Appeal 6004045

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the erection of new end of terrace house at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application reference F/TH/23/1183, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.

The site address on the application form is incorrectly identified as [address]. I have amended this to reflect the correct address which is consistent with the address used on the decision notice and appeal form.

The description of development was revised by the Council during the application determination period. However, no explicit proof of the appellant’s agreement to the revision has been provided. Therefore, I have determined this appeal based on the original description which I consider is accurate.

The main issues are the effect of the proposal on: • the character and appearance of the area; • highway and pedestrian safety; and • the integrity of the [name] and Sandwich Bay Special Protection Area (SPA).

[address] has a mixed residential character with a variety of dwelling types, boundary treatments and variation between modern and traditional buildings.

The proposal involves the erection of a 2 storey residential dwelling on land between terraced housing. The dwelling would have an L-shaped footprint, adjoining [address] (No. 36) but retaining a small gap to [address]. The design, layout and proposed materials are consistent with other development on the street.

The fenestration, ridge height and eaves height would be broadly consistent with the terraced group to the south at [address], but would not align with the terraced group immediately to the north from No. 36 onwards. However, there are other stepped roof forms evident on the street which result in asymmetric alignment of fenestration and rooflines, hence this would not be uncharacteristic.

The space between the terraces would be reduced as a result of the proposal. However, gaps between dwellings is not a defining characteristic of the area. Moreover, the existing gap is not an obvious feature within the wider streetscene, particularly from views further down [address] to the south, thus a reduction in the gap from this viewpoint would not be harmful.

In conclusion, the proposal would not harm the varied character and appearance of the area. It therefore accords with Policies QD01 and QD02 of the Thanet District Council Local Plan (adopted July 2020) (the Local Plan) which, taken together, seek development that promotes or reinforces local character and provides high quality, inclusive and sustainable design. It would also accord with paragraph 135 of the National Planning Policy Framework (December 2024) (the Framework), which has broadly the same aims.

The proposal includes 1 off-street vehicle parking space which is consistent with local parking standards. However, the appeal site currently provides 3 visitor parking spaces for the adjacent development which would be displaced if the site was developed. As the existing parking is for visitors to the specific adjacent dwellings rather than being freely available, it would likely be utilised less frequently and for shorter periods of time, which would help to limit any impacts of the displaced parking.

While this could still result in an increase in vehicles parking on [address] and other nearby streets, including adding to a cumulative increase alongside other recently permitted development in the area, there are no parking restrictions on [address] and the surrounding roads except for double yellow line restrictions near junctions. While these roads are narrow and could result in vehicles parking partially on the footway, this would not be unusual and in any event is a matter that can be controlled through statutory highways powers. Parking manoeuvres would be performed at a low speed which reduces concerns relating to impacts on highway and pedestrian safety. I am not presented with substantive evidence that the level of additional parking demand could not be accommodated on-street and therefore that it would cause a harmful impact. I also note that the local highway authority has not raised an objection with regard to the potential increase in parking pressure.

The site is also accessible by walking and public transport from both the train station and the town centre, which would make these modes legitimate alternative options to vehicular transport for people visiting the site.

Concerns have also been raised in relation to the impact on the turning area at the northern end of [address]. However, when considered individually and cumulatively alongside other recently permitted development in the area, the proposal would not affect access to this area or increase the level of vehicle movements to such a level that would adversely affect the operation of the turning area.

It has also been suggested that the appeal site currently functions as an informal turning area, and that the proposal would cause harm due to the loss of this area. However, the site is first and foremost in use for parking and could not perform parking and turning area functions simultaneously, hence any use as a turning area would be infrequent and opportunistic. As noted above, a formal turning area would still be available at the northern end of [address]. As a result, the loss of the informal turning area would only carry very limited weight in my decision.

In conclusion, the proposal would not harm highway and pedestrian safety. It therefore accords with Policies TP06 and QD02 of the Local Plan which, taken together, seek satisfactory provision for the parking of vehicles and safe and satisfactory access for pedestrians, public transport and other vehicles. It would also accord with paragraphs 109 and 135 of the Framework, which, amongst other things, states that developments should address potential impacts on transport networks and create places that are safe, inclusive and accessible.

The appeal site lies within the zone of influence of the [name] and [name], which also incorporates part of the [name] and Hacklinge Marshes Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). The SPA supports breeding populations of [name] and non-breeding populations of the [name] and [name], which are the qualifying features which justify the designation of the SPA. The SPA’s conservation objectives aim to ensure that the integrity of the site is maintained or restored as appropriate, and ensure that the site contributes to achieving the aims of the [name], by maintaining or restoring (amongst other things) the extent and distribution of the habitats, the population and the distribution of the qualifying features within the site.

