To approve the Minutes of the Meeting held on 7 August 2017 (Minute Nos. to follow).

SW/17/502213/FULL – Mill Farm House, Otterham Quay Lane, Upchurch, Nr Sittingbourne, Kent, ME8 7XA.

SW/17/502213/FULL – Mill Farm House, Otterham Quay Lane, Upchurch, Nr Sittingbourne, Kent, ME8 7XA

The Minutes of the Meeting held on 7 August 2017 (Minute Nos. 158 – 159) were taken as read, approved and signed by the Chairman as a correct record.

The Area Planning Officer reported that he had received a further representation from the occupier of the adjacent dwelling, raising the following points: the proposed development was dis-proportionally large at 7 metres high; unsuitably located on the highest point on the land, and at approximately 40 to 50cm, too close to their common boundary to allow safe construction or maintenance; all of those factors would have an adverse effect on their residential amenity; appreciated the observation that the proposed building was some 44 metres from their house, but against this must be set the fact that it sits on land some 2 metres higher, thus increasing the apparent size and effect on the enjoyment of their house and garden; fail to see the need for a home office of some 13 x 6 metres, particularly given the size of the main house, and also currently not clear what the intended purpose of this space was, and if it was to be used as a research space for the development and testing of exhaust extraction systems as was explained at the planning meeting held on 20 July 2017, then did this still qualify as a home office?; they were concerned that this use would lead to an increase of business vehicles using the driveway, which ran along the length of their garden, to deliver the necessary plant.  They considered that those vehicles would also have to exit onto the highway on a blind bend via their shared driveway and that this, as well as any noise generated by the equipment, would also have a detrimental effect on the enjoyment of their garden.

The Area Planning Officer reported that they had also stated that at the meeting on 20 July 2017, it was explained that the kitchen and bathroom facilities were needed to cater for the needs of the applicant’s brother, who had Multiple Sclerosis and would eventually need a wheelchair, in order that he could provide IT consultancy to the applicant’s company.  Access to the proposed first floor would be via an external staircase.  Given that situation, would a ground floor facility not be more suitable?  They had no objection to the principle of a garage block, but they did object to the second floor of the proposed building.  They would be quite happy to see a single storey-building, constructed far enough away from the boundary to allow safe construction and maintenance and asked that the proposal be rejected.

The Area Planning Officer stated that with regard to the objection, Members would note that it largely reiterated the objections already set-out in the report to the previous meeting.  He stated that with regard to the use of the first-floor of the proposed building, Members may recall condition (2), as set out in the report, which restricted the use of the building to ancillary and/or incidental uses only.  Generally, dwellings and outbuildings could be put to business uses, a home office for example, provided they did not in themselves amount to a material change of use. Factors which could determine whether a material change of use had occurred included noise and disturbance, vehicle movements, numbers of employees etc.  The Area Planning Officer stated that, in his view, this condition would prevent a material change of use of the building to a scale of business use that would harm residential amenity, and would give the Council control over any such use.

The Area Planning Officer stated that he understood that at the site meeting Members queried whether the planning permission for an outbuilding in a similar position had been implemented. He advised that the applicant had provided further details in the form of materials and builders’ receipts. He advised Members that it appeared likely to him that the permission has been implemented.  However, this had not been the subject of a legal determination by way of a Certificate of Lawful Proposed Development.

The Area Planning Officer stated that the details of this approved scheme were: it would have been located close to the boundary, although it would have had a veranda with a catslide roof over and abutting the boundary, rather than the rear wall of the building. It was an L-shaped building, measuring 17 metres by 10.5 metres, with a ridge height of 7 metres.  He explained that this was the same height as the proposed scheme.  However, it would have had a low eaves height, and was designed to be similar to a traditional agricultural building, and as such, its visual impact would be less than the scheme currently proposed.

The Area Planning Officer stated that, in his view, the implementation of the permission granted in 2002 was not necessarily relevant to the current application as a fall-back position.  Fall-back positions were only relevant if used to justify the approval of an alternative, improved scheme, and the process was that the current scheme had to be considered on its own merits, and if Members found it acceptable, it should be approved.  If they considered it unacceptable, the question of a fall-back position became pertinent, but only if the fall-back position, the previously approved scheme, was materially worse in planning terms than the current scheme. The justification then was that the current scheme should be approved, it being preferable to the fall-back position which could be constructed if the current scheme was refused.

The Area Planning Officer further explained that it did not work in reverse, and permission for the current application should not be refused because it was worse than any fall-back position. The current scheme had to be assessed on its own merits and if it was acceptable, it should be approved, and if unacceptable it should be refused.

The Area Planning Officer considered that in this case, he was firmly of the view that the previous approval was a better scheme in terms of its design, than that currently proposed.  He did not consider there to be a fall-back position to be given weight in the decision-making process here, but that was not to say that he considered that the current scheme should be refused. The Area Planning Officer concluded that considering the application on its own merits, he remained of the view that, on balance, the current scheme was acceptable.

A Ward Member spoke against the application.  He raised points which included: what was the perceived use of the building as this kept changing? it could not now be used as a research laboratory which was another material consideration; any structure being built in this historic location would need to be sensitive to views from locations in Wallbridge Lane, the golf course, Mill House and footpath ZR7.  He considered the application should be refused on grounds that the two storey building was inappropriate in this location due to its visual intrusions in a sensitive location, particularly its relationship with Mill House; the design was bland and the choice of materials, PVC cladding, created a poor visual impact; there was a privacy issue of overlooking from the balcony steps into the neighbouring property Mill House; the scale and mass of the building had an overbearing impact when viewed from Mill House and Wallbridge Lane taking into account the rising contours on which it would stand; the closeness to the Mill House boundary of some 50 cm meant that there was a loss of residential amenity, as it would require permission of one landowner to allow access for construction and maintenance of the proposed building; the shared access to these properties was at a dangerous point at the top of Windmill Hill and further traffic movements resulting from the use of the research laboratory; landscape concerns; and the cumulative impact of all of these points would result in demonstrable harm.

The Area Planning Officer clarified that he had not stated that the proposed use was unacceptable, but that it did not amount to a reason for refusal.  He stated that issues relating to access, maintenance and vehicle movements were not material planning considerations.

Councillor Gerry Lewin moved the following motion:  That the application be refused due to the bland design and choice of materials of PVC cladding which would create a poor visual impact.  Would cause overlooking from the balcony steps into the neighbouring property Mill House.  The scale and mass of the building would have an overbearing impact when viewed from Mill House and Wallbridge Lane due to the rising contours of the land.  It would have a detrimental impact on the local landscape, and the cumulative impact of all these points would result in demonstrable harm to the area.  This was seconded by Councillor Roger Clark.  On being put to the vote the motion was agreed.

Resolved:  That application 17/502213/FULL be refused due to the bland design and choice of materials of PVC cladding which would create a poor visual impact.  Would cause overlooking from the balcony steps into the neighbouring property Mill House.  The scale and mass of the building would have an overbearing impact when viewed from Mill House and Wallbridge Lane due to the rising contours of the land.  It would have a detrimental impact on the local landscape, and the cumulative impact of all these points would result in demonstrable harm to the area.