers and staff (often females working alone), hygiene and environmental 

problems, thefts and car crime. At the Dunkirk hotel they report that intruders were 

ejected from the premises recently. 

One letter from local residents supports the proposal on the understanding that the 

site stays the same size applied for, and if further pitches are to be added, 

application is made through the proper channels. They also ask that no further trees 

be felled along the boundary with the A2. 

Relevant Planning Policies 

The Development Plan comprises the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008 (LP). LP 

Policy E6 seeks to protect the quality, character and amenity of the countryside, and 

states that development will not be permitted outside rural settlements in the 

interests of countryside conservation, unless related to an exceptional need for a 

rural location. 

Within Special Landscape Areas LP policy E9 gives priority to the long term 

protection and enhancement of the quality of the landscape, whilst having economic 

and social well being of their communities. 

LP policy E12 states that development likely to have an adverse effect on a Local 

Wildlife Site will not be permitted unless it can be clearly demonstrated that there is a 

need for the development which outweighs the interest of the site and that adverse 

impacts have been adequately mitigated, or where not possible, compensated for. 


75


PPS9: “Biodiversity and Geological Conservation” sets out the Government’s 

objectives which are to promote sustainable development, conserve, enhance and 

restore the diversity of England’s wildlife and geology, and to contribute to rural 

renewal and urban renaissance. It seeks to distinguish between local and higher 

status wildlife, but to protect ancient woodland for its biodiversity value. Finally, 

PPS9 encourages the maximisation of opportunities to building-in beneficial 

biodiversity features in development proposals. 

LP policy E1 sets out standards applicable to all development, saying that it should 

be well sited appropriate in scale, design and appearance with a high standard of 

landscaping, and have safe pedestrian and vehicular access whilst avoiding 

unacceptable consequences in highway terms. 

The A2 at this point is described as a Primary route in the Local Plan. LP policy T1 

requires that development proposals do not lead to an intensification of use of any 

existing access onto a primary or secondary distributor road or route, unless it can 

be created in a location which is acceptable to the Local Planning Authority and the 

Highway Authority, or where an access can be improved to an acceptable standard 

and achieve a high standard of safety through design. 

In terms of policies directly related to the provision of gypsy sites, the Local Plan (in 

production prior to recent advice) does not assess the need for sites, or allocate any 

new sites. It does however, encourage gypsies to provide their own sites via Policy 

H4 as follows: 

“Policy H4 

The Borough Council will only grant planning permission for the use of land for the 

stationing of homes for persons who can clearly demonstrate that they are gypsies or 

travelling showpersons with a genuine connection with the locality of the proposed site, 

in accordance with 1 and 2 below. 

1. For proposals involving the establishment of public or privately owned residential 

gypsy or travelling showpersons sites: 

a) there will be a proven need in the Borough for the site and for the size 

proposed; 

b) the site will be located close to local services and facilities; 

c) there will be no more than four caravans; 

d) the site will be located close to the primary or secondary road networks 

e) in the case of a greenfield site there is no suitable site available on 

previously developed land in the locality; 

f) the site is not designated for its wildlife, historic or landscape importance; 

g) the site should be served, or capable of being served, by mains water 

supply and a satisfactory means of sewage disposal and refuse collection; 

h) there is no conflict with pedestrian or highway safety; 

i) screening and landscaping will be provided to minimise adverse impacts; 

j) no industrial, retail, commercial, or storage activities will take place on the 

site. 


76


k) use of the site will not give rise to significant adverse impacts upon 

residential amenity, or agricultural or commercial use, of surrounding 

areas; and 

i) the land will not be in a designated flood risk area. 

2. Additionally to 1, for proposals for short term stopping places: 

m) there will be a planning condition to ensure that the length of stay for each 

caravan will be no longer than 28 days with no return to the site within 3 

months.” 

At a national level, Circular 1/94 was for a long time the standard advice on gypsy 

sites, but this has been superseded by Circular 01/2006 which was published on 2 nd 

February 2006, along with a raft of other guidance and draft advice relating to this 

field. It has changed the planning landscape in relation to the provision of gypsy 

sites, and bears full and careful consideration. 

The Circular recognises that the abolition of the duty to provide gypsy sites, and the 

encouragement of gypsies to find their own sites, has failed to result in adequate 

provision. It has resulted in conflict and controversy, and to anti-social behaviour. 

The new guidance aims to plan for gypsies, and at the same time to enable 

authorities to take more effective action against unlawful encampments where proper 

provision is being made. This provision is intended to be through development plan 

allocations, and if necessary, acquisition and development of necessary sites, based 

on needs assessments – in much the same way as local plans allocate for 

conventional housing. 

The new planning Circular explains that traditional gypsy lifestyles involving scrap 

metal, laying tarmacadam, seasonal agricultural work, casual labouring and other 

employment are changing, and that the community has become more settled, and is 

now operating in trades which require less mobility. This is essentially leading to the 

need for more permanent sites, from which gypsies can travel, and this allows better 

access to education and health care. 

Sites where on-site business activities can be accommodated, such as keeping and 

breeding of horses here, would allow the continuation of traditional gypsy lifestyles, 

and the creation of the proposed paddock can be seen as contributing to the 

encouragement of such diversity, and responding to the economic and social 

wellbeing of the community. 

The Circular proposes that the likely scale of gypsy site need is assessed regionally, 

with caravan pitch numbers incorporated into Regional Spatial Strategies (RSS), and 

then translated into needs for individual local authorities. These numbers would in 

turn be translated into local allocations in the new development plan documents, 

which will eventually supersede the current and emerging Local Plans. This was 

intended to provide greater certainty, even though it is recognised as being a more 

difficult process than using solely criteria based policies, as we do now. Most 

recently, the Secretary of State has abolished the RSS and made it clear that local 

Councils are best placed to assess the needs of travellers. 


77


This RSS process was, however, begun in Swale by our involvement in the joint 

commissioning of the North Kent Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment 

(GTAA). This was published (December 2007) and indicates that despite the 

Council’s good record of approving private gypsy sites, the Borough has a relatively 

high raw need of 62 pitches for the 2006-2011 period, one of the highest in Kent. 

SEERA consulted on four options on how to distribute the pitch numbers for Kent 

arising from the GTAA results. The four options consulted on all provide the same 

total number of pitches: 

Option A: to meet need where it arises 

Option B: Redistribution within local advice areas as locally determined, for Gypsies 

and Travellers only 

Option C: Option B plus 50% regional redistribution 

Option D: Option B plus 25% regional redistribution, a midpoint between Options B 

and C. 

Following the consultation and advice from all the South East counties the Regional 

Assembly (prior to its recent abolition) submitted Option D to Government, which 

gives Swale 28 pitches and 2 transit pitches to provide. The new Secretary of 

State’s recent abolition of the Regional Spatial Strategy means that the regional pitch 

allocation is now unlikely to come to fruition. It may therefore be that the GTAA 

figure of 62 pitches is the most reliable indicator of need for the foreseeable future. 

This is the best current estimate of likely pitch numbers that the Council should 

expect to plan for. 

In the absence of any new need figures the Circular advice about dealing with the 

current application is to use other means of assessing need. Aside from any early 

results from needs assessments, the circular recommends that authorities utilise the 

following information sources; 

a) continuous assessment of incidents of unauthorised encampments, both 

short and long term; these have been quite high in Swale but mostly relate to 

one particular small group of families, and have reduced recently 

b) the numbers and outcomes of planning applications and appeals; here 

temporary planning permissions have resulted from most recent gypsy site 

appeals, and a number of temporary permissions have been granted by the 

Council. 

c) levels of occupancy, plot turnover and waiting lists for public authorised sites; 

here we have high levels of site occupancy, low plot turnover and long waiting 

lists for public sites. 


78


d) the status of existing authorised sites, including those which are unoccupied 

and those subject to temporary or personal planning permission, one of which 

at Oak Lane, Upchurch only had temporary permission until early 2009. 

e) the twice-yearly Caravan Count undertaken on behalf of ODPM, which gives 

a picture of numbers and historic trends. 

The Circular states that local authorities will be expected to demonstrate that they 

have considered this information, where relevant, before any decisions to refuse a 

planning application for a gypsy or traveller site, and to provide it as part of any 

appeal documentation. 

The Circular goes on to say that where there is an unmet need but there is a 

reasonable expectation that new sites are likely to become available at the end of 

that period in the area which will meet that need, local planning authorities should 

give consideration to granting a temporary planning permission. The advice 

suggests that this might be when site allocations are being prepared. However, such 

temporary permissions are not seen as setting a precedent for a full permission on 

any particular site, and should not involve substantial capital outlay. 

With regard to the provision of sites in rural areas, the new guidance indicates that, 

gypsy sites are acceptable in principle and that local landscape and nature 

conservation designations should not be used in themselves to refuse planning 

permission for gypsy and traveller sites. 

Finally, in paragraph 43, the Circular states that where there is a clear and 

immediate need such as here, as evidenced by the number of unauthorised 

encampments and the GTAA, local authorities should bring forward Development 

Plan Documents (DPDs) containing site allocations in advance of regional 

consideration of pitch numbers. The Council has not felt bound by this advice, but 

has embarked on an alternative site identification and provision strategy, which 

GOSE has considered compliant with the Circular. 

In January 2009 the Council published a consultation draft Gypsy and Traveller 

Corporate Policy to address the issue of gypsy site provision. This recognised that 

the Borough has traditionally had one of the largest gypsy and traveller populations 

within Kent and the South-East of England, often related to traditional farming 

activities. 

The policy is based on meeting the predicted site needs from the GTAA subject to 

the results of the regional consultations and whilst the Circular advocates a site 

allocations policy, the Council’s policy explains that the combination of the wide 

range of pitch numbers previously potentially required, and the Council’s good record 

of approving small private sites, meant that at this stage a site allocations approach 

is not the right way forward for Swale. 


79


The Council has undertaken a full survey of potential sites against a set of criteria in 

accordance with Government Guidance. This has included a review of current 

temporary permissions and an assessment of the potential of publicly owned land to 

meet the identified need. This, together with finding a solution for a persistent group 

of families at Sittingbourne (who are responsible for the vast majority of the 

unauthorised encampments in the Borough), is expected to see the Council making 

adequate provision to meet needs. 

The Policy has produced a schedule of possible sites to address local need, and the 

results of public consultation on that schedule is due to be considered by the Council 

on 5 August 2010. This site is not part of this process as it already has a permanent, 

albeit personal, permission. Its greater use as proposed will contribute to meeting 

whatever need is required, and on a site already agreed as acceptable in the longer 

term. 

Discussion 

The 2007 planning permission was not a temporary permission, reflecting the 

existing developed nature of the site, its seclusion and lack of landscape impact 

despite being within a Special Landscape Area, and its acceptable access 

arrangements. These basic attributes of the site remain unchanged. The 

permission was personal to the then applicants who were able to show local 

connections, but alternative occupants could have expected approval, and we are 

now routinely imposing a more open ‘gypsy occupation’ condition. As such, 

occupation by gypsies or travelers has been sanctioned on a long-term basis for the 

foreseeable future. 

In this light the increase on the number of pitches and caravans, and even the 

introduction of day rooms, does not to my mind raise significant issues. The 

approved site was historically all hard-surfaced, and it remains so. The proposal 

involves re-arranging internal sub-divisions to create three (rather than two) distinct 

pitches, and an increase in the number of caravans/addition of day rooms. I do not 

consider that any of these proposals are unacceptable and whilst the overall number 

of caravans would now be seven, the principal mobile homes would be four in 

number, as preferred by LP policy H4, with the remaining three being smaller tourers 

for seasonal traveling. 

The more contentious part of the application to my mind is the enhancement of the 

paddock and the proposed hardstanding and garden on the recently felled land. As 

said above this was partly conifer plantation and partly broadleafed woodland, 

probably ancient woodland. None of this land was affected by a Tree Preservation 

Order and therefore the felling was not a breach of any Order. The Forestry 

Commission act to control felling licences for over five cubic metres of timber, and 

they have not confirmed that such a licence was necessary, or whether or not they 

will be requiring re-stocking. 


80


In the light of these facts there does not appear to be any evidence that felling of the 

trees and clearance of the vegetation contravened any regulations. The area itself is 

subject only to local landscape and wildlife designations which do not confer any 

legal protection on the area. As such, whether ancient woodland or not, felling would 

not necessarily be unauthorized. 

Planning policy very strongly seeks to protect ancient woodland, but it is not 

statutorily protected and can be felled if not covered by a TPO, subject to felling 

licence regulations. This would lead to loss of understorey habitat, and could be 

very seriously detrimental to bio-diversity, even if open land is usually an integral part 

of ancient woodland. However, planning policy does not anticipate a situation where 

trees have already been felled and there is no requirement to re-plant. 

