Request support for Thanet
We're not currently able to provide detailed weekly summaries for Thanet Council. We need support from the council to:
- Ensure we can reliably access and process council meeting information
- Cover the costs of processing and summarizing council data
- Maintain and improve the service for residents
You can help make this happen!
Contact your councillors to let them know you want Thanet Council to support Open Council Network. This will help ensure residents can stay informed about council decisions and activities.
If you represent a council or business, or would be willing to donate to support this service, please contact us at community@opencouncil.network.
Planning Committee - Wednesday, 19th June, 2024 7.00 pm
June 19, 2024 View on council website Watch video of meeting or read trancriptTranscript
[silence]
[silence]
[silence]
[silence]
[silence]
[silence]
[silence]
Okay, good evening and welcome to this meeting of the planning committee, including those who are watching online.
If the fire alarm is activated, please vacate the offices via the stairs, either through the security door to my right or opposite the lifts in the foyer.
Please do not use the lifts and please assemble in Hawley Square on the green.
Officers will assist you and advise you when it is deemed safe to return to the chamber.
Does anyone intend to film or record audio of the meeting?
I would advise that any speakers using the microphones are picked up by the cameras and recording the meeting.
Members of the public in the public gallery behind the speakers may be picked up by those cameras and have their image captured.
Any member of the public objects to the possibility of being filmed may wish to take this opportunity to move or leave the meeting.
Would everyone present please ensure their mobile phones are turned to silent and that they are not used to make or receive phone calls or messages in this chamber whilst the meeting is in progress?
I don't have any members at the moment who wish to speak under council rule 20.1.
Are there anyone who wants to speak under 20.1 who have not yet declared it?
No. I have one application as being reserved for public speaking which is item 7E 31 Crowhill Broadstairs.
I have apologies from Councillor Rizaki substituted by Councillor Wright and apologies from Councillor Dennis, no substitution.
Are there any other apologies?
Don't can't see any? No.
Are there any decorations of interest?
No. Thank you.
Do members agree that minutes of the planning committee meeting held on the 22nd may be approved as a correct record and do I have a proposal please?
Councillor Christian Bright and a seconder.
Councillor Albren. Thank you.
Do members agree?
Thank you.
Sorry, Chair.
Councillor Mark Radcliffe and I don't think he's going to be here.
It gives us apologies.
Thank you.
We'll record that.
So the planning applications manager will now outline a point of information firstly about agenda item 6, land to the north of Fairland Road and west of Northwood Road Broadstairs and also agenda item 7D R04 Stone Bay Kiosk.
Thank you.
Thank you, Chair.
So on agenda item 6, land to the north of Fairland west of northwood Road Broadstairs.
We've had further legal advice on the sexual sex agreement completed to secure the required obligations to make the development acceptable.
Due to a change in ownership of the site, we now require further legal advice to ensure that the sexual and sex agreement will safeguard the planning obligations in perpetuity.
And therefore, we are proposing to change the recommendation to members from the one that's outlined in the report at 3.1, which currently states members approve the application subject to safeguarding conditions as set out out.
An X1 and change that to defer and delegate the application for approval subject to the safeguarding conditions in an X1 following confirmation of the acceptability of the signed 106 agreement securing the necessary financial contributions and obligations within six months of this resolution.
For agenda item 7D R04 Stone Bay Kiosk, we've received notification from the applicants agent today that the application has been withdrawn by the applicant from the statutory register.
And therefore, the application is no longer under consideration by the Council and the item is withdrawn from the agenda.
Thank you.
Thank you.
For agenda item 4, which is the update for 61 Ashburnum Road, this has been brought back to committee following deferral at a previous meeting and a site visit.
The planning applications manager will now outline the report.
Thank you, Chair.
So the application is for retrospective permission for a single story, rear extension, and the site is outlined in red.
So members voted to visit site, which occurred on the 31st of May.
So this is the extension from the rear of number 61.
I'll just go through some photos and then quickly outline what the main issues for consideration are.
So we have this photo from the rear of the property in question.
This is looking towards number 59 Ashburnum Road and then looking the other way to 63.
So members visited the rear of this part of the site and looked towards number 63.
So officers do consider there isn't a harmful impact on the neighbour at number 63.
And then this is a view showing from number 59, which is the main issue that officers have put forward to members to consider.
So the extension itself is about 3 metres high and it's 4.2 metres deep.
A permitted extension on the boundary such as this could only be 3 metres deep.
So the sort of end 1.2 metres is the area that's of particular consideration for members.
You can see the existing window and door which serves a habitable space for the neighbour and property in the middle of the image there.
This is the rear so you can see there's already a rear accretion on the back of number 59.
And then turn into the left you can see the other side of number 59 in terms of just the relationship with surrounding properties for the neighbour.
Then got a view further back showing the extension in relationship in terms of the height of the extension and see the window and door itself.
And then this is a view from inside that window and door looking out from there.
So members also visited the inside of the property to assess the impact.
So in terms of very quickly running through the plans so previously there was a conservatory on the rear of the property.
That was replaced by the extension obviously that we've seen in the photos.
So the main consideration is the impact on the neighbourhood property.
Mention on site and already mentioned that there is a fallback position in terms of a permitted development extension which can extend 3 metres deep adjacent to the neighbouring boundary.
The recommendation put for bi officers is that on balance the application is recommended for refusal as the development is considered to result in an unacceptable loss of outlook and light.
Creating a sense of enclosure to the neighbouring property to the detriment of living conditions of those occupiers so that's contrary to policy QD03.
So the recommendation is to refuse.
Thank you.
Thank you.
I move that the officers recommendation is adopted with the vice chair please second.
Seconded.
Thank you.
Do I have anyone who wants to speak?
Councillor Christian Bright.
Thank you and thank you Ian for arranging the opportunity to go and see the properties.
It's definitely over, it's definitely big and I can completely sympathise with the residents of the neighbours.
However, what I found looking at the property and visiting it, when you actually, when you kind of looked at it from their point of view, I found that whilst it was enclosing, I don't think the additional 1.2 metres or whatever it is, is adds to that sense of enclosure, you would have got that if it was within permitted development.
So I guess what I'm saying is that having looked at it, it doesn't cut off the light because the light's very much east to west so there's no kind of sunshine, it is genuinely down to that sense of enclosure which I believe would be there regardless.
So I think that because the bit that's over and above the permitted development doesn't make, I don't think, a significant impact on whether it would be give a sense of enclosure anyway, I think that would be unnecessarily, well, I'm going to go against it and say I'm fine with that.
I think they'll get used to it and it's fine.
I didn't put that very well but thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
I mean, my view is very similar to Council of Rights, I also went on the site visit and yeah, it's undeniable that there is a sense of enclosure at the building but like Council of Rights, I don't think taking just over a metre off it would really make much of a difference to that sense of enclosure
and along many of those houses there are similar size extensions.
So I think it's the fact that this house is further back than many others that creates the enclosure more than the extra bit of extension.
So I too will be voting against the recommendation.
Thank you.
Thank you, Chair. Yes, I also agree.
Having been on the site visit, I feel that the 1.2 metres difference to that agreed under allowed under permitted development was not considerable enough to cause harm to the neighbours.
Thank you.
Well, as a member of the committee, my comment, having been on that site visit was looking back at the property from the garden, which we did spend some time doing.
I couldn't really see what the problem was.
But when we went inside and I turned around and I looked back out, I felt claustrophobic as a result of the size of the extension.
And that is why I asked for the additional photograph looking out of the back window, which I'm hoping.
Thank you.
Because as you looked out, you can see that extra metre that is shown in that picture to me just did make a difference.
I felt that made a difference. That was my view.
Councillor Wing, thank you.
I didn't make the site visit, unfortunately.
And I don't necessarily—I agree that I don't think it's the 1.2 metres that causes the enclosure.
If we go back to the images where you see some of the other developments, either side of that one, what makes a difference is the fact that there's a gap.
It's a corridor. It's obviously a route down the side of the house, which reduces the feeling of enclosure for me.
So instead of taking 1.2 metres off the end, I'd take a metre off the side and push it back that way.
Because then the sense of enclosure would be exactly the same as the developments, either side of it where you've got that.
It's obviously a corridor or walkway down the side of the building.
So, yeah, I agree that the 1.2 metres isn't the problem.
It's a fact it butts right up to that wall and there isn't a gap.
And I think if that building was shunted that way, maybe half a metre, it wouldn't feel as bad.
Councillor Materface, thank you, Chair.
Unfortunately, I couldn't go on the site visit, but could ask, is this extension any higher than the comparable ones?
Are they all of the same height?
So the impact, if you were looking along the way, they would all be apparently on the same level?
Chair, I'll just come back on that.
I couldn't confirm whether or not it's higher or lower than the other extensions around them.
I think in terms of the permitted development side of things, it's not, you know, it allows a 3 metre extent, 3 metres high extension.
So this, which is, you know, as this is, pretty much bang on.
So it's, you know, that is, in terms of that point about the fallback, that is an acceptable relationship.
Obviously, the issue in that instance is that permitted development right isn't considering the nature of what the window directly adjacent on the neighbour is.
You know, it is a broad permitted development.
There are no specifics that say, you know, this doesn't apply if you're next to a habitable room, for example.
So it's, as is an application, it still obviously has to be considered just purely on its merits.
And obviously, we have the window that is there, you know, and obviously the impact I've seen.
So if I can come back, if we go over the office's recommendation, there'll obviously something will have to be done to that extension, unless we come up with an alternative.
Is that, yep.
And so, first and foremost, obviously, because it's a retrospective application, if it's refused, then the applicant would obviously have the ability to appeal.
As it's a household replication, that means that it's a lighter touch appeal.
So it's fast-tracked in the sense of it's a quicker appeal determination by the planning inspector.
Once that, you know, on the basis that it, I think it, you know, I would assume that it would be appealed in the event that it's not appealed,
or indeed the appeal decision comes back and the appeal is dismissed, then the council would enter into negotiations to bring it back into permitted development.
So to basically require it to be altered, to match what was required, what doesn't need permission under permitted development,
or alternatively to try and remove the particular element that affects this neighbour, given that it doesn't affect the neighbour on the other side, for example.
And that, so it could be, go down the line a bit, the household would be ordered to knock back, sort of really chop a bit off the end, basically, yeah?
