Item A01
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL BOARD
3 April 2003
Item A01
Reference: 02/00129/OUT Officer: Mr A Legg
Location: Site Of Former Joyce Green Hospital & Littlebrook Lakes North Of University Way Dartford
Proposal: Redevelopment for employment (Science Park), residential, leisure & recreational uses, primary school, local centre, open space & wildlife areas, landscaping, earthworks & infrastructure with public transport route, stations & bridges over University Way
Applicant: DBC & Prologis Developments Ltd
Agent: Holmes Antill Home Farm Barn Prestwold Loughborough LE12 5SZ
Date Valid: 14/02/2002
Parish / Ward: / Dartford Joyce Green
RECOMMENDATION:
Approval subject to the signing of a Section 106 Agreement within 6 months of the Committee resolution, outstanding matters being satisfactorily resolved and reference to the Secretary of State as a Departure from the Development Plan
SITE SPECIFIC POLICY
(1) Adopted Local Plan: Land at North Dartford - Policy E1; Development of Hospital Land - Policy GB3; Hotel and Tourist Provision - Policy RT9. Housing Development Site - Policy H1.
(2) Local Plan Review: Major Development Site - Policy MDS4. Mixed Use Urban Villages - Policy DD2. Mixed Use Development - Policy DD4. Green Grid and Development Sites - Policy DD6. Housing Provision - Policy H1(20). Affordable Urban Housing - Policy H16. Provision of Employment Land - Policy E1. Overhead Power Lines - Policy BE17. Safeguarded Transport Scheme - Policy T3. New Hotel Development - Policy LRT10. Tidal Flood Zone - Policy NR7. Community Facilities - Policy CF3.
INDEX
In recognition of the fact that this is a substantial and lengthy report an index has been included for Members information and assistance. This should enable Members to identify and locate the various elements of the report.
A01 1. Site Description Para. 3 2. Proposal Para. 8 3. Relevant History Para. 14 4. Comments from Organisations - first consultation Para. 19 5. Comments from Residents - first consultation Para. 90 6. Comments from Organisations - second consultation Para. 96 7. Comments from Residents - second consultation Para. 129 8. Relevant Policies Para. 135 Kent Structure Plan Para. 152 Adopted Local Plan Para. 159 Local Plan Review Para. 176 9. Development Control Managers Comments Para. 208 10. Principle of Development Para. 212 11. Environmental Issues Para. 217 a) Nature Conservation Para. 219 b) Noise/Air Quality Para. 228 c) Water and Flooding Para. 234 d) Drainage Para. 241 e) Contamination Para 252 12. Conclusions on Environmental Issues Para. 257 13. Fastrack and Transport Para. 258 a) Segregation Para. 281 b) Adoption Para. 284 c) Bridges Para. 286 d) Phasing Para. 290 14. Conclusions on Fastrack/Transport Para. 295 15. Layout and Design Para. 296 a) Improved Public Transport Links Para. 298 b) Mixed Use Development Para. 300 c) Quality and Energy Efficiency Para. 311 16. Conclusions on Layout/Design Para. 317 17. Employment Para. 318 18. Other Issues Affordable Housing Para. 326 Visual Amenity Para. 327 Overhead Transmission Lines Para. 330 Education and Community Facilities Para. 335 19. Section 106 Agreement Para. 341 20. Conclusion Para. 342
SITE DESCRIPTION
(3) The application site lies to the north of University Way and comprises the area of the former Joyce Green Hospital and the Littlebrook Lakes.
(4) The western and north western boundary is defined by the Metropolitan Green Belt and is part of the Dartford Marshes. To the north it abuts the Long Reach Water Treatment Works and Littlebrook Power Station. The approach road to the Dartford River Crossing makes the eastern boundary with University Way to the south and the residential estate of Temple Hill beyond.
(5) The buildings of the Joyce Green Hospital have now been demolished leaving the site characterised by semi natural woodland, hedgerow and scrub grassland and lakes, although a more formally planted area within the former hospital is the subject of a Tree Preservation Order. It is vacant although it has been prone to unauthorised access for uses such as
A02 fishing, motor bike scrambling and tipping. The principal physical features of the site are the lakes.
(6) There are three existing points of access. The roundabout at the western end affords access from Joyce Green Lane and was principally utilized by the hospital. A more central location provides the access at Marsh Street with Littlebrook Manorway traversing the site to the east; this also serves Littlebrook Power Station.
(7) This, together with the Queen Elizabeth II Bridge, provides the backdrop to the site. Across the site run six overhead power lines together with the additional constraints of two major sewers and the Esso oil pipeline.
PROPOSAL
(8) This is an outline application for comprehensive mixed-use development. It includes a combination of employment uses incorporating a science park, a business park and distribution uses that would provide the potential to create some 7,500 jobs from some 185,800 square metres of commercial floorspace. In addition to this, housing of up to 1500 new homes is proposed with a hotel, primary school, local centre including community facilities and sports facilities. A range of housing is proposed including a variety of types to reflect the need to provide affordable housing within the development. This is shown predominantly to the west and north west of the site although another significant residential element is shown to the east of Marsh Street and north of University Way. This would abut the southern shores of the larger but remodelled lake. The business and logistic parks are identified to the north and east of the lakes and up to the eastern boundary with the existing Dartford river crossing. The science park element is to the west of Marsh Street adjoining University Way to the south. North of this is shown to be the local centre including a retail element together with facilities such as a health centre and doctors surgery. Further north would be a primary school, hotel and more formal sports and leisure facilities. This will be tied in with open space, recreation and wildlife areas. Fundamental to this proposal is the provision of a dedicated public transport system with a route that takes it from Dartford Town Centre through the residential area of Temple Hill and across University Way and through the centre of the application site. From there it crosses the Dartford River Crossing and into Crossways before travelling onto Bluewater. This is known as Fastrack and the development includes the provision of Fastrack stations along the route.
(9) Although this proposal is submitted as an outline application with all matters reserved it includes a significant amount of supporting information and details. The aim is to show, with an emphasis on quality, how this key site within the Thames Gateway, can be developed so as to create the best environment for a sustainable community that takes full advantage of new technology and innovation. At the same time the natural environment will be preserved and enhanced, developing the Green Grid principles and introducing Blue Ways to increase public access. The latter are water corridors that run through the development providing wild life habitats and areas of landscape together with forming part of the overall surface drainage system.
(10) The application is accompanied by an Environmental Impact Assessment and a Traffic Impact Assessment. In addition separate assessment reports have been compiled in respect of Fastrack.
(11) Additional and revised information was submitted dated November 2002. The principal changes proposed an alteration to the route of Fastrack as it approached the site through Temple Hill. As originally envisaged it would have travelled from Trevithick Drive onto Wellcome Avenue and then to Central Road, north to the roundabout in University Way and then across to enter the site from the west. As now proposed the Fastrack route would take it down Sharpe Way from Trevithick Drive and from Joyce Green Lane across a safeguarded strip of land to the rear of Salmon Way and into the site over a new bridge over University Way. This has been incorporated within further submissions that supply additional information to the Fastrack and Traffic Impact Assessments. Revised details have also been provided for the Environmental Impact Assessment with particular reference to the Flood Risk
A03 Assessment, and Environmental Site Investigation Report. A revised illustrative Urban Village Masterplan has also been submitted.
(12) The application also allows for the removal of the overhead power lines that currently traverse the site. Those to be replaced will be routed underground with terminal towers erected at the boundary of the site. These towers would be the subject of a separate application.
(13) The application has been advertised as a major development and as a departure from the adopted Development Plan. Any resolution to approve would be subject to referral to the Government Office of the South East.
RELEVANT HISTORY
(14) Outline planning permission was granted in April 1994 for the use of an area of land east of Littlebrook Manorway and west of the Dartford River Crossing for light industry, office and high technology (Class B1); general industry (Class B2); warehousing (Class B8); hotel, ancillary retail and service uses; leisure and recreation facilities; associated roads, parking and landscaping (ref. DA/93/0529/OUT). In May 1995 outline planning permission was granted under reference DA/93/0528/OUT for the same form of development on the land between Marsh Street, University Way, the A282 and Littlebrook Power Station.
(15) A further outline planning permission was granted in May 1995 carrying the same description under reference DA/93/0570/OUT. Whilst retaining the same western, southern and eastern boundaries as DA/93/0528/OUT it included a sliver of land within Littlebrook Power Station to the north.
(16) In December 1994 an application to vary Condition 23 of planning permission DA/93/0529/OUT was granted. This variation allowed for the phased implementation of development in parallel with improvements to Junction 1A (ref. DA/94/0660/FUL).
(17) An outline application for the use of land at Joyce Green Hospital for high tech., office and light industrial uses (Class B1); retail, commercial and residential development together with associated facilities including conference facilities, public car park, new roads infrastructure and landscaping was granted in February 1995 (ref. DA/94/0187/OUT). This related only to the original site area of the hospital.
(18) In 1995 two further applications were submitted under reference DA/95/0175/OUT and DA/95/0176/OUT. The former related to a site between the roundabout to Joyce Green Lane from University Way and the western boundary of Joyce Green Hospital. This proposed the erection of 2 two storey buildings comprising 2370 square metres of accommodation within use class B1 with associated landscaping and parking. Planning permission was granted on 8 July 1998. The latter proposed the erection of 3 two storey buildings for use also within Class B1. This was approved on 13 March 1996. Together the development was to be known as the Business Innovation Quarter of the vision for a science park at Dartford. A further integral element of this, although outside the site the subject of the application now under consideration, was the proposal to the north and west of Joyce Green Hospital for a higher education campus. This was approved by the Secretary of State in September 1993 under reference DA/92/0042/OUT following a public inquiry.
COMMENTS FROM ORGANISATIONS
(19) These representations were received following the first consultation in February 2002.
(20) Kent Wildlife Trust: In principle the Trust does not object to the redevelopment of the hospital but do have comments to make on the impact on the Littlebrook Lakes. As part of the response to the Local Plan Review they objected to the exclusion of the Littlebrook Lakes from the Dartford Marshes SNC1. The comments they have on the proposed development are based on this key point. They contend draft Policies C12 and C14 apply in respect of this application as the site is known to support various species protected under the Wildlife and
A04 Countryside Act as well as nationally and locally rare/uncommon species. The Trust has a number of specific concerns about the Environmental Statement centred on the view it represents over development, degrading the wildlife interest. Most of the site will be built on and any assessment of impact should be seen in this context. It will have wider implications on nearby Dartford Marshes which is recognised as being of county importance. The Environmental Statement confirms the site is a buffer between the built area to the south and Dartford Marshes to the north. This will be lost with the development with clear implications for the wildlife of the Marshes. It is not accurate to conclude that the magnitude of change would be low. The Trust believes the development will have a major effect on the landscape and the statement is contradictory. Clarification is sought on the meaning of terms such as "poor vegetation framework". There is strong disagreement that the impact on the landscape would be negligible as little will be left of the original landscape. This applies also to Fastrack. People's perception of the area will change and overall the landscape assessment methodology is considered to be flawed.
(21) There are a number of implications in respect of ecological value. It is admitted the site supports a diverse array of habitats - 59 bird species are recorded plus common lizards, grass snakes, water voles and invertebrates. The statement refers to the variety of habitats and species involved with wet woodland, reedbeds, scrub and open water. The Trust does not accept the assessment of nature conservation value is accurate. The losses to the site are unacceptable and in their view this will amount to 37% of open water habitat, 63% loss of marginal habitat, and 32% loss of the willow carr. These are all priorities within the Kent Biodiversity Action Plan. The conclusions reached clearly indicate that the assessment method for this needs to be looked at again.
(22) The increase in numbers of visitors to the area will have an unacceptable impact on the potential SSSI to the north. The mitigation proposals are not in any way adequate and do not compensate for the losses. They do not replace like for like habitat and the suggestion they are mitigation is wrong. The provision of linear habitat to replace open water results in habitats that function in a completely different way.
(23) The Trust objects to the proposed development in its current form on the grounds that it will lead to a degradation of a wildlife site of county importance.
(24) The Countryside Agency: No formal comments. Informally the Agency supports the Green Grid concept and advocates a complete network of Green Routes - for non motorised users.
(25) CPRE: Dartford and Gravesham: It appears to be well researched. It is good to see Fastrack fully integrated and open green spaces and lakes retained. Development densities to be in line with PPG3 on brownfield sites and green grid principle employed. The trees within the 'hospital' have been recognised as high value. The TPO status is to be appreciated.
(26) Both lakes must be retained for wildlife not leisure purposes. Similarly the wetland habitats. Natural boundaries are required to the Dartford Marshes to prevent unwelcome access.
(27) English Nature: The following concerns are raised:- a) Littlebrook Lakes SNCI. The proposed development will have a major impact with habitat loss from 20% (semi natural woodland) to 80% (grassland). Also negative effects on wide range of wildlife including species protected by Schedules 1 and 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1987. English Nature emphasises the valuable contribution to biodiversity made by these sites. PPG9 (Nature Conservation) points out that the protection of wildlife is not an objective which applies only to SSSI's. Local Authorities should keep themselves informed of the state of the natural environment locally and take account of nature conservation interests wherever relevant. All sites that provide wildlife corridors or links from one habitat to another all to help to maintain range and diversity of flora and fauna and the survival of important species.
A05
Kent Structure Plan Policy ENV6 offers protection to SNCI's from harm from development. Local Plan Review Policy C14 endorses this protection unless the need for development overrides the particular interest and no appropriate alternative is available. Adequate compensation or mitigation is required. English Nature advise that the compensation and mitigation proposed is inadequate. It would result in the loss of significant amounts of a variety of habitats with a decline of species populations and has not been sufficiently mitigated for by habitat creation. The proposed mitigation is inadequate. Detailed proposals and management schemes for retained and new areas should be provided. Little account has been taken of additional impacts of human pressure. Public access should be limited and habitats protected from it. b) Dartford Marshes is an SNCI and may qualify as a SSSI. Measures should be taken to create a buffer zone between the development and the Marshes. Mechanisms are required to prevent the spread of exotic species and pollution and this would mean the watercourses are separate from those in Dartford Marshes. c) If Blueways are to be used as a drainage system they may not fulfil the function of ecological mitigation. Water quality may be such that wildlife will not use it. A management plan is required. d) Some of the habitats and species found are mentioned in the United Kingdom Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) or Kent BAP. The Local Plan Review identifies the Action Plans relevant to the Borough and includes woodlands and scrub, reedbeds, standing water, water voles and nightingales. The developers should increase the mitigation relating to these species. Nesting boxes will not benefit nightingales, and birds which over winter on site will be affected by loss of open water habitat and increased disturbance from recreation on lakes. e) Kingfisher and barn owl feature on Schedule 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and a scheme is required to demonstrate how these birds will be protected. f) A DETR license to destroy 70 bat roosts within the Joyce Green buildings was mitigated by the installation of 15 bat boxes on trees protected by the TPO. There is a requirement to monitor these and report findings to English Nature for minimum of 5 years. If they provide insufficient mitigation further requirements may be necessary regardless of ownership. There is no mention in the statement of:
- the presence of bat boxes on site - responsibility for maintaining and monitoring mitigation under the above mentioned license - details of the survey for bats. Consultants should hold Scientific License issued by English Nature - the boundary of TPO's on site - tree felling proposals.
English Nature would need the above information before any decision is made on the planning application. Should any bat boxes be disturbed or removed an additional license would be required. Bats are protected species and local planning authorities are bound by Regulation 3(4) of the Conservation (Natural Habitats etc) Regulations 1994 to have regard to their protection. If protected species are found it is necessary to contact DEFRA. Specialist advice should be sought on specifications for new roosts and flight lines, feeding areas and street lighting. English Nature should approve any such plans. g) A detailed strategy for mitigation on water voles and reptiles should be agreed before any works commence.
(28) This development would have significant impact on the Littlebrook Lakes SNCI and the suggested mitigation is inadequate. All the information pertaining to bats is required prior to determination. If planning permission were granted English Nature would recommend conditions in respect of detailed mitigation plans and management plans for all retained habitats to be agreed prior to any works on site.
A06
(29) Kent Reptile and Amphibian Group: The mitigation proposals are acceptable. Reservations regarding the time allowed for capture and a more detailed method statement is required. KRAG would be interested to receive details of locations and captures to help with specie data. The survey for great crested newts was inadequate using sweepnet method and given size of water bodies. A minimum of 7-10 days would have been more appropriate. It is not the most effective method available - night time search or egg search being the most effective. Also the search during April and June not the most productive months. The surveys did not pick up common toads as optimum time to observe these is February to April. The consultant used for the great crested newt survey was not named.
(30) Landscape Design Officer: He is concerned over the effect Fastrack will have over the linking ecological areas. A full bat survey must be undertaken otherwise a planning permission may be obtained without all the facts.
(31) All trees and vegetation to be retained should be properly protected with fencing. He is surprised that a survey of fish stocks was not undertaken. The water conservation volume is greater than suggested. The loss of willow seems to be underplayed. Carefully worded conditions are needed to protect the site from unnecessary construction impacts and the Management Plan should be provided as early as possible and details of mitigation measures.
(32) Great care was taken to ensure the southern lake not polluted by fill or pH changed. This needs to be ensured for future. He is not sure the water regime is correctly understood. The present level is artificially low as the water in the southern lake flows into the northern lake and then onto Little Powder Creek where it exits to the Thames at low tide or via the Littlebrook D pumps if the levels rise too much. This does not equate with what is written.
(33)How is the southern lake to be managed? This lake provides an opportunity for passive water sports like sailing, canoeing with angling second. These pursuits may not mix without management.
(34) Kent Thameside Green Grid Officer: Commitments to Green Grid generally welcomed. The success will depend on quality and character of elements to be created and the management of these and the existing. The Environmental Statement concentrates on sites character but largely unconcerned with its relationship with Greater Thames Estuary. This could be explored further within strategies for built and landscaped areas. This could include:
- increasing densities, heights and scale of some built elements to allow retention/creation of more habitat types. Central area focussed around large semi natural open area, elsewhere constrained to relatively narrow corridors - increasing visual and ecological connectivity to Dartford Mashes. Key feature of marshland are long views and dramatic skyscapes. The development appears introspective - a landmark building/structure for public views of dramatic setting.
(35) The archaeology and heritage assessment in its skimpy treatment of the hospital and lack of reference to social history merits some conservation within the site and adds to greater 'sense of place'. The hospital site merits investigation by a landscape historian. More should be made of retention of arboretum. Retention of TPO trees within development plots can result in neglect and loss.
(36) Sustainability applies to construction as well as layout and design. No Strategic statement on use of environmentally friendly products.
(37) Dartford Marshes are a key feature of Green Grid and potential SSSI status. The drainage strategy needs ongoing monitoring for impacts outside the development site and mitigation secured. Little connectivity between the site and Dartford Marshes and desirable to identify suitable access points. Similarly on boundary with Littlebrook Power Station if this site ever redeveloped.
A07 (38) Provision of cycleway and footpath along length of Fastrack is to be applauded. Broad corridors should be allowed wherever possible to provide attractive routeways.
(39) Environment Agency: All the site is at risk to tidal flooding from the River Thames should defences be breached or overtopped. PPG25 states high risk flood zone areas may be suitable for residential development providing appropriate minimum standard of defence can be maintained for lifetime of development - that is a 1 in 200 year tidal risk.
(40) As the site is defined properly the Agency has no objection in principle to mixed use on site. All living accommodation is to be raised above 1000 year flood levels. This level revised to 6.9m Ordnance Datum. This may be difficult but Agency not satisfied that 6.5m above OD is sufficient and object to this element. This is because:
- steady increase in tidal levels and surge tides particular threat to North Kent Coast. These are difficult to predict and warnings may only give minimum notice for evacuation. In Kent many tidal risk areas are confined by high ground only short distance from river frontage. A breach would result in rapid inundation. Constructing dwellings below flood level is not sustainable. Developer should fund flood protection for the site.
- planning decisions should apply precautionary principle to issue of flood risk (PPG25)
- potential consequences for occupiers could be serious. Difficulties also of insurance and mortgages. Property damage and risk to life with emergency services under pressure
- expectation of relevant authorities to protect from flooding if they can.
(41) If the developer were to provide breach scenario analysis the Agency would check the information. A flood risk assessment should address this and have sufficient detail to be satisfied that raising above 1000 year level not required. The Local Planning Authority may wish to consider raising level of new school and incorporating it into the emergency plan. Flood resistant construction techniques should be used everywhere. Provision of new ponds, open wetlands and linear water features welcomed. There should be no net loss of water body on site. Any watercourse would not be monitored by Agency. Culverting will not normally be consented and requires Agency consent. Proposals for maintenance strategy welcomed and should progress to programme for water bodies. Proposals for pollution control and SUDS welcomed subject to groundwater conditions. Filling of the lakes subject to conservation objections and in accordance with current waste regulations.
(42) Account to be taken of possible contamination from pervious uses. Site investigation required and sampling and analysis in accordance with relevant guidance and best practice soil gas assessment to be undertaken.
(43) Construction techniques to avoid pollution and duty of care regulations for dealing with waste materials. Any drainage must not provide conduct for contaminated run off into the aquifer. Drainage scheme to be designed to minimise risk to groundwater quality. Scheme for disposal of soil and surface water to be agreed with no soakaways to contaminated land. All areas of potential contamination to be thoroughly investigated . Fly tipping has occurred. Areas where fuel tanks, fuel pipes, drainage made good all subject to remediation. Identified areas of contamination investigated and conditions in respect of this and mitigation required.
(44) No objections in respect of conservation and recreation although conditions recommended with regards to water vole mitigation; detailed strategy for treatment and management of lakes; a wildlife protection plan for construction and no recreational use of the north lake. Care should be taken to prevent the spread of non native invasive plant species. A watching brief is recommended.
(45) A license is required for any boreholes to dewater the site during construction and for any abstraction.
A08 (46) KCC Public Right of Way: There is a need for foot/cycle bridges across University Way and the retention of public rights of way access to DR1/the river. The public rights of way must not be stopped up, diverted, obstructed or surface disturbed. No encroachment on current width. Any of these operations require prior permission from KCC Public Rights of Way Office.
(47) Ramblers Association (Dartford and Gravesham): Shared cycle/pedestrian tracks could become cycle race tracks to detriment of pedestrians. No width for shared route indicated or whether segregation implemented. Take account of their use by mothers, prams, children, elderly and disabled. Minimum width should be 5m with physical segregation. Walking public not to be deterred from using public transport.
(48) KCC Land Use and Transport Policy: The submitted Environmental Impact Assessment represents a series of principles to follow rather than an actual assessment of specific proposals. The Deposit Draft Local Plan shows employment space as 150,000 square metres and estimates employment at 3903. Now proposed 185,880 square metres with 7500 jobs. Need to show how this new employment figure arrived at. Shift towards B1 uses rather than B2 and a range of employment should be included. Broadband technology should be a key component and a local labour scheme encouraged. Consideration should be given to a centre for local enterprise with facilities and access to advice and support. The additional housing proposed at 1500 units should help to improve supply. Provision for affordable housing noted but key worker needs should be considered. Principle of lifetime homes should be embraced.
(49) Specific proposals for leisure should be appropriate for needs of the development. The early implementation of Fastrack should be secured by Agreement. It is essential to secure reduction in car dependency and parking restraint.
(50) There will be loss of low/negligible habitats but also some of higher value. The EIA suggests this will be kept to a minimum and mitigation provided emphasising water based environments. These need to be carried forward to detailed submissions.
(51) Better protection for nature conservation interests may be appropriate. Despite Green Grid the footprint of development appears high. Promoting high density with little private space needs appropriate balance with public open space.
(52) It is not clear how the EIA concludes the proposal should sustain nature conservation interests. Some loss is quantified but there is no explicit assessment of overall impact of the effect of development taking account of losses, residual impacts, mitigation, compensation and gains. This is crucial in determining acceptability of proposed level of development and should be clarified in detailed submission. This is a large site to be dependent on private maintenance.
(53) Provision should be made to ensure the principles of sustainable development are integrated within the development and this should include sustainable design, energy production and recycling. Appropriate legal agreements should secure community infrastructure with a range of services in place at an early stage to reduce travel. Improvements should be considered for neighbouring developments to help integrate eg. traffic calming, environmental enhancement and impact access.
(54) The broad outline proposals are consistent with the Kent Structure Plan and no strategic objection. It is important the subsequent details are consistent with this. Consideration should be given to extract some of the mineral reserves as part of the phasing of the development.
(55) KCC Development Contributions Unit: Of concern is the plan to provide only a one form entry site (1.15ha). Given a development of 1500 units a two form entry will definitely be required with 2ha of land. Vital that the land is allocated at this early stage.
A09 (56) There are currently insufficient spaces at all schools within 2 mile radius for primary schools and 3 miles for secondary schools. On this basis a contribution of #7,145,325.00 is required . This comprises #5,128,200 for primary and #2,017/125 for secondary. The secondary pupils contribution would be toward expanding existing facilities rather than building a new secondary school.
(57) Together with the construction of a 2 form entry primary school there is a need to expand St Anslems School.
(58) With regards to libraries there are existing static service points at Temple Hill and Dartford. Opening times here could be adjusted and provisions enhanced. A mobile service could visit new housing development. Outreach services could be extended including adult learning support and run from community venues such as a doctor's surgery or school. In terms of ICT the information could be accessed from home and business. Two types of adult education facility will be sought. These involve office space for both housing and commercial elements with actual provision in school hall/community hall etc. Similar request in respect of social services. Community development workers to liase with other service providers also required. Help in provision for 2 years to kick start the service.
(59) Current requirement for a small 2 doctor surgery.
(60) KCC Environmental Management: The archaeological potential of the site should be assessed through desk based study and field evaluation before development proceeds. Archaeological evaluation of the whole site will be necessary before it can be decided where excavation may be necessary. This may be non intrusive or trial trenching. Some geotechnical boreholes are already being maintained. Further investigation may be necessary. A condition is requested for whole of site requiring a programme of archaeological work prior to development.
(61) Kent Archaeological Rescue Unit: Within an area of archaeological potential.
(62) Government Office for the South East (GOSE): No representations received.
(63) Bexley Council: No representations received.
(64) Housing strategy Manager: Affordable housing is required. This should be 30% of the total with 20% being rented, 10% shared ownership and key worker. The provision should be 'pepper potted' throughout the residential development on the basis of 85% TC1.
(65) West Hill Action Group: The location is far from ideal for housing and school. Land north of University Way is the property of Hanson, a gravel extraction company, who wish to extract. A large proportion is landfill. Recent research has identified possibility of link between landfill and chromosomal and non-chromosomal birth defects. Further west is Unwins Pyrotechnics - a contaminated site. To the north is Longreach Sewage Works and a power station. This poor location is further compounded by the flood plain. It is completely unrealistic for developers to limit amount of traffic entering and parking on site. This will be unattractive to potential purchasers. The amount of monitoring planned is a concern. The 'Orwellian Nightmare' or the internment camp for the poor. There will be a catastrophic effect on local economy which is already suffering due to large scale shopping centres. It is their contention that it will be filled with asylum seekers not key workers.
(66) Despite facilities such as school and doctor facilities it will impact upon Dartford's facilities. Darent Valley Hospital will find it hard to cope. Secondary schools are already oversubscribed and pupils will have further to travel.
(67) The prospect of 7,000 jobs is welcomed but object to homes in light of the polluted environment.
(68) Highways Agency: Following an initial review of the transport assessment the development proposals are consistent with those put forward previously. Only change noted
A010 is addition of hotel and conference centre but overall this is not significant. A full analysis of the document not yet carried out. This may reveal need for further explanation or expansion. Traffic analyses have been carried out for A282/J1A in accordance with normal requirements. Overall study appears adequate. Number of statements made with regard to agreements made a modelling issue, derivation of trip routes and assumptions about internalisation of trips need to be checked with parties concerned. Main conclusion is that with Fastrack and already agreed improvements to J1A, no further improvements to network will be required. Main issues therefore:-
(69) What are agreed improvements to A282/J1A? Are they already implemented? Viability of Fastrack depends on provision of crossing of A282 at Dartford Tunnel. This subject to clarification as legal agreement fundamental to delivery of bridge and Fastrack. The Highways Agency would want to adopt the bridge not leave it private. Security is an issue here. Do KCC agree to crossing being only for buses, cyclists and pedestrians? What is the position regarding the CPO for Fastrack crossing over the A282? Route and alignment might be subject to review because involves statutory procedures for extinguishment of existing highway rights and traffic management on local roads. Not possible to prejudice this and statutory authorisation needed before decision on planning application. What is the programme for the various elements? What is the proposed means of delivery of infrastructure, operational administration and management? Who will have statutory responsibility? The HA would be looking at certainty of delivering public transport alternatives rather than cars subject to Section 106 Agreement. Parties to the Agreement need to be identified and satisfied that proposals are robust. The HA is unable to give a formal response and additional time is requested.
(70) Holmesdale Angling and Conservation Society: They wish to have first refusal on purchasing all fish stocks including removal and transport. The Environment Agency will be involved.
(71) Kent Fire Brigade: Access should be in accordance with Kent Design Guide. The provision of fire hydrants should be considered at an early stage.
(72) Community Services Manager: Local centre to include performance space/equipment and studio areas for local cultural industries. Open space to have public art. Include work by professional artists and in consultation with communities. All public buildings and spaces to consider contemporary architecture and design.
