Appeal 6004330

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the erection of a link-detached, three-bedroom chalet bungalow following demolition of existing garages at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application reference F/TH/25/0842, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.

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, and the appeal form uses the original description provided on the application form. Therefore, I have determined this appeal based on the original description, which is accurate.

The main issues are the effect of the proposal on: • the character and appearance of the area; and • the integrity of the [name] and Sandwich Bay Special Protection Area (SPA) and Ramsar site, and the [name] and Hacklinge Marshes Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI).

The appeal site comprises garages and garden land currently associated with [site address] (no. 17). This street has a strong residential character emphasised by a consistent roofline and uniform bungalow development. However, there is variation in terms of design and layout, with detached, semi-detached and terraced elements evident along the street. The existing garages are an unusual and prominent feature within the streetscene which negatively contribute to the overall character of [address].

The proposal involves the demolition of the garages and the erection of a 3- bedroom bungalow. Rear access for the new dwelling and no. 17 would be via a covered alleyway between the 2 properties. While an alleyway is not a feature that is evident elsewhere on the street, it would not be prominent and would be difficult to discern from many public vantage points. In this respect, the alleyway would have a similar visual impact to a recessed doorway or gaps between properties and therefore would not be harmful to local character.

The proposal would build up to the edge of the plot boundary with [address] (no. 19), reducing the gap between properties and increasing the terracing effect along [address]. However, the gap would still be distinguishable from certain viewpoints which would help to prevent a cramped and congested appearance.

As well as other examples of terraced sections elsewhere on the street, there are some semi-detached properties that read as terraced from certain viewpoints within the wider streetscene as they are built up to the site boundary and have relatively small gaps to adjacent properties. Therefore, even if the proposal led to an increased terracing effect, this would not be incongruous or cause harm to character in principle and so the prevailing pattern of development. While the proposal does not include set back elements evident on other terraced sections, which read as gaps from certain viewpoints, it would include bay window features which provide some articulation on the front elevation that would help to mitigate the effect of a linear terrace.

It has been suggested that the terracing effect could be exacerbated if no. 19 were to utilise permitted development (PD) rights to extend up to the boundary with no.17. However, I have not been provided with any indication that the owner of no. 19 intends to utilise them even if they were applicable. Even if no. 19 was extended up to the side boundary through PD rights, I am not convinced that this would result in terracing that would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area, for similar reasons as noted above.

There is significant variation in terms of the location of front doors along the street, in terms of their placement on different elevations and whether they are recessed, flush with the building line or set within a projecting element. The proposal includes a front door facing onto the front elevation flush with the building line, which accords with other examples along [address] and therefore would not cause harm to local character.

In conclusion, the proposal would not harm the character and appearance of the area and would therefore accord with Policy QD02 of the Thanet District Council Local Plan (adopted July 2020) (the Local Plan) which seeks development that promotes or reinforces local character and provides high quality and inclusive design. It would also accord with paragraph 135 of the National Planning Policy Framework (December 2024) (the Framework) for the same reasons. Integrity of the [name] and [name] and Ramsar site, and Sandwich

The appeal site lies within the zone of influence of the [name] and [name] and Ramsar site, which also incorporates part of the [name] and [name]. 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. As the SSSI and Ramsar site in part fall within the SPA, I have dealt with these sites in the same way.

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 proof of payment as part of the appeal, and as a result the Council has indicated that the issue is no longer in dispute. Section 111 of the Local Government Act 1972 allows for such payments to be made in some instances, and I am satisfied that the payment is a sufficient amount based on the tariff set out in the SAMM Plan. I am also satisfied that it would be used to fund measures set out in the SAMM Plan, given the Council’s acceptance of the payment.

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 from monies already paid to the Council, 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, Ramsar site or SSSI 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, increases in traffic and parking pressure, and impacts on the privacy of occupiers of neighbouring properties to the rear of the appeal site on [address]. The impacts arising from construction would be limited given that the development is of a modest size which would mean that the duration of the construction period is likely to be short and given that there are statutory regimes which govern construction activity. With regard to traffic and parking issues, the proposal would provide off-street parking and there is no evidence before me that it would cause additional parking pressure in the area. With regard to privacy impacts on the occupiers of properties on [address], the proposal would maintain reasonable separation distances with these properties, similar to other arrangements along the street in terms of the relationship with properties on [address], which would prevent harm in relation to privacy and overlooking.

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, including removing tailpiece wording.

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. I note that some information relating to drainage is provided as part of the application, however this lacks detail regarding implementation, management and maintenance, hence further information would be needed. The Council’s suggested wording was for this condition to be pre-commencement, but this is not necessary, and I have amended the trigger to allow ground works prior to submission of the information.

Conditions relating to the provision of vehicle and cycle parking are necessary to ensure that the development delivers appropriate levels of parking in the interests of highway safety and promotes sustainable transport. I have amended the Council’s suggested wording as this referred to a turning area which is not evident from the plans and therefore is not relevant. I have also removed reference to ‘obstructions’ which is not sufficiently precise or reasonable.

A condition requiring implementation of landscaping works is necessary to ensure that the proposed planting and rear lawn are provided in accordance with the approved plans; however, I am not convinced that photographic verification of completion of works, as suggested by the Council, is necessary. I have not imposed a condition requiring the 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 1356-1 (dated 30-05-25).

The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall be in accordance with the materials as annotated on approved drawing number 1356-1 (dated 30-05-25).

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 space for vehicle parking has been provided in accordance with drawing number 1356-1 (dated 30-05- 25). Thereafter this 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 1356-1 (dated 30-05-25) for cycle parking facilities and that space shall thereafter be kept available for such use.

All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved plans shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons following first occupation of the building; and any trees or plants which within a period of 5 years from the completion of the development die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species. End of schedule