Well, yes, effectively alter the extension, as it is, to make it acceptable here.
Any other questions? In that case, we will now put the motion for the officer's recommendation for refusal to the vote. Those in favour?
Thank you. Those against?
And any abstentions? So that's lost. So I'll hand back to the planning applications manager for the next bit.
Thank you. So in terms of, obviously, the motion falling, then the, obviously, alternative motion would be for members to vote to approve the application,
just to summarise, I think, the points that are being made, it's effectively that it would be approved, because it's considered that the extension wouldn't lead to an unacceptable impact on the neighbouring living conditions.
Now, one thing I would suggest is, the extension is not actually finished, as you can see, and obviously one of the key things that's being proposed is that it's going to be finished to match the cream render on the property.
And therefore, I wouldn't suggest that members would grant permission unconditionally, and therefore, I'd suggest that it would be subject to a condition requiring the extension to be finished to match the existing property, which is obviously what they've submitted.
So, yes, that would potentially be a motion to put forward from someone.
Can I have someone who wants to propose that motion, Councillor Bright, and seconded by Councillor Bafford?
Could we just read the, I'll ask to read it.
Okay, sorry.
So, that the application should be approved, as it's considered, the extension does not lead to an unacceptable impact on neighbouring living conditions, subject to a condition requiring the extension to be finished in render to match the existing property.
Okay, all those in favour?
Any against?
And abstentions?
So, that one has been carried, thank you.
Right, agenda item 5, this has also been brought back to committee following deferral from a previous meeting, which is the Royal 51 Harbour Parade.
The Planning Applications Manager will now outline the report.
Thank you.
Thank you, Chair.
So, the application in question came before members a number of months ago, August last year.
So, the application was for the change of use of the ground floor pub to a commercial units use class E, which is Townsend to use class, with the erection of a five-story site extension and a three-story building to the rear following a partial demolition to form eight flats and rearranging two flats that are existing in the property.
So, this application was deferred and delegated to officers for approval, subject to the receipt of a legal agreement securing the SAMS contribution within six months from August of last year.
So, the Council has now received a unilateral undertaking, which to put forward to try and secure the SAMS contribution, which is for 2,964 pounds.
So, it's brought back to members because the six months has run out of time.
So, we have to bring it back to confirm whether or not anything has changed in terms of the material planning considerations.
In our view, nothing has changed in terms of the policy framework that would result in a change to the position that members have put forward to be unreasonable to change the approval.
However, in terms of the unilateral obligation that we have, not all owners are party to the agreement.
There are smaller parcels of land to the rear, because if I go back to this, you can see the site actually extends into the back and there are a number of different parcels of land.
And the report outlines that part of the land is owned by a company registered in the British Virgin Islands.
And there's also an individual named that cannot be contacted.
Now, the Council has received legal advice about how to progress the application on this basis.
And the legal advice has suggested that we can impose a negatively worded condition on the application.
I'm going to read the condition out.
So, it would be that no work should be carried out under this planning permission until either all parties with an interest in the site have entered into a 106 year later undertaking on the same terms on which the permission is granted,
or such interests have come to an end, and evidence that haven't come to an end has been provided to the Council.
So, that condition is outlined in 3.1.
Now, this is a pretty rare occurrence.
We wouldn't normally look to try and sort of act in this manner in terms of actually approving something where not all members, not all people who are on the land or aren't party to the agreement and will come on to the next agenda item, an example of that.
In this instance, though, given the circumstances and the fact that this is just a financial contribution, and what this means is technically, if permission is granted, and then that money is paid, then the obligation has been discharged, and the impact has been mitigated.
The SAM's impact is mitigated, and therefore there is no further need for any contributions because of the number of units.
It's only that obligation. The advice from that we're putting to members is that we can approve the application on that basis, specifically because there are no other obligations other than that financial contribution on its own.
As I mentioned, there are no policy change or national policy that's changed to deviate from the previous decision, and therefore the recommendation is to approve as outlined at 3.1.
Thank you. I move that the officers' recommendation is adopted with the Vice Chair, please second.
Seconded.
Thank you. Do I have any questions? Councillor robin.
Thank you, Chair. I can't see a problem with it at all. Totally agree with what Planning Manager has just said, and I think we should take a vote on it. Thank you.
Councillor interjecting. I don't see a problem with the 106 money or the SAM's money, but we've already got two derelict buildings in my ward. Well, one's not quite in my ward, but he's a derelict building anyway.
What happens if the build starts and the two people that can't be contacted while in the Virgin Islands and the one that can't be contactable suddenly say, I don't want you building on my land.
I'm really worried that we could end up with either a building that is left empty, another one in a prime location, or a semi derelict building that's been partly finished, and we've already got one on the other side of the road scaffolding on it and has been for two years.
So that's the only thing that really worries me.
So obviously the ownership is sort of a separate issue to the Planning Commission, as no one appreciates, which obviously means that there could be another thing that stops a Planning Commission coming forward, and that would be the example as you outline.
I mean, there are things that obviously we can do in the event that obviously the development actually starts and isn't completed.
Obviously there are immediacy notices we can look at through planning enforcement if, for example, that building was left, it wasn't developed, and it did begin to deteriorate.
As you say, it's a prime location in the conservation area, and therefore I'm sure that we would certainly look to enforce to ensure that the immediacy of the land doesn't affect the area under Section 205 of the Planning Act.
In addition, there are further measures that regulations are due to come forward about completion notices, which is something that was introduced in the leveling up bill last year, which may be an option, but the regulations haven't come out on that yet.
So there are some measures that could come into place in that, but as to whether the development comes forward or not, it's unfortunately not within our gift on that.
Councillor MURPHYS.
Just looking at 3.1(b), such interests have come to an end and evidence of it having come to an end has been provided.
How long would this last, I mean, normally planning permission once it's granted its three-year period, then if you haven't done anything, et cetera, et cetera.
So with this, 3.1(b), would there be a time scale on this if you got all the other processes in place?
It's the same time scale, so because obviously if that condition hasn't either fallen away because the obligation has been paid or indeed it hasn't been cleared and the money hasn't been paid, then they've still got three years.
This is the same as a granting condition, which, for example, has for drainage details, something like that.
We will now put the motion for the officer's recommendation for approval to the vote, all those in favour?
Any against and no abstentions? Thank you.
Okay, so that's carried, thank you. A gender item 6, this has also been brought back to committee following deferral from a previous meeting, which is the land to the north of Fairlawn Road and the west of Northwood Road Broadstairs.
I will hand over to the planning applications manager, thank you.
So this is an application that came in before members and was considered the November planning committee, so the application on this site was for 33,000 and 5,000 flats.
So in November last year members deferred and delegated officers to approve subject conditions and the receipt of a legal agreement to secure planning obligations, which included education, health care, normal KCC contributions, SAMs, and also 30% affordable housing on the site.
And that that was needed to be submitted within six months.
So it's being reported back to members as that more than six months has passed.
We have received a sexual and a six agreement of which has been signed.
However, as mentioned at the top of the meeting and separately, we have had further legal advice because of an issue with the change in ownership, which basically means that as we understand the new owner,
has signed the Section 106 agreement, so they would be obligated to provide all of the contributions and provide the affordable housing on site.
However, the outgoing owner is still the person listed on the land registry documentation.
What that means is that the suggestion is that effectively until that land registry documentation has been updated, it cannot be definitively secured on the basis of information we've got.
That actually the obligations will go with the land.
Whilst we have received various details from the solicitor of the now owner of the site that basically confirms that the sale has taken place, we are still seeking a bit more legal certainty.
The more legal certainty of that, which is why the recommendation has changed on that.
I suppose just to make clear, the 106 that we have in the content of it is absolutely acceptable.
It secures the 30% affordable housing and all the contributions that the appropriate triggers.
But it is this technicality because of the ownership change and frankly because of the backlog of land registry documentation, which is going on at the moment, that we do need to defer it again for the six months.
One thing to mention obviously is that point I raised earlier about the Royal, which is that this is a case where it's coming back to members after the six months.
So what we would always want to give you an update on is, well, has something changed.
In this instance, one change that has occurred, but it hasn't fundamentally affected the way the application is considered, is that when this came before members in November, significant weight was given to the Broadstairs neighbourhood plan at that point,
which had been updated, the following month, that was then given full weight.
However, the determination on the application itself hasn't changed because actually all the policies that were updated didn't change from the original neighbourhood plan.
So basically the consideration now is no different from the one that was made in November, but it is just important to mention that there was technically a policy framework change.
But those matters were all considered and there are no changes to the policies, which meant that we're recommending members need to take a look at any particular issues on this application.
So, therefore, the recommendation is now to defer and delegate to officers to confirm the acceptability of the legal agreement and the safeguarding conditions as per Annex 1, and that's for six months again to resolve.
Thank you. Thank you. I move that the officer's recommendation is adopted with the Vice Chair, please second.
Seconded.
And speak, Councillor. No.
Like Ghana. Councillor Ghana.
Thank you. Yeah, thank you. I mean, I understand that the permissions for this are still going forward, so we'll both undoubtedly approve this.
So as it carries on, I do, I mean, as you're aware, there has been some work going on there, and I just want to just draw it to the attention.
There has been some work because I was contacted by a neighbour who lives right in the corner of that plot of the top right-hand corner, who with concerns, because shrubs, bushes and other habitats were being cleared, and this would have been in May
and she was obviously concerned about that. I mean, I have a short, I mean, you've been in contact with the, I assume, the then applicant who told you that it was just some low-level clearance doing over the surveyor.
Now we've got a new owner, although it's not official on the land registry, I would hope that there wouldn't be any further need for any further clearance of shrubbery or trees or anything like that, especially at this time of the year, until later in the year when birds have finished nesting.
And is there any way that we could sort of make them, I'm sure they're experienced owners of land, but is there any way we could make them aware of that, and make it clear to them that anything like that would not be welcome?
Thank you.
I have absolutely no doubt that the planning agent is watching this very meeting, and on that basis, it's something certainly that we would emphasise in terms of, obviously there are pre-commencement conditions on a permission, but obviously at the moment there's no plan.
Obviously at the moment there's no planning permission.
In terms of clearance of land, obviously that does sort of fall into an area where you don't necessarily need planning permission for it.
However, the Wildlife and Countryside Act clearly precludes removal in the season that we're in now of something that could be considered to be habitat.