(73) National Grid: Installations are not affected by proposed works.
(74) ESSO Petroleum Company Ltd: The works may affect their apparatus. Prior notification is required of any works to ensure integrity of apparatus.
(75) Seeboard: No objection. Seeboard have been involved with this scheme and are negotiating with the applicants regarding diversionary work and provision of new electricity supplies.
(76) National Grid: There is an overhead line. Also proximity to Crayford - Littlebrook underground pilot cable.
(77) Sport England: A planned approach to the provision of facilities and opportunities for sport is required to ensure needs of community are met. No objections as will not impact upon existing playing fields. Ask to be consulted on design and layout of future sports facilities. Guidance notes are produced by the Sports Council.
(78) Gravesham Borough Council: The commercial floorspace indicated within EIA now ties in with figures on Form 1A. This is 4,645 sq metres less than floorspace indicated on TIA. No details of amount of retail floorspace. All applications in excess of 2500 square metres gross floorspace require retail impact assessment applying sequential test. Useful to know floorspace even if below this figure. It is unclear how 12,000 square metres floorspace allocated to hotel/leisure uses is to be subdivided. Removing 5,547 square metres for hotel,
A011 this leaves 6,453 square metres of leisure unexplained. This level appears substantially above what required to satisfy local needs. Consideration to requiring a formal impact assessment. Relevant to the TIA. On the local centre the TIA assumes no highway impact. No breakdown of uses is given and until approximate floor areas are known the assumption in the TIA must be treated with caution.
(79) The level of parking for B8 uses at 1 space per 93 square metres is higher than the KCC adopted standards of 1 space per 110 square metres. Maximum standards should not be exceeded but kept to a minimum.
(80) Economic Development Officer: The proposals have great potential to create substantial new opportunities for businesses and residential communities of Kent Thameside and Temple Hill. Linkages should be made at early stage to ensure local people benefit. Developer needs to engage with local community, voluntary groups, businesses and statutory bodies. Example of this is Innovation Centre and success could depend on links to local community.
(81) Can offer significant opportunities for small and medium sized businesses. Also several providers of learning operating within Dartford area. Need to link in with local agencies involved in inward investment in promotion and attraction of companies. Borough currently in need of small business start up space and this is deterrent. This development should complement town centre and not compete with it.
(82) The location of services to the community is supported. Opportunity to expand this to include provision of services for businesses, both new and existing - business support and advice important to encourage Dartford Park to link into wider business community to create local supply chain links. Type of business to be appropriate to ensure new and existing residents have recreation, sport, culture and leisure activities including in the evening. Construction employment initiatives also important. NWK College developed employability and learning model to enable local people to access local jobs through job brokering and skill packages. Jobcentre Plus useful in this respect. Should also apply to North Dartford.
(83) Environmental Strategic Development Manager: He is aware much work has been undertaken to determine the extent of contaminated land within the proposed development but none of this contained within the EIA. These should be submitted along with proposed remedial action. This is confirmed by Annex 10 of PPG23.
(84) Confirmation is required as to the adequacy of the information used in assessment of air quality. Of concern is traffic flow data. It is known that road improvements to A406 approved by Bexley London Borough will have an adverse impact on air quality within Dartford. It is not clear if the assessment has used most recent traffic flow data. Also negative impacts with regard to air quality not identified and no beneficial measures proposed for the Council's Air Quality Management Area. Need to take account of increased traffic movements to and from the AQMA and identify mitigation.
(85) Traffic flow projects will be much higher since Thames Road scheme and further development south of University Way has occurred. Remodelling is recommended with revised traffic flows and new emission factors at receptors in areas of most exposure and propose mitigation measures where necessary. In terms of sustainability the report throughout refers to embracing latest techniques on sustainability but does not specify how or if it will be implemented.
(86) It does not specify how development will meet criteria of Kent Design Guide or requirements of original planning brief. An explanation of how it was assessed against Kent Design is requested and conclusions together with proximity of power lines to residential property. Appraisal on likely impacts generated by intended use of site suggested.
(87) Additional details in respect of noise monitoring and mitigation including choice of monitoring points and times. No consideration given to vibration issues.
A012 (88) National Grid: The Company have an overhead line in the vicinity of this location and require access at all times for plant and personnel. No trees to be planted underneath the line or close to conductors and only slow growing shrubs. No excavation within 6m of tower steelwork or change to existing ground levels within 10m. Appropriate Health and Safety Regulations to be observed.
(89) Railtrack: General conditions suggested in respect of works close to railway.
COMMENTS FROM NEIGHBOURS
(90) These representations were received following the first consultation in February 2002.
(91) Innogy: Objections were raised in respect of the following:- a) the inadequacy of the means of access proposed; b) the adverse impact of the additional traffic on Junction 1A and on Innogy's operations at the Littlebrook D Power Station; c) the impact on air quality in the nearby AQMA including consequential constraints on the operation of the power station; d) lack of provision for development of other sites including Innogy; e) lack of clarity on third party access and deliverability of Fastrack.
(92) A further letter of objection has been received on behalf of Innogy from their consultants, Barton Willmore, adding the following:- f) failure to give due consideration to other strategic development opportunities. It would be unjustified to determine the application in advance of considering the relationship to the planning application submitted by Innogy (ref DA/02/00086/OUT) to develop non-operational land at Littlebrook Power Station; g) other objections raised by Innogy are reaffirmed.
(93) Glaxo Smith Kline: A holding objection submitted by consultants, Turnberry, in order to ascertain Fastrack not prejudicial to GSK landholding in Dartford.
(94) Land Securities: Comments awaited.
(95) A total of 9 individual representations have been received from residents and predominantly these resulted from the local exhibition held in Temple Hill. These refer to the following:- a) why call it Dartford Park? Joyce Green Park would be better or other more locally relevant name; b) how will residents of Temple Hill use the facilities? c) how is the church to care for all these families? d) Fastrack needs to run from very early stage so also benefit to construction workers; e) the Temple Hill area may end up as car park for those using Fastrack; f) the old permissions are being used to push through the scheme; g) existing residents should be able to use Fastrack as well; h) a secondary school is needed in the area. It is too far to travel meaning more cars or crowded buses full of children and room for no-one else; i) the lakes should be left to nature and water voles protected; j) no access by road to Joyce Green Lane or else it will be a rat run but proper access for emergency services; k) increased sports facilities and schools, shops, surgeries etc. needed. A total review of such provision is needed; l) security cameras needed; m) noise, disturbance and air pollution are a worry together with loss of privacy. A little tree planting is not enough; n) increased demand for services will mean increased Council Tax.
A013 COMMENTS FROM ORGANISATIONS
(96) These representations were received following the second consultation in December 2002 in respect of the addendums submitted.
(97) Kent Wildlife Trust: Notwithstanding the amendments the Trust continues to object to the development in its current form on the grounds that it will lead to the degradation of Littlebrook Lake SNC1. The proposed expansion of pedestrian and cycleway network only serves to add Trusts unease. If development not reconfigured to take into better account the nature conservation value, more opportunities required for enhancing those habitats that are to remain and positive steps to build up populations of protected and vulnerable species. Without carefully selected measures development will also increase risk of disturbance and damage to Dartford Marshes SNCI.
(98) Trust welcomes re-alignment of distributor road north of Plot 37 to avoid disturbance to a ditch, it remains very concerned that protection to water vole population not been given sufficient attention. The Environment Agency has identified Littlebrook Lakes as priority area for water vole conservation, the Trust aspects to see full assessment of the prospects of this species and strategy for recovery and habitat enhancement. Use of SUDS confirmed as basis for drainage strategy. However still no evaluation of either the threats to wildlife or opportunities for mitigation and habitat enhancement associated with this type of system. Trust remains to be convinced that risks of water contamination can be kept to a minimum.
(99) English Nature: The submitted documents do not address any of the issues raised previously. The concern remains unresolved.
(100) Environmental Agency: No objection. The Agency is satisfied that the flood risk has been properly assessed. The Agency will accept floor levels for all living accommodation at 6.0m above Ordnance Datum. This gives the usual 600mm freeboard recommended by the Agency. With regards to contamination please see Agency's previous response.
(101) London Borough of Bexley: Comments awaited.
(102) Landscape Design Officer: He has been unable to ascertain what the ground levels will be in relation to the new level. If general site levels are to be raised and in the absence of other information he concluded the water levels in the blue ways will be considerably lower. If so serious consideration must be given to whether this proposal will work or whether the area will look like deep drains which could become stagnant at times of low flow. Details including sections need to be seen. Similarly land raising would affect trees and altering drainage patterns.
(103) KCC Environmental Management: Original comments and advice generally still apply with regards to archaeological potential within the site. Evaluation of the whole site will be required. It should not be assumed from the submission that only Neolithic or Bronze Age peats are the only potentially significant remains in northern part nor at these depths. Necessary for fully desk based assessment for site undertaken in advance of field evaluation. The field evaluation to be undertaken as soon as possible and preservation in situ if possible to be devised. A condition in this respect is recommended.
(104) Esso Pipeline: The development does affect the pipeline but they are in consultation with the developers regarding the constraints.
(105) National Grid: The original comments dated 15 March 2002 still apply.
(106) Kent Highways: It is noted the construction of the bridge over the A282 now forms the final phase of the proposed development and there seems uncertainty as to whether it can be provided.
(107) This is a fundamental change and there are serious reservations about the full benefits of Fastrack being delivered. The mitigation of traffic impact at Junction 1A and elsewhere is
A014 dependent upon achievement of targets for model shift. Any doubts about delivery of overall public transport package will call into question whole principle of development. Routeing of Fastrack via Junction 1A will introduce delays and benefits lost.
(108) The A282 bridge needs to be provided at start of Phase 2 and needs to be assessment of likely delays for buses and other traffic at each stage. If bridge is not provided at outset then alternative bus priority measures to be considered at Junction 1A. They have doubts this could be achieved without adversely affecting the capacity of the interchange. As the phasing is currently proposed a holding objection is registered. Additionally, there are a number of points of detail regarding Stage 1 Safety Audit and Technical assessment. The County Council as Highway Authority would wish to see whole of Fastrack route and main internal access roads adopted as public highway. No objection to developers undertaking to maintain roads to enhanced level of maintenance. There are still outstanding issues about the nature of Fastrack gates. They anticipate this solution will involve appropriate Traffic Regulation Orders, camera enforcement with additional physical barriers. Cost of installation and long term maintenance need to be financed by developers.
(109) There needs to be a clear understanding regarding the funding of highway and public transport improvements in area of Dartford Railway Station.
(110)The proposed bus shelter provision appears to have been scaled down from previous submission. No shelters proposed to Temple Hill Estate and not clear how real time information provided in the area.
(111) A clear statement is required regarding the proposed fare structure and long term operation of Fastrack service, including extent to which free travel available to residents and others.
(112) Heads of Terms need to be agreed. The method of procurement of Fastrack service and its relationships to overall Kent Thames-side network is clearly a major issue. There would appear to be 2 alternatives.
- a detailed specification for the service is agreed and the developers undertake to provide the service for a minimum period of 25 years - the developers provide KCC with an up front payment to set up the service to a similar specification with subsequent annual index linked payments to secure ongoing running costs and future vehicle replacements.
(113) There are concerns with first option as Fastrack could abstract patronage to detriment of other Kent Thames-side bus services. Considered the best way of achieving high quality image for Fastrack generally across the network can best be achieved and managed to overall benefit of network by second option. The principle of this form of sustainable development is fully supported but needs more certainty that full package can be delivered.
(114) Principal Transport Planner: Replacement of at grade crossing for University Way with bridge is to be supported. Design proposed is weak and opportunity for gateway feature should not be missed. The routeing through Temple Hill and addition of more stepping points is welcomed.
(115) Assumption that proposed variations should have no impact on traffic generation appears reasonable. Does not appear to have significant adverse impact on Joyce Green Lane roundabout. Any significant queues/delays appear at evening peak at southern arm with no real delay to University Way. Reasonable to have cameras only at site entry points. The transportation model suggests the Dartford Park development is not as bad as previous North Dartford proposals. Concern that no public transport links proposed to north and west. The planning brief identified need to link a good range of destinations to the site by public transport. Issues that need to be resolved:-
- use of on site Fastrack corridor and/or bridge links into the site by other bus services;` - gateway controls at points of entry to restrict access to buses only;
A015 - procurement, specification and control of Fastrack; - fares and ticketing proposals. These could have direct impact on public transport use to/from the site and on other relating to wider area; - future handover of Fastrack service and/or infrastructure to become part of wider network; - abstraction by Fastrack of patronage on commercial bus routes.
(116) Environmental Strategic Development Manager; The consultants have not used most appropriate data and methodology for monitoring air quality impact. I have carried out some modelling with significant differences in predictions using methods accepted by DEFRA. Necessary for the impact assessment to be re-submitted using relevant and appropriate traffic flow and monitored air quality data. More receptor points needed to show predicted air quality within proposed residential areas adjacent to University Way. Should also include air quality prediction map showing contours of where National Air Quality objectives predicted to be exceeded. Should be for whole of development. Advise that air quality monitoring undertaken within and around development area.
(117) The assessment should include noise contours for eastern side of the development. Important to include this as Noise Exposure Category will influence proximity of residential homes to the highway. This been done for western side. Noise prediction map should include all the development site.
(118) In response to further submissions the following additional comments are included:
(119) In terms of noise from road traffic, any approval will need to be conditioned so as to require a noise attenuation scheme to be submitted prior to any development taking place. He would suggest the following condition:
Owing to the close proximity of the highway, the applicant will need to demonstrate within which Noise Exposure Category the residential units fall in accordance with PPG24. No development should take place until this information has been provided along with satisfactory noise insulation details, if appropriate, for approval by the Local Planning Authority.
(120) As air quality is a material consideration within the development control process, the policy issues in relation to air quality and development need to be understood. The Policy Guidance issued by DEFRA recognises that "although the land use planning system does not offer any quick-fix solutions to areas of poor air quality, it can do much to improve local air quality in the longer term in terms of strategic and development control planning." A key objective within the Local Plan Review is "to ensure an acceptable standard of air quality." Acceptability is not defined within the LPR but National Air Quality Objectives exist and these have been based on scientific and medical advice and are the nationally accepted standards of airborne pollutants at which no or minimal effects on human health are likely to occur.
(121) The air quality impact assessment has predicted exceedences of the National Air Quality Objective for the annual mean Nitrogen Dioxide level immediately to the north of University Way. This would lead to the declaration of Air Quality Management Areas, which is a significant consideration identified within the DEFRA guidance. The source of pollution is road traffic. Although the exceedences are not predicted to be large, any increase above the objective is significant in terms of the health of future residents. In other areas of the Borough, monitoring has shown that air pollution decreases with distance from the highway at a greater rate than has been predicted using computer modelling. So far, insufficient monitoring has taken place in the vicinity to corroborate the accuracy of the model in predicting the area of exceedence. Therefore, more monitoring will need to take place to accurately identify the area of exceedence. As the NAQS objective under threat is the annual mean Nitrogen Dioxide level, further monitoring (a minimum of 6 months or up to 12 months, depending on the nature of the monitoring) will need to be carried out.
(122) The consultants' predictions show the area of exceedence to be up to 100 metres from University Way. This is surprising and likely to be due to modelling inaccuracies. DEFRA
A016 guidance suggests that levels of NO2 at 20 metres from a dual carriageway are likely to be close to background levels in the majority of areas. The guidance also states that most computer prediction models do not predict this, which suggests modelling inaccuracies.
(123) No mitigation has been identified in relation to this impact on the affected area of the site, and it would be difficult to do so until the full extent of the area is known. Although much of the boundary of the site with University Way is likely to require noise attenuation in the form of 3 metre high bunds/fences, these measures would not have any significant impact in reducing air pollution from the highway.
(124) To the south of University Way, increases in air pollution as a result of the development are also predicted. However, owing to the direction of the predominant wind, the area of exceedence above the NAQ Objective is not likely to be as large as to the north of University Way. Without the proposed development, exceedences are predicted and it is likely that at least 1 AQMA will need to be designated subject to the results of further monitoring in this area. Again, no mitigation has been proposed in relation to the exceedences to the south of University Way.
(125) Another policy issue of significance is the effect the development will have on the implementation of the Council's Action Plan in relation to the Air Quality Management Area along the A282, close to this site. This relationship between development proposals and AQMA's is also identified within DEFRA guidance as being of importance. Presently, the Action Plan is in draft format and will be submitted for approval later. As the major contribution to poor air quality within the AQMA is from road traffic passing through the Borough, the potential for improved access to public transport via the development proposals is unlikely to be significant in reducing traffic flows within the AQMA. However, reduction of the traffic flows along the A282 can only be successfully managed through major transport initiatives within the south east region, and therefore local initiatives and influences are of less significance.
(126) To conclude, the area of exceedence needs to be determined. Therefore, if Members are minded to approve the application, I would recommend that no residential development or use that would lead to public exposure to poor air quality should be permitted immediately to the north of University Way until the area of exceedence has been determined to the satisfaction of the Council. At this time, he would suggest that this restriction should apply to an area extending the length of the development and 25 metres from the northern most edge of University Way. He has suggested 25 metres instead of the 20 metres as a precaution. Obviously, this could have implications for the final layout of the site. If approval is granted without this limitation, there may be potential costs (at present undeterminable) to the Council and the Highways Agency in terms of devising and implementing a future Action Plan to improve air quality. It would also not be in accordance with the LPR key objective to ensure an acceptable standard of air quality. Alternatively, approval could be delayed until the extent of the area of exceedence has been more accurately determined. To date, no consultation on the air quality assessment has taken place with the Highways Agency.
(127) National Grid: Installations not affected.
(128) Thames Water: Applicant is recommended to consult with Waste Connections Manager to determine ability of local sewers. A condition in respect of on site drainage works is recommended or alternatively it be required within any Section 106 Agreement. It is also appropriate to contact Thames Water Customer Field Services with regards to water mains locations.
COMMENTS FROM RESIDENTS
(129) These representations were received following the second consultation in December 2002 in respect of the submitted amendments.
A017 (130) Three letters of objection have been received following this consultation. These are all from residents within Salmon Road and include two from the occupier of No. 42 Salmon Road. The representations relate to the following:- a) strong objections are raised to the proposed Fastrack bus route as an elevated road, approximately 10 feet high, will be at the end of their garden; b) details of distance from rear garden fence and proposals to screen the road are required. Will the tree planting be mature; c) concern at likely levels of noise distribution and air pollution particularly in respect of childrens health; d) what measures are proposed to prevent other vehicles using it and will it be a 24 hour service? e) The bus can go by a replacement for the existing bridge access from Joyce Green Lane; f) the safeguarded area should be used as a recreation area; g) it would have a negative impact on their outlook and property values.
(131) A further letter of objection has been received from Innogy as owner of the land to the north of Littlebrook Power Station. Innogy has always been of the opinion that the proposals represent tremendous opportunity to secure major benefits in terms of regeneration and public transport accessibility in this part of North Dartford. Important these opportunities maximised and other future projects not impeded by a grant of permission. Innogy has concerns relating to 2 main issues:-
- the technical assessments submitted in support are not sound; - the current approach will limit the strategic and comprehensive benefits that could be delivered by broadening the scope of the proposals;
(132) Following service of notice by the applicants, Innogy responded positively by reviewing its landholding and submitted a planning application. The additional information and Assessments requested will be submitted shortly and anticipated these will be compatible with the proposals for North Dartford. The issue of relocation of Littlebrook Manor Way has not been resolved with the applicants. Innogy would like assurances that the proposals will be amended to reflect the regeneration potential of the Littlebrook site. A formal letter of objection in respect of the merits of the technical assessments will be submitted.
(133) Support for their landholding to be taken into account in deliberations over North Dartford is sought to ensure that potential for the area is not precluded by a premature permission.
(134) Any further representations will be reported in the update including the awaited formal response from the Highways Agency.
RELEVANT POLICIES
(135) In considering the development proposals for North Dartford it is important to consider the application in the context of national, regional and local planning policy guidance.
(136) Regional Planning Guidance 3: Strategic Guidance for London Planning Authorities (RPG3) acknowledges that London must be seen in the context of the wider South-East Region. It has a complex relationship with surrounding local authorities and the advice is prepared in the context of RPG9 for the South East. Boroughs need to have regard to the interrelationship between London and the rest of the South East, the aim being to reduce development pressure to the west of London and enhance growth in the east. The Guidance recognises the strategic importance of Thames Gateway and its development potential.
(137) RPG9: Regional Planning Guidance for the South East covers the period up to 2016 setting the framework for the longer term future. It includes the Greater London Area and the surrounding unitary and district councils, including Kent. This reaffirms the emphasis in sustainable development for the regeneration of Thames Gateway to be read in conjunction
A018 with other guidance. It has a vision of encouraging economic success throughout the region and ensuring a higher quality of environment. Support is given for positive investment strategies for the Thames Gateway with emphasis on urban renaissance.
(138) RPG9A: The Thames Gateway Planning Framework is particularly relevant. Previously known as the East Thames Corridor it extends from Docklands in London to the Isle of Sheppey in Kent. It presents the main opportunity for growth and has the capacity over the longer term to accept significant levels of housing and employment development alongside improvements in environmental quality and planned transport infrastructure investment. The policy approach is to create the potential for Thames Gateway to become a focus for new jobs and new homes offering an improved quality of life with the important relationship between development and transport maintained in accordance with PPG13 Transport.
(139) The advice outlines a planning framework which is an important component in realising the broad objectives set by RPG9 and this seeks to:-
- establish a set of principles to guide the consideration of future proposals; - set out agreed strategic objectives for economic, housing, transport and environmental development; - outline a land use vision for the sub-region with guidance at the local level.
(140) In this respect PPG9a acknowledges that North Dartford is a site of strategic significance. It identifies the site as a focus for a high quality science and business park. This is important for raising aspirations and establishing research links with local businesses and will also benefit the local economy. The development plan should help secure an environment of the right quality steering land uses which would make poor neighbours to other more appropriate locations. The advice recognises that development at North Dartford can influence and benefit a wider area through the good road links with Thames Gateway and with the M25. Resolution of any capacity constraint at Junction 1A will be necessary and accessibility by public transport is also important with appropriate locations to Dartford town centre and other focuses of development. It recognises the need to closely integrate development and transportation. The emphasis being on supporting a strong economy but without the dependency on the private car. The scope for a light rapid transit system could be considered linking the main development opportunities with existing town centres. Bus services will have an important role to play. Making the most of the Thames Gateway opportunity means a change of attitude and not expect more of the same. There is a need to create a vibrant sustainable pattern of communities with closely related transport and land use opportunities reducing the need to travel. Environmental improvement is prominent in the objectives set out and the adoption of higher standards. Proposals must emulate the best.
(141) PPG1: General Policy and Principles. This guidance note reaffirms the role of the planning system in providing for new development and protecting the environment, emphasising the contribution toward achieving sustainable development and a preference for the development of previously developed sites. Guidance is also given on the operation of the plan led system with increased emphasis on the role of design and quality.
(142) PPG3 Housing: This sets out the Government objectives on housing provision and aims at meeting housing requirements of the whole community. A wider choice and mix in size and type including affordable housing is advocated. The guidance reiterates the advice on creating more sustainable patterns of development and reaffirms the commitment to reducing car dependency and promoting good design to create high quality living environments.
(143) PPG9: Nature Conservation. This guidance sets out the Government's objectives for nature conservation and species protection and the framework for safeguarding our national heritage, describing the role of the local planning authorities and English Nature. This is the agency responsible for advising central and local government on nature conservation issues. In addition the guidance emphasises the importance of nature conservation and the development control implications and criteria in dealing with applications.
A019 (144) Confirmation is given that local planning authorities should only apply local designations to sites of substantive nature conservation value and not put unnecessary constraints on development.
(145) Planning permission should not be refused if development can be subject to conditions to prevent damage, or if other material factors are sufficient to override nature conservation considerations.
(146) PPG12: Development Plans. This re-emphasises the Government's commitment to a plan led planning system, and the importance of updating those plans. The need to incorporate sustainable development and transport and land use policies is stressed.
(147) PPG13: Transport. The objectives of the guidance are to integrate planning and transport at the national, regional, strategic and local level to promote more sustainable transport choices for people and freight; promote accessibility to jobs, shopping, leisure and services by public transport, walking and cycling and reduce the need to travel especially by car. This gives priority to people over ease of traffic movement and stresses a need to locate houses, jobs and services near to public transport and increase accessibility by walking and cycling. The use of maximum parking standards is advocated.
(148) PPG17: Planning for Open Space, Sport and Recreation. Open spaces, sport and recreation all underpin people's quality of life. Green spaces in urban areas perform vital functions as areas for nature conservation and acting as 'green lungs'. They can promote social inclusion and community cohesion together with improving health and well being and promoting a more sustainable development.
(149) PPG23: Planning and Pollution Control: the aim of this PPG is to encourage consultation and prevent unnecessary duplication because the planning and pollution control systems are separate but complementary. The planning system should not be operated so as to duplicate controls which are the statutory responsibilities of other bodies. The role of the planning system focuses on whether the development itself is an acceptable use of the land rather than the control of the processes or substances themselves. Material considerations include impact on amenity, location, prevention of nuisance and risk of potential pollution insofar as this might have an effect on the use of other land. Impact of road networks and need for land restoration are also relevant.
(150) PPG24: Planning and Noise: This guidance outlines the considerations to be taken into account for noise structure developments and for those generating noise. It also introduces the concept of noise exposure categories for residential development to identify the acceptability or otherwise of locations with or without mitigation.
(151) PPG25: Development and Flood Risk. It is stated that the susceptibility of land to flooding is a material planning consideration and the Environment Agency has a lead role in providing advice on flood issues. Planning authorities should apply the precautionary principle to the issue of flood risk to avoid such risk wherever possible and managing it elsewhere.
KENT STRUCTURE PLAN 1996
(152) Policy S1 promotes the concept of sustainable development and the reduction in the need to travel. Policy S2 advocates the protection and enhancement of Kent's environment.
(153) Policy S5 specifically endorses the strategic policy to upgrade and enhance the environment and economic base of the Thames Gateway by major new commercial, housing, leisure and community facilities within a framework of high quality. Improvement of the transport infrastructure whilst protecting area of nature conservation importance also highlighted.
(154) Policies S6 and S7 endorse the general housing and transport principles.
A020 (155) Policy NK1 recognises the major economic and housing opportunities within North Kent and in particular the North Dartford site incorporating high quality mixed use proposals.
(156) Policy ENV2 seeks to protect important landscapes habitats unless there is a need for development which outweighs this. These principles are further endorsed by Policy ENV6 in respect of Sites of Nature Conservation Interest. The potential for community woodland should be investigated in Thames Gateway through Policy ENV8. This site is not an SNC1.
(157) Policy ENV20 requires development to minimise or avoid pollution impacts.
(158) Policy NR5 seeks to ensure that residential development is not permitted in those areas at risk of flooding without the agreement of the Environment Agency. The provision of facilities to assist pedestrians, cyclists and use of public transport is advocated by Policy T1.
ADOPTED LOCAL PLAN
(159) Policies S1, S2, S5, S6, S7 and S8 identify the strategic policy objectives relevant to this form of development in the need maintain a supply of land for housing and employment in the context of high quality and appropriate transport infrastructure. This includes the provision of related community and leisure facilities whilst giving appropriate protection to the nature conservation resources of the Borough.
(160) Policy E1 identifies land at North Dartford for development as a business park with associated uses. Again the emphasis is on high quality with transport and nature conservation as principle considerations.
(161) Policies H8 and H10 require new housing developments to be appropriate in terms of density and dwelling noise and provide a layout and design to be of a high standard in accordance with Kent Design.
(162) Policies T1, T2 and T3 encourage and support the provision of an integrated and co- ordinated transport infrastructure, including public transport, to facilitate the realisation of major development opportunities. In particular Policy T4 acknowledges the need for a rapid passenger transport system to serve the northern part of the Borough.
(163) Policy T18 advocates the use of traffic management measures and traffic regulation orders to prohibit or restrict the use of through traffic to conserve or improve local amenity or in sensitive areas.
(164) Policy T19 requires development to be appropriately relocated to the highway network and not generate volumes of traffic in excess of the networks capacity.
(165) Policy T21 allows for agreements with developers to overcome highway problems resulting from developments.
(166) Policy T22 provides for developments to provide car parking in accordance with adopted standards.
(167) Policy DL1 requires the restoration of despoiled sites. New housing development should incorporate open space and play space appropriate to the scale of development in accordance with Policy RT18.
(168) Policy C5 encourages the enhancement of environmental quality in the countryside as well as the recreational value and nature conservation.
(169) Policy C14 resists proposals that materially harm the nature conservation value of Sites of Nature Conservation Interest. Unless the need for development overrides the nature conservation interests .
A021 (170) Policy C17 advocates the use of management agreements to help protect and enhance land of nature conservation interest where appropriate.
(171) Policy B1 is applied to all development proposals and gives general guidance on achieving a high standard of development and design.
(172) Policy B3 requires the incorporating of appropriate hard and soft landscaping with existing trees retained wherever possible.
(173) Policy B5 relates to the provision of public art, particularly within major and key sites.
(174) Policies CF1 and CF2 refer to the provision of adequate service infrastructure to meet the demands of new developments.