It has been established that new residential development within the zone of influence, when considered either alone or in combination with other plans and projects, is likely to have a significant effect on the SPA, resulting from recreational pressure, for example from increased dog walking. The proposal would create a net gain of 1 dwelling and therefore there would be a likely significant effect on the SPA. As a result, I must undertake an appropriate assessment as the competent authority, in accordance with my duty under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (the Habitats Regulations).

Policy SP29 of the Local Plan and the Thanet section of the [name] and [name] Management and Monitoring (SAMM) Plan (April 2016) (the SAMM Plan) require, amongst other things, mitigation measures for all net new dwellings within the SPA zone of influence. Mitigation is provided via a tariff based financial contribution, secured by legal agreement. These contributions are put towards an in-perpetuity access management scheme which includes provision of a wardening service; an education, public engagement, enforcement and interpretation programme; access management; and monitoring.

The application was refused in part due to the absence of a payment towards mitigation measures. The appellant has provided a signed [name] (UU) as part of the appeal which would provide a financial contribution of £320 to fund mitigation measures in the SAMM Plan, in accordance with the relevant tariff. As a result, the Council have indicated that the issue is no longer in dispute.

I find that the measures in the UU are necessary, related directly to the development and fairly related in scale and kind. As such they would accord with the provisions of Regulation 122 of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 and the tests for planning obligations set out in paragraph 58 of the Framework.

Natural England has been consulted as part of this Appropriate Assessment and is content that the measures proposed would be sufficient to avoid an adverse impact to the integrity of the site.

As the competent authority, I am satisfied that the proposed SAMM mitigation measures, secured via UU, would be sufficient to address the harm likely to be caused by the development. I therefore find that, subject to the proposed mitigation, the proposal would not have an adverse effect on the integrity of the SPA and would be in accordance with the Habitats Regulations, Policy SP29 of the Local Plan and the SAMM Plan.

Objections to the appeal raised concerns regarding the impact of building work and increases in anti-social behaviour, in addition to concerns covered under the main issues. The impacts arising from construction would likely be limited given the proposal involves the construction of 1 dwelling and there are statutory regimes which govern construction activity. I am not provided with substantive evidence which demonstrates that the proposal would lead to an increase in anti-social behaviour, and as a result, I do not consider that the proposal would cause harm in relation to this issue.

The Framework in paragraph 57 indicates that conditions should only be imposed where they are necessary, relevant to planning and to the development to be permitted, enforceable, precise and reasonable in all other respects.

The Council has suggested conditions and I have considered these in relation to the Framework and the Planning Practice Guidance, amending where necessary in the interests of consistency and precision.

The standard commencement condition and the plans condition are imposed to provide certainty. A materials condition is necessary to mitigate adverse impacts on character and appearance.

A condition relating to details of foul and surface water drainage is necessary to ensure that the development has appropriate drainage facilities. The Council’s suggested wording was for this condition to be pre-commencement, but this is not necessary.

A condition requiring the development to meet the Building Regulations optional water efficiency requirement is necessary to address local policy and improve water efficiency within a water stress area as identified by the Environment Agency.

Conditions relating to the provision of vehicle and cycle parking and refuse storage facilities are necessary to ensure that the development delivers appropriate levels of parking, promotes sustainable transport and provides adequate refuse facilities.

I have not imposed a condition requiring submission of an ecological plan as it has not been demonstrated why this is necessary or relevant to the development being permitted.

The proposal would be in accordance with the development plan when taken as a whole. Material considerations do not indicate a decision should be taken other than in accordance with the development plan. I therefore conclude the appeal should be allowed, subject to the conditions.

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved drawing number 1143 (dated 28-07-23).

The external materials and external finishes to be used in the development hereby permitted shall be [name] yellow stock bricks with red brick arches, Plain dark Marley tile and Water permeable grey bricks, as set out in the Application Form.

No development above ground works shall take place until details of the means of foul and surface water disposal, including details of the implementation, management and maintenance of any proposed [name], have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with such details as agreed and thereafter maintained.

The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the Building Regulations optional requirement of a water consumption rate of no more than 110 litres per person per day has been complied with.

The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the vehicle parking space have been provided in accordance with drawing number 1143 (dated 28-07- 23). Thereafter the space shall be retained for the parking of vehicles only.

The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied until space has been laid out within the site in accordance with drawing number 1143 (dated 28-07-23) for refuse and cycle storage facilities and that space shall thereafter be kept available for such use. End of schedule