So, yeah, apps just absolutely agree, frankly.
Thank you, yes, I'm pleased to hear that the planning agent may be watching, and I'm sure the planning agent would be pleased to know that there are one of those things.
But there are one or two napers we're watching as well. Thank you.
Councillor WING.
November's a long time back.
Did we have the location of the social housing in November?
Yeah.
Yeah, I think we looked at the mix.
I mean, I'm afraid I don't have it to hand, but the committee report is appended at the next one, and I believe outlined the specific mix that was acceptable at that point.
I think the housing team was acceptable at that point to the housing team, and I think the housing team are aware of the site because of the interest in providing what's necessary.
I think the flats from the group.
So I think, yeah, from recollection, I'm afraid I don't have that plan, but I believe it's these terrorist properties on that side, which are the social housing on the site.
Yeah, sorry, the flat block in the middle, which is also part of that.
But yeah, it definitely secured, obviously, the 30% and that did hit the mix to be acceptable for the strategic housing team.
Just find it really difficult when we have all of the social housing in one place, and clearly those units are smaller, both in terms of their size and their garden.
I just feel that developments like this actually create a them, a have and a have not.
And what we should be moving towards is definitely, and we've seen it in some recent applications where the social housing is dispersed around a development.
I think it was this one I just thought, no, it just makes me feel really uncomfortable.
I've walked around housing estates and you can spot the social housing in the worst place, smaller units.
It's just something we should be moving away from. How many of the units will be disability friendly or age-proofed?
I believe that there is a condition, actually, because I think they had to demonstrate it, so bear with me one second.
Sorry, whilst I'm just looking through the committee report, Emma's just looking through the plans because the size and mix, there we go.
Four accessible units are provided to one bed and to two bed flats to meet the standards.
Just to come back on the point, obviously, as identified, there's nothing to change the position the members took.
But I think the point you raised is certainly a relevant one. I don't think it's something that we would dispute about the need to make sure to get a mixed and balanced community that their location is looked at.
This is obviously a relatively small site, but I would agree, and certainly when we're looking at some of the larger sites, we wouldn't look for it to be more of just one specific area.
And to your point about the standard of build in terms of the size, there are affordable housing and has to occur with the nationally described space standards.
It is also the case that, on the evidence that we have in the housing team, obviously provide, the need is for the smaller units as being the affordable ones.
So that does dictate the mix that we get in, but it is a consideration, I think, certainly.
It's just important to note that that whole bank of houses is right next to the retail/business/industrial. I'll just leave that hanging there.
OK, Councillor BAFORD.
Thank you, Chair. In my view, there are pros and cons to spreading the affordable housing around the site, but that part, they are small units, and therefore, I think, from design point of view, I can understand why they are together.
In my view, now that the proposal has been changed to defer and delegate, I see no reason to go against the officer's recommendation, I think.
OK, in that case, we'll now put the motion for the officer's recommendation for deferral to the vote, those in favour.
Thank you very much.
So that motion is carried, and we now move on to agenda item 7.
So just a reminder that any site visits will take place for committee members on the morning of Friday, the 5th of July, 2024.
And so agenda item 7E, application for refusal, 31 Crowhill, Broadstairs.
Speaking in favour of the application is Mr. Nolan Kent. You have three minutes.
Thank you. This plan is being recommended for refusal on the basis of character and appearance, namely that the building is not in keeping with the surrounding area.
There is an error in the report under the proposed development section.
The report incorrectly states the application is for a first-story extension, the two-story rear extension, balcony and two-story side extension.
There is no rear extension of any kind proposed in the application, and therefore there is no impact on the skyscape or street scene when looking down Cumberland Avenue.
There have been no objections from affected parties except for the Broadstairs society who have objected on the sole basis that they have not seen the plans, even though the plans were publicly available.
The house is not in the historic area.
The plot is on the corner of Crowhill and Cumberland Avenue. Both Crowhill and Cumberland Avenue at the Crowhill end contain an eclectic mix of one and two-story houses largely of an individual nature.
All of the houses to the front of the plot are taller than the proposed development and are also at a higher elevation.
Regarding the rear of the plot, the report incorrectly states that number two Cumberland Avenue, which is a two-story house, is an anomaly on this side of Cumberland Avenue.
In fact, number eight Cumberland Avenue is also a two-story house.
In addition, number three Cumberland Avenue on the other side of the street is a two-story house.
The Crowhill end of Cumberland Avenue is in fact a mix of one-story and two-story housing.
Number two Cumberland Avenue is already taller than a proposed development at 31 Crowhill.
The grant of planning permission to number two Cumberland Avenue allows the width of the current first floor to approximately double in size across the back of the 31 Crowhill plot.
Number two Cumberland Avenue will be the dominant feature of the skyscape when built and will act as a backdrop to the proposed development when looking from Crowhill.
Number 35 Crowhill, the next but one side plot up the hill has also been granted planning permission to increase the height, width and depth of the roof, which will already change the street scene looking down Crowhill towards number 31.
Application 2029 shows that successive houses downhill from 39 to 33 Crowhill have or will have successfully lower roofs.
29 Crowhill the neighboring plot down the hill has a roof that is the same height as number 31 and chimney stacks that are considerably higher.
This is despite the plot being in several feet lower than the plot of 31 Crowhill.
31 Crowhill therefore has a roof that is currently proportionally smaller.
There is scope for a taller roof at number 31 Crowhill that will still be in proportion to the neighboring house and maintain the street scene.
Number 27A has also had permission to and has gone up a whole level.
The report states that the color of the cladding will make the proposed building more prominent.
The color of the cladding is a light pale gray.
This color was specifically chosen to match the cladding on number 4 Cumberland Avenue to remain in keeping with the surrounding houses.
A pale gray color was also chosen and will not become discolored as quickly and white will there be maintained a good appearance for longer.
The report suggests that the side extension of development will impact upon the open setting at the end of Cumberland Avenue.
However, the proposed side extension is well within the boundary line and not on the boundary line.
Additionally, the adjoining boundary of the plot to Cumberland Avenue already has a 6 foot fence and tall hedges to approximately 8 to 10 feet.
Most importantly, Cumberland Avenue has an extra large pedestrian.
Excuse me, are you close to wrapping up?
I'm literally on the last sentence.
Thank you.
Sorry. The report states that the side extension extends significantly beyond the front building line of properties in Cumberland Avenue.
The proposed development is the only property on the building line on that part of Cumberland Avenue.
The stand-alone garage on the plot to the rear of 31 Crow Hill is much closer to the front building line and the rest of Cumberland Avenue than the proposed development.
Thank you.
Thank you.
The principal planning officer will now outline the report.
Thank you, Chair.
This is the site outlined in red here, so this is Crow Hill on the right-hand side of the slide, and then this is Cumberland Avenue here.
So there's quite a bit of changing ground level around here, so Cumberland Avenue drops down in level with these properties to the rear lower in level than the properties in Crow Hill.
This is just an aerial view of the site, so this is the application site here.
So it's a corner plot on the corner of Cumberland Avenue in Crow Hill.
You can see that there's currently space from the side elevation to the side boundary.
And again, in terms of just general pattern of development, you can see that this is consistent with the corner plot opposite the site.
And in terms of building line, it's considered that this side elevation falls in line with the front elevation of these properties, so they're all set back from the road.
You have that set back from Cumberland Avenue and then going up the hill to the corner, so this is quite a spacious set back that is quite consistent with the properties along this road.
This is just a view again of the property, so this is the property here, so it's currently a bungalow.
You can see the two properties to the left of the site are both bungalows.
The properties on the other corner are bungalows.
As the road drops down into Cumberland Avenue, there are two-story houses.
You can see in the foreground here, there's two-story properties opposite the site, so it is a mixed character in the area with two-story properties opposite.
As you go further to the right of this photo, you would have seen also two-story properties on this side of the road as well, but in terms of the immediate surrounding area of the site, they are smaller, modest-style properties.
And as you can see, they're all detached as well with spacious gaps between the properties.
So this is the property itself, the application site. Again, you can see a modest-style picture of bungalows set back from the front elevation, and this is the neighboring property to the left.
And then this is just showing it on the corner, so you can see the set back from the side boundary of Cumberland Avenue.
And then again, as you start going down Cumberland Avenue, you can see that space on the side, and this is now down Cumberland Avenue looking towards the rear of the application property.
As you can see, currently, there's a first floor dormer in the rear elevation, as you can see with the neighboring properties as well.
And then, again, this is further view from Cumberland Avenue looking towards the site.
And then just these are now some Google images, just so you can see a wider context of the area.
So again, this is the application property here, and you can see in terms of levels, the properties to the left of it start to drop down and hide, but again, quite modest or single-story.
The properties in Cumberland Avenue, you can see from this view whilst two-story here, because the ground level drops, again, in terms of the actual roofscape of these, they're all quite similar height.
And then looking towards the right-hand side of Crowhill, so going up Crowhill, you can see again three bungalows here, but then they do become some two-story properties further along, and you can see them on the right-hand side here.
But again, these are considered to be further away from the site and not within the immediate character of the area.
So this is the existing block plan of the property, as it is now, so you can see again corner plots with the set back from the side and front boundary.
And then this is the proposed applications. The proposal is for a first-floor extension, so to create a two-story dwelling on the site and for a two-story side extension up to the side boundary.
So this is the existing front elevation, and then this is the proposed front elevation.
So you can see it becomes quite a large property with the additional first floor and the additional two-story side extension.
The concern is it appears will appear quite dominant, whilst the bay feature to the front has been maintained.
It's quite a wide frontage, quite a wide area of spacing between the windows where there's quite a large area of solid wall.
So in terms of the design, it's because it has to be quite a poor design.
This is the side elevation, so this is the side view that you would get from Cumberland Avenue.
So again the top view is the existing side elevation of the bungalow, and then the bottom view is the proposed side elevation of the two-story dwelling.
So again you can see the increased scale of the property.
And then this is the side elevation facing the immediate neighbour, so again similar in terms of the height.
So the first floor balcony area is also proposed, and this now is the rear elevation.
So again the top image is the existing, and the bottom is the proposed.
So the first floor balcony is in this location here, and you can see a number of additional first floor windows within that rear elevation.
In terms of the floor plans, this is the existing floor plan, and then this is the proposed.