(175) Policy CF3 requires the provision of social, community, educational and cultural facilities, particularly in response to major residential developments.
LOCAL PLAN REVIEW SECOND DEPOSIT DRAFT
(176) Policy DD1 requires the development at North Dartford to be public transport orientated, at a density above 60 dwellings per hectare net, increasing with proximity to public transport facilities, and with a high degree of permeability for walking and cycling. Specified locations to be identified for community uses.
(177) Policy DD2 stipulates the incorporation of the principles of mixed use urban village at North Dartford. Sustainable communities with a mix of housing types and tenures with employment, social, educational, recreational and community facilities. Priority to public transport and pedestrian access. A mixed use development is supported by Policy DD4.
(178) Policy DD6 requires development proposals to include a network of public open spaces of a scale and quality appropriate to the site which contribute to the purposes of the Green Grid network.
(179) Policy DD11 sets out the general policy criteria with which all development proposals must comply with a particular emphasis on the quality of design.
(180) Access for the less mobile is secured through Policy DD12.
(181) Policy DD14 requires the provision of public art on all developments in excess of 2 ha.
(182) Policies H1 and H1a recognises North Dartford as a site for 1500 dwellings and as a strategic site within the context of PPG3.
(183) Policy H8 identifies criteria for the development of new residential schemes.
(184) Policy H10 requires new developments to place the need of people and public transport before the ease of traffic movement.
(185) Policy H16 requires an affordable housing allocation of 30% on new developments including North Dartford.
(186) Policy H21 seeks an element of 'Lifetime Homes' on specified sites such as North Dartford.
(187) Policy E1 includes North Dartford as a site allocated for the provision of employment land.
(188) Policy E9 recognises the need for accommodation for small firms and includes North Dartford as a sustainable location.
A022 (189) Policy T1 safeguards land for the construction of Fastrack recognising it as a key element in the Transport Strategy for Kent Thameside. As an important element of this Policy T3 includes safeguards to link North Dartford and Crossways across the A282 for Fastrack.
(190) Policy T7 states planning permission for development will only be granted where the provision of the transport infrastructure and services required is assured, including phasing.
(191) Policy T8 requires the inclusion of off site transport measures to meet the needs of the development.
(192) Parking to meet adopted standards is required by Policy T11, and in this case subject to a parking strategy required by Policy T13.
(193) Policies T14 and T15 seek to ensure appropriate parking layouts and the provision of cycle parking.
(194) Policy T16 requires the layout of a development to minimise the need for car borne travel and promote public transport, walking and cycling. Policies T17 and T18 require a Travel Plan and a Transport Assessment respectively.
(195) Policy CF1 advocates the provision of community facilities on major developments subject to appropriate location, design and accessibility. Policy BE17 controls development within 50m of power lines.
(196) Policy CF3 requires new development to ensure adequate social, recreational and community facilities (including education, transport and utilities) exist or are provided. Policy LRT10 identifies North Dartford as a suitable location for a new hotel.
(197) Policy LRT12 states new residential developments will only be permitted if they incorporate high quality public open space and contribute to the achievement of Green Grid objectives. Policy LRT15 requires maintenance or satisfactory diversion of public rights of way.
(198) Policy NR7 controls developments within areas of tidal flood risk. Policies NR1 and NR5 require adequate sewerage, drainage and water supply.
(199) Policy NR8 resists developments that would result in flooding and advocate the use of sustainable drainage systems wherever possible. Culverting of existing watercourses is prevented by Policy NR9.
(200) Policies NR10, NR11 and NR12 control developments that impact upon air quality, requiring the submission of air quality impact assessments, the minimisation of pollutants and the appropriate mitigation.
(201) Policy NR21 requires the decontamination of any residential development sites. Policy NR23 requires optimal energy efficiency in new developments.
(202) Policy C6 requires this development to respect the landscape character of the West Thames Marsh area. Policy C12 seeks to protect legally protected species and requires developers to take steps to secure their protection both during and after construction.
(203) Policy C14 resists development that harm Sites of Nature Conservation Interest unless the need for development overrides the particular interest. Adequate mitigation is required. This is only relevant because the site is close to the Dartford Marshes SNCI.
(204) Policy C15 recognises that land at Dartford Marshes to the west of Long Reach Sewage Treatment Works is identified for the establishment of a local nature reserve.
(205) Policy MDS4 relates specifically to the development of North Dartford and sets criteria for the provision for a mixed use development including a science park, business park and
A023 logistics park. In addition a residential community of around 1500 dwellings with the necessary community, social, recreational, leisure and local retail facilities. Existing landscape together with new public open spaces to form part of the Green Grid network with habitats and watercourses retained and enhanced. Emphasis is placed on high quality public transport links and pedestrian and cycle networks both within the development and to neighbouring sites.
(206) In 1999 the land at North Dartford Planning Brief was produced by the Borough Council. This provided planning guidance regarding the scale, mix, layout and phasing of uses of the site together with a statement of the design principles to be adopted. The principal constraints and opportunities with particular reference to transport, nature conservation and landscaping were identified plus the requirements for utility infrastructure and social and community facilities.
(207) The Brief recognised the opportunity the site offered for a flagship mixed use development of high quality. It also confirmed that the site should be comprehensively developed as one albeit on an agreed programme of phases.
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL MANAGERS COMMENTS
Key Issues
(208) For an application of this significance there are understandably a number of key issues. First and foremost it is important to establish the acceptability or otherwise of the principle of such a development of this scale in this location. The supporting documentation, as required, includes an Environmental Impact Assessment to analyse this and the environmental issues that are identified and addressed. There is, for example, an important nature conservation issue together with appropriate mitigation. Equally important is the consideration to be given to development proposed within the flood plain and any mitigation measures proposed in this respect. Additionally the implications with regards to contamination, noise and air quality, the Green Grid provisions together with the treatment of surface water drainage and the concept of 'Blue ways' have all been examined in this context.
(209) The transport and traffic issues are also key to this proposal and at the heart of this the proposal for Fastrack, the dedicated public transport facility linking the site with Dartford Town Centre and Bluewater. The Traffic Impact Assessment and the implications in respect of traffic generation and infrastructure capacity, the provision of both the proposed University Way Bridge and the A282 Bridge and the on site parking and access arrangements are all principal elements of this aspect for consideration.
(210) Another important consideration beyond the residential and employment provision and bulk form relates to the equally necessary community facilities that provide the support and backbone to developments such as this. An appraisal is therefore required of these elements including school and education provision, medical care, sport and recreation, cultural and historical considerations, together with affordable housing and local shopping and service facilities. Layout and design are critical in this respect.
(211) Pulling all this together are the driving forces of sustainability and quality. Any development of this size must show how through building technology and design and energy efficiency and innovation it has met these challenges.
THE PRINCIPLE OF DEVELOPMENT
(212) This application is arguably one of the most important development proposals to have been considered by this Planning Authority. The site has been identified as being of local and regional significance located within an area, the Thames Gateway, of national importance. Support for this assertion is found within the Government advice issued through the Regional Planning Guidance. The relevant details of this policy framework have been given earlier in this report. RPG3, RPG9 and RPG9a specifically have all identified the potential of the Thames Gateway to assist in the promotion of London as a world city, to maximise the
A024 opportunities for new economic activity and jobs to provide a range and mix of quality housing and to create sustainable communities that successfully regenerate this region and help redress the balance of development to the west of London.
(213) The 105 ha of land that comprise this site lie within the Kent Thameside which is itself an integral element of the Thames Gateway. As such the support for proposals that result in the realisation of these goals is apparent and regarded as a priority.
(214) These aims are endorsed by the relevant Development Plan policies. The Kent Structure Plan through Policies RS5 and NK1(a) specifically target the Thames Gateway in Kent and Kent Thames-side for major new commercial and housing development in order to promote the sustainable regeneration of the area.
(215) Within the local context the Dartford Local Plan has, since adoption, promoted the redevelopment of this site for economic development. With the established emphasis now on sustainability and provided by Planning Policy Guidance publications, the emerging Local Plan Review has sought to address this. This has resulted in a planning brief and Policy MDS4 of the Local Plan Review Second Deposit Draft which advocates a mixed use that reduces car dependency with a high quality public transport link, strong pedestrian and cycle networks and with a viable local centre and range of community facilities. It is perhaps appropriate to consider at this stage the representations currently made in respect of the adjoining land to the north comprising the site of Littlebrook Power Station. These have referred in particular to the failure to give due consideration to other strategic development opportunities including their site and their submitted planning application in this respect. This has not yet been determined due to lack of supporting information but in any event it is important to note that the Innogy site at the Littlebrook Power Station has never been identified for redevelopment. There is no such allocation within the relevant Development Plan nor has it been specifically identified within any Government Guidance or advice for this purpose, unlike the North Dartford application site. This is probably linked to the fact that the landowners have never put the site forward for future development during the Development Plan process. In this respect there are significant and fundamental differences in the development status of these two sites.
(216) Overall, therefore, there are national, regional and local policies plus national guidance and advice that gives very strong support to the principle of this application for development. The submission is made in the context of this but has also to take into account the details and constraints that have been identified in respect of the site specific issues. These are themselves the subject of national advice and local policies, and relate the such important matters as, for example, nature conservation, flood plain development, noise/air quality, traffic generation and infrastructure capacity and the delivery of a sustainable high quality development. The development has the potential to bring about economic regeneration creating a mixed use scheme planned as an integrated whole. In terms of principle therefore, I would raise no objection.
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
(217) The submitted Environmental Impact Assessment, as required by the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999, has highlighted a number of areas for consideration. The submission whilst identifying the main effects the proposed development is likely to have on the environmental also has to describe the measures to avoid, reduce and avoid such effects. In this respect the key areas identified relate to the nature conservation and mitigation measures; the impacts upon noise and air quality, the water and flooding implications and the contamination/mitigation considerations.
(218) In producing this assessment the significance of the effects has been assessed by scientific methods wherever possible. Otherwise for more subjective judgements, such as visual impact for example, criteria and thresholds have been incorporated to define the effects. Overall I am satisfied with the content and findings of the Assessment although, as the representations received following consultation will show, there are some concerns over
A025 potential impacts and mitigation proposals. These will be referred to and addressed at the relevant point in the report.
(219) (a) Nature conservation: A stated aim of the proposal is to retain, enhance and manage the recognised nature conservation and landscape qualities of the site. The key issues and factors are given as the conservation of existing features and habitats, the application of the Green Grid concept, the extension and integration of the water environment, the maximisation of opportunities for bio diversity and the retention of the protected trees. All this has to be achieved within the context of the proposed built development.
(220) The conserved elements are shown principally to be the mature trees protected by the Tree Preservation Order and located within the former Joyce Green Hospital site, and the habitats between the two main Littlebrook Lakes.
(221) The existing trees to be retained will fall within both dedicated landscape zones and development plots. This will include their use in defining Green Grid corridors within this part of the site. It is accepted that some trees of obviously poor quality may be lost but an overall landscaping strategy would more than compensate for this. All those retained would be subject to extensive protection.
(222) With regards to the Littlebrook Lakes area to the east of Joyce Green it is proposed to conserve an area of open water, reedbeds and wetland features, woodland, scrub and grassland. This would be within the area between the two principal water bodies. These would be retained also but they will, it is proposed, be reduced in size. Remodelling of the lakes will take place together with some infilling plus the introduction of new ponds and open wetlands and linear water features. The latter is proposed to fulfil primarily ecological objectives but also amenity and drainage functions.
(223) The earthworks are required to provide the development areas particularly to the south of the lakes. These are shown to be for residential purposes and in these circumstances minimum floor levels in accordance with the Environment Agency requirements must be met. A similar scenario exists for the residential area to the west of the site within the former Joyce Green Hospital.
(224) As a consequence of this concerns have been expressed in respect of nature conservation and mitigation proposals. In particular English Nature and KTNC have, as detailed within the earlier part of this report, objected to elements of the application. These relate primarily to loss of habitat and the impact upon the Littlebrook Lakes, the potential effect upon the Dartford Marshes SNCI and the possible impact upon particular species and their habitats (either mentioned in the UK Biodiversity Action Plan or the Wildlife and Countryside Act.
(225) These considerations are recognised and work has continued on these issues. The applicants have been working closely with English Nature to resolve any potential areas of conflict and progress has been made. Agreement has been reached in respect, for example, of the proposals for dealing with the bat population. There has to be further works carried out on those elements relating to other habitats. So additional information is required with regards to water voles and reptile translocations and habitat creation, the protection of birds and in particular the Kingfisher, Nightingale and Barn Owl, the ecological safeguards for the use of 'Blue Ways' for this purpose and the safeguarding of recognised habitats like woodland, reedbeds and standing water , and the protection buffer for the neighbouring Dartford Marshes SNCI. English Nature do not formally object to this development as it does not directly affect any statutory site. Whilst they would argue that the current mitigation and protection measures are inadequate and probably based on out of date survey information, they accept that they are capable of satisfactory resolution. To this end they have recommended that any planning permission that may be forthcoming be subject to appropriate conditions and legal agreements to satisfactorily address these concerns prior to any development taking place. I consider this to be an acceptable approach to this overall issue and it would equally combat the similar concerns noted by other bodies within similar interests. It would also allow for the appropriate management of the water bodies and obviate
A026 any potential conflict with other potential users. I would, for example, advocate only passive uses being allowed on the southern lake, such as canoeing, sailing but no motor driven activities. The northern lake would be retained and purely for wildlife interests and habitat.
(226) Nevertheless, it is recognised that nature conservation can be a significant material consideration, especially in respect of or the proximity to a SSSI. Although there is an adjoining SNCI it does not at this time enjoy the status of an SSSI. PPG9: Nature conservation advises that local planning authorities should not refuse planning permission if development can be subject to conditions to prevent damaging impacts, or if other material factors are sufficient to override nature conservation interests.
(227) In this particular case the site is allocated within the relevant development plan for development and this is endorsed by Government advice. I am of the opinion that the necessary safeguards can be incorporated within the requirements of suitably worded conditions and agreements with regards to mitigation and management for all retained habitats and providing an appropriate buffer to adjoining sites of nature conservation interest. I am also of the opinion that the importance of the site in development terms bearing in mind its location within the Thames Gateway is such that sufficient weight should be afforded to this consideration so that the nature conservation interests are not paramount.
(228) (b) Noise/Air Quality: Assessments have been submitted in respect of work carried out to measure and monitor the conditions relative to these considerations for the proposed development. Policy guidance and Government advice makes it clear that these are material considerations.
(229) It is necessary to identify any areas that may be subject to adverse effects with regard to air quality or noise pollution. There are standards identified and these are exercised in respect of development which may give rise to pollution and also the impact of that on the proposed development itself. PPG23: Planning and Pollution Control and PPG24: Planning and Noise consider these aspects and the measures to mitigate them. The advice again re- affirms their relevance as material considerations but concludes that permissions should not be refused if conditions can be included to ensure adequate safeguards are implemented. PPG23 also advises that decisions on planning applications with pollution implications must be made in accordance with the development plan, unless other material considerations indicate otherwise.
(230) The initial submissions raised a number of queries in respect of the findings and the procedures adopted. The Environmental Strategic Development Manager has been consulting and negotiating with the applicants in this respect and additional work has been carried out. The results produced indicate that in terms of noise exposure the residential element of the development would fall within the Noise Exposure Category C. This is defined by PPG24 as a situation where noise mitigation measures may make development acceptable and in this instance is based upon noise being primarily generated from University Way. This has included an assessment of the potential impacts upon the residents of Salmon Road. Representations have been received in this respect highlighting the concerns of the occupiers of these particular properties. Any impact would be negligible in this location. I would conclude that in this respect sufficient safeguards are available to satisfactorily control the noise levels through mitigation measures. These can be secured by condition for future submission prior to the development commencing.
(231) The other major issue identified is that of air quality and it is recognised that much can be done to improve local air quality in the longer term through the development control process. Details have been submitted of the air quality impact assessments and this identifies potential exceedence of the nitrogen dioxide level immediately to the north of University Way and the surplus is attributed to road traffic. The exceedence is not predicted to be large. Guidance from DEFRA identifies a level of up to 40 microgrammes per metre cubed as being acceptable. In this case a predicated level of 46 microgrammes per metre cubed is postulated. Obviously any level above that deemed to be acceptable represents a potential threat to health. However it is usually accepted that the model can produce results
A027 that are overly cautious. The advice from DEFRA is that this area of exceedence is likely in reality to extend a distance of only some 20m from a dual carriageway, which in this case is University Way.
(232) As the actual area of exceedence has not yet been determined I consider one of the alternatives to addressing this problem, and bearing in mind this is an outline application, would be to impose a condition restricting the residential development within this area. This restriction would only apply if it were not possible to show that the level of nitrogen dioxide was within acceptable limits and would require monitoring over minimum 6 month period taking in both summer and winter conditions. The implications of this would be in respect of any proposed final layout to the affected areas of residential development. These have not been finished nor agreed at this stage anyway but I consider it feasible that an acceptable layout could be achieved excluding this area if necessary. As such I consider that with the appropriate weight afforded to the economic and social benefits, as advised by PPG23, development could be carried out without any Policy conflict, and without compromising the Development Plan.
(233) The submitted predictions do not show significant exceedences to the south of University Way. Similarly I would conclude that it is unlikely to have any significant impact upon the existing Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) along the A282. The potential for improved access to public transport via the development proposals is unlikely to impact significantly within the AQMA as these would only really respond to major transport initiatives throughout the South East. Government guidance issued by DEFRA acknowledges that it is not the case that all planning applications adjacent to AQMA's should be refused if the development impacts on air quality because this could have the effect of sterilising development.
(234) (c) Water and Flooding. It is recognised that the site is at risk from tidal flooding from the River Thames should defences be breached or overtopped. The Environment Agency has raised no objection in principle to a mixed-use redevelopment of the site but in detail required that all living accommodation be raised above the 1000-year flood level. This was initially set at 6.9m above Ordnance Datum (Newlyn). The advice contained within PPG25: Development and Flood Risk maintains that planning decisions should apply the precautionary principle to this issue, avoiding risk where possible and managing it elsewhere. The considerations relate to the resultant risk to the new development.
(235) In response to this the applicants have submitted a Flood Risk Assessment for consideration as part of this application. This studied models based on worst case scenarios and concluded that the level currently advocated by the Environment Agency should be revised. The primary risk at this site is posed by tidal inundation.
(236) The assessment took into account the existing Thames flood defences erected since the last tidal inundation in 1953. This comprises two bunds and the Thames Barrier flood defence scheme. This allows for a minimum top level of 7.1m AOD.
(237) In analysing all the breach scenarios and flood risk mechanisms the worst case situation resulted in a maximum flood level of 5.9m AOD. These findings and recommendations have been accepted by the Environment Agency. The advice of the Agency is now that no living accommodation should be provided below 6.0m AOD.
(238) The existing land levels of the North Dartford application site range from 0-10m AOD. More significantly however the proposed locations for the residential elements of this development are within existing levels of 5-10m AOD. The majority of the former Joyce Green Hospital site is all over 5m AOD, dipping to below this level in the north east corner.
(239) It has already been noted that the development proposals do include some remodelling and infilling of the lakes area and some land raising will be required as a consequence of securing the appropriate levels for living accommodation. The exact details of the specific areas and amounts of fill required are not known at this stage. However, bearing in mind the residential areas are shown to be predominantly within those parts of the site at 5-10m AOD,
A028 the overall level of infill should be kept to a minimum. I would argue that these details would appropriately be submitted and considered at a later date as part of the required reserved maters and detailed proposals. At this stage final slab levels can be established and I would proffer no objections in this respect, particularly as design solutions may obviate the need for some infilling.
(240) There are, however, other implications to consider as part of the proposed land raising and infilling. Those in respect of nature conservation have already been addressed, but the possible effects on land drainage require deliberation.
(241) (d) Drainage: The water features supply a key component to the development proposals. These include both the existing and the proposed that together provide a range of functions including amenity, conservation, landscaping and the surface water drainage management system.
(242) A series of tests and exploratory boreholes on the site and in the area have been carried out to establish the hydrogeology and groundwater chemistry. This was undertaken in conjunction with aquifer permeability testing, conducting of drainage channels and logging of tidal data. Such works are necessary to establish the existing conditions and/or the presence of any contaminants and their potential sources.
(243) The Joyce Green Hospital site contains no prominent surface water channels or watercourses and the Littlebrook Lakes are man made features created by former sand and gravel extraction. Both are formed from inundation by groundwater and neither is sourced by surface water inputs. They are reported to be stocked with coarse fish. Littlebrook Power Station holds a license to extract 2,046 m3/day although this is only used as an emergency measure. Ordinarily there are little water table variations and the water features are secure from drought. The water quality is generally good but could be affected if fly tipping were allowed to continue.
(244) The only watercourse inflow is an overflow channel from the Darent in the Riverside Industrial Estate that forms the Dartford Fresh Marsh Dyke. Groundwater springs may emerge. The only watercourse outflow is at Salt Marsh Sluice (Blacketts Sluice) located east of the confluence of the River Darent and the Thames. Water is culverted into the Thames.
(245) The outline application includes proposed water management and drainage strategies to mitigate against potential impacts on local groundwater and surface water resources during development. The proposed development will lead to significant changes being made to existing surface water features. The Joyce Green Hospital site will require a source of linear water channels or 'Blue Ways' that radiate from the inner area. They contain reed beds and have associated balancing ponds to form part of a sustainable urban drainage system (SUDS) that links into a reedbed treatment area prior to discharge into South Lake. The 'Blue Ways' also form part of the landscaping strategy and provide ecological corridors to connect into the Dartford Marshes.
(246) Reshaping and bank profiling of the two principal lakes is proposed. These will be used as amenity/ecological facilities or management for passive recreation. Further 'Blue Ways' from the southern lake will be used to receive and partially treat surface water prior to discharge into Crossways drain in the north eastern corner.
(247) The principal elements of the scheme are the retention of the existing water surface, albeit remodelled, and water levels. This is aided by the isolation enjoyed from external watercourses. Some of the 'Blue Ways' isolated from the water table are to be pump fed to maintain the balance. The outline drainage strategy allows for the use of SUDS for non polluting run offs such as roofs, and soakaways. Recycling to the aquifer allows for recharge.
(248) Other surface run off with pollution potential will include grit traps and oil interceptors. Such flows will in part be discharged off site to existing sewer systems.
A029 (249) Long term management and maintenance of the water features is required. The key to this being the protection of groundwater resources and ecological enhancement. Such a formal strategy should, I recommend, be secured by condition and a Section 106 Agreement. This includes the proposals for the changes to the existing water features.
(250) The Environment Agency raises no objections to these aspects of the proposed development and welcomes the provision of new water features and the linear 'Blue Ways'. Conditions have been put forward in respect of groundwater and contamination issues and these are to be included in the recommendation.
(251) With regards to drainage infrastructure the comments of Thames Water are awaited and will be reported on the update.
(252) (e) Contamination: Some initial study work has been submitted. This is based on previous site investigations and desk studies, and a preliminary investigation involving soil sampling within the site.
(253) This has revealed some evidence of contamination and in particular of the land in the south east corner occupied by a commercial vehicle yard. Sulphate and inorganic contamination plus contaminated groundwater and methane are present within the plot. Lead is the principal non conforming metal.
(254) In parallel a desk top study was carried out to assess the possibility of pathogenic contamination. This was done as the hospital was previously used for the isolation of small pox suffers. Anthrax sufferers were contained within the former Longreach Hospital to the north. There has been no evidence of any undue risk of pathogenic contamination.
(255) Elsewhere local contaminations of ash and chromium are reported. The results of these preliminary investigations indicate that remediation is required to ameliorate potential health risks. A number of possible environmental pathways from sources of contamination including the migration of gases like methane and carbon dioxide have been identified.
(256) As a result the information submitted so far has identified areas of contamination that need addressing although these are not comprehensive. The mitigation measures similarly need to be more robust. In the circumstances I consider that further works are required. Additional investigations and assessments, together with mitigation measures to be agreed, are necessary but this can be secured by an appropriate condition. These outstanding issues need to be addressed prior to works commencing on site.
(257) Conclusions on Environmental Issues: In summary there are a number of environmental issues highlighted in respect of potential impacts and additional mitigation works that are required to be carried out. The submitted information including the Environmental Impact Assessment and consultation responses has highlighted this but I am of the opinion that these can be properly addressed through appropriate conditions and a S106 Agreement. In particular these should cover matters relating to:
- nature conservation and mitigation; - contaminated land investigations and remediation; - water management, floodplain levels and drainage; - noise and air quality mitigation; - landscaping and archaeology; - open space and play areas; - Green Grid provision and Blue Ways.
FASTRACK AND TRANSPORT
(258) As I have stated earlier, I consider the provision of a successful public transport facility to be fundamental to the acceptability of this proposed development. It is essential that the reliance on the motor car can be reduced sufficiently to achieve the appropriate modal shift and relieve the potential pressures on Junction 1A of the M25/A282, and make a substantial
A030 contribution toward the provision of a mixed use development of this importance. The applicants anticipate that 25% of the traffic movements emanating from the development will be accommodated on public transport.
(259) At present public transport to and from the area centres upon bus services associated with Dartford Town Centre. Whilst local services operate between Temple Hill and the main urban conurbation, no services currently use University Way and public transport to the application site is non existent. The existing railway stations at Dartford, Stone Crossing and Greenhithe are not easily accessible. The proposed Fastrack service for this development is part of an initiative identified by Dartford Borough Council, Kent County Council and the Kent Thameside partnership.
(260) As proposed the implementation of the Fastrack dedicated public transport route would link Dartford Town Centre with major destinations to the east through the application site and the proposed development. In this case the link now proposed would connect the town centre with Bluewater.
(261) The proposal shows the bus priority route running on the public highway from the town centre along Mill Pond Road, Temple Hill and Trevithick Drive before turning into Sharp Way, Joyce Green Lane and then onto the safeguarded area of land to the rear of Salmon Road. As originally submitted it was envisaged that the route would have taken it from Wellcome Avenue and then north following the alignment of the existing private road to cross University Way at grade through the existing roundabout. This route from Wellcome Avenue and from the roundabout on the A206 is no longer available or practicable and so the route has been revised to take advantage of the safeguarded land.
(262) The immediate consequence of this is the need to construct a new bridge over University Way at this point which then takes the route into the application site. Fastrack will then run through the heart of the North Dartford development before re-emerging at the north east corner where a new bridge will take it over the A282. This bridge will cross over the Dartford Tunnel approach but under the Queen Elizabeth II Bridge before it rejoins the public highway within Crossways Business Park.
(263) From the point it leaves Joyce Green Lane to travel over University Way to the point it rejoins the highway at Crossway Boulevard, Fastrack will run on a dedicated route that will preclude any other unauthorised user. So in other words it will not be possible for motor cars, vans, lorries etc to use this as a means of access to North Dartford. Such unauthorised access will be safeguarded and enforced by the installation of controlled barriers and cameras.
(264) From Crossways Boulevard the route turns into Station Road, Greenhithe and from there across London Road onto Bean Road. The route then takes it into Bluewater where it travels on non highway authority land. All along the route new Fastrack Stations or stops will be provided and this does now include some additional stops within Temple Hill. A separate application has been submitted in respect of the proposals involving third party land on that part of the route from the application site east to Bluewater, including the provision of stations. The two applications are obviously linked and require determination prior to any works commencing.
(265) There are a number of important issues of detail that arise from the above broad brush description of the proposals. As a matter of principle the policy support and the need to establish a sustainable development based on public transport initiatives is well documented. Again it provides a vital link in the regenerative processes for Kent Thameside and Thames Gateway, maximising the development potential within the constraints of the existing highway network.
(266) In order to successfully provide an attractive alternative to the private car the system has to be reliable, convenient, comfortable, safe, affordable and advantageous in terms of journey time and cost when compared to the private car.
A031 (267) The proposed system will incorporate a number of measures to make the use of Fastrack as attractive as possible. Real time passenger information will be supplemented with on line information services. This will mean that not only will details of services be provided within the Fastrack stations and stops but within the homes and businesses on the North Dartford development. Users will be informed of the frequency and times of the services to minimise waiting. This is complemented by the use of global positioning satellite technology (GPS) that allows Fastrack to gain priority at traffic signal junctions and unhindered access to the safegated areas.
(268) These sorts of measures will necessitate the involvement of a state of the art vehicle of modern design incorporating many features to increase comfort and convenience. A striking new design is anticipated with recognisable livery. They will include a step free entrance for easy boarding and space for pushchairs and wheelchairs. Generous seating space and significant standing capacity, integrated ticked-reading machinery as well as audible and visual travel information will be included together with air conditioning.
(269) As further incentive it is proposed to incorporate a variable fare system. This is arrived at encouraging the use of Fastrack as a viable alternative, and would allow for a free service for the residents of the new development and a reduced fare for those travelling to the site from elsewhere on the route. The recent revisions to the proposed route have also included the addition of further stopping places within Temple Hill area. Details are still required, however, of how these will be linked to real time information services and the type of station/stop to be provided.
(270) As required a Traffic Impact Assessment was submitted with the application. An Addendum to this was received in November 2002. These submissions describe the existing transport corridors and local conditions together with the relevance of the planning history for the site. At the time these previous planning permissions were extant, a total of 2,000,000 square feet of built floorspace could be constructed. The traffic movement are therefore constrained within the levels predicted by the previous schemes and the new development relies on zero impact when compared to these earlier permissions. Any and all additional movements would have to be catered for by the new public transport system.