In the situation as it is now, the main issue to my mind is whether or not any use of 

the felled area should be resisted, and the material brought to the site removed, in 

the hope that the woodland will re-establish; or whether there is any new argument 

for allowing use of the site as open land. 

In this case the proposed uses of the openland are hardstanding, garden and 

paddock. In turn, I do struggle to find any justification for the additional 

hardstanding. However, I gather that between them, the proposed caravans will 

accommodate a number of children for whom I believe that a garden would be a 

valuable amenity, bearing in mind that the existing site has long been hardsurfaced. 

The third use of the site as a paddock will allow a traditional gypsy occupation of 

keeping and breeding horses to be carried out adjacent to the caravans. 

Circular 01/2006 aims to recognize, protect and facilitate the traditional traveling way 

of life of gypsies and travelers, whilst respecting the interests of the settled 

community. The Local Plan aims to protect special areas for the countryside, but 

also to promote their economic and social well being. 

Whilst I do not condone the recent felling of trees on this site, I appreciate that this 

was done to allow space to keep horses as part of a traditional gypsy way of life 

involving horse breeding and trading – such as at the well known horse fairs across 

the country. 

The land remains entirely surrounded by woods, and out of an area of 665ha the 

loss of this relatively small area (on an area already close to other permanent 

development and partly cut-off from the wider broadleafed woodland) is not, to my 

mind, likely to have far reaching impacts on the wider woodland. 

As such, I believe that the need for the development (garden and paddock) is an 

appropriate development in this location which can outweigh the need to see the 

area revert to woodland. 


81


The material brought on to the site appears to be inert hardcore, and the 

Environment Agency who have inspected the site, have not raised objection to its 

nature or made it known that they will be seeking to have any of the material 

removed from the site. In the light of the notoriously poor ground conditions on 

Dunkirk Hill arising from its heavy and poor draining clay soil, I can quite see why a 

hardcore base would benefit any future paddock and the welfare of any horses kept 

in it. 

On balance, and taking into account issues relating to children’s welfare, traditional 

gypsy lifestyles, landscape impact and the impact on bio-diversity I find that this is a 

unique case where normal policy to restrain development is outweighed by the 

benefits of the development, as they have to be on all permanent gypsy sites in the 

countryside. 


I believe that the addition of two more caravan pitches on an established and 

suitably located gypsy site can be welcomed as a way of helping to meet the existing 

need for further pitches, irrespective of the final pitch numbers the Council will need 

to provide for. The site will remain small and readily accommodated within its 

setting. 

The recent clearance of adjacent woodland has caused local alarm, and resulted in 

understandable concern from those concerned to protect bio-diversity. However, the 

woodland was not protected and there is no evidence that the clearance breached 

any regulations, and the situation is now as it is. The woodland may be capable of 

regeneration if the recently imported material were to be removed, but the area is 

small in relation to the wider woodland and the benefits would be limited. 

The application shows the cleared land to be used for purposes consistent with the 

amenities and traditional lifestyles of the site occupants, and there are powerful 

arguments to support most proposed uses of the cleared land. On this basis, and 

subject to the conditions recommended above I consider that the tangible merits of 

the proposal outweigh the hypothetical benefits of a relatively small area of woodland 

being allowed to regenerate. 

Accordingly, and whilst I will be seeking further clarification of the Forestry 

Commission’s position regarding the legality of the felling and possible re-stocking, I 

recommend that planning permission is granted. 

___ ___________________________________________________________ 


__ ____________________________________________________________ 


1. Application papers and correspondence for application SW/10/0599 

2. Application papers and correspondence for application SW/07/0950. 

82



PART 3 

Applications for which REFUSAL is recommended 

3.1 SW/10/0215 (Case 10884) HERNHILL 

Location: 

Proposal: 

The Manor House, Church Hill, Hernhill, Nr Faversham, Kent, 

ME13 9JU 

The erection of 3.45m high wrought iron gates 

Applicant/Agent: Mr Edward Roffey, The Manor House, Hernhill, Faversham, 

Kent, ME13 9JU 

Application Valid: 6 th April 2010 


Reasons 

(1) The proposed gates would, due to their scale, design and position, fail to 

preserve the setting of the Grade 1 Listed Church or the host Grade 2* Listed 

building or the special character and appearance of the conservation area, 

contrary to policies E1, E14, E15, and E19 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 

2008. 


This application seeks retrospective planning permission for the erection of tall 

wrought iron gates to the front of The Manor House, Church Hill, Hernhill. Each 

gate is 1.7 metres wide and rises from a minimum of 2m up to a central section of 

over 2.8m. 


The Manor House is located within the designated Hernhill conservation area and is 

a grade 2* listed building (listed in 1967). The property faces on to the village green 

and St Michael’s Church which is a Grade 1 listed building. 

Planning permission was granted in October 2008 under SW/08/0866 for a new 

boundary fence which consisted of renovated iron railings with a height of 1.4 metres 

painted black. No gate details where submitted or approved as part of that 

application. 


1



I have not received any comments from the Parish Council. 

English Heritage wish to make no comment on the application. 


The Faversham Society have commented that the building is one of the most 

interesting properties in Hernhill, and that whilst the railings are acceptable and of a 

modest scale, the proposed gates would be pretentious and out of scale with the 

character of the building and would harm the setting of a listed building. 

13 letters of support have been received making the following comments: 

• Gates are an enhancement to the corner of the village green and totally in 

keeping with the area 

• The applicant has successfully restored the Manor House 

• New fencing and gates enhance the village green 

• Represents the past and the present 

• The views driving into the village remain unchanged and the gates have no 

detrimental impact 

• Impressive gates and easy on the eye 

• In-keeping with the fence line and style of the property 

• The fence would appear unfinished without the gates 

• The gates add a degree of dignity to the village 

• The gates are a benefit to the character of the village 

• The gates add to the definition of the backdrop thus enhancing the view 

across the village green 

Planning Policies 

The policies most relevant to this application are- 


E1 General Development Criteria 

E14 Listed Buildings 

E15 Conservation areas 

E19 Achieving high quality design and distinctiveness 

Discussion 

This application is for retrospective planning permission for the erection of tall and 

ornate wrought iron gates to the front of The Manor House. The main considerations 

in the determination of this application are the impact of the gates on the setting of 

the Grade 2* listed property, the impact on the special character of the conservation 

area and, on the setting of the Grade 1 listed St Michael’s Church. 


2


It is my opinion that the gates, through their scale, proportion and design, are 

intrusive to the surrounding area and have a detrimental impact on the special 

character of the conservation area. The gates dominate the views from across the 

village green and appear overly obtrusive in this location. It is important, in this case, 

to recognise that the wider setting, which includes St Michael’s Church and The 

Manor House, has been significantly altered. 

The garden was at one time more openly arranged in relation to the village green to 

the west and the church yard to the south-west creating a larger visually open area 

without significant boundaries. In my opinion the introduction of the tall gates has 

resulted in a division of the previously open space which was seen in a close 

relationship with the openness of the village green and in my view this has created 

an unacceptable arrangement that has a detrimental impact on the setting of the 

listed buildings and on the special character of the conservation area. The gates 

would certainly fail to preserve the special character and appearance of the 

conservation area, a fundamental test of development with such designations. 

The general characteristics of the boundary treatments locally is one of low picket 

fences and the low height metal railings. These are significantly less visually 

intrusive than the new tall gates now proposed. 

The impact of the gates on the wider surrounding area and the conservation area is 

evident due to their prominence from across the village green; where the gates 

appear dominant and are very noticeable. The gates are very tall and wide and as 

such they do, in my view, have a detrimental impact on the setting of The Manor 

House and are not in keeping with the character of the property. The gates would be 

more suitable for a large country house with a large access drive which would be 

more historically correct in such a setting. 

I do appreciate the volume of local support for the proposals, but I am more 

convinced by the comments of The Faversham Society. 


Taking all of the above into consideration, in my opinion the wrought iron entrance 

gates are considered unacceptable by virtue of the size, design and siting and would 

harm the setting of nearby listed buildings and would fail to preserve or enhance the 

special character and appearance of the conservation area. 

I recommend that planning permission is refused. 




1. Application Papers and correspondence relating to application SW/10/0215. 

2. Application Papers and correspondence relating to application SW/08/0866. 

3



PART 5 

Decisions by County Council and Secretary of State, reported for information 

5.1 Case 23174 – Site at Land North West of Thanet Way (A299) and South of 

High Street Road, Hernhill, Faversham, Kent 

APPEAL ALLOWED AND AWARD OF PARTIAL COSTS AGAINST THE 

COUNCIL 

The Inspector commented as follows: 

“Appeal Ref: APP/V2255/A/09/2117254 

Land northwest of Thanet Way (A299)/south of Highstreet Road, Hernhill, 

Faversham, Kent ME13 9EJ 

• The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 

1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission. 

• The appeal is made by Moneypeak Ltd against the decision of Swale 

Borough Council. 

• The application No SW/09/0268, dated 2 April 2009, was refused by a notice 

dated 29 May 2009. 

• The development proposed is described on the application form as being 

‘construction of tunnels for horticultural production on agricultural land’. 

Procedural Matters 

1. The description of development set out above is taken from the planning 

application form. It was agreed at the Inquiry however, that a more complete 

description is ‘construction of tunnels for horticultural production, irrigation 

reservoir, sedimentation pond, pumping station, associated works and 

temporary internal access roads on agricultural land’ (Document 5). All those 

elements were clearly referred to on the submitted plans and in the 

supporting information, and I am satisfied that no one’s interests would be 

prejudiced by the revised description. I have dealt with the appeal on this 

basis. 

2. The Inquiry opened on the 11 May 2010 and sat for three days. The site visit, 

which took in not only the appeal site and its immediate environs, but also a 

number of view points from the wider area, was undertaken on an 

accompanied basis following the close of the Inquiry on 13 May 2010. 

Inspector’s Decision 

3. For the reasons that follow I allow the appeal and grant planning permission 

for the construction of tunnels for horticultural production, irrigation reservoir, 

sedimentation pond, pumping station, associated works and temporary 

internal access roads on agricultural land to the northwest of Thanet Way 

(A299)/south of Highstreet Road, Hernhill, Faversham, Kent in accordance 

with the terms of the application, No SW/09/0268, dated 2 April 2009, subject 

to the Schedule attached hereto. Continued . . . 

1


Application for Costs 

4. At the Inquiry an application for costs was made by the appellant against the 

Council. That application is the subject of a separate Decision. 

Main Issues 

5. Prior to the opening of the Inquiry, the Council confirmed that it would not be 

pursuing the second of its three reasons for refusal in relation to impact on 

the ecology of the site. On this basis, and having regard to the evidence given 

to the Inquiry, I consider the main issues to be the effect of the proposal on 

the character and appearance of the surrounding area, and the weight to be 

attached to any benefits of the development. 

Planning Policy and Guidance 

6. Although the Kent and Medway Structure Plan was current at the time the 

Council considered the planning application, it has since been superseded by 

the South East Plan. At the time of the Inquiry, the development plan for the 

area comprised the South East Plan (May 2009) and the Swale Borough 

Local Plan (February 2008). A raft of development plan policies was referred 

to by the parties. Those included in the reasoning below are, in my view, 

those that are the most relevant. 

Reasons for the Decision 

7. Strawberry crops are currently grown on table tops within glasshouses at the 

appellant’s Hernhill Nursery site, to the north of the appeal site on the 

opposite side of Highstreet Road. I was advised that they are produced in 

March-June and September-December, outside the normal growing season, 

in order to meet UK customer demand. The crops cannot be grown in the 

glasshouses during the summer because the heat is too great. The appeal 

scheme involves the table top growing of additional strawberry crops within 

the proposed polytunnels, which would allow for production during the 

summer months, such that strawberry growing can place throughout most of 

the year. 

Character and Appearance 

8. The 27ha appeal site lies to the north of the A299 Thanet Way, immediately 

to the west of an overbridge that provides access to both sides of the A299 

which is dualled at this point. It is situated outside the settlement boundaries 

defined by the Local Plan, in an area of open countryside. The site is divided 

into two separate areas by a number of ditches and a narrow strip of shelter 

belt tree planting/hedgerow that runs east to west across the centre of the 

site. Waterham Industrial Park lies to the north, adjacent to the existing 

Nursery site on the opposite side of Highstreet Road. The Nursery site 

includes some 15ha of glasshouses in two separate blocks, a combined heat 

and power plant, and a packhouse. 

9. Local Plan policy E6 seeks to protect and, where possible, enhance the 

quality, character and amenity value of the wider countryside, listing the types 

of development that will be permitted. The list includes development that is 

necessary for agriculture. I have some difficulty with the Council’s 

interpretation that this policy requires that any development within the 

specified list should also protect the countryside, not least because the types 


2


of development listed include, for example, the winning of minerals. Having 

regard to the explanatory text behind the policy, I consider that it seeks to 

protect the countryside by only allowing for specific types of development 

within it. Any consideration about the impact of that development on the 

quality, character and amenity value of the countryside would be addressed 

by other policies, such as policy C4 of the SEP and policies E1 and E9 of the 

Local Plan. Since horticulture falls within the definition of agriculture (as set 

out at Section 336 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990), I find no 

conflict with policy E6. 