So the concern with the pattern of development again is that it's the fact of being on a very prominent corner location.
We would expect there to be some setting around the building maintained.
The current distance from the main side elevation, so whilst it's a bay window you can see here, but from the main side elevation to the boundary,
it's currently 4.1 metres, and this will reduce to 0.9 metres of the boundary.
So there'll be limited scope for there to be much vegetation along there because you'll have the windows almost directly onto the boundary.
And as you come down the corner you'll see this projecting forward of the front building lines of the properties to the rear in Cumberland Avenue.
And then this is existing floor plan, so you can see there's already some accommodation at first floor with the fact that there's a dormer at the rear as well.
So there's already some bedrooms at first floor level, but this is now the proposed first floor panel with the first floor extension and the two-story side extension,
creating a much larger footprint at first floor level.
And again you can see the balcony and the rear here, and then just the existing roof plan and the proposed roof plan.
So in terms of impact on neighbours, the rear elevation doesn't project beyond the neighbouring rear elevation of the neighbouring property in Crowhill,
so it's not considered there'd be any impacts on lighter outlook to the neighbouring property in Crowhill,
and there's significant distance to the other property on the other corner of Crowhill if there's not to be any concerns regarding that.
In terms of the first floor windows, we'd consider whether there was any issues with the overlooking from those or from the first floor balcony.
The neighbouring property to the rear, as you can see, has quite a large single-story extension and they've recently had permission granted for a first floor extension in that location too.
The balcony would be in this location here looking towards that roof area and it's considered that by the time a view of the rear garden was possible,
it would be too far away for there to be a significant impact and that is likely to be blocked anyway by this extension and furthermore by the first floor extension if that were to be erected.
So the balcony is not considered to result in significant overlooking of the rear property.
There would be potentially some overlooking to the neighbour here, but a privacy screen would be able to deal with that issue,
so the application is not refused on an impact on neighbouring immunity.
But the application is recommended for refusal on the impact on the character of the area,
so it's the cumulative impact from the first floor extension and the two-story to side extension,
which is considered to result in quite a cramped and congested form of development on the site
that would reduce the spacious setting around the property whilst creating a large dominant property amongst a row of small, modest bungalows
that would really detract from the character of the area and would be able to keep them with the existing pattern of development that exists in this area.
So it is recommended for refusal on the grounds of the impact on the character of the area. Thank you.
I move that the officers' recommendations are adopted with the Vice Chair, please second.
Seconded. Thank you. Any questions?
No.
Yes, Councillor KEAN.
I mean, I'm not sure that I can go along with the recommendation to refuse,
because it seems to me there is such a mix of housing along that road.
I'm not sure that I feel it would be that out of keeping,
so I'd be interested to hear if anyone else has any views on that, but I'm unconvinced. Thank you.
Councillor CHRISTIENBRIGHT. Thank you.
I mean, the thing about that road is that there are a lot of houses that were previously bungalows that have been developed,
but they've all been developed in such a way as they kind of remain in keeping.
They take on more of a chalet bungalow feel, so whilst I can understand looking at the property as it is now,
they've got a very small room in the middle with obviously an eave space around the side.
They could have altered the shape of the roof and made it more of a chalet property.
This isn't that, and I've got a salmon client to agree that it wouldn't be in keeping.
It sticks out a bit like a sore thumb, really, and we produced a neighbourhood plan over the last four years.
That goes against the area, so I'm inclined to agree with officers on this one.
Councillor KAIN. Am I right that there wasn't any objections
from the neighbours to this?
No, I don't believe there are any objections that we received from neighbouring properties.
I think that's right, isn't it?
No, the only comment I think as mentioned in the speech was that the broader society commented,
but on the basis that they couldn't view the plans rather than it being a comment on the merits of the application.
Councillor interjecting.
Yes, can I just ask a question?
Obviously, the speaker at the start has raised in relation to this application that there is no two-story rear extension.
Is that just an aim of state?
Yes, that was just an error in the proposed development description in the report,
but it's only literally mentioned in that one part, so there's no discussion about a rear extension.
It's just been an error in that section of the report.
I just wanted confirmation of that. It's a mute point, really. I did understand that.
But I'm a bit torn with it, I have to say, but for me what I'm disappointed at,
if the property was going to be developed to how it is now, there's no character to it.
When you're looking around, I know some of the smaller bungalows along there.
But to be increasing the size to how the application is showing, there is no character to it at all.
So I'm really stuck with this at a moment, but thank you.
Councillor WING. It's good to hear from Councillors that represent these areas or know the town better than I do.
I do sort of know this road, but the bit that worries me and I think will be a massive visual impact on that road,
is that side bit that you've explained that goes from four metres to less than just under a metre.
I just think if you're driving up that road at the moment, could we see that side of that building?
And then have you got an image of the side of that building now? A photograph?
I just think that at the moment you see, as you say, there's a four metres pitch where you've got grass and greenery and trees.
It's not just the removal of those on a habitat front, but you'll be faced with a solid wall with cladding.
At the top part is clad. There isn't any cladding in the area at all.
So it will stick out like a sore thumb, and I think particularly that side will be just...
I don't know how they're going to hide that side, because if they put a higher wall up, you're going to have the same issue.
It's this big wall that doesn't exist on this estate. I probably go with the recommendation.
Councillor GANNA?
Now, just a minor point. You're recommending refusal and your siting,
because it's contrary to policy QD02 in the local plan, aren't you?
And advice from the MPPF.
That is the recommendation.
Whilst we've been discussing the application, I think it's worth mentioning the fact that obviously the QD02 policy
is in direct alignment with policy BSP-9 of the broad says neighbour plan,
which my colleague has just informed me isn't on the reason for refusal.
So taking that point, obviously, there is no prejudice from that being added,
because without speaking out of the broad says neighbour plan,
the wording is identical pretty much between those two points.
So I think it's relevant to mention it, potentially in any reason, for refusal.
And we would normally effectively run with the...
It's a clarification, so it could be covered under delegated authority,
but to that point, we would be adding that as a relevant point.
Councillor Materface?
Could you go back to the photograph looking up Crowhill?
Is that an area I know extremely well?
Now, there is a two-story house quite a bit further up,
but all the other properties up to that point are single-story bungalows with paps roof.
Opposite, you can see some two-story house a bit further on,
but all the houses on this side and on all the way down the hill are bungalows.
It's going to look completely out of keeping with the area, in my opinion.
It's going to be a big block on that corner,
which seems to me to be completely out of context.
And you talk about QD or two about the sort of surrounding development
and context, it seems to me completely out of context in that regard.
Before I get Mr. Livingston to answer, could we also look at the earlier picture
where you had the Google spot thing on it?
Were you in the sort of more aerial picture?
Yeah, that one.
So, in a similar line to Councillor Materface's comment,
the design, as I see it, of the proposal here is out of keeping
with the more common design of the extensions of the neighbours
and the one behind that we're looking at at the moment.
So, if I can add that to Councillor Materface's for your comment?
So, I wouldn't necessarily comment necessarily on that as observations,
but I think there's a point of clarification that I think is relevant for members to consider,
because it has been raised about other permissions that have been granted in the area.
So, I think it's an important point to just raise that.
So, I'm just going to show you the elevation that's been approved
for number 35, Crowhill, which, to give you an idea of where we are,
35 is obviously the other side of that junction of Cumberland Avenue and setting by one.
And that is the sort of, I mean, it's a street scene, but it shows, obviously,
that what has been proposed more recently and proved recently on that property.
And I think as a general point, there is variety in the area.
You know, it's certainly accepted that there is variety along there.
It is the case that most of the properties along that stretch are bungalows or chalet bungalows,
though there are two-story properties sort of further up.
The character is different.
Our concern, in terms of that relationship with the neighbours,
primarily does come from the corner location,
because it is that much more visible and the views from Cumberland Avenue as well.
It is a very exposed property, which doesn't mean it's very difficult to develop it.
The scale to which this application is without having an impact,
and we feel that it is just too much of an impact on the character area
to the scale that's been put forward.
Okay, any other questions?
In that case, we will now put the motion for the officer's recommendation for refusal to the vote.
Those in favour, please indicate.
And those against.
And any abstentions.
So that recommendation for refusal is carried.
Thank you.
So, that concludes the public speaking for this meeting.
I will call upon the clerk to read out the remaining planning applications.
If a member wishes to reserve an application, will they please call out as the clerk reads?
Thank you, Chair.
We have AO1 New Wington Community Centre, Princess Margaret Avenue, Ramsgate,
AO2, Condebry Christchurch University Compass, Northwood Road, Broadstairs,
and AO3 Unit 29, North of Spitfire, Way and East of Columbus Avenue, Ramsgate.
Thank you.
Can I have a proposal to move that the applications that have not been reserved
be determined in accordance with the officer's recommendation?
Councillor Bafford and seconded Councillor Amore, thank you.
Members agree.
Okay, thank you.
For the benefit of the public, I will call upon the clerk to read out the applications
that have been determined.
Thank you, Chair.
The applications that have been determined are as follows.
We have AO1 New Wington Community Centre, Princess Margaret Avenue, Ramsgate,
AO2, Condebry Christchurch University Compass, Northwood Road, Broadstairs,
and AO3 Unit 29 of Spitfire, Way and East of Columbus Avenue, Ramsgate.
Thank you.
That concludes the business for this meeting.
Thank you for your attendance and good night.
Thank you, 59 minutes.
[BLANK_AUDIO]
Transcript
[silence]
[silence]
[silence]
[silence]
[silence]
[silence]
[silence]
Okay, good evening and welcome to this meeting of the planning committee, including those who are watching online.
If the fire alarm is activated, please vacate the offices via the stairs, either through the security door to my right or opposite the lifts in the foyer.
Please do not use the lifts and please assemble in Hawley Square on the green.
Officers will assist you and advise you when it is deemed safe to return to the chamber.
Does anyone intend to film or record audio of the meeting?
I would advise that any speakers using the microphones are picked up by the cameras and recording the meeting.
Members of the public in the public gallery behind the speakers may be picked up by those cameras and have their image captured.
Any member of the public objects to the possibility of being filmed may wish to take this opportunity to move or leave the meeting.
Would everyone present please ensure their mobile phones are turned to silent and that they are not used to make or receive phone calls or messages in this chamber whilst the meeting is in progress?
I don't have any members at the moment who wish to speak under council rule 20.1.