(271) The traffic assessment summarises the transportation related data assembled for use in the study together with its analysis and modelling work undertaken using the Kent Thameside Transport Model. Details of background traffic growth assumptions, committed developments and the targets for vehicular traffic generation are included. It is also necessary to consider the trip generation, distribution and modal split to identify a strategy for limiting traffic generation to target levels. The assessment also describes the various elements of this strategy including Fastrack, other public transport measures, green travel plan and non-car initiatives like facilitating pedestrian and cyclist access.
(272) Details are provided of the junctions and links at which a material flow increase above the agreed base-line position is forecast, and any proposed highway improvements to mitigate impacts. Other mitigating measures proposed are aimed at reducing personal injury accidents at identified locations.
(273) The traffic assessment, it is contended, is based on the guiding principle that it should:
"....demonstrate that a development makes no net detrimental impact on the highway network, and makes a positive contribution to promoting the provision and use of more environmentally friendly forms of travel in, by and for the wider community."
Compliance with key transport related policies is also necessary and this includes Policies T3 of the Local Plan that sought to safeguard the alignment of a North Dartford Link for all traffic between North Dartford and Crossways. Originally this link was required to facilitate the development of Crossways but this is no longer necessary due to other works and improvements to J1A. In view of the modal shift from private to public transport it is now proposed that this link be provided as part of the development as a Fastrack/pedestrian/cyclist only facility. Other material policy considerations include the
A032 published requirements and considerations of the Highways Agency, and in particular on the control of development near trunk roads. The basic requirement is that traffic access points to the trunk road should have sufficient capacity for both development and non development traffic allowing for growth for next 15 years. In this case it would be Junction 1A A282. The study area has been extended however and includes the proposed Fastrack route, the Dartford and Greenhithe stations on the north Kent line and corridors between. Areas of influence would include junctions within this extended study area.
(274) In addition to this a separate Fastrack Assessment has been included with the submission. This covers such aspects as the land involved together with infrastructure needed, the passenger forecourts and integration with the transport network plus system specification and the new bridges to be provided.
(275) Overall the Traffic Assessment together with the Fastrack Assessment reaches a number of conclusions following consideration of the relevant data and other material factors. It is important that the development would not result in traffic generated in exceeding its accepted ceiling upon completion (estimated 2013) and in the additional Highways Agency assessment year of 2018.
(276) The conclusions reached indicate that the development would give rise to material increases in traffic flow at A282 Junction 1A and at the A206 junctions with Marsh Street, Joyce Green Lane and the A206 Burnham Road. More detailed analysis has shown that works to the A282 Junction 1A are not required as a consequence as the proposed development would generate less traffic overall through the junction than that postulated for the previous developments approved. Modest improvements are proposed to the A206/Marsh Street roundabout.
(277) The reasons put forward for these findings rest with Fastrack. The phased implementation will ultimately, it is predicted, cater for approximately one quarter of the total transport needs. At peak times approximately 1,000 passengers per hour would be passing through the development, attracted by the frequency of the service (one bus every five minutes in peak periods) plus the reliability, speed, convenience, comfort, cleanliness, safety and affordability.
(278) In order to realise these goals and ambitions it will be necessary to ensure effective service provision from the outset, although it is anticipated that this will be phased. The ability to provide an effective service relies also on the inclusion of the necessary infrastructure and the facilitators to prioritise Fastrack vehicles. This will be achieved by providing the off site highway works to allow priority for Fastrack vehicles and using global positioning satellite technology (GPS) at controlled junctions, in addition to running on its own segregated carriageway within the new development. Only pedestrians and cyclists will be allowed access through these areas.
(279) These conclusions I would, in the main, accept as achievable. Much will depend upon the delivery of this public transport facility and the ability to ensure an unhindered and reliable service. To this end I would advocate the prohibition of other motor vehicles from between the safeguarded area south of University Way over the new bridge and through the development site, the new bridge over the A282 until it rejoins the public highway in Crossways Boulevard. This exclusion would obviously operate in both directions.
(280) Concerns have been raised by Kent County Council with regards to the means of enforcing the segregation within the development site and preventing unauthorised vehicles from using the dedicated public transport route; the adoption of the Fastrack route and the main internal access roads plus the procurement, future maintenance service, provision and linkage to the overall Kent Thameside network. In addition the Highways Agency have expressed their own concerns about the inability of the dedicated route and new bridge over the A282 to accommodate other traffic if required in the future. In respect of both, the need to ascertain the phasing of provision and in particular the new bridges was identified as an issue in need of early resolution.
A033 (281) (a) Segregation: It is proposed that at the point of entry to the site, but south of University Way within the land safeguarded to the rear of Salmon Road, controlled bollards be installed to prevent unauthorised use by other vehicles. These would be collapsible and operated by the Fastrack vehicle through on board GPS systems. A similar installation would obviously be required at the eastern point of access that would actually be onto Crossways Boulevard. The details of these gates are still outstanding and would be required for future consideration. In fact there are a number of details that still need to be agreed in this respect bearing in mind that it is proposed that camera enforcement is also to be used. This would necessitate the installation and maintenance of bollards, barriers, cameras and associated equipment that, in my opinion, should form part of the Section 106 Agreement.
(282) It is an essential element of the positive prioritisation of the Fastrack route and this lies at the heart of the Kent Thameside Transport Strategy. To allow other users would introduce the risk of obstruction and delay and lead to the service being devalued and downgraded. Its success depends upon its attractiveness as a viable alternative.
(283) If the Highways Agency remain concerned about the future ability of the highways infrastructure to cope, then I would suggest that the system, and in particular the proposed bridge over the A282, could be used by vehicles other than the defined public service vehicles but only as a last resort and then only at the request of the Borough Council. This could be controlled by condition and as part of the Section 106 Agreement.
(284) (b) Adoption. Kent County Council are advocating the adoption of the entire Fastrack route together with the main internal access roads within the application site. Much of the Fastrack route will run on existing public highway and in these locations there is not an issue. However, within the development site itself the applicants have favoured the retention of the route and principal access routes. The argument is based on one of quality and monitoring high standards of maintenance and service provision. It also helps to ensure the route is not used by other vehicles.
(285) Whilst adoption does not preclude an enhanced level of maintenance there may be an issue when it comes to preventing other service providers from operating on the public highway. Traffic Orders can be employed in this respect. Ordinarily the question of highways adoption is not a planning issue and is usually secured through agreements required by the Highways Acts. In this case I would raise no objection to the routes not being adopted but would recommend future maintenance and management be the subject of conditions and the Section 106 Agreement.
(286) (c) Bridges. New bridges will be required to allow for Fastrack to cross University Way into the south west corner of the site, and to cross the A282 from the north east corner. These two bridges are included as part of this outline planning application. Although illustrative details have been included in order to assist in determination, they do not form part of the formal submission. Such details would be a reserved matter.
(287) Nevertheless it helps provide an indication of the facility required and the potential implications. With regards to the bridge over University Way the approach road to this is located to the west of properties in Salmon Road. The edge of the Fastrack route would be some 16m from the rear of these properties. It would be approximately 10m in width allowing for a combined bus lane/cycleway of 8m and a footpath of 2m.
(288) The gradient will rise slowly toward the bridge. At the start of the bridge it will be approximately 3.5m above existing ground level and structural planting will be included to mitigate any impact this may have. Bunding has been proposed along part of the approach road as this will assist in reducing noise levels for the nearest residents. It should be noted that this land has been safeguarded as a potential transport corridor for a number of years, since the permission for the University Campus was granted. This predates the development of the residential properties on either side.
(289) The bridge to the north east will span the A282/M25. It is proposed to go over the tunnel approach but under the Queen Elizabeth II Bridge and as such will be, in part, on land
A034 under the control of the Highways Agency. The Agency do not raise objections to this in principle although security issues have to be addressed. These, together with design details etc. will be the subject of future submissions for consideration. Again much of this will be contained within the recommended Section 106 agreement and the conditions.
(290) (d) Phasing: This is a very important consideration. It is essential that the Fastrack provision be operating as soon as is practicably possible. It had been suggested that 3 phases be agreed which included the temporary use of University Way and Junction 1A. I consider this to be inappropriate as a long term measure but acceptable in the short term. A dedicated bus route would be provided to serve the development at Plot 1.
(291) Obviously it will be necessary to construct the University Way Bridge at the outset and for it to be come operational as soon as possible. A partial provision of Fastrack even during some of the construction phase would be beneficial and could assist in transporting construction workers.
(292) It is appreciated that certain elements of the development are proposed to be completed and operating before others. For example, the revised indicative site layout shows a substantial B8 distribution depot which could be constructed as part of the first phase. In this case the Fastrack would need to be in place to cater for any further developments. In this respect I would suggest that phased provision of Fastrack coincides with the phased development on site.
(293) Certainly the University Way bridge should be constructed and operational before any occupations on site, and the A282 bridge be in place before the occupation of any development east of Marsh Street or five years after development commences whichever is the sooner. The only exception to development completion could be the B8 distribution depot. The provision of bus stops and shelters through the route need similar agreement over timing of provision, together with the required pedestrian crossing to be provided on Crossways Boulevard close to the Charles Street roundabout.
(294) Improvements to the pedestrian subway under University Way will also be implemented. Details of the works and timing of provision are to be agreed.
(295) Conclusions on Fastrack/Transport Issues: It is clear that there are a number of issues to consider in this respect. Many of the actual details have yet to be agreed as they will be subject to further separate submissions. Each will require future agreement and approval. Nevertheless I am confident that sufficient safeguards can be introduced through conditions and a Section 106 Agreement to ensure these matters are properly addressed and a development with a transport system of the required quality and effectiveness is secured. It should also be noted that the final formal observations of the Highways Agency is still awaited.
These will cover such considerations as:
- the phasing of provision of the dedicated public transport facility; - the construction of the two new bridges; - the segregation of the public transport and enforcement; - details of the stations and associated works; - carriageway construction and levels; - landscaping and mitigation; - pedestrian and cycleway provisions.
LAYOUT AND DESIGN
(296) Although the application is in outline, with all matters reserved, considerable information has been submitted in support of the proposals. The prospect for development at North Dartford has been well established for some time and is based on the vision of a high quality, sustainable and integrated mixed use scheme.
A035 (297) The supporting information including the illustrative Masterplan provides for a development that embraces the sustainable principles of improved links to public transport and reducing the need to travel and the promotion of a mixed use form of development; securing the most efficient use of the land; designing for quality and energy efficiency whilst retaining a strong emphasis on landscape and ecology.
(298) (a) Improved Public Transport Links: Fundamental to the scheme is the construction of Fastrack, the bus priority route, that will have to achieve a considerable modal shift within the site. In other words there will have to be a greater reliance on public transport as an alternative to the private car. The route of Fastrack will take it from its entry into the site at the south west corner adjoining University Way, through the heart of the site and on to the north east corner abutting the Dartford River Crossing. This means that it serves the larger residential area to the west of the former Joyce Green Hospital site then running north of the proposed Science Park but into the location for the local centre. Travelling further east it crosses north of the other residential area but south of the Business Park before diverting north and east to the proposed new bridge over the A282. As such it ties together all the elements of this development incorporating six stations on the route.
(299) Fastrack will be a dedicated public transport route and access to other private motor vehicles will not be afforded within the site. The carriageway width of the segregated Fastrack is given as some 6.75m and each station within the site is proposed to be a secure enclosed area. Various facilities are to be provided within the stations including seating and toilet accommodation, together with lighting, CCTV, real time information screens and even Internet connections and displays. The external appearance of these stations has not been finalised at this stage as details of the proposed materials are required. These can be considered as part of a further submission. I would raise no objection however in considering this aspect the Fastrack proposals but refer to it here in the context of it being the thread that ties together all the other elements of the development.
(300) (b) Mixed use form of development and most efficient use of land: The rationale behind the proposed layout of the proposed development is, I believe, understandable. It was always a requirement that it would incorporate a mix of employment, leisure, residential and care facilities whilst responding to the site constraints and allowing easy access to and between the various elements.
(301) The residential sectors together with the local centre take advantage in the main of previously developed land plus the locational advantages of the lakes. These are linked also to the Science Park which will be the focus for the high tech and inventive activities. In this respect there are obvious linkages to the residential area. Further east the Business Park would enjoy an easier relationship with the existing commercial activities to the north and east and allow for access to and from the existing transport infrastructure.
(302) Equally important to this overall concept is the framework provided by the Green Grid network which criss-crosses the site. This allows for important flora and fauna habitat, increased recreation and access opportunities as well as assisting in the sub-division of the site.
(303) In my opinion this is an acceptable proposition as far as the land use framework is concerned with the appropriate disposition of the component parts to meet the vision of this development. This element of the submission forms the basis of the planning application. Whilst other elements are illustrative at this stage all reserved matters and subsequent submission of details will be required to conform to this land use framework.
(304) At present the illustrative Masterplan, as revised, provides guiding principles and key strategies only for the 'urban village' areas. In other words a philosophy for the development of the residential areas on the site of the former Joyce Green Hospital has been provided which lays down the essential urban design ground rules. Eventually this will be expanded to include all the other areas to ensure a coherent and consistent approach to the provision of the high quality environment this development demands.
A036 (305) Good urban design will always have to be a key feature in order to achieve the density and form of residential development required. This means attention to detail and the securing of appropriate relationships between the built form and the hierarchy of open space - be they public or private.
(306) Whilst the final layout and detailed design work will be subject to the further consideration of future submissions the concept of enclosing private and semi private spaces by houses is accepted. It is anticipated that a final density overall of some 64 dwellings per hectare is appropriate and achievable and the principle of the innovative use of new materials and technologies is welcomed. The aim being to create an urban rather than suburban character.
(307) In order to secure the anchor role of the community facilities the community functions would all be directly related to a radial network of pedestrian-cycle routes. It is envisaged that each urban area would be different in character but related to its neighbour. A variation in architecture is encouraged to create a highly attractive environment.
(308) In order to foster the feeling of community the affordable housing elements must be fully integrated. Whilst there will be obvious distinctions between house types there will be no identifiable difference between tenure types. This is an element of the plan philosophy I would support.
(309) One of the other core principles is to reduce car use. It is neither acceptable nor practicable to attempt to remove them altogether, but their impact upon the development must be minimised. Careful design of streets will be required to ensure pedestrian priority and this will have to be an important consideration for the determination of the reserved matters. The adoption of the principles established by Kent Design will be an important factor in securing this and other detailed aspects of the development.
(310) On the basis of the information supplied and contained within the illustrative urban village masterplan I am confident that the principles identified can form the basis of detailed submissions to meet the high expectations for this development. The core areas of the residential development have been identified and examined together with the necessary links to the local centre facilities to provide the basis for sustainable development. Further work is required in respect of the Science Park and Business Park areas to ensure these linkages are maintained throughout and ensure that they combine with and sit happily alongside the preserved areas for nature conservation and recreation/leisure. I consider these matters can be satisfactorily addressed at the detail stage.
(311) (c) Quality and energy efficiency: Two of the recurrent themes running through the ethos of the development of this site are quality and sustainability. They are not mutually exclusive concepts.
(312) The applicants advocate two strategic objectives in this respect. These are to provide high quality of life for the long term and during construction, and to minimise long term environmental damage from the development.
(313) In terms of built development the proposals include the reduction in primary energy consumption through the use of local combined heat and power facilities, new insulation standards and better energy control. In addition it is proposed to select materials that require less energy in production, and utilise waste efficient facilities with re-cycling where appropriate. The principle of re-cycling and energy efficiency will apply to all areas and aspects.
(314) Potentially one of the most significant areas for producing a more sustainable form of development lies in the provision of IT to every dwelling and commercial space. Information and communication technology will be available for every household enabling a degree of working from home and providing real time information on the Fastrack service. Both of these proposals are aimed at a reduction in the reliance on travel by motorcar and at a positive contribution to sustainability.
A037
(315) I would support these initiatives and the contribution they would make to the fulfilment of the relevant policies and objectives on sustainability in this respect. This has, however, to be tied in with minimising the potential environmental impacts on the site.
(316) The extensive commitment to Green Grid that runs through the development strategy is welcomed. The success will depend upon the quality and character of the elements to be created and their management. In detail these are issues to be dealt with at a later date in the context of the reserved matters and additional details to be submitted. I would recommend that these are secured by appropriate conditions and legal agreement. Such submissions would also have to take account of the treatment of the relationship to the adjoining Dartford Marshes SNCI. I am equally confident that these matters can and will be satisfactorily addressed.
(317) Conclusions on Layout/Design Issues: Overall the essential emphasis on quality of layout and design will include control, through conditions and a S.106 Agreement, of matters such as:
- Masterplan details based on agreed mixed land use; - detailed urban design and use of materials with an overall emphasis on quality; - sustainability and energy efficiency; - landscaping, both hard and soft.
EMPLOYMENT
(318) This is an equally important element of the North Dartford development, not only in terms of its role within the integrated mixed use for the site, but also for the part it could play in the economic regeneration of this part of the Thames Gateway.
(319) The Local Plan Review acknowledges that a mixed use development best serves the interests of sustainability and a variety of employment uses improves the range of job opportunities. To that end, and to foster another aim of creating opportunities for high quality growth industries with advanced technology base, the proposals include a Science Park and a Business Park.
(320) The former, also in accordance with strategic planning policies, will, I consider, assist in providing better employment and higher quality job opportunities for the future. As an integral element of the sustainable approach to development there is proposed to be gross site area of 10ha providing some 53,000m2 of floorspace. This would include up to 36,000 m2 of high technology accommodation and some 160 units of adoptable live/work accommodation.
(321) It will focus on activities that include an Innovation Centre for start-up companies, more on site space as companies grow, and information and administration for the whole park. Easy access from Fastrack is important together with cycleways and pathways linking the residential areas both on and off the site.
(322) The concept includes live/work flats and incorporates meeting areas and service facilities. These details would be subject to further Master Plan submissions. This will necessitate a commitment to high quality construction with attention to detail and facilities. All buildings and individual units within them will be connected to the Internet.
(323) The remaining employment areas comprise a logistics facility to the east, this adjoins the Dartford Crossing, and a Business Park to the north of the lakes.
(324) The former is allocated some 10ha which allows for around 52,105m2 of floorspace. It is likely that this will be one unit of up to 23m in height and will require careful consideration at the detailed planning stage to provide appropriate elevational treatments for a unit of this size.
(325) The latter, the Business Park, will occupy around 15ha made up of a number of smaller plots. Generally these are shown to be 3-4 storeys in height, but again the emphasis has to
A038 be on quality. Not only in design and location but also in the choice of materials and finishes. A theme that must recur throughout. On this basis and on the fulfilment of the previously mentioned strategic objectives and policies I would support the submitted proposal in this respect. However, it is also important to involve and include the local community in such initiatives. Benefits are to be had in terms of providing local employment opportunities both during construction and upon completion. This has previously been achieved at Bluewater and I would recommend that these initiatives be incorporated within any secured Section 106 Agreement.
OTHER ISSUES
(326) (a) Affordable Housing: In accordance with the Local Plan Review, there will be a 30% allocation of affordable housing. This is in response to the findings of the Council's Housing Needs Study. The affordable dwellings will comprise a mix of social rented accommodation, shared ownership and key worker units, with the former providing the major element. It is important that there are no obvious distinctions between tenure and so they will be distributed throughout the development. In the same way the affordable units will benefit from the same variety of house types. I consider this to be an appropriate approach and recommend that it be secured through the Section 106 Agreement.
(327) (b) Visual Amenity: This consideration has been dealt with within the Environmental Impact Assessment, and is based upon the effects following completion and after 15 years. For the majority of properties in Temple Hill the views are limited or restricted by existing buildings. Even views from properties within Salmon Road and Groveherst Road would experience filtered views of the development site. Conserved trees and separating distances ameliorate any potential impact which in my opinion would not have an unacceptably adverse effect. Additional strategic landscaping would also be an important factor.
(328) Properties to the east on McCudden Road and Cornwall Road would experience similar effects. Relatively more open views of the development would be experienced by properties from the eastern end of Cornwall Road. However University Way, Littlebrook Power Station, transmission pylons and the Queen Elizabeth II Bridge are all significant components of the existing views from this location. Although, therefore there would be an appreciable change to the view the magnitude of change would be lessened by the nature of the existing view. The same holds true for properties in Wodehouse Road.
(329) Consideration has also to be given to views from other vantage points. These would include the public footpaths that traverse and circuit the site together with the views from roads and the River Crossing. Such aspects are fairly transient and the more extensive the view the more minor it is as a component of the wider ranging urban views. I would conclude that in terms of visual impact the overall proposals are not objectionable and in many respects the quality development would bring positive improvements to the perceptions and impressions of the area.
(330) (c) Overhead Transmission Lines: The fact that a total of six overhead power lines across different parts of the site acts as a major constraint to the redevelopment of this site. Two 132kv lines and one 66Kv line, all owned by SEEBOARD cross the eastern part of the site between the lakes and the Dartford River Crossing. In addition a 132kv line owned by LEB crosses the site from north to south immediately east of the lakes. A fifth power line, an LEB 132 kV line, runs from the Marsh Street/University Way roundabout east to the Littlebrook Power Station. One National Grid 275kv high voltage overhead line crosses part of the site north east of Joyce Green Hospital.
(331) Five of these lines, with the exception of the National Grid cable are to be removed. Two of the SEEBOARD lines are or will be redundant whereas the third is to be diverted underground. A similar fate awaits the other two LEB lines. All the underground lines will be located within the verges of the new on-site roads and all the pylons will be removed.
(332) Obviously this will be significant in a number of aspects. There are tremendous benefits in terms of environmental and visual improvements for the area and the removal of such
A039 constraints on built development allows for restrictions on location and building heights to be dispensed with.
(333) It will be necessary to erect two new terminal towers on site in order to facilitate this. The detailed design and exact location will be subject to separate detailed applications from the respective electric companies, although I would recommend that details of these works be included within any phasing programme required.
(334) In my opinion this is another aspect of the proposal worthy of support with long term benefits for the area.
(335) (d) Education and Community Facilities: In addition to the sports and leisure facilities, the proposals include a local centre and school. It is proposed that these will act as a focus for community life, providing a range of business, social, educational, community and convenience facilities to meet the needs of both the business and residential communities.
(336) The applicants have shown that the core components to be provided will include a primary school, a creche and nursery, a community hall, a community health facility including a doctors surgery and dentist, health and fitness provision plus a range of eating, retail and business facilities to support the population in both the residential and employment sectors.
(337) In terms of education requirements the Kent County Council Development Contributions Unit advise that a development in excess of 1200 units requires a two from entry primary school on a site of 2ha. It is important that this is achieved bearing in mind there is currently no spare capacity in existing surrounding schools. The primary school provision could be phased and my be capable of housing complimentary uses such as a nursery, adult education or library services.
(338) The current calculation for an education contribution is #6,245,014 and it is this figure that the County Council has now requested and replaces that previously referred to. This includes the amount calculated for the construction of the new 2 form entry primary school and the contribution toward secondary education.
(339) In addition to this there will be financial contributions sought in respect of libraries, social services, youth and community and adult education. All these services need to be extended to include the new development proposed together with the possibility of providing additional office accommodation to facilitate their provision. One particular requirement includes the findings, initially to act as a kick start, of a community development worker. Details of these contributions are not available at present but at this stage it is important to establish and agree the principle. The contributions would be secured by legal agreement and I would recommend that they are included as heads of terms of a Section 106 Agreement with the details to be established as part of this process.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
(340) I have considered the application in the light of the Human Rights Act 1998. I am satisfied that my analysis of the issues in this case and my consequent recommendations are compliable with the Act.
SECTION 106 AGREEMENT
(341) I would recommend that the granting of planning permission for this development be subject to the completion of a S106 Agreement in respect of matters under the following Heads of Terms:
1. Affordable Housing 2. Education 3. Community Facilities 4. Park and Visitor Centre 5. Pedestrian/Highway Improvements
A040 6. Local Centre 7. Public Open Space and Equipped Play Areas 8. Sports Facilities 9. Masterplan Development Principles 10. Pollution Monitoring and Mitigation 11. Travel Plan 12. Public Art 13. Lakes Management 14. Fastrack Access Control and Enforcement 15. Surface Water Drainage 16. Traffic Generation Management 17. Monitoring and Phasing of Traffic 18. Training and Local Employment/Workforce Agreement 19. Construction Vehicle Routes 20. Green Grid and Blueways 21. Overhead Power Lines
CONCLUSION
(342) This is one of the most significant planning applications to be submitted for consideration by the local planning authority. It is not only of considerable local import but it also carries regional and national implications that spread from its location within the heart of Kent Thameside and the Thames Gateway. This application provides an important opportunity to supply the catalyst for the economic regeneration of this area and realise the tremendous development potential identified.
(343) There is clear policy support in national and regional guidance, the Structure Plan and through the adopted Local Plan and more recently the Local Plan Review process for the principle of a major mixed use development at North Dartford. This application carries forward that vision although the submitted proposals and illustrative details together with the Environmental Impact Assessment and Traffic Impact Assessments have highlighted the constraints and important issues to address. This has been endorsed by the consultation responses and representations received and considered within this report. Many require further consideration and revisiting as the details of the development become clearer. I am confident that the recommended framework for control with conditions and a S106 Agreement will provide the necessary safeguards to ensure the development principles of quality, economic regeneration and sustainability are achieved.
(344) The application has been advertised as a departure from the Adopted Dartford Local Plan in respect of the level of housing provision. It should be noted that the proposals do accord with the emerging Local Plan Review. Should Members resolve to approve the application it will have to be referred to the Secretary of State, who will have 21 days from the date of receipt to "call in" the application for his own decision.
The recommendation is one of APPROVAL, subject to:
- the completion of a S106 Agreement relating to the matters referred to in the report and any other matters which may arise in subsequent discussions;
- the conditions as set out or as may be redrafted by officers to improve their clarity and precision;
- reference to the Secretary of State as a departure from the Adopted Development Plan.
- satisfactory responses from the Highways Agency.
RECOMMENDATION:
A041 Approval subject to the signing of a Section 106 Agreement within 6 months of the Committee resolution, outstanding matters being satisfactorily resolved and reference to the Secretary of State as a Departure from the Development Plan
01 Before the development is commenced on any individual building or structure within the development or any development area or relevant part of a development area hereby approved, details of the siting, design, external appearance of such buildings or structures, the means of access and the related landscaping (?reserved matters?) shall first have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority.
01 No such details have been submitted for approval.
02 Application for the approval of all the reserved matters shall be made to the Local Planning Authority before the expiration of 8 years from the date of this permission.
02 In pursuance of Section 92(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and in recognition of the fact the development is to be undertaken in phases.
03 The development hereby permitted shall be begun either before the expiration of 5 years from the date of this permission, or before the expiration of 2 years from the date of the approval of the last of the reserved matters to be approved, whichever is the later.
03 In pursuance of Section 92(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
04 Prior to the commencement of any works on site, and within 3 years of the date of this permission, a Master Plan shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority in respect of all elements of the development. That part of the Master Plan in respect of the urban villages shall generally and in all material respects accord with the submitted Illustrative Urban Village Masterplan and Appendix C Revised Illustrative Urban Village Masterplan received on 12 December 2002. The Master Plan shall also include:
(a) a statement to demonstrate that such details will accord with the reserved matters in respect of the siting, and slab levels of all the proposed buildings, structures and facilities and the Fastrack carriageway and stations;
(b) the location, extent, phasing and hierarchy of all open areas, play areas, open spaces, roads, segregated footpaths and cycleways, water areas and ?Blue Ways?, Green Grid linkages, landscape structure, public art, buffer zones and all publicly accessible areas shall be clearly defined together with the arrangements for permanent public access thereto;
(c) the phasing of the development including roads, segregated, footpaths and cycleways, landscaped areas, community facilities, shops, hotel, social, leisure and educational facilities and the removal of the overhead power lines and the provision of electricity suitable for the site;
(d) the route, phasing, implementation and works required for Fastrack dedicated road, spine road and any other road and bus lane based public transport system, the siting, design,
A042 external appearance and specifications for the proposed University Way Bridge(A206) and the A282 Bridge together with the proposed stations, bus stops and shelters and any associated street furniture and bridge approaches;
(e) arrangements for the disposal of spoil from the site including routeing and distribution;
(f) details of all the areas and depths of all proposed excavations and of all areas of filling and raising of land with details of finished levels and types of fill. All earthworks including reshaping and bank profiling details to the lakes;
(g) a programme and plan of advance tree planting;
(h) the relationships and links between the built development and any adjoining development and the neighbouring uses with particular reference to the nature conservation interests and mitigation.
(i) the general design principles for each phase and development area including style, relationship with other buildings and open space, building heights and treatment of roof lines and external materials and demonstration of how high quality urban design will be achieved.
(j) a sustainable form of development to be achieved by planning the mix, distribution and density of development so as to discourage the need to travel by private car and to encourage travel by more energy efficient means with precedence for pedestrians and cyclists. Building design, layout and use of materials to include measures for energy conservation and proposals for recycling of waste and energy production and flood resistant construction techniques.