10. Among other things, policy C4 requires that developers should protect and 

enhance the diversity and local distinctiveness of the region’s landscape, 

informed by landscape character assessment. Local Plan policy E1 sets out 

general development criteria against which new development will be 

assessed and is to be read in conjunction with all other Local Plan policies 

and relevant supplementary planning documents. Among other things, it 

seeks to protect and enhance the natural environment and requires that 

development should be well sited, of a scale, design and appearance 

appropriate to the location, with a high standard of landscaping. 

11. In addition, policy E9 of the Local Plan looks to protect, and where possible 

enhance, the quality, character and amenity value of the wider landscape of 

the Borough. Within designated areas, namely the Kent Downs Area of 

Outstanding Natural Beauty, the Special Landscape Areas (SLAs), and the 

Areas of High Landscape Value (AHLVs) priority is given to the protection of 

their distinctive features and characteristics. Although close to the 

Dargate/Hernhill AHLV, with land further to the south/southeast and beyond 

lying within the Blean Woods SLA, the appeal site itself has no specific 

landscape designation. This part of the policy only relates to land within those 

areas. 

12. Within the general countryside, which includes the appeal site, the policy 

requires that development should a) be informed by and be sympathetic to 

local landscape character and quality, b) consider the guidelines set out in the 

Council’s SPD so as to contribute to the restoration, creation, reinforcement 

and conservation, as appropriate, of the landscape likely to be affected, c) 

safeguard landscape elements that contribute to the distinctiveness of the 

locality or the Borough, d) remove features that detract from the character of 

the landscape, and e) minimise the adverse impacts of the development on 

landscape character. In respect of criterion d), I am satisfied that there is 

nothing on the site that detracts from the character of the landscape which 

requires removal. 

13. The Swale Landscape Character Assessment and Guidelines was adopted in 

March 2005 as a supplementary planning document (SPD). It supports a 

number of Local Plan policies, including E1 and E9 and, since it was adopted 

following the prescribed procedures, I afford the guidance therein substantial 

weight. The SPD identifies a total of 42 local character areas within the 

Borough. The majority of the appeal site is located within the Hernhill and 

Boughton Fruit Belt area, with the northeastern part lying within the Waterham 


3


Clay Farmlands. The Hernhill and Boughton Fruit Belt is characterised as a 

traditional rolling Kentish landscape of orchards, overshadowed by Blean 

Woods. It is described as a well-managed, intensively farmed landscape, 

predominantly in fruit production with occasional arable and hop gardens. It 

has a small to medium scale field pattern, with a strong network of 

shelterbelts, hedgerows and scattered woodlands. The guidelines for the area 

promote conservation of the landscape. The key characteristics of the 

Waterham Clay Farmlands area, which is crossed by the A299 road corridor, 

include distinctive domed hills within an otherwise low lying landscape, small 

areas of remnant woodland at field boundaries, rising ground, orchard and 

pastures abutting marshland, lost hedgerows and woodland, A and B roads, 

and large industrial units. The guidelines focus on the need to restore its 

traditional character and to re-create landscape elements lost over time. 

14. Much was made on behalf of the appellant that, when considered in isolation, 

the appeal site does not display the characteristic features of the respective 

character areas. However, the SPD recognises that not all areas within a 

landscape character area exhibit all the characteristics of that area, and notes 

that it is usual to have some pockets with very few distinctive features. The 

landscape character areas therefore, identify common characteristics across 

an area, rather than grouping areas that are identical. 

15. It is proposed to erect some 18ha of polythene tunnels, commonly known as 

Spanish polytunnels, to be used for the table-top production of strawberries. 

The tunnels, which would be separated into five blocks, would each have an 

overall height of between 4.25-4.75m, with a span of 8.5m. In addition, an 

irrigation reservoir, with an area of around 0.5ha, and a sedimentation pond, 

would be created at the eastern end of the central, vegetated part of the site, 

next to Thanet Way. The two largest blocks of tunnels, within the northeastern 

part of the site, would be separated by an existing track and mature hedgerow 

which would be extended. The three smaller blocks to the southwest, on the 

far side of the central vegetation belt, would each be separated by new 

service roadways and landscaping. 

16. I am in no doubt that the development proposed would alter the character and 

appearance of the appeal site, which has been used for arable purposes in 

the recent past and was ploughed at the time of my visit. However, the 

tunnels would be split between existing fields, with existing planting along 

internal field boundaries to be retained and reinforced, and with additional 

planting and landscaping between and around the blocks. Existing vegetation 

around the perimeter of the appeal site consists generally of narrow and loose 

mixed deciduous field hedgerows along the northern, eastern and southern 

boundaries, with much of the western boundary being defined by a small 

stream along which is a dense band of mature tall trees and broad 

hedgerows. The existing boundary vegetation would be retained and 

reinforced, including the filling of gaps where necessary. 

17. Prior to the Inquiry, the Council and appellant agreed a number of 

representative views of the appeal site from public vantage points on roads 

and paths in the surrounding countryside. Because the polytunnels would be 

spread over a wide area, there is no single viewpoint that includes them all. 

The fullest views would be from the nearby overbridge, views that could not 


4


be entirely mitigated by the proposed planting. However, although there are 

footways on the bridge itself, there are no footways leading to it from either 

direction. As a consequence, the majority of traffic passing across it is likely to 

be vehicular. Moreover, using established guidelines 1 , I agree with the 

appellant that the existing amenity value of the view can be categorised as 

low, due largely to the visual dominance of the A299 in the view, associated 

street furniture and traffic noise. 

18. Other close views from the A299 and Highstreet Road, which again have no 

footways, are largely screened by existing field boundary hedges that have 

been allowed to grow for a number of years, and will be allowed to grow 

further so that they increase the screening effect and serve as windbreaks to 

protect the polytunnels. It is also proposed to plant new hedges to fill in 

existing gaps, although I appreciate that that planting will take some time to 

mature. I am also very aware that during the winter, there would be less 

foliage on the screen planting with the consequence that the tunnels would be 

more visible. During the winter months however, the polythene on the tunnels 

would be rolled back to prevent damage, and would be stored in the valleys 

between the tunnels, which would significantly reduce their visual impact. 

That is a matter that could be secured by condition were the appeal to 

succeed. On balance, I consider that whilst there would be some impact on 

local views, that impact would not be significant, especially in the longer term. 

19. During the site visit, I saw that longer range views from the surrounding area, 

including elevated land within the SLA and AHLV, and from Victory Wood, 

encompass a wide panorama that includes a diverse array of natural features, 

managed agricultural landscape and manmade developments, various 

settlements, industrial estates, glasshouses, electricity pylons, polytunnels, 

netted hop gardens, and open and plastic covered arable fields. In this 

context, the development proposed would, when seen at all, appear as a very 

minor element in that landscape and would not appear as a new, unusual or 

unduly obtrusive feature. As with the local views mentioned above, the 

absence of polythene on the tunnels during the winter months would ensure 

that they would be substantially less visible at a time when there would be 

less in the way of foliage in the landscape. 

20. All in all, although the scale of development is large, I am satisfied that it 

would not necessarily offend the defined landscape characteristics of the area 

as set out in the SPD, since the site would continue to be intensively farmed 

in relation to fruit production, and the existing field pattern would be retained, 

with the network of shelter belts and hedgerows to be reinforced. In my 

opinion, the development would respect the existing landscape structure of 

this part of the countryside, with the planting proposed helping to re-create 

lost landscape elements. Whilst there would be some visual impact, that 

impact would not be significant and could be mitigated to a large extent, 

particularly in the longer term, sufficient to ensure that there would be no 

substantial harm to the character or appearance of the surrounding area. I 

find no conflict therefore, with the thrust of the relevant development plan 

policies, or with the Council’s SPD. 

1 Guidance for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment produced by The Landscape 

Institute and Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment Second Edition 2002 

and Landscape Character Assessment : Guidance for England and Scotland, produced by 

the Countryside Agency and Scottish Natural Heritage 2002. 


5


Benefits of the Development 

21. Planning policies and guidance at national, regional and local levels 

recognise the importance of the agricultural sector in securing economic 

growth. I am advised in this respect, that polytunnels are the only tried and 

tested method of growing soft fruit in volume which is reliable and 

economically viable. As a consequence, they are now an integral part of the 

modern soft fruit industry in the UK. 

22. There is no dispute that the proposed development would enable greater 

quantities of better quality soft fruit to be produced, or that the success and 

viability of the business would continue to make a positive contribution to the 

rural economy. I note in this respect, the calculations of the appellant’s 

agricultural consultant and business advisor that the development proposed 

would increase strawberry production at the site from around 1.7%, to some 

3.4%, of total UK production. 

23. The tunnels would protect the developing fruit from rain damage, whilst 

allowing picking to continue uninterrupted, and they would extend the growing 

season without the need for additional heating or lighting, allowing for 

continuity of supply throughout the year when combined with the glasshouse 

production. The fruit would be graded and packed at the existing Nursery site, 

allowing for workers to walk between sites and minimising the need for 

additional infrastructure. The site lies close to a main arterial road network, 

which would facilitate delivery of the produce to the local Regional Distribution 

Centres, and I am mindful that the substitution of local fruit for imported 

produce also has significant sustainability benefits. 

24. The current enterprise supports 19 full time employees, supplemented by a 

core of some 50 workers on short-term contracts but who stay and work for 

the whole year, plus up to 450 seasonal workers who are employed to assist 

with harvesting and packing, recruited mainly from Bulgaria and Romania. 

Were the appeal to succeed, the business would recruit more full time staff, 

hopefully from the locality, to replace seasonal workers. Therefore, whilst 

harvesting would take place for almost the whole year, there would be no 

increase in overall labour requirements. In addition, it is calculated that the 

contribution of the business to the local economy 2 would expect to increase 

from around £9.2 million to approximately £15.4 million. 3 

25. The benefits of the polytunnels in enabling the production of increased 

quantities and quality of soft fruit, the sustainability benefits of reducing food 

miles, and the positive contribution made to the rural economy, accord with 

the thrust of SEP policy CC1, policies SP1, SP3, SP5 and RC1, and national 

guidance in PPS1 and PPS4 4 in this respect. 

2 The appellant’s witness confirmed that local in this context meant Kent, rather than the 

immediate locality. 

3 Based on Local Multiplier 3 (LM3) as developed by the New Economics Foundation. 

4 Policy Statement 1 ‘Delivering Sustainable Development’ (PPS1); Planning Policy 

Statement 4 ‘Planning for 


6


Other Matters 

Flooding 

26. Whilst the majority of the site lies outside flood zones 2 and 3, a small 

proportion of the proposed tunnels would be located within zone 3a, defined 

by PPS25 5 as an area with a high probability of flooding. Within such zones 

however, the water compatible and less vulnerable uses set out in Table D.2 

of the PPS are appropriate. These include land and buildings used for 

agriculture (which includes horticulture). 

27. PPS25 and Local Plan policy E4 also require that a flood risk assessment 

(FRA) be carried out. In terms of the likely impact of the development 

proposed on flood risk in the area, the FRA confirms that the table top 

growing method allows for the growing trays to be trickle fed with water and 

nutrients. Since the irrigation is applied directly to the trays, there is no 

wetting of the ground beneath. Under drainage from the trays would be 

collected and recycled within a closed system. Moreover, rainfall intercepted 

by the tunnels would accumulate at the legs and would then dissipate over 

the grass sward beneath the entire area of the polytunnel covers. The net 

effect would be that no additional rainfall run-off volume, or increase in rainfall 

run-off rate, would be generated. The development would not detract from the 

permeability of the site, with the hydrological characteristics replicating that of 

an open meadow scenario. 

28. Although local residents drew my attention to flooding that occurs on the local 

road network at times, and to the high water table, the FRA demonstrates not 

only that the tunnels would remain safe and operational during times of flood, 

but that they would not increase the risk of flooding elsewhere. 

29. The plans submitted with the original planning application included an 

irrigation reservoir and sedimentation pond. The original details showed that 

the reservoir would be formed by the creation of a bunded area above ground 

level within zone 3. By the time of the Inquiry however, a revised arrangement 

was suggested, involving the formation of a reservoir of the same surface 

area and depth as before, but set entirely below ground level. Such an 

arrangement would not have any adverse implications for the capacity of the 

flood plain, or for the flow of floodwater across the site. It was agreed at the 

Inquiry that the final details of the reservoir and sedimentation pond could be 

dealt with by an appropriately worded condition. 