Are there anyone who wants to speak under 20.1 who have not yet declared it?
No. I have one application as being reserved for public speaking which is item 7E 31 Crowhill Broadstairs.
I have apologies from Councillor Rizaki substituted by Councillor Wright and apologies from Councillor Dennis, no substitution.
Are there any other apologies?
Don't can't see any? No.
Are there any decorations of interest?
No. Thank you.
Do members agree that minutes of the planning committee meeting held on the 22nd may be approved as a correct record and do I have a proposal please?
Councillor Christian Bright and a seconder.
Councillor Albren. Thank you.
Do members agree?
Thank you.
Sorry, Chair.
Councillor Mark Radcliffe and I don't think he's going to be here.
It gives us apologies.
Thank you.
We'll record that.
So the planning applications manager will now outline a point of information firstly about agenda item 6, land to the north of Fairland Road and west of Northwood Road Broadstairs and also agenda item 7D R04 Stone Bay Kiosk.
Thank you.
Thank you, Chair.
So on agenda item 6, land to the north of Fairland west of northwood Road Broadstairs.
We've had further legal advice on the sexual sex agreement completed to secure the required obligations to make the development acceptable.
Due to a change in ownership of the site, we now require further legal advice to ensure that the sexual and sex agreement will safeguard the planning obligations in perpetuity.
And therefore, we are proposing to change the recommendation to members from the one that's outlined in the report at 3.1, which currently states members approve the application subject to safeguarding conditions as set out out.
An X1 and change that to defer and delegate the application for approval subject to the safeguarding conditions in an X1 following confirmation of the acceptability of the signed 106 agreement securing the necessary financial contributions and obligations within six months of this resolution.
For agenda item 7D R04 Stone Bay Kiosk, we've received notification from the applicants agent today that the application has been withdrawn by the applicant from the statutory register.
And therefore, the application is no longer under consideration by the Council and the item is withdrawn from the agenda.
Thank you.
Thank you.
For agenda item 4, which is the update for 61 Ashburnum Road, this has been brought back to committee following deferral at a previous meeting and a site visit.
The planning applications manager will now outline the report.
Thank you, Chair.
So the application is for retrospective permission for a single story, rear extension, and the site is outlined in red.
So members voted to visit site, which occurred on the 31st of May.
So this is the extension from the rear of number 61.
I'll just go through some photos and then quickly outline what the main issues for consideration are.
So we have this photo from the rear of the property in question.
This is looking towards number 59 Ashburnum Road and then looking the other way to 63.
So members visited the rear of this part of the site and looked towards number 63.
So officers do consider there isn't a harmful impact on the neighbour at number 63.
And then this is a view showing from number 59, which is the main issue that officers have put forward to members to consider.
So the extension itself is about 3 metres high and it's 4.2 metres deep.
A permitted extension on the boundary such as this could only be 3 metres deep.
So the sort of end 1.2 metres is the area that's of particular consideration for members.
You can see the existing window and door which serves a habitable space for the neighbour and property in the middle of the image there.
This is the rear so you can see there's already a rear accretion on the back of number 59.
And then turn into the left you can see the other side of number 59 in terms of just the relationship with surrounding properties for the neighbour.
Then got a view further back showing the extension in relationship in terms of the height of the extension and see the window and door itself.
And then this is a view from inside that window and door looking out from there.
So members also visited the inside of the property to assess the impact.
So in terms of very quickly running through the plans so previously there was a conservatory on the rear of the property.
That was replaced by the extension obviously that we've seen in the photos.
So the main consideration is the impact on the neighbourhood property.
Mention on site and already mentioned that there is a fallback position in terms of a permitted development extension which can extend 3 metres deep adjacent to the neighbouring boundary.
The recommendation put for bi officers is that on balance the application is recommended for refusal as the development is considered to result in an unacceptable loss of outlook and light.
Creating a sense of enclosure to the neighbouring property to the detriment of living conditions of those occupiers so that's contrary to policy QD03.
So the recommendation is to refuse.
Thank you.
Thank you.
I move that the officers recommendation is adopted with the vice chair please second.
Seconded.
Thank you.
Do I have anyone who wants to speak?
Councillor Christian Bright.
Thank you and thank you Ian for arranging the opportunity to go and see the properties.
It's definitely over, it's definitely big and I can completely sympathise with the residents of the neighbours.
However, what I found looking at the property and visiting it, when you actually, when you kind of looked at it from their point of view, I found that whilst it was enclosing, I don't think the additional 1.2 metres or whatever it is, is adds to that sense of enclosure, you would have got that if it was within permitted development.
So I guess what I'm saying is that having looked at it, it doesn't cut off the light because the light's very much east to west so there's no kind of sunshine, it is genuinely down to that sense of enclosure which I believe would be there regardless.
So I think that because the bit that's over and above the permitted development doesn't make, I don't think, a significant impact on whether it would be give a sense of enclosure anyway, I think that would be unnecessarily, well, I'm going to go against it and say I'm fine with that.
I think they'll get used to it and it's fine.
I didn't put that very well but thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
I mean, my view is very similar to Council of Rights, I also went on the site visit and yeah, it's undeniable that there is a sense of enclosure at the building but like Council of Rights, I don't think taking just over a metre off it would really make much of a difference to that sense of enclosure
and along many of those houses there are similar size extensions.
So I think it's the fact that this house is further back than many others that creates the enclosure more than the extra bit of extension.
So I too will be voting against the recommendation.
Thank you.
Thank you, Chair. Yes, I also agree.
Having been on the site visit, I feel that the 1.2 metres difference to that agreed under allowed under permitted development was not considerable enough to cause harm to the neighbours.
Thank you.
Well, as a member of the committee, my comment, having been on that site visit was looking back at the property from the garden, which we did spend some time doing.
I couldn't really see what the problem was.
But when we went inside and I turned around and I looked back out, I felt claustrophobic as a result of the size of the extension.
And that is why I asked for the additional photograph looking out of the back window, which I'm hoping.
Thank you.
Because as you looked out, you can see that extra metre that is shown in that picture to me just did make a difference.
I felt that made a difference. That was my view.
Councillor Wing, thank you.
I didn't make the site visit, unfortunately.
And I don't necessarily—I agree that I don't think it's the 1.2 metres that causes the enclosure.
If we go back to the images where you see some of the other developments, either side of that one, what makes a difference is the fact that there's a gap.
It's a corridor. It's obviously a route down the side of the house, which reduces the feeling of enclosure for me.
So instead of taking 1.2 metres off the end, I'd take a metre off the side and push it back that way.
Because then the sense of enclosure would be exactly the same as the developments, either side of it where you've got that.
It's obviously a corridor or walkway down the side of the building.
So, yeah, I agree that the 1.2 metres isn't the problem.
It's a fact it butts right up to that wall and there isn't a gap.
And I think if that building was shunted that way, maybe half a metre, it wouldn't feel as bad.
Councillor Materface, thank you, Chair.
Unfortunately, I couldn't go on the site visit, but could ask, is this extension any higher than the comparable ones?
Are they all of the same height?
So the impact, if you were looking along the way, they would all be apparently on the same level?
Chair, I'll just come back on that.
I couldn't confirm whether or not it's higher or lower than the other extensions around them.
I think in terms of the permitted development side of things, it's not, you know, it allows a 3 metre extent, 3 metres high extension.
So this, which is, you know, as this is, pretty much bang on.
So it's, you know, that is, in terms of that point about the fallback, that is an acceptable relationship.
Obviously, the issue in that instance is that permitted development right isn't considering the nature of what the window directly adjacent on the neighbour is.
You know, it is a broad permitted development.
There are no specifics that say, you know, this doesn't apply if you're next to a habitable room, for example.
So it's, as is an application, it still obviously has to be considered just purely on its merits.
And obviously, we have the window that is there, you know, and obviously the impact I've seen.
So if I can come back, if we go over the office's recommendation, there'll obviously something will have to be done to that extension, unless we come up with an alternative.
Is that, yep.
And so, first and foremost, obviously, because it's a retrospective application, if it's refused, then the applicant would obviously have the ability to appeal.
As it's a household replication, that means that it's a lighter touch appeal.
So it's fast-tracked in the sense of it's a quicker appeal determination by the planning inspector.
Once that, you know, on the basis that it, I think it, you know, I would assume that it would be appealed in the event that it's not appealed,
or indeed the appeal decision comes back and the appeal is dismissed, then the council would enter into negotiations to bring it back into permitted development.
So to basically require it to be altered, to match what was required, what doesn't need permission under permitted development,
or alternatively to try and remove the particular element that affects this neighbour, given that it doesn't affect the neighbour on the other side, for example.
And that, so it could be, go down the line a bit, the household would be ordered to knock back, sort of really chop a bit off the end, basically, yeah?
Well, yes, effectively alter the extension, as it is, to make it acceptable here.
Any other questions? In that case, we will now put the motion for the officer's recommendation for refusal to the vote. Those in favour?
Thank you. Those against?
And any abstentions? So that's lost. So I'll hand back to the planning applications manager for the next bit.
Thank you. So in terms of, obviously, the motion falling, then the, obviously, alternative motion would be for members to vote to approve the application,
just to summarise, I think, the points that are being made, it's effectively that it would be approved, because it's considered that the extension wouldn't lead to an unacceptable impact on the neighbouring living conditions.
Now, one thing I would suggest is, the extension is not actually finished, as you can see, and obviously one of the key things that's being proposed is that it's going to be finished to match the cream render on the property.
And therefore, I wouldn't suggest that members would grant permission unconditionally, and therefore, I'd suggest that it would be subject to a condition requiring the extension to be finished to match the existing property, which is obviously what they've submitted.
So, yes, that would potentially be a motion to put forward from someone.
Can I have someone who wants to propose that motion, Councillor Bright, and seconded by Councillor Bafford?
Could we just read the, I'll ask to read it.
Okay, sorry.
So, that the application should be approved, as it's considered, the extension does not lead to an unacceptable impact on neighbouring living conditions, subject to a condition requiring the extension to be finished in render to match the existing property.
Okay, all those in favour?
Any against?
And abstentions?
So, that one has been carried, thank you.
Right, agenda item 5, this has also been brought back to committee following deferral from a previous meeting, which is the Royal 51 Harbour Parade.
The Planning Applications Manager will now outline the report.