(k) development proposals that accord with the adopted principles and details of Kent Design;
(l) the provision and location of lifetime homes, affordable housing and special needs accommodation;
(m) a watching brief for the development to report on the progress of the development and environmental enhancement works;
(n) confirmation that no works of any kind shall take place within 6m. of the Esso pipeline or apparatus.
04 In order to ensure the continuing commitment to development of high quality in accordance with Policies E1, T1, C14, B1 and CF3 of the Adopted Local Plan and Policies DD2, DD6, DD11, H1a, H16, E1, T1 and MDS4 of the Local Plan Review.
05 No development shall take place until the above masterplan details have been approved and upon approval the development shall be carried out in its entirety in strict accordance with the Master Plan as approved. Detailed drawings which are subsequently submitted for approval shall be in compliance with the Master Plan and its associated design guidelines, unless otherwise agreed with the Local Planning Authority.
05 In order to ensure the continuing commitment to development of high quality in accordance with Policies E1, T1, C14, B1 and CF3 of the Adopted Local Plan and Policies DD2, DD6, DD11, H1a, H16, E1, T1 and MDS4 of the Local Plan Review.
A043 06 The details of the reserved matters submitted pursuant to Condition 01 shall be in accordance with the approved Master Plan principles referred to in Condition 04 and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
06 In order to ensure the continuing commitment to development of high quality in accordance with Policies E1, T1, C14, B1 and CF3 of the Adopted Local Plan and Policies DD2, DD6, DD11, H1a, H16, E1, T1 and MDS4 of the Local Plan Review.
07 In accordance with Condition 04, no works shall commence on site including any clearance works until detailed mitigation and translocation plans in respect of the nature conservation interests and all habitats, including all protected and other species as identified by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and relating to all agreed Green Grid areas and Blueways and all retained and created habitats shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. This shall also include a detailed strategy for the treatment and management of the lakes and any removal and transport of fish stocks. Any agreed mitigation plans shall be carried out in strict accordance with these agreed details.
07 To protect the nature conservation interests of the site in accordance with Policy C5 of the Adopted Dartford Local Plan and Policy C12 of the Local Plan Review.
08 Pursuant to Condition 18 management plans for all retained habitats and proposed enhancements including the Green Grid and Blueways and all other lakes and water features shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority prior to the commencement of any works on site and upon approval shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details.
08 To protect the nature conservation interests of the site in accordance with Policy C5 of the Adopted Dartford Local Plan and Policy C12 of the Local Plan Review.
09 The lakes shall not be used by any motorboat or motor driven vehicle for purpose or use.
09 To protect the nature conservation interest of the site in accordance with Policy C5 of the Adopted Dartford Local Plan and Policy C12 of the Local Plan Review.
10 Before development commences on each phase of the development or relevant part of the development, provision shall be made for the parking, manoeuvring, loading, unloading of service vehicles and for the parking of cars on the relevant part of the development in accordance with the agreed parking standards and no development whether permitted by the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 or not shall be carried out on that area of land or to preclude vehicular access thereto.
10 To ensure the permanent retention of satisfactory car and lorry parking and servicing facilities in accordance with the Local Planning Authority's adopted standards in accordance with Policies B1 and T22 of the adopted Dartford Local Plan and Policies DD11 and T14 of the Local Plan Review.
A044 11 No building shall be occupied until the parking spaces associated with that building have been provided, surfaced, drained and demarcated by an approved method to be first agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.
11 To ensure that the approved parking spaces are provided for use by all vehicles visiting the premises in accordance with Policies B1 and T22 of the adopted Dartford Local Plan and Policies DD11 and T14 of the Local Plan Review.
12 Prior to the completion of any relevant phase of the development, details of all relevant boundary walls and fences and phasing of their provision shall have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority, These shall be erected prior to the first occupation of the relevant part of the development.
12 In the interests of the amenities of neighbouring property in accordance with Policies B1 and B3 of the adopted Dartford Local Plan and Policy DD11 of Local Plan Review.
13 Samples of all external materials to be used in the construction of any part of the development hereby permitted shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of each relevant agreed phase of the development.
13 To ensure that the development does not harm the character and appearance of the existing building or the visual amenity of the locality in accordance with Policy B1 of the adopted Dartford Local Plan and DD11 of Local Plan Review.
14 Prior to the commencement of any agreed phase of development including the Fastrack route a landscaping scheme for that development shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority. The submitted details shall address:-
(i) hard and soft landscaping; (ii) any ground modelling and/or grading of landform or bunding; (iii) strategic, screen and ornamental landscaping. The details shall identify areas of structural landscaping relevant to the development as a whole including significant woodland elements used to define large spaces, retained trees, proposed and existing reed beds, proposed and existing water bodies and Green Grid areas and proposed and existing grassland; (iv) planting specifications and species for structural and ornamental landscaping and furniture and suggested materials for hard landscaping. These shall include details of surface finishes for roads, footpaths, cycleways and car parking areas; (v) works in accordance with any such landscaping scheme agreed with the Local Planning authority shall be implemented during the first planting season following the completion of the relevant part of the development, or on a phased timescale to be agreed with the Local Planning Authority; (vi) for a period of 5 years following the completion of the relevant area of hard or soft landscaping, any trees, shrubs or grass therein which die, are diseased or vandalised, shall be replaced within the following planting season and surfaced materials maintained in accordance with the approved details; (vii) a landscape management plan and maintenance schedules for all areas other than privately owned domestic gardens; (viii) avoidance of notable species and protection of habitats.
A045 14 In order to secure a visually satisfactory setting for the proposed development in accordance with Policy B3 of the adopted Dartford Local Plan and Policy LRT12 of the Local Plan Review.
15 No trees, hedges or parts of hedges shall be felled, lopped, topped or destroyed before or during building operations except with the prior agreement in writing of the Local Planning Authority.
15 To ensure that as many trees as possible are retained and preserved, in the interests of visual amenity in accordance with Policy B3 of the adopted Dartford Local Plan and Policy DD11 of the Local Plan Review.
16 No site clearance or construction work shall commence until
(i) a plan has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority showing the location of chestnut pale fencing of a height of not less than 1.2 metres to be erected around each tree, tree group of hedgerow to be retained, and (ii) the fencing has been erected on site in accordance with the approved plan, and such fencing shall be retained until the development is completed unless otherwise agreed with the Local Planning Authority. Within the fenced areas, the following works shall not be carried out except with the written approval of the Local Planning Authority -
- levels shall not be raised or lowered; - no roots shall be cut, trenches dug or soil removed; - no vehicles shall be driven over the area and - no materials or equipment shall be stored.
16 To prevent damage to the trees in the interest of the visual amenities of the area in accordance with Policy B3 of the adopted Dartford Local Plan and Policies DD11 and LRT12 of the Local Plan Review.
17 No works shall take place on site until the applicant, or other agents or successors in title, has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written specification and timetable which has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority.
17 To ensure that features of archaeological interests are properly examined and recorded in accordance with Policy B12 of the adopted Dartford Local Plan and Policy BE11 of the Local Plan Review.
18 There shall be no open storage of any goods or materials within the curtilage of any of the commercial premises or employment areas without the prior approval of the Local Planning Authority.
18 In the interests of the visual amenities of the area in accordance with Policies B1 and H12 of the adopted Dartford Local Plan and Policy DD11 of the Local Plan Review.
19 The development hereby permitted shall not include more than 2,500 square metres gross retail floorspace within Classes A1, A2 or A3 of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987.
A046 19 To safeguard the amenities of the locality and the protection of existing shopping centres in accordance with Policy R1 of the adopted Dartford Local Plan and Policy R1 of the Local Plan Review.
20 No materials shall be burnt on site during any period of construction.
20 To protect the amenities of nearby dwellings in accordance with Policies E14 and B1 of the adopted Dartford Local Plan and Policy DD11 of the Local Plan Review.
21 Pursuant to Condition 04 details of all street lighting, seating, bollards and all other street furniture shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to its erection on site.
21 In the interests of the quality and environmental amenity of the approved development pursuant to Policy B1 of the Adopted Dartford Local Plan and Policies DD11 and MDS4 of the Local Plan Review.
22 Pursuant to Condition 04 and prior to the commencement of any works on site details of the siting, design, external appearance, dimensions and levels, structural works and timing of provision of the Fastrack dedicated public transport bridges over the A206 (University Way) and the A282 shall be submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Upon approval the works shall be carried out in strict accordance with the approved details.
22 No such details have been submitted and in order to ensure the provision of the required Fastrack public transport system in accordance with Policies T1, T3, T7 and T8of the Local Plan Review.
23 Details of the proposed slab levels of all buildings, structures and Fastrack carriageways and the existing and proposed ground levels shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority before work commences and the development shall be completed strictly in accordance with the approved levels. No sleeping accommodation shall be below 6m AOD.
23 In order to secure a satisfactory form of development having regard to its location within the flood plain and the topography of the site pursuant to Policy B1 of the Adopted Local Plan and Policies NR6 (a and b) and NR7 of the Local Plan Review.
24 No development shall take place until a scheme for the provision of foul and surface water drainage including proposals for the incorporation of Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS) has been submitted and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out and thereafter maintained in accordance with the agreed scheme.
24 To ensure satisfactory means of surface water drainage in accordance with Policy B1 of the Adopted Local Plan and Policy NR8 of the Local Plan Review.
A047 25 No development approved by this permission shall be commenced prior to a contaminated land assessment (in accordance with the CLEA guidelines and methodology) and associated remedial strategy, together with a timetable of works, being submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. 1) The contaminated land assessment shall include a desk study to be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval. The desk study shall detail the history of the site uses and propose a site investigation strategy based on the relevant information discovered by the desk study. The strategy shall be approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to investigations commencing on site (ref1). 2) The site investigation, including relevant soil, soil gas, surface and groundwater sampling, shall be carried out by a suitably qualified and accredited consultant/contractor in accordance with a Quality Assured sampling and analysis methodology (ref 2) to the satisfaction of the local planning authority. 3) A site investigation report detailing all investigative works and sampling on site, together with the results of analysis, risk assessment to any receptors and a proposed remediation strategy shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Prior to any remediation commencing on site, approval shall be obtained from the Local Planning Authority of any such remedial works required . The works shall be of such a nature so as to render harmless the identified contamination given the proposed end-use of the site and surrounding environment including any controlled waters and prevent any adverse impacts on adjoining sites. 4) Approved remediation works shall be carried out in full on site under a quality assurance scheme to demonstrate compliance with the proposed methodology and best practice guidance (ref 3). If during any works contamination is encountered which has not previously been identified then the additional contamination shall be fully assessed and an appropriate remediation scheme agreed with the Local Planning Authority. 5) Upon completion of the works, this condition shall not be discharged until a closure report has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The closure report shall include details of the proposed remediation works and the quality assurance certificates to show that the works have been carried out in full in accordance with the approved methodology. Details of any post remediation sampling and analysis to show the site has reached the required clean-up criteria shall be included in the closure report together with the necessary documentation detailing what waste materials have been removed from the site and no adverse impacts on adjoining sites. Ref 1 : Contaminated Land Research Report no. 2, 3 & 4 (DoE) Ref 2 : Contaminated Land Research Report no. 1 (DoE) Ref 3 : CIRIA Vols 1-12 Contaminated Land Series and CIRIA "Building on Derelict Land" If any infill material is to be brought onto the site, only naturally occurring rocks, sub-soils and soils (including those containing <20% organic matter) and recycled construction and/or demolition materials (but excluding those containing bricks and concrete >70mm, metal, plasterboard, asbestos cement or other contaminated materials) shall be used. This shall be from a certified source to ensure that it is not contaminated in terms of its intended end use. The relevant Certification Documents shall be sent to the Local Planning Authority (LPA) prior to any development commencing on the site. No development shall commence until the LPA has given written approval of the documents. No sludges or slurrys may be used. Analytical evidence shall be provided to verify imported soils are suitable for the proposed end use. This will require characterisation of the source and target sites in accordance with BS ISO 15176:2002 and subsequent relevant soil analyses. The sampling protocols and soil guideline values to be used for assessment of suitability will be dependant on the source of the soil and the proposed use of the target site and this shall be agreed with the LPA prior to any development commencing on the site. As a minimum, for large volumes of homogenous natural soils for use in non-sensitive areas, such as commercial end uses, sampling frequency shall be at least one per thousand cubic metres (1:1000m3). Soils for use in sensitive areas, such as domestic gardens, and where imported soils are less homogenous, the sampling frequency shall be greater (i.e. up to one per hundred and fifty cubic metres (1:150m3)).
A048 A closure report shall be submitted once remediation works have been completed. This shall include results of all sampling undertaken and certification of imported soils. This condition shall not be discharged until a closure report has been submitted to and approved by the LPA. Ref 1. R&D Publication CLR8 (2002) 'Potential contaminants for the assessment of land' (DEFRA and the Environment Agency) Ref 2. BS ISO 15176:2002 'Soil quality - characterisation of excavated soil and
25 In the interests of safety and amenity in accordance with Policies DL1 and DL4 of the adopted Dartford Local Plan and Policies DD11 and NR21 of the Local Plan Review.
26 No residential development or use that would lead to public exposure to poor air quality shall take place within the application site to a depth of 25m from the southern boundary with University Way unless and until monitoring of the air quality has shown that levels of nitrogen dioxide do not exceed the guidance contained within the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs LAQM, PG(03) and Natural Air Quality Objectives or as subsequently revised or superseded. The monitoring shall be carried out in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority for approval prior to the commencement of works on site and shall include provisions for the monitoring of air quality for a minimum period of 6 months but including both winter and summer conditions.
26 In the interests of safety and amenity in accordance with Policies DL1 and DL4 of the adopted Dartford Local Plan and Policies NR10, NR11 and NR12 of the Local Plan Review.
27 Before development on any part of the site commences, details of noise mitigation measures required in accordance with PPG24 (Planning and Noise) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved measures shall be implemented in complete accordance with the scheme before first occupation of the development in respect of which the details have been approved.
27 To safeguard the noise environment of the surrounding locality in accordance with Policies E14 and B1 of the adopted Dartford Local Plan and Policy DD11 of the Local Plan Review.
28 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order) no extensions, alterations or other form of enlargement including roof enlargements, nor satellite dishes erected nor demolition of boundary walls, fences or other means of enclosure shall take place without the prior permission in writing of the Local Planning Authority.
28 To enable the Local Planning Authority to regulate and control any such further development in the interests of the visual amenity of the locality in accordance with Policy B1 of the Adopted Local Plan and Policy DD11 of the Local Plan Review.
29 A scheme for the provision of amenity space and children's play space for each phase of the development shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before any works are commenced, within the phase of development which includes the related amenity and play space (and the scheme shall be implemented concurrently with the carrying out of the development, or within such extended period
A049 as shall have been agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority). Such areas shall be provided for public access in perpetuity and excluded from any domestic garden and kept as a landscape strip, and no permanent development, whether permitted by the Town and Country Planning General Permitted Development Order 1995, or not, shall be carried out in the areas shown within the prior written permission of or on behalf of the Local Planning Authority.
29 In the interests of visual amenity and to ensure that open space, public open space and private landscaped areas are retained and maintained as such in accordance with Policies B1, B3 and RT18 of the Adopted Dartford Local Plan and Policies DD6 and DD11 and lRT12 of the Local Plan Review.
30 Pursuant to Condition 04 a public art strategy shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority and thereafter public art shall be provided within the site in accordance with the approved strategy. The strategy shall be submitted prior to the commencement of any works on site and shall include the site to be utilized, the type of art, a timescale for placement and a finance and specification regime for future maintenance.
30 In the interests of visual amenity and in accordance with Policies B1 and B5 of the Adopted Local Plan and Policy DD14 of the Local Plan Review.
31 Prior to the commencement of any works on site, a Construction Code of Conduct shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The site clearance works, provision of infrastructure and all construction work shall take place in strict accordance with the agreed Code of Conduct and this shall include: a) measures to protect areas undisturbed prior to development commencing within the site from loss by development or damage during construction activities; b) methods of protecting sensitive habitats and species from direct damage or disturbance during construction activities; c) measures to protect known archaeological features and areas of potential for archaeology; d) measures to regulate disturbance and disruption to local communities caused by construction activities; e) dust mitigation and suppression measures; f) measures to minimise the noise impact of construction activities; g) details of construction lighting together with measures to minimise light pollution; h) hours of working; i) measures to prevent the deposition of mud on the highway; j) method of access and parking of construction vehicles and employees vehicles and site drainage for construction vehicle parking areas. k) no personnel to sleep on site without the prior approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority. l) lorries and loads to be covered to prevent spread of dust and materials. m) construction boundaries and lockable gates and barriers manned at all times during construction.
31 In order to minimise the impact of construction activities on the surrounding area in accordance with Policies E14 and B1 of the Adopted Local Plan and Policies DD11 and T14 of the Local Plan Review.
32 Any facilities for the storage of oils, fuels or chemicals shall be sited on impervious bases and surrounded by impervious bund walls. The volume of the bunded compound should be at least equivalent to the capacity of the tank plus 10%. If there is multiple
A050 tankage, the compound should be at least equivalent to the capacity of the largest tank, or the combined capacity of interconnected tanks, plus 10%. All filling points, vents, gauges and sight glasses shall be located within the bund. The drainage system of the bund shall be sealed with no discharge to any watercourse, land or underground strata. Associated pipework shall be located above ground and protected from accidental damage. All filling points and tank overflow pipe outlets shall be detailed is discharge downwards into the bund.
32 In the interests of public safety and in order to prevent the pollution of the ground, water courses or underground water supplies in accodance with Policies E14 and B1 of the adopted Dartford Local Plan.
33 No demolition or construction work shall take place on the site outside the hours of 0800 to 1800 Mondays to Fridays inclusive, and 0800 to 1400 on Saturdays with no work on Sundays and Bank Holidays.
33 To protect the amenities of the residents of nearby dwellings in accordance with Policies E14 and B1 of the adopted Dartford Local Plan.
34 Effective wheel washing plant and equipment shall be installed on the site in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority and thereafter maintained in full working order until the development has been completed and no vehicles shall leave the site until their wheels, chassis and external bodywork have been effectively cleaned and washed free of earth, mud, clay, gravel, stones or any other similar substance.
34 In the interests of amenity and highway safety in accordance with Policy B1of the adopted Dartford Local Plan and Policy DD11 of the Local Plan Review".
35 No more than 750 residential units shall be occupied within the application site until a pre school nursery and the two form entry primary school has been constructed, completed and available for use in accordance with details submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority.
35 To ensure that adequate nursery and primary educational facilities are available to meet the needs of the occupiers of the development in accordance with Policy CF3 of the Adopted Local Plan and Policies DD2 and CF3 of the Local Plan Review.
36 . No more than 500 residential units shall be occupied until the community health facilities including a two doctor surgery and dentist surgery has been constructed, completed and are available for use in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority.
36 To ensure that adequate health care facilities are available to meet the needs of the occupiers of the development in accordance with Policy CF3 of the Adopted Local Plan and Policies DD2, CF1 and CF3 of the Local Plan Review.
37 The dedicated public transport route (Fastrack) through the development hereby approved and within the barrier controlled carriageways shown on the approved details submitted pursuant to Condition 04 shall only be used by public transport vehicles in
A051 accordance with details and specifications to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority.
37 In order to ensure the provision of a public transport system of the required quality and efficiency in accordance with Policies T1, T2, T3 and T4 of the Adopted Local Plan and Policies T1, T3, T16 and MDS4 of the Local Plan Review.
38 No more than 750 residential units shall be occupied within the application site until library and adult education facilities have been provided and are available for use in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority.
38 To ensure that adequate library and adult education facilities are available to meet the needs of the developers in accordance with Policy CF3 of the Adopted Local Plan and Policies DD2, CF1 and CF3 of the Local Plan Review.
39 Prior to the occupation of 650 residential units, or the occupation of any commercial premises within the identified Business Park or Science Park (other than Plots 1 and 37 as identified on the approved drawings), or the expiration of 3 years from the commencement of works on site, whichever is the sooner, the new bridge over the A282 shall be constructed, completed and be available for use in accordance with details submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority.
39 In order to ensure the provision of a public transport system of the required efficiency and capability to serve the development proposed in accordance with Policies T1, T2, T3 and T4 of the Adopted Local Plan and Policies T1, T3, T16 and MDS4 f the Local Plan Review.
40 Prior to the occupation of any unit, including any residential unit, on site apart from those identified on Plots 1 and 37 of the approved drawing, the new bridge over University Way, the A206, and the Fastrack corridor to the south to Joyce Green Lane shall be constructed, completed and be available for use in accordance with details submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority.
40 In order to ensure the provision of a public transport system of the required efficiency and capability to serve the development proposed in accordance with Policies T1, T2, T3 and T4 of the Adopted Local Plan and Policies T1, T3, T16 and MDS4 of the Local Plan Review.
41 Within 3 months of the commencement of any part of the development permitted,or such longer period as may be approved by the Local Planning Authority, facilities shall be provided within the curtilage of the site for the storage of refuse and waste materials in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority before any work on the development hereby permitted is first commenced, and thereafter the approved facilities shall be permanently maintained.
41 To ensure that the proposed development does not prejudice the enjoyment by neighbouring occupiers of their properties and the appearance of the locality in accordance with policy B1 of the adopted Dartford Local Plan.
A052 42 Prior to the commencement of any works on site details of an Ordnance survey of the site and an associated remedial clearance strategy together with a timetable of works shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Upon approval such works required shall be carried out in strict accordance with the approved details.
42 In the interests of public safety and in accordance with Policies DL1 and Dl4 of the adopted Local Plan and Policies DD11 And NR21 of the Local Plan Review.
A053 A054 Application No:: 02/00129/OUT
Address : Site Of Former Joyce Green Hospital & Littlebrook Lakes North Of University Way Dartford
Item A01 Date: 25 March 2003 Scale: 1:1250
ROB SCOTT
DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENT CIVIC CENTRE, HOME GARDENS DARTFORD KENT DA1 1DR
A055 Item A02
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL BOARD
3 April 2003
Item A02
Reference: 02/00999/OUT Officer: Miss Amanda Marks
Location: Land South Of London Road, Stone, Bounded By Sandy Lane, Hedge Place Road & Stone Castle Access Road
Proposal: Outline application for the development of up to 450 residential units (including environmental statement) together with access road, car parking & landscaping; demolition of 2 residential units in connection with improvement works to existing site access junction at London Road, creation of open spaces & amended car park layout & landscaping for the retained Stone Castle together with ancillary works
Applicant: Copthorn Homes Ltd & Land Securities Trading Ltd
Agent: Montagu Evans Premier House 44-48 Dover Street London W1X 4JX
Date Valid: 16/10/2002
Parish / Ward: Stone Parish Council / Stone
RECOMMENDATION:
Defer for delegated approval (subject to satisfactory prior completion of S106 Agreement within six months of date of this resolution)
SITE SPECIFIC POLICY
Due to the length of this report, Members may find the following index useful -
Topic Paragraph number
Site Specific Policy 1 Proposal 5 Relevant History 9 Comments from organisations - 1st consultation 12 Comments from organisations - 2nd consultation 57 Neighbour notification 66 Relevant planning policies 67 Key issues 73 Principle of development 74 Compatibility with the emerging Local Plan 81 Impact on wildlife 96
A056 Electricity pylons 97 Air quality 98 Affordable Housing 105 Noise 106 Flooding 107 Transport and highways 108 S106 Agreement 111 Conclusions 113
SITE SPECIFIC POLICY
(1) Dartford Local Plan - no site specific policy, however the following policies are applicable - S1, S3 & S8 (strategic policies relating to provision of land, recycling of redundant sites and community/transport facilities), H7 (housing development within the urban area, including appropriate provision of affordable housing), H8 and H10 (density & mix and layout & design standards), CF3 (provision of social/community/education facilities), T5 (public transport facilities and infrastructure), T20 (access onto distributor roads), T21 (highway improvements).
(2) Dartford Local Plan Review Second Stage Deposit Draft - the site is allocated as a major Development Site with site specific criteria. The following policies directly apply: MDS3 (Stone Castle development criteria), DD3 (walkable neighbourhoods), DD6 (Green Grid), H1a and H1(31) (strategic sites and housing provision), H16 (affordable urban housing), BE17 (overhead power lines), DD1 (public transport orientated development), CF3 (community facilities), LRT12 (new open spaces), NR10 and NR11 (Air Quality), H21 (Lifetime Homes), T16 (onsite highway design), T18 (Transport Assessments), T7 (Transport Infrastructure), DD11 (General Design), DD14 (Public Art), BE8 (Setting of Listed Building).
SITE DESCRIPTION
(3) The site is 11.8 hectares of a roughly shaped triangular piece of land located directly to the south of the existing Waterstone Park phase 1 development. The site currently contains the Lafarge Technical Centre which is adjacent to the boundary with Phase 1 and Stone Castle is situated much deeper into the site. The land rises steadily to the south until reaching the pinnacle which overlooks Bluewater. Aside from the more formal grassed area around Stone Castle and the land taken by the technical centre, the remainder of the site is open. The site occupies the central part of the Local Plan Review Policy MDS3 Stone Castle. To the east lies St Clements Valley, also part of the allocation in the Local Plan Review for future employment development. To the west are Pits 9 & 9a identified in the long term as possibly being suitable for development.
(4) There is an overhead power line which runs over the southern tip of the site and into Eastern Quarry. Should the scenario occur whereby the power line cannot be removed then the southern end of the site will effectively be precluded from development within 50 metres of the cable. A Masterplan has been designed to take account of this possibility. Seeboard are considering removing the line. The latest information suggests that the line is likely to be removed before it has a major impact on the development of Eastern Quarry.
PROPOSAL
(5) Members will recall that a presentation was undertaken by the applicants at the beginning of the meeting of DC Board held on the 16th January 2003.
(6) The proposal is in outline only, therefore the detailed design, external appearance, siting and landscaping will be considered at a later stage. It is however intended to provide up to 450 residential units on this site and in order to ascertain the ability of the site to achieve this, the Masterplan has been worked up to demonstrate how a layout might work. The development comprises a mix of residential units, ranging from one bedroom apartments to three and four bedroom houses. Within this there will be private units for sale and a proportion of units for rent/affordable/key worker housing. The minimum density of the
A057 development within the parcel areas is 60 units per hectare. In addition to the Design Statement, an impact study of 7 storey buildings has also been submitted in response to concerns raised through the consultation period. However, the application does not seek approval to 7 storey development, or indeed any other storey heights, because all matters of design and appearance are reserved for subsequent approval.
(7) It is proposed to share the single vehicular access point from London Road. Junction improvements have already been undertaken as part of Phase 1. However, this Phase will improve on those by demolishing the two empty dwellings to the east of the existing access and utilising the increased area available. A detailed traffic impact assessment has been submitted as part of the scheme.
(8) The application includes a number of off-site contributions and on site works to help integrate the development into the area and community. These contributions can be secured through a S106 agreement and will be considered more fully later in this report. In brief, there will be an undertaking to provide 30% affordable housing, a contribution for school places, areas of local play and a number of highway benefits including an intersite 'zip bus' to operate to the railway station and Bluewater.
RELEVANT HISTORY
(9) An application to remediate the former landfill site at Pit 10, immediately to the west of Phase 1, and to lay it out as open space was approved and is currently nearing completion.
(10) DA/99/00749/FUL: An application for 201 residential units with associated S106 Agreement was approved in October 2000 and is currently well under way and a number of dwellings are now occupied.
(11) Formerly an outline application was submitted for the existing Phase 1 and now proposed Phase 2, but this was subsequently withdrawn.
COMMENTS FROM ORGANISATIONS - FIRST CONSULTATION
(12) Stone Parish Council: The Council have concerns about the height of the 7-storey block of flats and request that community provision be provided including a library.
(13) Horns Cross and Stone Residents Association: Objection. They feel that Phase 1 has impacted negatively upon the local environment as foreseen by local residents and is very dense. The traffic lights, which were put in by the developers, have a negative impact upon the traffic flow which now backs-up the traffic in both ways on London Road on a daily basis causing traffic jams.
(14) If Phase 2 were to go ahead, they feel the traffic problems would only get worse. Just because Phase 1 has been built this does not mean that the remaining farmland has to be developed as well - the farmers are obviously making farming a going concern.
(15) They state that building on Grade II, agricultural farmland is against Government Planning Guidelines, which clearly state that brownfield sites must be used first. Adjacent to Stone Castle Fields are areas of brownfield sites.
(16) Housing Strategy and Performance Manager: He seeks a total of 30% affordable housing to be made up of 20% social rented and 10% shared ownership and sub market rented, possibly key worker. He will be seeking 100% nomination rights and would expect the units to be provided and managed by a joint commissioning partner RSL of the Council. The housing mix would need to reflect the mix across the whole of the site and he further advises that there is a need for family housing in the Borough and that the mix would need to take a pepper pot approach across the site (as did Phase 1). He stipulates that the housing will need to be sold to an RSL at a price attractive to enable grant funding and that the Council will not support any funding bid that is based upon a maximum figure and at odds with rival bids on other schemes. He also suggests that the responsibility for providing funding rests
A058 with the developer and that the Council will not be in a position to provide any subsidy, nor can he guarantee funding will be available by the Housing Corporation. He would prefer there to be no cascade mechanism to kick in should funding not be available. The expectation is that the affordable housing of the agreed mix and tenure will be provided in accordance with appropriate trigger timescales.