30. Overall, I consider that there would be no conflict the advice in PPS25 or with 

policy E4 of the Local Plan in this respect 

Ecology 

31. As mentioned at the outset, the Council did not defend the reason for refusal 

relating to ecology. Local residents however, continued to have concerns in 

this respect, to the extent that they commissioned their own survey. Although 

the survey was not submitted in evidence, I have had regard to the 

representations on this matter as set out in correspondence and as 

expressed by those who gave evidence at the Inquiry. 

5 Planning Policy Statement 25 ‘Development and Flood Risk’ 


7


32. Policy NRM5 of the SEP and E11 of the Local Plan, together with national 

guidance in PPS9, 6 seek to maintain or enhance biodiversity. Whilst there are 

no nature conservation designations on the appeal site, Graveney Marshes, 

approximately 1km to the north, and Ham Marshes, some 4.3km to the west, 

are designated as SSSIs, AONBs and SPAs 7 , two further SSSIs lie within 2- 

2.5km of the site, and a local Nature Reserve, Seasalter Level, lies to the 

northeast. 

33. The appellant’s Habitat and Protected Species Assessment established that 

there are no Priority Biological Action Plan Habitats within the appeal site, and 

ruled out likely impact on ground nesting birds, including species such as 

skylark and grey partridge. In addition the ecological scoping survey 

concluded that there is a low level of biodiversity interest within the site, which 

is largely confined to the site boundaries and to the small area of meadow 

and stream within the centre of the site. 

34. I am satisfied that the development of polytunnels on the site would have no 

impact on protected or notable species or populations within the locality, 

including ground nesting birds. Furthermore, the field boundary hedgerows, 

meadow area and stream would be retained and improved, with Natural 

England welcoming the proposed biodiversity enhancement measures set out 

in the appellant’s Biodiversity Mitigation Strategy, which could be secured by 

condition were the appeal to succeed. 

Traffic 

35. Policy T1 of the Local Plan seeks to ensure the provision of safe access to 

new development and, where appropriate, requires the submission of a 

Travel Plan. Access to the site would be via an existing field entrance off 

Highstreet Road. Local residents expressed concern in relation to a possible 

increase in the amount of traffic using the road, which is narrow, almost single 

width in places, is unlit, and which has no footways. I was advised that the 

road is used by walkers, including children, horse riders, and the workers at 

the Nursery who for the most part, have to walk in the carriageway. I am 

mindful in this respect that the road is used by HGV traffic associated with 

local industrial estate, as well as by lorries and tractors associated with the 

appellant’s business, and by other local traffic. 

36. Whilst traffic movements would be extended over a longer period than is 

currently the case, the appellant maintained that those movements are not 

expected to be any different I character or daily volume from those associated 

with the existing nursery operation. That might well be the case for 

commercial traffic. However, whilst it is intended that the number of workers 

at the site is unlikely to change to any material degree, the nature of the 

workforce would. 

37. At present, the majority of workers are seasonal and live at the Nursery site. 

Were the appeal to succeed, it is the stated intention of the appellant to 

employ full time workers who would be recruited locally and who would be 

bussed in from the surrounding area. I note in this respect that no parking is 

6 Planning Policy Statement 9 ‘Biological and Geological Conservation’ 

7 Site of Special Scientific Interest; Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty; Special Protection 

Area. 


8


shown in connection with the development proposed, and that Highstreet 

Road is narrow, almost single width in places, with no footways. Were the 

anticipated volume of local employees to make their own way to the site, it 

seems likely to me that there could be significant implications for the safety 

and free flow of traffic in the area. Although not suggested by the Highway 

Authority, I am firmly of the opinion that a Travel Plan is required in this 

instance, in order to avoid any material increase in traffic on the local road 

network, in particular Highstreet Road. Although the appellant did not feel that 

such a condition was necessary, it was confirmed that should I come to a 

different view, they would have no objection. 

Residential Amenity 

38. The occupiers of Brook Hall and Meadow Farmhouse, the two properties 

closest to the appeal site, raised concerns in relation to outlook from their 

properties. During the site visit, I saw that Meadow Farmhouse is separated 

from the appeal site by pony paddocks and boundary planting. The submitted 

details indicate that planting along the boundary with the paddocks would be 

reinforced which would be sufficient, in my view, to ensure that the tunnels 

were not seen as unduly intrusive. 

39. The residential curtilage to Brook Hall is much closer to the appeal site. 

During my visit, I saw that the boundaries to the curtilage are very open, 

providing clear views across the southwestern part of the appeal site. 

However, whilst the tunnels would surround the rear boundaries to the 

property, the submitted details show that they would be no nearer to the 

curtilage than 30m, with a substantial area of planting in between. Although 

initially visible, views of the tunnels would diminish as the planting matured 

over time. Furthermore, as discussed earlier, the tunnels would be clear of 

polythene during the winter months, which would significantly reduce their 

visual impact at a time when the planting belt might be more transparent. 

Whilst the appellant was concerned that the planting might appear 

overbearing, it seems to me that the width of the planting belt proposed would 

allow for gradations in the height of vegetation. 

40. There was also concern that problems experienced in the past in relation to 

matters such as noise and disturbance, litter, and the behaviour of some of 

the seasonal workers towards local residents, could be exacerbated by the 

proposal, which would more than double the area that would be used for the 

growing of strawberries, and would allow for production to continue at the site 

throughout the year. I am satisfied however, that a site management condition 

along the lines suggested at the Inquiry, could address this matter and would 

protect the living conditions of local residents. Other concerns in relation to 

lighting within the site could also be dealt with by condition. 

Heritage Assets 

41. There are a number of listed buildings within the vicinity of the appeal site. 

Brook Hall, Meadow Farmhouse and Waterham Farmhouse are all grade II 

listed, whilst Dargate House is listed grade II*. Local residents are concerned 

at the likely impact of the development proposed on their setting. 


9


42. Waterham Farm and Dargate House lie some way from the appeal site, 

separated by intervening fields and areas of woodland, and in the case of 

Dargate House, by the A299. Brook Hall and Meadow Farmhouse are the 

closest buildings to the appeal site. The setting of a listed building is often an 

essential part of its character and can extend beyond its curtilage. However, 

there is nothing to indicate that the properties were planned to take in 

significant views across the appeal site. To my mind, the properties, 

particularly those closest to the appeal site, have an intimate setting that does 

not extend beyond the curtilage. The appeal site would remain in agricultural 

use and in any event, whilst the tunnels would be seen initially, their visual 

impact would, as noted above, diminish as the proposed planting matures. I 

am satisfied therefore, that the immediate setting of the buildings would not 

be harmed and I find no conflict with Local Plan policy E14 in this respect, or 

with guidance in PPS5. 8 

43. The occupiers of Dargate House were also concerned that the appellant 

might be considering a similar development on the fields which surround that 

property. There was no evidence before me however, that this is the case, but 

in any event, any application would need to be considered on its own merits 

in the light of relevant planning policy and guidance. 

Conclusion 

44. I have found that whilst there would be some harm to the character and 

appearance of the area, it would not be significant. I have also found that 

there would be substantial benefits in terms of the rural economy. Since the 

visual impact of the development could be mitigated to a large extent, I 

consider that the balance of considerations lies with the benefits, which 

outweigh the limited harm. Therefore, for the reasons set out above, I 

conclude on balance that the appeal should succeed. 

Planning Conditions 

45. I have considered the suggested conditions in the light of advice in Circular 

11/95 and the related discussion at the Inquiry. In addition to the standard 

time limit condition, it is now necessary to list the plans to which the 

permission relates for the avoidance of doubt and in the interest of proper 

planning. The plans listed exclude those showing details of the proposed 

reservoir and sedimentation pond, which are dealt with separately. 

46. A Roman farmstead is known to have existed just to the west of the site, on 

the far side of Waterham Lane, and I understand that the area may have 

been an attractive spot for settlement. A condition is therefore necessary to 

secure a programme of archaeological work, to ensure that any features are 

properly examined and recorded. 

47. In order to protect and enhance the character and appearance of the area, 

and to protect the living conditions of nearby residents, conditions securing a 

scheme of hard and soft landscape works is necessary, including a landscape 

management plan, as is a condition to ensure that the tunnels are clear of 

polythene for at least three months of the year. For the same reasons, a 

condition precluding the installation of lighting on the site is necessary. Since I 

8 Planning Policy Statement 5 ‘Planning for the Historic Environment’ 


10


have found that the tunnels would cause some harm to the character and 

appearance of the area, albeit limited, with the harm outweighed by economic 

benefits, a condition is also required to secure their removal were they to 

become redundant. 

48. In addition to the tunnels, a small pumping station and associated switchroom 

and mixing tanks, are required in connection with the reservoir and irrigation 

system. These are relatively small elements and would be contained within 

the central vegetated belt. A condition is required to secure details of their 

siting, design and appearance, in order to protect the visual amenity the area. 

49. The need for conditions to secure a travel plan for employees, the submission 

of details for the reservoir and sedimentation pond, and for a site 

management plan, is set out in my reasoning above. Having regard to the 

provisions of the relevant development plan policies to secure improvements 

to biodiversity, a condition to ensure that the ecological mitigation measures 

set out in the appellant’s specialist report is required. In addition, details of 

surface water drainage, including provision for it to be disposed of by means 

of a sustainable drainage system, need to be agreed, in order to avoid 

increased run-off.” 

“Schedule of Conditions attached to 

Appeal Decision APP/V2255/A/09/2117254 

Land northwest of Thanet Way (A299)/south of Highstreet Road, 

Hernhill, Faversham, Kent 

1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from 

the date of this decision. 

2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the 

following approved plans: Nos 94.468.C6, 94.468.C10-1, C10-2 and C10-3, 

and 94.446.C21A. 

3) No development shall take place until the applicant, or their agents or 

successors in title, has secured the implementation of a programme of 

archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme of investigation and 

timetable, which has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local 

planning authority. Development shall be carried out only in accordance with 


4) No development shall take place until full details of both hard and soft 

landscape works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local 

planning authority and these works shall be carried out as approved. These 

details shall include existing features, means of enclosure; hard surfacing; 

planting plans; written specifications (including cultivation and other 

operations associated with plant and grass establishment); schedules of 

plants, noting species, plant sizes and proposed numbers/densities where 

appropriate; and a programme of implementation. 


11


5) A landscape management plan, including long term design objectives, 

management responsibilities and maintenance schedules for all landscape 

areas, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning 

authority prior to commencement of development. The landscape 

management plan shall be carried out as approved. 

6) No internal or external lighting, including security lighting, shall be installed on 

the site. 

7) Prior to commencement of development, details of surface water drainage 

works shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning 

authority. Before these details are submitted, an assessment shall be carried 

out of the potential for disposing of surface water by means of a sustainable 

drainage system in accordance with the principles set out in Annex F of 

PPS25 (or any subsequent version) and the results of the assessment 

provided to the local planning authority. The approved scheme shall be 

implemented and thereafter managed and maintained in accordance with the 

approved details. Where a sustainable drainage scheme is to be provided, 

the submitted details shall: 

i) provide information about the design storm period and intensity, the 

method employed to delay and control the surface water discharged 

from the site and the measures taken to prevent pollution of the 

receiving groundwater and/or surface waters; 

ii) 

include a timetable for its implementation; and provide a management 

and maintenance plan for the lifetime of the development which shall 

include the arrangements for adoption by any public authority or 

statutory undertaker and any other arrangements to secure the 

operation of the scheme throughout its lifetime. 

8) None of the tunnels hereby permitted shall be covered with polythene for 

more then 9 months in any calendar year and all tunnels shall be clear of 

polythene for at least 3 months of the year, in accordance with a scheme to 

be submitted to and agreed in writing by the local planning authority. 

9) In the event that the tunnels become redundant for horticultural purposes, the 

polythene, supporting structures, and any fixtures and fittings within them, 

shall be removed from the site within a period not exceeding 9 months from 

the date they become redundant. 

10) The measures set out in the Habitat and Protected Species Assessment and 

Biodiversity Mitigation Strategy (Ref 1438/03B) shall be fully implemented in 

accordance with a timetable that shall previously have been submitted to an 

agreed in writing by the local planning authority. The measures implemented 

shall, where appropriate, be retained thereafter. 

11) Prior to commencement of development, full details of the siting, design and 

appearance of the pumping station, switchroom and mixing tanks shall be 

submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. 

Development shall be carried out only in accordance with the approved 

details. Continued . . . 

12


12) The development hereby permitted shall not be brought into use unless and 

until details of a Travel Plan for employees, aimed at mitigating the potentially 

harmful effects of travel generated by the development, has been submitted 

to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Development shall 

be carried out only in accordance with the approved details. 

13) Prior to commencement of development, details of the proposed irrigation 

reservoir and sedimentation pond shall be submitted to and approved in 

writing by the local planning authority. Development shall be carried out in 

accordance with the approved details. 