Thank you.
Thank you, Chair.
So, the application in question came before members a number of months ago, August last year.
So, the application was for the change of use of the ground floor pub to a commercial units use class E, which is Townsend to use class, with the erection of a five-story site extension and a three-story building to the rear following a partial demolition to form eight flats and rearranging two flats that are existing in the property.
So, this application was deferred and delegated to officers for approval, subject to the receipt of a legal agreement securing the SAMS contribution within six months from August of last year.
So, the Council has now received a unilateral undertaking, which to put forward to try and secure the SAMS contribution, which is for 2,964 pounds.
So, it's brought back to members because the six months has run out of time.
So, we have to bring it back to confirm whether or not anything has changed in terms of the material planning considerations.
In our view, nothing has changed in terms of the policy framework that would result in a change to the position that members have put forward to be unreasonable to change the approval.
However, in terms of the unilateral obligation that we have, not all owners are party to the agreement.
There are smaller parcels of land to the rear, because if I go back to this, you can see the site actually extends into the back and there are a number of different parcels of land.
And the report outlines that part of the land is owned by a company registered in the British Virgin Islands.
And there's also an individual named that cannot be contacted.
Now, the Council has received legal advice about how to progress the application on this basis.
And the legal advice has suggested that we can impose a negatively worded condition on the application.
I'm going to read the condition out.
So, it would be that no work should be carried out under this planning permission until either all parties with an interest in the site have entered into a 106 year later undertaking on the same terms on which the permission is granted,
or such interests have come to an end, and evidence that haven't come to an end has been provided to the Council.
So, that condition is outlined in 3.1.
Now, this is a pretty rare occurrence.
We wouldn't normally look to try and sort of act in this manner in terms of actually approving something where not all members, not all people who are on the land or aren't party to the agreement and will come on to the next agenda item, an example of that.
In this instance, though, given the circumstances and the fact that this is just a financial contribution, and what this means is technically, if permission is granted, and then that money is paid, then the obligation has been discharged, and the impact has been mitigated.
The SAM's impact is mitigated, and therefore there is no further need for any contributions because of the number of units.
It's only that obligation. The advice from that we're putting to members is that we can approve the application on that basis, specifically because there are no other obligations other than that financial contribution on its own.
As I mentioned, there are no policy change or national policy that's changed to deviate from the previous decision, and therefore the recommendation is to approve as outlined at 3.1.
Thank you. I move that the officers' recommendation is adopted with the Vice Chair, please second.
Seconded.
Thank you. Do I have any questions? Councillor robin.
Thank you, Chair. I can't see a problem with it at all. Totally agree with what Planning Manager has just said, and I think we should take a vote on it. Thank you.
Councillor interjecting. I don't see a problem with the 106 money or the SAM's money, but we've already got two derelict buildings in my ward. Well, one's not quite in my ward, but he's a derelict building anyway.
What happens if the build starts and the two people that can't be contacted while in the Virgin Islands and the one that can't be contactable suddenly say, I don't want you building on my land.
I'm really worried that we could end up with either a building that is left empty, another one in a prime location, or a semi derelict building that's been partly finished, and we've already got one on the other side of the road scaffolding on it and has been for two years.
So that's the only thing that really worries me.
So obviously the ownership is sort of a separate issue to the Planning Commission, as no one appreciates, which obviously means that there could be another thing that stops a Planning Commission coming forward, and that would be the example as you outline.
I mean, there are things that obviously we can do in the event that obviously the development actually starts and isn't completed.
Obviously there are immediacy notices we can look at through planning enforcement if, for example, that building was left, it wasn't developed, and it did begin to deteriorate.
As you say, it's a prime location in the conservation area, and therefore I'm sure that we would certainly look to enforce to ensure that the immediacy of the land doesn't affect the area under Section 205 of the Planning Act.
In addition, there are further measures that regulations are due to come forward about completion notices, which is something that was introduced in the leveling up bill last year, which may be an option, but the regulations haven't come out on that yet.
So there are some measures that could come into place in that, but as to whether the development comes forward or not, it's unfortunately not within our gift on that.
Councillor MURPHYS.
Just looking at 3.1(b), such interests have come to an end and evidence of it having come to an end has been provided.
How long would this last, I mean, normally planning permission once it's granted its three-year period, then if you haven't done anything, et cetera, et cetera.
So with this, 3.1(b), would there be a time scale on this if you got all the other processes in place?
It's the same time scale, so because obviously if that condition hasn't either fallen away because the obligation has been paid or indeed it hasn't been cleared and the money hasn't been paid, then they've still got three years.
This is the same as a granting condition, which, for example, has for drainage details, something like that.
We will now put the motion for the officer's recommendation for approval to the vote, all those in favour?
Any against and no abstentions? Thank you.
Okay, so that's carried, thank you. A gender item 6, this has also been brought back to committee following deferral from a previous meeting, which is the land to the north of Fairlawn Road and the west of Northwood Road Broadstairs.
I will hand over to the planning applications manager, thank you.
So this is an application that came in before members and was considered the November planning committee, so the application on this site was for 33,000 and 5,000 flats.
So in November last year members deferred and delegated officers to approve subject conditions and the receipt of a legal agreement to secure planning obligations, which included education, health care, normal KCC contributions, SAMs, and also 30% affordable housing on the site.
And that that was needed to be submitted within six months.
So it's being reported back to members as that more than six months has passed.
We have received a sexual and a six agreement of which has been signed.
However, as mentioned at the top of the meeting and separately, we have had further legal advice because of an issue with the change in ownership, which basically means that as we understand the new owner,
has signed the Section 106 agreement, so they would be obligated to provide all of the contributions and provide the affordable housing on site.
However, the outgoing owner is still the person listed on the land registry documentation.
What that means is that the suggestion is that effectively until that land registry documentation has been updated, it cannot be definitively secured on the basis of information we've got.
That actually the obligations will go with the land.
Whilst we have received various details from the solicitor of the now owner of the site that basically confirms that the sale has taken place, we are still seeking a bit more legal certainty.
The more legal certainty of that, which is why the recommendation has changed on that.
I suppose just to make clear, the 106 that we have in the content of it is absolutely acceptable.
It secures the 30% affordable housing and all the contributions that the appropriate triggers.
But it is this technicality because of the ownership change and frankly because of the backlog of land registry documentation, which is going on at the moment, that we do need to defer it again for the six months.
One thing to mention obviously is that point I raised earlier about the Royal, which is that this is a case where it's coming back to members after the six months.
So what we would always want to give you an update on is, well, has something changed.
In this instance, one change that has occurred, but it hasn't fundamentally affected the way the application is considered, is that when this came before members in November, significant weight was given to the Broadstairs neighbourhood plan at that point,
which had been updated, the following month, that was then given full weight.
However, the determination on the application itself hasn't changed because actually all the policies that were updated didn't change from the original neighbourhood plan.
So basically the consideration now is no different from the one that was made in November, but it is just important to mention that there was technically a policy framework change.
But those matters were all considered and there are no changes to the policies, which meant that we're recommending members need to take a look at any particular issues on this application.
So, therefore, the recommendation is now to defer and delegate to officers to confirm the acceptability of the legal agreement and the safeguarding conditions as per Annex 1, and that's for six months again to resolve.
Thank you. Thank you. I move that the officer's recommendation is adopted with the Vice Chair, please second.
Seconded.
And speak, Councillor. No.
Like Ghana. Councillor Ghana.
Thank you. Yeah, thank you. I mean, I understand that the permissions for this are still going forward, so we'll both undoubtedly approve this.
So as it carries on, I do, I mean, as you're aware, there has been some work going on there, and I just want to just draw it to the attention.
There has been some work because I was contacted by a neighbour who lives right in the corner of that plot of the top right-hand corner, who with concerns, because shrubs, bushes and other habitats were being cleared, and this would have been in May
and she was obviously concerned about that. I mean, I have a short, I mean, you've been in contact with the, I assume, the then applicant who told you that it was just some low-level clearance doing over the surveyor.
Now we've got a new owner, although it's not official on the land registry, I would hope that there wouldn't be any further need for any further clearance of shrubbery or trees or anything like that, especially at this time of the year, until later in the year when birds have finished nesting.
And is there any way that we could sort of make them, I'm sure they're experienced owners of land, but is there any way we could make them aware of that, and make it clear to them that anything like that would not be welcome?
Thank you.
I have absolutely no doubt that the planning agent is watching this very meeting, and on that basis, it's something certainly that we would emphasise in terms of, obviously there are pre-commencement conditions on a permission, but obviously at the moment there's no plan.
Obviously at the moment there's no planning permission.
In terms of clearance of land, obviously that does sort of fall into an area where you don't necessarily need planning permission for it.
However, the Wildlife and Countryside Act clearly precludes removal in the season that we're in now of something that could be considered to be habitat.
So, yeah, apps just absolutely agree, frankly.
Thank you, yes, I'm pleased to hear that the planning agent may be watching, and I'm sure the planning agent would be pleased to know that there are one of those things.
But there are one or two napers we're watching as well. Thank you.
Councillor WING.
November's a long time back.
Did we have the location of the social housing in November?
Yeah.
Yeah, I think we looked at the mix.
I mean, I'm afraid I don't have it to hand, but the committee report is appended at the next one, and I believe outlined the specific mix that was acceptable at that point.
I think the housing team was acceptable at that point to the housing team, and I think the housing team are aware of the site because of the interest in providing what's necessary.
I think the flats from the group.
So I think, yeah, from recollection, I'm afraid I don't have that plan, but I believe it's these terrorist properties on that side, which are the social housing on the site.
Yeah, sorry, the flat block in the middle, which is also part of that.
But yeah, it definitely secured, obviously, the 30% and that did hit the mix to be acceptable for the strategic housing team.
Just find it really difficult when we have all of the social housing in one place, and clearly those units are smaller, both in terms of their size and their garden.
I just feel that developments like this actually create a them, a have and a have not.
And what we should be moving towards is definitely, and we've seen it in some recent applications where the social housing is dispersed around a development.
I think it was this one I just thought, no, it just makes me feel really uncomfortable.
I've walked around housing estates and you can spot the social housing in the worst place, smaller units.
It's just something we should be moving away from. How many of the units will be disability friendly or age-proofed?
I believe that there is a condition, actually, because I think they had to demonstrate it, so bear with me one second.