(17) Landscape Design Officer: Whilst he has no reason to doubt the arboricultural context of the report included as an appendix in the Environmental Statement, he feels the clarification category is subjective. He believes that some of the comments and categories have been harsh and that where a 'C' has been given, he would suggest a 'B' to be more appropriate. He therefore asks that this area be given a certain amount of latitude.
(18) Environmental Strategic Development Manager: As the whole site is within 250m of a gassing landfill site, he advises that a gas impermeable membrane should be incorporated within all structures along with a ventilated sub-floor area. Also, any services entering/leaving the structures should be located above the gas impermeable membrane or alternatively, adequately seals will need to be provided if the membrane is to be breached. The details should be submitted and approved prior to the works being carried out.
(19) The application proposes working hours of 08:00 - 18:00 Mon-Fri and 08:00 - 13:00 Sat, plus 'quiet working' 07:00-08:00 and 18:00-19:00 Mon-Fri. He would not recommend that the 'quiet working' hours be permitted. Work should thus be limited to 08:00 Mon-Fri & 08:00- 13:00 Sat. Any working outside of these hours should only be upon prior written approval from the Council. Details to the site outside these hours should also require prior written approval.
(20) The garages to be demolished adjacent to Stone Castle need to be checked beforehand for asbestos, particularly asbestos sheeting. If found, this will need to be removed with due care and attention. The application states that some routine vibration monitoring will be carried out. Recent experience has demonstrated that problems often occur at more remote locations than would be expected.
(21) The use of a rock crusher on site will require an authorisation prior to the first use of the machine on site. The applicant should be required to provide documentary evidence of the authorisation for any crusher(s) on site. No fires should be allowed on site. The applicant will need to provide details of a scheme for wheel washing facilities.
Comments on Air Quality
(22) The Environmental Strategic Development Manager had concerns over the methodology used in the air quality assessment. The Council's Scientific Officer has carried out prediction modelling and this does show there are adverse air quality impacts arising from the development proposals. In particular, up to 6 properties along London Road will receive poor air quality and these are in addition to the properties already predicted to suffer poor air quality even without the development. By "poor air quality" he means that the National Air Quality Objectives will be exceeded. This means that there will be an increased risk to the health of residents in such areas.
(23) It has not been possible to include the highway improvements as a result of the proposed at the London Road junction within the air quality modelling work. Ideally, this should be carried out prior to determination of the application. If the application has to be determined before this, it is important that the developer is required either by conditions or by formal agreements to mitigate against the air quality impacts arising from this development. This would be in accordance with the Local Plan Review and the Community Strategy which states that there will be actions that influence "the pattern of developments to help reduce the numbers of dwellings impacted by poor air quality." For example, the developer could be required to financially contribute to road improvements/traffic management. The difficulty with this is that it is not possible at this stage to state the extent and duration of the commitment. If further mitigation is not secured, he would advise that the application should be
A059 refused/deferred until such time that the air quality impacts arising from it can be mitigated to prevent an increase in the number of properties impacted by poor air quality.
(24) Environment Agency: Flooding - their concern is that the development will increase surface water run-off from the site. There would however, appear to be some possible options and therefore the Agency do not object to the principle of housing on this site subject to conditions.
(25) They stress that the applicant should be aware that if the site cannot be drained then detailed permission may never be achieved. The Applicant should also be aware that attenuation of surface water may also be required, as 600 homes must not be put at risk to surface water flooding through inadequate drainage.
(26) Biodiversity - the Agency state that trees must only be felled where absolutely necessary and for every tree felled three native trees of local provenance must be planted. Mature trees on the site may provide opportunities for bats. In order to comply with the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 and the Conservation (Natural Habitats etc.) Regulations 1994, all mature trees which are to be felled should be surveyed for bats by a licensed surveyor. If bats or a bat roost are identified then an appropriate mitigation and compensation package needs to be developed in conjunction with Kent Bat Group and implemented. Existing hedgerows within the application site should be preserved and where appropriate, restored and extended.
(27) The applicant must ensure that the proposed development will not result in the direct destruction or injury of any wild bird, their nest or eggs; or disturb any wild bird or the dependent young of such a bird that is protected under the Wildlife and countryside Act 1981. If this is considered to be, or identified as an environmental risk, appropriate mitigation and compensation must be developed and implemented.
(28) There are water bodies in close proximity to the site. The direct and indirect impacts of surface water runoff must be assessed to determine whether they could affect these water bodies. If it is deemed that there is a pathway to impact these water bodies then they should be surveyed and the impacts mitigated
(29) Contamination - the previous agricultural and research laboratory use of this land may have left contamination which could impact on the proposed development. Any identified risks should be fully evaluated, if necessary by intrusive investigations, and appropriately addressed prior to the commencement of the development.
Conditions are suggested for all of the above comments.
(30) Project Manager: He feels that the plans originally submitted had not had much regard to historic or archaeological information gained about the site. He has some reservations about the design around Stone Castle in that it may intrude on identified features such as the defensive ditch and the crinkle crankle wall. These elements (and possibly others not identified in the desk top study) need enhancement and proper identification.
(31) With regard to archaeology, the defensive ditch was missed in the environmental assessment. There may be other features missed. The study identifies that there is up to moderate archaeological potential on the site and that proposals will have a severe impact. This means that a well defined brief for investigation and recording will be required, and consideration as to where any finds are to be deposited. A reference in the study mentions geological anomalies to the west of Stone Castle and these do need full investigation.
(32) With regard to the design generally, he is worried about the 7 storey units on an elevated site. Already the Phase 1 scheme dominates London Road, and this should not be the case in St Clements Valley. However he does like the swept approach through the site. The proposals do not currently address keeping an openness to the south end of the site nor the 'keep' of housing around Stone Castle to the south west. Consideration is needed as to how
A060 to handle the permission and setting of the listed building for whichever outcome of the power line issue, as either has considerable impact.
(33) English Nature: Raise no objection. They welcome the inclusion of a thorough ecological assessment within the Environmental Statement. They are satisfied that the development will not affect any Sites of Special Scientific Interest, and it appears that the proposed development site itself is of limited ecological value. If the Council is minded to grant permission, they suggest a condition be attached to ensure that any works do not impact on protected species and to secure measures for the protection and enhancement of retained habitats for the benefit of wildlife.
(34) Kent Wildlife Trust: no response
(35) Council for the Protection of Rural England: no response
(36) Kent Highways: Initial suggestions:
Provision of a left turn lane, west bound on London Road at its junction with the development access road, broadly in line with the layout shown at the time of the Phase 1 submission.
A significant contribution towards the junction improvements required at the London Road/St Clements Way junction.
The provision of a local bus service, supported for a minimum period of five years, introduced on occupation of the 100th dwelling. A road circuit capable of accommodating the bus without the need for any reversing movements must be in place at this time and be available for bus operations.
Funding for the introduction of a residents' parking scheme and its enforcement from the date construction starts until five years after construction is completed. This is to include Phase 1 as well as Phase 2, due to displacement problems from Phase 2.
Contribution towards the provision of real time information panels on the local bus stops on London Road.
(37) English Heritage: In earlier discussions on site with the applicants the importance of defining a setting to Stone Castle was stressed by English Heritage. They are therefore surprised to see a development envelope which proposes 7 storey accommodation to the south of the castle. The logic of the assessment is that either views are opened up and the former dominating presence of the castle is partially restored, or the boundaries are thickened to screen the new development from the wider landscape. To propose new development that significantly breaches the screening and competes with the castle for dominance in the wider landscape, they say, is illogical.
(38) One of the basic principles for development on this site has been identified as preservation and enhancement of the setting to the castle. Development on the scale proposed to the south will not achieve that objective. They are also concerned about the proposed 2 storey crescent immediately to the south of the listed building as this will also have a detrimental impact on its setting and further reduce its former open character.
(39) They are also concerned about the role assigned to the castle in the future development. There are currently no proposals for the listed building and it clearly requires some attention. They urge the authority to seek an holistic approach to the development and to ensure that the future of the castle is looked at as part of this development. The only proposals that are presented involve demolition of walls and outbuildings, there is no assessment of their significance. It appears that at least some of the structures contain historic fabric. They question whether the continued use of the castle is the best way of ensuring it remains at the heart of the new community. If the castle were to be used to provide community facilities - nursery, community hall, health centre, in a combination of refurbished buildings and purpose
A061 built new extensions/development, it would truly become part of the development and would go a long way to meeting the criteria for achieving a sustainable community.
(40) In conclusion English Heritage regard the proposal plan as flawed. It does not pay sufficient regard to preserving and enhancing the setting of the castle, it does not respond fully to the context of the site and an opportunity is being missed to create a genuine community by linking the use of the listed building to the wider development. They request that further consideration is given to the proposals to ensure that they meet the clearly stated Local Plan objectives.
(41) Kent Archaeological Unit: In their opinion the site is in area of archaeological potential - no other comment.
(42) Dartford and Gravesham Building Preservation Trust: They wish to object to the proposal to demolish the outbuildings including the stables, though not the more modern garages. These buildings, they suggest, form an important, integral part of the castle and are worthy of retention. The perimeter wall requires a proper study into its history in order to make an assessment of it before any decisions are about its future. They would like to see due consideration given to incorporating more of an 'avenue' on the approach road from London Road, possibly moving the access slightly further to the west. In addition they would like to see hotel facilities encouraged at the castle or planned for the future. This would ensure its survival when competing with similar facilities at, for example Crossways.
(43) As a listed building, the proximity of some of the proposed new dwellings needs addressing. The proposed houses to the north are far too close, especially if they are to be town houses. They are concerned about the crescent of properties to the south and their detrimental impact on the setting of the castle - the curtilage of the castle needs extending in these areas.
(44) Kent County Council (Heritage Conservation): They raise several concerns regarding cultural heritage elements, especially the consideration of the potential for early prehistoric archaeology and the lack of detailed assessment of Stone Castle itself. Until a reasonable amount of fieldwork has been undertaken on the site, there cannot be a definitive statement on the presence/absence of archaeological remains nor an assessment of the importance of those remains. As such, at this stage, they do not agree that mitigation measures for archaeology can be covered by a programme of investigation works; preservation in situ of important remains still needs to be an option.
(45) The historic and archaeological assessment of Stone Castle complex itself is wholly inadequate and they recommend that more detailed assessments of Stone Castle, both historic building survey and archaeological survey are carried out. They are not convinced that the proposed landscaping and design of the development around Stone Castle really reflects its historic character.
(46) In summary, KCC Heritage consider that the archaeological assessment is too brief and underestimates the archaeological potential and that the historical, archaeological and historic landscape assessment of Stone Castle itself is inadequate. They recommend that a more comprehensive historic and archaeological assessment of Stone Castle is carried out prior to determination of this application. They also recommend that there is provision within the development scheme for preservation in situ of any important remains.
(47) They are satisfied that archaeological and historic concerns can be addressed through conditions at some stage but at present they consider further assessment, particularly of the historical, archaeological and historic landscape of Stone Castle itself, should be undertaken prior to determination of this application and that the results should be taken into account in the design.
(48) KCC Land Use and Transport Policy: This proposal will make an important contribution to strategic housing provisions and regeneration in Kent Thameside and is consistent with emerging development strategy for the area. Whilst it has the support of the County Planning
A062 Authority there are a number of detailed considerations relevant to the application of strategic policies.
(49) In summary the County Planning Authority does not raise a strategic planning objection to the proposals subject to consideration and appropriate resolution of a number of detailed issues. These include heritage and archaeological issues, wildlife and habitat issues, the provision of community facilities, urban design, layout and transport infrastructure.
(50) Dartford, Gravesham & Swanley Primary Care Trust: They have grave concerns at the size of the development, which will run alongside the current development at Stone Castle, since there is insufficient capacity in the area to provide primary care facilities to the current population and certainly no possibility of extending to a new population. They say that representations were made directly to the applicants before the initial phase of this development commenced but no acknowledgement was made of the identified need.
(51) The planned development, they feel, cannot be taken in isolation, given the large scale of residential build in the immediate vicinity. There were health centre premises suggested on the Ingress Park site but there has been no movement towards the construction of these with the resultant pressure on the practices in the area. This makes the proposed construction of a further 450 units within a very short distance even more a matter of concern.
(52) KCC Education: The development as proposed would create the demand for extra primary and secondary school places. At present, the additional requirement for the school places cannot be accommodated within local schools. The cost of providing the extra Primary and Secondary school places is currently #3319 per applicable dwelling.
(53) The County Council do not seek education contributions upon 1 bed units of less than 600sqft or sheltered education contributions for the elderly over 55 years of age: thus the above figure is, therefore, not applicable to such units where these are to be provided. A re- evaluation of by the Education Directorate shows that there is a need for a Contribution towards 63 Primary places and 53 Secondary places.
(54) KCC Community Facilities: The County Council are also seeking contributions towards Libraries, Adult Education and Youth and Community. The contributions could be used to:
Make improvements to the two Dartford town centre facilities Provide some on-site facilities Support the mobile library service either improved or increased
(55) Gravesham Borough Council: no response
(56) Thames Water: No objection
COMMENTS FROM ORGANISATIONS - SECOND CONSULTATION
The second consultation referred to illustrative material showing some development up to seven storeys and provided additional information on archaeology and the setting of the Listed Building.
(57) Stone Parish Council: They are strongly opposed to the application on the grounds that the seven storey buildings are too over powering.
(58) Landscape Design Officer: Although not strictly a landscape matter, the proposed 7 storey high building on the southern pinnacle would have a major impact on the wider landscape and he believes the others within the site would too when viewed from the south & east. He considers this to be intrusive (even more so than Bluewater) and believes it should be reduced in height substantially.
(59) Although mention is made of the area south of the Castle if the pylons are not removed, he feels the issue of its future use/management has not been addressed. He considers that a
A063 landscape should be created, even for a temporary time, as to leave it would not be viable to farm when associated with a new urban development.
(60) English Heritage: They have considered the additional information and do not regard the minor amendments to the development framework as addressing the concerns outlined in their previous letter. If the pylons are not removed then the proposed layout should be amended to address the retained space in a meaningful way.
(61) The further information on the impact of the 7 storey buildings is welcomed as it clarifies, in the case of that proposed for the northern part of the site, the limited impact it will have on the setting of the castle. However, the illustrations do also demonstrate the impact of the southern tower, particularly in the longer views and they remain concerned about development on this scale in this location.
(62) The photomontages do not show how the castle's impact could be enhanced by the careful opening up of views. They merely superimpose new development onto the site and down play the importance of the castle.
(63) They remain concerned that the proposals as presented do not fulfil the requirements of the brief for the site and an opportunity to create a sustainable community is being missed.
(64) Stone Castle Heritage Conference Centre: Concern expressed in two letters from each of the current leaseholders of the Castle over loss of privacy to the functioning of the Castle as a conference centre. They feel that too much of the gardens will be lost to the development and therefore losing the existing feel of seclusion that the centre has. They are worried over maintenance of the new footpaths and cycle routes, as the present footpath is not maintained and they have been suffering from vandalism recently. They feel that the proposal for up to 7 storey high buildings will detract from the commitment of the Castle as being a centre piece for a regeneration project.
(65) The amount of investment, time and money, that has been put into enhancing Stone Castle is considered to be potentially wasteful if development is too close to the castle.
NEIGHBOUR NOTIFICATION
(66) 28 letters of objection have been received raising the following planning concerns:
loss of green land/agricultural fields; out of character in a semi-rural location over three storey high buildings out of keeping in the area (Phase 1 unsightly development)- intrusive to residents of Barnfield Close tower blocks unsightly housing not required to meet housing targets - Eastern Quarry will achieve this inadequacy of water and sewage system to cope with additional housing numbers local road network has reached saturation point with cumulative development; single access into the site insufficient for both Phase 1 and 2 concern that the large horse chestnut tree at site entrance will be damaged during construction encroachment on setting of Stone Castle trees to be retained; impact on wildlife harmful impact on character of St Clements Valley access links - pedestrian and cycle to be for all throughout the site impact on nursery and mainstream education provision overstretched GP and Darent Valley Hospital facilities noise pollution from construction work
In addition to the above comments, a number of residents used their consultation letter to complain generally about the traffic congestion and scale of development being undertaken in the area. They also cited Phase 1 as an example of how such high density can damage the character of an area.
A064 RELEVANT PLANNING POLICIES
(67) There is a great deal of planning policy and guidance at the national, regional and local level in relation to this development proposal.
(68) At the national level, Planning Policy Guidance Note 3: Housing (PPG3) and daughter document "Planning to Deliver" are of great significance. PPG3 sets out the search sequence and criteria against which the suitability of sites for housing allocation in local plans should be judged and it requires that local planning authorities should revise their plans as quickly as possible to take into account the guidance. This has been undertaken as part of the Local Plan Review Second Stage Deposit. The Council has taken note of the advice in PPG3 and Policy H1a has since been developed in response. Policy H1a identifies Stone Castle as a strategic site within the context of the daughter document of PPG3 'Planning to Deliver'. The advice in PPG3 suggests that decisions on applications for greenfield sites should be made in relation to a site selection criteria, this comprises design, layout, efficient use of land, including car parking standards. Additional guidance relates to creating mixed communities, delivering affordable housing and greening the residential environment.
(69) PPG13: Transport; provides advice on how local authorities should integrate sustainability by reducing reliance on the private car and encouraging alternative means of travel.
(70) Regional Planning Guidance Note 9A: Thames Gateway Planning Framework, June 1995 (RPG 9a) encourages higher density residential development where advantage can be taken of public transport links and where access to important facilities can be achieved by walking and cycling, with the proviso that high density should not lead to a deterioration in environmental amenity. It also encourages a reasonable mix and balance of house types and sizes and the provision of affordable housing on larger sites. In particular, the guidance encourages the development of new homes close to Bluewater, to allow it to act as a focus for the new Kent Thameside rather than standing alone as an out-of-town centre.
(71) The KCC Structure Plan has a number of relevant policies. Policy S1 requires Local Planning Authorities to achieve a sustainable pattern and form of development which will reduce the need to travel, facilitate the conservation of energy and other natural and environmental resources, and minimise pollution. Policy S9 states that regard must be had to the need for community facilities, including education, health, culture, shopping and transport. Policy H4 requires new residential development to be well related to public transport provision and Policy H7 requires a range of dwelling sizes and types and a significant proportion of social housing on larger sites. Policy ENV2 states that Kent's landscape and wildlife habitats will be conserved and enhanced and ENV7 seeks to maintain tree cover.
(72) The Adopted Local Plan was prepared prior to the publication of PPG3 (March 2000) and if there are any relevant differences then PPG3 will take precedence. The Local Plan Review Second Stage Deposit Draft post dates and takes account of PPG3.
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL MANAGERS COMMENTS
Key issues
(73) I consider the key issues to be as follows:
(i) The principle of the development with regard to PPG3 (Housing)
(ii) The compatibility of the proposal with the emerging Local Plan policy for the site
(iii) Impact on wildlife
(iv) Electricity Power Line
A065 (v) Air Quality
(vi) Affordable Housing
(vii) Noise
(viii) Transport and highways
Principle of the Development (PPG3 Housing)
(74) The site is partly brownfield, partly damaged land that will be brought back into beneficial community use, partly greenfield and also includes a listed building (Stone Castle). The application is part of a mixed-use integrated development which has potential to provide some 650 dwellings 50,000 square metres of employment floorspace and the creation of new public open space, including a linear park, forming part of the Green Grid. This is the second phase of the housing element of the Stone Castle mixed-use allocation (MDS3).
(75) The guidance in PPG3 clearly states that there is a presumption that previously developed sites should be developed before Greenfield sites. Paragraph 30 sets out a search sequence for the identification of housing land in local plans, this is namely :
the re-use of previously-developed land and buildings within urban areas identified by the urban capacity study; then urban extensions; and finally new development around nodes in good public transport corridors.
Paragraph 31 set out the criteria against which the potential and suitability of sites should be assessed. These are:
the availability of previously developed sites and empty or under-used buildings and their sustainability for housing use;
the location and accessibility of potential development sites to jobs, shops and service of modes other than the car, and the potential for improving such accessibility;
the capacity of existing and potential infrastructure, including public transport, water and sewerage, other utilities and social infrastructure (such as schools and hospitals) to absorb further development and the cost of adding further infrastructure;
the ability to build communities to support new physical and social infrastructure and to provide sufficient demand to sustain appropriate local services and facilities; and
the physical and environmental constraints on development of land, including, for example, the level of contamination, stability and flood risk, taking into account that such risk may increase as a result of climate change.
(76) PPG3 paragraph 38 states that:
'In considering planning applications for housing development in the interim, before development plans can be reviewed, local authorities should have regard to the policy contained in this PPG as material considerations which may supersede the policies in their plan. Comparison with available previously developed sites against criteria in paragraph 31 and in light of the presumption in paragraph 32 and the policies on design, layout and efficient use of the land, including car parking will be particularly relevant.'
(77) The Local Plan Review reassessed the site against the PPG 3 search sequence and criteria and concluded that the site forms an extension to the existing urban area, and is well related to existing bus routes on London Road, as well as Greenhithe railway station, which has a quarter hourly service on the North Kent Line. The development will create a new community close to Bluewater, consistent with RPG9a. Thus, whilst the site is not wholly a
A066 brownfield site it can be treated as an urban expansion site that it is well related to public transport corridors and nodes. Accordingly, it falls within the parameters of the search sequence. When compared against the criteria set out in paragraph 31 the site performs well. The site is also important in the wider Thames Gateway context and has been identified in the Local Plan Review Second Stage Deposit as a 'strategic site'. Paragraph 3.3.6 of the Local Plan Review Second Stage Deposit stresses that the timely development of this site along with others is vital to achieving a coherent urban structure in Kent Thameside
(78) Furthermore, the Thames Gateway Planning Framework identifies Kent Thameside as a major growth area, capable of providing 30,000 new dwellings. The Stone Castle site lies within the general urban area north of the A2. This approach is carried through to the Kent Structure Plan where there is a requirement for 10,500 houses to be provided in Dartford between 1991-2011.
(79) Policy MDS3 (Stone Castle) has been developed in the emerging local plan to reflect the guidance contained in PPG3, RPG9 and the Kent Structure Plan. As part of the Local Plan Review process a comprehensive and exhaustive assessment was made of land for housing in locations that meet the sustainability principles and the application site was identified as a housing site as part of a larger mixed use development on land at Stone Castle/St Clement's Valley.
(80) Whilst I can understand the concerns that some resident express about the loss of open land, the development of this site for residential development does score well against the criteria in PPG3 and has an important role to play in the wider development of Kent Thameside.
Compatibility with the Emerging Local Plan
(81) Policy MDS3 (Stone Castle) identifies 11 criteria for this site and St Clement's Valley which developments should satisfy. Of these the following 9 apply to this site:
A flagship mixed use, public transport orientated development, incorporating predominantly residential; employment and public open space and
A comparatively high overall density of residential development with the highest densities close to public transport stops;
(82) Policy DD1 requires the development to have an overall density of above 60 units per hectare net and to be centred around a good public transport system. The design needs to have good permeability for walking and cycling and the creation of high quality urban space which encourages passive recreation. Policy DD3 stresses the importance of walkable neighbourhoods. Within the site Stone Castle will remain in office use and as a provider of conference facilities. The remainder of the site will comprise formal gardens to the Castle, parkland, open space, areas of play equipment and the residential development. Employment opportunities are part of the wider provision to be encompassed within St Clements Valley. It is my opinion that this proposal has the potential to be an exciting, flagship scheme with its approach to a public transport orientated development. The Masterplan identifies the area of site to be developed to the highest density being at the southern most tip, furthest away from current public highway and transport routes. There is an average of 60 units per hectare throughout the site. In order for this to work and meet PPG3 sustainability criteria, it is proposed that a 'zip bus' will operate through the site at regular intervals, providing direct links to Bluewater, Greenhithe Station, and possibly elsewhere. The precise details of this are still being negotiated in terms of frequency, times of operation and size of vehicle. It is however, anticipated that the 'bus' will be an 8 seater in size and capable of penetrating into the heart of the site - and most importantly to the densest part of the sites. I am satisfied that the proposal meets the aspirations of Policies DD1 and DD3.
A067 A high degree of permeability and accessibility both to and within the site by foot, cycle and public transport;
and
A new predominantly residential community, of around 625 dwellings in size on land between Sandy Lane and St Clement's Valley, based upon a walkable neighbourhood, with necessary community facilities and/or the funding of improvements of, and linkages to, existing off site facilities
(83) The Masterplan includes an access and linkages diagram which clearly shows the routes within the site whether on foot, bike or motor vehicle. This is likely to be subject to change as in order for the densities to work in accordance with the massing diagram the 'zip bus' will need to penetrate deeper into the site. However, in principal the diagram demonstrates how there can be future links into St Clement's Valley by foot and cycle and how a bus link could be safeguarded into the adjoining Pit 9/9a at a later stage should it ever come forward for development.
(84) The application does not make any provision for community facilities on site. Stone Castle itself is ideally situated within the heart of the development and it is my opinion that within its landscaped gardens it would make an excellent contribution to the community if put to use as a pre-school nursery/ community/health centre. However, the applicant has made it clear that due to the terms of the lease the Castle is unavailable and therefore cannot be integrated into the development in this manner. With regard to funding improvements to off site facilities I have been unable to find a project that is guaranteed to go ahead and for a contribution to target.
(85) Similarly, Kent County Council have introduced a new Developer Contributions Practice Note and the intention is to secure funding for other facilities, namely Youth & Community, Libraries and Adult Education. Again, at this stage this area has not been fully developed throughout the County and it is unclear where any monies would actually go. In this position I find I am unable to justify that a developer contribution be made to an unknown project. It is my opinion that in circumstances such as these it is important to ensure that developer contributions are channelled into real improvements, such as highways and education, where they can make a difference.
(86) As the education authority, KCC has assessed the number of school places that this development would generate a need for and it is clear that the money will be channelled at local schools in the area. It is proposed that a contribution will be sought from the developer through the S106 Agreement.
The enhancement of the Grade II listed Stone Castle and its setting;
(87) As can be seen from the comments of English Heritage and KCC Heritage Conservation, the future setting of Stone Castle has caused great debate and concern. There are two issues that need to be considered, firstly the building itself and secondly the setting of the castle.
(88) At this stage, I would point out that there is a separate application under consideration for Listed Building Consent to demolish the garaging to the south of the castle and an existing wall around the perimeter of the car park. No part of either applications propose enhancement to either the interior or exterior of the castle. It is considered by the applicant that by removing some unsightly buildings, opening up views of the castle and providing a formal garden that this not only improves the buildings character but also enhances the setting. At this stage there are some reservations over the loss of the wall and I would not agree with the assessment of the age and/or contribution that the wall has to the development. It is not proposed to permit the demolition of the wall until further historical research/inspection on site has been undertaken.
A068 (89) The applicant has attempted to define the setting of the castle by proposing the creation of an area of formal garden to the west of the building. Presently this area is laid to lawn and surrounded by a mature hedgerow. Research undertaken into the history of the castle has found that the castle is in fact a Georgian Manor House attached to a C12 three storey tower. The Castle is Grade II listed. From a historical point of view I understand that English Heritage have concerns that the setting would not necessarily have included a formal garden and it may well have had open views to the south and clearly was not surrounded by built development. However, it is important to strike a balance in this instance and a decision needs to be reached whether to allow the Castle to take a more prominent role in society by opening it up to more members of the public to enjoy the sight, or whether to leave it effectively sterilised from society, unrelated to any of the surrounding characteristics of the area and effectively unknown to many. It is my view that by incorporating the castle into the development, whilst allowing a respectful distance from new dwellings, will in fact enhance the setting of the castle to the modern eye. Subject to control over demolition and treatment of materials around the curtilage of the castle, I consider that undue harm will not be caused.
(90) Detailed comments have been received from the County Archaeologist with respect to the assessment in the Environmental Statement and Design Statement. It is clear from these comments that insufficient information was put forward to demonstrate the depth of research undertaken on the history of Stone Castle. The main concern of the County is to ensure that none of the development compromises any unknown finds in the vicinity. Clearly a large amount of earthworks will be involved in carving out the formal garden and it is likely that only when these works commence will it be possible to gauge the extent and significance of archaeological finds. The County Archaeologist has suggested a detailed condition which I feel can adequately address the issue.
The provision of a framework of Green Grid links and public open space throughout the site which retain those existing trees and hedgerows which form important landscape features;
(91) The proposals include the creation of an area of public open space on the southern part of the former Pit 10. This will link in with the existing northern end of the pit which has already been laid out with an area of children's play equipment. The new public open space will include an area of play equipment and pedestrian routes through the site to Phase 1. There will also be 'green links' (proposed tree lined boulevard) to an area of sweeping parkland to the south of the site linking the green space to the gardens of Stone Castle, a further area of play equipment will also be provided here. It is my opinion that the scale and layout of the green spaces will adequately meet the aspirations of Policy DD6 of the review local plan in contributing to the development of the Green Grid network. However, the submission of Reserved Matters will need to ensure that Policy LRT 12 (New Open Spaces) is met and that the two new areas of open space are overlooked by residential properties to ensure a safe environment. At present the Design Statement illustration implies that the area will be partially screened from the adjacent properties by trees. The S106 Agreement will secure the provision of the areas of local play equipment.