14) Prior to commencement of development, a site management plan shall be 

submitted to and agreed in writing by the local planning authority. The plan 

shall include measures for the regulation and operation of the site so as to 

mitigate any adverse impact on the living conditions of occupiers of residential 

properties that adjoin the site.” 

“Costs application in relation to Appeal No APP/V2255/A/09/2117254 

Land northwest of Thanet Way (A299)/south of Highstreet Road, Hernhill, 

Faversham, Kent ME13 9EJ 

• The application is made under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, 

sections 78, 320 and Schedule 6, and the Local Government Act 1972, 

section 250(5). 

• The application is made by Moneypeak Limited for a full, and failing that a 

partial award of costs against Swale Borough Council. 

• The Inquiry was in connection with an appeal against the refusal of planning 

permission for what is described on the planning application form as the 

‘construction of tunnels for horticultural production on agricultural land’. 

Summary of Decision: The application is allowed in the terms set out below in 

the Formal Decision and Costs Order. 

Procedural Matter 

1. The description of development set out above is taken from the planning 

application form. It was agreed at the Inquiry however, that a more complete 

description is ‘construction of tunnels for horticultural production, irrigation 

reservoir, sedimentation pond, pumping station, associated works and 

temporary internal access roads on agricultural land’. All those elements were 

clearly referred to on the submitted plans and in the supporting information, 

and I am satisfied that no one’s interests would be prejudiced by the revised 

description. I dealt with the planning appeal on the basis of this description. 

The Submissions for the Appellant 

2. The detailed submission in relation to the application for costs comprises 

Document 11 listed in the Decision Letter relating to the planning appeal. 


13


3. In response to the Council’s rebuttal, additional comments were made on 

behalf of the appellant. Whilst normally, the wording of the reasons for refusal 

would be a starting point where they were issued lawfully, they should 

properly reflect the minutes of the relevant meeting. That is not the case here. 

The Decision Notice was issued without lawful authority Since it could not be 

challenged by Judicial Review, since that is a course of last resort and the 

case would have been rebutted, the only recourse for appellant was an 

appeal under Section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The 

starting point here has to be the Committee resolution, not the Decision 

Notice. The discrepancy between the two is a significant material 

consideration. 

4. Paragraph B18 of the Circular makes it clear that ‘vague, generalised or 

inaccurate assertions about the impact of a proposal, unsupported by any 

objective analysis, are more likely to result in a costs award.’ The 

development plan refers to the need for an objective analysis, requiring that 

new development should be considered against the guidelines set out in the 

Council’s supplementary planning document ‘Landscape Character 

Assessment and Guidelines’ (SPD). The Council did not undertake that that 

assessment and its analysis was not complete. Nothing was presented to 

support the judgement of Members in this respect. Whilst the Council refers to 

a lack of available resources, that is no basis for failing to produce an 

objective analysis. 

5. With regard to the withdrawn reason for refusal, paragraph B56 of the Circular 

makes it clear that following an appeal against a refusal of planning rmission, 

authorities should undertake a prompt review of their case. The appeal was 

lodged in November 2009 and the Council’s Statement of Case indicated that 

it would be pursuing all three of the reasons for refusal. It was not until 9 

February 2010, only two weeks before the proofs had to be lodged, that the 

Council confirmed that the reason relating to ecology would not be pursued. 

By that time, preparation was well advanced. The costs involved were wasted 

because of the late withdrawal of the reason by the Council. 

The Response by the Council 

6. The detailed rebuttal statement comprises Document 12 listed in the Decision 

Letter relating to the planning appeal. 

Conclusions 

7. Circular 03/2009 advises that, irrespective of the outcome of the appeal, costs 

may only be awarded against a party who has behaved unreasonably and 

thereby caused the party applying for costs to incur unnecessary or wasted 

expense in the appeal process. 

8. The planning application was recommended for approval by the Council’s 

major projects officer, as was a previous application in 2008 for a similar 

scheme, the main differences being additional planting, the inclusion of a 

water management strategy, a slight reduction in the overall height of the 

proposed tunnels and their siting further away from Brook House, a grade II 


14


listed building. After hearing representations from interested parties and 

following Members’ discussion, it was resolved that permission should be 

refused. The minutes of the meeting record the decision as being taken on 

the grounds that that the proposal was contrary to policy E11 of the Local 

Plan in relation to biodiversity, and that it would have a detrimental impact on 

the visual amenity and the environment of the area. 

9. The eventual decision notice set out three reasons for refusal: the first 

concerns the detrimental impact of the development ‘upon the whole 

environment of the area’; the second concerns the impact of the development 

on the ecological interest of the site; and the third sets out that the 

development would have a ‘distinct and unacceptably intrusive visual impact 

on the surrounding area’. The Council accepted that the wording of the 

resolution was not perfect and I am mindful in this respect that the reasons 

include policies additional to that cited in the minute. I am satisfied however, 

that the reasons generally reflect the thrust of the three elements set out in 

the resolution and that there is no material discrepancy. 

10. The appellant feels that the Committee was overly influenced by the views of 

local residents. I have no reason to suppose however, that local opposition 

unduly influenced Members of the Committee, simply that Members and local 

residents assessed the proposal and came to a different view from that of the 

planning officer. 

11. Planning authorities are not bound to accept the recommendation of their 

officers but if they don’t, they will need to show reasonable planning grounds 

for so doing, and area expected to produce evidence at appeal to 

substantiate each reason for refusal with reference to the development plan, 

and all other material considerations. The key test is whether the evidence 

produced provides a respectable basis for the authority’s stance. Planning 

appeals often involve matters of judgement concerning the character and 

appearance of a local area. Accordingly, where the outcome of an appeal 

turns on an assessment of such an issue, it is unlikely that costs will be 

awarded if realistic and specific evidence is provided about the consequences 

of the proposal. 

12. Putting the ecology/biodiversity reason for refusal to one side for the moment 

the two remaining reasons, which are interlinked at a large extent, cited 

relevant policies from the Local Plan 1 and summarised the Council’s 

concerns. Among other things, policy E9 of the Local Plan specifically 

requires that development should be informed by and sympathetic to local 

landscape character and quality, and that the guidelines set out in the SPD 

should be considered. Whilst matters of character and appearance are, by 

and large, subjective, the Council’s SPD sets out a framework which provides 

a useful starting point. 

1 Policies from the Structure Plan were also cited but these have since been superseded by 

the South East Plan 

13. The SPD identifies a total of 42 local character areas within the Borough. As 

noted in the Council’s evidence, the majority of the appeal site is located 

within the Hernhill and Boughton Fruit Belt area, with the northeastern part 

lying within the Waterham Clay Farmlands. Prior to the Inquiry, the Council 


15


had agreed a number of public vantage points with the appellant, from which 

an assessment of the impact of the development proposed should be 

undertaken. The Council’s officer took photographs of the appeal site from 

several of the vantage points and provided a commentary on each, 

concluding that the development would be visible in the landscape from a 

number of different locations. He then went on to consider that impact in the 

light of the SPD. He came to the view that there would be a substantial 

adverse impact on the landscape. 

14. I am satisfied that the Council’s evidence properly addressed, albeit in not as 

much detail as did the appellant, the likely impact of the development against 

the landscape characteristics and guidelines set out in the SPD. Whether or 

not I agree with the Council’s conclusions, it did identify valid reasons for 

refusal in this respect, relying on relevant development plan policies and other 

planning guidance. The Council’s witness at the Inquiry, an experienced 

officer of the Council, was able to articulate the factors taken into account by 

Members in reaching their decision and evidence was produced to 

substantiate the reasons for refusal. This is a case where a balance has to be 

made between the visual impact of a proposal against other considerations. 

Whilst the appellant may not agree with the weight that Members gave to the 

effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area, it is a 

matter of judgement and there is no call, to my mind, to find the Council’s 

behaviour in this respect, unreasonable, merely that it gave the issue a 

different weight. 

15. Moving on then to the withdrawn reason for refusal, which related to the 

impact of the proposal on ecology, I am mindful that paragraph B56 of the 

Costs Circular makes it clear that authorities should undertake a prompt 

review of their case following an appeal against a refusal of planning 

permission. The appeal was lodged on 19 November 2009 and the Council’s 

statement of case, which was submitted on 7 January 2010, confirmed that all 

three reasons for refusal would be defended. It was not unsurprising 

therefore, that the appellant should have then instructed witnesses to deal 

with the various matters raised. 

16. In a letter dated 20 January 2010, having taken advice, the appellant queried 

what evidence the Council was likely to present in relation to its case on 

ecology, especially the particular bird species it was concerned about. Given 

the prescribed timetable for the submission of evidence - at that time, the 

parties were working to an Inquiry date of 23 March 2010 - a response was 

requested by return. It was not until 9 February 2010 however, just a couple 

of weeks before proofs were due, that the Council confirmed that it would not 

be pursuing that particular reason for refusal, by which time preparations on 

the appellant’s case would have been well underway. The Council’s 

consideration of the reasons for refusal was not prompt, and the late 

withdrawal of the reason for refusal led to wasted expense on the part of the 

appellant in preparing evidence on the matter of ecology. On this basis, I find 

that unreasonable behaviour resulting in unnecessary expense, as described 

in Circular 03/2009, has been demonstrated and that a partial award of costs 

is justified. 


16


Formal Decision and Costs Order 

17. In exercise of my powers under section 250(5) of the Local Government Act 

1972 and Schedule 6 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as 

amended, and all other powers enabling me in that behalf, I HEREBY 

ORDER that Swale Borough Council shall pay to Moneypeak Limited, the 

costs of the appeal proceedings, limited to those costs incurred in relation to 

the preparation of evidence relating to the second of the Council’s reasons for 

refusal, which related to ecology, such costs to be assessed in the Supreme 

Court Costs Office if not agreed. The proceedings concerned an appeal more 

particularly described in the heading of this decision.” 

Observations 

Decision on Planning Appeal 

As Members will recall, this proposal was refused by the Planning Committee 

despite the recommendation from Officers that planning permission should be 

granted. The application was refused on three grounds, relating to visual impact, 

landscape impact and the implications for ecology on the site. However, in 

preparation for the Inquiry it was decided that the ecological reason would not be 

defended due to it not being supported by any evidence of harm to ecology or an 

objection from Natural England. 

A robust defence of the two remaining reasons was mounted at the Inquiry, by 

Officers and two Members of the Planning Committee, and the Inspector notes at 

paragraph 14 on page 15 of her decision that: 

“The Council’s witness at the Inquiry, an experienced Officer of the Council, was able 

to articulate the factors taken into account by Members in reaching their decision and 

evidence was produced to substantiate the [two remaining] reasons for refusal”. 

Despite this, the Inspector decided that permission should be granted. 

Partial Award of Costs 

The appellant felt that the Council had behaved unreasonably in deciding to refuse 

permission on the three grounds set out in the decision notice. With regard to the 

two grounds defended at the Appeal, the Inspector disagreed with the appellant, 

concluding that the Council had not behaved unreasonably. However, with regard to 

the ecological reason, the Inspector agreed with the appellant that there was no 

evidence to justify refusal on this ground and therefore that the Council had behaved 

unreasonably by including this refusal reason. 

As explained above, the decision not to defend this reason at the Inquiry was taken 

well in advance of it opening. However, the appellant was able to successfully argue 

that despite not having had to put forward an expert ecologist at the Inquiry, they 

nonetheless had to prepare a proof setting out their ecological justification, because 

the Council did not withdraw the ecological reason for refusal at the start of the 

appeal process. The Inspector accepted this and has awarded partial costs against 

the Council. 


17


I must stress that refusal reasons, not backed up by sound evidence, are likely to 

leave the Council vulnerable not only to losing planning appeals, but also to having 

potentially substantial costs awarded against it. In this case, the action of Officers 

and the Council’s Legal team have reduced the size of the costs award (although the 

appellant has not yet made a costs application), by limiting the amount of 

professional work undertaken by the appellant in defence of the ecological reason for 

refusal. 


Jim Wilson (Major Projects Officer) 


1. Planning Inspectorate Appeal Decision ref: APP/V2255/A/09/2117254/NWF 

2. Appeal Papers (statements and correspondence) for 

APP/V2255/A/09/2117254/NWF 

3. SBC Decision on Application SW/09/0268 

18

PART 5 

5.2 SW/10/0085 (Case 13283) – Side extension to existing property – 2 Boxted 

Farm Barns, Upchurch, Sittingbourne, Kent, ME9 7BY 

APPEAL DISMISSED 


“Decision 

1. I dismiss the appeal. 

Main Issues 

2. I consider the main issues to be; 

• The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the 

Boxted Lane area of the countryside. 

• The effect of the proposal on the aims of Local Plan Policy RC4 which 

seeks to retain a supply of smaller, more affordable dwellings in the 

rural area. 