Sorry, whilst I'm just looking through the committee report, Emma's just looking through the plans because the size and mix, there we go.
Four accessible units are provided to one bed and to two bed flats to meet the standards.
Just to come back on the point, obviously, as identified, there's nothing to change the position the members took.
But I think the point you raised is certainly a relevant one. I don't think it's something that we would dispute about the need to make sure to get a mixed and balanced community that their location is looked at.
This is obviously a relatively small site, but I would agree, and certainly when we're looking at some of the larger sites, we wouldn't look for it to be more of just one specific area.
And to your point about the standard of build in terms of the size, there are affordable housing and has to occur with the nationally described space standards.
It is also the case that, on the evidence that we have in the housing team, obviously provide, the need is for the smaller units as being the affordable ones.
So that does dictate the mix that we get in, but it is a consideration, I think, certainly.
It's just important to note that that whole bank of houses is right next to the retail/business/industrial. I'll just leave that hanging there.
OK, Councillor BAFORD.
Thank you, Chair. In my view, there are pros and cons to spreading the affordable housing around the site, but that part, they are small units, and therefore, I think, from design point of view, I can understand why they are together.
In my view, now that the proposal has been changed to defer and delegate, I see no reason to go against the officer's recommendation, I think.
OK, in that case, we'll now put the motion for the officer's recommendation for deferral to the vote, those in favour.
Thank you very much.
So that motion is carried, and we now move on to agenda item 7.
So just a reminder that any site visits will take place for committee members on the morning of Friday, the 5th of July, 2024.
And so agenda item 7E, application for refusal, 31 Crowhill, Broadstairs.
Speaking in favour of the application is Mr. Nolan Kent. You have three minutes.
Thank you. This plan is being recommended for refusal on the basis of character and appearance, namely that the building is not in keeping with the surrounding area.
There is an error in the report under the proposed development section.
The report incorrectly states the application is for a first-story extension, the two-story rear extension, balcony and two-story side extension.
There is no rear extension of any kind proposed in the application, and therefore there is no impact on the skyscape or street scene when looking down Cumberland Avenue.
There have been no objections from affected parties except for the Broadstairs society who have objected on the sole basis that they have not seen the plans, even though the plans were publicly available.
The house is not in the historic area.
The plot is on the corner of Crowhill and Cumberland Avenue. Both Crowhill and Cumberland Avenue at the Crowhill end contain an eclectic mix of one and two-story houses largely of an individual nature.
All of the houses to the front of the plot are taller than the proposed development and are also at a higher elevation.
Regarding the rear of the plot, the report incorrectly states that number two Cumberland Avenue, which is a two-story house, is an anomaly on this side of Cumberland Avenue.
In fact, number eight Cumberland Avenue is also a two-story house.
In addition, number three Cumberland Avenue on the other side of the street is a two-story house.
The Crowhill end of Cumberland Avenue is in fact a mix of one-story and two-story housing.
Number two Cumberland Avenue is already taller than a proposed development at 31 Crowhill.
The grant of planning permission to number two Cumberland Avenue allows the width of the current first floor to approximately double in size across the back of the 31 Crowhill plot.
Number two Cumberland Avenue will be the dominant feature of the skyscape when built and will act as a backdrop to the proposed development when looking from Crowhill.
Number 35 Crowhill, the next but one side plot up the hill has also been granted planning permission to increase the height, width and depth of the roof, which will already change the street scene looking down Crowhill towards number 31.
Application 2029 shows that successive houses downhill from 39 to 33 Crowhill have or will have successfully lower roofs.
29 Crowhill the neighboring plot down the hill has a roof that is the same height as number 31 and chimney stacks that are considerably higher.
This is despite the plot being in several feet lower than the plot of 31 Crowhill.
31 Crowhill therefore has a roof that is currently proportionally smaller.
There is scope for a taller roof at number 31 Crowhill that will still be in proportion to the neighboring house and maintain the street scene.
Number 27A has also had permission to and has gone up a whole level.
The report states that the color of the cladding will make the proposed building more prominent.
The color of the cladding is a light pale gray.
This color was specifically chosen to match the cladding on number 4 Cumberland Avenue to remain in keeping with the surrounding houses.
A pale gray color was also chosen and will not become discolored as quickly and white will there be maintained a good appearance for longer.
The report suggests that the side extension of development will impact upon the open setting at the end of Cumberland Avenue.
However, the proposed side extension is well within the boundary line and not on the boundary line.
Additionally, the adjoining boundary of the plot to Cumberland Avenue already has a 6 foot fence and tall hedges to approximately 8 to 10 feet.
Most importantly, Cumberland Avenue has an extra large pedestrian.
Excuse me, are you close to wrapping up?
I'm literally on the last sentence.
Thank you.
Sorry. The report states that the side extension extends significantly beyond the front building line of properties in Cumberland Avenue.
The proposed development is the only property on the building line on that part of Cumberland Avenue.
The stand-alone garage on the plot to the rear of 31 Crow Hill is much closer to the front building line and the rest of Cumberland Avenue than the proposed development.
Thank you.
Thank you.
The principal planning officer will now outline the report.
Thank you, Chair.
This is the site outlined in red here, so this is Crow Hill on the right-hand side of the slide, and then this is Cumberland Avenue here.
So there's quite a bit of changing ground level around here, so Cumberland Avenue drops down in level with these properties to the rear lower in level than the properties in Crow Hill.
This is just an aerial view of the site, so this is the application site here.
So it's a corner plot on the corner of Cumberland Avenue in Crow Hill.
You can see that there's currently space from the side elevation to the side boundary.
And again, in terms of just general pattern of development, you can see that this is consistent with the corner plot opposite the site.
And in terms of building line, it's considered that this side elevation falls in line with the front elevation of these properties, so they're all set back from the road.
You have that set back from Cumberland Avenue and then going up the hill to the corner, so this is quite a spacious set back that is quite consistent with the properties along this road.
This is just a view again of the property, so this is the property here, so it's currently a bungalow.
You can see the two properties to the left of the site are both bungalows.
The properties on the other corner are bungalows.
As the road drops down into Cumberland Avenue, there are two-story houses.
You can see in the foreground here, there's two-story properties opposite the site, so it is a mixed character in the area with two-story properties opposite.
As you go further to the right of this photo, you would have seen also two-story properties on this side of the road as well, but in terms of the immediate surrounding area of the site, they are smaller, modest-style properties.
And as you can see, they're all detached as well with spacious gaps between the properties.
So this is the property itself, the application site. Again, you can see a modest-style picture of bungalows set back from the front elevation, and this is the neighboring property to the left.
And then this is just showing it on the corner, so you can see the set back from the side boundary of Cumberland Avenue.
And then again, as you start going down Cumberland Avenue, you can see that space on the side, and this is now down Cumberland Avenue looking towards the rear of the application property.
As you can see, currently, there's a first floor dormer in the rear elevation, as you can see with the neighboring properties as well.
And then, again, this is further view from Cumberland Avenue looking towards the site.
And then just these are now some Google images, just so you can see a wider context of the area.
So again, this is the application property here, and you can see in terms of levels, the properties to the left of it start to drop down and hide, but again, quite modest or single-story.
The properties in Cumberland Avenue, you can see from this view whilst two-story here, because the ground level drops, again, in terms of the actual roofscape of these, they're all quite similar height.
And then looking towards the right-hand side of Crowhill, so going up Crowhill, you can see again three bungalows here, but then they do become some two-story properties further along, and you can see them on the right-hand side here.
But again, these are considered to be further away from the site and not within the immediate character of the area.
So this is the existing block plan of the property, as it is now, so you can see again corner plots with the set back from the side and front boundary.
And then this is the proposed applications. The proposal is for a first-floor extension, so to create a two-story dwelling on the site and for a two-story side extension up to the side boundary.
So this is the existing front elevation, and then this is the proposed front elevation.
So you can see it becomes quite a large property with the additional first floor and the additional two-story side extension.
The concern is it appears will appear quite dominant, whilst the bay feature to the front has been maintained.
It's quite a wide frontage, quite a wide area of spacing between the windows where there's quite a large area of solid wall.
So in terms of the design, it's because it has to be quite a poor design.
This is the side elevation, so this is the side view that you would get from Cumberland Avenue.
So again the top view is the existing side elevation of the bungalow, and then the bottom view is the proposed side elevation of the two-story dwelling.
So again you can see the increased scale of the property.
And then this is the side elevation facing the immediate neighbour, so again similar in terms of the height.
So the first floor balcony area is also proposed, and this now is the rear elevation.
So again the top image is the existing, and the bottom is the proposed.
So the first floor balcony is in this location here, and you can see a number of additional first floor windows within that rear elevation.
In terms of the floor plans, this is the existing floor plan, and then this is the proposed.
So the concern with the pattern of development again is that it's the fact of being on a very prominent corner location.
We would expect there to be some setting around the building maintained.
The current distance from the main side elevation, so whilst it's a bay window you can see here, but from the main side elevation to the boundary,
it's currently 4.1 metres, and this will reduce to 0.9 metres of the boundary.
So there'll be limited scope for there to be much vegetation along there because you'll have the windows almost directly onto the boundary.
And as you come down the corner you'll see this projecting forward of the front building lines of the properties to the rear in Cumberland Avenue.
And then this is existing floor plan, so you can see there's already some accommodation at first floor with the fact that there's a dormer at the rear as well.
So there's already some bedrooms at first floor level, but this is now the proposed first floor panel with the first floor extension and the two-story side extension,
creating a much larger footprint at first floor level.
And again you can see the balcony and the rear here, and then just the existing roof plan and the proposed roof plan.
So in terms of impact on neighbours, the rear elevation doesn't project beyond the neighbouring rear elevation of the neighbouring property in Crowhill,
so it's not considered there'd be any impacts on lighter outlook to the neighbouring property in Crowhill,
and there's significant distance to the other property on the other corner of Crowhill if there's not to be any concerns regarding that.
In terms of the first floor windows, we'd consider whether there was any issues with the overlooking from those or from the first floor balcony.
The neighbouring property to the rear, as you can see, has quite a large single-story extension and they've recently had permission granted for a first floor extension in that location too.
The balcony would be in this location here looking towards that roof area and it's considered that by the time a view of the rear garden was possible,
it would be too far away for there to be a significant impact and that is likely to be blocked anyway by this extension and furthermore by the first floor extension if that were to be erected.