Retention of important vistas from the site to the Queen Elizabeth II Bridge and the River Thames through layout and design which incorporate long-distance views from houses, and south from London Road to Bluewater: and
No more than 2 storeys of buildings in the southern part of the Valley (defined as lying more than 400 metres walking distance from Greenhithe Station) should be visible from St Clements Way;
(92) There is potential for conflict between the requirement of the St Clement's Valley policy and the suggested 7 storey building on the southern tip. Photo montages were submitted to demonstrate that there was potential for an iconic building that would not harm the character of the area and indeed become a landmark for the area. The preamble to Policy MDS3 emphasises that the height and mass of the development should be sensitive to the context of
A069 the site and that the development should relate to land immediately to the east, adjacent to St Clements Way.
(93) With regards to St Clements Valley, the policy approach towards development in the southern end of the valley requires buildings to be of scale commensurate with the undulating ground. It also seeks to ensure that the character of this part of the valley remains open and is not dominated by built form and hence the height of buildings is limited to 2 storeys.
(94) Whilst there may be scope for an iconic building on the southern tip of the site overlooking Bluewater and St Clement's Valley, I think the photo montages show a building that is arbitrary, angular and anonymous. If this element of the proposal were to go ahead then it would be essential to secure a scheme that is connected in design and visual terms to its context or to the form and character of its landform/landscape setting. A detailed scheme would therefore need to develop a softer, more organic shape that will not conflict with the policy for St Clement's Valley. It would also need to be of outstanding quality. I do not think that the material submitted makes the case adequately. However, the Council are not being asked to approve this detailed element. It will be for the applicants to come forward with appropriate detailed designs at reserved matters stage. If these include tall buildings then the Council will have to make a judgement on them at that time.
High quality landscape treatment to enhance the views of Stone Pits 9 and 9a.
(95) Some indicative landscaping has been shown and referred to throughout the application. An arboricultural report has been submitted, although it is considered that some of the grading of tree quality is subjective. At this stage the level of information is sufficient. A detailed scheme of retention and replanting will clearly need consideration as part of the Reserved Matters
Impact on Wildlife
(96) A plant and habitat survey was undertaken of the site with some additional mammal surveys. The results concluded that the proposals would not result in a loss of significant habitat or wildlife. English Nature have considered the results of the ecological assessment and have found it a thorough investigation. They feel that the assessment demonstrates that the site is of limited ecological value and they raise no objection to the proposal. In the Environmental Statement recommendations are made with regard to provision for badgers, bats and general habitat protection. In some instances a licence may be required from English Nature depending on the finds of survey work and the resulting proximity of ground disturbance to any individual habitat.
Electricity Pylons
(97) The presence of the pylon towards the southern end of the site is a key issue for the development proposal. The emerging Local Plan restricts development from within 50m either side of an overhead power line. It is intended that at some stage within the coming few years that the power line will be decommissioned by Seeboard. This being the case then the site can be developed in phases as indicated by the Masterplan. However, should the power line remain then the development parcel within 50m will not be developed. The applicant has suggested they will incur a cost of approximately #2 million to remove the powerline and underground the electricity, however in reality there is every possibility that by the time this area of development comes on line then Seeboard may in fact decommission the line and there will be no/little cost borne by the developer. I have suggested that a condition of the planning approval safeguard against the scenario whereby the pylon remains in situ.
Air Quality
(98) The Environmental Strategic Development Manager raises concerns over the model used in the Environmental Statement to assess the air quality. He has undertaken his own investigations into air quality and has concerns over the impact on air quality to the dwellings on the London Road.
A070 (99) Government guidance on local authority air quality management duties is contained in LAQM.PG(03) issued by the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs. The guidance says that the land use planning system can make an appropriate contribution to the achievement of national Air Quality Objectives, through the preparation of development plans and in the consideration of individual planning applications. It states that air quality impact is capable of being a material planning consideration and is likely to be particularly important where -
The development is proposed within or adjacent to an Air Quality Management Area (AQMA)
The development could in itself result in the designation of an AQMA or the extension of an existing AQMA
The development is likely to result in predicted levels of pollutants close to a breach of the national Air Quality Objectives or
Granting planning permission would conflict with the authority's air quality action plan or render parts of it unworkable.
(99) The guidance goes on to say that it is not the case that all planning applications within or adjacent to AQMAs should be refused if the development results in a deterioration of air quality, because this could have the effect of sterilising development. Planning applications should be supported by such information as is necessary to enable full consideration of air quality impacts. It may be appropriate for the developer to fund mitigating measures, such as funding of better public transport links.
(100) PPG 23 Planning and Pollution Control reiterates the advice that air quality may be a material planning consideration. It also says that the economic and social benefits of a development can be material considerations. Authorities need to give proper weight to these factors in order to maintain an appropriate balance between economic and environmental considerations.
(101) The Local Plan Review says that it is reasonable to expect new development proposals to be designed in a manner that minimises harmful emissions, by: o being planned in a manner that encourages the use of alternatives to car travel; o employing energy-efficient building design; and o contributing to public transport infrastructure where appropriate.
The long term air quality situation will need to be taken into account, as well as the short and medium term (i.e. up to 6 years) air quality impacts of a development proposal.
(102) Policies NR10 and NR11 of the Review Local Plan are concerned with Air Quality. Policy NR10 advises that in order for development proposals to be acceptable they should be sited and designed to minimise the emission of air pollutants and their impact and proposals should meet national air quality standards. Policy NR11 requires an assessment of the potential impact on local air quality and again advises proposals will only be permitted where effects can be satisfactorily mitigated in accordance with National Air Quality Standards.
(103) In the vicinity of the site, London Road already suffers from poor air quality, though it is not an Air Quality Management Area. From the investigations undertaken it would appear that the air quality for 6 properties in London Road could be reduced as a result of this development. However, these properties are already very close to an existing defined area of poor air quality. The scheme does attempt to mitigate the problems of air quality by supporting the 'zip' bus in an attempt to reduce car dependency. In addition, financial contributions are being made to improvements to the highway network. It is neither practicable nor reasonable to apply a condition in an attempt to make the developer
A071 responsible for any future drops in air quality, if only because it would be very difficult to attribute any decreases in air quality directly to the development.
(104) As discussed earlier in this report there are a great number of facilitating policies and Government guidance which support development of this site. These need to be balanced against the adverse air quality impacts which may arise from this development. Account also needs to be taken of the measures that are being undertaken to minimise the air quality impact. My conclusion is that any air quality impact is greatly outweighed by the wider planning considerations outlined earlier in the report.
Affordable Housing
(105) The applicants agree to the principle of 30% affordable housing, to be made up of 20% social rented and 10% shared ownership and sub market rented, which is what the Housing Strategy and Performance Manager seeks. They also agree to the Council having 100% nomination rights and that the mix should broadly reflect that across the whole of the site. There are about to be changes to the funding arrangements for affordable housing provision, which means that the Council would not be able to provide any funding and there would be no guarantee of any funding from the Housing Corporation. The proposed legal agreement needs to take this into account and to establish a mechanism that brings an acceptable degree of certainty to the provision of affordable housing on site. Discussions on this mechanism are ongoing.
Noise
(106) The hours of operation are slightly ambitious and I am also aware that there have been problems experienced by the existing residents on Phase 1 through early start up of noisy machines and excessive weekend working. Therefore I fully support the comments made by the Environmental Strategic Development Manager.
Flooding
(107) The Environment Agency raise no objection subject to detailed conditions. The concern is the amount of built development on the size of site and whether there will be adequate measures to ensure that the occupants are not put at risk from flooding in both the new dwellings, phase 1 and the wider area. From the more recent comments from the Agency I am satisfied that this issue can adequately be addressed.
Transport and Highway Issues
(108) A detailed Traffic Impact Assessment (TIA) has been submitted to establish the current levels of traffic in the area; the expected levels should the development proceed and the expected levels if mitigation is undertaken through road improvements and by providing a site bus. Clearly the traffic impact will be ever changing as Kent Thameside continues to evolve with further development. The TIA also considers the level of sustainability of the site and the existing public transport links by bus and rail. The TIA has been thoroughly assessed by the KCC and DBC officers and it is considered that the assessment is fair and undertaken with appropriate methodology and that in terms of impact the proposed road improvements the impact of additional vehicles on the road will be minimal.
(109) It is proposed to secure a number of highway /transport improvements through this development. Negotiations have been undertaken with regard to a contribution to the roundabout improvement on the junction of St Clements Way and London Road. A scheme is currently being worked up with a view to gaining approval.
(110) At present there are no pedestrian or cyclist routes across the site. There is a public footpath which runs adjacent on the eastern boundary which drops down to St Clement's Valley. This development proposes improved pedestrian and cycle links to the adjoining Phase I and surrounding area.
A072 S106 AGREEMENT
(111) A legal agreement will be required in relation to the following:
Securing 30% affordable housing (20% social rented, 10% shared ownership and sub market rented, possibly key workers) The affordable housing to be a mix of housing type, taking a pepper-pot approach across the site and with nominations rights for the Council. The provision of public open space with two areas equipped with pieces of play (scheme to be agreed) Maintenance and management of landscaping within the housing development Education contribution to be agreed A contribution towards the junction improvements at the London Road/St Clement's way junction Provision of a left turn lane, West bound on London Road at its junction with the Sanderling Way access road The provision of a local 'zip' bus service Contribution to the provision of real time information panels on local bus stops on London Road Funding for the introduction of a residents parking scheme
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
(112) I have considered the application in light of the Human Rights Act 1998. I am satisfied that my analysis of the issues in this case and my consequent recommendation are compatible with the Act.
CONCLUSION
(113) This is the second phase of the housing element of an important mixed-use site in Thames Gateway. At the County and Regional level housing provision is falling significantly behind targets. Phase 1 of this development is currently under construction and proving successful and provision for Phase 2 will provide the momentum for development at this location to continue.
(114) In light of all of the above considerations I consider that the application meets the aspirations and requirements of Central Government Guidance. The proposal provides the basis for a high quality development in line with Thames Gateway aims and, as like Phase 1 of Waterstone Park, this scheme will be public transport orientated, provide for a 'walkable neighbourhood', provide a mix of affordable housing and contribute to the objectives of Green Grid.
(115) The application will have to be referred to the Secretary of State before any decision can be issued. This is because of the size of the development involved.
(116) I therefore recommend that the application be approved subject to:
a satisfactory S106 being concluded covering the Heads of Terms referred to in this report, and any other matters which may arise as a result of subsequent discussions the attached conditions and any other additional/amended revisions to their wording to enable clarity referral to the Secretary of State.
RECOMMENDATION:
Defer for delegated approval (subject to satisfactory prior completion of S106 Agreement within six months of date of this resolution)
A073 01 Approval of details of the siting, design and external appearance of the buildings and the landscaping of the site (hereinafter called 'the reserved matters') shall be obtained from the Local Planning Authority in writing before any development is commenced. Application for approval of the reserved matters shall be made to the Local Planning Authority before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.
01 In pursuance of Section 92 (2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
02 The development hereby permitted shall be begun either before the expiration of five years from the date of this permission, or before the expiration of two years from the date of the last of the reserved matters to be approved, whichever is the later.
02 In pursuance of Section 92 (2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
03 The Reserved Matters to which this permission relates shall be carried out in substantial accordance with the plans (1096/100, 1096/101, 1096/102, 1096/103 and 1096/104 - B) and the principles set out in the Development Framework Principles document Revision A, dated 17 December 2002 submitted as part of the application, unless provided for in any other condition attached to this permission.
03 To ensure a satisfactory form of development in accordance with Policy B1 of the adopted Local Plan and DD11 of the Review Local Plan.
04 Details and samples of all materials to be used externally shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before the development of each phase is commenced, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.
04 To ensure that the development does not harm the character and appearance of the existing building or the visual amenity of the locality in accordance with Policy B1 of the adopted Dartford Local Plan and DD11 of the Review Local Plan.
05 Details of the proposed slab levels of the buildings and the existing ground levels, together with sections shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority before work commences and the development shall be completed strictly in accordance with the approved levels.
05 In order to secure a satisfactory form of development having regard to the sloping nature of the site in accordance with policies B1 and H8 of the adopted Dartford Local Plan and DD11 and H8 of the Review Local Plan.
06 The development shall be carried out in accordance with the mitigation measures set out in the environmental statement submitted with the application unless provided for in any other condition attached to this permission.
A074 06 To ensure the development safeguards the natural resources of the land and in accordance with Policy B1 of the Dartford Local Plan and DD11 of the Review Local Plan.
07 The details submitted in pursuance to Condition 01, shall be accompanied by a scheme of landscaping, which shall include a tree survey specifying the position for the retention and protection of existing trees and shrubs and a date for completion of any new planting and boundary treatment. The scheme as approved by the Local Planning Authority shall be implemented by the approved date or such other date as may be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Any trees or plants which within 5 years are removed or become seriously diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of a similar size and species, to be agreed by the Local Planning Authority.
07 Pursuant to Section 197 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and to protect and enhance the appearance and character of the site and locality in accordance with Policy B3 of the adopted Dartford Local Plan and DD11 of the Review Local Plan.
08 (a) No demolition, site clearance or building operations shall commence until chestnut pale fencing of a height of not less than 1.2m (4ft) has been erected around each tree or tree group to be retained on the site in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority before any work on the development hereby permitted is first commenced (such details to include trenches, pipe runs for services, drains etc). Such fencing shall be maintained during the course of the development and no storage of plant or materials or erection of buildings shall take place within the fenced area.
(b) The destruction by burning of materials shall not take place within 6m (19ft 8 ins) of the canopy of any tree or tree group to be retained on the site or on land adjoining.
08 To prevent damage to the trees in the interest of the visual amenities of the area in accordance with Policy B3 of the adopted Dartford Local Plan and DD11 of the Review Local Plan.
09 The development shall not take place until details of all boundary walls and fences have been approved by the Local Planning Authority. These shall be erected prior to the first occupation of the development.
09 In the interests of the amenities of neighbouring property in accordance with Policies B1 and B3 of the adopted Dartford Local Plan and DD11 of the Review Local Plan.
10 During the demolition and construction phase, the hours of working shall be restricted to Mondays to Fridays 08:00 - 18:00 Mondays to Fridays. On Saturdays 08:00 to 13:00, with no work on Sundays, Bank Holidays or Public Holidays.
10 In the interests of the amenities of neighbouring residents in accordance with Policy B1 of the adopted Dartford Local Plan DD11 of the Review Local Plan.
11 No materials shall be burnt on site.
A075 11 To protect the amenities of nearby dwellings in accordance with Policies B1 of the adopted Dartford Local Plan and DD11 of the Review Local Plan.
12 A gas permeable membrane with sub-ventilated floor shall be incorporated within all the structures in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of works on the site. Any services entering or leaving the structure shall be located above the gas impermeable membrane or adequate seals provided if the membrane is to be breached.
12 In the interests of safety in accordance with Policies DL1 and DL4 of the adopted Dartford Local Plan and NR18 and NR20 of the Review Local Plan.
13 13. No development approved by this permission shall be commenced prior to a contaminated land assessment and associated remedial strategy, together with a timetable of works, being submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval: i. The contaminated land assessment shall include a desk study to be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval. The desk study shall detail the history of the site uses and propose a site investigation strategy based on the relevant information discovered by the desk study. The strategy shall be approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to investigations commencing on site (ref1). ii. The site investigation, including relevant soil, soil gas, surface and groundwater sampling, shall be carried out by a suitably qualified and accredited consultant/contractor in accordance with a Quality Assured sampling and analysis methodology (ref 2). iii. A site investigation report detailing all investigative works and sampling on site, together with the results of analysis, risk assessment to any receptors and a proposed remediation strategy shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority. The Local Planning Authority shall approve such remedial works as required prior to any remediation commencing on site. The works shall be of such a nature so as to render harmless the identified contamination given the proposed end-use of the site and surrounding environment including any controlled waters. iv. Approved remediation works shall be carried out in full on site under a quality assurance scheme to demonstrate compliance with the proposed methodology and best practice guidance (ref 3). If during any works contamination is encountered which has not previously been identified then the additional contamination shall be fully assessed and an appropriate remediation scheme agreed with the Local Planning Authority. v. Upon completion of the works, this condition shall not be discharged until a closure report has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The closure report shall include details of the proposed remediation works and the quality assurance certificates to show that the works have been carried out in full in accordance with the approved methodology. Details of any post remediation sampling and analysis to show the site has reached the required clean-up criteria shall be included in the closure report together with the necessary documentation detailing what waste materials have been removed from the site.
13 In the interests of safety and amenity in accordance with Policies DL1 and DL4 of the adopted Dartford Local Plan and NR18 and NR20 of the Review Local Plan.
14 Effective wheel washing plant and equipment shall be installed on the site in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority and thereafter maintained in full working order until the development has
A076 been completed and no vehicles shall leave the site until their wheels, chassis and external bodywork have been effectively cleaned and washed free of earth, mud, clay, gravel, stones or any other similar substance.
14 In the interests of amenity and highway safety in accordance with Policy B1of the adopted Dartford Local Plan.
15 Prior to the demolition of any of the buildings, the Lafarge Technical Centre, the two dwellings at the London Road entrance, any buildings associated to Stone Castle, a scheme for the suppression of dust during demolition and safe disposal of any asbestos shall be submitted for approval by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be fully implemented throughout the period of construction.
15 In the interests of residential amenity and in accordance with Policy NR10 of the Review Local Plan.
16 Prior to the demolition of any of the buildings that are part of the Stone Castle complex, including the wall on the southern and western car park boundaries, the precise extent of the demolition shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority and agreed in writing.
16 In the interest of protecting and enhancing the character of Stone Castle a Grade II Listed Building in accordance with Policy B7 of the adopted Dartford Local Plan and Policy BE8 of the Review Local Plan.
17 No development shall take place until a scheme for the treatment of the landscaped gardens and boundary treatment defining the setting of Stone Castle has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall include the retention of the existing hedgerow on the garden boundary and details of the depths of any excavations required for the formal steps and garden layout and a method statement for the protection of any Archaeological finds. The approved scheme shall be fully implemented and retained thereafter.
17 In the interests of protecting and enhancing the character of Stone Castle a Grade II Listed Building and in accordance with Policy B7 of the adopted Local Plan and Policy BE8 of the Review Local Plan.
18 Unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority no development shall take place until a scheme for general repairs/enhancement of the external fabric of the Stone Castle Listed Building has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be fully implemented in accordance with a timescale submitted as part of the scheme.
18 In the interests of protecting and enhancing Stone Castle and ensuring its integration into the overall development and in accordance with Policy BE7 of the adopted Local Plan and Policy BE8 of the Review Local Plan.
19 No development shall take place within 50m of the power line in the southern end of the site unless and until the pylon/power lines located in that area have been removed
A077 from the site, diverted or located underground, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.
19 In order to ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with Policy B16 of the adopted Local Plan BE17 of the Dartford Review Local Plan.
20 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order) no extensions, alterations or other form of enlargement to the residential development hereby permitted, nor erection of porches, outbuildings, hardstandings, storage tank, gates, fences, walls or other means of enclosures, shall take place without the prior permission of the Local Planning Authority.
20 To enable the Local Planning Authority to consider any further development on its merits, having regard to the amount of development already permitted on the site and in accordance with Policy B1 of the adopted Dartford Local Plan and Policy DD11 of the Local Plan Review.
21 A public art strategy shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority and thereafter public art shall be provided within the site in accordance with the approved strategy. The strategy shall be submitted prior to the commencement of any works on site and shall include the site to be utilized, the type of art, a timescale for placement and a finance and specification regime for future maintenance.
21 In the interests of visual amenity and in accordance with Policies B1 and B5 of the Adopted Local Plan and Policy DD14 of the Local Plan Review.
22 Prior to the commencement of any works on site details of the proposed areas of open space, street furniture, the two play areas, the segregated footpaths and cycleways shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved details shall be fully implemented in accordance with a schedule of works and timetable to be submitted to the Local Planning Authority.
22 In accordance with Policy RT18 of the Dartford Local Plan and Policies DD3, LRT12 of the Review Local Plan.
23 Prior to the commencement of any works on site, a Construction Code of Conduct shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The site clearance works, provision of infrastructure and all construction work shall take place in strict accordance with the agreed Code of Conduct and this shall include: a) measures to protect areas undisturbed prior to development commencing within the site from loss by development or damage during construction activities; b) methods of protecting sensitive habitats and species from direct damage or disturbance during construction activities; c) measures to regulate disturbance and disruption to local communities caused by construction activities d) measures to minimise the noise impact of construction activities; e) details of construction lighting together with measures to minimise light pollution; f) hours of working; g) measures to prevent the disposition of mud on the highway; h) method of access and parking of construction vehicles and employees vehicles.
A078 23 In order to minimise the impact of construction activities on the surrounding area in accordance with Policies E14 and B1 of the Adopted Local Plan and Policies DD11 and T14 of the Local Plan Review.
24 The details to be submitted under condition (1) shall include provision for the parking and/or garaging of cars in accordance with the Local Planning Authority's adopted standards and no development, whether permitted by the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 or not, shall be carried out on that area of land or to preclude vehicular access thereto.
24 To ensure that adequate parking facilities are provided in accordance with the Local Planning Authority's adopted standards and in accordance with Policies B1 and T22 of the adopted Dartford Local Plan and DD11 and T11 of the Review Local Plan.
25 No development shall take place until the junction improvements on London Road have been carried out in conformity with drawing no.12730-01 prior to any other construction works beginning.
25 In the interests of highway safety and in order to ease the movement of construction traffic and in accordance with Policy T28 of the adopted Local Plan and Policy T9 of the Review Local Plan.
26 No development shall take place until details of secure and weatherproof cycle parking have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before the development commences. The approved details shall be fully implemented in accordance with a timetable to be agreed with the LPA and retained thereafter.
26 In the interests of the amenity of the occupants and in accordance with Policy B1 of the adopted Dartford Local Plan and DD11 of the Review Local Plan.
27 Details of bin collection points and bin stores for all units shall be submitted with a timetable for implementation to and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to commencement of works on site.
27 In the interests of visual amenity and ensuring satisfactory refuse collection arrangements and in accordance with Policy B1 of the adopted Dartford Local Plan and Policy DD11 of the Review Local Plan.
28 No demolition or construction work shall take place on the site outside the hours of 0800 to 1800 Mondays to Fridays inclusive, and 0800 to 1300 on Saturdays with no work on Sundays and Bank Holidays.
28 To protect the amenities of the residents of nearby dwellings in accordance with Policies E14 and B1 of the adopted Dartford Local Plan.
29 No development shall take place until the applicant, or their agents or successors in title, has secured the implementation of
A079 archaeological field evaluation works in accordance with a specification and written timetable which has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority; and following on from the evaluation, any safeguarding measures to ensure preservation in situ of important archaeological remains and/or further archaeological investigation and recording in accordance with a specification and timetable which has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority.
29 To ensure appropriate assessment of the archaeological implications of any development proposals and the subsequent mitigation of adverse impacts through preservation in situ or by record.
30 No development shall take place until the method for piling foundations has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The piling shall thereafter be undertaken only in accordance with the approved details.
30 In order to protect the groundwater in the underlying aquifer from contamination.
31 Soakaways shall only be used in areas where they would not present a risk to groundwater. Details of their proposed location shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority and approved in writing prior to development commencing.
31 To prevent pollution of the water environment in accordance with Policy B1 of the adopted Dartford Local Plan.
32 Any facilities for the storage of oils, fuels or chemicals shall be sited on impervious bases and surrounded by impervious bund walls. The volume of the bunded compound should be at least equivalent to the capacity of the tank plus to the capacity of the largest tank, or the combined capacity of interconnected tanks, plus 10%. All filling points, vents, gauges and sight glasses shall be located within the bund. The drainage system of the bund shall be sealed with no discharge to any watercourse, land or underground strata. Associated pipework shall be located above ground and protected from accidental damage. All filling points and tank overflow pipe outlets shall be detailed to discharge downwards into the bund.
32 In the interests of public safety and in order to prevent the pollution ofthe ground, water courses or underground water supplies in accordance with Policy B1 of the adopted Dartford Local Plan.
33 Details of the surface water drainage system for the development (including storage facilities where necessary) shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be implemented before any part of the development hereby permitted is first occupied.
34 Prior to being discharged into any watercourse, surface water sewer or soakaway system, all surface water drainage from parking areas and hardstandings shall be passed through an oil interceptor designed and constructed to have a capacity and details compatible with the site being drained. Roof water shall not pass through the interceptor.
A080 34 To prevent pollution of the water environment in accordance with Policy B1 of the adopted Dartford Local Plan.
35 There shall be no discharge of foul or contaminated drainage from the site into either ground water or any surface waters, whether direct or via soakaways.
35 To prevent pollution of the water environment in accordance with Policy B1 of the adopted Dartford Local Plan.
INFORMATIVES
01 The applicant is advised that, in undertaking the works hereby approved, due regard should be had to the provisions of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 relating to the protection of species and habitats. The applicant is recommended to seek further advice from the Kent Wildlife Trust, Tyland Barn, Sandling, Maidstone, Kent, ME14 3BD.
02 The granting of this permission does not purport to convey any legal right to block or impede any public right of way which is within the application site without any consent which may be required from the Kent Public Rights of Way Office.
03 The applicant's attention is drawn to Policy H21 of the Review Local Plan which provides for lifetime homes to be incorporated within the development.
A081 Application No:: 02/00999/OUT
Address : Land South Of London Road, Stone, Bounded By Sandy Lane, Hedge Place Road & Stone Castle Access Road
Item A02 Date: 25 March 2003 Scale: 1:1250
ROB SCOTT
DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENT CIVIC CENTRE, HOME GARDENS DARTFORD KENT DA1 1DR
A082 Item A03
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL BOARD
3 April 2003
Item A03
Reference: 02/01120/FUL Officer: Mr A Legg
Location: 88 Joydens Wood Road Bexley Kent DA5 2JA
Proposal: Application for the Variation of Condition 3 of Planning Permission DA/01/00520/FUL in respect of retention of velux windows in roof slopes
Applicant: Lee Collins
88 Joydens Wood Road Bexley Kent DA5 2JA
Date Valid: 15/11/2002
Parish / Ward: / Dartford Maypole
RECOMMENDATION:
Approval
SITE SPECIFIC POLICY
(1) Adopted Local Plan: Area of Special Residential Character, Policy H9.
(2) Local Plan Review: No Site Specific Policies.
SITE DESCRIPTION
(3) The application site lies on the eastern side of Joydens Wood Road some 45m south of the junction with Faesten Way. A detached property occupies the site, originally a conventional bungalow, with bungalows on either side. The property has recently been extended to allow for the provision of additional accommodation within the roof space. These works included the installation of roof lights.
PROPOSAL
(4) This application is for the variation of Condition 03 of the previous planning permission which restricted the installation of roof lights to those shown on the application. This variation seeks approval for the retention of the roof lights already installed. There are now a total of 10 roof lights, four in the northern roof slope and six in the southern.
(5) Members deferred determination of this application at the February meeting of the Development Control Board in order to hold a site meeting, and at the March meeting to allow
A083 for negotiations to take place between the officers and the applicant with regards to the size and location of two of the roof lights. The applicants have confirmed that they are unwilling to amend the scheme and ask that it be determined on the basis of the development as constructed.
RELEVANT HISTORY
(6) Planning permission was granted in July 2001 for the alterations to the roof line of the original bungalow to allow for the provision of additional accommodation within the roof space. This comprised additional bedrooms and a bathroom. Conditions attached to this permission included removing the ability to provide additional windows within the roof as permitted development.
COMMENTS FROM ORGANISATIONS
(7) No representations received.
NEIGHBOUR NOTIFICIATION
(8) One letter of objection has been received from the occupiers of No. 86 Joydens Wood Road. This relates to the following:- a) these roof lights should never have been erected in the first place; b) the two on the southern roof slope toward the rear of the property overlook a bedroom invading privacy; c) did not object to the original proposal as only 3 roof lights were shown facing his property; d) they are out of proportion and character with the adjacent bungalows.
(9) The applicant has submitted a further statement in support of the proposal. This explains their reasons for the alterations in that extra accommodation could be provided within the roof space in addition to that originally envisaged. A third bedroom could be provided to the rear. Originally this was shown as a storage room without windows. An amended drawing was agreed but when building work commenced changes to the steel structure meant two windows were installed instead of one. The rear window being 1m nearer to the back edge of the roof. It is alleged these windows overlook a spare bedroom on the ground floor. Three existing windows on the ground floor already look into this window. The roof lights do not allow them to look directly in even with heads pressed against the glass. They have agreed to have the windows temporarily fixed but will appeal any other decision.
RELEVANT POLICIES
(10) Policy B1 is applied to all development proposals in respect of impact upon amenities.
(11) Policy H14 advises that extensions to existing dwellings should be designed so as not to overlook or otherwise adversely affect adjoining properties.
(12) Policies DD11 and H13 of the Local Plan Review replicate these considerations.
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL MANGERS COMMENTS
Key Issues
(13) Planning permission has already been granted for the development that facilitated the use of the roof area as additional accommodation. The key issue therefore relates to the impact of the additional roof lights on the amenities of the adjoining properties, bearing in mind the applicants have confirmed that they are unwilling to amend the scheme further.