Reasons 


3. The building was converted to residential use under permission SW/91/0010 

which predates the stated publication date of the Supplementary Planning 

Guidance ‘The Conservation of Traditional Farm Buildings’ and the present 

Local Plan. The Council informs me that permitted development rights to 

enlarge the dwelling were removed at that time. The present arrangement is 

of a larger barn structure, converted to a dwelling, with the appeal dwelling 

appearing as an adjunct to it, and turning as a form of enclosure to the front of 

the buildings. The ensemble retains an essentially agricultural character and 

appearance and the appeal building contributes significantly to this. The 

retention of the agricultural character is one of the reasons why such 

conversion would be permitted contrary to the usual policies of restraint in the 

development of new dwellings in the countryside. 

4. The enlargement of the building as proposed would erode the agricultural 

character and appearance of the group and unbalance the arrangement of 

the larger barn with the smaller building alongside. The present ‘L’ shaped 

plan form also directs the public view towards the larger barn, whereas the 

proposed extension, on the further side of the group, forming a ‘T’ shape, 

would lead the eye away, resulting in a less well-resolved grouping and 

reducing the prominence of the larger barn. The intention of extending the 

dwelling by way of a ridge height the same as the existing further emphasises 

the length of the building and the importance of the extension at the expense 

of the former agricultural group. 

5. The current policy for allowing residential conversion of agricultural buildings 

is RC6 which requires that the building does not need significant extension, in 

order to preserve the building for its existing agricultural interest, and the 

Supplementary Planning Guidance already referred to also provides for such 

conversion to ensure preservation of its value as a building in its setting. It is 


19


my judgement that the extension proposed would undermine the visual and 

cultural value of the building. I conclude on this issue that the proposal does 

not achieve a high quality of design as sought in Policy E19, causing harm to 

the countryside contrary to Policy E6 and would not reflect the positive 

characteristics and features of the site; a former agricultural group, as 

required under Policy E1. However I determine on the requirements of Policy 

RC4 in the next main issue, I consider the extension not to be appropriate in 

scale or mass, and hence not in line with that policy’s aims. 

Affordable Rural Housing 

6. The existing dwelling scales to be more than 50m2 and from the planning 

history the conversion was more than 10 years ago. The relevant part of 

Policy RC4 states that the Council will permit only modest extensions to such 

properties subject to it being appropriate in scale mass and appearance to the 

location. That does not preclude therefore the possibility that no extension 

may be permissible. The purpose of the policy is to address the loss of a 

supply of smaller, more affordable dwellings in the rural area. 

7. The dwelling is not deficient in size or facilities for family use and there is no 

pressing need to extend the dwelling to reach a particular standard of 

provision. I am aware of an earlier appeal decision for what was apparently a 

larger extension (Ref; APP/V2255/A/09/2109078) and the then Inspector 

commented on the appellant’s view of the need for additional 

accommodation. Although this proposal before me is for less 

accommodation, I find the extension to be more than a modest enlargement 

of the dwelling, and do not consider that there is an overriding need to set 

aside policies of restraint. I conclude that the proposal would therefore 

compromise the ability of the Council to secure a supply of smaller dwellings 

in rural areas contrary to Policy RC4. 

Conclusions 

8. Policy RC4 is not satisfied in two important respects, the loss of a small 

dwelling and through the design of the proposal not being appropriate to the 

location. In addition, other policies aims would be breached by the extension 

failing to respect the character and appearance of the area and the interest of 

the former agricultural buildings. For the reasons given above I conclude that 

the appeal should be dismissed.” 

Observations 

An excellent decision, where the Inspector fully supported the Council’s decision to 

refuse this inappropriate extension to a converted barn. 


Rob Bailey (Area Planning Officer) 


1. Planning Inspectorate Appeal Decision reference: APP/V2255/D/10/2128835 

2. Appeal Papers (statements and correspondence) 

20

PART 5 

5.3 SW/09/1061 (Case 19385) – Erection of two storey extension to front and first 

floor extension to rear of Hillview number 104 High Street, Newington. 

Erection of new dwelling – revised application and alterations to vehicular 

access – Hillview, 104 High Street, Newington, Sittingbourne, Kent, ME9 7SH 

APPEAL DISMISSED IN RELATION TO THE ERECTION OF A NEW DWELLING 

APPEAL ALLOWED IN RELATION TO THE EXTENSION OF THE EXISTING 

DWELLING 


“Decision 

1. I dismiss the appeal insofar as it relates to the erection of a new dwelling. I 

allow the appeal insofar as it relates to the extension of the existing dwelling 

and I grant planning permission for erection of two storey extension to front 

and first floor extension to rear of Hillview, 104 High Street, Newington, 

Sittingbourne, Kent ME9 7JH in accordance with the terms of the application, 

Ref SW/09/1061, dated 23 October 2009 subject to the following conditions: 

1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three 

years from the date of this decision. 

2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance 

with the approved plans as follows, and as far as are applicable to that 

part of the development permitted; site plan 1:1250, P2, P3, P4A, P6A 

and P10. 

3) No development shall take place until samples of the materials to be 

used in the construction of the external surfaces of the extensions 

hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by 

the Local Planning Authority, such materials are to match those in 

place on the existing building in type, colour and texture. Development 

shall be carried out in accordance with the approved samples. 

4) No development shall take place until layouts and full details of both 

hard and soft landscape works have been submitted to and approved 

in writing by the Local Planning Authority. These details shall include 

alteration to hardstandings, manoeuvring and parking areas, together 

with associated landscaping, planting and lawns and shall include an 

implementation programme. 

5) All hard and soft landscape works shall be carried out in accordance 

with the approved details. The works shall be carried out prior to the 

occupation of any part of the extensions hereby approved or in 

accordance with the programme agreed in writing with the Local 


6) Upon completion of the approved landscaping scheme, any trees or 

shrubs that are removed, dying, being severely damaged or becoming 

seriously diseased within five years of planting shall be replaced with 

trees or shrubs of such size and species as may be agreed in writing 

with the Local Planning Authority, and within whatever planting season 

is agreed. 


21


Main Issues 

7) No external construction work in connection with the development 

shall take place on any Sunday or Bank or Public Holiday, nor on any 

other day except between the following times:-Monday to Friday 0730 

– 1900 hours, Saturdays 0730 – 1300 hours unless in association with 

an emergency or with the prior written approval of the Local Planning 

Authority. 

2. The main issues in this appeal are; 

Reasons 

• The effect of the development on the character and appearance of the 

High Street area of Newington 

• .The effect of the development on the living conditions of residential 

occupiers of 102 High Street. 

3. The Council refused permission only on the basis of their objections to the 

proposed new dwelling, made clear in the wording of the two reasons for 

refusal. There was no objection raised to the proposed front and rear 

extensions which also formed part of the application. Whilst no discussion 

took place, this was confirmed at my site inspection and it was agreed that 

there would be no objection to me issuing a split decision granting permission 

for the extensions if that was the result of my considerations and reasoning. 


4. The development along the south side of High Street is mixed and comprises 

a variety of house types and spaces between. There is a predominance of 

two storey buildings, including the chalet bungalow next door, and whilst there 

is space between adjacent dwellings in places, there is also close 

development of pairs of semi-detached houses to the west that have a 

somewhat terraced appearance. The existing house at 104 is unusual in 

some respects in being set back, and the adjoining number 102 does not 

follow either of the established lines to the east or west. The site represents a 

distinct break within the frontage. On the north side of the road there is a 

wider spacing and in particular significant open frontage directly opposite, but 

I attach only limited weight to this openness in its effect to the south. 

5. The proposed new dwelling would be sited forward of the existing house and 

its intended front extension, and would line with a set-back on the chalet next 

door. This new line would not match any nearby strongly established line, and 

would, in my view, introduce a muddled and poorly resolved arrangement of 

built form, not sufficiently well related to the main lines of development along 

High Street, attempting to mediate between that main line and the 

incongruously placed number 104. The proposed forward extension of 

number 104 would improve the situation only slightly in this respect, and 

insufficient to overcome the harm. 


22


6. In elevation I find the development of the new dwelling to appear cramped 

against that of number 102 along a significant proportion of the publicly visible 

boundary and also against both the existing and the extended flank wall of 

number 104. Whilst the proposed extension might assist in reconciling the 

frontage line, it would emphasise the undue proximity of the proposed 

dwelling’s flank wall. In addition I find the low stature of the proposed dwelling 

at odds with the full height and bearing of number 104 and to relate poorly in 

its roof arrangement to the pitch of number 102. In all I consider the proposed 

development of the new dwelling would appear unattractive in the street 

scene, introducing further variety in line and size, that is not justified by the 

existing variety but rather, would cause harm. I conclude that the dwelling 

would not accord with the aims of Local Plan Policies E1 and E19 of 

responding positively to characteristics and features of the site and locality, 

would harm instead of strengthen the sense of place, and would not be well 

sited or be of a scale, design and appearance that is acceptable. 

7. Turning to the proposed extensions, the one to the rear would be built over an 

existing rear addition and would be suitably proportioned and relate well to 

the design of the existing house. To the front, there would be a forward 

projection and porch to the side, both of which would go some way to bringing 

the building into the general line of built form along the road, reducing its 

isolation. It would also introduce modelling to the front which appears plain at 

present. I conclude that the proposed extensions would satisfy the 

requirements of Polices E1 and E19 that promote good quality design. 

Living Conditions 

8. The Council states that the proposed new dwelling would overshadow and be 

overbearing to the occupiers of number 102. However, it appears to me that 

there is a rear extension to that property along the boundary with the 

proposed new dwelling and that the rear line of the proposed dwelling would 

be at the further extent of that addition. I do not consider that, due to the low 

height proposed, there would be the harmful effect stated. 

9. The appellant has drawn my attention to the proposed blocking of a first floor 

window of the existing number 104, stating that this would reduce present 

overlooking of number 102. That appears to be part of the proposed 

extension work. Firstly, this is a pre-existing situation and does not appear to 

have anything to do with the proposal to erect the new dwelling, other than 

being in the same application, and therefore as a benefit it has little weight in 

determining the acceptability of the house. Secondly, there would need to be 

a mechanism for ensuring that this work was carried out and retained. That 

last could be by way of condition. However, I do not regard this as an 

essential aspect of the development and find the new dwelling would not 

cause overlooking with or without the window. 

10. Due to the layout proposed and the relative positions of the buildings, I do not 

find that there would be an undue loss of sunlight or daylight, and that the 

proposed new dwelling would not appear overbearing to the occupiers of 

number 102. The extensions would have no unacceptable effect in my 

judgement. I conclude that neither the dwelling nor the extensions would be 

sited or be of a design that would harm the living conditions of the neighbours 

and hence would cause no demonstrable harm to residential amenities as 

required in Policy E1. Continued . . . 

23


Conclusions and Conditions 

11. The proposed extension would be well integrated with the design and layout 

of the existing house and would cause no harm to the street scene or 

neighbours, and planning permission can be granted. The new dwelling would 

however appear cramped and in too close proximity to both adjoining 

buildings and would introduce further unattractive variety that would disrupt 

the street scene, contrary to the thrust of Local Plan policies identified. 

Planning permission should not be granted for that part of the proposal. The 

existence of the extension, whilst moving the frontage line forward, does not 

sufficiently justify the development of the house in this position. 

12. The two parts are separable and it is my view that I can issue a split decision. 

Conditions would be required to ensure that the extension matched the main 

house in use of materials, for which I consider samples would be required. I 

consider it reasonable and necessary to include the condition on construction 

working hours suggested by the Council for the house development, but 

varied to include only external work. The full scheme of new dwelling and 

extensions included re-arrangement of parking and hardstanding, whilst the 

front extension alone would occasion some necessary alteration. I consider 

that a series of conditions requiring details of hard and soft landscaping would 

be required to ensure that this is incorporated in the scheme at the correct 

time. With those conditions I conclude, for the reasons given above, that the 

appeal should be allowed in part and dismissed in part.” 

Observations 

Full support for Members’ decision to refuse planning permission for the erection of a 

new dwelling. However the Inspector did take the unusual step of issuing a split 

decision for this appeal as he granted permission for the erection of a 2 storey 

extension to the existing dwelling, which Members had not raised any objection to. 




1. Planning Inspectorate Appeal Decision reference: APP/V2255/A/10/2125025 


24

PART 5 

5.4 SW/06/1464 (Case 07380) – Planning Application for New Dwelling – Land 

adjacent Davids House, Parsonage Lane, Bredgar, Sittingbourne, Kent, ME9 

8HA 



“Decision 

1. I dismiss the appeal. 

Main Issues 

2. The main issues in this appeal are; 

• The principle of development. 

• The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the 

Bredgar Conservation Area. 