So the balcony is not considered to result in significant overlooking of the rear property.
There would be potentially some overlooking to the neighbour here, but a privacy screen would be able to deal with that issue,
so the application is not refused on an impact on neighbouring immunity.
But the application is recommended for refusal on the impact on the character of the area,
so it's the cumulative impact from the first floor extension and the two-story to side extension,
which is considered to result in quite a cramped and congested form of development on the site
that would reduce the spacious setting around the property whilst creating a large dominant property amongst a row of small, modest bungalows
that would really detract from the character of the area and would be able to keep them with the existing pattern of development that exists in this area.
So it is recommended for refusal on the grounds of the impact on the character of the area. Thank you.
I move that the officers' recommendations are adopted with the Vice Chair, please second.
Seconded. Thank you. Any questions?
No.
Yes, Councillor KEAN.
I mean, I'm not sure that I can go along with the recommendation to refuse,
because it seems to me there is such a mix of housing along that road.
I'm not sure that I feel it would be that out of keeping,
so I'd be interested to hear if anyone else has any views on that, but I'm unconvinced. Thank you.
Councillor CHRISTIENBRIGHT. Thank you.
I mean, the thing about that road is that there are a lot of houses that were previously bungalows that have been developed,
but they've all been developed in such a way as they kind of remain in keeping.
They take on more of a chalet bungalow feel, so whilst I can understand looking at the property as it is now,
they've got a very small room in the middle with obviously an eave space around the side.
They could have altered the shape of the roof and made it more of a chalet property.
This isn't that, and I've got a salmon client to agree that it wouldn't be in keeping.
It sticks out a bit like a sore thumb, really, and we produced a neighbourhood plan over the last four years.
That goes against the area, so I'm inclined to agree with officers on this one.
Councillor KAIN. Am I right that there wasn't any objections
from the neighbours to this?
No, I don't believe there are any objections that we received from neighbouring properties.
I think that's right, isn't it?
No, the only comment I think as mentioned in the speech was that the broader society commented,
but on the basis that they couldn't view the plans rather than it being a comment on the merits of the application.
Councillor interjecting.
Yes, can I just ask a question?
Obviously, the speaker at the start has raised in relation to this application that there is no two-story rear extension.
Is that just an aim of state?
Yes, that was just an error in the proposed development description in the report,
but it's only literally mentioned in that one part, so there's no discussion about a rear extension.
It's just been an error in that section of the report.
I just wanted confirmation of that. It's a mute point, really. I did understand that.
But I'm a bit torn with it, I have to say, but for me what I'm disappointed at,
if the property was going to be developed to how it is now, there's no character to it.
When you're looking around, I know some of the smaller bungalows along there.
But to be increasing the size to how the application is showing, there is no character to it at all.
So I'm really stuck with this at a moment, but thank you.
Councillor WING. It's good to hear from Councillors that represent these areas or know the town better than I do.
I do sort of know this road, but the bit that worries me and I think will be a massive visual impact on that road,
is that side bit that you've explained that goes from four metres to less than just under a metre.
I just think if you're driving up that road at the moment, could we see that side of that building?
And then have you got an image of the side of that building now? A photograph?
I just think that at the moment you see, as you say, there's a four metres pitch where you've got grass and greenery and trees.
It's not just the removal of those on a habitat front, but you'll be faced with a solid wall with cladding.
At the top part is clad. There isn't any cladding in the area at all.
So it will stick out like a sore thumb, and I think particularly that side will be just...
I don't know how they're going to hide that side, because if they put a higher wall up, you're going to have the same issue.
It's this big wall that doesn't exist on this estate. I probably go with the recommendation.
Councillor GANNA?
Now, just a minor point. You're recommending refusal and your siting,
because it's contrary to policy QD02 in the local plan, aren't you?
And advice from the MPPF.
That is the recommendation.
Whilst we've been discussing the application, I think it's worth mentioning the fact that obviously the QD02 policy
is in direct alignment with policy BSP-9 of the broad says neighbour plan,
which my colleague has just informed me isn't on the reason for refusal.
So taking that point, obviously, there is no prejudice from that being added,
because without speaking out of the broad says neighbour plan,
the wording is identical pretty much between those two points.
So I think it's relevant to mention it, potentially in any reason, for refusal.
And we would normally effectively run with the...
It's a clarification, so it could be covered under delegated authority,
but to that point, we would be adding that as a relevant point.
Councillor Materface?
Could you go back to the photograph looking up Crowhill?
Is that an area I know extremely well?
Now, there is a two-story house quite a bit further up,
but all the other properties up to that point are single-story bungalows with paps roof.
Opposite, you can see some two-story house a bit further on,
but all the houses on this side and on all the way down the hill are bungalows.
It's going to look completely out of keeping with the area, in my opinion.
It's going to be a big block on that corner,
which seems to me to be completely out of context.
And you talk about QD or two about the sort of surrounding development
and context, it seems to me completely out of context in that regard.
Before I get Mr. Livingston to answer, could we also look at the earlier picture
where you had the Google spot thing on it?
Were you in the sort of more aerial picture?
Yeah, that one.
So, in a similar line to Councillor Materface's comment,
the design, as I see it, of the proposal here is out of keeping
with the more common design of the extensions of the neighbours
and the one behind that we're looking at at the moment.
So, if I can add that to Councillor Materface's for your comment?
So, I wouldn't necessarily comment necessarily on that as observations,
but I think there's a point of clarification that I think is relevant for members to consider,
because it has been raised about other permissions that have been granted in the area.
So, I think it's an important point to just raise that.
So, I'm just going to show you the elevation that's been approved
for number 35, Crowhill, which, to give you an idea of where we are,
35 is obviously the other side of that junction of Cumberland Avenue and setting by one.
And that is the sort of, I mean, it's a street scene, but it shows, obviously,
that what has been proposed more recently and proved recently on that property.
And I think as a general point, there is variety in the area.
You know, it's certainly accepted that there is variety along there.
It is the case that most of the properties along that stretch are bungalows or chalet bungalows,
though there are two-story properties sort of further up.
The character is different.
Our concern, in terms of that relationship with the neighbours,
primarily does come from the corner location,
because it is that much more visible and the views from Cumberland Avenue as well.
It is a very exposed property, which doesn't mean it's very difficult to develop it.
The scale to which this application is without having an impact,
and we feel that it is just too much of an impact on the character area
to the scale that's been put forward.
Okay, any other questions?
In that case, we will now put the motion for the officer's recommendation for refusal to the vote.
Those in favour, please indicate.
And those against.
And any abstentions.
So that recommendation for refusal is carried.
Thank you.
So, that concludes the public speaking for this meeting.
I will call upon the clerk to read out the remaining planning applications.
If a member wishes to reserve an application, will they please call out as the clerk reads?
Thank you, Chair.
We have AO1 New Wington Community Centre, Princess Margaret Avenue, Ramsgate,
AO2, Condebry Christchurch University Compass, Northwood Road, Broadstairs,
and AO3 Unit 29, North of Spitfire, Way and East of Columbus Avenue, Ramsgate.
Thank you.
Can I have a proposal to move that the applications that have not been reserved
be determined in accordance with the officer's recommendation?
Councillor Bafford and seconded Councillor Amore, thank you.
Members agree.
Okay, thank you.
For the benefit of the public, I will call upon the clerk to read out the applications
that have been determined.
Thank you, Chair.
The applications that have been determined are as follows.
We have AO1 New Wington Community Centre, Princess Margaret Avenue, Ramsgate,
AO2, Condebry Christchurch University Compass, Northwood Road, Broadstairs,
and AO3 Unit 29 of Spitfire, Way and East of Columbus Avenue, Ramsgate.
Thank you.
That concludes the business for this meeting.
Thank you for your attendance and good night.
Thank you, 59 minutes.
[BLANK_AUDIO]
Summary
The Thanet Council Planning Committee meeting on 19 June 2024 addressed several significant planning applications, including updates on previous deferrals and new proposals. Key decisions were made on applications concerning land ownership issues, retrospective permissions, and the impact of proposed developments on local character and amenities.
Land to the North of Fairland Road and West of Northwood Road, Broadstairs
The committee discussed the application for the land to the north of Fairland Road and west of Northwood Road in Broadstairs. Due to a change in ownership and the need for further legal advice to ensure the Section 106 agreement safeguards planning obligations, the recommendation was changed from approval to deferral. The application was deferred and delegated for approval subject to safeguarding conditions following confirmation of the acceptability of the signed Section 106 agreement within six months.
61 Ashburnham Road, Ramsgate
The committee revisited the retrospective application for a single-storey rear extension at 61 Ashburnham Road, Ramsgate, following a site visit. The extension, which is 4.2 metres deep and 3 metres high, exceeded the permitted development depth by 1.2 metres. The officers recommended refusal due to the unacceptable loss of outlook and light, creating a sense of enclosure for the neighbouring property. However, after discussion, the committee voted against the recommendation and approved the application, subject to the condition that the extension be finished to match the existing property.
The Royal, 51 Harbour Parade
The application for the change of use of the ground floor pub to a commercial unit and the erection of a five-storey side extension and a three-storey building to the rear was discussed. Due to issues with land ownership and the need for a unilateral undertaking to secure the SAMS contribution, the committee imposed a negatively worded condition. The application was approved, subject to the condition that no work should commence until all parties with an interest in the site have entered into a Section 106 agreement or such interests have come to an end.
31 Crowhill, Broadstairs
The application for a first-floor extension and a two-storey side extension at 31 Crowhill, Broadstairs, was recommended for refusal due to its impact on the character of the area. The proposed development was considered to result in a cramped and congested form of development, reducing the spacious setting around the property and creating a large, dominant property among smaller, modest bungalows. The committee agreed with the officers' recommendation and refused the application.
Other Applications
Several other applications were discussed, including:
- New Wington Community Centre, Princess Margaret Avenue, Ramsgate: Approved.
- Canterbury Christchurch University Compass, Northwood Road, Broadstairs: Approved.
- Unit 29, North of Spitfire Way and East of Columbus Avenue, Ramsgate: Approved.
For more details, you can refer to the Public reports pack and the Minutes Public Pack 22052024 Planning Committee.
Attendees
Meeting Documents
Minutes
Additional Documents