Impact Upon Neighbouring Properties
A084 (14) As constructed additional roof lights have been installed within the roof slopes of the applicants property. This has also resulted in the roof lights being located in positions at variance with those originally agreed and in particular there are two that are opposite the existing ground floor window which serves a habitable room in No. 86 Joydens Wood Road. These two roof lights serve a bedroom and are the only sources of light and ventilation to this room. There are a number of factors to consider in this respect.
(15) The roof lights can be seen from the window in the neighbouring bungalow. However because of the angle of the roof slope and looking upwards from the ground floor window it is not possible to readily see into the applicants bedroom, particularly when the roof lights are closed. Similarly from the applicants bedroom it is not possible to see into the neighbours room when the roof lights are closed. In fact a much greater degree of overlooking and loss of privacy result from the existing facing ground floor windows serving the lounge and conservatory.
(16) However in order to address the concern of the neighbour the feasibility of requiring these two roof lights to be fixed and obscure glazed was considered. The applicant, however, was not prepared to offer this arguing that overlooking did not actually occur, it was not appropriate to have obscure glazing to a bedroom and the windows could not be permanently fixed as this would contravene Building Regulations governing ventilation and means of escape.
(17) As a possible solution the applicant has proposed that these roof lights be fitted with opening restrictions which prevents the windows opening to a degree that allows direct overlooking to occur. It is suggested that this be set at five inches in order to ventilate the room when necessary. The window could only be opened further for maintenance purposes, and as the bedroom is used by a small child this would also be installed for safety purposes.
(18) Whilst such a restriction could be installed by the applicants, in my opinion, it could not be required by condition as it would prove very difficult to enforce. In the circumstances and taking into account the juxtaposition of the relevant windows in both properties and the angle of the roof slope I consider this to be acceptable.
(19) Furthermore I would raise no objection to the retention of any of the other roof lights as they do not impact upon any of the neighbouring residents amenities.
CONCLUSION
(20) I consider the application acceptable.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approval
01 Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 3 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order amending, revoking and re-enacting that Order), no windows or similar openings other than as hereby approved shall be constructed in the roof of the building without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority.
01 To enable the Local Planning Authority to regulate and control any such further development in the interests of the amenity and privacy of adjoining property in accordance with Policies H14 and B1 of the adopted Dartford Local Plan.
A085 Application No:: 02/01120/FUL
Address : 88 Joydens Wood Road Bexley Kent DA5 2JA
Item A03 Date: 25 March 2003 Scale: 1:1250
ROB SCOTT
DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENT CIVIC CENTRE, HOME GARDENS DARTFORD KENT DA1 1DR
A086 Item A04
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL BOARD
3 April 2003
Item A04
Reference: 02/01206/FUL Officer: Mrs Sonia Bunn
Location: Land North Of Greenhithe Railway Station Station Road Greenhithe Kent
Proposal: Erection of a detached 3 storey office building together with 40 car parking spaces and new access road
Applicant: F T Everard & Sons Ltd
Agent: Llewelyn-Davies Ltd 2/16 Torrington Place London WC1E 7HN
Date Valid: 16/12/2002
Parish / Ward: Swanscombe & Greenhithe T.C. / Swanscombe And Greenhithe
RECOMMENDATION:
Approval
SITE SPECIFIC POLICY
(1) Dartford Adopted Local Plan:Policy T13: Land safeguarded for the STDR from Greenhithe to Northfleet.
(2) Dartford Borough Local Plan Review Second Deposit: Policy T1: Land safeguarded for Fastrack; Policy T3: Land safeguarded for Greenhithe Triangle linking Station Road to London Road; Policy NR7: Tidal Flood Zone
SITE DESCRIPTION
(3) The application site relates to part of the undeveloped land known as the "Everards Link" which is situated north of the railway line in Greenhithe and south of the Eagles Road residential development. The current application relates to that part of the site closest to the roundabout at the junction of Station Road and Crossways Boulevard.
(4) The site rises up from the roundabout, much of this being created from spoil placed here following the construction of the roundabout. The site is overgrown with shrubs and small trees.
THE PROPOSAL
A087 (5) The proposal is for the erection of a new office building and car park. The application is by FT Everards & Sons, who are seeking to relocate from their temporary office buildings in Station Road onto this site.
(6) The proposed building is three-storey and is a simple rectangular shape. The ground level is being excavated to ensure an acceptable gradient for the proposed road and to provide level access to the Station.
(7) A new access road is proposed to serve the development, which it is intended will then continue through the rest of the Everards link to provide access to the station and a dedicated Fastrack route. The station building being relocated from its existing position in order to achieve public transport integration and improved pedestrian access.
(8) The proposal has been revised following objections from neighbouring residents, the ground level being lowered by a further 2.5m and the building moved further to the south. As a result the building will be approximately 19.5 metres from the rear of the closest properties, the relative height above the ground level of the adjacent residential properties will be 7m.
(9) Members deferred determination of this application at the last meeting of the Development Control Board in order to hold a site meeting.
COMMENTS FROM ORGANISATIONS
(10) Environment Agency: The site lies on Upper Chalk, classified as a major aquifer. They suggest conditions with regard to drainage in order to ensure the protection of ground water. In addition any spoil should be uncontaminated and suggest a desktop study to identify previous contaminants on the site. They recommend that methods of piling should be approved prior to work starting.
(11) Southern Water: Advise there is adequate capacity within the foul sewer system and for surface water run off.
(12) Thames Water: No objection
(13) Railtrack: Seek to ensure that Railtrack infrastructure is not adversely affected by development and they set out matters to be observed by developer.
(14) Kent Wildlife Trust: No comments
(15) Swanscombe and Greenhithe Town Council: Welcomes the development of Greenhithe Station but has major concerns about the impact of the office building on neighbouring residential properties. (Based on original submission) They also raise concern that the proposal will put further pressure on parking in the area.
(16) KCC Archaeology: Advise that the area occupied by the application site does not appear to have been quarried and has little development since the mid 19th Century. Given the close proximity of an Area of Archaeological Potential (to the east), they conclude that the site has archaeological potential and recommend a condition requiring a programme of archaeological work be undertaken.
(17) Kent Highways: Confirms that the proposals are compatible with the proposed highway scheme known as Everards Link and that following public exhibition in December it is intended to report the proposal for an interchange for the station at the County's Highway Advisory Board on 11 March 2003. With regard to parking standards that these are in line with the Local Plan standards but given the proximity of the station and bus interchange considers that there is an opportunity to improve on these and advises that the applicant should encourage staff and visitors to use public transport. They also advise that provision should be made for storage of cycles and motor bikes.
A088 (18) Environmental Strategic Development Manager: Advises that the Environment Agency no longer insist on gas monitoring for development of this type, but recommends that as the site is within 250m of a gassing landfill site, a gas impermeable membrane should be incorporated into the building. He also recommends conditions with regard to construction on site.
NEIGHBOUR NOTIFICATION
(19) Responses were received from 10 residents to the consultation on the original proposal. All of these objected to the proposed development, together with a petition signed by 82 people. The objections were made on the following grounds:
(a) close proximity of a three storey building to rear fences of residential gardens (b) loss of privacy (c) loss of daylight (d) level of traffic has increased in area leading to increased air and noise pollution, a commercial building will make this worse (e) a commercial building is out of place in this residential area, it would be more appropriate on Crossways. (f) the car park is adjacent to residential boundaries and will result in noise from manoeuvring of vehicles, and disturbance from car headlights (g) reduction in security and concern about illegal use of the car park when not used (h) insufficient car parking leading to pressure on Eagles Road and Woodland Way (i) concern about wildlife (j) impact of lighting from site (k) concern about the nature of development on this land and what form this will take.
NEIGHBOUR NOTIFICATION - REVISED SCHEME
(20) Following the amendment to the proposal, neighbouring residents have been reconsulted on the proposal. Six letters have been received regarding the revised proposal. These continue to object to the development for the following reasons:-
- Still feel that they will be overshadowed by the building and loss of light to the rear of the property.
- Loss of privacy.
- The reduction in height will not prevent the view being to an office block.
- They suggest that the building be reduced by another level and increased in footprint or alternatively be turned by 45 degrees and moved closer to the roundabout.
- They also express concern about the construction process and the noise generated by this.
- Impact from the proposed car park in terms of noise and pollution.
- They would seek mature trees to be planted on the boundary to maintain privacy.
A letter has also been received from the F.T. Everard & Sons which seeks to address a number of points that residents have raised directly with them. They advise that the building has been designed and located to avoid overlooking into gardens or properties. The building has been situated away from the roundabout to avoid intruding on sightlines, to reduce noise internally, to create an open landscape onto the roundabout. However, they explain that the fundamental reason for not locating closer to the car park is the difference in levels and the need for retaining structures for the proposed road and the building which would be prohibitive. In addition, it would be difficult to maintain a suitable gradient for disabled access between the building and the car park
RELEVANT POLICIES
A089 (21) Dartford Local Plan Policy T13: Land safeguarded for the STDR from Greenhithe to Northfleet. Proposals which would prejudice the implementation of the scheme will be resisted.
(22) Policy E9: Seeks to encourage employment development, where this does not conflict with other policies in the Plan.
(23) Policy B1 sets out criteria against which all new development is assessed.
(24) Dartford Local Plan Review Policy T1 seeks to safeguard land for the construction of Fastrack, development will not be permitted where it is likely to prejudice the implementation of the scheme
(25) Policy T3 resists development which would prejudice the provision of a link between Station Road and London Road within the context of the Greenhithe Triangle (ie the proposed link, London Road and Station Road)
(26) Policy E8 sets out criteria against which proposals for employment uses will be assessed where these fall outside of allocated areas. Proposals should not result in the loss of Greenfield land; would not generate inappropriate types or levels of traffic; the site should be accessible by alternative means of transport; and should not have a detrimental impact on the character or amenities of surrounding uses.
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL MANAGER'S COMMENTS
Key Issues
(27) The key issues in this case are whether the development will prejudice the safeguarding of the land for transport related proposals; the impact of the proposal on the neighbouring residential development; the visual impact of the proposal; and the parking and access considerations.
Impact on Safeguarded Land and the redevelopment of Greenhithe Station
(28) Kent County Council is looking at the issue of traffic generation within the Greenhithe Triangle and the role the Everards Link can play forms part of this consideration.
(29) A public exhibition on proposals for the western end of the Everards Link was held by Kent County Council and Connex in December last year. This indicated the provision of a new rail station building and the creation of an access road to provide an interchange for buses with the station. The aim is also to provide level access to the new station building, which is at present only accessible via stairs. The exhibition also included proposals for the Everards office building to show how these would tie into the transport related works.
(30) Kent County Council are currently investigating how the scheme for Everards Link will proceed. It is likely that this will be a Fastrack route only, linking Station Road into the Everards development. This will continue on from the new station building to The Avenue as a second phase of the development. The matter is being reported to the Highways Advisory Board on 11 March 2003.
(31) Kent Highways are satisfied that the proposal which forms part of this application will not prejudice the use of Everards Link for Fastrack or if considered necessary transport improvements in the area. In fact, the proposal under consideration supports the transport scheme, as the development will enable the first phase of the scheme to go ahead by providing land for the access road. The access road for Fastrack and the train station will also serve the proposed offices. An agreement has therefore been reached between KCC and Everards on the provision of the access road.
Impact on neighbouring residential properties
A090 (32) The building will be accessed directly from the Station Road roundabout; there will therefore be no access through the residential area to the site. The building will therefore be distinct and separate from the surrounding residential area and will relate as much to the new station building. The proposed use of the building is a Class B1 office use. The definition of Class B1 is a use that can be carried out in any residential area without any detriment in terms of impact from noise, dust and other emissions. I consider therefore that the proposed use is in principle, an acceptable one in close proximity to residential properties. In addition, the building is located adjacent to a mainline railway station, is located on the route of Fastrack and also close to the district shopping centre for Greenhithe. This is a sustainable location which should encourage trips to work by public transport and is therefore in line with government guidance on development adjacent to public transport routes.
(33) However, it is also important to consider the physical impact of the proposal on the existing residential development. The applicant has amended the proposal following the concerns raised by residents and by myself. The ground level has been reduced by a further 2.5m so that the relationship of the building to the houses on Woodlands Way is now effectively two-storey. The height of the building in relation to the residential ground level is approximately 7m, which is the height of an average two-storey house. It has also been moved away from the boundary and is now 19.5m away from the rear elevation of the closest properties. Kent Design advises that the minimum distance between the flank wall of a 2- storey property and a front or rear elevation should be 11m. The building is now 8.65m from the boundary with the residential properties and approximately 19.5m from the rear elevation of numbers 8 and 10 Woodland Way. The rear emergency staircase is a lightweight construction, which is smaller and lower than the office building, and is 16m away from the rear elevation of the houses. The location of the proposed building therefore exceeds this by a significant level and therefore provides an improved relationship than that which might be expected on a residential estate. The building has been orientated to ensure that the shorter flank wall faces the houses in order to minimise any impact on outlook. This also enables an internal layout which will have no windows in this elevation. All windows face west and east over Station Road and the car park so that there will be no overlooking of residential properties. I am satisfied therefore that the proposal is an improvement on a relationship which would be accepted within a residential development and consider that the proposal has now satisfactorily mitigated against any unacceptable impacts.
(34) The fire escape to the rear of the property is a lightweight structure, which I consider will not dominate or overshadow neighbouring properties. The applicants have confirmed that this will be for emergency use only and I would recommend a condition is imposed to ensure this is the case.
(35) The building is orientated directly to the south of the residential development and I have requested that the applicants carry out a daylight study to confirm that there will be no loss of light to the adjacent properties. The applicant's agents advise that since the daylight study was undertaken the building has been moved further away from the boundary with residential properties. The daylight survey has been carried out in accordance with the Building Research Establishment guidelines. The results of the study indicate that the daylight and sunlight reaching the windows of the properties concerned after the office building has been erected will comfortably exceed the minimum levels set down in the guidelines. The results show that there will be little change in the existing situation.
(36) Members may be interested to know, as background to the application, that the location of the proposed access road to the station and the office building is dictated by the land ownership in the area. The land to the south of the proposed road, adjacent to the railway, is owned by Railtrack. However, they are unhappy to give up part of their land for the access road and this certainly could not be achieved in the timescale needed for the redevelopment of the station. Kent Highways also have certain requirements for the width of the access road in order to provide for Fastrack and a pedestrian and cycle route to the station. As a result the land available to build the office building upon is constrained to the site which forms part of this application. In this case, I also consider that the location of the building allows for a substantial landscaping scheme around the building and the car park which will further reduce
A091 any impact on neighbouring residents in terms of outlook and disturbance from the car park. This could be further mitigated against by the imposition of a condition restricting the hours of use of the car park in order to prevent any disturbance at unsociable hours.
(37) In terms of boundary treatment to the proposals this can be satisfactorily dealt with by condition in order to ensure a secure environment for residents. The applicants are also keen to achieve a secure environment for the site and are proposing barriers across the car park to prevent misuse. They have also indicated that CCTV will be installed. I consider therefore that this will be a secure site, which will not result in any loss of security to neighbouring residents and in fact may improve security on their boundaries. Appropriate landscaping along the boundary will also further prevent access to rear gardens and this could be sought as part of a landscape scheme for the site.
(38) A footpath adjacent to 12 Woodland Way finishes at the boundary to the site, in anticipation of the proposed road that the land was safeguarded for. There is no right of way over the site, although informal paths exist as people use this land as a short cut to the station. Although I am keen to ensure permeability through new developments and would seek to retain the paths further east along the Everards Link land, in this case I am happy that the break in the fence will be closed off and access through the site will be prevented. At this point, there is very little benefit to be gained by cutting through Woodland Way to the station, as walking along Station Road is only a little longer. Closure of this gap will ensure that there is no parking in Woodland Way or Eagles Road, in connection with the office development and that commuter car parking in this area is not encouraged.
(39) The design of the car park is an important issue in order to ensure there is no detriment to neighbouring residents. The proposed site plan indicates what I consider to be adequate land between the car park and the boundary in order to achieve buffer landscape parking in order to mitigate the noise of cars and the impact of headlights. The detailed design of this can be dealt with by the submission of details under condition. Similarly I would recommend that a condition is imposed regarding the lighting of the site, in order to ensure that there are no adverse impacts on neighbouring residents. It is also worth remembering that this is an office use, where activity will be limited to normal office hours, so that there will be very little activity within the site during the evenings and at weekend and therefore little impact on neighbouring residents. With regard to the construction process, I have recommended conditions which seek to reduce disturbance of neighbouring residents.
(40) I consider that the proposal will not result in any adverse impact on neighbouring residents and that the details of the external works on the site can be designed to ensure that any potential impacts can be prevented.
Visual Impact
(41) The proposed building is of a modern design using glass and reconstituted stone blocks and has a light airy appearance which will contribute a quality appearance to the built environment in this area. Its design is likely to complement the new station building and I consider it to be appropriate in a location adjacent to a busy station and at the heart of what will become an important public transport node. Together with the station this building will form an entrance for people arriving by train in Greenhithe and I am confident that the high quality of the proposed building will contribute significantly to raising the profile of this gateway.
(42) The building is also set within significant land, particularly to the west, so that there is an opportunity to provide a high quality landscape scheme which will create a visual impact on Station Road and will again contribute to this area as a gateway to Greenhithe.
Parking and Access
(43) Parking standards for an office development are one car space per 30 sq m of floorspace. The proposed floorspace of this development is 1150m2. The parking requirement is therefore 38 spaces. The proposal provides for 40 spaces. Given that this is
A092 adjacent to Greenhithe Station, I consider that this sufficient parking provision. In fact, government guidance encourages less parking provision in such locations, and the encouragement of greater use of public transport. Kent Highways also seek the provision of less parking spaces and encouragement of sustainable alternatives. However, given that Everards is already a local employer with parking on site I consider that this is an appropriate level of parking for initial occupation. The design of the car parking could allow for the reduction of spaces if this became feasible in the future as workers transferred to public transport.
(44) With regard to residents concern about the traffic generated by the proposal, Everards already occupy temporary buildings in Station Road and therefore the traffic generated by this use is effectively already in the system. Traffic generation is likely to be low given the nature of the use as offices and will be mainly limited to peak time trips. Concerns expressed about parking on local streets is an existing problem caused by commuter parking and is unlikely to be made worse by this development, particularly as there will be no direct route through to Woodland Way. The solution to this problem lies outside of the scope of this application and is an issue that officers are looking at separately.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
(45) I have considered the application in the light of the Human Rights Act 1998. I am satisfied that my analysis of the issues in this case and my consequent recommendation are compatible with the Act.
CONCLUSIONS
(46) The proposal is an enabling development for the Fastrack link between Station Road and Ingress Park, which is a key link within the overall Fastrack network. It will also allow for the creation of an improved interchange at the new Greenhithe station. I consider that the proposal for an office building complies with the criteria set out in Policy E8 and am satisfied that it will not have an unacceptable detrimental impact on neighbouring properties. Finally I consider that the proposal will be a major contributor in creating a prestige environment around Greenhithe Station and a high quality gateway to Greenhithe.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approval
01 The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of five years from the date of this permission.
01 In pursuance of Section 91(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
02 The building hereby approved shall not be occupied until the access road has been constructed to a standard approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
02 In order to ensure that the transport scheme safeguarded by Policies T1 and T3 of the Local Plan Review Second Deposit is not prejudiced by the development.
03 No development shall take place until the applicant, or their agents or successors in title, have secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in
A093 accordance with a written specification and timetable which has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority.
03 To ensure that the features of archaeological interest are properly examined and recorded in accordance with policy B12 of the adopted Local Plan.
04 During the demolition and construction phase, the hours of working shall be restricted to Monday to Friday 0800 hours - 1800 hours, on Saturdays 0800 hours - 1300 hours, with no work on Sunday or Bank Holidays.
04 To protect the amenities of the residents of nearby dwellings in accordance with Policies E14 and B1 of the adopted Dartford Local Plan.
05 Before work commences on site details of an environmental management scheme and construction code of practice shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval. The scheme shall include details of the hours of work; the use of machinery and equipment that is quieter by design and vibration control measures; details of dust suppression; removal of waste and spoil from the site; and the parking of site traffic, employees and sub-contractors vehicles.
05 To protect the amenities of the residents of nearby dwellings in accordance with Policies E14 and B1 of the adopted Local Plan.
06 Effective wheel washing plant and equipment shall be installed on the site in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority and thereafter maintained in full working order until the development has been completed and no vehicles shall leave the site until their wheels, chassis and external bodywork have been effectively cleaned and washed free of earth, mud, clay, gravel, stones or any other similar substance.
06 In the interests of amenity and highway safety in accordance with Policy B1of the adopted Dartford Local Plan.
07 No materials shall be burnt on site.
07 To protect the amenities of nearby dwellings in accordance with Policies E14 and B1 of the adopted Dartford Local Plan.
08 Details of any temporary vehicular accesses required for the construction of the development shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval and then carried in accordance with the approved details.
08 In the interests of highway safety in accordance with Policy T20 of the adopted Dartford Local Plan.
09 No development approved by this permission shall be commenced prior to a contaminated land assessment and associated remedial strategy, together with a timetable of works, being submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval:
A094 The contaminated land assessment shall include a desk study to be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval. The desk study shall detail the history of the site uses and propose a site investigation strategy based on the relevant information discovered by the desk study. The strategy shall be approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to investigations commencing on site (ref1).
The site investigation, including relevant soil, soil gas, surface and groundwater sampling, shall be carried out by a suitably qualified and accredited consultant/contractor in accordance with a Quality Assured sampling and analysis methodology (ref 2).
A site investigation report detailing all investigative works and sampling on site, together with the results of analysis, risk assessment to any receptors and a proposed remediation strategy shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority. The Local Planning Authority shall approve such remedial works as required prior to any remediation commencing on site. The works shall be of such a nature so as to render harmless the identified contamination given the proposed end-use of the site and surrounding environment including any controlled waters.
Approved remediation works shall be carried out in full on site under a quality assurance scheme to demonstrate compliance with the proposed methodology and best practice guidance (ref 3). If during any works contamination is encountered which has not previously been identified then the additional contamination shall be fully assessed and an appropriate remediation scheme agreed with the Local Planning Authority.
Upon completion of the works, this condition shall not be discharged until a closure report has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The closure report shall include details of the proposed remediation works and the quality assurance certificates to show that the works have been carried out in full in accordance with the approved methodology. Details of any post remediation sampling and analysis to show the site has reached the required clean-up criteria shall be included in the closure report together with the necessary documentation detailing what waste materials have been removed from the site.
Ref 1 : Contaminated Land Research Report no. 2, 3 & 4 (DoE) Ref 2 : Contaminated Land Research Report no. 1 (DoE) Ref 3 : CIRIA Vols 1-12 Contaminated Land Series and CIRIA "Building on Derelict Land"
09 In the interests of safety and amenity in accordance with Policies DL1 and DL4 of the adopted Dartford Local Plan.
10 The method of piling foundations for the development shall be carried out in accordance with a scheme to be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to any development commencing.
10 In order to ensure that there is no contamination of the aquifer.
11 Details of the proposed slab levels of the building(s) and the existing ground levels shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority before work commences and the development shall be completed strictly in accordance with the approved levels.
11 In order to secure a satisfactory form of development having regard to the sloping nature of the site in accordance with Policies B1 and H8 of the adopted Dartford Local Plan.
A095 12 No structure, plant, equipment or machinery shall be placed, erected or installed on or above the roof or on external walls without the prior approval being given in writing by or on behalf of the Local Planning Authority.
12 In order not to prejudice the visual appearance of the building in accordance with Policy B1 of the adopted Dartford Local Plan.
13 Before development commences details of the surfacing and demarcation of parking spaces shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval. The car park shall be implemented in accordance with such details.
13 In the interests of visual amenity and the amenity of local residents in accordance with Policy B1 of the adopted Local Plan.
14 Any facilities for the storage of oils, fuels or chemicals shall be sited on impervious bases and surrounded by impervious bund walls. The volume of the bunded compound should be at least equivalent to the capacity of the tank plus to the capacity of the largest tank, or the combined capacity of interconnected tanks, plus 10%. All filling points, vents, gauges and sight glasses shall be located within the bund. The drainage system of the bund shall be sealed with no discharge to any watercourse, land or underground strata. Associated pipework shall be located above ground and protected from accidental damage. All filling points and tank overflow pipe outlets shall be detailed to discharge downwards into the bund.
14 In the interests of public safety and in order to prevent the pollution ofthe ground, water courses or underground water supplies in accordance with Policy B1 of the adopted Dartford Local Plan.
15 Those parts of the site to be used for the parking and manoeuvring of vehicles shall be adequately drained and surfaced in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority and such drainage shall include the provision of oil interceptors.
15 To prevent the pollution of water courses and underground water supplies in accordance with Policy B1 of the adopted Dartford Local Plan.
16 Details of the foul and surface water drainage system for the development (including storage facilities where necessary) shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be implemented before any part of the development hereby permitted is first occupied.
16 To ensure satisfactory means of surface water drainage in accordance with Policy B1 of the adopted Dartford Local Plan and to protect the groundwater supplies.
17 Prior to being discharged into any watercourse, surface water sewer or soakaway system, all surface water drainage from parking areas and hardstandings shall be passed through an oil interceptor designed and constructed to have a capacity and
A096 details compatible with the site being drained. Roof water shall not pass through the interceptor.
17 To prevent pollution of the water environment in accordance with Policy B1 of the adopted Dartford Local Plan.
18 There shall be no discharge of foul or contaminated drainage from the site into either ground water or any surface waters, whether direct or via soakaways.
18 To prevent pollution of the water environment in accordance with Policy B1 of the adopted Dartford Local Plan.
19 Details and samples of all materials to be used externally shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before the development is commenced, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.
19 To ensure that the development does not harm the character and appearance of the existing building or the visual amenity of the locality in accordance with Policy B1 of the adopted Dartford Local Plan.
20 The windows and doors on the nothern elevation shall be fitted with obscured glazing before the development hereby permitted is first occupied, and thereafter be maintained at all times.
20 To safeguard the privacy of the adjoining property(ies) in accordance with Policies H14 and B1 of the adopted Dartford Local Plan.
21 The development shall not commence until details of all boundary walls and fences have been approved by the Local Planning Authority. These shall be erected prior to the first occupation of the development.
21 In the interests of the amenities of neighbouring property in accordance with Policies B1 and B3 of the adopted Dartford Local Plan.
22 Before any works commence on site (including demolition), a landscaping scheme including both hard and soft landscaping, shall be submitted for approval to the Local Planning Authority and upon approval shall be implemented during the first planting season following the occupation of the first unit and shall thereafter be maintained for a period of five years. Any trees, shrubs or grassed areas which die, are diseased or vandalised within this period shall be replaced within the next planting season with plants of similar species and size to that approved.
22 To safeguard the visual amenities of the locality in accordance with Policy B3 of the adopted Dartford Local Plan
23 (a) No demolition, site clearance or building operations shall commence until chestnut pale fencing of a height of not less than 1.2m (4ft) has been erected around each tree
A097 or tree group to be retained on the site in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority before any work on the development hereby permitted is first commenced (such details to include trenches, pipe runs for services and drains etc). Such fencing shall be maintained during the course of the development and no storage of plant or materials or erection of buildings shall take place within the fenced area.
(b) The destruction by burning of materials shall not take place within 6m (19ft 8ins) of the canopy of any tree or tree group to be retained on the site or on land adjoining.
23 To prevent damage to the trees in the interest of the visual amenities of the area in accordance with Policy B3 of the adopted Dartford Local Plan
24 Details of all external lighting shall be submitted and approved by the Local Planning Authority before the buildings are occupied. Such lighting should be implemented in accordance with the approved details.
24 In the interests of visual amenity and to protect the environment of the surrounding locality in accordance with Policy B1 of the Local Plan.
25 Prior to the occupation of the building cycle parking shall be provide in accordance with details that shall have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority.
25 In order to ensure that there is provision for alternative modes of transport.
26 Details of the barriers to the car park shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval before the building is occupied. Such barriers shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details.
26 In order to ensure access for delivery vehicles and in the interests of the security of the site.
27 There shall be no external storage within the site hereby approved without the approval of the Local Planning Authority.
27 In the interest of the visual amenity of the area in accordance with Policy B1 of the adopted Local Plan.
28 The escape staircase on the northern elevation of the building hereby approved shall be for emergency use only and shall not be used for general purposes.
28 In order to maintain the privacy of adjoining occupiers in accordance with Policy B1 of the adopted Local Plan.
29 A car parking management plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority one year following the occupation of the building. This shall include an assessment of the parking needs generated by the building and the potential for reducing the use of the car.
A098 29 In the interest of encouraging alternative modes of transport and reducing reliance on the car.
INFORMATIVES
01 The applicant is reminded of comments made by Railtrack in their letter dated 23-01- 03.
A099 Application No:: 02/01206/FUL
Address : Land North Of Greenhithe Railway Station Station Road Greenhithe Kent
Item A04 Date: 25 March 2003 Scale: 1:1250
ROB SCOTT
DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENT CIVIC CENTRE, HOME GARDENS DARTFORD KENT DA1 1DR
A0100