Reasons 

Principle 

3. At the time of the application, the Development Plan included the Swale 

Borough Local Plan 2000 and the site was within the settlement boundary of 

Bredgar. The Swale Borough Local Plan 2008, which forms part of the 

Development Plan at the time of my decision, places this site outside the 

boundary. I have read of the evolution of this change and the lack of 

objections, and note the Council’s contention that the change was therefore 

inevitable at the time of the application. I am unable to comment on the extent 

to which the appellants knew of the impending change nor the likely outcome 

had they objected; these are not matters before me. Section 38(6) of the 

Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that if regard is to be 

had to the Development Plan for the purpose of any determination to be 

made under the planning Acts the determination must be made in accordance 

with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. 

4. The site is outside the settlement boundary and hence in open countryside 

where policies of restraint apply. The use of the dwelling is not for any of the 

purposes for which an exception may be made and hence does not accord 

with Local Plan Policy E6 and advice in Planning Policy Statement 7 

“Sustainable Development in Rural Areas”. I conclude that, in principle, this is 

not a suitable site for the development of a new dwelling. I will now consider 

whether there is harm to the character and appearance of the conservation 

area and then whether there are material considerations indicating a decision 

other than in accordance with the Development Plan. 


5. It appears that an outline application was made but later the appellants were 

informed that the site lies within the Bredgar Conservation Area and a full 

application was requested and agreed to. It is the full detail shown on drawing 

VA/06/200.01E that I shall consider, that revision having omitted the garage. 


25


6. The dwelling would occupy space alongside the existing house and currently 

being lawn separated from the garden and car park of the public house by a 

fence of just above head height. The house would share its drive with David’s 

House and would have its own car parking and garden area. In that aspect it 

would sit within an area of some development including the dwelling Bricketts 

to the south-east. 

7. However, as is clear from the south-west elevation and my observations on 

site, this substantial building would be evident in views from Parsonage Lane 

and the main road around the entry to that lane and the public house car 

park. This would consolidate the impression of sporadic backland 

development and appear as an intrusion in the open space to the rear of 

buildings along the main road. The fact that it would not be seen from further 

north might limit the harm but the harm that I have identified is real and 

serious in its effect on the conservation area in a part where the rural 

character and appearance is beginning to be noticeable and forms an 

attractive green edge to the village. 

8. I conclude on this main issue that the proposed development would not 

accord with the aims of Policies SP5 and E6 of protecting the countryside, 

and would be contrary to Policy E1(3). The proposal would fail to preserve the 

character and appearance of the Bredgar Conservation Area contrary to 

Policy E15 and the test in Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and 

Conservation Areas) Act 1990. 

Other Considerations and Conclusions 

9. I can understand the appellants’ frustration over the change in the settlement 

boundary, but from all that I have read, and the timetable of the consultation 

and adoption of that change, I am not persuaded that, given the date of the 

application, this could have been avoided. I have read also of the medical 

condition of the appellants’ son, and can appreciate the benefit of 

independent living whilst being close to parents. However, I concur with the 

view of the Council that the information given does not justify a four bedroom 

house in a location where house building would not normally be permitted. 

For the reasons given above I conclude that these material consideration fail 

to indicate a decision other than in accordance with the Development Plan 

and that as a result, the appeal should be dismissed.” 

Observations 

Full support for the decision of the Council. 






26

PART 5 

5.5 SW/09/0687 (Case 20348) – Conversion of redundant general purpose farm 

building and change of use into holiday let accommodation – Land adjacent 

Rushetts Lane, Norton, Nr Faversham, Kent, ME13 0SG 



“Main Issues 

2. The main issues are; 

Reasons 

• The effect of the development on the character and appearance of the 

area. 

• The effect of the development on the provision of tourism and 

agricultural facilities in the area. 


3. The building was described as being ‘as yet incomplete’ on the Council’s 

reason for refusal. At the time of my site inspection the building appeared 

complete and in use, although different in certain aspects from that shown on 

the appeal drawing. It comprises an open central storage area, a closed store 

to the south and a stable to the north with access to a paddock. The building 

is agricultural in its character and appearance, with plain and simple finishes, 

agricultural-style doors and limited other openings, apart from the largely 

open front; a feature of many agricultural buildings. At present the building 

and its grass and hardstanding surroundings appear to harmonise with the 

open land and uses nearby. 

4. In order to fit it for its proposed new use, the building would, in my opinion, be 

substantially altered with the insertion of windows and doors of a more 

domestic nature, the closing in of part of the open storage area and the 

formation of terraces and what appear to be garden areas, which, even if only 

laid to grass, could contain domestic paraphernalia such as patio tables and 

chairs, parasols and the like. All of these alterations would change the 

agricultural character and appearance to one more akin to a residential 

character and appearance. I understand the difference between full-time 

residential use and tourism use, but the adverse effect on the landscape 

would still be over a significant period of the year. 

5. The access lane is narrow in both directions, but I do not consider the 

additional traffic, allowing for there being some associated with the present 

use, would cause harm. Nevertheless, I find the effect of the works to the 

building and the use to be harmful to the rural surroundings and contrary to 

the aims of Local Plan Policy E1 by not reflecting the positive characteristics 

of the area, not protecting the natural environment and not being well suited 

and of a design and appearance that is appropriate to the surroundings. The 

requirement to protect the countryside in Policy E6 would not be met. 


27


Tourism and Agriculture 

6. There is provision in Policy RC1 for helping to revitalise the rural economy by, 

as an example in the supporting text, tourism. The policy wording requires the 

proposal to be appropriate in scale with its locality and for the site to retain its 

rural character. The preference is expressed for the re-use of buildings. Policy 

B5 provides for new tourist facilities and the supporting text refers to new self 

catering accommodation through the conversion of suitable existing rural 

buildings. I am not persuaded that this policy, and RC1, is limited to only 

those buildings that are of interest and worthy of retention, and neither am I 

persuaded that there is a need to show redundancy from an agricultural use. 

7. The appeal building was developed as an exception to general policies of 

restraint on new buildings in the countryside, Policy E6 requiring that the 

building should, among other things, be demonstrated to be necessary for 

agriculture. It is my understanding that this was the justification for the 

building under reference SW/08/1135. The reason why the building is now 

described as being ‘redundant’ appears to be as a result of a change in the 

circumstances of the owner, and there is reference to working abroad and not 

farming the land. However, whilst mindful of the Local Plan requirements, I 

find the recent development of this building as an exception, and then the 

recent decision that it is no longer needed for that exceptional use to militate 

against the change of use on the information before me. I conclude that 

notwithstanding the encouragement in Policy B5, this is not a building that I 

consider should be described as a suitable existing rural building for 

conversion. 

Conclusions 

8. There is encouragement in Local Plan policies for conversion to tourism uses, 

but there are also requirements that development protects the environment 

and the countryside in particular, and that the re-use of buildings retains their 

character or appearance. In this case I find harm to the character and 

appearance of the rural area and that is not overcome by the other 

considerations. For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal 

should be dismissed.” 

Observations 

A good decision where the Inspector recognises the potential harm to the character 

of the countryside from the proposed development. 






3. SBC Decision on Application SW/09/0687 

28

PART 5 

5.6 Case 23231 – Land and Buildings at Pool House, rear of Mill House, Throwley 

Forstal, Faversham, Kent, ME13 0PJ 

APPEAL A – DISMISSED AND THE ENFORCEMENT NOTICE UPHELD AND 

APPELLANT’S CLAIM FOR COSTS REFUSED 

APPEAL B - INVALID 


“Appeal A: APP/V2255/C/09/2100248 

Land and buildings at Pool House, rear of Mill House, Throwley Forstal, 

Faversham, Kent ME13 0PJ 


1990 as amended by the Planning and Compensation Act 1991. 

• The appeal is made by Ms Anne Marie Kyle against an enforcement notice 

issued by Swale Borough Council. 

• The Council's reference is THR 2:08. 

• The notice was issued on 6 March 2009. 

• The breach of planning control as alleged in the notice is without planning 

permission the material change of use of the Building from its former use as a 

building ancillary to the property known as “Mill House” to a self-contained 

and independent residential use in its own right. 

• The requirement of the notice is to cease using the Building for self-contained 

independent residential use. 

• The period for compliance with the requirement is 6 months. 

• The appeal is proceeding on the ground set out in section 174(2)(d) of the 

Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended. Since the prescribed fees 

have not been paid within the specified period, the application for planning 

permission deemed to have been made under section 177(5) of the Act as 

amended does not fall to be considered. 

Summary of Decision: The appeal is dismissed and the enforcement notice 

upheld. 

Appeal B: APP/V2255/X/09/2117243 

The Pool House, rear of Mill House, Throwley Forstal, Faversham, Kent 

ME13 0PJ 


1990 as amended by the Planning and Compensation Act 1991 against a 

refusal to grant a certificate of lawful use or development. 

• The appeal is made by Duncan Kyle against the decision of Swale Borough 

Council. 

• The application Ref SW/09/0777, dated 16 August 2009, was refused by 

notice dated 30 October 2009. 

• The application was made under section 191(1)(a) of the Town and Country 

Planning Act 1990 as amended. 

• The use for which a certificate of lawful use or development is sought is use 

as a dwelling house (C3). 


29


Summary of Decision: The appeal is invalid and I shall take no further 

action. 

Application for costs 

1. At the Inquiry an application for costs was made by the appellant against 

Swale Borough Council. This application is the subject of a separate 

Decision. 

Procedural matters 

2. All oral evidence to the inquiry was given on oath. 

3. The application for the lawful development certificate was made by Duncan 

Kyle, and the appeal against the Council’s refusal of the certificate was also 

made by him. Whilst any person may apply to the Council to ascertain 

whether any existing use of the land is lawful, the application form requires, 

amongst other matters, that the applicant state his interest in the land. The 

requirements are set out in some detail at Article 24 of The Town and Country 

Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995 as amended, 

particularly Article 24(2). The application form stated that the applicant’s 

interest in the land was as owner. The evidence put to me at the Inquiry was 

that the applicant was not the owner at the time of the application, although 

he had formerly been a joint owner with Roger Kyle of the land, until about 

2001 or 2002. He did not appear at the Inquiry, nor did he give any evidence 

in writing. 

4. In the enforcement appeal the appellant is Ms Anne Marie Kyle, who, on the 

Appeal Form, declares her interest in the land as owner. She was the only 

person on whom the Council served a copy of the enforcement notice. She is 

also named as the Proprietor on the Land Register for the enforcement 

appeal site, which is the land edged red on the plan attached to the 

enforcement notice. The land for which a lawful development certificate is 

sought is rather smaller than the land edged red on the plan attached to the 

enforcement notice, but lies within that land. The signed lawful development 

certificate application form with regard to ownership of the land was clearly 

misleading. 

5. The signed appeal form and its accompanying documents did not include any 

correction to the ownership information, but included the application form as 

submitted to the Council. Notwithstanding that the appellant’s husband 

asserted otherwise, there is no evidence that the owner was notified by 

Duncan Kyle of the application, as is required by law. The owner did not 

appear at the Inquiry, nor did she give any evidence in writing. It was 

accepted by the appellant that the ownership error was a defect in the 

application. 

6. Although I have no reason to conclude that the owner was not aware of the 

lawful development certificate application and appeal, I do not know that for a 

fact. In any case the correct procedures had not been followed. The 

requirements for the application are specific and mandatory, precisely to 

avoid this kind of situation. In these particular circumstances I consider that 

Appeal B is invalid, and I shall take no further action on it. 


30


Appeal A: The appeal on ground (d) 

7. For this ground of appeal to succeed it is for the appellant to show that, at the 

date when the notice was issued, no enforcement action could be taken in 

respect of any breach of planning control which may be constituted by the 

matters alleged in the enforcement notice. 

8. By reason of section 171B(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as 

amended, where there has been a breach of planning control consisting in the 

change of use of any building to use as a single dwellinghouse, no 

enforcement action may be taken after the end of the period of four years 

beginning with the date of the breach. In this particular appeal the appellant 

therefore needs to show that the change of use occurred on or before 6 

March 2005, that is, 4 years before the date of issue of the enforcement 

notice, and that the residential use has been continuous between those 

dates, albeit that occasional gaps and small interruptions, such as weekends 

or summer holidays, do not prevent a period of immunity arising. 

9. The Pool House was originally built in 1968 as ancillary to the dwellinghouse, 

Mill House, and was originally used in connection with the outdoor swimming 

pool. The swimming pool has now been filled in, and all that can be seen is a 

roughly level garden area which is mainly grass. Although formerly in the 

same ownership, Mill House and Pool House became separately owned 

properties in 2002. While the evidence was that the appeal building had been 

used for residential purposes in the past, the key period to look at is from 

March 2005 onwards. 

10. Kieran Kyle, who is the occupier of the appeal building, and whose mother is 

the appellant and the owner, stated that he moved in just after Christmas 

2002, whilst an undergraduate at Brunel University in Uxbridge. In term time 

he stayed in Halls of Residence during the week, and stayed at the appeal 

building at weekends, and during vacations. He was in Halls of Residence in 

his first and third years, and stayed at a property in Hayes for his second 

year. He graduated in June 2004, and then he worked at a number of local 

companies, and also attended a course at Kent University. He lived at the 

appeal building during this period, which is from June 2004 until August 2008, 

when he went to Aylesbury, for a teaching post, but returned in December 

2008. Again, he spent weekends at the appeal building during the latter 

period. 

11. The facilities at the appeal building included a small fitted kitchen with 

worktops, a microwave and an oven, a shower room with basin and WC, a 

lounge with TV, armchairs and a chest of drawers also used as a table, a 

bedroom with a bed, shelves, books, a DVD player, and clothes. There is 

bottled gas, electricity and water at the building. Post and parcels are 

delivered to the garage to Mill House, and his parents’ home as well as Mill 

House and Pool House were used for addresses for organisations such as 

banks. Sometimes he used to have tea with his grandmother, Mrs Kyle, in Mill 

House, until she died in about 2008. Mr Lacey was her partner, and he still 

lives in Mill House on a lifetime tenancy. Although Kieran Kyle very 

occasionally meets Mr Lacey, he has no need to use Mill House for its 

facilities. He had not stayed at Mill House since he was a child. 


31


12. I was told that Mr Lacey is paid for some of the utility services, that is the 

water and electricity which are supplied from Mill House, and that Kieran Kyle 

pays no rent to his mother for the use of the property, albeit that he makes ad 

hoc financial contributions towards the cost of gas and water. Two BT phone 

bills from 2007 and 2008 were alleged to be for Pool House, although the 

address on the bills was Mill House. Two gas bills from Novagas of July and 

December 2009 are outside the 4 year period under consideration. 

13. A cheque for £500 from Mr R L & Mrs A M Kyle to Mr A W Lacey of May 2008 

is of no help as it is not known precisely what it was for, or whether it had any 

connection with the continuous residential use of Pool House. Similarly a 

letter from NHS Blood and Transplant relating to a blood donor appointment 

in December 2009, and an address sheet from Herne Bay High School of 

October 2009, both addressed to The Pool House, but the latter is c/o Mill 

House, are of little help in showing continuous residential use between March 

2005 and March 2009. It is not disputed that Kieran Kyle occupied the appeal 

building at times, including many weekends. Kieran Kyle was registered as 

being on the Electoral Roll at Mill House from 2002 to September 2009. No 

Council Tax was paid for the appeal building, although it was and is paid for 

Mill House. 

14. Several documents which were put in to the Inquiry were called “Statutory 

Declarations”. They all appeared to be very similar, and possibly drafted by 

the same hand, and all referred to the wrong section of the Town and Country 

Planning Act 1990 as amended with regard to this appeal. As a matter of fact 

the appeal relates to section 171B(2) of the Act, as it concerns the change of 

use of any building to use as a single dwellinghouse, and not section 171B(1), 

which concerns building and other operations. Moreover, those Statutory 

Declarations of Robert Bird, Brenda Lillywhite, Francis Bortoli, and Jon Giles, 

are not in the prescribed form for Statutory Declarations, as they have not 

been made before a justice of the peace, a notary public, or other person 

authorised to administer an oath, and can only be afforded very little weight 

as a consequence of that fact. 

15. The Statutory Declaration of Luke Kyle does not assist the appellant’s case 

as, whilst he states that Pool House has been his cousin’s (Kieran Kyle’s) 

main residence from 2002, he did not appear at the Inquiry to answer 

questions, and his evidence does not show the property to have been in 

continuous residential use as opposed to being a main residence for the 

relevant period. The Statutory Declaration of Paul McCabe relates only to a 

period outside the 4 year period with which the appellant’s case is concerned. 

16. Similarly Arthur Lacey’s Statutory Declaration adds little in that he states that 

Kieran Kyle has resided in the property for a number of years, but he has not 

defined precisely when, or for how long, or how he used or uses it as a 

residence. He did not explain why Kieran Kyle used his address for voting 

purposes. Mrs Marjorie Bird in her Statutory Declaration stated that Kieran 

Kyle has been using the property as his sole residence for at least the last 

five years (presumably up to 12 January 2009). Again, she did not appear at 

the Inquiry to answer questions, but the evidence from Kieran Kyle himself 

was that Pool House was not his sole residence, but that he had lived in a 

number of properties, and Mrs Bird’s evidence can therefore only be afforded 

very little weight. Continued . . . 

32


17. Turning to ownership, Mill House, although lived in by Mr Lacey on a life 

tenancy, is owned by the brothers Roger and Duncan Kyle, the sons of the 

late Mrs Kyle. Pool House is owned by Anne Kyle, who is Roger Kyle’s wife 

and Duncan Kyle’s sister-in-law. The occupier of Pool House is Kieran Kyle, 

the son of Roger and Anne Kyle. There is a clear family connection between 

the ownership of both properties, and no physical separation, although I was 

told that that was to enable Roger Kyle to more easily look after the gardens 

of both properties. It shares the same curtilage as Mill House. 

18. The relationship thus suggests something more akin to an ancillary building to 

Mill House, which it clearly was originally, albeit that it has all the facilities for 

normal living, but so too, it would appear, did the original Pool House. For 

these reasons, Pool House does not form a separate planning unit from Mill 

House, as it was, and is, ancillary to Mill House. I agree that it does not need 

its own curtilage to be a separate planning unit, but there is no evidence to 

show it being a separate planning unit, but only an ancillary building. 

19. The evidence thus shows that the residential use of the appeal building from 

2002 onwards was intermittent, and mainly weekends and vacations only until 

June 2004. The breaks in occupation are far longer breaks than might be 

considered to show continuous occupation, and are far more than weekends 

or summer holidays. From June 2004 to August 2008 the residential 

occupation was reasonably continuous, and sufficient to be a self-contained 

residential use, but it did not last for the requisite 4 year period, from March 

2005 to March 2009, which is a precise and unambiguous requirement in law. 

20. The continuous period that is established is from March 2005 to August 2008, 

when the pattern was broken by the move to Aylesbury. The use solely at 

weekends from August 2008 to December 2008 does not constitute a 

continuous use. Although the continuous residential use began again after 

December 2008, the break of several months for at least 5 days a week of 

being empty is significant, and it does not enable, on the balance of 

probability, the period of 4 years continuous residential use to be achieved. 

21. Furthermore, there is little documentary evidence to support the residential 

use of the building. There are very few documents, for example utilities bills or 

any other correspondence, from the 4 year period, which is surprising. 

Correspondence addressed to Kieran Kyle at Pool House would have been 

expected, from banks, mobile phone companies, BT, employers, including 

records such as pay slips, tax returns, driving licences, insurance records, 

letters from friends, University and teaching records, and so forth, to show a 

regular and continuing residential use of the property by Kieran Kyle, but 

there are virtually none. The evidence of witnesses supports the period of 

undisputed residential use, but there is no evidence to support the missing 

period, which is not surprising, as the occupier accepted that he was not living 

at the appeal building during the week in this period. 

22. On the balance of probability, I therefore consider that the residential use has 

not been made out for the requisite period of 4 years before the issue of the 

enforcement notice, and the appeal on ground (d) must therefore fail. 


33


Conclusions 

23. For the reasons given above I consider that the section 174 appeal should not 

succeed. The section 195 appeal is invalid, and I shall therefore take no 

further action. 

Decision 

Appeal A: APP/V2255/C/09/2100248 

24. I dismiss the appeal and uphold the enforcement notice. 

Appeal B: APP/V2255/X/09/2117243 

25. The appeal is invalid and I shall take no further action.” 

“Costs application in relation to Appeal Ref: APP/V2225/C/09/2100248 and 

Appeal Ref: APP/V2255/X/09/2117243 

Land and buildings at Pool House, rear of Mill House, Throwley Forstal, 

Faversham, Kent ME13 0PJ 

• The application is made under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, 

sections 174, 195, 320 and Schedule 6, and the Local Government Act 1972, 

section 250(5). 

• The application is made by Ms Anne Marie Kyle for a full award of costs 

against Swale Borough Council. 

• The inquiry was in connection with an appeal against an enforcement notice 

alleging without planning permission the material change of use of the 

Building from its former use as a building ancillary to the property known as 

“Mill House” to a self-contained and independent residential use in its own 

right, and an appeal against the refusal of a certificate of lawful use or 

development for use as a dwelling house (C3). 

Summary of Decision: I refuse the application for an award of costs. 

The Submissions for the appellant 

1. These were submitted in writing. 

The Response by the Council 

2. This was submitted in writing. 

Conclusions 

3. Circular 8/93 Awards of Costs Incurred in Planning and Other (including 

Compulsory Purchase Order) Proceedings and Circular 03/2009 Costs 

Awards in Appeals and other Planning Proceedings advise that, irrespective 

of the outcome of the appeal, costs may only be awarded against a party who 

has behaved unreasonably and thereby caused the party applying for costs to 

incur unnecessary or wasted expense in the appeal process. 


34


4. The appellant’s concern is that the Council has failed to produce any serious 

evidence to contradict her case. In cases such as this the onus is on the 

appellant to produce evidence. The Council failed to adequately investigate 

the alleged breach of planning control prior to the issue of the enforcement 

notice. If they had, the appeal could have been avoided. 

5. Circular 10/97 Enforcing Planning Control: Legislative Provisions and 

Procedural Requirements states at paragraph 8.15 that the applicant’s own 

evidence does not need to be corroborated by “independent” evidence in 

order to be accepted. If the LPA have no evidence of their own, or from 

others, to contradict or otherwise make the appellant’s view less than 

probable, there is no good reason to refuse the application, provided the 

applicant’s evidence alone is sufficiently precise and unambiguous to justify 

the grant of a certificate “on the balance of probability”. The LPA should 

proceed on the basis that neither the identity of the applicant (except to the 

extent that he or she may or may not be able personally to confirm the 

accuracy of any claim being made about the history of a parcel of land), nor 

the planning merits of the operation, use or activity, are relevant to the 

consideration of the purely legal issues which are involved in determining an 

application. 

6. The evidence that was put to the Inquiry showed that, on the balance of 

probability, the Council were correct, and the 4 year period of continuous 

residential use had not been achieved. This was in no small measure due to 

the appellant’s own evidence about working away in Aylesbury, which the 

appellant would have known would have been likely to have prevented the 

appeal being successful. The rest of the evidence showed that the appellant 

had been in continuous residential use before and after the Aylesbury period. 

The judgements put in by the appellant referred to weekends and summer 

holidays as not preventing the period of immunity from being achieved, but 

clearly being away for 5 days in every 7 cannot represent continuous 

residential use, and plainly did prevent the period being achieved. The appeal 

was manifestly necessary, and could not have been avoided. 

7. Whilst there was late evidence submitted the day before the Inquiry, the fact 

that it was late, whilst of considerable concern, was not of itself unreasonable, 

and there was sufficient time for it to be properly dealt with at the Inquiry. 

There is clearly nothing wrong in the Council taking urgent enforcement 

action to control the alleged use. There is also no need for the Council to 

issue a planning contravention notice. 

8. In the light of all of these circumstances I do not find that the Council has 

behaved unreasonably or caused unnecessary waste or expense. The 

application fails. 

Formal Decision 

9. I refuse the application for an award of costs.” 


35


Observations - Appeal A: APP/V2255/C/09/2100248 

A very good decision where the Inspector concludes that there was and is a clear 

family connection between the ownership of the main house and the annexe and that 

this relationship suggests something more akin to an ancillary building to Mill House 

and is therefore not in separate residential use. The Inspector also concludes that 

the submitted documentary evidence to support the claim of an independent 

residential use was poor and surprisingly lacking in number. The Inspector gave 

very little weight to the submitted statutory declarations as he says they all appeared 

to be very similar, possibly drafted by the same hand and all referred to the wrong 

section of the act and several were not made before a justice of peace, a notary 

public or other person authorised to administer an oath. 

Observations - Appeal B: APP/V2255/X/09/2117243 

This appeal was declared invalid by the Inspector as during the Inquiry it became 

clear that the appellant was not the owner of the land. The Inspector concluded in 

this respect that the signed lawful development certificate application form with 

regard to the ownership of the land was clearly misleading and as the Inspector did 

not know for a fact that the correct owner had been aware of the lawful development 

certificate application and appeal, and the correct procedures had not been followed 

by the applicant/appellant, the appeal was invalid. 




1. Planning Inspectorate Appeal Decision ref: APP/V2255/C/09/2100248 and 

APP/V2255/X/09/2117243 

2. Appeal Papers (statements and correspondence) for 

APP/V2255/C/09/21100248 and APP/V2255/X/09/2117243 

3. SBC Enforcement Notice reference: ENF/09/011 

36

Report for Item 6 - Swale Borough Council

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?